Jim Thompson:

Nicklaus says to eliminate the 6700 yard tees and just go from 7200 to 6200 ... but I haven't actually seen him do it, and he didn't at Sebonack.

I do think that five tees is too many for a host of reasons.  But the problem is cultural.  Americans insist on getting what they want when they pay for it, and they want stupid stuff.  After ten days in Scotland it is all pretty clear in my head again.

Jim Thompson:

Nicklaus says to eliminate the 6700 yard tees and just go from 7200 to 6200 ... but I haven't actually seen him do it, and he didn't at Sebonack.

I do think that five tees is too many for a host of reasons.  But the problem is cultural.  Americans insist on getting what they want when they pay for it, and they want stupid stuff.  After ten days in Scotland it is all pretty clear in my head again.

Tom,

Jack's two newest courses in this area (mid-Atlantic, one private and one public, both opened in the past twelve months, have the following tees:

Private:
7303
6601
6254
5259

Public
7545
6835
6418
5615
5168

As both are close to the ocean, as well as at sea level, I imagine each is a "bear" from the back.

Tom:

Don't get in a snit partner. Shorter players are wont to do that when called on the carpet by those who hit the ball longer.

The costs of the game are many fold and I don't doubt increased real estate needs are a part of that but the idea that shorter courses are the way to go for all players is a bit much. It depends upon the particular design and I do agree with Tom Paul (did I actually say that !!!) in terms of the meaning of elasticity and how the really great courses usually bring this element to bear.

Keep in mind Tom many shorter courses do force the better / longer player to make more adjustments and often take the driver out of your hand for a whole host of reasons -- there's both a good and less than good reasons I can see for this -- especially the forced lay-up elements that are being brought to the forefront. I've played a fair representation of "short" courses in the UK and they are clearly fun to play for the bulk of players and are far more likely to be more intricate in terms of their design stature than what you see for the typical American layout.

Matt:  I wasn't getting in a snit, old chap.  I freely admit that I'm one of the other 99% when it comes to length off the tee, and it doesn't bother me a bit.  But I was asking you a serious question.  I'll ask it again:

Is it a good use of funds to build back tees on most courses, for the 1% of golfers whom you agreed with Voytek are really capable of hitting the ball far enough to need them?  Or would we be better off ignoring that element and keeping the green fees down for everyone else?

I agree with you that generally, British courses have far more interest at the shorter length than American courses.  But I think it's a function of the design assumptions.  Too many American designers start with the 7000 yards and then think they can't make it intricate because it's already so long.  They've got it backwards if you ask me.

Tom D:

We do agree -- for the most part.

American developers are wont to believe that a "7,000-yard Championship Course" is the only way to go -- anything less than that silly benchmark figure is often derided as "wussie golf." Clearly the PR and mktg people lead that charge for the selling of lots / general public exposure.

Part of the problem is also the perception of many golfers here in the States.

Let's also not forget that architects who are in need of work do little to convince developers otherwise and then you get a generic layout that has all the interest of your typical fast food meal.

Tom, to answer you question -- I don't know what "far enough" is when people talk about distance. It is relative. If you are asking me can most male golfers carry a driver consistently 200 yards in the air and I would say likely no. But here's the thing -- many of these same golfers INSIST upon playing the back tees. This is inane. These idiots have a major outbreak of "blue-tee-itis" and don't want to admit otherwise when it concerns their lack of distance.

In regards to your specific question -- I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction become the ultimate solutoin. I don't see the need for adding extra costs (re: real estate additions) but if it's possible to build extensions to existing tees within the actual footprint of the existing layout I see no reason why it cannot be done from an "elasticity" argument that Paul made previously.

What can often happen is that your solution, if carried out to the max, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath oil. I do see a need for creative design on the American golf front because what you see with any number of UK & Ireland layouts is a respect for the fun element of golf. Part of that is also assisted by the close connection that Mother Nature has when you play there (wind, topography, etc, etc).

Candidly, I don't see the fee issue dropping any substanial amount if for some strange reason all the courses in America adopted what you advocate. The fee structure is based on a number of variables and whether a courser is 6,600 yards or just over 7,000 yards is not going to be that big of a deal. Might one save $5 or $10 on green fees -- yes -- it's possible. It's also possible the developer would simply pocket the difference anyway with no net gain to the player.

