Can a superb 6,500 yd & under public course (from the tips) be designed today?

[Matt_Ward]

The quickest and best example I can give is what the late Mike Strantz did with Tobacco Rd in North Carolina -- granted the course comes in at 6,554 yards so I'm 54 yards too long. However, as anyone who has played it will attest -- the slope of 150 is nothing to laugh at.

It seems very few of the more noted public courses are opting for anything less than MORE yardage.

I wonder if the architects on this site really push for something different when presenting their ideas or are clients so locked into the belief that "real" courses must be 7,300 yards or more from the tips.

Clearly, courses of 6,500 yards would have to be quite inventive to keep the challenge for nearly all types of players attractive. However, I do see the possibility in having less par-5 holes and substituting them with a few more long par-4 and long par-3's. What's interesting is that Strantz added four par-5 holes at TR and five par-3 holes into his final plan!

I have to wonder if other recent public designs - say from the last 15-20 years -- feature superb challenges but are still within the ballpark of 6,500 yards from the tips. Be interested to learn of any worthy of playing in the USA.

Candidly, why is so difficult to simply design / market / own a course that goes against the grain?

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — I have seen you hit the ball. It is scary long!

Olivas Links (Ventura, Calif.) will do about 85,000 rounds its first year. The course was designed at 6,800, but rarely plays longer than 6,500. The course rating is 73.7, and its Slope Rating is 135 from the 6,500 marks. I consider that ample, if not nearly too difficult for a majority of players.

Olivas is not difficult in my opinion — I rarely agree with rating bodies. They skew far too much to length. Tobacco Road is different. I suspect the NC Golf Assoc. is a far more adept and aware group than many I am used to.

[John Kavanaugh]

If Tobacco Road has a slope of 150 the members would have the worst traveling handicaps in the world.  The biggest complaint, outside of the poor architecture, by the locals is that the course is too easy.

[John Moore II]

Yes, I suppose a 6500 yard course could be designed today and be very good, if not great. All depends on the land that you have to work with. Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, The Ocean Course would all be excellent courses if the were 5500 yards or 7500 yards. Tobacco Road is not the best example to me. Yeah, the slope is 150, but really, its not a hard course if you close your eyes, meaning just block out the funny stuff around you. I mean, 66 won the Pro-Am there this year, so its not that hard. But with the right land and the right designer, a 6500 yard course could be very very good.

[John Moore II]

Kavanaugh- Tobacco Road actually does have a slope of 150, but only because of the things you can see, not really the golf course. FYI-they don't have any members there, outside play only.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

I think what would help a 6,500 yard course is if the slavish need to create a par-72 layout with 10 par-4's and an equal number of par-5 and par-3 holes needs to be re-examined.

The key is getting people to think outside the box -- Strantz did that with Tobacco Road -- although many people are not fond of what he did there.

Plenty of UK courses do this and it works well.

[Mike Boehm]

Matt -

I think Caledonia, tipping out at 6526 yards and a par of 70 (72.1/140), would qualify as a superb golf course that would challenge virtually all players.  The course has 3 par 5's, two of which are not reachable in 2 by most (2 and 10).  The shortest par 5, #8 at 525 yard, offers a nice risk-reward element with a pond fronting the green.  There are not any really short par 4's on the course which is a bit of a surprise given the course yardage (holes range from 376 to 462).  But, 4 mid-length par 3's and one short par 3 (#9 at 118) keep the overall yardage down.

I would say the course was not as exciting to play as Tobacco Road, but I do think it is the best on the grand strand and certainly a good challenge.

Mike

[Andy Troeger]

I personally would like to see someone design a course with a multitude of short par fours, some drivable, some just outside that range. If the land was such that one could create lots of options and varied things up you could drive even better players nuts with tempting them to go for greens and other such things. Have 2-3 par fives and 4-5 par threes as a par 70 and it wouldn't require that much effort to keep it under 6,500 and you could still have a couple 460 par fours.

[John Moore II]

Andy-
Pinehurst #3 would suit you prefectly. That is pretty much how that course is laid out. Very short, but the greens are somewhat extreme, they are just like #2, only half as large. #3 is kind of a 'Mini Me' and a very good one at that.
-to the original question- a course like #3 would be great today, its still difficult but short and playable.

[Andy Troeger]

John,
Thanks, I looked up #3 and at 5,700 its a little shorter than what I'm thinking of but sounds like it would certainly be along the same lines and worth playing.

