News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2007, 10:28:45 AM »
Andrew:

Your question is an excellent one.  The answer is yes, it's easier to design a 6600 yard course than a 7000 yard course on the same property.  Just as more property would give you more options to place 18 holes, having the option of designing a shorter course would give you more options in how to do it.  Note that a 7000-yard course COULD BE the best option for a property; but so could a 6600-yarder.

Peter:

Your point is precisely what I'm worried about, and why I posted this thread.  I have fought the good fight for years that 7000 yards is not the answer to quality, and I've built a bunch of good examples, including two which disproved the often-stated theory that you can't build a modern course under 7000 yards that will be ranked among the world's greatest.

Yet, it seems that I meet with MORE resistance today when proposing a short course than I did five years ago, both because of "technology" and because other designers have all caved to the demand for length.  When EVERYBODY is designing 7000 yard courses, that's when I am 100% sure it's not the way to go -- but I've got to convince my clients of that, too.

The real problem is John Kavanaugh's last argument -- the argument that every course should be all things to all people, all the time.  That's what clients ask for, because it relieves them of the pressure of deciding who they want their course to be targeted at.  Otherwise, they have to choose between appealing to the good golfers (and possibly being unprofitable) or targeting the mass audience (and possibly being disrespected by the "good" players).

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2007, 10:31:25 AM »
Why do we always keep talking about the pros?  I still stand by what I said in that other thread - 99% of all golfers have all they can handle on good courses that are 6500 yards or less.  

The pro's set the standard by which we gauge ourselves. Right or wrong, that is human nature. When Tiger first hit the scene in the late 90's, there was many, many more kids at the course. Why? They saw someone they wanted to emulate. No one is going to the course to watch the Tuesday night "Willie's Bar" league and then go to the tee and hope to shoot 54 like most of the guys out there.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2007, 11:32:56 AM »
I wonder what percentage of golfers are single digit handicaps.  I am single digit and much rather play a course at 6800 than 7200.  

I guess I do not mind that much as long as the course has proper tees to play 6800 yards also.

I still think it is funny that the owners build courses that long for the .001% (just made of the percentage) of players who can actually play at that length.  Do they really think they will host a major?
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2007, 12:12:33 PM »
Joe,
You said, "The pro's set the standard by which we gauge ourselves."  

You just identified a big part of the problem  ;)  Should we follow their maintenance standards as well  :(
Mark

TEPaul

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2007, 12:31:28 PM »
In my opinion, the biggest problem with clients and people who want long courses is they seem to completely fixate on total card yardage.

Fixating on total card yardage to too great an extent is almost inevitably going to come at the expense of some of the greatest architectural offering in golf---the good short par 3, the good short par 4 and the good short high risk par 5.

This was definitely not lost on Nick Faldo when I once asked him if he thought Merion East was too short for the top pros. His response was;

"Of course not, you shouldn't think about the total card yardage of this course because this course not only has some good long par 4s and par 5s it also has some really good short par 4s."

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2007, 12:36:08 PM »
Joe,
You said, "The pro's set the standard by which we gauge ourselves."  

You just identified a big part of the problem  ;)  Should we follow their maintenance standards as well  :(
Mark

Mark,

If you can find a way to dismantle the PGA Tour and get the pros off the TV, then they will cease being the standard.

I'm not sure what maintenance has to do with it. Besides, I think the majority of well funded private clubs already do strive for TV perfect maintenance, day after day.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Kris Spence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2007, 12:39:46 PM »
Tom, I feel your pain.  I recently signed to do a new design in western NC on a somewhat difficult but spectacular site.  After working on the routing for several weeks I felt I had unlocked the code of this mountain and produced  an outstanding high 6700 par 71 course that fit the property well, took advantage of its most interesting characteristics etc.  The property  would not yield much more length nor did it need to in my opinion. The developer was excited to see the routing and generally agreed it was perfect for what he needed, loved the way if fit with his development plans, in fact it expanded his development income above his initial projections.  Two months later he calls me to inform me that his new marketing firm indicated that it would be hard to sell lots at a sufficient price on a "non championship" length and par course.  The PR guy also threw in opinion that his job would be much easier with a "signature tour pro" to lend his name.  I again went throught the song and dance of explaining angles, slopes, elevations changes and their quantifying affect on playing length versus actual length but it seemed he was broken by these simple comments about championship length, par and signature value.  I have my doughts this guy will proceed with the course on this site.

Most of the courses we've worked on to date are in the range of 6,600 to around 7,100.  The one common denominator they all have is a great set of greens with tons of variety, nice overall topography,  a good routing with plently of angle, sufficient tilt and slope in the landing areas, twist and turn along with well placed bunkers that make a player think .  I have yet to hear from one of my clients that their course is too short and uninteresting.  

