Shouldn't added tee length be the only/prefered method of

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the assumption in this premise that all, or most golf courses are otherwise nearly ideal, apart from the issue of length?

NO, but acceptable and/or enjoyable is vastly different from "ideal"

If all the greens are perfectly integrated(strategically and otherwise) and possess great interest, then yes...add length.

Perfectly is a rather nebulous, but demanding term.
But, let's assume that there's nothing wrong with the greens.

If all the bunkers are well executed and of proper placement for variety, both strategically and aesthetically...add length.

One would have to assume that if they've served the membership well for 80 years that they're well executed and properly placed.

If all the fairways follow the land in an adventurous manner while providing proper play corridors...add length.

If mowing heights take into account the types of turfgrass, the maintenance of them, the terrain, firmness, etc...add length.

If a club directs an architect to maintain historical relevance, yet add length..add length.

I just don't know that one could single out one issue out of many when addressing issues of challenge, perhaps especially when attempting to fairly challenge all levels of play.

What you and others are missing is that the challenge presented by the course is more than adequate for the average to poor golfer.

That it's only the golfers within the top 5 % of the membership, who, through the benefit if hi-tech, have obsolesced the challenge presented, due to the static nature of the architecture.

And, that the average to poor golfer doesn't need to have the challenge increased.

Now, do you understand ?

[Kirk Stewart]

Furthermore, If you played the 13th and 15th at ANGC 10 times going for it and 10 times playing it as Zach Johnson did, I guarantee you would save shots by being conservative . You take 6 and 7 out out of the equation. Can't you understand that ?

Wouldn't your exercise depend upon where one's tee shot ended up ?

--As it would if you where playing from the forward tee. Moot point.

Why would 7 be in the equation ?

--It's Augusta National.


If you go in the creek in two, you drop three, on in four, one or two putts for 5 or 6.[/b]

--Assuming you negotiate Rae's creek.
 
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.[/b]

--Oh really.


Yes, really.

I'll repeat the statement.
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.
Name 10 three shotters with heroic carries.

--I can and will,  in due course, 

Well ...... we're waiting !

if it matters to you.

It does


Torrey Pines #18
Peachtree #2
TPC Sawgrass #2, #16
Settindown Creek #1,#10
Bay Hill #6, #16
Atlanta Athletic Highlands #12, #18
Golf Club of Georgia #18
Augusta #13, #15
Laurel Valley #18
Turnberry #17

Off the top of my head... Go ahead and add #7 at Valhalla in light of the present events.

The lengthening at # 13 at ANGC was minimal.
The same is probably true at  # 15.


The original length of # 13 in 1934 was 455 Members, 480 Masters
The original length of # 15 in 1934 was 465 Members, 485 Masters.

The last scorecard I have indicates that the following yardages apply.

# 13  455 Members, 510 Masters.
# 15  475 Members, 530 Masters.

# 13 may be closer to 525 from the Masters tee, which is elevated above the other tees.

I wouldn't call the additional length "substantive" in the context of 74 years.


--ANGC is famous for not updating their scorecards in 74 years.

[Ronald Montesano]

Prologue:  There is no heroic carry on TPC 16.  The water is to the right side.  The tee shot doesn't count.  There is one on TPC 9, if I'm not mistaken.  Would we really call Rae's Creek on 13 Augusta a heroic carry?  It's a stream you can whizz over, after all.

Body:  You lads use lots of pretty colors and way too many words for this boy to read.  I'll state my piece and lay down my weapons.  The work I'm seeing at Cherry Hill (Travis, Ontario) on bunkers by Ian Andrew and the text by Mark Fine on Hazards leads me to believe that relocating, rounding and mounding bunkers strikes more fear into the hearts of golfers.  The fourth at CH is a DL left par four of 430 yards.  The new bunkering dares you to stay left and challenges you to carry the shorter, left bunker (avoiding the deeper, right bunker.)  This leads you to bound left into a grove of trees, eliminating a clear shot to the green.  You must bring the right bunker into play to get the angle in that you need.  Toward the green, the hazards have been expanded to eliminate a pinch (but not nearly all) the room available to run the ball in.  In the past, you had the entire green front for a runner; now you do not.

The problem is, bunker replacement, rounding and mounding is much more costly than dropping in a new tee deck here and there.  Most amateur greens committee chairpeeps opt for the new tee deck rather than the necessary bunker work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Furthermore, If you played the 13th and 15th at ANGC 10 times going for it and 10 times playing it as Zach Johnson did, I guarantee you would save shots by being conservative . You take 6 and 7 out out of the equation. Can't you understand that ?

Wouldn't your exercise depend upon where one's tee shot ended up ?

As it would if you where playing from the forward tee. Moot point.

Not at all.
Golfers who play from the forward tees are the higher handicap players.
Golfers not capable of heroic shots

Why would 7 be in the equation ?

It's Augusta National.

By the time you get to # 13, the awe of the name has disapated.

If you go in the creek in two, you drop three, on in four, one or two putts for 5 or 6.[/b]

Assuming you negotiate Rae's creek.

