Shortest 18-Hole Course of 2007

« **on:** December 12, 2007, 11:33:08 PM »

I asked on another thread but it is far down page 4, so I will ask here to get more attention:

Of the courses anyone has seen which were put up as contenders for a Best New award -- I use that criteria only to exclude "executive" courses -- how many (if any) were under 7000 yards?

I'm on the record as hating big numbers on the scorecard, yet it seems like we are being pushed in that direction whether we try to fight it or not. And in the past five years, the only course we've built that was under 7000 yards was Stone Eagle -- which has been criticized by good players for being too short or too easy.

I am positive you can still build a great course at well under 7000 yards, because we've built three of them -- Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and St. Andrews Beach.

« **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:39:27 PM »

I saw where one of the best new on one of the lists was only 6400+. Skye Mountain or some such in New England somewhere. I thought of you when I read about it

« **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:42:40 PM »

Short but difficult - 2/7 type holes - short par 4s and short par 3s. Risk reward par 5s. A mixture of long par 4s over 440. I think this could add up to a very challenging 6600 yard course, one that is a lot more fun than a 7200 yard slog.

Our new course at Pensacola Country Club is right at 6900 yards and has par 4s that are 330, 345, 325 and 300. Each is a birdie opportunity with double bogey a heartbeat away.

To me that is the most fun golf, and never boring.

« **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on December 12, 2007, 11:33:08 PM

I am positive you can still build a great course at well under 7000 yards, because we've built three of them -- Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and St. Andrews Beach.

Tom

Not many new course are built in as windy locations as these three. The regular two-three club wind would raise the effective length to over 7000 yards at any of these course, reducing the strength of your argument to a degree

PS. Golf Australia's esteemed panelists yesterday ranked St Andrews Beach 12th best in the country. Not sure everyone agrees with you that it is a great course.

« **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:52:29 PM »

Quote from: John_Cullum on December 12, 2007, 11:39:27 PM

I saw where one of the best new on one of the lists was only 6400+. Skye Mountain or some such in New England somewhere. I thought of you when I read about it

I think that this is Stowe, in Vermont. Just over 6400 yards, and in the top 10 in GD's top 10 new. I haven't played it yet, but will certainly try to next summer. Has anyone played it? I'd love to hear how they managed to wow the raters (at Golf Digest!) despite the lack of length.

« **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:55:14 PM »

Stowe, thats it, starts with s, ends with e

« **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:01:40 AM »

Tom,
I agree that great golf can still be built at well under 7,000 yards, but the three courses you referenced would seem to have one valuable link inland courses usually lack...Wind.

Without it length is merely a tool to add variety where wind can't mix up the playing conditions. I say design for variety, add up the numbers, and they are what they are. Inland this number may be bigger if the terrain and conditions are less than ideal.

« **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:20:34 AM »

The Stowe Mountain course mentioned is a Bob Cupp design.

Gee, I feel bad, since I am probably one of those better players identified as criticizing Stone Eagle for its length.

It is obviously possible to build a shorter course that challenges the long approach game. Crystal Downs yields lots of long iron approaches, and it's only 6500 yards.

« **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:22:29 AM »

Tom,

it depends on what is seen as desirable. At the moment long and straight is flavour of the day and this is seen in the new products (balls, club, etc.) all of which claim to be longer and straighter than their rivals. This is mainly driven by the various tours who are setting up courses to be long and tight.

If the tours changed tatic and went for more variation then players would require equipment that allowed them to work the ball more and as a result length would be less important.

« **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:40:41 AM »

I've only played one golf course in my life from the back tees _ Pacific Dunes - and that was only because everybody else was and there was 5 bucks on it so I had to. My attempt at competing with these demigods was brutally rejected. 5 bucks were gone faster than a bottle of nail polish remover at the Betty Ford Clinic.

I suppose I'm in the silent majority of golfers who don't need the 7000+ for a challenge, and that's okay for me but, I am curious how that # seems to be important for owners/developers to attain "Championship" status.

