[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I concur that many people on this very site seem to pray at the altar of 7,000 yards + for a course to be considered legitimate.

I don't take that viewpoint although many people, possibly even you yourself, may think otherwise concerning me.

The issue really is about getting away from the macho style of golf and length is always throught to be central to that discussion / outcome.

I think back to how RTJ was so successful in shifting the marketing / branding of golf with his penchant for "heroic" style golf and the idea in advancing a template 7,000+ "champiionship" style golf course. We are still living with that concept in mind for so many potential golf course developers.

I'd like to see 6,500 or thereabouts courses be designed but they would need to understand the pysche of low handicap players and keep them in check accordingly. Often courses of that length -- save for the really elite ones such as Prairie Dunes and the like, fail to keep my interest level and become nothing more than a constant repetition of 56 and 60 degree wedge shots. I'm not saying that I will always score low on such courses but the key is getting people to believe that "real" golf can be sustained without the slavish impulse to create these mindless bombs away tracks.

Chris C:

I've heard from many players how they believe "x" course is so short but when you add up the final tally the scores don't relfect the rhetoric.

What I often hear from such players who can't shoot the low numbers on such courses is that such layouts are nothing more than tricked up and not "real" golf as I mentioned in my reply to Tom Doak.

Chris, just to get a read on your background -- can you name any specific "short" courses -- those from the tips that are under 6,700 yards that you would rate among the very best courses you have ever played?

Assuming you have any clear examples -- I wonder what kept your interest in them?

Thanks ...

[Chris Cupit]

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

Of course not.  What I am saying is that I can play around my weakness--driving the ball.  Given today's length with clubs and the ball I can play 99% of 6700 yard courses with either a driver and a wedge if it is open enough (and then I do have a chance at 66) or I can play very safe and hit 3 woods and irons off of the tee and shoot 70-75 all day long.

Unfortunately, at 6700 yards the only time I hit long irons is off the tee.  

Paradoxically, I find courses at 7200+ just as boring as all it is, is a drive and a long iron all day long.  Give me diversity--some 3wood, wedges, some driver and 4 irons and a lot of driver and 7 irons.

Matt,  

Part of what I am saying is that I recognize that there is a disconnect between what I perceive as a "test" and what I actually score.  As a competitive golfer I know only the score matters.  As a player of the game I know the "feeling" I get after the round may have little or nothing to do with my score.  (Thankfully, I have found more enjoyment from the game the less I equate score with enjoyment).

I am not saying that I can shoot mid 60's on every 6700 yard course I play.  But at 6700 yards I can play around my weaknesses far more easily than a course at 7300 yards.  Length matters!!!

A short course that IS "tricky" is Linville GC in NC.  Shortish (though lengthened to 6900 yards in the last few years) but loads of fun to play.  ANGC was 6905 when I played.  Shinnecock was under 7K.  I play most of my golf at The Honors Course at 6700 yards instead of 7200 and it's a lot of fun too.  From 6700 I can play so-so and shoot between 70-75 every day.  If I go to the tips and don't play well it's 80+.  It's a completely different ball game.

Winged Foot West when my partner and I won the Anderson was about 6900 and he was a very short hitter (could not reach some of the par fours back in 1993). But WF West is a helluva lot harder course today.  My partner and I shot 65-65 ten years ago (1997) in stroke play--no way I we could do that now--the course is too long!!  

Johnny,

I do not shoot 64 everytime and I wasn't trying to suggest that.  What I do suggest is that I can play around my weaknesses and any scratch golfer can do the same on a shorter course in 99% of the situations.  If you are unable to play better the shorter the course is, let's go play a course and you can play at 7000 yards and I'll play at 6500 yards since length doesn't effect you:D  

I KNOW I can score better all things being equal at a shorter golf course.

Why are course longer today?  Because length matters

[John Moore II]

Chris--
I'm not saying I don't like long golf courses, the longer the better for me because my weakness is from 100yds and in. So I like the courses longer. But I can't say that I think that a 6500 yard course is a pitch and putt. It all depends on the course. I played a course that was 6200 yds, and it played harder because of the way it was laid out than many courses I've played that were nearing 7000 yds. And if you want to test your idea of me playing 7000 yds and you playing shorter, let go, it would be fun, I've never played that game before.

[Mark_F]

he wants to say he hosted it without having to make any changes to the course.

What a ridiculous mindset to have.