Let me see if I understand your statement.
You hit into Rae's Creek in two.
You take your drop, either two club lengths or keeping the point of entry between you and the hole and going back as far as you want, and this is a difficult shot for a golfer who has the ability to hit the green in two ?
A 7 is at the extreme end of the spectrum and not likely for the great majority of golfers going for the green in 2.
 
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.[/b]

--Oh really.


Yes, really.

I'll repeat the statement.
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.
Name 10 three shotters with heroic carries.

--I can and will,  in due course, 

Well ...... we're waiting !

if it matters to you.

It does


Torrey Pines #18
Peachtree #2
TPC Sawgrass #2, #16
Settindown Creek #1,#10
Bay Hill #6, #16
Atlanta Athletic Highlands #12, #18
Golf Club of Georgia #18
Augusta #13, #15
Laurel Valley #18
Turnberry #17



Where is there a heroic carry to the green at Laural Valley ?
I don't recall heroic carries to the green at AAC when I played there a few years and the same for Bay Hill, but they may have altered those holes since I played them.  My Google Earth is down now, but, I'll review the holes you claim when it's up and running.  Are you sure that there's NO bailout area and that the carry isn't partial on the holes you mentioned ?

Since you stated that MOST par 5's require a heroic carry over water to the green, could you name 10 more, and, please confine the courses to the U.S.[/color]

Off the top of my head... Go ahead and add #7 at Valhalla in light of the present events.


The lengthening at # 13 at ANGC was minimal.
The same is probably true at  # 15.


The original length of # 13 in 1934 was 455 Members, 480 Masters
The original length of # 15 in 1934 was 465 Members, 485 Masters.

The last scorecard I have indicates that the following yardages apply.

# 13  455 Members, 510 Masters.
# 15  475 Members, 530 Masters.

# 13 may be closer to 525 from the Masters tee, which is elevated above the other tees.

I wouldn't call the additional length "substantive" in the context of 74 years. [/color]


--ANGC is famous for not updating their scorecards in 74 years.

Where did you get that information from.
That's absolutely not true.
They've updated their scorecards several times since 1999 alone, and I have the scorecards to prove it.  So, I ask again, where did you get your information from ?[/color]

[Kirk Stewart]

Where is there a heroic carry to the green at Laural Valley ?
I don't recall heroic carries to the green at AAC when I played there a few years and the same for Bay Hill, but they may have altered those holes since I played them.  My Google Earth is down now, but, I'll review the holes you claim when it's up and running.  Are you sure that there's NO bailout area and that the carry isn't partial on the holes you mentioned ?

Since you stated that MOST par 5's require a heroic carry over water to the green, could you name 10 more, and, please confine the courses to the U.S.[/color]


Patrick,

--Laurel Valley's 18th has a lake that sits directly in front of the green and is all carry. You really can't miss it.

--For AAC think David Toms lay up. It is Par 5 for regular play.

--Perhaps partial carry at TPC Sawgrass's 16th depending on pin placement. Think Freddy Couples and the overhead blimp shot. I'll add these to make up for it.

TPC Sugarloaf 18th.
Victoria Nat'l #15
Blackwolf Run River #16
Whistling Straits # 5
Doral # 8
McArthur #9
Medalist # 18 (I've played it a few times but may think it's more out play unless a right pin)
Atlanta CC #18
Avila # 11
TPC Woodlands Island green # 13
Muirfield Village #11


--CBS reported on the air that after all the renovation/ lengthen the scorcards remained the same.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Yes, but...

it still only deals with half the equation when one considers that ALL of the clubs are longer, so an approach shot from 200 yards that Bobby Jones hit 2-iron to in 1923 (say at the 18th at Inwood) is today's 5 or 6 iron, even if the tee was moved back to have today's top player drive to the same place.

It goes to my rhetorical question of exactly how long would the 18th at Merion have to be for Tiger (or any top player) to hit Driver-1 iron, ala Hogan in 1950.

[Sean_A]

Pat

I think you have to look at this sort of thing as a case by case basis.  First and foremost, clubs shouldn't have knee jerk reactions to guys hitting the ball a mile. 

While I agree with you, apparently many, if not most clubs don't.
There seems to be a systemic effort to lengthen golf courses.
It may be due to the incredible length young golfers are hitting the ball at their local club.

This sort of thing has existed since the beginning of golf and I believe it has been conclusively proven that adding yardage doesn't work against the very best players. 

I believe it does at the local level

Personally, I think adding yardage can be a bit short sighted as there are many courses which prove to be very effective at providing a challenge by having a low par to yardage ratio, but this answer tends to ignore the very best players and that may not be a bad thing at all. 

The "very best players" have nothing to do with this issue.
They will NEVER play these local courses

Many of these classic sub 70 par courses at 6000-6500 yards have a timeless quality about them - perhaps thats why they are so well thought of. 

I'd agree

Spending money that only a flat belly can take advantage of is not how I would want my club to handle the difficulty of length.  My first thought would be to ignore it, if the very best players don't like it then play somewhere else.