Jeff Doerr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2007, 12:52:35 PM »
I wonder what percentage of golfers are single digit handicaps.  I am single digit and much rather play a course at 6800 than 7200.  

I guess I do not mind that much as long as the course has proper tees to play 6800 yards also.

I still think it is funny that the owners build courses that long for the .001% (just made of the percentage) of players who can actually play at that length.  Do they really think they will host a major?

Paul,

The other challenge on length, even for the better player is the exponential result in score and time to play. I've played in a few Publinks qualifiers, and some local Mid-Ams in the past. In all of those I saw a pattern. The scores at the very top were similar in most events, a few scores in the 60s and a number in the low 70s. Where the variance really came was at the back end of the field. At Eastmoreland (Old School, H. Chandler Egan, 6600) the back of the field was bunched in the 80s with a few in the low 90s. The same result was seen at Glendoveer East (again, Old School, 6600). At Heron Lakes (a fairly recent host to the USAPL/RTJ JR & Kyle Phillips/7000) the qualifier was much different. Still a few in the low 70s and maybe a few in the 60s, but a whole bunch in the 90s and a few over 100. Those scores came from indexes at about 8 and below.

The real truth is that you need to hit it at least 260-270 and pretty straight to head back to any set of tees past about 6800. If you're Tiger you hit your stinger 2 iron in that range and you are confident even with a 20 yard wide fairway and US Open rough. For the rest of us single digit guys good luck. I'm back down to an 8.9 (with a low below 5 a bunch of years ago) and have no illusions that I could muster any kind of score at the GD Torrey Pines contest. With good prep and a great caddy I MIGHT be somewhere in the mid 90s. In reality, I'm guessing low 100s for my game.
"And so," (concluded the Oldest Member), "you see that golf can be of
the greatest practical assistance to a man in Life's struggle.”

Jeff Doerr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2007, 01:03:51 PM »
Question for GCAs,

Could you design a course that would set up for tourney golf at 7000+, that would be ok for the event, but maybe unsafe for regular play?

It seems that a few tee boxes could be found that a pro could safely play from. The challenge would then be keeping them out of play for regular play. This would be much easier at a private.

A tee like that can be seen at Pac Dunes #1. You would not want any hacker teeing off from the tee above 18, which must make the first hole a 450+. But, if I was finishing 18, I would have no fear of a +2 or better teeing off right above me.

Related question for Tom:
The black tees at Pacific say 6633 on the score card. With some of the hidden extra tees how much extra yardage can be found?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 01:12:06 PM by Jeff Doerr »
"And so," (concluded the Oldest Member), "you see that golf can be of
the greatest practical assistance to a man in Life's struggle.”

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2007, 01:07:42 PM »
Jeff:

As you mention, we do build tees like that occasionally, but I do my best to keep them secrets so that every 3-handicap who thinks he's a stud doesn't want to play them.  P.B. Dye used to build them for his own amusement ... just a little flat spot, not even mowed like a tee, since if you ever did play it you'd hit off a peg.

BUT, there you go again trying to be all things to all people.  These tees do little to satisfy the marketing guys Chris mentioned, or the nervous developer, who are the real reason we have to even think about such tees.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2007, 01:25:00 PM »
Maybe the best thing to do is just throw in the towel and give the client what he wants  :(  

Tom Marzolf once told me the same thing about a course that deserved restoration.  His comment was along the lines, "If the client doesn't want it restored, what am I supposed to do.  I have to give them what they want."  

Nonsense, you educate them first and if that doesn't work, you walk away.  Otherwise you are just becoming part of the problem.  
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 04:47:29 PM by Mark_Fine »

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2007, 02:31:52 PM »
I have a theory on this:

 One of the great appeals of golf for many is  the ability to play a game on the same "field" as your heroes.  If you are a baseball fan you will still never get to play slow pitch softball with your buds at Yankee Stadium.  Same for 40ish flag football players dreaming of playing on Lambeau Field.

But golf allows us to play on the same turf that the greats play on and many want to duplicate that experience as closely as possible (i.e. play all the way back).

Decades ago the difference in the elite game and the average was based less on power and more on precision.  Look at old films and from 145 Hogan was hitting a 7-iron.  At 190 Nicklaus was hitting a 3 iron and good drives were 250-275.  Certainly the elites had more power and at times could really rip it, but the fundamentals of the game were far less dependent on raw use of power.

Anyway, there is a instinctive desire to play a game as close to the one our heroes play as possible.  That is to a point.  We are all told that this should mean playing the length course that would leave us the same shots into the greens--e.g. if Nicklaus played a 420 yard hole in Driver 5 iron, then I should play the hole at 390 since that would take me a Driver and 5 iron.

