Flynn and 8000 yard courses!

[Mark_Fine]

In August of 1927, William Flynn wrote these words, “If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8,000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out.”

Sounds pretty insightful, but was it really?  In the same essay by Flynn, he states that, “this year’s open championship was decided on a course approximately 7,000 yards long.”  Remember this is 1927.  A 7,500 yard course represents only a 7% increase in length and 8000 yards is less than a 15% increase.  In 75 years since Flynn made this statement, we are now just reaching the 7% mark!

Anyway, my question is this – What changes do you think Flynn envisioned would be made to his golf courses (if any) since in time, he believed they would no longer be of “championship” length?  
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

What's wrong - too tough a topic for anyone to comment    The same question I asked about Flynn could be asked for any of the golden age architects - what did they envision as changes in the future for their courses!  

Come on guys, this is a perfect question for this group and surely one that many clubs struggle with routinely!  

[Richard_Goodale]

I'm with you on this one, Mark.  Come on out of the closet all you seers who seem to know exactly what was in Flynn's mind when he was building the bunkers at Merion, Shinnecock, etc.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Flynn was right on save for one factor, irrigation.  He could not possibly have envisioned that the modern player would have to have emerald green grass everywhere we looked.  No matter how good fairway mowers have become, the average player can not fly the ball far enough to make up for the 8000 yard course.  

He is right on with regard to the costs involved with building such mammoth courses.  Thank god we don't all require the length he envisioned or very few of us would be able to affford the game today.  

Hell, very few players see enough value as it is!  Which would explain why the growth envisioned in the number of players during the '90's never really happened.  

[Craig Rokke]

True, a 7% increase over that period of time is slight. If you took the median yardages between the two eras, I think it would be more pronounced, perhaps 10-12%. Though the courses are not markedly longer on a percentage basis, the 25% additional distance the ball travels certainly is.

My experience with Flynn courses is somewhat limited, but didn't he tend to leave extra room behind tee boxes in order
to allow for future lengthening?

[Ran Morrissett]

Refer to Linc Roden's Feature Interview, question 6 for a very good answer to this very question.

In short, Flynn's only "error" was - in retrospect - he should have said 8,400 yards as opposed to 8,000. He wanted the best pros to be hitting driver/2 iron into some of his par fours, long irons into par threes and have unreachable par fives that required stout hitting just to get there in three. The third nine at Huntingdon Valley is a prime example of this philosophy.

At the time, a long par four measured out around 435 yards and today such a length hole needs to be around the 520 yard mark, which is approx. a 20% increase in length.

A driver/wedge hole would have been 350 yards and now needs to be around 420 yards (i.e. driver 290, 130 yard wedge), which is a 20% increase.

A 20% increase in 7,000 yards is 8,400 yards  

Seeing Phil Mich. hit driver wedge into the 16th at Southern Hills is not how Flynn hoped the game would evolve.

Cheers,

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks guys.  However, I still don't have an answer to my question (maybe there isn't one).  

What changes do you think Flynn envisioned would be made to his golf courses (if any) since in time, he believed they would no longer be of “championship” length?  

Did he just figure they would all be obsolete for championship play and course owners were expected to not worry about it?  

Craig suggested maybe he expected clubs to put in some longer tees?  

[Ran Morrissett]

Mark,

Other than the lengthening of tees, my guess is that he had no particular vision that his courses would need to be changed or modified. For instance, if he felt more bunkers would help, he seems to me the kind of forward thinker who would have gone ahead and built them (and perhaps he did at a place like Shinnecock).

Rather, I read the first part of his quote above to say, "Knuckleheads, do something about clubs and balls or you will find yourself in a mess in 2002."    I truly believe that he assumed that something would be done and that a course like Cherry Hills would still be a "US Open course".

Cheers,

[Mark_Fine]

Ran,
I'm afraid you may be right.  That's unfortunately the same conclusion I come to.  But we are where we are and it's tough to go backwards.  

If you are sitting on the long range planning committe of a nice little 6100 yard Ross course or an old 6200 yard Tillinghast layout or an outstanding 6600 yard Flynn design, how do you address the questions that will inevitably will come up?  