I do believe -- that the push should be for more creative designs that advocate the fullest spectrum of shotmaking -- with power a part of that but not the main item to the point of craziness. On that score it will take a far reaching educational emphasis for those building and designing golf courses today.

However, I don't want to see power diminshed from its rightful placement of emphasis simply because the weak hitters don't have that capacity in their own games.

Amen!!

I had been playing the Ritz from a combo set of tees at 6850 yards, and my group decided to move back to 7250. I said, fine but I am moving forward to the 6600 set.

I can only tell you how much more enjoyable the game is as now I am playing from the correct set of tees.

I no longer have to squeeze the last ounce of of my drives on certain holes to get over the water on the tee ball and I can play within myself.

The other guys are now hitting it all over the place.

When I was in NE the last couple of weeks, with the wet conditions, I played most of the courses between 6350 and 6500 and it was a pleasure.

Just a question, I find the courses I have played in the States tend to play shorter than the total yardage would suggest but over here they play longer than the yardage.

One example is County Sligo (Rosses Point) is about 6700 yards but seems to have a lot of long shots. I played a bit this year at the Fox Club in Stuart, Fl, which is about 7100 yards but seemed to have the same length of shots.

Just a question, I find the courses I have played in the States tend to play shorter than the total yardage would suggest but over here they play longer than the yardage.

One example is County Sligo (Rosses Point) is about 6700 yards but seems to have a lot of long shots. I played a bit this year at the Fox Club in Stuart, Fl, which is about 7100 yards but seemed to have the same length of shots.

Padraig - I have found exactly the opposite! Most American courses are so soft that the ball hardly rolls after a teeshot. The courses I have played in the UK and Ireland have almost always been firm and fast allowing teeshots to run down the fairway. As a result, a 450 yard par-four in the US usually plays much longer for me than a hole of the same length over there.

I second Mike's comment. On my England trip I ended up playing most of my rounds teeing off with a 3-wood since there was penal rough awaiting seriously offline shots and I was not always sure of the correct aiming line on unfamiliar courses with semi-blind tee shots.

I found that for a given length Par 4 those 3-wood tee shots almost always left me with a shorter approach yardage than I would have had back home playing the same nominal length Par 4. Then factor in the 5-iron that could land a few yards short of the putting surface and scuttle all the way to the back of the green whereas on a typical USA course I'd need a 4-hybrid that could carry almost all the way to the hole.

I found this to be somewhat true at Walton Heath, definitely true at Littlestone and Deal and not quite as noticable at the more parkland-ish Huntercombe. And that's not even talking about the downland Walmer and Kingsdown in a 25-30mph breeze where long approach shots could be as much as 50% roll (most fun I've had in a long time I must say).

Another question, there are times when I can't reach par 4's in two over here, one example being the 11th at Rosses Point which is only 400 yards but into the prevailing wind (it was blowing that day). But I have never come across this in the States.

Is shorter better? You tell me...

Prairie Dunes, according to their virtual course tour, is 6600 from the blue tees, Cypress Point is 6600 or so, Newport CC is 6700 or so.......Pacific Dunes is 6633 according to the scorecard......Lawsonia 6722, Pasatiempo 6432....

I would say these courses would make the answer a yes, wouldnt you?

Shorter is better only if one wants more people to enjoy playing golf.

Since the aim of many is to preserve the exclusive nature of the pursuit, one doubts that short courses will catch on amongst the cognescenti.

Tim - Great move with your daughter. What percentage of golfers wind up competing in stroke play events in this country? Very small. Yet many would like to you to think that golf was invented for them and that we all should be embarrassed if we can't play at their level. Note the comment Gary made on this thread about "swallowing his pride" and moving up a tee. Why do we feel it is shameful or weak to play from a length that is more suited to our average games? It is the American curse... bigger, stronger, faster, longer is always better. We chase most young people (and adults for that matter) away from golf by only encouraging and recognizing the gifted and talented strikers of the ball. Why does EVERY course have to be a "championship" test? Screw the championship test... give me something fun to play that holds my interest every time I play it.