News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
A while back I got to thinking about the lengthening of older courses, which is often bemoaned on this site, versus building longer new courses, which is perhaps bemoaned even more. Now maybe what I am about to say is stupid or obvious, but I am curious why the latter is not done more like the former.

Here is a “classic” older course with the traditional short green to tee walks.



Logically speaking, when lengthening this type of course (and as long as moving greens or fairways is not undertaken) new tees must be added where there is room. Sometimes it would be possible to keep everything “in line” and sometimes it wouldn’t, as shown below



Usually newer courses that are longer seem to follow the convention shown below, where the middle or most commonly used set of tees is a long walk from the previous green (no front tees are shown for sake of ease).



Why don’t new courses try to follow the model shown in the second image rather than the third? (Obviously they sometimes do, but as a general rule perhaps it will suffice.) Why can’t they try to cram the back tees wherever they can fit them? Are there design/maint issues? Or am I making something of nothing?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 05:49:20 PM by Charlie Goerges »
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course Lengthening VS Longer Courses
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2009, 05:21:19 PM »
I guess I'll bump this once and then just assume that there IS such a thing as a dumb question.   :D
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Charlie,
i assume archittects want to leave elasticity (room for further USGA snafus).
Then they can do as the old courses chose to to lengthen
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Melvyn Morrow


Charlie

I sincerely do not believe the answer now or in the future is to keep lengthening courses.

Some of my reasons are as follows.

1) Land is expensive and courses are not that cheap to built or maintain, so why add to the cost and burden the clubs with additional financial and maintenance headaches.

2) Modifying some of the early course is becoming difficult because of the land restrictions and availability to purchase more. Not to mention to upset the natural balance of the original courses.   

3) There are additional consequences to modifying the existing courses, which generally bumps up the line to each hole, its from what I have seen not just a simple project and is effectively nearly a redesign, forgetting the cost and maintenance factors as mentioned, the disruption to the members or visitors which of course will be reflected in revenue. At this current period it would be a brave club that turns money from the greens.


My view is certainly old fashion and down to the old argument of challenging the golfer to consider each shot. Some describe it as penal and not strategic, but I sometimes wonder if there is seriously much difference. Of course you must forgive me because I am not a course designer.

I believe our courses are already long enough and in some place too long. I have never understood or agreed that there is much skill in hitting the long ball, many disagree, but most of those are the guys that can hit the ball these great distances. But this in my thread and my opinion so excuse me if I dismiss their claim that its takes skill.

The solution in my mind is simple, the designer positions his hazards in the areas of the course that currently facilitate the distance shot forcing the golfer to be more strategic in his game and mind set. Shorter more accurate play being the order of the day, this I believe would create minimal changes at or around the Greens, restricting the hazard modification to the main fairways.

I apologise for the oversimplification, but now is not the time to add serious burden in disruption or costs to clubs.

In short I do not believe that we can continue extending the courses indefinitely, mods to the ball is as close as the moon which is slowly moving away from the Earth each year. The revised courses would IMHO regenerate the fun, challenge and excitement in golf that caught the imagination of the 19th Century public to try golf. It may well bring in more numbers and perhaps require more on site training and lessons to take full advantage of the courses. 

But then we have to ask ourselves why we play the game in the first place
before considering the way forward – for me its brains over brawn.

Melvyn   


Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
I agree with you Melvyn.

I am not saying that clubs should lengthen their courses, only that when they do, they have to cram the new back tees in wherever they can fit them.

AND

That new courses tend to have long walks between green and tee (at least for those not playing the back tees) not least because of the perceived need for very long back tee yardage.

THEREFORE

One way to placate those who desire longer new courses while using less land would be to build the course with the main tees having a short green to tee walk and then cramming the back tees wherever they can fit. Basically building a new "old" course and then "lengthening" it like the old courses often are subject to.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
...
That new courses tend to have long walks between green and tee (at least for those not playing the back tees) not least because of the perceived need for very long back tee yardage.
...

Hang around here and read some more and I think you will find enlightened architects are making the walk to the most commonly used tee to be the shortest and that unenlightened architects (is that synonymous with tour pros?) are making the shortest walk to the back tee. There are exceptions. Tom Doak was asked to make a difficult course at Wicked Pony (he has referred to it as his Pine Valley) and I believe there you will find the short walks are to the back tees.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
I take your meaning Garland. I guess I was wondering why we don't see more of it. Jeff mentioned a reason, but if worries about the ball are in any way affecting design, well that's frightening.

Beyond the shorter walks, I was also getting at sort of a wholesale disregard for the way back tees. Almost like not even putting them in until the course is done, and then only cramming them into little nooks and crannies. I know that's not feasible, and not fair to those few who do play off scratch or better. Just kind of a thought, that's all.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Jeff Warne:

I would be surprised if you could find an architect today who showed you where he's left room for future back tees on one of his courses.  Generally speaking, if there's a tee to be built, our clients want us to build them right now -- both because it's less expensive to build them right away, and because an even longer course will get more press.

Charlie:

On some of my holes the middle tee is the shortest walk, on some it's the back tee ... it's just a function of what the ground offers.

Matt_Ward

Charlie:

Fist question -- why do clubs feel compelled to lengthen their holes / courses ?

Those who feel obligated to lengthen a hole would need to examine / explain what is to be gained by such an inclusion. Likely, the hole(s) in question work for 95% of those playing now.

Minus the very small percentage that have done so in order to retain an opportunity at hosting a big time event I don't see the need. Now, I can see an expansion of existing tee boxes in order to have more available teeing area to provide for a more even distribution of wear and tear on the turf areas currently used.




Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom, you are definitely among the thoughtful architects that Garland mentions (as are most, if not all, of the others who post here regularly I'm sure). Unfortunately I've never played a course by any of you guys. What I have got experience with, is a lot of long walks, except when a new back tee is put in on an older course and the middle tee is moved back. (I realize that this is an artificial construct, but I'll try to finish my point in addressing Matt.)

Matt, I'm not saying that new back tees should be built, in fact my point had less to do with the old courses expanding than with the construction of new courses. My point, however misguided it may have been, was that in order to give the middle tee its proper pride of place (while satisfying the "marketing requirement" of having a 7300-yard course) it might be best to build a 6500-yard course and then cram the back tees in wherever they will fit. Much like when an older course adds a new back tee. I don't think the old courses should do it, but the strategy they have to use might help keep courses from being so spread out.

The more I discuss it, the dumber it sounds. And as has been pointed out, there are already folks out there working to build smartly without need for an artificial strategy like this. Oh well, I guess that's just how I roll; spout off and then paint myself into an ever-diminishing corner.  ;)
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back