Examples of holes that have been made worse by being lengthened?

[Jason Topp]

I frequently read that merely lengthening golf holes can ruin them.  I can think of examples where the hole has completely changed in character (7 at August National is Exhibit 1A) but cannot identify examples where a hole has been lengthened to retain similar shot challenges but has clearly gotten worse.  Sometimes the configurations get silly (such as the walkbacks and tee locations at the Old Course) but have the holes gotten worse?


I see a bigger problem when holes are narrowed to combat driving distance (11 at August National or 17 at the Old Course).  Lengthening alone - I am not so sure. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:


People are constantly putting extra tees in on short par-4's to try and make it a stretch for the pros to drive them.


These holes are much more fun at 270 yards for 99% of us, than at 320.  But, you may be keeping me up on the 270 tee in your mind, so you don't think the addition of the 320 tee makes the hole any worse.  I think it's worse, if anybody but the pros is playing it . . .  and usually when a hole is lengthened, all of the tee markers slide back accordingly.

[Thomas Dai]

Saunton East has a terrific tiny wee par-3 on the front-9, the 5th, called “Tiddler”. On a recent visit I observed that a new tee seemed to be being built about 30 yard further back. I thought what a shame to change an already terrific hole in such a way.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

It’s not always the tees that are changed either.


2 at Portrush and 16 at St Enedoc are two that come to mind where the green has been moved back. There are many others. 10 at Augusta for one.


Are they worse holes? I don’t know as I haven’t seen both iterations of any of those holes.


Ally

[Brad Tufts]

I feel like the lengthening of holes just makes more holes feel similar.  When a short four becomes 350+, it's pretty much a drive and short-iron for everyone, as opposed to a hole that might have choices.


For years my club has seen its tip number at 6450 as a weakness, but I have continually advocated to leave things be.  For one, we are a par 70, so our par 72 equivalent yardage is 6700-6800.  Also, the couple holes that have been talked about to lengthen would take a narrow 370 hole where each member has a theory on the correct tee club to a 410 mindless driver for all, and take a great short par five of 500 to 540, which would remove the go/no-go decision on the second shot for 99% of players.

[John Mayhugh]

As Sean Arble sometimes says, better to add length to the already long holes. That helps keep a variety in distances and doesn't homogenize everything.

[Jeff Shelman]

Jason,
A local example to me is 15 at Mendakota. The whole was never great, but throw in more length and expanding the water and it is just dumb.

[Ben Stephens]

Clayts used to tell me the 1st at Victoria was better when it was shorter

[Ian Andrew]

The 16th at Turnberry was a terrific mid-length four where the tee shot involved a decision on how aggressive you dared to be. The new hole makes you play wide, because you can no longer make the carry. It took a hole exciting from tee to green and made it straight-forward. It's fine, but not what it once was.

[Sean_A]

As Sean Arble sometimes says, better to add length to the already long holes. That helps keep a variety in distances and doesn't homogenize everything.

Sure, if it is mandated that a course will be lengthened, I would first investigate the 400-440 holes. But my almost universal stance would be, don't lengthen any holes if avoidable.  Generally, lengthening holes plays into the hands of bigger hitters.  I see little reason to to have modern equipment and course design on the side of bigger hitters.

The one hole I lament is St Enodoc's 16th. The old green was majestically located on the boundary fence and made for a daring second should one go for the green.  The green was also good.  The new lengthened version with the new green isn't bad, but I don't see how it is better than the old version.

Ciao

[Niall C]

It’s not always the tees that are changed either.


2 at Portrush and 16 at St Enedoc are two that come to mind where the green has been moved back. There are many others. 10 at Augusta for one.


Are they worse holes? I don’t know as I haven’t seen both iterations of any of those holes.


Ally

Ally

Good point. At the risk of receiving an angry email from Mr Ruddy, how about his work at County Sligo ? He extended a number of greens back the way to no great effect IMO. He also moved the 3rd (?) completely back the way (or so I believe). I did play the course before his work but in all honesty can't remember the original green but I suspect the position of the new green is actually an improvement even if the design of it might not be (as I said, I can't recall the original green).

Niall