[Tom_Doak]

Rob, troll better. Jeez man.

Erik's read on the stats here is correct - as long as the greens aren't easy to drive and you can't get up and down easily from both sides, short par-4's are not being ripped up nearly as much as everyone assumes.  But the powers that be don't want you to see that, they want you to hear about how much the course has been lengthened.

Tom, what's your take on the idea that - and I won't be able to put this into words the best, but maybe you can get what I'm going for here - some of the more interesting holes to see played on the PGA Tour these days are the short par fours. Not all of them - the one at I think the Travelers is a bore, with the rough bordering the green to keep shots from going into the water - but Riviera's tenth, the one Morikawa eagled at the PGA at Harding Park, etc. They don't add massive length to the course's scorecard, but they're frustrating, they force decisions, pros are unsettled, etc.

Every course can't just re-create Riviera's tenth, of course, but I think there are enough sites for 290 to 310-yard holes that would result in all sorts of strategies, tactics, bit numbers, small numbers… and scoring variety and interest. No course should probably have more than one or two of them, but I'm in favor of the short but treacherous par three, and a short par five, too. So, between the three, you could have four holes perhaps on a course that all play a combined 300-400 yards shorter than typical holes with those pars (3, 4, 4, 5 perhaps)? Maybe a 120-yard hole (instead of 200), a 290- and 320-yard hole (instead of 440+), and a 510-yard hole that didn't just play like a par four somehow… Or just ditch the par five and you're still looking at a bit over 300 yards shaved.

Erik:


Totally agree.  Even the holes that aren't driver for the biggest hitters give them fits - like 16 at Harding Park did.


We have three potentially drivable par-4's at Memorial Park, but even before it has hosted a single event the Tour and to a lesser degree the client are panicking that it will be too easy or that the short 4's will slow down play, and building additional tees to make it less interesting.


It's just like politics, we cannot be allowed to see a broader choice of candidates.

[David Ober]

I think that the lengthening of Merion (6,544 in 1981 to 6,996 in 2013 as per Wikipedia) shows that it is understood, by the USGA at least, that even that course at at under 6,600, with the likely conditioning and set-up, was not likely to challenge the field. Any short course (6,300-6,600) with less than US Open type of set-up would definitely be eaten alive by today's fields with today's equipment. I guess that there is a very extreme presentation (rock hard greens with no meaningful back to front tilt) that would be very difficult to score on, although with the whole field having wedges in their hands I am not sure of that.

Merion was set up just as your last sentence describes, even at 7000 yards.


"It is understood" that courses cannot be played at 6400 yards, to be absolutely sure that prople don't see the Emperor with his clothes off.  What you actually see on Tour every week is that extra length matters little to those guys. 


Erik's read on the stats here is correct - as long as the greens aren't easy to drive and you can't get up and down easily from both sides, short par-4's are not being ripped up nearly as much as everyone assumes.  But the powers that be don't want you to see that, they want you to hear about how much the course has been lengthened.

Just so we're clear, I'm totally with both you guys, I would LOVE to see them play some short courses in varying conditions. But if the conditions were too "normal," the winning scores would be very, very, very low. Firm up the greens a bunch, tuck every pin, and grow up the rough, and a short course could hold its own, definitely, but the winner would still shoot -20 or better -- but hey, they do that all the time on long courses anyway! In "every day" conditions with receptive greens, though, the winner would shoot -30 to -40, guaranteed. But to me, that would be fun to watch...

[David Ober]

Jim,
Nothing wrong with 20 under winning.  In the design I proposed, you could make the course as challenging and interesting as you like and distance would not be the deciding factor (which is one of the problems with many of the PGA tour courses these days).  Long accurate hitters will always have an advantage as they should but at least you don't need 8000 yards of golf course to test them.

I would love to see the Tour play some short courses. 6300 to 6600. Let's see what they do. We know they can already shoot in the low 60's on 7300+ yard golf courses, so they'll probably shoot just the same on short one's right?


^^^^^SARCASM


You put the pros on a course with a rating of 71.5, and they are just going to destroy it. 35 under wins unless you really USGA it to death. It would be fun to watch for me, either way.


It's funny, I was just talking to Lou Stagner about this very subject a few days ago. If you don't know Lou or his analytical stuff, look him up. He figured 7 to 8-under is the cut. Winning score 33 to 38 under. Lou knows his sh*t.

