Less architecture for length

« **on:** February 02, 2006, 06:36:58 PM »

After taking a course tour of The International Golf Club, Pines course, I think extra length is stupid.

Okay, maybe not all the time, but this course is like 8300 something yards

Anyways, the main thing I noticed was how on every hole there is this huge carry of 300-something odd yards and then a somewhat simple shot (of 200-plus yards) to the green. On the par-3's there were two that were over water and 270 yards?!? It seemed to me that due to the length of the course, which I am sure why the golf course is so famous, lots of architecture was lost. Carrying a ball to a fairway striaght away every hole doesnt count as good architecture, at least to me. Is it true that extremely long golf courses give up lots of architecture, or are there ways of putting in good architecture while not making the course too hard due to the length??

« **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2006, 06:39:41 PM »

It's at altitiude which accounts for approx 10% more carry distance on long shots.

« **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2006, 06:45:27 PM »

Mike,

I wasn't aware that there was a lot of altitude in Massachusetts. I think with the greens there can be some nice features still, but you are correct those kind of carries are ludicrous.

« **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2006, 06:52:57 PM »

How can there be architecture when all you are supposed to do is carry it 320 to get to the beginning of the fairway?? There cant be, at least good architecture there cant be.

« **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:19:53 PM »

Yep sorry for some reason I thought it was in CO. I think some of these clubs use the length as publicity hoping that people will flock to the longest course as they do the tallest buildings, bridges etc.

I'm guessing they have plenty of forward tees to play from but it does seem rather a pointless exercise for anyone but the very longest of hitters to play from the back tees.

« **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:25:35 PM »

Black Tees- 8325 yards...80.0 rating, 154 slope
Blue Tees- 7138 yards...74.7, 136
Whites Tees- 6547 yards...71.7, 132
Green- 5742 yards
Reds- 5163 yards

Though this is ridiculous, my main point is that it would pretty much ruin any architectural value on the course, or any long courses at that. How do you have strategy when you have to hit driver (or driver-wedge...) to reach the fairway??

« **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:30:05 PM »

Jordan,

I think Mike hit the nail on the head. I think years ago when it was built they thought that this length was something they would be able to market.

« **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:32:26 PM »

The funny thing is that I no nobody (maybe...MAYBE Bubba) that could even use those tees anyway.

I mean, a couple par 4's are upwards of 570 yards, I think three of them.

The other thing I see is that it is dissapointing to see a course so popular for its length, especially when the length far outweighs the superiority (or lack of) architecture.

« **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:34:43 PM »

Jordan,

Do you think the long par 4s of today can have good architecture? Someone was talking about 14 at Victoria National and it is 470 or so and I thought it was a great hole, but too much is certainly too much.

« **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:36:19 PM »

Yes, there is absolutely nothing par 4 about a golf hole that measures 570

« **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:37:06 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on February 02, 2006, 08:25:35 PM

Black Tees- 8325 yards...80.0 rating, 154 slope
Blue Tees- 7138 yards...74.7, 136
Whites Tees- 6547 yards...71.7, 132
Green- 5742 yards
Reds- 5163 yards

Though this is ridiculous, my main point is that it would pretty much ruin any architectural value on the course, or any long courses at that. How do you have strategy when you have to hit driver (or driver-wedge...) to reach the fairway??

How is the course from the Blue or White tees? Both ratings and slopes seem reasonably difficult for the distance.

« **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:41:49 PM »

Yes, I totally think long par-4's today can have good architecture...great architecture too...but I also think there is a point where any architectural value is diminished by the length of a hole...714 yard uphill par-5's and 570 yard par-4's...architecture is hard to come by when you look at that kind of length

The 14th at Victoria National uses, from what I can see, great architecture on a long par-4. I dont wanna make dumb statements but there sure looks like a difference between the 14th at VNGC and the long, somewhat repitive par-4's at the Pines. This picture will capture how good architecture is used on a long par 4....

« **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:45:38 PM »

Kyle, the course looks tree lined with some water.

I know from blues they have two 215-220 yard par-3's over water (both of which are 270 from black

).

The whites seem reasonable I guess, but the slope is still high for whites as is the rating.

I know higher hcp players would struggle from either of those tees, and especially the blacks.

Has anyone ever played here so they can say what it is like??

« **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:50:36 PM »

Jordan,

My underlying point is that it seems like the more forward tees are reasonably difficult and I'd probably end up playing from them, even though I typically play the back tees wherever I play.

