[Patrick_Mucci]

Why do golf clubs with an average age of their membership in the 65-75 range seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

Why do golf clubs where the average handicap is 18 seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

What percentage of golf at country/golf clubs is played from the existing "tips" ?

How many members at a club have a game that can comfortably accomodate play from the tips ?

If 95-99 % of the membership is incapable of sustained play from the tips, why would any club want to lengthen their golf course ?

What is the purpose ?

To advertise, vis a vis the scorecard, that it's a tour length golf course ?

And, who would they be advertising to ?

50-65 year old mediocre golfers who play from the middle or forward tees ?

Why are clubs with typical memberships, where the best players at the club can't break par qualifying for the club championship, seeking to lengthen their golf courses ?

[David Stamm]

Patrick,

          I think it's to thwart those whippersnappers that come to play their course from time to time. Seriously, around where I live, there seems to be a fascination with a courses reputation for being difficult. But, I have seem from time to time courses being softend. I know a few members at The Farms at Rancho Santa Fe, a Pete Dye design, and they brought Fought and Lehman in to make it easier beacuse the original was just too tough for them. Now I know that's an exception to the rule, but it's interesting that that's where Mickelson does most of his playing when he's at home as well as Paulson, John Schroeder and others. But I couldn't agree w/ you more, there seems to be an obsession w/ alot of members of clubs to have this fearsome rep of "toughest course around".

[Mike_Young]

As you know there is a big difference between those that play golf and golfers.....
When "those that play golf" are placed in positions of authority and try and trump old money...then egos take over .....
Ego is the answer.....

[Mike Benham]

Why do golf clubs with an average age of their membership in the 65-75 range seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

Which golf clubs have an average age of their members in the 65-75 age range?

[Bill Gayne]

Why do golf clubs with an average age of their membership in the 65-75 range seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

Which golf clubs have an average age of their members in the 65-75 age range?

The Augusta National?

[Anthony Butler]

Why do golf clubs with an average age of their membership in the 65-75 range seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

Why do golf clubs where the average handicap is 18 seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

What percentage of golf at country/golf clubs is played from the existing "tips" ?

How many members at a club have a game that can comfortably accomodate play from the tips ?

If 95-99 % of the membership is incapable of sustained play from the tips, why would any club want to lengthen their golf course ?

What is the purpose ?

To advertise, vis a vis the scorecard, that it's a tour length golf course ?

And, who would they be advertising to ?

50-65 year old mediocre golfers who play from the middle or forward tees ?

Why are clubs with typical memberships, where the best players at the club can't break par qualifying for the club championship, seeking to lengthen their golf courses ?

What do some people start the same thread within a couple of hours of the first one...?  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=25784

I would like to think that even if you are happy to call a 7,300 yd course home, most members between the ages of 65-75 would be smart enough to play from the 6,000-6,400 yds tees. Much like the 340hp BMW they have in the car park, just because you have it doesn't mean you're good enough to use it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What do some people start the same thread within a couple of hours of the first one...?  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=25784

Anthony,

For those of you who can't differentiate, one thread is about architectural features and the other is about length, two seperate issues.

I would like to think that even if you are happy to call a 7,300 yd course home, most members between the ages of 65-75 would be smart enough to play from the 6,000-6,400 yds tees.

Then why spend every member's money to lengthen the golf course when noone will be playing it from the tips ?

Much like the 340hp BMW they have in the car park, just because you have it doesn't mean you're good enough to use it.

If you're never going to use it, why spend the money just to keep it in the garage ?

[SL_Solow]

Pat;  I understand the point but the question must be judged on a case buy case basis.  We recently lengthened a few holes on our Colt & Allison circa 1921 course so that it now plays approx 7000 to a par of 71 from the tips, a little less than 6600 from the members, 6200 from the seniors.  We heard some of the same complaints.  But before we undertook the changes with the help of our consulting architect we considered the following factors (among others);
   1.  On an average day more than 20% of our rounds are played from the back tees.  Thus the common complaint,"its only for a handful of members" was incorrect.

    2.  The younger members play the back tees more often than other demographic groups.  As we are pushing to recruit more young people these changes were viewed as an inducement.

    3.  The significant architectural changes (sympathetic restoration) completed in 2001-2002 which were well received will be unchanged for those wishing to play existing tees.

  I tend to agree that we have more than a few people playing the tips who would be better served moving up but its a free country, they're members, and our pace of play remains acceptable.  So under circumstances such as these changes in length are acceptable.  I wonder how many clubs making similar changes undertake a similar analysis.

[Anthony Butler]

What do some people start the same thread within a couple of hours of the first one...?  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=25784

Anthony,

For those of you who can't differentiate, one thread is about architectural features and the other is about length, two seperate issues.

I would like to think that even if you are happy to call a 7,300 yd course home, most members between the ages of 65-75 would be smart enough to play from the 6,000-6,400 yds tees.

Then why spend every member's money to lengthen the golf course when noone will be playing it from the tips ?

Much like the 340hp BMW they have in the car park, just because you have it doesn't mean you're good enough to use it.

