Never mind the quality, feel the length

[kwl]

Paul Daley wrote this interesting chapter in Golf Architecture-A Worldwide Perspective

1. He writes well. I enjoy his style. e.g. "An obsession with length covers up a multitude of design sins, and worse, encourages laziness on the part of the architect. Shorter, more intesting, and better designs would see the return of an element that has all but vanished: golf palyed like a game of chess."
2. I like the idea of counter-intuitive approaches to combat the "slather and wack"
3. I felt quite good about this strategy and imagined some great 300 yd "2 shot holes" and 110 yd "1 shot" holes, with fringe contiguous with deep bunkers, collection areas, etc. Then, I "flashed back" to John Daly at Pinehurst playing hockey (the average-guy would mimick "long John" when watching his 8th pitch roll back to his feet) and the ensuing delays. In a moment of levity, I couldn't separate my thoughts from windmills and miniature golf...
4. Many of these counter-intuitive approaches will combat the best from the best, but violate the principle of approachability/playability for the masses. Back to square one.
5. ODS/ODF? Overall distance standard/formula? I read something about this but cannot locate-even with searches of RANDA and USGA. Is there an overall distance standard? If not, why not? Would not be difficult. Ball driver combos and a spread sheet...you are legal or you are illegal.

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

Love the devilish shorties. Combine the strategic with the penal. 7 at Pebble Beach. 12 at ANGC. 5 at Victoria National. 10 at Riviera. 10 at Royal Melbourne-West.

Concern about the "average" player is warranted. To much chicanery will lead to SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW play.

[Doug Siebert]

Is it an obsession with length or an obsession with course rating?  Maybe those in the design business can comment, but it sure seems to me like a lot of courses get built where the developer doesn't care about the architecture, only that it is perceived as a "championship" course.  Par 70 won't do, neither will a course rating of less than at least 73, and I wouldn't be surprised if some don't place ending up with a 75 from the tips as a requirement.

Because the way course rating seems to be calculated is almost wholly dependant on length, you don't have much room for a clever 120 yard par 3 or 350 yard par 4 -- at best you can have two or three such holes.  If you have more, then you'll end up with a terrible slog through a series of 475 yard par 4s and 635 yard par 5s to make up for them and keep the course rating up.

The funny thing is, almost every average (and a lot of better) golfers think that slope is the indication of difficulty, so merely pumping up from the slope from the back tees (while leaving it reasonable from the regular tees) would be sufficient to make people BELIEVE they are playing a championship layout.  Ask about any golfer what the toughest course they've ever played is, and they'll start talking slope!  And they'll quote the slope from the tips even if they played two sets up.  It isn't as if those courses really are going to host US Open qualifiers, so a par 72 with a course rating of 71.6 and a slope of 147 will be seen as far more difficult by 97% of golfers than one with a course rating of 74.5 and a slope of 131.

Not like its hard to pump up the slope of a course from the tips while leaving it reasonable from the regular tees, just move the tees off laterally and require a 240 yard forced carry on a few holes.  And note that on the scorecard and with a sign on the first tee, to scare people who aren't up to it from even trying the tips.  Not that I advocate this as a reasonable course of action, but if you are going to design to stupid requirements, I think that's a better choice than having a lot of really long par 4s and 5s that don't have much interesting going on with them because length was the goal (and too many long holes that are also hard probably won't bring too many people back for another round)

I guess one danger is that a lot of golfers seem to choose the tees they think they should play on an unfamiliar course based on the distance listed on the card.  "Hmmm, 6100 yards, that's about what the tees I play back home at Frozen Tundra CC are, I'll play these", ignoring that the course conditions, rating, slope, etc. can be quite varied even if the yardages match.

[kwl]

From the chapter "Technology and the game of golf"-Weed and Monti in Golf Architecture

CB McDonald (yes, that is how it is spelled) is quoted as follows..."There is a consensus of opinion among firstclass players that the time has come to check the excessive lenght to with the golf ball can be driven. Ball makers are vying with each other in producing balls of ever-increasing driving capacity, and as most of the best courses have now been stretched to their utmost limits, it is obvious that holes and courses are speedily being ruined as tests of the game. Green committees and golf course architects have been struggling for some time to maintain the normal rate of scoring by multiplying hazards, by rendering th approaches to holes more difficult, and even by increasing the difficulties to putting, but it is clear that a point has been reached at which such devices are destroying the balance and character of the game which makes it enjoyable and worth playing."

The authors finish the chapter with..."More than ever, the effects of equipment advancement is making its presence felt and eroding the game's traditions. Inaction today is complicity in the deterioration of the game tomorrow. By working together for the integrity of the game, golfers, golf course architects, governing bodies, and manufacturers can ensure that the golf course will remain the competition for players of all abilities."

Seems that everyday i read another concern (some old, some new), but our governing bodies don't seem to be willing to step up and help. I understand the legal concerns, but why can't the USGA/R & A just draw the "line in the sand"? They have previously. Maybe, this is simply economics...as long as projects to renovate and create exist and the average joe can boom it out there we have the complicit see no, hear no, speak no evil? What about the members/players of traditional venues stepping forward and saying no more! We are out of land, we don't want to spend money to build new tees, give us our game back! I rest my case (for now).