But, they're not ignoring it, they're lengthening their courses.   

I do agree that f&f conditions are not architectural, but these sorts of conditions should be allowed for in the architecture, just as wind should be allowed for.  So, I don't believe there is an absolute disconect.  In fact, the relationship between the conditions and the architecture should be so interwoven that it is pointless to separate them form architecture.  When an archie provides for these elements then there will be times when the course will play relatively easy, but for the overwhelming majority of golfers it isn't a problem.  In fact, it may be a welcome respite!

Sean, that's not what's going on in the real world.

And, F&F appears to be mostly illusory, if not pure fiction.

When temperatures and humidity is in the 90's, you're not going to get F&F.

When it's rainy and cool in the spring, you're not going to get F&F

F&F usually arrives in Sept, Oct & Nov when play is down dramatically in the northeast.

F&F in the South is mostly fiction or temporary at best

In addition, I see a counter trend away from F&F in some instances.

Patrick

It doesn't matter when f&f turns up, the gca should allow for it or clubs will make sure it can ever happen again.  Its the same with wind.  GCA has to allow for it even at the expense of the days when the course plays relatively easy with no wind.  Its called variety and that can only be a good thing where gca concerned. 

I realize that THE VERY BEST players play a relatively small percentage of courses, but like you often do, folks go on about the local scratch hitting it a mile.  I say so what - don't worry about those guys because there aren't that many.  Besides, what do people care?  Honestly, folks get all wrapped up in this virtually meaningless stuff.  What the hell does it matter if Joe Bloggs hit his drive past some bunkers?  As I say, this sort of thing has been going on forever and no matter how long we make courses, this sort of thing will continue to happen. 

I know what the real world is doing - its driving players away from the game by making golf dull with length, stupid rough, over bunkering and and too much water. 

BTW  I probably sound pissed off because I literally lost two golf balls today from no further than 5 yards of the green and fairway.  I complained bitterly mostly for having to look for the god damn balls so close to the target.  Some joker in the group, a 21 handicapper who I had to help look for his ball at least 10 times, stated cutting back the rough would dmage the character of the course.  Its that sort of logic form a guy who should be basically playing on an open field that bewilders me.  It took us 4:20 to get around mainly because of that joker and he is worried about the rough and character of the course.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Yes, but...

it still only deals with half the equation when one considers that ALL of the clubs are longer, so an approach shot from 200 yards that Bobby Jones hit 2-iron to in 1923 (say at the 18th at Inwood) is today's 5 or 6 iron, even if the tee was moved back to have today's top player drive to the same place.


Mike, for whom ?

I can't hit a 5 or 6 iron 200 yards and I'm a decent golfer.
Can you ?

Why do you and others continue to context everything about playing golf in the realm of the PGA Tour Pro.

If you read the opening and susequent posts you'd know that I'm referencing local clubs and their MEMBERS.

It goes to my rhetorical question of exactly how long would the 18th at Merion have to be for Tiger (or any top player) to hit Driver-1 iron, ala Hogan in 1950.

What's that got to do with the membership's play at local courses ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk, there's NO heroic carry over water to the green at Valhalla, as you claimed.   The water is a good 40-50 yards short of the green

--Laurel Valley's 18th has a lake that sits directly in front of the green and is all carry. You really can't miss it.

--For AAC think David Toms lay up. It is Par 5 for regular play.

--Perhaps partial carry at TPC Sawgrass's 16th depending on pin placement. Think Freddy Couples and the overhead blimp shot. I'll add these to make up for it.

TPC Sugarloaf 18th.
Victoria Nat'l #15
Blackwolf Run River #16
Whistling Straits # 5
Doral # 8
McArthur #9
Medalist # 18 (I've played it a few times but may think it's more out play unless a right pin)  I've played the Medalist a number of times and there was NO heroic carry to get to the green, unless they've done something recently.
Atlanta CC #18
Avila # 11
TPC Woodlands Island green # 13
Muirfield Village #11



My google earth is still not working, so I'll respond to these examples in the not too distant future.

The FACT is that the majority of Par 5's don't require a heroic shot to the green over water.  A very small number may require a heroic forced carry.
Partials are not heroic in the sense of pass/fail

--CBS reported on the air that after all the renovation/ lengthen the scorcards remained the same.

Then, both you and your source are incorrect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It doesn't matter when f&f turns up, the gca should allow for it or clubs will make sure it can ever happen again.  Its the same with wind.  GCA has to allow for it even at the expense of the days when the course plays relatively easy with no wind.  Its called variety and that can only be a good thing where gca concerned. 

I realize that THE VERY BEST players play a relatively small percentage of courses, but like you often do, folks go on about the local scratch hitting it a mile.  I say so what - don't worry about those guys because there aren't that many. 

But, that's not happening.
Clubs are reacting and lengthening their courses.

Besides, what do people care?  Honestly, folks get all wrapped up in this virtually meaningless stuff.  What the hell does it matter if Joe Bloggs hit his drive past some bunkers? 