But this misses the point that golfers love a challenge of accomplishing a shot they have dreamed about or seen others make.  Who among us, even if we were playing the correct set of tees, wouldn't play a shot from the tips on #4 at Baltusrol, #16 at Cypress Point, #17 tee shot at TOC, an attempt on #13 at ANGC from where Patten hit it in the water or Faldo ripped his 2 -iron on the green, or a thousand other examples I could name???  Heck who among us after seeing our buddy make a great chip, putt or shot doesn't throw down a ball to try and duplicate (or better) him??

The real shame is that playing the course the pros play is now even more absurd than ever as the game has changed so much.  There is a need for two distinct playing fields more than ever and I think ultimately as the elite game is less and less "relatable" to the 8-12 handicap golfer the more it will hurt the game's growth and popularity.

Last point.  I have been lucky to have some good rounds in my life.  I'm a good club player with no desire or ability to ever have been a pro.  When I think back on rounds I remember I have two that stick out--a 69 at Augusta from the tips in college and a 67 in the final round of the St, Andrews Links--both were from the "tips" and to this day for a fleeting moment I can "relate" my round to what the pros were playing at the time (even though the Augusta round was not in competition).

Ironically, I had a 64 this year at the Crabapple Course in Alpharetta, GA where Tiger won one of his WGC titles.  BUT, I played this course at 6700 yards not anywhere near the 7250 tips.  While I had a fun day and it was the best I played in years, this round doesn't come close to the rounds played on the "real, entire" course!?  That round doesn't even compare and is in a weird way not even like a "real" round to me!!??

I know this type of thinking is part of the problem but I suggest for the 99& of golfers who grew up playing anything semi-competitive, it's just a gut feeling.  You want to be tested or face the same challenge the greats do--even when you fail most of the time.  (I think TD wrote about this phenomenon in one of his books).  

« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 02:32:24 PM by Chris Cupit »

Matt_Ward

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2007, 03:32:51 PM »
Tom Doak:

How much "wiggle room" to you NOW have in terms of making suggestions to developers for the type of course that is greared towards your thinking?

Is that resistance the same, more or less than when you came forward with Pac Dunes?

How receptive, do you believe, would a Michael P at Sebonack have been if a course of 6,500 yards or thereabouts would have been promoted by you?

And the other aspect -- is when clients don't "get it" or see it vastly different -- how prepared are architects to walk away and keep their vision intact? Or do architects simply say heck it's a job and if the guy wants waterfalls on every hole with hump back whales bobbing up and down in the water hazards we will be sure to do it.

No doubt people in the business have to put food on the tables for their families and the guys / gals who work for them.

It seems to me the so-called "better" player is the driving force to moving ahead with the monster-like layouts that seem to be the rage with so many developments. Is that so?

Clearly, the macho aspect is involved in some form of the pre-discussion phase that goes on here. No doubt a developer who is competing in the same neighborhood doesn't want to be accused in having a B flight compared to his competition.

Jason McNamara

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2007, 04:16:48 PM »
I wonder what percentage of golfers are single digit handicaps.  I am single digit and much rather play a course at 6800 than 7200.  

Likewise.

The USGA says 20% of male hcp golfers are single digits.  
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/mens_usga_handicap.html
And something like 20-25% of golfers have hcps in the first place.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 04:17:22 PM by Jason McNamara »

Sandy Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2007, 05:00:22 PM »
I think Chris hit the nail on head . Years ago I used to play a lot with Kelly Murray ( Big Break ) , in those day's he was as long as any one on the planet .... that's a fact. Now there is at least a dozen guy's at the club I play at that hit it the distance Kelly used to .
The course has not changed but the way the better players play it has changed drastically . I realize that this type of thinking does not concern most players , but I do agree with Chris that playing a course from any thing less from the back tees is OK, but not the same  as when you do tip it up from the back .

Question to Mr Doak ,  what do you consider a long par 4 to be now when you are desighning a course ? Is that changing year to year ?
Firm greens, firmer fairways.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2007, 06:42:45 PM »
Sandy:

A long par 4 to me is anything from 440 yards up to 500+, depending on where I'm building it and who for.  I recognize that there are few 440-yard holes which a Tour pro would consider "long" -- although the 13th at Pacific Dunes, into the summer wind, is a pretty stout hole -- but for everybody with a handicap of more than 5, 440 is long.

Matt W:

I think I have the same or less "wiggle room" now to be unconventional than I did before Pacific Dunes, as I posted about 15 places back on this thread.

Certainly, in the case of Michael Pascucci at Sebonack, he would never have stood for a shorter course -- in fact, the course is 7300 yards plus, and he's out there this fall building additional back tees that neither Jack nor I approved of.  But Michael DOES have the wherewithal to host a professional tournament there someday if he wants to, so I have to take his request for more length, more seriously than from some other clients.  And I did not threaten to walk away from the job over that point, because I wanted to be involved on that piece of property, and I thought my involvement would be important.