Doesn't this make Michael Pascuci a textbook example of your 'first guy'?

[John Kavanaugh]

he wants to say he hosted it without having to make any changes to the course.

What a ridiculous mindset to have.

Doesn't this make Michael Pascuci a textbook example of your 'first guy'?

I understand Mr. Pascuci's mindset perfectly and happen to agree.  No one wants to join a world class course and have some USGA needledick come in and tell them what needs to be done to make it worthy.

[Craig Sweet]

So we have to build these super long courses to accommodate where the long hitters drive will come to rest?

I don't buy that...totally.  I have seen long hitters brought to their knees by short courses that require some thought and strategy to get around.  

It's been my experience that most "long" courses offer little more than a "grip it and rip it" experience for the long hitter with strategy being simplified to "hit it hard"....and the shorter hitter, when playing from the back tee, has but one strategy as well...hit more club on every shot.  I think that is why so many new courses are "ho hum" experiences for most golfers.

[Sandy Smith]

I think we all agree , a great course does not have to be 7200 yards . When I started playing 7000 yds was a monster . Now it is not . Why ? The golf ball .
I think that most average players would not see a huge loss of distance if they used a pre pro v1 , but I am certain that the big hitters and pros would . One only has to look the Tour's driving distance stats to see this .
If this was done then many of the great old courses could be used again and may be we could see real players such as a Corey Pavin rise to the top . And we would see the return of the long par 4 .  

[Jed Peters]

Tom:

Just got back from rounds on Pac Dunes. Lots of fun in some "challenging" weather.

Golf courses need to be longer to challenge the better player (not me, I'm fine playing the "shorter" black tees!) and force them to play long irons and fairway metals (off those lies!) into your outstanding green complexes.

I watched Pac get lit up with hickorys (guy shot 75, which is "lit up" with 6 wooden shafted clubs if you ask me) from the black tees in wind and rain, and being the first out we played faster than they could set up the tee markers, so we played many of the holes from the back plates.

I also just came off playing in front of watching a 73 where the guy hit it "like poop" because he had "kiddie clubs" in his hand every shot into greens, and the greens are REALLY poor on pac right now compared to Trails and Bandon. Note that 5 holes were played in either hailstorm or rainstorm, whereas about 12 holes were glorious weather.

All that being said, I'm sure that if he played the tournament tees and all the holes from the back markers, it would have challenged him

Courses need to be longer because players hit the ball longer and straighter right now.

As for me, I'm just fine playing my course's 6950 (or even 6700!) yard tees. It is a lot more fun, and I have a lot easier time scoring.

Another thought, that I've offered before: If you're concerned with the average golfer's "need" to play the back tees, make/integrate tournament tees into courses more often like at Pac (or Kidd did at Bandon) and take those out of play on a daily basis. Don't have the course rated from those tees, either.

[George Pazin]

John, I would've thought you and your brethren would be more secure than to let said needledick bother you.

Upon further reflection, it would seem that the MO of the USGA for the Open would deserve a lion's share of the blame, if there is in fact anyone to blame.

[Joe Hancock]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Why don't golfers play the correct tee for their game?".

Name one new course that doesn't have multiple sets of tees.

And, if we're so powerful as to get golfers to accept shorter courses, why haven't we succeeded in getting golfers to accept a ball and club rollback? Why can't we get all golfers to use hickories?

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe an even better title would be, "Why architects don't have any influence on the game of golf?"  

Seems what many are saying here is that architects just design what they are told to design.  If a client wants 7400 yards, you give them 7400 yards.  Hey if you don't do it, someone else will.  At the end of the day this is business.  I'm sure the ball and club manufacturers feel exactly the same way  

[Tom_Doak]

Jed:

The funny thing in your story is, nobody broke par, and a guy playing with hickories scored almost as well as the guy who had "kiddie clubs" into every green.  (EVERY green?  Possibly not.)

There is a lesson in there somewhere for you.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

Tell me what you would walk away from, and under what circumstances. Tell me if you need the work or not, financially speaking. Tell me what you have walked from in the past, or has everything you've been involved with been ideal?

I don't have those answers about myself, because I am not an architect and have not had to cross those bridges.

I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm trying to learn of unknown situations in our industry.