Evidently it matters to many local clubs as course after course is/has been lengthened.

As I say, this sort of thing has been going on forever and no matter how long we make courses, this sort of thing will continue to happen. 

There's no question that courses have become longer.
When the course is lengthed for play, and it ONLY affects the better player, I don't have a problem with it.

Elasticity, to a degree, should be incorporated in the design, site permitting.

It's the alteration, reconfiguration, moving or adding of architectural features that will affect every level of golfer, that I object to.

I know what the real world is doing - its driving players away from the game by making golf dull with length, stupid rough, over bunkering and and too much water. 

I'd agree, too much water can be a problem.

BTW  I probably sound pissed off because I literally lost two golf balls today from no further than 5 yards of the green and fairway.  I complained bitterly mostly for having to look for the god damn balls so close to the target.  Some joker in the group, a 21 handicapper who I had to help look for his ball at least 10 times, stated cutting back the rough would dmage the character of the course.  Its that sort of logic form a guy who should be basically playing on an open field that bewilders me.  It took us 4:20 to get around mainly because of that joker and he is worried about the rough and character of the course.

I'm really puzzled by the 20+ handicap that revels in the golf course being hard.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

While I agree with your basic point that adding raw yardage along the same directional line is the only/preferred method of making the course more challenging/longer to combat distance advancements through technology, I'm not understanding your argument.

I know a bunch of guys...even 14 handicaps...who can hit the ball 200 yards with a 5-iron.

Are you saying that today's club member at Inwood hits the ball the same as club members did in 1923 when Bobby Jones played, or that the average member of Merion hits the ball the same as average members there did in 1950 when Hogan played?

The fact is that technological advances have changed things dramatically, and lengthening holes by moving tees back only addresses that change for the FIRST shot...not any subsequent ones.   

It's still a band-aid applied to an arterial wound.

[Sean_A]

It doesn't matter when f&f turns up, the gca should allow for it or clubs will make sure it can ever happen again.  Its the same with wind.  GCA has to allow for it even at the expense of the days when the course plays relatively easy with no wind.  Its called variety and that can only be a good thing where gca concerned. 

I realize that THE VERY BEST players play a relatively small percentage of courses, but like you often do, folks go on about the local scratch hitting it a mile.  I say so what - don't worry about those guys because there aren't that many. 

But, that's not happening.
Clubs are reacting and lengthening their courses.

Besides, what do people care?  Honestly, folks get all wrapped up in this virtually meaningless stuff.  What the hell does it matter if Joe Bloggs hit his drive past some bunkers? 

Evidently it matters to many local clubs as course after course is/has been lengthened.

As I say, this sort of thing has been going on forever and no matter how long we make courses, this sort of thing will continue to happen. 

There's no question that courses have become longer.
When the course is lengthed for play, and it ONLY affects the better player, I don't have a problem with it.

Elasticity, to a degree, should be incorporated in the design, site permitting.

It's the alteration, reconfiguration, moving or adding of architectural features that will affect every level of golfer, that I object to.

I know what the real world is doing - its driving players away from the game by making golf dull with length, stupid rough, over bunkering and and too much water. 

I'd agree, too much water can be a problem.

BTW  I probably sound pissed off because I literally lost two golf balls today from no further than 5 yards of the green and fairway.  I complained bitterly mostly for having to look for the god damn balls so close to the target.  Some joker in the group, a 21 handicapper who I had to help look for his ball at least 10 times, stated cutting back the rough would damage the character of the course.  Its that sort of logic from a guy who should be basically playing on an open field that bewilders me.  It took us 4:20 to get around mainly because of that joker and he is worried about the rough and character of the course.

I'm really puzzled by the 20+ handicap that revels in the golf course being hard.

Pat

I would guess that the folks who do lengthen their courses do so from a knee jerk reaction rather than acting in the best of the members.  I can see no possible reason that a well designed course not used for for big events should be over 7000 yards - in fact 6800 yards is probably more like it.  Unless of course the membership actively wants to host big time events.  If this is their desire, then their courses will be mucked with.  If you ask me its like getting into a poker game with $20 in your pocket when you know everybody else has $100.  Your chances of pulling off something special are slim and none.

It is interesting to consider that the top pros of the turn of the century resisted the intro of the Haskell first on the grounds that the ball was inferior then when it was improved very shortly after its introduction that it made the game too easy.  When we consider that scores at the Open didn't consistently break 300 until Jones win at Lytham in 1926 this idea of too easy is remarkable.  I think the courses back then must have played immeasurably more difficult than today - of course, I don't know what the tee situation was.  Did most courses offer much shorter tees for daily play?  Somewhere along the line (1948 at Muirfield is when 288 started to be consistently beaten) the idea of par as the measure of balance between tech and skill became the barometer whereas before that "balance" was seen as a score much higher.  I think once par was used to measure the balance is when courses started to really lengthen and narrow. 