If you're never going to use it, why spend the money just to keep it in the garage ?

Patrick, it's all about bragging rights, which you seem to think people should be deprived of because they either can't understand, appreciate or communicate the nuances you think make the course.

It's the same deal with a car, a woman, or anything else that people use to define themselves and their status. The world at large can only pay attention long enough to hear you say BMW... 340hp when talking about cars, Blonde...long legs... 20 years younger when talking about trophy wives, or 7,300 yds... greens stimping at 12 when talking about their home course.

Yes, reliability, compatibility and complexity are longer lasting qualities but boring to people who don't care that much in the first place. Let's face it, much of our shallowness is generated by the fact we don't expect depth in others.

If we want to bore others with the details of our lives and opinions, we post on boards like this.

[tonyt]

The younger members play the back tees more often than other demographic groups.  As we are pushing to recruit more young people these changes were viewed as an inducement.

I tend to agree that we have more than a few people playing the tips who would be better served moving up but its a free country, they're members, and our pace of play remains acceptable.

Two excellent points. What people want, what people think and what people do can be three different things. If a club could do with a certain nett increase in members and this achieves it, then so be it. We can't complain on here about whether a lot of the ignorant masses should be playing from the tips, because the fanciful suggestion that to play from the middles is missing out on something is alive and well on these very boards let alone among the young or the unwashed.

[Phil Benedict]

My club hosts state level tournaments and an occasional USGA qualifying event.  A few years ago some kid shot 8-under in a USGA qualifier (I think the Open).  We subsequently added about 200 yards to the original layout, largely to sustain the course's viability for tournament play, I assume.

Most of the members play the white tees not the tips, so the changes make no difference to the majority.  For those of us who prefer the tips, the added length has made the course a bit more interesting.

[Mike_Golden]

Why do golf clubs with an average age of their membership in the 65-75 range seek to make their golf course more difficult ?
Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

Why do golf clubs where the average handicap is 18 seek to make their golf course more difficult ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

What percentage of golf at country/golf clubs is played from the existing "tips" ?

10% or less

How many members at a club have a game that can comfortably accomodate play from the tips ?
10% or less


If 95-99 % of the membership is incapable of sustained play from the tips, why would any club want to lengthen their golf course ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

What is the purpose ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

To advertise, vis a vis the scorecard, that it's a tour length golf course ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

And, who would they be advertising to ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

50-65 year old mediocre golfers who play from the middle or forward tees ?

See above

Why are clubs with typical memberships, where the best players at the club can't break par qualifying for the club championship, seeking to lengthen their golf courses ?

Because they are trying to attract younger members with lower handicaps

[Tommy_Naccarato]

All time classic post. Way to go!

[Mike_Golden]

All time classic post. Way to go!

Moi, Le Emperor?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Golden,

I don't buy into that explanation.
It doesn't fly in the real world.

If someone's a young person with a low handicap the odds are that they're already a member of a club.

One doesn't obtain a low handicap by merely wanting one.

Substantial efforts in the way of practicing and playing produce low handicaps.

Not one club that I know of, and I know of a few, attributed the lengthening of their golf course as an effort to attract young, low handicap golfers.

Firstly, there aren't that many of them.
Secondly, there aren't that many of them that can afford intitiation fees and dues.  Most are derivatives who were able to fly under the financial radar by being junior members of a club who then entered into regular membership at discounted fees.

[Mike_Golden]

Mike Golden,

I don't buy into that explanation.
It doesn't fly in the real world.

If someone's a young person with a low handicap the odds are that they're already a member of a club.

One doesn't obtain a low handicap by merely wanting one.

Substantial efforts in the way of practicing and playing produce low handicaps.

Not one club that I know of, and I know of a few, attributed the lengthening of their golf course as an effort to attract young, low handicap golfers.

Firstly, there aren't that many of them.
Secondly, there aren't that many of them that can afford intitiation fees and dues.  Most are derivatives who were able to fly under the financial radar by being junior members of a club who then entered into regular membership at discounted fees.

Patrick,

I said LOWER, not LOW.

I'm talking about many people who grew up on public courses (such as myself), achieved some success in their careers, and have decided to join a private club.  They have a handicap between 6 and 17 (lower than the 18 you mentioned), want to get better, but recognize that joining a course that is challenging is the best way to get better.

Patrick, go back 30 years and put yourself in the position of someone like that.  Given that virtually no one in that position would be a student of golf architecture, tell me whether, with all other things being equal, you would choose a 6300 yard course (from the tips) over one that is 6800-7000 yards.  I already said that almost none of the membership has enough game to play from the tips but having it there is something that has value for most private clubs.  At my current club, Rio Pinar, our back tees are 7100 yards, the next 6750, and the Blue tees 6300.  My preference is the 6750 set of tees because I get to hit all different approach shots and the back tees mean I'll be hitting lots of long irons and woods to greens but I could still maintain my handicap on the back tees, it would just be a tougher grind each time I played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm talking about many people who grew up on public courses (such as myself), achieved some success in their careers, and have decided to join a private club.  They have a handicap between 6 and 17 (lower than the 18 you mentioned), want to get better, but recognize that joining a course that is challenging is the best way to get better.