[Tom_Doak]

David:


They are 25-under on a long (par 72) course unless the weather is adverse, so what difference does a few more under pat make?


I don't have any idea who Lou Stagner is, but 40-under is an impossible target unless there are a bunch of holes where they are putting for eagle.

[James Brown]

What would the PGA Tour field shoot at Rye?

[David Ober]

David:


They are 25-under on a long (par 72) course unless the weather is adverse, so what difference does a few more under pat make?


I don't have any idea who Lou Stagner is, but 40-under is an impossible target unless there are a bunch of holes where they are putting for eagle.

40-under is (barely) stretching it with benign conditions. On most courses of 6400 yards, par 72, there will be at least five or six holes where they are putting for eagle, and probably more like 6 or 7 on most courses of that length.

On my 1925 Max Behr 6570 yard course (a giant of a course and a full 170 yards longer than a puny 6400 yarder!), PGA Tour pros would be putting for eagle on:

1) EAGLE PUTTS - Downhill 362 par 4. Long hitters would fly it over the lake with no problem 309, playing adjusted 290 to cover the lake. Have already seen multiple pros do it.

2) EAGLE PUTTS FOR MANY/ALL - 299 par 4: Some of the pros would hit hybrid onto the green

3) EAGLE PUTTS FOR A FEW - 362 par 4: plays downwind. 10% - 20% or more could reach this green in Tour conditions.

4) EAGLE PUTTS FOR ALL/MANY - 543 par 4: The longest pros would have 7 or 8-iron.

5) 138 yard par 3 - Tricky green

6) 444 Par 4: Can play 460 to 470. Driver 9-iron or wedge for the long hitters

7) 425 par 4. Most would stay at top of plateau. Those who drove down the hill would be within 50 to 80 yards.

195 par 3

9) 390 par 4

10) 414 par 4

11) 190 par 3

12) 385 par 4 (uphill)

13) 187 par 3

14) EAGLE PUTTS FOR ALL/MANY - 485 par 5 with elevated tee and ravine that cuts across fairway that (virtually) all Tour pros would carry, leaving 5-iron to PW.

15) EAGLE PUTTS FOR ALL MANY - 490 par 5 - Elevated tee. Alps hole.

16) 190 par 3

17) EAGLE PUTTS FOR ALL/MANY- 494 par 5 with elevated tee and trouble left and right off tee

18) EAGLE PUTTS FOR MANY - 545 par 5 with creek that runs across front

Now, of course if you wanted to reduce par to 69 due to the three par 5's that play less than 500 yards, you could do that for sure. But that's the reality of courses of that length. You would need to reduce par to 68 or 69 and then the scores, TO PAR, are not that outrageous. But that's just a little game that we play.

But if you don't do that and you play the course to its current par, you have 8 holes where the longest pros could be putting for eagle, and six where some would be putting for eagle on every single one of them in a given round -- and potentially two or three rounds.

Try that exercise with any course you want that is 6400 yards and par of 72. Heck my course is 6570 and par 72 and they can "eagle" 8 of the holes with a putter. Pretty sure you'll get similar numbers of eagles on any par 72 6400 yard course you choose. Maybe only 6 holes, but at 6400 yards, I'd bet the over/under is 6 holes that are eagleable with putter for tour pros.

Again, I would LOVE to see this. I'm just giving you my take on what the scores would be. They also happen to jibe with what Stagner believes -- and Tour stats are his thing.

[Ben Hollerbach]

David,

If you take a look at the composite course I listed in the original post, what you'd see is a course that had only 5 eagle (all on Pebble Beach 18th)and 639 birdies in 4,267 attempts. Meaning that PGA tour players recorded an under par score only 15% of the time.

This isn't a question of what may happen. The best players in the world have played all of these holes in 2020 and did not destroy them.

Lets compare the holes on my composite routing to the best in scoring efficiency on holes of these distances across the PGA tour:

Par 3's (161, 162, 179, 188)
  (2) PAR 3 EFFICIENCY 150-175 YARDS -  Adam Scott - 2.783
  (2) PAR 3 EFFICIENCY 175-200 YARDS - Tyrrell Hatton - 2.767
Par 4's (349, 351, 365, 370, 380, 381, 381, 389, 395, 398, 418, 438)
  (1) PAR 4 EFFICIENCY 300-350 YARDS - Tommy Fleetwood - 3.222
  (9) PAR 4 EFFICIENCY 350-400 YARDS - Webb Simpson - 3.733
  (2)PAR 4 EFFICIENCY 400-450 YARDS - Scottie Scheffler - 3.896
Par 5's (543, 570)
  (1) PAR 5 EFFICIENCY 500-550 YARDS - Webb Simpson - 4.227
  (1) PAR 5 EFFICIENCY 550-600 YARDS - Tony Finau - 4.402

Total: 64.34


So the best of the best in each category would average just shy of -6, keeping in mind that this is all holes not just the most difficult, which my routing represents.


