[Jason Topp]

One of the things I love about classic courses is the short walk.  Whether it is on a links, Heathlands  or a golden age 6500 yard US Country club, I have many times played such courses in under 3 hours in a two ball without feeling like we were rushing.

By contrast, on modern 7500 yard courses (from the back tees), even those in which walking is the norm, the distance of the walk seems significantly longer.  I have played in under four hours but that is pretty rare - even if I am playing the course at the same 6500 yard distance.  The difference in distance walked seems significantly longer than the 1000 yards difference in course distance.

Does anyone know whether or not my perception is reality?  Are there examples of long courses with little extraneous walking?

Examples I have in mind are Hazeltine and Windsong as long modern courses where everyone walks v. Woking, almost any links course, and  most golden age private clubs.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have walked both Erin Hills and St. Louis CC.  They are equal in distance and effort.  Your perception is not reality.

[Bill_McBride]

The Pumpkin Ridge courses in the Portland area are examples of great walking design, with very short green to tee walks almost like classic era courses.  

As a result, most of the play I have seen there seems to be walking.  

[Craig Disher]

I've had the same perception as Jason. Compared to pre-1960 (pre golf cart?), the green-tee distances on modern courses seldom seem to be minimized - even when the courses were built on similar sized sites. For the architect, does it make any difference where the next tee is if it's assumed that nearly all the golfers will be riding in carts? Unless the course is intended for walking (the Bandon courses, Chechessee Creek, etc), why sweat the problem of getting the tees close to the greens. Besides, designing a course with good holes AND short distances between greens and tees sounds a lot more challenging than designing a course just with good holes.

[Brad Wilbur]

Another way to divide those courses is real estate based vs. non real estate based.  When developers want to increase lots that have golf course views, then the walk greatly increases.  Aren't Erin Hills and Pumpkin Ridge both examples where residential planning didn't impact the courses?

[Phil McDade]

Another way to divide those courses is real estate based vs. non real estate based.  When developers want to increase lots that have golf course views, then the walk greatly increases.  Aren't Erin Hills and Pumpkin Ridge both examples where residential planning didn't impact the courses?

Erin Hills doesn't have any housing directly on the course. Another course with long between-hole walks and no housing is the University of Wisconsin's University Ridge on the outskirts of Madison.

I'd generally take the view that alot of modern courses have longer green-to-tee walks because cart revenue is factored into the equation of how the course will make money, so the designer cares less about lengthy in-between-hole distances. Milwaukee CC and Erin Hills are both top-tier courses, with some up-and-down terrain to traverse, and couldn't be more different in the routing in terms of green-to-tee walks.

[Garland Bayley]

If you play a classic course with two sets of tees, generally the walk will be shorter, compared to a modern course with five sets of tees. UNLESS, the tees you are playing happen to be the ones closest to the green. This is why TD places the "member" tees closest to the green, and any self styled long hitter has to walk back to his tees. The unfortunate thing is that most GCA put the back tees close to the green, and regular hitting players have a long walk ahead of them.

Then there are designers who use the golf cart crutch and don't really care where they put the tees with respect to the last green. I was very saddened to see that Ryan Farrow is a golf cart advocate, which puts his employers on a back burner for courses I wish to see. Part of that of course is that I don't get to see a lot of course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think it is fair to say that older courses tend to have shorter distances between greens and the next tee.  This is especially true in GB&I. I have played 18 holes in 2:30 on many courses there.  There are exceptions, however. Many older courses have built new tees that require players to walk back to the new "championship" tees.

[Jud_T]

Jason,

No question.  One of the reasons we're all such minimalism buttboys.  Although rumor has it that Jim Colton will be walking this course this winter to disprove your theory:

http://www.nullarborlinks.com/

[David Cronheim]

Agreed completely, though I think to some extent your perception is colored by the fact those older courses TEND to be shorter. If you play a classic, old course from the tips, it's still a slower walk. I also think modern architects have tended to pick more extreme sites than previous architects. This may be my perception as well, but I can't help but think the search for the "ideal" piece of ground has meant, generally, hillier, more undulating courses that are tougher to walk.

