[Jordan Wall]

There has been much talk recently about how distance is ruining architecture on many courses.  In turn, courses such as Augusta are lengthening there golf courses to keep up with the new technology.

What if, instead of lengthening courses, architects build the hazards farther out, as to equal out with the added distance. That way, instead of carrying a ball, say, 250 yards, you could make the carry 300 yards.  I do not say to change courses already built, but to do this with courses being built right NOW.  Is making hazards to equal out the new distance technologies the best way to make a course that sets up for 'modern day', or is there something else I'm missing?  Why dont architects just build hazards farther out??  I feel like I'm missing something, but I dont know for sure.  Is the answer of making hazards farther out really that simple of a way to equal with distances, and is it a better way of doing it rather then just lengthening courses??

[Mike Benham]

If the hazards were put at 300 yards out, would they be a hazard for most of the golfing public?  Not for me ... I'm way short of that.

Why change the courses for the top 1% of golfers?

[Jordan Wall]

Dont play the back tees.

And it was just an example

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

Effectively, what's the difference?

You either build more back tees, or make holes the same effective length with hazards further away...

The problem's not with hazard placement. It's that 450 yard par 4s are Driver-Wedge for way too many pros.

[Jordan Wall]

Kyle-

What if you made hazards more difficult so even the pros would have to think about their shots.  And as for me, I am sick and tired of always having to 'lengthen a course' as a solution.  I feel golf would be better off if we did something to courses besides making them really, really long.  You dont agree??

[mike_beene]

Jordan,what about the change in what club is hit in to the green.When 7 irons replace 3 irons for approaches,the game has changed.I like the way it is now.We achieved similar driver length in my youth due to sun baked fairways,at least in my part of the world.To me the bigger changes are less ball movement(the worked ball is much straighter now) and green speeds.My pitching game was learned with a wedge that was probably 50 degrees.We would open it sometimes,but never saw the need for more loft.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jordan,

Multiple tees will not solve the problem. Technology is disproportionately helping the best golfers, who are already longer to begin with. The gap between the top players and those with less honed skills continues to grow every year. Further, simply accomodating greater length is to the detriment of the game. Increased yardage equals more acreage, more maintained turf, longer rounds, more irrigation pipe and heads, all of which equals higher green fees, which are not being paid by the professional ranks!!

When driving distances start to approach 400 yards, those bunkers placed to challenge the tour professional will begin to affect the shorter players, albeit on their second shot.  

TK

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle-

What if you made hazards more difficult so even the pros would have to think about their shots.  And as for me, I am sick and tired of always having to 'lengthen a course' as a solution.  I feel golf would be better off if we did something to courses besides making them really, really long.  You dont agree??

Jordan, that's a false dilemna. I do agree that lengthening a golf course shouldn't be the only solution. And I do support making hazards more difficult. However, it's not a polarized issue as such.

However, it becomes a question of what is hit off the tee. A driver or a 3 iron?

The idea is to challenge every club in the back. Making the golfer lay up all the time without temptation doesn't do that.

[Jordan Wall]

However, it becomes a question of what is hit off the tee. A driver or a 3 iron?

The idea is to challenge every club in the back. Making the golfer lay up all the time without temptation doesn't do that.

Kyle, I couldnt agree more with the fact that every club in the bag should be challenged.

Like I said, I might be missing something, but there has gotta be a way to make courses harder without always lengthning them.

Pine Valley is known as the hardest course in the world yet it is less then 7000 yards.

Why cant more courses be like that??

And also, nothing to think about  Giving the golfer no options  As a tour pro you certainly would have to think about carrying it 300 yards (I bet about 10% of the tour guys can do it).  And you dont always have to lay up, what about playing it safe left or right of the hazard??

Would more doglegs help the cause of adding challenge for better players??

[Kyle Harris]

Pine Valley isn't really considered the hardest in the world. There's a mighty fine course in the Pittsburgh area that may claim that honor.

If the underlying cause of you not wanting to lengthen a course is to preserve space, making holes wider to accomodate multiple option holes like you suggest won't help either.

This is all a synergistic relationship between equipment, maintenance AND architecture.

10% is a bit low for that too.

[Mike Benham]

Dont play the back tees.

And it was just an example

Jordan - I lied, I can hit those bunkers some of the time, I'm just trying to get some strokes off you ...

But here is another take, what is the most penal "hazard" at a US Open?

[Doug Siebert]

Jordan,

Let's say you have a 440 yard par 4 with bunkers at 250 and you want to move them to 300 to make them a hazard again, because there's no room for a new back tee.  You are ignoring the effect it'll have from all the other tees.  I almost always play from the back tees, but I don't think courses should altered to suit my game or the games of pros to the detriment of the MUCH larger percentage of people who play from the other tees.  And that 50 yard bunker move will hurt them MUCH more than me, because even though I can carry it at 250 but can't at 300, I can just play short of it and still have a short iron into the green.  Laying up leaves a long club into the green for shorter hitters, so its a tougher call for them, making the hole relatively more difficult for them versus me compared to how it was in the past.

Like I've said before, the biggest problem with the length today isn't so much the length itself as how it is achieved -- drives that are almost all carry with little roll.  That means the only time a good player will go into a bunker is on the fly, or on the first hop.  On most courses there isn't a lot of run after the ball hits the ground, which is not how it used to be with the trajectory that worked best pre-2000.

In addition, the big headed drives mean there's much less of an effect when you mishit a drive so you feel much freer to try to carry bunkers now than with the smaller headed drivers, especially with a persimmon driver.

[Shane Sullivan]

I really hope I am not missing the point here but on I go . . . .  (Jordan, I think I am a fan).

So, I am lady (well a female) golfer 16 handicap.  Courses for me generally feel long.  What I miss out on is the trouble.  At the moment I take the longest club I can and try and get as close to the green as possible.  Isn't that like the long hitting professionals of today?  (I think that if the tees were further forward and the trouble was in play that I would have to abandon this theory.)  

What you want to have is trouble where they land the ball and make them think twice - make them balance that risk/reward equation?

I know that's what I want when I play.

[David_Elvins]

Jordan,

Players hit at a target. Not at a hazard.  If you want to address the issue of players hitting the ball further, you have to move the target further from the tee, not the hazards.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Jordan,

Are you talking about moving hazards on existing courses in a restoration, or placing them better (for the top 1%) on new designs?  I wouldn’t think that modifying an existing course would work especially with existing trees and land forms.

Lengthening, or placing the hazards out seem to be the same thing.  Why not just roll back the stupid ball?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()