[Joe Hancock]

Strictly as a business model question......why? Does anyone really think this is a good idea if they were banking their money on this type of project?

Of course, I think it would be cool. But I don't think it's what the locals want, and I don't think the traveling bedpost notchers will go for it either.....

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I guess you missed the thread I started a month or so ago after the DIGEST Best New rankings came out.  I asked if any of the panelists had played any new courses under 7000 yards this year, and there were only a handful of affirmative replies (all in the affordable public sector).

There is no reason on earth why one couldn't build a fine 6500 yard course, public or private.  But there are not many clients that are going to accept that, much less ask for it.  They will be worried the course will be perceived as "too easy", whether it's easy or not, because they'll make their judgment the same way many people do:  looking at the scorecard before ever having played the course.

If the client isn't worried about a course being 6500 from the tips, I'd certainly be happy to build one that way ... public, private, resort, whatever.

[paul cowley]

While we are at it....how about building courses that are 6500 yds, but par 68 or 69's?

*note....this question doesn't require an answer because I already know what it will be.

[Forrest Richardson]

Or, 16 holes at 5,900 yards.


 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting (and I think telling) that whenever we talk about new models/approaches to golf course design, it's almost always in the context of length. We decry the modern day obsession with length/lengthening courses that we see out there, and yet we seem to think as uni-dimensionally as everyone else. Or, in the words of Michael Corleone, apparently "we're all part of the same hypocrisy". Why don't we ask more often whether modern day courses can be built with 75 yard wide fairways, or if the technology and skill is there to build 18 template holes on a landfill site?

And if all that is nonsense, that's okay - I think Joe Hancock already asked the key and relevant question, i.e. "why'?

Peter    

[Greg Murphy]

Rod Whitman's original East/West nines at Wolf Creek Golf Resort in Alberta, built in the early 80's, is superb and public, but alas it weighs in 16 yards over the limit. It is perennially ranked in the top dozen or so courses built in Canada during the last quarter century.

[paul cowley]

hi    its  cierra  cowley  again   i  think  golf  courses   should  be  long   because  if  you   had  a   short  golf  course  you  would  be  standing  in   it.

[Mark_Fine]

I always find these "course length" based threads interesting.  I would venture to say that 99% of all golfers would be much better off playing courses less than 6500 yards in length.  They can't handle much more (though they think they can).  The game would be much better off if everyone figured this out.  I think there is too much design and expense that goes into courses just for that 1% of the players out there.  

On a side note, I love to watch the big hitters come to Lehigh and complain the course is too short but can't figure out why they didn't shoot their handicap.  

[John Moore II]

I do agree with the "why" answer in most cases, but it depends on the client base you have. I know of a Par 66 golf course going up in Raleigh, NC right now as part of a residential development. I want to say its in the 6000yd range, it almost has to be at that par. But they are wanting to cater to young and old families. That place is on my list as soon as it opens

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Par 70, some short par 4's with some angles requiring shorter shots off of the tee and some short par threes and I don't think 'most players would know the difference.  

Wouldn't the key to a short course be to add corners and angles in combination with bunkering that created uncertainty in a player.  IE: hiding larger landing area, creating foreshortening(and other illusions) with the use of a high bunker edge, creating hidden landing areas on putting surfaces, which would all tend to remove the need for length to make for interesting shots.  

I simply believe that length has become too important in todays game.  I'll never be a tour player or probably never make a national championship, why would I need to bash my head against the 7000 yard wall?

[Andy Troeger]

Its not new and its not public, but South Bend Country Club in Indiana is a great example of how a shorter course can have great design variety at a shorter distance (6494 yards). Its got 5 shortish par fours, 4 long par fours, reachable par fives that have great risk/reward, and most impressive are the four par threes, one short, one medium, and two longer ones that play very differently.

Course absolutely eats me alive 95% of the time, but every once in awhile I play correctly and tame it, at least for 9 holes!

[Sean_A]

While we are at it....how about building courses that are 6500 yds, but par 68 or 69's?

*note....this question doesn't require an answer because I already know what it will be.

Paul

It sounds strange, but I do reckon sub par 70 courses at 6500 yards (or even a bit less) would be a great direction for architecture to head.  People may poo poo the idea until they play a course like this - they can seem very long and difficult.  I always liked the idea because featured par 3s can be more utilized (say 5 of them) and par 5s can be reduced (which tend to be the weak links of many courses anyhow) to 1 or 2.  When you chuck in a couple of monster par 4s then it seems reasonable to most to have a few driveable par 4s.  I for one have been waiting for a course like this to be built for a very, very long time.    