Even classic courses built on "ideal" ground (think Mid Ocean or Shore Acres) don't generally require you to walk over or through the most severe features. Raynor routed you around the ravines or through the valleys. You walk around them whereas today I think architects can be bolder in using natural contours due to improvements in greenskeeping and engineering.

[Andy Stamm]

If you play a classic course with two sets of tees, generally the walk will be shorter, compared to a modern course with five sets of tees. UNLESS, the tees you are playing happen to be the ones closest to the green. This is why TD places the "member" tees closest to the green, and any self styled long hitter has to walk back to his tees. The unfortunate thing is that most GCA put the back tees close to the green, and regular hitting players have a long walk ahead of them.

I think that's the key. If the 6500 yard tees are right next to the green, and you're playing the 7500 yard tees, that's about 2000 extra yards of walking because you have to walk back to the tee and then back to green from whence you came. And changing angles for the Tigers can also add additional distance.

So for instance if you played the tournament tees at St Andrews I think that would add a lot of additional time (assuming an empty course or fast round!) because you'd have to walk back to every tee, whereas the normal tees are very close to the preceding greens. And, of course, that's as classic as it comes.

[scott_wood]

I' m really shocked.     

How could John K be so wrong?       

[James Boon]

Jason,

I tend to agree with you. Most historic links and heathland courses here in the UK have the bulk of their tees reasonably close to the last green, specifically those where the tee is almost part of the green complex. Playing Beau Desert earlier this week with Sean Arble, he commented that we were in the firing line on a couple of tees as any player missing or overshooting the previous green would be heading our way! Perhaps thats why most modern courses dont have these features, and older ones have them as they weren't designed with a full field of fourballs crmmed on top of each other.

If you play a classic course with two sets of tees, generally the walk will be shorter, compared to a modern course with five sets of tees. UNLESS, the tees you are playing happen to be the ones closest to the green. This is why TD places the "member" tees closest to the green, and any self styled long hitter has to walk back to his tees. The unfortunate thing is that most GCA put the back tees close to the green, and regular hitting players have a long walk ahead of them.

Garland,

Your comment about the back tees being the ones closest to the green, doesn't really bother me too much, as though it makes for a longer walk you are at least walking along with the hole you are about to play in front of you.

Its when all of the tees are miles away from the previous green, probably based around riding a buggy there, that it really bugs me. This will often be along and probably considered ill suited to a golf hole, but surely in the past these would have been opportunities for some interesting short or dare I say it quirky holes to be fitted into a property?

This makes me think of the relatively new course up in the Highlands near Boat of Garten, Spey Valley. The first and last holes there are a on a separate piece of land, some distance from the rest, but there is a sliver of land by the river which I'm sure Colt or perhaps MacKenzie would have made a couple of really cool par 3s out of linking the main parcels of land together? It would have been tight, they may have needed to crossover even, but it beats a long walk!

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Boony - if you recall, the only dangerous situation we had at Beau was when trees blocked views (walking up the 14th) and we nearly were clocked by an errant tee shot.  Fiiring lines are okay here and there so long as sight lines are kept open. 

There is no doubt in mind that newer courses, in general, are a longer walks.  Some of it is due to safety - see above.  Some of it is due to back tees being the closest set to the previous green.  Some of it is due to the archie wanting to set the perfect scene for the tee shot (avoiding blind shots and looking for sweeping views).  Some of it is due to the cart.  Some of it is due to overly hilly land being used. 

When I see old courses which have had newer holes built on them, usually, if there are long/awkward walks involved, it is the newer holes which are the culprits.  As Boony suggests, people don't seem to value an intimate routing when it comes to creating a "balanced test".  In other words, archies don't take what is given to them - they often look to get more out of the land than is there.  I spose they can't be blamed for trying to deliver the wow factor when so much in the industry circles around golfing bling, but I stll do blame them - tee hee.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Sean,

Indeed, its more likely its the holes with trees between that are dangerous, but then some of us on this website are perhaps more aware of our golfing surroundings than others that aren't, and I can imagine plenty of golfers standing on some of those tees oblivious to the groups behind? I can therefore see why some modern architects prefer to move the tees away from the greens, even if these old features do give great character to the courses where we find them.