« **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2007, 02:29:15 AM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on December 12, 2007, 11:42:40 PM

Short but difficult - 2/7 type holes - short par 4s and short par 3s. Risk reward par 5s. A mixture of long par 4s over 440. I think this could add up to a very challenging 6600 yard course, one that is a lot more fun than a 7200 yard slog.

Make more par 3's than par 5's: pro's eat up par 5's, but have most trouble on par 3's. Not sure if the par 3's need to be short -- a mixture sounds better to me -- but they should be difficult.

5 par 3's and 3 par 5's is one example. 4 and 2 works, too.

« **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2007, 03:56:45 AM »

Tom -

Just mentioned this on the other thread. It seems to me that with Today's game you need built-in natural governors such as wind(Pacific and Barnbougle) or terrain(Stone Eagle) to give you a fighting chance at having a challenging course and have the scorecard be under 7000 from the back.

Thomas used several approaches at Riviera to govern distance - from the use of the hill on 18, to the manmade rise in the fairways at 5 & 13, to the quietly elevated greens that just make the place play longer. His course from the tips was about 6900 and that still holds up for the scratch player from his approximate back tees. He also has the downhill holes into the prevailing wind and the uphill holes with the wind making the downhill advantages really disappear. His design remains timeless for those without a PGA Tour card and it seems there are a lot of lessons on this subject in it.

« **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2007, 05:09:46 AM »

Interestingly St Andrew's Beach, Barnbougle and Pacific Dunes all have at least two things in common. As have been mentioned, they all can be pretty windy and none of them have a par of higher than 71. Would it be fair to say that adding a par 3 or dropping a par 5 or two helps make them shorter?

« **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2007, 10:12:32 AM »

Tom Doak asked on another thread
I'm curious -- for the GOLF DIGEST panelists out there -- did any of you play a high-end private course this year that was UNDER 7,000 yards from the back tees?

Tom I played 13 best new/remodeled. The only ones I think were under 7000 yards were:

The Country Club of Virginia (Westhampton Course)
Pine Island Country Club Charlotte
Indian Creek Yacht and Country Club Virginia
If I recall properly these three were under 7000 yards, but they were "best remodeled not best new.

« **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2007, 10:57:25 AM »

Michael:

Is Crystal Downs not challenging enough for you? Merion and Pine Valley, unless you play from the silly tippy-tips? Pasatiempo? Pebble Beach? I'm not buying that.

I think the problem is really one of incrementalism. It's that people just always think if the course was a bit longer, it would be a bit better ... so if you're building a new course and you have the acreage, you can't stop short of 7000, and even then, the client is going to think it would be a bit better if it were 7100.

Brian / Jim: Absolutely, par makes a difference. I figure 6700 yards par 70 = 6850 par 71 = 7000 par 72 for playing difficulty, except the first two take up less land and cost less to build.

« **Reply #15 on:** December 13, 2007, 11:55:16 AM »

Questions:

What percentage of golfers need 7,000 yards?

What percentage of the golfers on ranking panels need 7,000 yards?

Is this one element of "designing for the rankers"?

I don't think I've ever needed 7,000 yards (or would ever have needed 7,000 yards, even if I'd always had today's equipment), and I know I never will.

I agree with Bill McBride, and wonder: Who DOESN'T like good short par-4s?

« **Reply #16 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:06:43 PM »

I have heard a number of aspiring playing professionals in Palm Springs and in Phoenix indicate that they have difficulty finding courses that are long enough. 7000 yards is pretty short with warm temperatures, firm ground and light winds.

I do not think the question is one of challenge. Without a doubt short courses can be a challenge even without wind.

Instead for someone who hits it 300 yards, it is an issue of interest. If one needs to lay up off the tee or needs to hit wedges on every hole, the course is less interesting. I, as well as 99% of golfers do not have that problem with nearly any course.

A traditional criteria, however, for a great course is that it should be pleasurable for all classes of player, including the elite player.

Perhaps it is no longer reasonable to strive to meet that ideal and courses should focus on a particular segment.

