[ian]

I read this today and almost puked.

"Antler Creek Golf Course, which is expected to become the longest course in Colorado, is on schedule to open early next summer. Grow-in of the new turfgrass is well underway and lines between native and turfed areas are being finalized at the 8,100-yard, high-prairie layout crafted by Phelps Golf Design. Located 12 miles northeast of downtown Colorado Springs in Falcon, at an altitude of more than 7,000 feet, the daily-fee course will feature four par-5s, each measuring more than 600 yards. The layout winds over and around two large, dry ravines on the property. "

While courses have multiple tees, it got me thinking how could 5400 yard front tees and 8100 yard back tees ever work on the same layout. It is difficult enough to work from 5400 to 7,000 and not have the forward tee players not share a similar experience.

Is there any chance that the forward tee player gets to experience any of the design that was laid out from the back tees?

I'm looking forward to the new 9,000 yarders coming next year.

Husbands and wives are becoming more and more common on the course. How do you play this one together?

[Joe Hancock]

Ian,

It sounds like a truckload of yards, but it very well may play much shorter if it is at a substantial altitude.

Joe

[stovepipe]

O.Kay Ian, thats one Mother of a course.

But with all these new regs comming in, restricting golf ball velocity, how are you suppose to get up? the course would have to be 10 miles high, instead or the 1.

Perhaps its the longest track for the titanium drivers? & the shorter for standard issue clubs.

Is there enough land in colorado for a course that big.

[ian]

Elevation is like the ProV and the spring effect on the driver, unless you can crush the ball you don't get much of the benefit that the big hitter gets.
The course may be fine for a long hitter, but doesn't this minset just kill a geat short hitter. This doesn't bring out great golf, it just feeds into the longest gorilla wins. That's not waht golf is supposed to be about as far as I'm concerned

Think about it 8100 yards, where 's the next tee 7,400?

[Robert Thompson]

From a Golf Digest article:

It started in the late 1950s, when the Geoffrey Cornish-designed Runaway Brook Country Club (now The Pines Course at The International Golf Club) in Bolton, Mass., broke the 8,000-yard barrier by 40 yards. Then Dub's Dread in Kansas opened in 1964 at 8,204 yards. International soon responded, stretching to 8,325 yards, par 72, to reclaim the title as World's Longest Golf Course. It kept that title until last year, when the Robin Nelson/Neil Haworth-designed Jade Dragon Snow Mountain Golf Club opened outside Lijiang City in the Yunnan Province of China.

Tucked beneath breathtaking Himalayan mountain peaks, including an 18,360-foot namesake, Jade Dragon measures 8,450 yards, par 72, including a 735-yard par 5, a 525-yard par 4 and a 270-yard par 3. At a 10,000-foot elevation, the course plays considerably shorter than its yardage.

[stovepipe]

O.Kay Ian, nice words, I quite agree with your verse, it seems that thay (the golfing gods ) need to do something about the courses before thay become obselete.science is science, and you cant stand in the way of proggress.

So what do thay do, make them longer, good or bad? I think both, its nice to have different length courses, but you can make a short course very dificult, simply by aranging your hazards correctly.

[Robert Thompson]

Having recently had the pleasure of tackling Pine Valley and Merion in consecutive days, I'd say both tracks are great tests of golf, even though my group played both from around 6,500 yards. Clever greens and hazards eliminated the need for lots of length -- gosh, PV holds up nicely even in the era of the ProV.
Mind you, to the point, there are courses where the defence is length... I guess mixing it up keeps things interesting.

Robert

[stovepipe]

Robert,

All this must go larger attitude stinks (is that a bit harsh?) can only mean one thing,   more money for the printers

[ian]

Doesn't this all remind you of everything that embodied the lousy 50's and 60's period of golf architecture. Make it a big test with big yardage and call it a f'n championship layout. Everything had to measure up to the so called pro game. And what legacy of great courses did that style give us, very few! That is until Pete Dye built something that broke the convention. Those are the courses we admire, not the "Championship" layouts. I'm just tired of the same old lame answer for how to make golf challenging (since obviously FUN doesn't seem to matter)

Feels like the frickin 60's all over again. Puke.

[Robert Thompson]

Well, I wonder if the real issue is this: longer courses need more land, which costs more money. In order to cover the costs, developers and operators must charge higher green fees, which is to the detriment of the average player.

Robert

[stovepipe]

Ian, Rob, Fellow G.C.A.ers,

I think we are all in favour of making them tougher, not longer.