What would these architects say if they came back for these meetings?  
Mark

[BillV]

Posing an interesting question.....

Is there a Flynn Course over 7000 yds?  Even Shinnethingey   is a tick under from the seldom-used Open tees.

Cherry Hills doesn't count because it plays no more than 6400 yds equivalent.

Really not many outdated Flynn courses.

[wsmorrison]

Flynn noted that championships were then being played on courses approaching 7000 yards and that he could envision 7500 to 8000 yards for championship courses in the future due to technological advancements.  For this reason, he suggested having courses designated for championships that could accomodate the elite golfers and their championships, I think he even mentioned having the tour own and operate them (eg TPC).  He was well aware of the added costs to clubs and golfers (he was also interested in public golf having built many and owned one (Marble Hall)) for longer courses and sought to limit the technological impact on course length and renovation.  

He was years ahead in terms of designing courses to keep the golfer's and club's maintenance costs (he was former Merion superintendent) down.  Where clubs wanted championship length, he gave it to them (C nine at Huntingdon Valley).  He followed the intentions of the clubs that hired him and designed in the best manner given those constraints and those of the land.

Par at the almost 6900 yard Philadelphia CC setup for the 1939 Open was 69!  Byron Nelson, as good as he was with his long irons, was a good bet to win because of this---and did.  Flynn's comments to the club for setting up the course prior to this championship are revealing.  From the back tees at Rolling Green at 6640 yards, you'd be surprised at the demanding second shots required in terms of length (11 uphill approaches) and accuracy.  Flynn certainly regarded accuracy above length, yet in his best courses there are both.  Not always on the scorecard, but on the demands for the golfer they are a test of accuracy, carry, and overall length.  To this day, most of Flynn's best remain outstanding tests of golf.

Hope you can wait for my book---this subject and others will be dealt with in its entirety.

[Ran Morrissett]

Bill/Wayne,

That's an interesting point re: his courses still being well under 7,000 yards.

How long is Lehigh? Cascades? Huntingdon Valley A&B? Lancaster? Rolling Green? Aren't they all in the 6,700 yard range? And wouldn't we all love to have any of them as a home course, to be played on a weekly basis? I KNOW I WOULD.

Whether a course is "fit" to host a significant event is about the millionth criteria I consider when trying to judge the merit of a particular design.

Flynn was a master at building courses that you never tire of playing, which surely is the highest compliment that you can give an architect?

(On a side note, I do think his architecture can be subdued in appearance and thus a course like Lehigh (for instance its 2nd hole) can take time to appreciate all that is going on. Of course, a one-time visitor may never understand such subtleties in this age of racing from one course to the next).

[BillV]

Lehigh was a longer card previously.  It is 6581 from the back, from the card, for the record.  Several tees, once added have been removed, the last from the par 3 13th this past year.

[wsmorrison]

Ran,

There is more to a Flynn course than first meets the eye.  The  greens are subtle and need to be carefully studied to read/play them well.  There are not severe contours but a complex interplay of the slopes of the greens and the surrounding terrain.  The Flynn courses I have seen are a delight to play over and over, the balance and flow are superb.

Back to the issue of length of his courses.  The ratings of his courses compared to par are noteworthy.  The following are the lengths of selected courses, the par for the course, and its ratings:

Cascades     6659 yds   par 70  rating 73
Cherry Hills   7160              72          73.8
HuntingdonV 7065(?)          70          73.4
Lancaster     6758              70          73.5
Lehigh          6574              70          72.1
Rolling Green  6628              71         73.5

No one has played two rounds at Rolling Green with a combined score under par in competition.  Length can indeed be misleading, ask the women that played the 1976 US Women's Open at 6050 yards at Rolling Green (fairways were at normal width, the course not tricked up), the shortest played in the modern era.

I love having a Flynn course as my home course and living in an area with so many outstanding Flynn courses; we don't get tired playing them everday.  They remain a challenge to the membership and the many championships held on them.  So what if they wouldn't stand up to Tiger's game?  Do I want to play on a course that would, everyday?  Maybe if I needed an extra dose of humility, but most days I get enough humility on my own.