If we look at TOC as an example.  In 1927 the average score of the top 10 (not including the champion) in the Open was ~72 on a ~6600 yard course.  By 1955 the top 10 ave was ~70 (not including champion) on a course just over 7000 yards.  Looking back to 1900 when the pros said the balance of tech and skill was just about right:  the top 10 ave score was ~78 (not including champion) on a course of just under 6400 yards.

There is no question the pros of old liked their courses harder and folks seem to accept that a score of par was excellent.  However, this sort of info raises a load of questions.

Does the USGA have it right aiming for par as an excellent score?

Are folks just not up to a tough round of golf like they seemed to readily accept in the old days?

Has par become too prevalent in our thinking and hence altered our thinking on what a good balance between tech and skill is? 

Would those in the golf world accept that sometimes 80 is an excellent score and anything under is 70 is brilliant - or should a wider range of scores (say down to low 60s) be possible to achieve on a championship course like it didn't seem possible in the old days? 

There are other questions, but this is enough for now.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

While I agree with your basic point that adding raw yardage along the same directional line is the only/preferred method of making the course more challenging/longer to combat distance advancements through technology, I'm not understanding your argument.

I know a bunch of guys...even 14 handicaps...who can hit the ball 200 yards with a 5-iron.

That's about 30 yards farther than I hit my 5 iron.
I'd like to meet them and find out how they do it.

Are you saying that today's club member at Inwood hits the ball the same as club members did in 1923 when Bobby Jones played, or that the average member of Merion hits the ball the same as average members there did in 1950 when Hogan played?

Your question is distorted and disengenuous in the context of your previous comment about Inwood and Bobby Jones on # 18.

Today, I doubt that there's a member at Inwood who can hit his two iron out of the rough, 200 yards, over the fronting water, which came right up to the green when Jones hit his shot.

You can't equate the ability of today's members at Inwood to the abilities of Bobby Jones in 1923.

The fact is that technological advances have changed things dramatically, and lengthening holes by moving tees back only addresses that change for the FIRST shot...not any subsequent ones.

That's ridiculous.

If you play a par 4 that's 420 yards and move the tee back 80 yards to 500 yards, I guarantee you that your second shot will have changed.   

It's still a band-aid applied to an arterial wound.

No, it's not, its' a genuine change that helps retain the architectural intent and the shot/shot values, without harming the playing field for the balance of the membership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would guess that the folks who do lengthen their courses do so from a knee jerk reaction rather than acting in the best of the members.  I can see no possible reason that a well designed course not used for for big events should be over 7000 yards - in fact 6800 yards is probably more like it.


Sean,

I tend to agree with you, but, I've witnessed courses targeting 7,000 yards and more as their "new" yardage goal.

Unless of course the membership actively wants to host big time events.  If this is their desire, then their courses will be mucked with.  If you ask me its like getting into a poker game with $20 in your pocket when you know everybody else has $100.  Your chances of pulling off something special are slim and none.

Local courses are always being asked to host events, especially as more events get created.

It may be that tournament golf is somewhat to blame.

Perhaps a local or regional golf association will come in and make suggestions for lengthening holes, especially if the tournament is going to be an "Open" event.

Or, clubs might seek the hosting of a tournament, only to be told that their course isn't long enough.

It is interesting to consider that the top pros of the turn of the century resisted the intro of the Haskell first on the grounds that the ball was inferior then when it was improved very shortly after its introduction that it made the game too easy.  When we consider that scores at the Open didn't consistently break 300 until Jones win at Lytham in 1926 this idea of too easy is remarkable.  I think the courses back then must have played immeasurably more difficult than today - of course, I don't know what the tee situation was.  Did most courses offer much shorter tees for daily play?  Somewhere along the line (1948 at Muirfield is when 288 started to be consistently beaten) the idea of par as the measure of balance between tech and skill became the barometer whereas before that "balance" was seen as a score much higher.  I think once par was used to measure the balance is when courses started to really lengthen and narrow. 

I do know courses, in the U.S. and U.K. where visitor play, and perhaps even member play, is prohibited from the "Championship" tees

If we look at TOC as an example.  In 1927 the average score of the top 10 (not including the champion) in the Open was ~72 on a ~6600 yard course.  By 1955 the top 10 ave was ~70 (not including champion) on a course just over 7000 yards.  Looking back to 1900 when the pros said the balance of tech and skill was just about right:  the top 10 ave score was ~78 (not including champion) on a course of just under 6400 yards.

There is no question the pros of old liked their courses harder and folks seem to accept that a score of par was excellent.  However, this sort of info raises a load of questions.

Does the USGA have it right aiming for par as an excellent score?

I think it does, in the context of a medal play championship for the National Open.

The almost universal transition to medal play tournaments has emphasized "par"

Are folks just not up to a tough round of golf like they seemed to readily accept in the old days?

I'd say, YES to that question because of the medal play mentality.

Has par become too prevalent in our thinking and hence altered our thinking on what a good balance between tech and skill is? 

I think so.

Would those in the golf world accept that sometimes 80 is an excellent score and anything under is 70 is brilliant - or should a wider range of scores (say down to low 60s) be possible to achieve on a championship course like it didn't seem possible in the old days? 

