Can a golf course under 6,400 offer an intersesting, yet challenging test

[Tom Jefferson]

Patrick;

Yes.............all three Bandon Dunes courses play at or under 6300 yards from the green tees...........there is plenty of golf there for any level of player.

Tom

[Doug Siebert]

Tim Gavrich,

Isn't "driver/5 iron into every par 4" pretty much how most good golfers played the game on an average course 50 years ago?  With longer approaches on some of the long courses of the day?  We've really got things out of whack these days if a course that's mostly middle irons into the par 4s is a "drag".  How did the guys playing spoons and brassies into long par 4s back in the dark ages stand it?  Nowadays we call a hole that's a 3W second a "medium long par 5"!

[Matt_Cohn]

That Golf Digest study found that the average golfer hits their drives 219 yards, right? And the average PGA Tour pro hits it 290. So a little math means that a 6,700 yards course for the average golfer is equivalent to 8,872 yards for a pro.

Conversely, I think an average tour course is around 7,200 yards now. Using the same math, that equates to the average player teeing it up from 5,437 yards.

I think 6,000-6,200 is absolutely enough for the vast majority of golfers. I think 6,700 is too much for the average player. And, I think 8,872 yards is too much for everybody.

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

I think any course or any length can be interesting, North Berwick is a good example of a short but interesting course. But as a competition course over 4 days I feel it would be ripped apart and would not be much of a challenge.

So, my answer is no, I do not think a 6400 yard course challenges the really low golfer enough.  Interesting yes, challenge, no.

[Ed Tilley]

St. Enodoc is 6,200 yards from the tips. It has hosted many local and national amateur competitions. Indeed one of the recent English Amateur champions was a lifelong St Enodoc member. Despite this, the course record is 65, 6 under par. I think this indicates that there is plenty of challenge for the best amateur players. For the lower handicap players it is great fun.

[jeffwarne]

This may be a new thread, but can't a course be ripped apart for 4 days by pros in a tournament and still provide a challenge?
Don't touring pros still enjoy the challenge of the shots required at St. Andrews?
Not just the history, but the challenge of the unique shots.

A 59 was shot at Palmetto this summer in a tournament,yet every good player I talk to likes that golf course a lot.

Could the definition of challenge be broadened not to mean tough, but rather provide a challenge to make a player think about his shot and then execute an interesting shot.

Example: #6 at Palmetto is a 480 yard par five with a downhill,tight chute tee shot, calling for an uphill second shot to a severely tilted,elevated green.
As a par 4 it's tough. As a par five it's not as tough.
But the challenge of the two/three shots remains the same.
I played 12 par 5's this weekend that were tougher than this hole but none provided any challenge.

A 290 yard driveable par 4 with a green angled properly could provide a challenge to drive and a great shot to pitch to it, but might still prove to have a lower scoring average than a 485 yard par 4. Of course you could change the par to 3 and then it would be "challenging".

[Mark_Rowlinson]

How long was Painswick, and how many of the low-handicap players disliked its challenge?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - it's all in the greens.  Make them interesting enough and the challenge will always be there even at very short distances.  A perfect example is Pasatiempo... which every year hosts the nation's best college players (more or less) and every year fails to yield silly low scores unless they are given easy pin positions.  Oh I know it doesn't meet your standard as it's now 6511 yards, but still, it is a good example.  I know me - Joe Q. Public 4 handicapper who generally plays the white tees there and around 6150 yards - never ever tears it up, and always considers it a very, very interesting challenge.

I'd guess there are several other courses like this...

[JohnV]

Both Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes are well under 6300 from the Green tees and both are interesting and challenging from those tees, especially with a little breeze blowing like it is supposed to be today (Gusts  to 60).

[Phil McDade]

Lawsonia plays at 6,466 from the whites (and 6,764 from the blues, or tips). I'd argue that Lawsonia's challenge, from any set of tees, comes primarily from its severely sloping greens (if brought up to speed properly) and its tough green surrounds. Where I can see additional challenge playing from the blues instead of the whites is on the course's par 3s, where the additional 15-30 yards can make a pretty good set of par 3s even more demanding. But even so, the Redan-esque 4th (175 yards uphill and often into the wind), the short, boxcar 7th (146 yards, with death all around if you don't hit the tabletop green), and the demanding 10th (217 yards uphill, with a deceptive look from the tee), all offer plenty of challenge from the whites. Lawsonia's primary challenge is that -- because the internal green contours can create some roller-coaster putts if you wrong-side your approach, and the penalties around the greens are quite severe -- approach shots even with short irons require great care and thought.

