5-iron carry X 36

[Thomas Dai]

An old chestnut .... but ....

I read an article recently that a way to calculate which overall yardage folks should be playing from is to take your 5-iron carry distance, repeat carry distance, and multiple the figure by 36.

Thus as generalisations giving - 200 yd carry x 36 = 7,200, 150 yd carry x 36 = 5,400, 100 yd carry x 36 = 3,600. Some folks will obviously be individually longer or shorter.

Now once upon a time many a club would have had two courses. The club I play most often started out two centuries ago with 2 9-hole courses, a longer men’s course and a shorter ladies/children’s course.

In gender terms the game has moved on somewhat since then but given that length of time to play is often mentioned as a reason for declining memberships is there a place for a club to revert to having 2 9-hole courses of very different lengths?

Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Like it Dai... I could get on board with that.

[Sean_A]

An old chestnut .... but ....

I read an article recently that a way to calculate which overall yardage folks should be playing from is to take your 5-iron carry distance, repeat carry distance, and multiple the figure by 36.

Thus as generalisations giving - 200 yd carry x 36 = 7,200, 150 yd carry x 36 = 5,400, 100 yd carry x 36 = 3,600. Some folks will obviously be individually longer or shorter.

ATB

I am not sure I have read this formula before...very interesting.  No wonder I much prefer forward tees!

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

The more modern version of what course length to play is 25-30 times your average drive length.


Tour Pros play at about 24 (7250/300) to 25 (7500/300).  If you figure a 3 wood is 90% of your driver, then the max you could play and hit all greens would be 95% x average drive, or 34 X your average drive, but it would be no fun.  There was a time when 30 X average drive was considered good, but for those of us advocating for shorter courses, we have gradually dropped it to 29, then 28, etc.  30 x 225 = 6750 for instance, and the real average male hits it 216, making the recommended course yardage for them at 6480, still a bit longer than most prefer to play.


It seems nearly impossible to get it to 25 to hit the same club in as pros.  The average male player, with 216 average drives (according to last USGA/RA stats for average players would need to play a course at 5400 yards, but most prefer to play at 6300 (about 29X their actual drives, but about 27 their imagined driving distance.  Until males hit 60, they balk at playing under 6000.


Not sure about two courses of varying length. Given labels of Men's and Women's, would they cross over?  Certainly having 18 holes with more tee options makes more sense to have couples and mixed handicap groups play together for social reasons, no?  (Yes, I know the mantra here is often to reduce tees, but I can't see it, with most courses (not all) afraid to not be available to nearly every class/distance of golfer. 

[Thomas Dai]

A Club with 9-holes akin to the Kilmore at Carne AND 9-holes akin to The Bann at Castlerock would be pretty near spot-on imo. And with a Himalayas like putting course things would be even better. A couple of indoor simulators for inside play during the winter would be nice too.
atb

[Bill Charles]

This is a dangerous topic and one discussed when greens committees are attempting to add tees to golf courses along with all kinds of excuses to make them longer.

[Sean_A]

The more modern version of what course length to play is 25-30 times your average drive length.

If you mean driver carry, the two formulas shouldn't be all that different if we assume 27-28 times drive carry.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

7200 yards is a drive and pitch course for the pros. So you are just advocating a formula to let you play drive and pitch all the time.

It seems to me that if the course is too short, lower the par. Too long, raise the par.

EDIT: All the time is a bit of hyperbole. Since holes vary in length, perhaps 7 of 14 will be pitch, with the rest extending from just over pitch on up.

[Steve Salmen]

This is all fine so long as you discount the player's skill level.


I'd have to accept that my 22 HC neighbor who hits 5 iron 30 yds further than mine is playing almost 1100 yds behind me while taking a shot a hole.


I like my side a lot in this case.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Why do we categorise courses by their overall yardage?


A sub 6000 yard course with five par 3s and only one par 5 can be tougher than a 6800 yard course with only two par 3s and three or four par 5s.


A club which has resisted the temptation to extend a couple of its longer par 4s into par 5s will generally be a tougher challenge than one which has moved the tees back, despite being shorter overall.

[Thomas Dai]

This is a dangerous topic and one discussed when greens committees are attempting to add tees to golf courses along with all kinds of excuses to make them longer.