I don't think you'll get the golf world to accept 80 as an excellent score.

There are other questions, but this is enough for now.

[Kirk Stewart]

Kirk, there's NO heroic carry over water to the green at Valhalla, as you claimed.   The water is a good 40-50 yards short of the green

--Laurel Valley's 18th has a lake that sits directly in front of the green and is all carry. You really can't miss it.

--For AAC think David Toms lay up. It is Par 5 for regular play.

--Perhaps partial carry at TPC Sawgrass's 16th depending on pin placement. Think Freddy Couples and the overhead blimp shot. I'll add these to make up for it.

TPC Sugarloaf 18th.
Victoria Nat'l #15
Blackwolf Run River #16
Whistling Straits # 5
Doral # 8
McArthur #9
Medalist # 18 (I've played it a few times but may think it's more out play unless a right pin)  I've played the Medalist a number of times and there was NO heroic carry to get to the green, unless they've done something recently.
Atlanta CC #18
Avila # 11
TPC Woodlands Island green # 13
Muirfield Village #11



My google earth is still not working, so I'll respond to these examples in the not too distant future.

The FACT is that the majority of Par 5's don't require a heroic shot to the green over water.  A very small number may require a heroic forced carry.
Partials are not heroic in the sense of pass/fail

--CBS reported on the air that after all the renovation/ lengthen the scorcards remained the same.

Then, both you and your source are incorrect.

Patrick,

The water abuts the green at Valhalla. You're google is probably looking at the hole prior to the re-do. The water stops 4-5 yards short of the green assuming you are playing from the left fairway.
Sergio just dumped 2 shots into the water at this hole and clearly shows you are wrong--just like Laurel Valley and Atlanta Athletic Club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The water abuts the green at Valhalla.


Water being adjacent to the green doesn't mean that a forced heroic carry is REQUIRED when approaching it.

You're google is probably looking at the hole prior to the re-do.


I haven't been able to access google earth yet, but, the TV shots seemed to show about 40-50 yards of bunkers and fairway over the water, fronting the green.

The water stops 4-5 yards short of the green assuming you are playing from the left fairway.
 
Sergio just dumped 2 shots into the water at this hole


Sergio dumped his approach into the water on # 16 at Oakland Hills, but that doesn't mean that a forced, heroic carry is required.

Flanking water is different from fronting water.

and clearly shows you are wrong--just like Laurel Valley and Atlanta Athletic Club.

I'll let you know my thoughts after I view Google Earth tomorrow afternoon.

[Sean_A]

I would guess that the folks who do lengthen their courses do so from a knee jerk reaction rather than acting in the best of the members.  I can see no possible reason that a well designed course not used for for big events should be over 7000 yards - in fact 6800 yards is probably more like it.


Sean,

I tend to agree with you, but, I've witnessed courses targeting 7,000 yards and more as their "new" yardage goal.

Unless of course the membership actively wants to host big time events.  If this is their desire, then their courses will be mucked with.  If you ask me its like getting into a poker game with $20 in your pocket when you know everybody else has $100.  Your chances of pulling off something special are slim and none.

Local courses are always being asked to host events, especially as more events get created.

It may be that tournament golf is somewhat to blame.

Perhaps a local or regional golf association will come in and make suggestions for lengthening holes, especially if the tournament is going to be an "Open" event.

Or, clubs might seek the hosting of a tournament, only to be told that their course isn't long enough.

It is interesting to consider that the top pros of the turn of the century resisted the intro of the Haskell first on the grounds that the ball was inferior then when it was improved very shortly after its introduction that it made the game too easy.  When we consider that scores at the Open didn't consistently break 300 until Jones win at Lytham in 1926 this idea of too easy is remarkable.  I think the courses back then must have played immeasurably more difficult than today - of course, I don't know what the tee situation was.  Did most courses offer much shorter tees for daily play?  Somewhere along the line (1948 at Muirfield is when 288 started to be consistently beaten) the idea of par as the measure of balance between tech and skill became the barometer whereas before that "balance" was seen as a score much higher.  I think once par was used to measure the balance is when courses started to really lengthen and narrow. 

I do know courses, in the U.S. and U.K. where visitor play, and perhaps even member play, is prohibited from the "Championship" tees

If we look at TOC as an example.  In 1927 the average score of the top 10 (not including the champion) in the Open was ~72 on a ~6600 yard course.  By 1955 the top 10 ave was ~70 (not including champion) on a course just over 7000 yards.  Looking back to 1900 when the pros said the balance of tech and skill was just about right:  the top 10 ave score was ~78 (not including champion) on a course of just under 6400 yards.

There is no question the pros of old liked their courses harder and folks seem to accept that a score of par was excellent.  However, this sort of info raises a load of questions.

Does the USGA have it right aiming for par as an excellent score?

I think it does, in the context of a medal play championship for the National Open.

The almost universal transition to medal play tournaments has emphasized "par"

Are folks just not up to a tough round of golf like they seemed to readily accept in the old days?