[Scott Szabo]

Yes, simply put.

I am a member of a club that plays only slightly longer than 6,400 from the tips.  We host a major state amateur tournament every Labor Day with handicaps as low as plus-3.  The typical winning score for the three days is around 3-4 under par, not what you'd expect from such a "short" course.  

The players always grumble about how the scores are not lower due to the length of the course.  Player after player leaves the 18th green shaking their heads as they post a score over par.  But they continue to come back, year after year, which is a compliment to the course and maintenance staff.

It is also the type of course that can be enjoyed by the higher handicaps as well.

[JESII]

Pat,

I think the answer is yes.

Tell me, why would you want us to assume a par of 72? Clearly that makes it feel shorter than say a 6400 yard par 70, but why the mandate?

I think it's very possible, but frequently you bemoan the "defend it at the greens" approach I firmly believe in. I think that is where this thread has to go. A 6400 yard par 72 with mundane greens better be on the cliffs overlooking the Pacific or something...oh wait, the peripheral views and elements don't count either, right Huck?

Seriously though, I think to do so, a 6400 yard par 72 must have very interesting greens. As a scratch, I am going to have a wedge into most greens and irons into most par fives. If the greens demand me to properly place that wedge, or play that long iron very well if I want to make a birdie than we have interest, and alot of it.

Strategy off the tee matters, but to me not nearly as much as simply angling the green a bit from my approach position, visually obscuring the surface a touch, and creating enough contour within it such that 15 footers really draw your focus and make you work.

[Scott Szabo]

JES,

I agree with your comment on the greens - the only defense for a shorter type course.  IMO, a course doesn't have to be 7,000 yards long (or longer nowadays) to present an interesting challenge to golfers of all skill levels.  I think shorter courses, designed properly, present more fun than the traditional, longer courses.

[JESII]

I hate the notion of an architect building a real long hole (or course) because of technology concerns only to leave the greens fairly uninteresting because, in theory, the course is long and players are coming into the greens with pretty long clubs. It seems like a bad cycle.

The other thing is, I am really unable (I have tried and failed) to separate design and architecture from maintenance and playability. Perhaps I am shortchanging an architects work by not isolating it, but if the 6400 yarder is soft and slow, therefore reducing the demand on accuracy and control the course loses my interest quickly.

[Pat Ruddy]

A very good question.
My thinking is that the answer is YES!
First of all, most golfers play a modest game with Mr. Average Golfer (if you know him) being about 18-handicap.... so he can be entertained fully at 6,400-yards.
Then, a lot depends on how you carve the yardage cake (quite apart from design niceties which bring the variables towards the infinite)  ----
by this I mean that you can get a huge variety of par/yardage permutations depending on how freely you are willing to think.
Example 1:  Take 6,400-yards and allow 600-yards for four par-3s.
That leaves 5,800-yards.  
Use 2,000-yards of that for four par-5s.
That leaves 3,800-yards for TEN par-4s ....averaging 380-yards each.

Example 2: play the maths differently with 600-yards for four par-3s.
That leaves 5,800-yards.
Now, don't bother with par-5s and you have material for fourteen par-4s averaging 414-yards ....which would be really tough for most amateurs even without design detail challenges.

The science and art of design allows for endless fun.  

[M. Shea Sweeney]

A 290 yard driveable par 4 with a green angled properly could provide a challenge to drive and a great shot to pitch to it, but might still prove to have a lower scoring average than a 485 yard par 4. Of course you could change the par to 3 and then it would be "challenging".

Jeff-

Funny you mention a driveable par 4 with a green angled properly.


Down here at our course (the 6,200) our 2nd hole is around 290, with a high slope going right to left up near the green.

The green is a 'goat hill' (small, severly sloped) type green, right  with a bunker on the left and a bunker about 40 yards out on the right.

There is OB on the left side of the fairway and hazard on the right.