Note the distinction:  I don't think that there shouldn't be ANY golf courses over 7000 yards -- there are places and times for which they are suited.  The problem is the trickle-down effect that has gotten everyone to believe that even the average club course or public course HAS TO BE 7000 yards if it is to be respected.  And, sad to say, even on this board there are plenty of guys who believe that.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2007, 06:57:38 PM »
Tom D.,

Very interesting comment about Mr. Pascucci building new back tees at Sebonack without yours and/or Mr. Nicklaus' approval.

I don't have any comment on the situation, other than I find it to be very, very interesting... considering the golf course is not even two/three years old?

I guess a question that pops to mind is: What's the rush to add length to a BRAND NEW course that's already 7,300 yards long, and has NO hope of hosting a significant professional championship in the immediate future?

And, I'm SURE you considered tees further back at the holes where length is now being added.

Very, very interesting.
jeffmingay.com

Peter Nomm

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2007, 07:32:45 PM »
We face the length battle with the everyday golfer, yet it is simply a mindset instead of a reality.  Two examples:

1 - Every fall I run our Men's Day game where all the guys play from the very forward tees.  And every year, I hear more great comments about what a fun round of golf they played that day.  But do they ever move up on their own?  No way.

2 - In the early years of our club my ladies were wanting to incorporate a lot of the forward men's tees into a combination course for the better lady players - they wanted the challenge.  My response (believe me, in a polite way ;)) was that shouldn't they challenge themselves to break 90 instead of moving back and hoping to break 100?

These "mindsets" are difficult if not impossible to change.  It is a perception, not a reality, but it is no doubt what the designers and developers are reacting to.  Our course is 6739 from the tips and any Tour pro or very good pro or amateur that has played the course remarks about how FUN it is to play.  Most courses out there will never host a Tour event, so unless that is the specific goal I cannot understand why a developer would want to cater to them.

One personal comment about length - nearly all of my favorite holes are short holes, but most of them still allow you to hit a driver.  Short courses that make you hit iron off of most tees get old quick, but there are a lot of great short holes that let you bring out the big dog.  


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2007, 07:36:12 PM »
Jeff:

It's Michael's course.  You should consider that he may be closer to hosting a significant championship than you think, and if he does, he wants to say he hosted it without having to make any changes to the course.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2007, 07:39:27 PM »
Tom,

You're right. I guess I shouldn't have presumed Sebonack is far from hosting a significant championship...

Though, two things are relative. What's a significant championship? (I'd say the US Open.) And, how "far" is far? (I'd say 10 years.)

If Sebonack hosts the US Open in 10 years I'll be pleasantly surprised  :)
jeffmingay.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2007, 07:45:03 PM »
If your definition of "significant" is the U.S. Open, then I have no pretensions that will happen anytime soon.  There's a pretty good host course just across the street for that.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2007, 08:07:27 PM »
If your definition of "significant" is the U.S. Open, then I have no pretensions that will happen anytime soon.  There's a pretty good host course just across the street for that.

My thoughts exactly  :)

Happy New Year!
jeffmingay.com

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2007, 08:30:38 PM »
Mike Cirba,

You ignore the realities of life ..... and business.

If an architect takes the King's Schilling, he'll do the King's bidding.

If a developer wants a course to present a challenge to the better player and he wants that challenge to be in the 7,200+ range from the back tees, chances are the architect will provide that course.

And if he doesn't, I'm sure that there's another architect willing to earn a sizable fee.

The answer to Tom's question is, because hi-tech was allowed to make courses obsolete, and unless there's a "roll back' of the ball and the equipment, courses will have to be made LONG to challenge the modern day "flight" of the ball.

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2007, 10:09:53 PM »
Sandy:


Note the distinction:  I don't think that there shouldn't be ANY golf courses over 7000 yards -- there are places and times for which they are suited.  The problem is the trickle-down effect that has gotten everyone to believe that even the average club course or public course HAS TO BE 7000 yards if it is to be respected.  And, sad to say, even on this board there are plenty of guys who believe that.

Guilty as charged :(

If it's 6700 or less I would consider 99% of those courses a "pitch and putt".  I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just being honest.

John Moore II

Re:Why New Courses Have to Be Long
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2007, 10:15:19 PM »
Chris--
by saying a 6700 yard course is a "pitch and putt" I'm guessing that means you shoot 64 or 65 on them everytime you play a 6700 yard course. you must be a mighty good player. Personally, I find myself challenged equally by mid length courses as I do long ones at times, and I'm a PGA member

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back