I'd say, YES to that question because of the medal play mentality.

Has par become too prevalent in our thinking and hence altered our thinking on what a good balance between tech and skill is? 

I think so.

Would those in the golf world accept that sometimes 80 is an excellent score and anything under is 70 is brilliant - or should a wider range of scores (say down to low 60s) be possible to achieve on a championship course like it didn't seem possible in the old days? 

I don't think you'll get the golf world to accept 80 as an excellent score.

There are other questions, but this is enough for now.

Pat

I don't know what to tell you other than for the vast majority of clubs (even those hosting local events) shouldn't add yards unless the hole is improved - regardless of the original archie's intent.  From my experience, length is an inconsistent indicator of quality.  As one who is ambivalent toward regressive changes in equipment I would gladly support the idea if it guaranteed courses (more especially courses I care about) would not be lengthened.  Unfortunately, I don't believe regressive measures will guarantee anything.  I am leaning more and more toward split rules if the pro game continues to have a negative impact on the heart and soul of the game - the middle to long capper.  But as I pointed out earlier, so many high cappers not only accept it, they expect to be beaten up on the course.  When did architectural philosophy ever cherish this as a modus operandi?  To be fair, in this modern world of inclusivity, it is awfully hard to cater for very best and the very worst.  I think in the old days, the gap between best and worst wasn't so wide = perhaps because there were fewer players.

Ciao

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, what type of player is it that you are referring to as a 'better player'?  How long is his average drive and 7 iron, and what would his handicap be?



The "better player" would be amongst the top 10 percent at his golf club.

As to his average drive and average 7 iron it would probably be club/location dependent.

Pat, I don't play where you play and I don't know the members you know. But I have to ask--is the game really not challenging for 10% of the members at the courses you play? That is hard for me to believe, but then, I find the game to have plenty of challenge.  (As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage)

Also, what is the effect on the course and the routing when 80 yards (the distance you quoted MikeC) are added to the par 4s and 5s? If the tee had been somewhat near the prior green, it likely now would be 80 yards in the wrong direction for a 160 yard round trip.  I assume that would strongly detract from the experience generally.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

You're on drugs. 

If Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan hit a 1-iron 200 yards, and today's player can hit their 5-6 iron 200 yards, it is NOT the same approach shot,  no matter how far back you put the tees. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're on drugs. 

If Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan hit a 1-iron 200 yards, and today's player can hit their 5-6 iron 200 yards, it is NOT the same approach shot,  no matter how far back you put the tees. 

Mike,

You continue to live in a darkened, sound proof closet.

I guarantee you that few, if any, members of Inwood can hit a 2-iron out of the rough, over the water and onto the green at @ 18 from 200 yards.

That you equate the games of two of the greatest golfers of their eras, if not all time, to the abilities of the general membership of a local club, Inwood, is mind boggling.

Clearly you don't get it.

Please call TEPaul, who is home all day tending to Coorshaw, who has a bad case of pink eye, and have him enlighten you, to the degree that he can.

Wayno & TEPaul have invited me to come to Philly to play some of the great courses in the area, but now I have an additional incentive to visit.
I want to meet all of these 14 handicaps you know who can hit their 5-irons 200 yards, so that I might learn how to get a few more, or 30 additional yards on my 5-iron.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, what type of player is it that you are referring to as a 'better player'?  How long is his average drive and 7 iron, and what would his handicap be?

The "better player" would be amongst the top 10 percent at his golf club.

As to his average drive and average 7 iron it would probably be club/location dependent.

Pat, I don't play where you play and I don't know the members you know.
But I have to ask--is the game really not challenging for 10% of the members at the courses you play?

What has that got to do with the issue ?
The perception on the part of the powers that be at local clubs is that the distance that golfers are hitting the ball has obsoleted many holes and that in order to return them to their intended challenge, in order to return the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer, added length is necessary.

When I hear excellent golfers and long ball hitters like Terry McBride claim that younger kids are outdriving him by 60-80 yards, it's apparent that the game isn't being played as it was a decade or two ago.

Clubs tend to react to the incredible distances that golfers are hitting the ball today.

That is hard for me to believe, but then, I find the game to have plenty of challenge. 

(As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage)

That's an absurd suggestion.
These fellows are competing with other golfers who hit the ball just as far.
And you're advising them to use equipment that will put them at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Think about that.

If you're a 2 handicap golfer, and you're playing for money or silver, are you going to use equipment that's 30 years old ?

If so, when can we arrange to play ?

Also, what is the effect on the course and the routing when 80 yards (the distance you quoted MikeC) are added to the par 4s and 5s? If the tee had been somewhat near the prior green, it likely now would be 80 yards in the wrong direction for a 160 yard round trip.  I assume that would strongly detract from the experience generally.

Your conclusion is flawed because your underlying premise is flawed.
Most architects factor elasticity in to their designs.

And, I don't hear many on this site, especially the Philly connection, complaining about the cross over walks from green to tee at Merion, Lehigh and other clubs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know what to tell you other than for the vast majority of clubs (even those hosting local events) shouldn't add yards unless the hole is improved - regardless of the original archie's intent. 