It's reasonable to believe that on this routing the low round of each day would hover around the 64-65 mark, with the daily average being around 72-73.


Propose to Lou Stagner my routing and have him calculate what he thinks the winning score and tour average would be.

[Matt_Cohn]

There's only one hole where everyone would hit driver (in blue) and only 3 others where even a modest proportion of the field is likely to do so (in green).

1: Pebble Beach no. 1 - 381 yard par 4 - (4.14 stroke average)
2: Monterey Peninsula Shore no. 6 - 570 yard par 5 - (5.02 stroke average)
3: Bay Hill no. 11 - 438 yard par 4 - (4.31 stroke average)
4: TPC Southwind no. 11 - 162 yard par 3 (3.10 stroke average)
5: Spyglass Hill no. 2 - 349 yard par 4 (4.01 stroke average)
6: PGA National no. 4 - 395 yard par 4 (4.22 stroke average)
7: Kapalua Plantation no. 11 - 161 yard par 3 (3.24 stroke average)
8: Olympia Fields North no. 12 - 389 yard par 4 (4.16 stroke average)
9: Monterey Peninsula Shore no. 18 - 381 yard par 4 (4.12 stroke average)
10: Waialae no. 10 - 351 yard par 4 (4.08 stroke average)
11: Pebble Beach no. 5 - 188 yard par 3 (3.25 stroke average)
12: Waialae no. 15 - 398 yard par 4 (4.25 stroke average)
13: PGA National no. 1 - 365 yard par 4 (4.01 stroke average)
14: Pebble Beach no. 11 - 380 yard par 4 (4.10 stroke average)
15: PGA National no. 15 - 179 yard par 3 (3.29 stroke average)
16: Bay Hill no. 13 - 370 yard par 4 - (4.01 stroke average)
17: Pebble Beach no. 8 - 418 yard par 4 - (4.27 stroke average)
18: Pebble Beach no. 18 - 543 yard par 5 - (5.15 stroke average)

[Dave Doxey]

Course would "hold up", whatever that means.  Low score would still win. 

[JESII]

Which would be easier for people to deal with;


1) the financial problems of adding a thousand yard to your course
2) the mess of figuring out the best roll back solution
3) the emotional problems of having the TOUR guys shoot nothing on your course


I can tell you which one actually carries the fewest problems...






David, as good as the guys are, there is a natural obstacle to shooting 10 under day after day. Witness the infrequency of these guys shooting a good score after a great one.  That said, on my 6500 yard par 71 there are 5 or 6 eagle putts and the winner would shoot 5 and 10 under each round, so 25 to 30 total. The challenge would be the severity of the greens (tons of tilt from back to front to generally aiming for a very narrow sliver directly short of the hole and taking spin off) so the cut wouldn't be 8 under par, maybe 2 or 3.

[JMEvensky]

David, as good as the guys are, there is a natural obstacle to shooting 10 under day after day. Witness the infrequency of these guys shooting a good score after a great one.  That said, on my 6500 yard par 71 there are 5 or 6 eagle putts and the winner would shoot 5 and 10 under each round, so 25 to 30 total. The challenge would be the severity of the greens (tons of tilt from back to front to generally aiming for a very narrow sliver directly short of the hole and taking spin off) so the cut wouldn't be 8 under par, maybe 2 or 3.

This. These guys are good--not perfect.

[David Ober]

There's only one hole where everyone would hit driver (in blue) and only 3 others where even a modest proportion of the field is likely to do so (in green).