Thanks,

Joe

[JohnV]

Tom,

If someone came to you and said, "I want the greatest course you can build that is 6500-6800 yards and while you are at it, build a set of tees at 7300 yards so that I can market it at that length and possibly host a tour event".  Could you do it and would you do it?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
My situation is a bit unique compared to most so maybe I am not empathizing as well as I should be with others in this business.  But believe me I am not nieve to think this is easy.  

Maybe it will take someone like a Tom Fazio to stand up and say, if you want one of my golf courses, it will be less than 7000 yards long and we will do all we can to design and build it on less than 150 acres and it will use 1/3 the water that most courses use today.  

I’m sure most of you are laughing right now and saying something like this will never happen.  Maybe it won't be Fazio and it will be someone else, but guys like Mike Nuzzo and myself used to work in an industry where we heard ridiculous claims like this all time.  But what happened is that these claims were not only achieved but even exceeded and industries were revolutionized as a result and those of us in those industries had to follow or fade away.  

Maybe it will take Augusta National to adapt a tournament ball or the USGA to finally get some balls, but I believe architects can do their part as well.  This kind of change has happened in restoration work (despite many fighting against it) and can happen in new course construction as well (it is even more important that it happens here).  If a no name like me can help try to make a difference (and I believe we have at the courses we’ve worked on) just think what the guys on center stage could do if they really wanted to.  

[Tom_Doak]

John:

There seem to be a lot of hypotheticals about this subject.

Presumably, Sebonack is somewhat like what you describe -- an excellent golf course for me at 6500 yards (though I didn't get to do exactly what I wanted ) with tees at 7300 yards to sort out the big boys from the pretenders.

But, if somebody came to me and phrased the mission just as you did, I'd have to say I can't tell you what the ideal length for this course would be until I've worked on the routing and figured it out.  As I've said, sometimes the best holes on a property with minimal green-to-tee walks would add up to 6500, sometimes to 7300.  

It is MORE likely to add up to 6500, because there ought to be more 6500-yard routing solutions on any given property than there are 7300-yard solutions.  That's one of the things people don't understand about the advent of longer courses, that you are losing good solutions for 18-hole routings with every increase in distance, because there were good holes on that property that just don't work with the new scale.

[Jed Peters]

Jed:

The funny thing in your story is, nobody broke par, and a guy playing with hickories scored almost as well as the guy who had "kiddie clubs" into every green.  (EVERY green?  Possibly not.)

There is a lesson in there somewhere for you.

Can you illuminate me as to the lesson? I'm not learning it....except perhaps that you have to think your way around the course, hit shots, and cannot "overpower Pac".

Don't get me wrong, Pac will suffice ANYWHERE from the "back back" tees with some weather/wind. It is a resort course, not a tournament course. It'd be a great match play course.

It is just my opinion based on my experience around better players, that if an architect wants to build a top notch golf course that can suffice for ANY level golfer, they have to build the course accordingly. It sounds like Sebonack fits the bill...I don't know that Pac would unless it was played from the "tippy tips".

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Doak,

My previous answer was reconfirmed today.

Today, I watched Bob Tway and his son, who's going to Oklahoma State, play golf.

Bob Tway is on the PGA Tour.
His son is just out of high school.

His son outdrives his PGA Tour playing dad by a good margin.

If a golf course intends to serve and challenge the next generation it's going to have to have a set of LONG tees.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Believe me, I've seen it.  Al Geiberger is the pro emeritus at Stone Eagle.  When we were building it, he brought out two of his sons to hit some shots at a membership event.

He didn't bring Brent, who plays on Tour, but his next-younger son, Brian, who caddies for Brent sometimes, and his youngest son (whose name I can't remember, might be Alan Jr.), who was 17 and playing high school golf.  En route to the first tee, the client was asking the younger son how far he hit the ball -- could he hit it 300 yards?  The response was a roll of the eyes and "Aw, geez, I hope so."

But the younger son put his first two balls in the rocks and I felt a little better -- until Brian got up, aimed at a backhoe bucket lying 40 yards short of the green on our 400-yard opening hole, and damn near hit it on the fly.

Honestly, the only way to deal with that is to hire some heavily-muscled guys to kneecap him.  There is no way we're going to design a course that stops a 340-yard drive down the middle ... but if I try, everybody else is going to quit the game.

Jed:

The lesson was that at Pacific Dunes, length doesn't matter so much.  The guy with the hickories could actually compete with the long hitter.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Doak,

After watching Bob Tway and his son there was a discussion on the issue of distance and how to stop the ever widening margins between the best ball strikers, the good, average, mediocre and poor golfer.

