[Mike Hendren]

As I stated elsewhere, I believe that 6700 yards are plenty. I could be wrong, easily.

With the obvious caveat that not all 6700 yard golf course are created equal, just how many of you gentlemen routinely (say, more often than not) shoot par or better from 6700 +/- yards?  

Yes or no.

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

No
(Index 5.6 currently, has been as low as in the 1s, as high as in the 7s over the last 25 years).

[Bryan Izatt]

Maybe you should say shoot the course rating at that length, rather than par.  That'll take the, not created equal, out of the mix.

The answer - not me.  I have a 6 index and have never shot the course rating at 6700 yards.  

[Mike Benham]

Still no ...

[Mike Hendren]

Including your index/whatever would be appreciated as well.  

Thanks.

[Glenn Spencer]

There are easy 7400 yard courses and there are extremely difficult 6700 yarders. I would say I am able to get it a little further under par on 6700, but it is not necessarily going to happen more often or at all. It also depends on the par, a lot.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't.

And I'd bet that very few of the 0-9 handicappers recently tested by Golf Magazine whose averaged drives carried 219 yards do either.

For the most part, these 7,400 yard courses are exercises in clever marketing.  They appeal to the ego (since few players care to note the severly elevated tees, or that the prevailing winds are often helping).

You can charge a lot of money to play those 7,400 yard resort/high end courses.

Peter

[Andy Hughes]

Nope.

Glenn, where are all those easy 7400 yard courses?  

[Sean Leary]

No. 3.2 index

[Bill_McBride]

No.  Haven't shot par for 40 years.  Index currently 10.7 with a bullet (rising).

Now that Benham chap, I saw him shoot +1 at Tobacco Road with a double and a triple, two 7s, but I guess he can say he doesn't shoot par.  Ha ha! What a player.  

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I hit the ball about 250 with my driver, 270 if I really hit it great.  When I was playing a lot (in 2002 and 2003), I got my handicap down to +0.6.  I found that 6800 yards was the longest at which I could possibly shoot par (or the course rating, for that matter).

I played Bulle Rock from the blue tees (6843 yards), and found it to my liking.  I then played the front nine again, from the black tees (3646 yards, 7375 for the 18), and found myself very much overmatched.

On #9:  from the blue tees (418 yards, but with a dogleg), I hit a great drive, and had a sand wedge in.  From the black tees (478 yards), I hit a mediocre drive, and had a 4-iron in.

Now I have two kids, and a 3.3 index that is that low only because I haven't been able to play enough rounds to get it any higher.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Now I have two kids, and a 3.3 index that is that low only because I haven't been able to play enough rounds to get it any higher."

Martin, that's very funny.

Also, thanks for the interesting input; that a very good amatuer/very low handicapper gets more than enough of a challenge at 6,800 yards is telling.

Peter

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Last year I played in a pro-am on the Cleveland Golf Tour (now, and again, the New England Pro Tour) at Atkinson CC in Atkinson, NH.  

These guys are a step below the Nationwide Tour, but the top 10 or 20 players are good.  the 2005 PGA Tour rookie of the year (Sean O'Hair) was 2nd on the 2004 Cleveland Golf Tour money list.

At any rate, these guys crack it 280 or 290 off the tee, and their tee shots make that distinctive "pock" sound that I have never been able to generate.

The Atkinson course maxes out at 6,550 yards:

http://www.atkinsonresort.com/golf.htm

The winner last year shot -8 for 54 holes; here is the final leader board:

http://nepgt.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/nepgt5/event/nepgt51/contest/1/leaderboard.htm

The winner in 2004 shot -7 for 54 holes (and Sean O'Hair finished second):

http://nepgt.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/nepgt4/event/nepgt41/contest/1/leaderboard.htm

Now Atkinson is a notoriously "tricky" course; very tight, and hilly on the back.  The design is credit to Phil Wogan, but I read in an interview that he only laid out the front 9.  After he did, the owner/developer said, "hell, I can do that", and laid out the craziest back 9 I have ever played.

But still, it is 6550 yards, and it did not get torn to pieces by some extremely good professionals.

[tonyt]

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be a member at a 36 hole facility where, after giving the insistant developer/founding members their 7200+ course with its two fives and threes on each side and returning nines, the second course could be a 6500-6700 yard par 70 from the tips, with added length hidden due to there being two particularly short par fours and a very short par three that were all very exciting to play, and it turned out to be the members' favourite

Of course, some might just admit that they prefer to have  competition days mainly scheduled on the long course, and claim to use the other as their "muse" away from the comp days. Which still amounts to them playing the shorter course more often when they had a choice!