1: Pebble Beach no. 1 - 381 yard par 4 - (4.14 stroke average)
2: Monterey Peninsula Shore no. 6 - 570 yard par 5 - (5.02 stroke average)
3: Bay Hill no. 11 - 438 yard par 4 - (4.31 stroke average)
4: TPC Southwind no. 11 - 162 yard par 3 (3.10 stroke average)
5: Spyglass Hill no. 2 - 349 yard par 4 (4.01 stroke average)
6: PGA National no. 4 - 395 yard par 4 (4.22 stroke average)
7: Kapalua Plantation no. 11 - 161 yard par 3 (3.24 stroke average)
8: Olympia Fields North no. 12 - 389 yard par 4 (4.16 stroke average)
9: Monterey Peninsula Shore no. 18 - 381 yard par 4 (4.12 stroke average)
10: Waialae no. 10 - 351 yard par 4 (4.08 stroke average)
11: Pebble Beach no. 5 - 188 yard par 3 (3.25 stroke average)
12: Waialae no. 15 - 398 yard par 4 (4.25 stroke average)
13: PGA National no. 1 - 365 yard par 4 (4.01 stroke average)
14: Pebble Beach no. 11 - 380 yard par 4 (4.10 stroke average)
15: PGA National no. 15 - 179 yard par 3 (3.29 stroke average)
16: Bay Hill no. 13 - 370 yard par 4 - (4.01 stroke average)
17: Pebble Beach no. 8 - 418 yard par 4 - (4.27 stroke average)
18: Pebble Beach no. 18 - 543 yard par 5 - (5.15 stroke average)

Is there an additional point with that (solid) observation, Matt? I mean, what's the likelihood of a course where pros are hitting driver only 1 to 5 times "making it" as a Tour stop? I would love to see it, but ....

[David Ober]

David, as good as the guys are, there is a natural obstacle to shooting 10 under day after day. Witness the infrequency of these guys shooting a good score after a great one.  That said, on my 6500 yard par 71 there are 5 or 6 eagle putts and the winner would shoot 5 and 10 under each round, so 25 to 30 total. The challenge would be the severity of the greens (tons of tilt from back to front to generally aiming for a very narrow sliver directly short of the hole and taking spin off) so the cut wouldn't be 8 under par, maybe 2 or 3.

This. These guys are good--not perfect.

Assuming a course that is "Tour Tough," absolutely 25 to 30 under is what we're talking about. My original premise was "club conditions," which I shared with Erik via PM. We are not at all far apart.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Assuming a course that is "Tour Tough," absolutely 25 to 30 under is what we're talking about. My original premise was "club conditions," which I shared with Erik via PM. We are not at all far apart.

Yes, I had assumed that if we were talking about hosting a Tour event on a course, it would be set up like a Tour event, in that I didn't even consider someone showing up at a regular course with day-to-day regular conditions. Though I'd love to see the PGA Tour players putt to some of the pins I've seen on some local courses instead of their usual 2% slope MAX hole locations… 

[Pete_Pittock]

Too many people in two categories.
Players:  22 groups would would probably will a 6400 yard course, otherwise severe backups. Maybe in a limited field event
Spectators: 10-15 percent more crowded fitting the same crowd into a smaller space.
But otherwise I think a 6400 yard par 68/70 course could hold up to the standards set by a 7500 par 72 course.

[Sean_A]

What difference does it make? The winner might well be -30 or so. To me that is not reason enough to avoid playing these courses. Scoring is out of control, all we are talking about is a matter of degree. The principle is long established.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

More par-3's and more holes akin to the 10th at Riviera would drop the overall yardage but should still provide plenty of thought provoking challenge.
atb


PS - a question for those Downunder - has a mens (or womens) pro event ever been held on the revised RACV Healesville course and if so what was the reaction?

[Ben Hollerbach]

I don't believe there is a 6,400 yard course in existence today that could hold its own against the PGA Tour's best. If there was one, we'd already be talking about it. But that's not the question I'm asking.

The question is can a 6400 yard course challenge the pros.  Evidence suggests that it is possible to build a 6,400 yard course which can defend par against the best in the world.   If this is true, what can we learn about the holes already played on tour that have shown the ability to defend par and maybe try and incorporate their design elements into more holes and new courses?

It’s inherently a good thing to build holes which are playable by many players and are challenging to many players.  Most of the holes on my list are playable by a multitude of skillsets, especially if you moved up another tee.  Yet they still give the best in the world a real challenge.  Let’s talk about why that is and figure out how to encourage more of these design principles so golf isn’t all about length.

Matt's point about driver selection is a good one. None of these holes prohibit driver, but they also do a good job of persuading players to keep the club in the bag.

Instead of burying our head in the sand when it comes to architectures role in the distance problem, lets figure out how architecture can help address the problem by constructing and encouraging holes which are not easily overcome with length alone.

