[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

I'm interested to hear what ways you suggest golf course architects have to respond to the advances in club and ball technology and the added length it brings.

What means of counter-attack do architects have if you take away obvious (but not very effective) answers like stretching golf courses to rediculous lengths, therefore requiring developers to buy more expensive land.

In my mind, one of the most effective weapons we could use is FIRM PLAYING SURFACES.

[Ran Morrissett]

Two things:

1. Build more par 68-69 courses that feature 440 yarders ala Rye to give the course plenty of challenge.

2. Build more severe green complexes ala Royal Worlington to give a shorter course plenty of challenge.

Cheers,

[Bill_Coggins]

Edwin,

For most non-professionals, distance is what one thinks about.  The closer you can get, the better.

What is amazing is that they will spend years chunking half-wedges short or into a bunker instead of hitting something other than the driver.

One ideas is to try an capture the long ball hitter into one of these half-club spots.  i.e.  If you have a 400yd hole, use a downhill slope to move all drives over 300 to around the 350 mark and 20 feet below the hole and on the left side. Make sure the ground is uneven and place a deep bunker to catch a pulled approach.  In this scenario, any drive between 300 and 400 ends up at 350 with a nasty approach shot. (I picked 300 as a convenient #, use your own # as you see fit)

You can fight length by making it an undesirable spot to be in.

[Matt_Ward]

Push bunkers tighter to green surfaces to maximize iron play -- to wit like Winged Foot.

Second, reposition bunkers from the side of fairways to the middle. Today's equipment is so good that side misses are more infequent. Having bunkers in the middle will mean players either play around them or fly over them.

As a related item -- see how cross bunkers can be added where practical to induce more risk and reward type strategy.

Cut the unbelievable amount of trees that have infiltrated too many designs -- especially in the Northeast and Midwest areas. Trees keep balls from running further into trouble -- they protect rather than punish in most instances.

Change tee locations by a few degrees where possible. This adds to overall shot demands.

Cut rough grass near each green complex to a lower height so that misses will not result in easy chip'n putt recoveries. The Pinehurst #2 model is very effective.

I also agree with Ran about green complexes and the move away from a standard par of 72 for each course.

Edwin -- you're right also about firm and fast. Too many courses are overwatered just for the sake of an ignorant membership that believes its facility should be an arboretum rather than a golf course.

Just my opinion on a few remedies ...

[Matt_Ward]

One other item -- vary fairway cuts so that instead of a straight-razor look you have fairways that weave in and out.

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

Thanks for the feedback,

Matt,
Your points are very useful and interesting, but the first one regarding bunkers closer to greens is a tabu these days because of sand splash. However, one can shape the ground so that the bunkers gather the ball more effectively.

But I still have difficulty seeing how this would be targeted more toward the people gaining the most from length. It is my view that the weakest players do not gain as much from these advances in technology as the more fit and skillful.

Ran,

I thought your comment on par 72 was the most interesting. It makes you think about making more use of the dimensions of each property.

The thing is that the par figure has marketing value in the eyes of the developer. Often he will want a "high quality course", which means par 72 and length somewhere around 7,000 yards. You wonder where this influence came from(!)

Do we always need to build three or four par 5's? These long holes severely reduce all dimensions of the site which the architect has to his disposal. Wasn't it William Flynn (correct me if I'm wrong) who, in Masters of the Links, said that one should only build two three shotters, but the third could be justified if there was an outstanding natural feature that could give it some value.

The par 3īs are the most popular holes among the majority of golfers, I dare say.

I agree with you, Ran, that severe green complexes are ideal in this purpose. But in times of increased golf traffic, one is forced to provide an x amount of pinable area. This means larger greens, and greens are the most expensive areas to maintain on a golf course. To most high-profile courses/clubs (the ones we often talk about)the maintenance budget isn't that big a deal, but it is for most clubs.

