[Mike_Young]

Got a little rant here.....
Last night I was listening to one of the "committee experts" at our club explaining additional yardage on specific holes after he had spent all of a few months at a couple of hours per month reviewing the club with a restoration expert.  
It has always been my opinion that increasing yardage from the tee side of a hole via moving tees back was a quick fix and not a good one.
The only way to get a true value of extra length is to also increase the distance from the turnpoint to the green center and since with most old courses the existing landforms were integral to the design of the hole and were not placed there with earthmoving equipment....they cannot be changed....so in order to acheive a true and accurate updating of the distance effect greens would also need to be moved backwards in relation to the tee distance percentage.  And this just can't be done.....so true distance updating cannot be acheived IMHO.  
I see guys hitting it 320 and yet they hit wedge where it used to be 5 or 6 iron.....it just doesn't work.....what was gained?

[TEPaul]

"And this just can't be done.....so true distance updating cannot be acheived IMHO."

You're right, Mike, in most all cases it just can't be acheived. And, in my opinion it should almost never be tried---eg moving greens farther out to recoop the old shot values and club selections from the turnpoint to the green.  

Adding length behind former tip tees can be done and perhaps should be but only where there is some available "elasticity" that does not get into other holes and screw them up and also makes sense with any holes original LZ.

In many cases, architects and clubs can add 50 yards or more beyond former tip tees and that can get these power players' tee shots back into the old original LZs, but the thing that most people forget is that from that point on even if they are back at the same points and the same yardage into greens that the original architect and architecture intended they will still be hitting a lot less club than golfers used to.

Too many fixate on the distance increase in the context of the driver only, forgetting that these power players today probably hit their irons proportionately farther compared to eltie players of the past than they do their driver compared to elite players of the past.

The other thing elite players generally do today compared to eltie players of the past is they hit everything a whole lot higher than they used to.

Overall distance is a lot greater than it used to be through the bag but carry distance today has increased way more proportionately compared to the overall distance increases.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, Mike, there really isn't anything that can be done distance-wise today reasonably from turnpoints in (without really screwing up these old courses).

That's architecture, but there is something that can be done, and remarkably effectively through maintenance practices that even if the distances and shot values can't be returned certainly can make these old courses defend themselves reasonably well even with this new distance problem.

[john_stiles]

TEP,

One issue with today's B&I is carry distance.  Ad for Ping G5 has Bubba Watson at carry distance of 360 yards (spin rate 1865 rpm).  Okay, Bubba is a top flite pro (0.0001% of golfers) BUT the younger kids today (high school, college) carry the ball enormous distances with every club.

With the carry distances of today,  what maintenace practices would help.    Most of those young golfers in the pipeline will mostly become your 'avid' players after high school, AJGA, & college play.

Please list some items for defending older courses reasonably well.

[Jeff Fortson]

Go back and read The Spirit of St. Andrews by MacKenzie.  He addresses the future lengthening of courses and his opinions on it.  He seems to think that a course should be built with room behind each tee for adding yardage in the future.  At least this is what I understood him to say.


Jeff F.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

You have nailed the "restoration of shot values" issue.

Pushing tees back just gets good golfers back to the original turning point. But instead of 5i approaches from there (as Ross, MacK etc. assumed) they are hitting PW. It's farcical.

There is another way to think about this. How long would you have to build a course today to play like a 7,000 course in 1955?

If you extend a modern course to 7500 yards, all you have accomplished is forcing some (but not all) good players to hit drivers to reach turning points. They are still hitting PW or 9i approaches.

To get them to hit the same club on approaches, modern courses need to be 8000 plus before they begin to play like a 7000 yeard course did in 1955.

A 7500 yard course today is - in historical terms - not a long course. It is in fact short. It plays like a 6600 yard course in 1955.

But this is the thing. Even lengthening a course to, say, 8200 yards doesn't work. Why? Because the physical features of the old turning points don't work any more.