[Michael Felton]

I don't believe there is a 6,400 yard course in existence today that could hold its own against the PGA Tour's best. If there was one, we'd already be talking about it. But that's not the question I'm asking.
The question is can a 6400 yard course challenge the pros.  Evidence suggests that it is possible to build a 6,400 yard course which can defend par against the best in the world.   If this is true, what can we learn about the holes already played on tour that have shown the ability to defend par and maybe try and incorporate their design elements into more holes and new courses?
It’s inherently a good thing to build holes which are playable by many players and are challenging to many players.  Most of the holes on my list are playable by a multitude of skillsets, especially if you moved up another tee.  Yet they still give the best in the world a real challenge.  Let’s talk about why that is and figure out how to encourage more of these design principles so golf isn’t all about length.
Matt's point about driver selection is a good one. None of these holes prohibit driver, but they also do a good job of persuading players to keep the club in the bag.
Instead of burying our head in the sand when it comes to architectures role in the distance problem, lets figure out how architecture can help address the problem by constructing and encouraging holes which are not easily overcome with length alone.

I think the issue is it's really hard to have a course that's playable week in week out, is not long even from the back tees and challenges the best in the world. To take driver away, you either have to have hazards/OB close to play, lots of trees forcing play into narrow channels or some kind of limit to the fairway (a la hell's half acre at PV). Otherwise they'll just pump it down there. If you have a green like 10 at Riviera or 17 at Oakmont, it makes it really hard for regular Joes. It still likely won't stop the longest players from going for it. The other thing I guess that might do it is the wind, but that's not exactly reliable.


Question though - if someone came up with a course that the PGA Tour came to, had a scoring average of let's say 72 and it was 6,400 yards long, would we be saying it was a good course? Or would it be just too brutal for anyone to really enjoy? These guys are +6 to +8 indexes. The course rating to come up with a course that difficult would have to be in the 78-80 range. On 6,400 yards, that's going to be a hellishly difficult golf course.

[David Ober]

I don't believe there is a 6,400 yard course in existence today that could hold its own against the PGA Tour's best. If there was one, we'd already be talking about it. But that's not the question I'm asking.
The question is can a 6400 yard course challenge the pros.  Evidence suggests that it is possible to build a 6,400 yard course which can defend par against the best in the world.   If this is true, what can we learn about the holes already played on tour that have shown the ability to defend par and maybe try and incorporate their design elements into more holes and new courses?
It’s inherently a good thing to build holes which are playable by many players and are challenging to many players.  Most of the holes on my list are playable by a multitude of skillsets, especially if you moved up another tee.  Yet they still give the best in the world a real challenge.  Let’s talk about why that is and figure out how to encourage more of these design principles so golf isn’t all about length.
Matt's point about driver selection is a good one. None of these holes prohibit driver, but they also do a good job of persuading players to keep the club in the bag.
Instead of burying our head in the sand when it comes to architectures role in the distance problem, lets figure out how architecture can help address the problem by constructing and encouraging holes which are not easily overcome with length alone.

I think the issue is it's really hard to have a course that's playable week in week out, is not long even from the back tees and challenges the best in the world. To take driver away, you either have to have hazards/OB close to play, lots of trees forcing play into narrow channels or some kind of limit to the fairway (a la hell's half acre at PV). Otherwise they'll just pump it down there. If you have a green like 10 at Riviera or 17 at Oakmont, it makes it really hard for regular Joes. It still likely won't stop the longest players from going for it. The other thing I guess that might do it is the wind, but that's not exactly reliable.


Question though - if someone came up with a course that the PGA Tour came to, had a scoring average of let's say 72 and it was 6,400 yards long, would we be saying it was a good course? Or would it be just too brutal for anyone to really enjoy? These guys are +6 to +8 indexes. The course rating to come up with a course that difficult would have to be in the 78-80 range. On 6,400 yards, that's going to be a hellishly difficult golf course.