It seems plain to me that here we are 3,4,5 guys who are fairly compus mentus, (bllluuu. blllrre ) all in agreement.

So why is it the gods of Golf decide to add a few yds on to this hole, & a few yds on to that hole, I say make the bunkers deeper, make them bigger.

[Robert Thompson]

Andy: I like what you're saying. I think the goal of protecting par can be accomplished in several ways --length is but one.

Robert

[stovepipe]

I know several of the best old well troden courses over here have been tweeked from time to time.

Lets take St Andrews, course record set back in 82ish by Jerry Pate, he shot an icredible 62, its not been beaten, equaled maybe, not beaten, so all this nonsence about making them bigger goes straight out the window.

The green should be seen, but difficult to find.

[Brad Swanson]

Ian,
   8100yds at altitude these days isn't so scary.  As a matter of fact, when Lou D. and I played from the tips at Paa Ko Ridge at similar altitude during the NM outing, it was over 7600yds, and I didn't hit anything more than a short iron into any of the par 4s and reached 2 of the par 5s in 2 with irons.  Altitude is partly to blame, but so is the technology.  The pros turn a nearly 7600yd Castle Pines GC into a pitch and putt during the International every year.  I've seen it firsthand (Hank Kuehne hitting driver-9iron into the 640yd first hole prior to the advent of the ProV1x is sobering anecdotal evidence).  
   Until you've played with a relatively long player at altitude, I don't think you can get full appreciation of the situation.  I agree its sad, and certainly there are other ways to make courses tough, but sadly, for the low handicapper, anything less than 7200yds here in CO is pitch and putt.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[Mark_Fine]

I spent some time recently out in Colorado with Tim Moraghan from the USGA.  At 5000 feet above altitude, we figured a course might need to be in the 8300 yard range or longer to contest a U.S. Open.  

Here are a few facts - In 1995, the drive zone for tour players was set at 260 yards.  For 2004, the drive zone is being set at 315 yards!!  

Add a 10-15% altitude factor and you can do the math!
Mark

[ian]

Mark, Brad, and others

I can not argue your point about elevation stretching the courses to 8300 yards equivilent of 7400 yards at near sea level. How as a designer are you going to make a course work (for the majority of players) who are playing from 6500 yards. They don't get the same elevation boost the big hitters get. And what about the lady playing her 160 yard drive, do her tees go at the side of the fairway?

I'm pissed partially because (as an architect) it is becoming increasingly hard to keep the same strategies for all players (and yes the short player deserves strategies too), but I'm also really annoyed (as a player) that most architect's answer to difficulty seems to be length.

I blame the pros for most of this crap. We are dealing with them (or their reps) now on a future Canadian Open site. The players are the biggest bunch of babies when it comes to akward stances, and difficult greens. They are not open to anything but the most traditional Parkland style layout. They don't like anything else. I'm convinced that every venue turns to length because its the one area they don't whine about. Unfortuneately, when they whine it effects a lot of people.

There policy should be "Flatten it all and add another 1000 yards" yards!

[Mark_Fine]

Ian,
If a course at sea level is designed "strategically" at 6500 yards for the better golfer, wouldn't you need 10-15% more length if the same golf course were built at altitude to offer the same level of challenge?  You are just going to have to add additional sets of tees for less skilled players (as you would at sea level).  Either that or change the par as is often done.
Mark

[Rick Phelps]

Gentlemen:

I debated on whether to respond to this thread or not.  Some of the discussion has touched a bit on a few of the difficulties I had when designing this course.  However, as happens on occasion at GCA, a few of the thoughts and comments are a bit off base.

Ian, I am a bit disappointed that you, as a golf course architect, can dismiss a golf course's merit without having seen it.

Yes, it was exceptionally difficult to design the course so that it wouldn't be a tremendous burden on the beginning golfers.  The tee shot is not where the problem lies.  Building multiple tees is a relatively easy way to have everyone get to the same landing area and, as such, be challenged by the same strategy.  This golf course has six sets of tees.  However, on long par 4's, the second shot is the one that gave me the most headaches.  On one or two holes, it was very difficult, due to the existing site conditions, to allow a large bail-out area for golfers who can't hit it 185 or more off the fairway.  I worked hard to create a hole or two where the golfers would have to approach with more than a seven iron.