Ciao

[Doug Ralston]

It is worth mentioning about Tobacco Road that the 150 slope is accompanied by a 73 CR. This indicates target golf. An 18 handicap will lose a lot of balls, and get plenty of triples, but a 2 handicap will likely hit the targets and get decent scores. This is a penal course more than a universally terrible golf challenge.

All that said, it is great fun. Courses like it, and Eagle Ridge, are appealing to certain tastes, but not to everyone. Some just feel uncomfortable with courses 'outside the box'.

BTW, the high handicapper getting a larger handicap because of TR might actually NOT think his handicap is 'worse'. Contrarily, they may find it quite useful in their next money match  .

Doug

[Joe Hancock]

The easy answer is YES. If you can think it, it can be built.

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

Peter P:

You ask "why" do such a thing.

Here's a few answers ...

Plenty of people on this site bitch and moan incessantly about courses being sooooooooo long and being primarily one-dimensional in terms of their overall presentation.

Now, when someone suggests going against the grain you get the litany of the same people bitching and moaning that it can't be done. Given that attitude on this or anything else that falls outside the traditional box nothing can happen that really is different.

Let's consider a few practical items. Why must ALL that land be eaten up so that the marketing gurus can proudly proclaim that "X" course is 7,400 yards+?

Why must people automatically have a slavish tendency for a par-72 course. Where did that number become the be-all / end-all for courses? What's so wrong with a par-69 course. One of the very best courses in the country -- Wannamoisett in Rumford, RI, is a par-69 by Donald Ross and it works extremely well.

Until the urge to expand its length for national championship consideration -- the history of such places like Merion worked very well and the layout there barely hit 6,500 yards.

Pete Dye first introduced Harbour Town and the starting yardage for that layout when it opened was roughly around 6,600 yards.

Plenty of courses Tom Doak highlighted in "Confidential Guide" which are located in the UK and Ireland are layouts less than 6,500 yards and often times are not traditional par-72 courses (e.g. 10 par-4 holes with four par-5 and four par-3 holes).

That doesn't mean to say that such courses can't be challenging.

Gents:

I can't say for certain because I'm not on the inside of such meetings -- but I have to wonder how hard architects really push clients when it comes time to build golf courses? Or do architects simply nod when told by the prospective client and build what the ignorant guy / company want and leave it at that because $$ is on the line and they don't want to lose a job so they'll just about do anything the client wishes -- e.g. silly island greens, waterfalls, and assorted other BS items.

It would be very interesting to start another thread with the premise that architects can shape the future of the game
by explaining in more detail and possibly with a bit more resolve -- that today's golf game model needs to go in a slightly different direction -- one that will save land costs and the other which will attract more players without dumbing down the essence of the challenge for the extreme low handicap types. I have no desire to play the 60's version of "executive golf" which was nothing more than expanded par-3 holes that was really a dud.

I've played more than my share of "short" courses in the UK where you might have only one or two par-5 holes but the interplay of the rest of the holes is far more challenging than one can imagine. Throwing a few long par-3's into the mix keeps the low-handicap types in check and if you can insert a few really vexing short par-4's you can get challenges across the board. That would still leave enough room for a few long par-4 holes.

By the way -- why hasn't an architect designed a short par-3 -- max of 100 yards -- with two distinct greens -- no more than 2,500 square feet and make the players really sweat should they miss the target. Alternating the greens would keep the turf condition up to snuff. Unfortunately the American model is akin to the "super size" mentality you get when you enter the doors of any fast food restaurant -- just make everything L-A-R-G-E-R -- BUT not better.

Doak's creation of Pac Dunes played well against a "standard" type layout like Bandon Dunes. In fact, one can easily argue the point that until Pac Dunes arrived on the scene -- the entire BRANDING experience of Bandon Dunes was rather conventional in what it did provide. Pac Dunes (all 6,600 yards from the tips) changed that dynamic.

The real question is not "why" do such things -- but "why are we still waiting" for someone with a bit of nerve to break against type and do it.

Mark Fine is 10000% correct -- 6,500 yards is more than enough game for most and with the person designing such a layout can still prove to be a worthy challenge for nearly all handicap types.