The course normally plays fast and firm, and the play is a low driver up around 255 well get you to  the right side of the green or even on the green.

The hole plays a bit up hill p so when players lay up wiht an iron, they get in tons of trouble because the approach shot becomes confusing. With a tricky yardage, sharply sloped green, and some trouble around the green, the player doesnt even relaize what kind of shot he has. Get the yardage wrong, end up in the bunker, and alas players loses their mind on the green.

Everyone is so amazed that during the PGA Playing Ability test that is held twice a semester that this hole has one of the hight scoring averages on the course.

There is talk to bring this tee back to make the hole longer, or to even move it up to make a par 3. Trying my best to not let this happen.

[Matthew Hunt]

The second course at RCD is only 5400 yards long but you will not shoot your handicap if you try and "rip it up" using Wedge second shots. You have to play the ground game

[Gary Slatter]

I think 99.9% of male golfers should play courses around 6400 yards.  They can use whatever type of modern equipment they choose, maybe even learn to golf their balls.

why do people build courses for the other 0.1%?  why does my car go +120 mph?

[Sean Leary]

I believe that Eastward Ho is less than 6400 from the back tees.  It probably requires some wind to test better players. but that is a constant there.......

[tlavin]

Sure, but one would want to see a demanding set of greens and a fair amount of doglegs and strategic bunkering.  Otherwise you might not have enough of a challenge for talented players.  Having said that, I'm not sure that any course under 6400 would provide any reasonable challenge to a touring professional unless the greens were really tricked up to the point of unfairness.  Personally, I spent last week on the Monterey Peninsula and I can state unequivocally that the greens on the Fort Ord Black Horse Course (Bayonet's back nine is still under re-construction) are the most difficult, diabolical and unfair greens I've ever played.  Tough and demanding should not rise to the level of unfair, no matter how short the hole or how short the course.

[Brian Phillips]

for almost every level of amateur golfer ?

We often limit our discussions on golf course architecture to the context of the PGA Tour Pro.

Excluding the best golfers in the world, can a golf course with modest yardage present a more than adequate challenge to the amateur golfer ?

From the zero handicap to the 24 handicap ?

Can the architecture be interesting enough to be appealing while at the same time challenging ?

Or, has hi-tech and increased distance raised the bar such that 6,700 or some other yardage would be the minimum needed to present both interest and challenge ?

Patrick's question stated all golfers from scratch to 24.  Not just the average golfer.

I agree with most of you that a normal golfer of about 10 - 24 handicap will get a challenge at this yardage but does a scratch golfer really get tested at this length anymore?

[Tom Huckaby]

Brian - I think the scratch can indeed get tested at this length - and it all comes down to the greens.  Make them severe enough and he's never going to tear up a course score-wise.

The trick is to make it challenging enough so that this happens, but not crazy enough so that all are frustrated.

And some courses do succeed... Pasatiempo being one.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Terry Lavin,

This thread wasn't about the PGA Tour Pros, it's about membership play.

The number of courses hosting PGA Tour events is miniscule when compared to the number of the courses in the U.S.

However, club after club in the U.S. is lengthening their golf course.

Tom Huckaby,

A golf course with little or no interest from the tee to 10 yards short of the green will not be viewed as interesting, let alone challenging for everyday play.

A golf course has to have more than just "interest at the green end" in order to attract golfers for repeat play.

Can you think of a golf course void of any interest until you reach the green ?

[JESII]

Brian,

I think the perception that the scratch player should be encouraged to hit driver as often as possible is dangerous. Once the architect gets over concerns about that specific criticism they have the chance to build a really cool "short" golf course. Trouble is, that "criticism" is probably more likely in the form of a mandate from the client about what to build. I would imagine (and feel free to confirm) that not many of your clients ask you to build a "short" course that will provide a challenge for the scratch.

I also agree with the prior post about allowing birdies so long as the holes and shots are interesting.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Of course not.  But then again I never posited that a course should.  All I was responding to is whether a course that short could challenge a scratch player - and Pasatiempo gives an example of exactly how it can - via severe greens.

Interest can come in many forms... and of course we'd want more interest than just at the greens...  that's the easy part here.  The tough part (of your question) is how to make it challenging for the scratch.

TH