[Sean_A]

David

While architecture is important to me and I question each and every change at wonderful courses, not many golfers have architecture very high on their list of what is important in golf.  

Jud

You are now barking up an economic tree rather then a vague "pros hit it too far and I think it is directly related to course alterations".  It is for a club to decide if it needs to crank up the yardage to compete with the next door neighbour.  You could well be right that perhaps in 10 years or whatever the wonderful short courses of this world will struggle to find members because of perceived deficiencies.  I hope it doesn't come to that and that sensible heads prevail.  Judging by the often poor stewardship we have seen displayed these last 50 years and more, I am not hopeful.  

BTW - I don't belong to a quaint 6200 yarder - though I would like to.  My club is often a ball buster even from the 6300 tee markers.  Just ask the recent players of the Brabazon who played a 6850 yard course.  Why the club lengthened the course some 200 yards in the past few years is beyond me.  I didn't see any of these top AMS (of which at least eight are playing at this week's Walker Cup and the best score among them over four days was +4) tear it up.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

While architecture is important to me and I question each and every change at wonderful courses, not many golfers have architecture very high on their list of what is important in golf.

They may not call it "architecture," but aspects of the course architecture are very important to most golfers, especially the distance of the holes and courses.  If you don't believe me, then go to any course and try to convince the membership/ golfers that they need to play the 5200 yard tees.  Explain to them that they aren't good enough for the rest of the tees, that their egos are getting in the way.

[Jud_T]

BTW - I don't belong to a quaint 6200 yarder - though I would like to.  My club is often a ball buster even from the 6300 tee markers.  Just ask the recent players of the Brabazon who played a 6850 yard course.  Why the club lengthened the course some 200 yards in the past few years is beyond me.  I didn't see any of these top AMS (of which at least eight are playing at this week's Walker Cup and the best score among them over four days was +4) tear it up.

Ciao

Wait a minute.  So you yourself belong to a club that was recently lengthened 200 yards and hosted some of the top Ams and you fail to see a connection?  I've changed my mind.  I don't want whatever your drinking.  Real Absinthe is illegal on this side of the pond...

[Sean_A]

Jud

I never said anything about the perception of distance being necessary.  My argument is the reality is far from this perception and highlights why memberships need to be much more vigilant course changes.  A case in point is our 13th - completely buggered up not because of extended tees, but because the angle of the tee shot was altered.  These are matters the USGA couldn't possibly be responsible for.  As I stated before, folks change courses because they can.  Added distance is the recent excuse to do so (even though this is one of the biggest bogiemen of modern golf).  To be sure, when folks want changes to be made, and they will want changes to be made, they will be made unless memberships get up in arms over it.  It has nothing to do with the rules of golf or the USGA. 

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

So the added 200 yards was out of the members' natural inclination to want more and that bigger is better and has nothing to do with the implements used now vs. at the time the course was originally laid out?  Sean, I am an overweight middle-aged hack who didn't take up the game until I was 34 and living in midtown Manhattan with an infant daughter and I can hit the ball 240+ when I get a hold of it.  The me of 80 years ago would have been lucky to get it out there 180.  Sure,  Bubba Watson may have gone from 250 to 350 over the same time frame, but to say that distance is only a matter for a handful is silly.  Hell, I'VE gained 15-20 yards over the past 15 years and I'm only a marginally better player and certainly not in better physical condition.

[JESII]

Regarding the 'longer players would enjoy the architecture more...' argument David is now making...there is nothing telling me I can't play equipment that sends the ball less far is there?



"Let me ask you the question Sean never addressed:  How does your belief that they shouldn't change the courses address the fact that are changing the courses?"

If I were going to take up arms to stop the madness I would focus on the clubs themselves as opposed to the easy target...the USGA/R&A. The clubs themselves are making these decisions and they can be educated that it's unnecessary. I personally don't believe Jud and Garland's crying wolf tales of young professionals leaving the quaint 6200 yard style club for the 7200 yarder. I believe plenty of young people move clubs, I just don't believe it's for the reasons stated.

[Jud_T]

Jim,

I personally know guys who've turned down membership invites from classic old clubs that many here would be thrilled to play because they're too short for their games and they just can't hit driver often enough.  And I'm not talking about 25 year old bombers, I'm talking about 40-50 year old good players who aren't particularly long for their ability.

[Sean_A]

Jud

Yes, I know a few guys who have moved from short courses to longer courses because they have aspirations of lowering their handicap for tournament qualification.  It is not at all uncommon for guys to think it is harder to maintain a low cap at a long course than a short course because distance isn't an issue for nearly all these guys and the short course may be a rated a shot or two less than par comapared to the long course being rated two or maybe three shots over par.   

My course has undergone incredible changes since it was originally built.  To the point where one couldn't possibly call it the same course.  Most of that change had little do to with added distance and loads to do with changing attitudes in what constitutes good architecture.  That is a familiar story for a huge number of classic courses. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Noone's questioning that there have been a variety of dubious things done architecturally in the name of toughening up courses over the years besides length.  There have also been some wonderful restorations and renovations of previously mediocre courses that have improved them significantly.  But this thread isn't about tree plantings, artificial ponds and oddly placed crossing hazards.  The one constant at practically all courses where there is any space available is additional length, and I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that it's simply an exercise in male measurement insecurity...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()