I can't quite get my mind around this response.
Is not the two-different-nines approach the opposite of discussions to make things longer?
Is it not about making golf more playable, more fun, more enjoyable for all levels of physical strength, skill and age?
Is it not about better utilising land and water resources and time constraints?
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,


In the last five years, I see more emphasis on shortening courses, or at least, adding forward tees based on these kind of distance formulas so the everyday player can hit some greens in reg.  Yes, sometimes, some shorter courses still look to add back tees, but finally the emphasis on ONLY adding yardage is long gone.


Sean,


Well, I (or they) were referring to total distance, which is sadly but not unsurprisingly well overestimated by most golfers.  The main reason I go with tee shot distance is simplicity.  Folks can relate best to tee shot distance without adding percentages, etc.


Thomas,


We agree.  If form follows function, and function is designing around 99% of players while minimizing our water footprint (generally agreed to be the biggest issue facing golf in the near distant future, after golfers losing interest altogether (which shorter courses also address...…) then shorter courses are the only obvious answer. 

[Joe Leenheer]

I think it could it be said that when given the choice, golfers tend to choose an overall yardage that would most likely be recommended.


On a good day, most would say I should/could play the back tee at any course but it is never my choice when given the option.  I much prefer to play from what may be considered the member tee or shorter so that I'm not required to bang driver all day long.  I also grow tired of par 3's that are all 180-220 yards in length.


The idea that a course is "drive and pitch" from any tee doesn't apply to me as when not needed, I'm not hitting driver.  I find a course played from a shorter yardage is a much more enjoyable challenge as it allows me to determine my strategy vs the course forcing me into one.   


I used to force my junior students to play the most forward tee (starting with family tees) until they could shoot par for 9 holes.  Only when that was accomplished were they permitted to move back a tee.  Can you imagine a world where we were required to play the forward tee until accomplishing such a feat?

[Garland Bayley]

I used to force my junior students to play the most forward tee (starting with family tees) until they could shoot par for 9 holes.  Only when that was accomplished were they permitted to move back a tee.  Can you imagine a world where we were required to play the forward tee until accomplishing such a feat?

Yep, I can imagine. That would be the death of golf.

[Doug Siebert]

There's no need for a "formula". I have always said if you are hitting mostly wedges for approaches move back. If you are hitting mostly fairway woods/hybrids move up.
A formula doesn't work anyway, it would equate a tight par 70 with small or wild greens at the same length as a wide open par 72 with big flat greens.

[Dan_Callahan]

The length obsession on some of these courses is insane. Donegal Golf Club plays at almost 7,500 yards from the tips. And they just moved a green back 50 yards to add even more length. It's bordering on absurd.

[Thomas Dai]

I’d forgotten about this thread so thanks for bumping it Dan.
Atb

[jeffwarne]

The length obsession on some of these courses is insane. Donegal Golf Club plays at almost 7,500 yards from the tips. And they just moved a green back 50 yards to add even more length. It's bordering on absurd.

I remember the first time I played Donegal in 1997.
My one memory was that it was LOOONG and bigin scale--I think it was around 6900 or 7000 yards at the time but I'm sure we wouldn't have played the back tees so let's say 6700-which still felt huge in that era esp in October-though I remember we had a beautiful day.


We played it the same day as Narin and Portnoo (before the new holes and changes) and I remember thinking what an incredible course N&P was-a total contrast in scale and quirk to Donegal GC.
I have returned many times to N&P and I think the course has not improved and was best in its earlier configuration.
I have only been back to Donegal Golf Club once in 2011 despite multiple trips to the County.

[David_Elvins]

This all seems stupid to me.  My 3 home courses are 5300 yards, 6200 yards and 6800 yards. 


All are a great distance for me and the wide variety of people I play with.

[jeffwarne]

This all seems stupid to me.  My 3 home courses are 5300 yards, 6200 yards and 6800 yards. 


All are a great distance for me and the wide variety of people I play with.

I would agree that variety is the spice of life, and total yardage may never tell the full story.
Any formula is doomed to fail.
I applaud the need for shorter courses and the resourses they conserve, but I do note the average golfer generally plays courses shorter than they played 30 years ago, before there were so many choices, and the relatively new phenomena of expecting the same club in as a better player.
But to each his own