Yup

[Duncan Cheslett]

I don't believe there is a 6,400 yard course in existence today that could hold its own against the PGA Tour's best. If there was one, we'd already be talking about it. But that's not the question I'm asking.
The question is can a 6400 yard course challenge the pros.  Evidence suggests that it is possible to build a 6,400 yard course which can defend par against the best in the world.   If this is true, what can we learn about the holes already played on tour that have shown the ability to defend par and maybe try and incorporate their design elements into more holes and new courses?
It’s inherently a good thing to build holes which are playable by many players and are challenging to many players.  Most of the holes on my list are playable by a multitude of skillsets, especially if you moved up another tee.  Yet they still give the best in the world a real challenge.  Let’s talk about why that is and figure out how to encourage more of these design principles so golf isn’t all about length.
Matt's point about driver selection is a good one. None of these holes prohibit driver, but they also do a good job of persuading players to keep the club in the bag.
Instead of burying our head in the sand when it comes to architectures role in the distance problem, lets figure out how architecture can help address the problem by constructing and encouraging holes which are not easily overcome with length alone.

I think the issue is it's really hard to have a course that's playable week in week out, is not long even from the back tees and challenges the best in the world. To take driver away, you either have to have hazards/OB close to play, lots of trees forcing play into narrow channels or some kind of limit to the fairway (a la hell's half acre at PV). Otherwise they'll just pump it down there. If you have a green like 10 at Riviera or 17 at Oakmont, it makes it really hard for regular Joes. It still likely won't stop the longest players from going for it. The other thing I guess that might do it is the wind, but that's not exactly reliable.


Question though - if someone came up with a course that the PGA Tour came to, had a scoring average of let's say 72 and it was 6,400 yards long, would we be saying it was a good course? Or would it be just too brutal for anyone to really enjoy? These guys are +6 to +8 indexes. The course rating to come up with a course that difficult would have to be in the 78-80 range. On 6,400 yards, that's going to be a hellishly difficult golf course.

But that’s assuming a par of 72.


As many have pointed out on this thread, if you eliminate par 5s and have an overall par of 67 or 68, a 6400 yard course can challenge the best in the world.


Classifying golf courses by their overall yardage is meaningless. A 6400 yard par 67 course plays just as long as a 7000 yard par 72 course.

For a par 5 hole really to challenge the pros it needs to be over 600 yards long. This is not only unrealistic in terms of the acreage required but also makes for very dull golf for average players.


Better to have par 4s ranging from 280 to 500 yards and par 3s from 100 to 275 yards.


Sub 600 yard par 5s are basically par 4s for the pros. So don’t give them that luxury.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think the issue is it's really hard to have a course that's playable week in week out, is not long even from the back tees and challenges the best in the world. To take driver away, you either have to have hazards/OB close to play, lots of trees forcing play into narrow channels or some kind of limit to the fairway (a la hell's half acre at PV). Otherwise they'll just pump it down there. If you have a green like 10 at Riviera or 17 at Oakmont, it makes it really hard for regular Joes. It still likely won't stop the longest players from going for it. The other thing I guess that might do it is the wind, but that's not exactly reliable.


Question though - if someone came up with a course that the PGA Tour came to, had a scoring average of let's say 72 and it was 6,400 yards long, would we be saying it was a good course? Or would it be just too brutal for anyone to really enjoy? These guys are +6 to +8 indexes. The course rating to come up with a course that difficult would have to be in the 78-80 range. On 6,400 yards, that's going to be a hellishly difficult golf course.

Michael,


If you look at the holes that I initial selected for my composite routing, you'd notice that they do not use out of bounds, less than half have water that comes tightly into play, and trees are few and far between.


I remember talking to a long time member at Pinehurst after C&C completed their restoration of no. 2. He told me that on members day the no. 2 tee sheet was full of senior and women players, which was a shock to most. With the changes to the course and its firm and fast conditions it was expected the course would be too difficult for them, but yet it was their new favorite course on the property.


When talking with the senior and women players he learned that they liked the "new" no. 2 a whole lot more because of the short grass around the greens and how it allowed them to putt up onto the green rather than try to hit a lofted chip. The course was plenty hard before and they always had difficult hitting and holding the putting surfaces, that had not changes, but now they had a chance to get up and down whereas before that wasn't possible.


My point being, while the changes to the course made the course more challenging to the good players, it actually made the course more playable to the shorter hitting players. The game is always difficult for them but there is no reason it can't be enjoyable as well.

