A Tee Too Far

[Bill Boonn]

A Tee Too Far
Barney Adams is championing the idea of shortening the courses we play. By a lot.
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-05/golf-barney-adams-forward-tees

Another article advocating shorter courses...

[Jeff_Brauer]

A johnny come lately. I was quoted three years ago in WSJ and I wasn't the first on board. Arthur Little and his wife Jan promoted the idea for a few years before that.

[Steve Kline]

I vaguely remember Alice Dye saying something about this for women a long time ago but I'm probably completely wrong on that.

While the notion is right I doubt there will be much success in the idea. The only way it will work is if the back tees don't exist. You'd need to go to the British model where all the men play from the same set of tees.

[Garland Bayley]

CBM didn't care what club his dubs were hitting into greens, why should anyone else? If you are a golf course architect worrying about it, maybe you are making boring courses.
I'm sure CBM would find the modern golfer an outlandish bore with his dawdling ways.
Let's rid golf course of boring dawdlers. Hitting golf shots is fun no matter how bad you hit it. Waiting on dawdlers is boring.

[Ken Moum]

CBM didn't care what club his dubs were hitting into greens, why should anyone else? If you are a golf course architect worrying about it, maybe you are making boring courses.
I'm sure CBM would find the modern golfer an outlandish bore with his dawdling ways.
Let's rid golf course of boring dawdlers. Hitting golf shots is fun no matter how bad you hit it. Waiting on dawdlers is boring.

I don't think CBM was building a lot of courses where those dubs had to fly a ball on the green.

At my home course, despite being a Ross, there are few holes where a ball hit short will run up onto the surface. Those where it might be possible, you have find the 30-foot-wide opening in the rough to have a chance.

K

[RSLivingston_III]

Go Barney Adams. Hopefully you will make some inroads into this nationwide ego problem.
Way to many guys out there with big brass balls klanking between their legs.

[Garland Bayley]

CBM didn't care what club his dubs were hitting into greens, why should anyone else? If you are a golf course architect worrying about it, maybe you are making boring courses.
I'm sure CBM would find the modern golfer an outlandish bore with his dawdling ways.
Let's rid golf course of boring dawdlers. Hitting golf shots is fun no matter how bad you hit it. Waiting on dawdlers is boring.

I don't think CBM was building a lot of courses where those dubs had to fly a ball on the green.

At my home course, despite being a Ross, there are few holes where a ball hit short will run up onto the surface. Those where it might be possible, you have find the 30-foot-wide opening in the rough to have a chance.

K

Ken,

I don't understand what your post is supposed to mean with respect to mine. My point was that CBM felt if the dub couldn't reach in regulation, so be it. Who cares how many strokes they take as long as they do it in a timely fashion.

[Sean_A]

While nobody in their right mind would quote me, for 20 years (since I started to play the game again after a big break) I have been saying that courses are too long and furthermore that most courses with back tees heading past 6700ish yards should let them go fallow.  Instead, during that period I have seen courses get longer - heavy sigh.  It should be no surprise that golf has slowed down - very heavy sigh.  I still believe that we should be reducing par for the scratch player and creating a bogey score for the handicap player.  Since its just numbers on paper anyway this is surely better than altering/lengthening courses.  Par has always been an unrealistic score for almost everybody and its has been buoyed by the concept that individually, each hole can be parred so its okay.  Somehow, this has translated into par being the goal for handicap players or at least tolerated by handicap players.  

Just once, I want to see a modern designer create a new course topping out at 6000 yards with a par less than 69.  I think this is a great opportunity to create a clever course that doesn't rely on brute strength, but doesn't penalize it either. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

While nobody in their right mind would quote me, for 20 years (since I started to play the game again after a big break) I have been saying that courses are too long and furthermore that most courses with back tees heading past 6700ish yards should let them go fallow.  Instead, during that period I have seen courses get longer - heavy sigh.  It should be no surprise that golf has slowed down - very heavy sigh.  I still believe that we should be reducing par for the scratch player and creating a bogey score for the handicap player.  Since its just numbers on paper anyway this is surely better than altering/lengthening courses.  Par has always been an unrealistic score for almost everybody and its has been buoyed by the concept that individually, each hole can be parred so its okay.  Somehow, this has translated into par being the goal for handicap players or at least tolerated by handicap players.  

Just once, I want to see a modern designer create a new course topping out at 6000 yards with a par less than 69.  I think this is a great opportunity to create a clever course that doesn't rely on brute strength, but doesn't penalize it either. 

Ciao

Sean I built pone 1 hour from your house, it opened a year ago. Its Par 68 5500 yards and Fun. Come and play it.

[Sean_A]

While nobody in their right mind would quote me, for 20 years (since I started to play the game again after a big break) I have been saying that courses are too long and furthermore that most courses with back tees heading past 6700ish yards should let them go fallow.  Instead, during that period I have seen courses get longer - heavy sigh.  It should be no surprise that golf has slowed down - very heavy sigh.  I still believe that we should be reducing par for the scratch player and creating a bogey score for the handicap player.  Since its just numbers on paper anyway this is surely better than altering/lengthening courses.  Par has always been an unrealistic score for almost everybody and its has been buoyed by the concept that individually, each hole can be parred so its okay.  Somehow, this has translated into par being the goal for handicap players or at least tolerated by handicap players.  