To truly restore shot values you have to (i) push back tees AND do at least one of the following (ii) relocate turning points OR (iii) move back greens.

On older, classic courses altenatives (ii) and (iii) are such abhorent ideas that I would vote not to even try to restore shot values on such courses. It's better to leave 'em alone.

(Does any of this recall ANGC disucussions earlier this year? Good.)

And that is the nut of the problem. Simply extending tees doesn't help much. It certainly doesn't restore "shot values".

Bob

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike Young, I think you may have been eating way too much of Wilson's Kibble. All of you guys are all wrong. In fact, I think you all may be delusional!

I know a guy in Michigan who says that there is basically no difference today what they were hitting back with hickory back then. That carries of 300 yards + were not only possible, but a reality with these magic hickory clubs and that the USGA lost control of the ball many, many years ago, but actually reigned in the distance without the golf world knowing it.....

You see, this pushing back of tees in these past few years....including Augusta National buying back extra ground that they sold to neighboring Augusta CC when they magicly one night, moved tees further-up to compensate for the loss of distance when the USGA eventually banned the original smaller, but heavier Haskell ball did in fact happen according to my friend in Michigan who just happens to hang around a 7 foot tall rabbit named Harvey......

[Garland Bayley]

Distance updating isn't the problem! Building courses that can be played like old times for both the average player and the elite professional is impossible. You build the course for the average player and you extend the tees for the professional is the same problem as what you discuss above. You build the course for the professional and the average guy can't reach the green from the turn.

[Mike_Young]

Go back and read The Spirit of St. Andrews by MacKenzie.  He addresses the future lengthening of courses and his opinions on it.  He seems to think that a course should be built with room behind each tee for adding yardage in the future.  At least this is what I understood him to say.


Jeff F.

Jeff,
If MacKenzie says that moving tees will do the trick...then IMHO, he is wrong.   You still
have an approach.....

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, Can't (or should I say shouldnt?) greens defend themselves from any distance, even close ones?

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young, I think you may have been eating way too much of Wilson's Kibble. All of you guys are all wrong. In fact, I think you all may be delusional!

I know a guy in Michigan who says that there is basically no difference today what they were hitting back with hickory back then. That carries of 300 yards + were not only possible, but a reality with these magic hickory clubs and that the USGA lost control of the ball many, many years ago, but actually reigned in the distance without the golf world knowing it.....

You see, this pushing back of tees in these past few years....including Augusta National buying back extra ground that they sold to neighboring Augusta CC when they magicly one night, moved tees further-up to compensate for the loss of distance when the USGA eventually banned the original smaller, but heavier Haskell ball did in fact happen according to my friend in Michigan who just happens to hang around a 7 foot tall rabbit named Harvey......

Tommy,
Wilson doesn't eat Kibbles....but this topic was one that he and I had discussed.  He was reading one of his architecture books after chasing rabbits Saturday and came up with this topic.....

[RSLivingston_III]

I know a guy in Michigan who says that there is basically no difference today what they were hitting back with hickory back then. That carries of 300 yards + were not only possible, but a reality with these magic hickory clubs and that the USGA lost control of the ball many, many years ago, but actually reigned in the distance without the golf world knowing it....

Tommy, between you and me this is funny, but many of these guys won't understand you are mis-quoting me to make a joke.

[RSLivingston_III]

MacKenzie and Hunter both discuss designing with more room to move the tees back, as the ball is increased in performance. I just don't think they planned on the increase being as great as it has become over the last 80-ish years. Drivers dropping like darts with little roll, has got to be a huge problem for the modern architects to defend against and wasn't something the golden age guys could have envisioned as an average  player thing.
Let's hope a limited performance ball is approved....soon!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Everybody, This was a joke between Ralph and I.

[RSLivingston_III]

Thanks!!

[Mike_Young]

Mike, Can't (or should I say shouldnt?) greens defend themselves from any distance, even close ones?

Adam,
The quote I have seen says that par defends itself at the green.  So , I would agree as long as the green was relative to the shot at hand.
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()