While we all might agree with that, in theory, most local clubs do as they please to achieve the perceived objective.

From my experience, length is an inconsistent indicator of quality. 

I think it's almost a universal indicator of superior ability.

As one who is ambivalent toward regressive changes in equipment I would gladly support the idea if it guaranteed courses (more especially courses I care about) would not be lengthened.  Unfortunately, I don't believe regressive measures will guarantee anything. 

I am leaning more and more toward split rules if the pro game continues to have a negative impact on the heart and soul of the game - the middle to long capper. 

But as I pointed out earlier, so many high cappers not only accept it, they expect to be beaten up on the course.  When did architectural philosophy ever cherish this as a modus operandi? 

To be fair, in this modern world of inclusivity, it is awfully hard to cater for very best and the very worst.  I think in the old days, the gap between best and worst wasn't so wide = perhaps because there were fewer players.

I'd agree, the gap presents a widening dilema for architects and clubs alike.
However, the R&A and the USGA did very little to prevent the gap from expanding

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, I don't play where you play and I don't know the members you know.
But I have to ask--is the game really not challenging for 10% of the members at the courses you play?

What has that got to do with the issue ?
The perception on the part of the powers that be at local clubs is that the distance that golfers are hitting the ball has obsoleted many holes and that in order to return them to their intended challenge, in order to return the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer, added length is necessary.
Pat, I would think it would be obvious. Your initial premise referenced adding length to increase the challenge for 'better' players. You then defined 'better' players as the top 10% at a club. The obvious question then becomes--do 10% of the golfers at clubs find the game lacking in challenge?

Clubs tend to react to the incredible distances that golfers are hitting the ball today.

That may be so. It does not mean it is always right.

As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage)

That's an absurd suggestion.
These fellows are competing with other golfers who hit the ball just as far.
And you're advising them to use equipment that will put them at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Think about that.
If you're a 2 handicap golfer, and you're playing for money or silver, are you going to use equipment that's 30 years old ?

Actually Pat, it's your suggestion which is not only absurd but also lacking in logic.  If your 2 handicapper is playing for silver then the perceived challenge of the course is no longer relevant--his competition is the rest of the field and his goal presumably is to win. When Tiger plays a classic course during a tournament, does he wish to 'interface' with the architecture or does he wish to win? 

If so, when can we arrange to play ?
I've told you before, for you I would be willing to dig the clubs out of the garage and dust 'em off. Just give me a few days warning. 

Also, what is the effect on the course and the routing when 80 yards (the distance you quoted MikeC) are added to the par 4s and 5s? If the tee had been somewhat near the prior green, it likely now would be 80 yards in the wrong direction for a 160 yard round trip.  I assume that would strongly detract from the experience generally.

Your conclusion is flawed because your underlying premise is flawed.
Most architects factor elasticity in to their designs.
Architects may well favor elasticity and for some good reasons. But ask Tom Doak sometime if he would prefer golfers:
a. walk off a green and take 8 steps to the next tee
b. walk off a green and walk 80 yards backwards to the next tee followed by another 80 yard walk to get back to where they started from

And, I don't hear many on this site, especially the Philly connection, complaining about the cross over walks from green to tee at Merion, Lehigh and other clubs.
Really? Because I have it on the word of a golfing expert that a course like Sand Hills should be marked down for some longer green-to-tee walks.  Can you imagine what that golfing expert would say if he had to walk another 160 yards each hole just to get to the next tee? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

To me you wrote;

"I want to meet all of these 14 handicaps you know who can hit their 5-irons 200 yards, so that I might learn how to get a few more, or 30 additional yards on my 5-iron."


A few moments later you wrote to Andy Hughes;

"When I hear excellent golfers and long ball hitters like Terry McBride claim that younger kids are outdriving him by 60-80 yards, it's apparent that the game isn't being played as it was a decade or two ago."


Is it now your contention that technology is only making the "driver" go much further for younger folks with high swing speeds but the rest of the clubs in the bag are somehow immune to this phenomenon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

To me you wrote;

"I want to meet all of these 14 handicaps you know who can hit their 5-irons 200 yards, so that I might learn how to get a few more, or 30 additional yards on my 5-iron."

A few moments later you wrote to Andy Hughes;

"When I hear excellent golfers and long ball hitters like Terry McBride claim that younger kids are outdriving him by 60-80 yards, it's apparent that the game isn't being played as it was a decade or two ago."

Is it now your contention that technology is only making the "driver" go much further for younger folks with high swing speeds but the rest of the clubs in the bag are somehow immune to this phenomenon?

Mike, your logic, or lack of it, combined with an irrational progression is mind boggling.

The fellows outdriving Terry McBride are 2 to 0 to plus handicaps, NOT 14 handicaps as you claimed.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a difference in how scratch handicaps hit the ball versus 14 handicaps.

Let me correct that statement.
Outside of the Philly area there's a difference in how scratch handicaps hit the ball versus 14 handicaps