A few years of this second course ripping them a new one and the par of 70 hiding some of the length would hopefully be allowed to happen if it were ever to get past the client in the first place.

[Glenn Spencer]

Tony,

That is one of my favorite posts. Does anyone know of anything close to this situation.

[Tim Pitner]

Tony,

That is one of my favorite posts. Does anyone know of anything close to this situation.

Bandon Dunes.  

[Michael Whitaker]

From 6700 yards I have been as low as a 4.0, but currently a solid 6.5 index. From 7000+ I jump to at least 10+ and struggle to break 80. The problem is 425+ yard par 4's and 200+ yard par 3's. I can handle a 550+ par 5, but the long 3's & 4's are tough due to my length. I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

[noonan]

Tony,

That is one of my favorite posts. Does anyone know of anything close to this situation.

NCR North/South.

[Brad Klein]

Detroit GC, 36 holes Ross, has a mediocre championship layout that's 7,000 yards and a fantastic member's course that's 6,000 yards. Same basic difference prevails at Oak Hill in Rochester, though their West Course is longer.

I think 6,700 yards is ideal. I'm an 11.5 and have a chance to play to my handicap on such a layout --obviously depending upon difficulty, but usually find that beyond that, it's getting a bit long. Of course you have to make allowances for elevation, temperature and so on, but 6,700 yards is a good baseline. I know way too many golfers think a course needs to be 7,000 yards, yet these are usually the same people who are clueless hwne it comes to architecture.

[Cliff Hamm]

Tony, Baltusrol Lower/Upper are pretty close to what you describe although technically the Upper is a par 72.

[Jordan Wall]

No.

My index is about a 5.

[Brad Tufts]

To put this in perspective for me, an 0.4 index (gotten as low as +0.5), this question is directly related to par.

I have a decent chance of shooting par (increasingly less, I admit), meaning the course is manageable enough to be aggressive, if the course is less than 7000 par 72, less than 6800 par 71, and less than 6600 par 70.  I find that I struggle to play my regular game at lengths longer than these.

I am not a very long hitter (just ask Martin), carrying the ball about 240-245 at no wind/level ground/75 degrees, and there is a point where the repeated lengths become a problem.  I played in a US Open qualifier at Pinehills-Nicklaus in MA a couple years ago from 7250, and playing normal, I barely broke 80 (rating was probably 74-75).

When facing a par four of 440+, I can expect par about 50% of the time, but facing 7 or 8 of them in a round puts me at +4 just to begin.

Alot of this also depends on conditions, as a baked New England fairway in summer plays much different than a spring (wet, cold) or fall (windy, cold) fairway.

So, from 6700 par 70, NO

from 6700 par 71, Yes 1/3, NO 2/3

from 6700 par 72 Yes 2/3, NO 1/3

If you gave me less than 6500 par 72, I'd just say yes.

[DMoriarty]

No.  But whether or not we can shoot par has nothing to do with whether 6700 yards is "plenty."

I sometimes play a little pitch and putt nearby which may be less than 1000 yards for 18 holes.   I am sure I will never come close to shooting par, and would be lucky to shoot Bogey.  By your reasoning, our courses are 5000-6000 yards too long.

[Tom_Doak]

Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle Dunes are both 6700 yards, and I believe that is one of the main reasons both have been so popular.  Club pros can play them from the back and have a chance to break par on days it's not too windy.

[jeffwarne]

I'm confused why any course ever has to play more than 6700 yards for a given individual.
There are more than one set of tees at all the courses I've ever played.
No reason you can't mix a few back and forward tees.
the only exception would be a tournament where the tees are fixed.
I'm not sure a course should be criticized (other than for driving up upkeep costs) for building in elasticity for better players , future equipment,and fast conditions-
Doesn't mean you have to play back there, or that the tees should even be routinely open.

I agree totally with Tom Doak's comments totally about Club pros and top amateurs being able to play well at acourse that measures 6700 yards-and I believe most,if not all should play there-However 7000+ yard tees could be available,closed most of the time,only played with permission, and not detract from such courses.

I would also say the word par is being mentioned far too much for me in this discussion.
If you take 40 yards off a 6740 yard par 72 and make it a par 70 is it a better test?
I know  I enjoyed my eagle 3 at #5 at NGLA yesterday far more than I will enjoy a birdie 3 there in the future when/if they change the par. (particularly if they decide to move the tee FORWARD,bastardizing the architecture of the fairway bunkers)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()