I enjoy breaking 80, and a course rating of 80 means I probably won't be doing that.

« **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2006, 07:46:04 AM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on February 02, 2006, 08:41:49 PM

Yes, I totally think long par-4's today can have good architecture...great architecture too...but I also think there is a point where any architectural value is diminished by the length of a hole...714 yard uphill par-5's and 570 yard par-4's...architecture is hard to come by when you look at that kind of length

The 14th at Victoria National uses, from what I can see, great architecture on a long par-4. I dont wanna make dumb statements but there sure looks like a difference between the 14th at VNGC and the long, somewhat repitive par-4's at the Pines. This picture will capture how good architecture is used on a long par 4....

Great Hole here! at VN great heroic carry over the bunker. the 2nd shot into 14 is the tough one!

I do not know anyone that
1. enjoys 8325 yards
2. can walk and play 8325 in 3.5 hours (5 maybe?)
3. Has that much land to build these long courses.
4 Thinks great GCA is only brute strenth.

Tiger and gang would play this thing from 8325.... ONLY if they had to!

I wonder , how many short par 4's on this course that are reachable? <300yrds?

« **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2006, 08:16:27 AM »

From what I have heard about that course those tees were put in as a marketing ploy and are not used that often. I guess they wanted to be the most difficult course in the world. I do not know how the course is from the middles and backs, but its obvious that 8300 is silly @ that point.

« **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2006, 08:01:22 PM »

I wasnt just taling about The Pines @ The International, that was just an example.

Hasnt it happened elsewhere??

Perhaps length that has ruined architecture on a course before length was added..?..

« **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2006, 09:44:15 PM »

Gentlemen-

I played the course three years ago in a Mass. amateur-type tournament (Ouimet Invitational). The tees for us (200 of the best ams in the state) were set at close to 7000, and the course was very long (although par 72). It was a novelty to find the Tiger tee on each hole, and laugh at how far back it was.

The unfortunate thing in my mind is that the course is scaled for the "bigness" aspect of the place. The course seemed to be designed for 7000 yards, as most of the strategies and hazards seemed to play for that distance. Many of the Tiger tees seemed an afterthought. The greens, however, seemed to be built to accept shots from woods. They are all very, very large (one is something like 65 yards front to back, with about 6 sections), and when you aren't playing to them from 240 every time, it feels very strange to be shooting at them with a short iron. The course was designed for 7000 yards, but the scaling was built for 8300.

There were a couple of those par threes that played from a hillside tee across a pond to a shelf green on the opposite hillside. The tiger tees would be at 270 down the hill behind the 210 tees. If one was ever to play from back there, they would be looking at the cresting hillside directly in front of the tee as opposed to the aesthetically pleasing par 3.

They did once try to market length originally, as they took over a short course called Runaway Brook to built this thing. However, now that they have the Oaks course, the 3-yr old Fazio design, the Pines is going to lose play. If I was playing 10 rounds at the International, the Oaks would have me 9-1.

Questions? Comments?

« **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2006, 09:49:41 PM »

Brad,

That is probably an unsual feeling to stand there with a 9iron in your hands and look at a green that big. Did it ever get to you and cause you to make a swing that you weren't committed to?

« **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2006, 06:15:04 PM »

Glenn,

I actually had a bad day at the course, so there really wasn't a shot that I WAS committed to that day, so it could have had an effect. Also, I'm very used to playing to the small greens of my home course and other classic-era courses in MA, and when I missed a shot at the International Pines, I would still be on the green, often 100 ft away and on a different level. For my game, I'd rather recover with a wedge than a 100-ft putt.

It's just a big, brawny course built during a dead time of good architecture, and even from the appropriate tees I would call it average as a private course in New England and perhaps below average as a private course in MA. As I have said, their new course is head and shoulders above it.

« **Reply #20 on:** February 04, 2006, 06:26:19 PM »

Brad,

I played the Oaks and while I liked it, I thought it was one of the run of the mill Fazio courses he gets so much shit for.
The back tees on the Pines are there for novelty only. No one would normally play from back there. I would do it to see what it was like but only once.

News:

Jordan Wall

MikeJones

Glenn Spencer

Jordan Wall

MikeJones

Jordan Wall

Glenn Spencer

Jordan Wall

Glenn Spencer

Glenn Spencer

Kyle Harris

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Kyle Harris

Jerry Lemons

Dave Bourgeois

Jordan Wall

Brad Tufts

Glenn Spencer

Brad Tufts

Sean Leary

An Error Has Occurred!