Billy Horschel shoots 60

[John_Conley]

John Conley,

let me get this right. A par-71 layout yields average scores of 74.37 and you think that's evidence it was too easy? With the best amateurs in the country in the field? Seems like pretty resistant scoring, if that's your concern.

MargaretC sounds awfully sensible to me on this.

Brad, it is easy to question the move some have made toward building 8,000 yard courses.  I did it when I saw the numbers on the Trail courses and believe you echoed the thought.  My point is to look what happens when a course isn't long.  I found Chaska to be plenty challenging.  If I walk up to a daily fee course and join a group chances are I'm the strongest player.  It doesn't matter what a player with a handicap shoots if guys you haven't heard of bust out a 60 without even making a 2.

The scoring average of 73 point whatever is actually pretty low for a USGA Amateur.  Isn't that about as low as we've seen?  Methinks that wouldn't happen if Chaska Town played 7,200.

His 60 wasn't the only low score there.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hill yielded very few rounds of par or better.  I think both played a good bit longer than Chaska last time those held the Am.

If 73 point something isn't low, what is?  I don't recall it being lower.

The gulf between players in this field and the "average" golfer is ever-widening.  How today's architects address that is of interest to me.  I thought Chaska's formula of several short holes to drag down the total length was pretty good.  Even so, it wasn't enough to stop a lot of guys from shooting mid-60s or less.  

[Brad Klein]

It's not 73 point something, it's 74.37, and they shot it on a municipal layout (I think). My point is that it obviously stood up real well. I don't see what the issue here that the course is somehow defenseless. And mind you, I don't know the course other than having driven by it a few times.

As for the Alabama Trails courses, my point in the review I wrote two months ago was that all of that yardage (8,000+) was a stupid waste of land and money.

The real issue is that you cannot "stop" people from shooting certain low scores (I'm not sure why you'd ever want to, anyway) and if you did, you make the course unplayable and a financial bust for 99.9995% of the others who are playing it and paying for it.

[John_Conley]

Brad:  The number I see today is 73.7.  I think that is for both rounds.  It might have been 74+ yesterday.  Isn't that low for this event?

I'm pretty sure we agree.  You are right, it is municipal.  Your final paragraph kind of hits on my point, even if I didn't make it well.

You and I see the back tees on the Trail and call it a waste, but when a Wintonbury or Chaska opens and hits the mark for guys like me and you, it really runs the "risk" of yielding a silly score.  I don't think too many people have shot 65 or less at 8,000 yards.

The field in your town last week is ?similar? to a US Am field.  Maybe the top players are a little better.  Several players had low rounds, no?  I've played both and Chaska is similar in character to Wintonbury.  If the primary goal were to be a tournament venue - see Hazeltine or Windsong Farm - surely the course would be much longer.  As you point out, that as a business goal sometimes messes up the business plan.

[Chris Perry]

You sure that isn't Chaska Course you're talking about instead?  

The only problem I have with this whole distance issue is having to re-classify a 520 yard par 5 as a 500 yard par 4. Sorry, but 500+ has always been a par 5, and always should be. If you can get two balls that far and make a chip/putt, you deserve an eagle whether you did it with a 3 wood or 7 iron on the approach.

If this keeps up. pretty soon there won't be such a thing as a par 5 on most courses... or, the scorecards will have to be reworked so the par total is less from the tips than it is from the whites, even though the yardage is greater. Yeesh.