« **Reply #17 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:13:38 PM »

Jason --

How long is Oak Ridge from the tips?

How many holes would a 300-yard driver find uninteresting? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the second: Zero.)

Dan

« **Reply #18 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Dan Kelly on December 13, 2007, 12:13:38 PM

Jason --

How long is Oak Ridge from the tips?

How many holes would a 300-yard driver find uninteresting? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the second: Zero.)

Dan

6566 yards. They find it real interesting, but they either lay up a lot off the tee or hit a bunch of really awkward half wedges. They enjoy the course but join Hazeltine, Windsong or Olympic Hills.

« **Reply #19 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:21:59 PM »

Tom

This is where I think the old guy for the most part got it right and I think the answer is variety throughout the course. Dev Emmet was I think very much under rated in that he was able to make a course 63-6400 yards and yet have holes that always challenged total score.

A beef I have with many modern courses is the homogenization of length for a given set of tee makers. A 6500 yard course (or set of tee markers) seemingly will never have a par 3 over 200 yards, a par 4 over 425 or a par 5 over 550. Most par 4's will be in the range of 380-390. BORING! An old 6300 yard Emmet or Ross course and seemingly EVERY ONE of them will have the 230 yard par 3 and the 460 yard par 4. They mix in enough short holes that can be birdie but when you bogie or worse you feel bad for the next few holes and press.

I think variety in length over the round of 18 holes from every tee box is the key to both making par difficult for the length and for keeping enjoyment at a premium.

« **Reply #20 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:40:30 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on December 12, 2007, 11:33:08 PM

I'm on the record as hating big numbers on the scorecard, yet it seems like we are being pushed in that direction whether we try to fight it or not. And in the past five years, the only course we've built that was under 7000 yards was Stone Eagle -- which has been criticized by good players for being too short or too easy.

I, too, am getting sick and tired of 18-hole golf courses that are too short and too easy, just as I am losing my patience with steaks that are too tender, music that is too melodious, clothes that fit too well, and weather that is too pleasant.

« **Reply #21 on:** December 13, 2007, 12:57:13 PM »

Quote from: Rick Shefchik on December 13, 2007, 12:40:30 PM

I, too, am getting sick and tired of 18-hole golf courses that are too short and too easy, just as I am losing my patience with steaks that are too tender, music that is too melodious, clothes that fit too well, and weather that is too pleasant.

Well, you're living in the right spot, then!

You forgot to mention your sick-and-tiredness of mosquitoes that are too dead.

« **Reply #22 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:03:57 PM »

I agree completely with Geoffrey...variety is key.

Using Merion, or even Cobb's Creek (shameless restoration promotion) for an example, the key is that the long holes are very long (and usually uphill), the short holes are very short (and often downhill), there is at least one very short par three, there is a paucity of par fives, and greensites are elevated and intensely demanding while positioning the ball to the proper place in the fairway is way more important than length.

It's called thoughtful, integrated design, and it seems that on most modern course, multiple tees (and cart paths) facilitate a different type of disjointed thinking.

The funny thing is that most of these back tees will be played a handful of times.

« **Reply #23 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:22:24 PM »

Well written Mike. You made it much clearer then I did but I think we are on the same page here.

« **Reply #24 on:** December 13, 2007, 01:25:19 PM »

Quote from: GJChilds on December 13, 2007, 01:22:24 PM

Well written Mike. You made it much clearer then I did but I think we are on the same page here.

Thank you, Geoffrey. I agree that Emmett was a master at this, as well. Have you been to Leatherstocking yet?

News:

Tom_Doak

John_Cullum

Bill_McBride

David_Elvins

Jay Cox

John_Cullum

Tony Ristola

John Kirk

Jon Wiggett

Norbert P

Jim Nugent

Michael Robin

Brian Walshe

Tommy Williamsen

Tom_Doak

Dan Kelly

Jason Topp

Dan Kelly

Jason Topp

Geoffrey Childs

Rick Shefchik

Dan Kelly

Mike_Cirba

Geoffrey Childs

Mike_Cirba