[Michael Felton]

I don't believe there is a 6,400 yard course in existence today that could hold its own against the PGA Tour's best. If there was one, we'd already be talking about it. But that's not the question I'm asking.
The question is can a 6400 yard course challenge the pros.  Evidence suggests that it is possible to build a 6,400 yard course which can defend par against the best in the world.   If this is true, what can we learn about the holes already played on tour that have shown the ability to defend par and maybe try and incorporate their design elements into more holes and new courses?
It’s inherently a good thing to build holes which are playable by many players and are challenging to many players.  Most of the holes on my list are playable by a multitude of skillsets, especially if you moved up another tee.  Yet they still give the best in the world a real challenge.  Let’s talk about why that is and figure out how to encourage more of these design principles so golf isn’t all about length.
Matt's point about driver selection is a good one. None of these holes prohibit driver, but they also do a good job of persuading players to keep the club in the bag.
Instead of burying our head in the sand when it comes to architectures role in the distance problem, lets figure out how architecture can help address the problem by constructing and encouraging holes which are not easily overcome with length alone.

I think the issue is it's really hard to have a course that's playable week in week out, is not long even from the back tees and challenges the best in the world. To take driver away, you either have to have hazards/OB close to play, lots of trees forcing play into narrow channels or some kind of limit to the fairway (a la hell's half acre at PV). Otherwise they'll just pump it down there. If you have a green like 10 at Riviera or 17 at Oakmont, it makes it really hard for regular Joes. It still likely won't stop the longest players from going for it. The other thing I guess that might do it is the wind, but that's not exactly reliable.


Question though - if someone came up with a course that the PGA Tour came to, had a scoring average of let's say 72 and it was 6,400 yards long, would we be saying it was a good course? Or would it be just too brutal for anyone to really enjoy? These guys are +6 to +8 indexes. The course rating to come up with a course that difficult would have to be in the 78-80 range. On 6,400 yards, that's going to be a hellishly difficult golf course.

But that’s assuming a par of 72.


As many have pointed out on this thread, if you eliminate par 5s and have an overall par of 67 or 68, a 6400 yard course can challenge the best in the world.


Classifying golf courses by their overall yardage is meaningless. A 6400 yard par 67 course plays just as long as a 7000 yard par 72 course.

For a par 5 hole really to challenge the pros it needs to be over 600 yards long. This is not only unrealistic in terms of the acreage required but also makes for very dull golf for average players.


Better to have par 4s ranging from 280 to 500 yards and par 3s from 100 to 275 yards.


Sub 600 yard par 5s are basically par 4s for the pros. So don’t give them that luxury.

Sure - if you look at length per shot and take off 36 for putts, then a 7200 yard par 72 is 200 yards per shot. A par 68 at 6400 yards is also 200 yards per shot. You could make a course with 9 par threes averaging 220 yards and 9 par fours averaging 490 yards and you'd have a course that would undoubtedly challenge the pros and it would be 6,390 yards long. I took the original question as making a course 6400 yards long with a par of at least 70. Otherwise you could just pick the hardest par threes on the PGA tour and you'd have a very short course that would be troubling for the best players.


Ben - what makes the game harder for the pros is being further from the hole. Short grass around the greens that runs off takes them further from the hole. That makes them take more shots. Point taken on #2. Short grass is something that can help the bogey player and hinder the top level professional.


I have no doubt that we could build a course that was 6400, par 72 and the pros would all struggle to break 80 on it. I don't think it would be a very good course. It *might* become well known, but purely for that reason. Greens that are 80 square yards with steep fall offs on all sides, firm, fast, large run off areas and hazards everywhere on both sides of the fairway. I can't see anyone wanting to play it (except perhaps once for the novelty factor).

[Duncan Cheslett]

Michael,


I was thinking more of  twelve or thirteen par 4s and five or six par 3s. Par 68 rather than 63 as in your model.


Such a course could easily play to par 70 or even 72 for member play and be eminently enjoyable. Long par 3s for pros become short par 4s and long par 4s become par 5s.


Who says a course has to be par 70 or more anyway? Most of my golf has been played on MacKenzie designed courses of par 68 or 69

[Michael Felton]

Michael,


I was thinking more of  twelve or thirteen par 4s and five or six par 3s. Par 68 rather than 63 as in your model.


Such a course could easily play to par 70 or even 72 for member play and be eminently enjoyable. Long par 3s for pros become short par 4s and long par 4s become par 5s.


Who says a course has to be par 70 or more anyway? Most of my golf has been played on MacKenzie designed courses of par 68 or 69

I'm not disagreeing with you. It just struck me that it's easy to defend par by making par lower. If people are shooting -30 on a par 72, then you automatically make that -14 by calling it par 68 and making no further changes. I think it's interesting to consider how you can defend par on holes that are short relative to their par.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()