When considering all this, I have focussed somewhat on the set-up at the Old Course at the Open Championship in 2000 and at Lytham this year. In both cases, the setup has looked quite normal, as opposed to Carnoustie.

From watching the Open in these venues I concluded that forcing the golfers to play this game just as much along the ground as through the air is one of the most effective ways to respond to this much-discussed technology trend.

But at the end of the day, both the par 72 and over-watering are obstacles that will not be conquered over night.

[Tim_Weiman]

Edwin:

Great question.  For quite some time, I've wondered the same thing myself and have been frustrated that I can't come up with any original ideas.

I agree with you that the "Winged Foot" idea mentioned above doesn't work.....it only makes things even harder for less talented players.

By contrast, adjustments to green complexes, green contour and speed, etc., seem reasonable if the goal is to challenge the best players without makes things ridiculous for the average guy/everyday play.

When thinking about this question, my mind has always turned to number seven and eight at Pine Valley.  On the seventh, a three hundred yard drive (compared to say 275 yards) has no value.  So, maybe you could look at ways of making the area of 300-350 yards from the back tees unattractive to play a second shot (deploying hazards, fairway contour, etc.).

On PV's eighth hole there are areas in the fairway that are unattractive to play from due to fairway slope/contour.

Tillinghast did something similiar on the 10th hole at Lakewood Country Club near Cleveland.  He made certain length tee shots unattractive due to fairway width (more narrow beyond a cetain distance), fairway slope (downhill in the same area) and blindness (again, in the same area).

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

Thanks Tim,

I actually had to take a closer look at these holes at Pine Valley. I see where you are coming from. These are good examples.

In my mind, an ideal example of a successful golf hole in this regard is a hole with a fairway twisting and bending so that a longer drive will result in a slightly different angle to the green, and one which demands excellent judgement and touch in using the subtleties on and near the green, unless he has managed to direct his drive into a danger zone, near hazards, off the tee.

The long hitter will have to demonstrate that he is skillful in all aspects of the game in order to be successful on the course.

You saw Woods on the Old Course in 2000, sometimes driving the ball remarkable distances and then putting from 70 yards out through massive depressions, swinging the ball dramatically from one side to the other. The boy played some wonderful golf there and deserved to win by a mile. There aren't many courses where you could have seen such a variety in shotmaking, on such a high-level.

I still would love to hear more suggestions if anyone thinks he may have cracked it.

[Matt_Ward]

Edwin:

I would only hope that people who do hit long and accurate drivers are not singled out primarily because of this strength. You don't want to "trick" up courses and take away an element that is crucial to the playing of the game -- sound driving.

I have never been a proponent that fairways STOP at some arbitrary figure to take away the longer player's strength. I said this before -- forced lay-ups are no different then forced carries.

Whatever the solutions are the answer should be to constantly tempt the better player in hitting the driver, while at the same time providing reasonable alternative options for all other skill levels.

I still like the bunker idea I previously posted, but Edwin you're right, maybe having them set off with tightly cut turf that could propel them in that direction might prove more meaningful and fairer to all groups.

Regards,

[Ran Morrissett]

Edwin, The 5th and 6th on The Old Course flummoxed Woods during the Open. He never did properly judge how to play the gully/swale in front of the 5th green. On the 6th, he drove it so far, he was in no man's land and putted from 70 yards as you say. The 6th green's bank and its front to back nature is a text book way for an architect 'to counter-attack' the onslaught of technolgy.

[A_Clay_Man]

Interesting threads back on pages with numbers in the 500's.

[cary lichtenstein]

Deep bunkers with imposing lips, hard sand, close cropped fairways, angled greens, fairway bunkers in the faireay on the right, left or center. Fairway bunkers that a deep pots so you can't recover ala the Old Course.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Build courses like Royal Melbourne, with great strategic bunkering that really matters.
It is a shame that the rough is not up a little, but other than that, this weeks set up at Roayl Melbourne looks just about perfect...firm up the golf courses to make straightness count agin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()