There were a number of experienced, good golfers debating the issue.

Rolling back the ball and equipment was thought to be an effective method that wouldn't come about any time soon, however, with Florida about to impose serious water restrictions on Jan 15th, the trend toward very fast & firm conditions appeared to be a solution within the grasp of nearly every course, if the memberships could be convinced that "green" isn't the optimal color to provide the best playing conditions.

F & F would seem to re-emphasize accuracy at the expense of distance.

It would also seem to re-emphasize the importance of the optimal angles of attack into the green.

Two of the fellows in the discussion had just played a golf course on the West Coast of Florida that required landing the ball short of the green in many cases, if the golfer wanted to hold the green.

Hard, fast greens will frustrate approach and recoveries from the "WRONG" angle or position.

Trying to achieve F & F conditions is a partial solution that's frustrated since the USGA/PGA/TV presentations are 180 degrees from those conditions.

However, when clubs begin to rebel against the whole USGA/PGA/TV mindset, as apparently Winged Foot has done, perhaps the golf world will begin to swing the pendulum back in the other direction.

[JESII]

When I played professionally (2000 - 2002) I Monday qualified into 4 PGA Tour events and 4 Nationwide Tour events and played in 50 - 75 mini-tour events around the eastern half of the country.

My length was below average on the mini-tours...about average to slightly above in the Nationwide events and longer then average to long in the PGA Tour events.

I think building courses longer because Kevin Tway hits it further than his father would be a mistake...I would wager that Kevin hits the ball further now than he will if and when he makes it to the PGA Tour.

I agree that maintenance practices are the key to indirectly rolling back distances...make position matter again.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I disagree with your computation of the odds of an equipment rollback, vs. the odds of most courses becoming firm and fast.  In both cases, the golfing public will resist ... but consider who is empowered to make change happen.

For the equipment rollback, all it would take is a firm majority of people on the USGA Executive Committee.  Admittedly, they haven't shown much stomach for such a move in recent history, but you're talking about 10-15 people.

Firm and fast?  Hundreds of individual golf course superintendents and green chairmen would have to be convinced to go against the grain, with their jobs or sanity on the line.  Plus, the conversion from sloppy wet to dry isn't simply a matter of turning off the spigot.  Lots of courses are populated by grass which is used to wet feet, which will die if the transition isn't handled with expert care.  Watching neighbor courses lose their grass (and fire their superintendents!) is not conducive to a large movement.

A few years back there was a very bad drought in New Jersey; more recently in California and in Colorado.  If anything would have convinced courses to move toward firm and fast conditions, I'd think that would have been it.  So, are the courses you play in New Jersey much better examples today?

[BCrosby]

I have a story on the f&f topic.

In the middle of the worst drought in ATL in living memory, when people are being urged not to flush toilets, when watering yards is now a misdemeanor, when we collect water in a tub during showers, in the middle of all that I suggested at a green committee meeting that we cut back watering, let fw's brown up and get things firm and fast. I thought it would be an easy win-win.

My suggestion was met with a stoney, incomprehending silence. It was if I had been speaking in Swahili. The topic was quickly changed.

Let's not underestimate how radical the notion of f&f is at most clubs.

Bob

[henrye]

Patrick.  Your point about the physics is bang on.  Just got back from Cabo playing golf with my 18-year old son.  He plays the back tees.  I play way up - 6,300 yards approx.  Often, because he's so far back my ball is in front of his after the drive.  The biggest difference is when my next shot is a 4 iron or rescue club and his is a 7 or 8 iron.  The game the kids play is completely different.

6500 yards may be great for guys like me, but the kids will never hit a driver and I think that takes some enjoyment out of it for them.  You can toughen up a short course to resist scoring, but I'm not sure that makes it any better or more fun.

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:  When Atlantic City CC was faced with stringent water restrictions in the NJ drought, they made an equally perplexing choice with their sophisticated new irrigation system -- they chose to turn off the water completely in the roughs and let them DIE, so they could keep the fairways and greens nicely green.  (And then they re-seeded the roughs the next spring.)  It looked like a golf course that had been overseeded.

Now, I don't think they were grossly overwatering the fairways and greens in that case ... they were under severe restrictions.  But they couldn't even conceive of the fairways getting brownish.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()