As some have mentioned, the golf course is at high altitude.  7000 feet, in fact.  The back tees are very small and will only be used by a select few golfers.  The Owner wanted to be able to host major tournament events such as the State Am, or possibly even a USGA event.  It will also be used extensively by the new Professional Golf Management program at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.

The next set of tees, which will be used by most "back tee" users, will play from just over 7400 yards.

I am very excited to get this course open.  I have talked to a number of the treehouse gang about it and would extend an invitation to any who want to come out to see it.  The length of the course is going to garner a lot of interest.  But I am confident that the overall variety of shots and the strength of the greens complexes will be what golfers like the most about it.

Enough seriousness --

Mark, I am bummed!!  The course is already too short to host a US Open!!  

[A_Clay_Man]

How great is that? Thanx Rick for the honest reply. I do doubt that they will be able to keep people off the way back tees. As you said they have a pro management program which to me implies these guys won't like playing shorter than possible.

On my first trip to elevation back in the balata persimmon days of 1989, I was shocked at how far my little 3 wood went. And that was at 6500 ft! Just look at the ridiculous driving distance at Castle pines during the international. 435 yrds. and more.

Rick- I'm headed up there the first week in March, I'd like to take you up on your offer.

[Brad Swanson]

Rick,
   If I'm still living in Denver next spring, I'd like to take you up on your invite as well.  I'm sure I could drag Doug Wright along with me too.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[tonyt]

Hmmm,

I've always noted that the longest courses from the back tees are still the most tiresome courses to walk for the average Joe who plays off the front markers.

He who plays the whites still has to walk the blacks. There are of course instances where forward tees are closer to the previous green than the back markers, but not to a point where it makes these courses a shorter walk than a 6500 yard from the tips course.

And we wonder why new people are scared away from a game that takes them over half a day to get to, play and return home with no energy left!

[Lou_Duran]

One of the things that became very clear to me during the New Mexico outing was the issue of relative length.  Paako-Ridge at 7560 yards from the back was not too long for me in terms of being able to get home in regulation.  However, it left me at a huge disadvantage in my match against the much stronger and better player, Brad Swanson.  His ability to hit the ball 50+ yards further than me with his driver and proportionally with the other clubs forced me to take the more marginal, riskier routes.  I was unable to reach the par 5s on two, and to a hole that I might be hitting a 3 or 4 iron, Brad might be hitting an 8 or 9.   Had he been contained by running out of room at 260 - 280 yards, I may not have been beaten as badly.

I had a different experience at the much shorter Santa Ana GC near Albequerque where I played with D.J. Brigman (who got his 2004 PGA Tour card later by finishing high in the Nationwide Tour money list).  D. J. could hit it nearly as far as Brad, but the hazards and the turns of the fairways forced him to hit some irons and fairway woods from the tee.  This meant that the differences in distance on our approach shots were much smaller, and our scores were much closer.

8,100 yards at 7,000' is not too long for Brad or Matt Ward, but it is for 99% of us.  I understand Mr. Phelps's problems with the second shots, but I do hope that he protected the areas 280 - 350 from the back tees.   It would be nice to see long knockers like Brad have to sweat the tightness I often encounter between 240 and 280.

BTW, if someone wants to play long courses, Alabama's RTJ Trail has several courses in the mid 7000s near sea-level.

 

[Rick Phelps]

Adam, Brad and others:

I would be happy to give you the nickel tour next spring.  The course will likely not be ready to play until July, and if last spring is any indication, the course won't be frost free until early May.

TonyT,

You are absolutely right.  It is a long walk.  We were able to minimize the walks from green to tee in some places, but, unfortunately, it is a residential golf community, so we have a few road crossings and such that make the walk even longer.

Rick

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

Did anyone ever think of the novel idea that it might be best to wait until the course in question opens before throwing darts at what Rick Phelps is designing?

Anyone with experience in playing golf in Colorado will know what Mark Fine has said to be true. The ball does indeed fly out there and 8,100 yards is not of character. Until the course opens and people can indeed play it how bout holding off inane comments that it doesn't work until people have played it.  

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: I don't think any of the discussion was directly aimed at Mr. Phelps. Gosh, the course could be fantastic -- who knows?

My take on this discussion is that it was more philosophical in nature than an attack on Rick Phelps and his work. It is really a discussion about how golf courses continue to get longer and  given that, how does the architect create a similar experience for all who play it.

Rick: I'm intrigued at how the tee boxes work? What is the range of yardages used? I mean, is there a walk of 200 yards between the forward and back tees?

Robert

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()