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Boony

For sure Beau has a few dicey tees with that 4th being the obvious really dangerous one.  You are also correct in that it is a matter of experience to be aware of one's surroundings and that as more and more people grow up on spread out modern courses that the older courses will become more dangerous.  For folks that know these tight green to tee courses they assume perhaps others know to keep their eyes open, but that isn't necessarily the case.  Still, I will always contend that trees cause more danger as a screen than proximity between greens and tees with open views.  These days guys can hit balls so far and high that loads go wildly off line and straight over mature tree lines.  The answer is likely a combo of both making sure folks can see when danger is present and giving that extra 10 yards leeway of safety where it is obvious wherea  load of shots may end up.  Unfortunately, the 17th runs pretty hard along the 4th so moving the tee further right is not an option.  Perhaps building it up slightly more to near 3rd green height so guys on the tee are very aware of who is nearby and essentially creating a wall would make things safer?   

Ciao   

[Michael Goldstein]

Jason your perception has been my reality the last two days. Yesterday I caddied for friends at the national old course (Melbourne) and then played st Andrews beach.  Today on the sandbelt my friend visiting Melbourne  (not a GCA buff) asked why I preferred the sandbelt course so much - my first response was that it was a much more enjoyable and relaxing walk.

Also a longer walk means slower golf (or carts..)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Garland's comment is valid... I think where possible, it is important to put the most used tees (usually 2nd back on a set of 4 in GB&I) closest to the previous green... This isn't always possible of course but it's worthy to always keep it in mind...

Green to tee walks have also increased for three other reasons... Bigger safety buffers needed because of improved equipment / length of ball etc... General 'scale' of newer courses is bigger than older courses (on average)... and a default position by some architects to say "Ah sure, they can always take a cart"...

[Garland Bayley]

...

If you play a classic course with two sets of tees, generally the walk will be shorter, compared to a modern course with five sets of tees. UNLESS, the tees you are playing happen to be the ones closest to the green. This is why TD places the "member" tees closest to the green, and any self styled long hitter has to walk back to his tees. The unfortunate thing is that most GCA put the back tees close to the green, and regular hitting players have a long walk ahead of them.

Garland,

Your comment about the back tees being the ones closest to the green, doesn't really bother me too much, as though it makes for a longer walk you are at least walking along with the hole you are about to play in front of you.

...

It bothers me more than for just the extra walk where I am not playing golf. The golf industry seems to be trying to destroy golf. I object to the use of all the extra tees. Unfortunately part of the problem there is the failure to control the ball. However, if a hole is created that is too long for a group of players to reach in regulation, I feel they should accept that, and find the best way to play the hole within their abilities. I guess this means they will be playing from "back tees" where they "don't belong". Well whoopdee doo. In the old days when there only mens and ladies tees, lots of men were playing from those so called "back tees" and play was quick. Unfortunately, we now have a bunch of long hitting egotists that think those tees belong to them and all the rest of the schmucks out there best stay off them. Furthermore, we have the industry pushing the latest brainstorm, "Tee it Forward". They want you to experience a golf course like the tour pros do. Well guess what. The tour pros play driver wedge. I don't think that's playing golf. I think finding a variety of interesting holes with a variety of lengths is the best way to provide for the whole golfing population. Stanley Thompson used to create a histogram to visually check his hole lengths with respect to one another. I think that is a good idea.

[Steve Hyden]

My home course, a Florida residential monstrosity, is over 7 miles total.  Since the back tees measure out to just over 7,000 yards (4 miles), that's 3 miles between holes walking on paved cart paths (actually I try to walk on the shoulders so I don't have to change spikes every couple of weeks).  No way can a round flow with all that walking between holes.  But as a friend likes to say, "the reason I walk is because no matter how bad I play, I feel I accomplished something."

[Jud_T]

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()