But, that's not the motivation for joining a club.

I don't know anyone who's been a 6 to 17 handicap that joined a club for the primary purpose of lowering their handicap.

Social, business and community interests tend to be the primary motivators.

Patrick, go back 30 years and put yourself in the position of someone like that.  Given that virtually no one in that position would be a student of golf architecture, tell me whether, with all other things being equal, you would choose a 6300 yard course (from the tips) over one that is 6800-7000 yards.  


First, you've presented a choice that predisposes the answer.

30 years ago, most courses were in the 6,500 to 6,700 yard range with only a few being in the 6,800 to 7,000 range.

30 years ago, or today, my choice of clubs would have little to do with the yardage or the scorecard mentality.

Put in another context, are you asking me if I'd prefer to join Shinnecock over National ?

I already said that almost none of the membership has enough game to play from the tips but having it there is something that has value for most private clubs.  

I'd agree, but, what is the incremental benefit of the value ?

Is it nominal ?

When the club spends money on a product that they know will be underutilized at best, you have to question the expense and the impetus for the expense.

At my current club, Rio Pinar, our back tees are 7100 yards, the next 6750, and the Blue tees 6300.  My preference is the 6750 set of tees because I get to hit all different approach shots and the back tees mean I'll be hitting lots of long irons and woods to greens but I could still maintain my handicap on the back tees, it would just be a tougher grind each time I played.

Mike, at 7,100 yards, and depending upon soil and climate conditions, I doubt that all but a few members could handle that golf course on a daily basis.

Suppose for the sake of this exercise that a segment of the membership wanted to lengthen the golf course to 7,400.

Wouldn't you ask, "Why", and at what expense, and for whom ?

Length, for the purpose of a golf course puffing and pumping  up their scorecard muscles seems ill advised at best.

[Michael Moore]

Not one club that I know of, and I know of a few, attributed the lengthening of their golf course as an effort to attract young, low handicap golfers.

To what did they attribute the lengthening of their courses?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're the one who's suggested NGLA lengthen its course, and you've defended the lengthening that's taken place there over the years. But now you're asking this website why it's done? Do you know what contradicting yourself means?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not one club that I know of, and I know of a few, attributed the lengthening of their golf course as an effort to attract young, low handicap golfers.

To what did they attribute the lengthening of their courses?

Which club ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You're the one who's suggested NGLA lengthen its course, and you've defended the lengthening that's taken place there over the years.

That's correct.
The purpose of the lengthening at NGLA was to return the architectural features that had been obsoleted, back into play.

A perfect example is the centerliine bunker complex on # 8.

It's intended purpose of interfacing with the golfer had been lost.  Extending the tee back restored that feature back into play.

But now you're asking this website why it's done?

If you'll reread the opening sentence on the initial post you'll understand the difference.

One is length for lengths sake or to make the course more difficult.   At NGLA it's to restore the intended play, the interfacing of the architecture with the golfer, as CBM intended.

Do you know what contradicting yourself means?  

Yes, you do it all the time.

[TEPaul]

"One is length for lengths sake or to make the course more difficult.  At NGLA it's to restore the intended play, the interfacing of the architecture with the golfer, as CBM intended."

Patrick:

Then maybe those other clubs should just call their lengthening something they're doing to restore the intended play, the interfacing of the architecture with the golfer, as their original architect intended.  

[Jason Blasberg]

Why are clubs with typical memberships, where the best players at the club can't break par qualifying for the club championship, seeking to lengthen their golf courses ?

Pat:

The best players in the Met area don't break par at their home courses in 36 holes of medal play and it has nothing to do with distance, it is because of 11-12 green speeds.  

The idea that distance is the enemy to enjoyable golf is myopic at best.  You don't have to play the tips but it's nice to have 4 par 4s that are a driver-long iron for a long hitter.

There is nothing wrong with adding length for championship tees so long as the hole is not totured in the process . . .

AS YOU KNOW, the problem is not adding length it's getting 18 handicaps to play the correct set of tees (which should   be 6,000 yds).

Jason

[Michael Moore]

Not one club that I know of, and I know of a few, attributed the lengthening of their golf course as an effort to attract young, low handicap golfers.

To what did they attribute the lengthening of their courses?

Which club ?

Pat -

You tell us that that you know the reasons that a few courses have been lengthened.

Then I ask what those reasons are because there's not a lot of lengthening going on in my neckof the woods and I'm curious about it.

Then you ask me "which one".

Let's save a round trip here, and instead of me posting "well before I pick one you'll have to list the courses about whose lengthing you can instruct us" and you responding and then me picking one at random, can't you just tell us why these courses have been lengthened?

[Bob_Huntley]

Length, lack of length, trying to attract younger members, what a lot of crock. Can you imagine a club where the cut to qualify for the scratch championship was 169, would be interested in lengthening the course...horse feathers.

I would bet that most contributors to this forum could not break 80 on a 6100 yard course on their best day.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()