Just once, I want to see a modern designer create a new course topping out at 6000 yards with a par less than 69.  I think this is a great opportunity to create a clever course that doesn't rely on brute strength, but doesn't penalize it either. 

Ciao

Sean I built pone 1 hour from your house, it opened a year ago. Its Par 68 5500 yards and Fun. Come and play it.

Adrian

I have been interested in this course for a while.  Each time I visit the site to look at pix the gallery page doesn't seem to work.  Can you post pix?  Why did you call it the Stranahan?  Did he have some sort of connection to you?

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

While nobody in their right mind would quote me, for 20 years (since I started to play the game again after a big break) I have been saying that courses are too long and furthermore that most courses with back tees heading past 6700ish yards should let them go fallow.  Instead, during that period I have seen courses get longer - heavy sigh.  It should be no surprise that golf has slowed down - very heavy sigh.  I still believe that we should be reducing par for the scratch player and creating a bogey score for the handicap player.  Since its just numbers on paper anyway this is surely better than altering/lengthening courses.  Par has always been an unrealistic score for almost everybody and its has been buoyed by the concept that individually, each hole can be parred so its okay.  Somehow, this has translated into par being the goal for handicap players or at least tolerated by handicap players.  

Just once, I want to see a modern designer create a new course topping out at 6000 yards with a par less than 69.  I think this is a great opportunity to create a clever course that doesn't rely on brute strength, but doesn't penalize it either. 

Ciao

Sean I built pone 1 hour from your house, it opened a year ago. Its Par 68 5500 yards and Fun. Come and play it.

Sean,

Get down to the Player's Club and play Adrian's shorter course - I had so much fun playing it - it has wild fariway shapes and its quirky - two par 5's and par 3's in a row, a par 3 start and finish. Also nicely shaped greens for a 'Arble standard' green fee

Cheers
Ben

[Sean_A]

While nobody in their right mind would quote me, for 20 years (since I started to play the game again after a big break) I have been saying that courses are too long and furthermore that most courses with back tees heading past 6700ish yards should let them go fallow.  Instead, during that period I have seen courses get longer - heavy sigh.  It should be no surprise that golf has slowed down - very heavy sigh.  I still believe that we should be reducing par for the scratch player and creating a bogey score for the handicap player.  Since its just numbers on paper anyway this is surely better than altering/lengthening courses.  Par has always been an unrealistic score for almost everybody and its has been buoyed by the concept that individually, each hole can be parred so its okay.  Somehow, this has translated into par being the goal for handicap players or at least tolerated by handicap players.  

Just once, I want to see a modern designer create a new course topping out at 6000 yards with a par less than 69.  I think this is a great opportunity to create a clever course that doesn't rely on brute strength, but doesn't penalize it either. 

Ciao

Sean I built pone 1 hour from your house, it opened a year ago. Its Par 68 5500 yards and Fun. Come and play it.

Sean,

Get down to the Player's Club and play Adrian's shorter course - I had so much fun playing it - it has wild fariway shapes and its quirky - two par 5's and par 3's in a row, a par 3 start and finish. Also nicely shaped greens for a 'Arble standard' green fee

Cheers
Ben

Ben

Yes, I am gonna make a commitment to do so.  I still want to see teh Orange Nine at Cumberwell as well.  That course looked very impressive. 

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,30759.0.html

Sorry to hijack this thread!

Ciao

[Steve_ Shaffer]

A good 6000y course is being built here in the Philly area. KBM's Heritage Creek in Bucks County. Unfortunately there are only 6 holes open now with 3 more to open next year. Who knows when, or if, the full 18 will open.

When will Nicklaus,a Jones,Dye or Fazio ever build a course that tops out at 6000y? Developers all want "championship courses."

I wish Mr. Adams good luck. I posted this at Geoff Shackelford's site:

The problem is golfers themselves. How many times have we been paired up with golfers who don't belong on back tees but want to play there so that they "can see the whole course?" Public course operators are in business to make money and not turn away customers.Do they really care about pace of play? Most golfers cant play the torture chambers that have been built in recent years...too many bunkers,forced carries and severe greens. The problem is that anyone in America can play any public/resort course at any time without having any skills whatsoever. Doesn't Germany require those who want to play golf on a real course pass some kind of proficiency exam? Try doing that here...no way.

[Garland Bayley]

Once again you guys are barking up the wrong tree about proficiency exams, and golf being slow because people play back tees. There are probably high handicap ladies that can play from the way back tees (as long as there are no impossible forced carries) faster that most scratch golfers that think they have to go through their six sigma process to post a score.

Shorten courses and those six sigma devotees will still be causing slow rounds.

[Sean_A]

Garland

I am sure we have been through this before.  Given equal difficulty of designs and routing, the shorter the course, the quicker one should finish.  It doesn't matter if a player is slow or fast.  If the walk is reduced, then one should get in the clubhouse quicker compared to a course 1000 yards longer.  If a 4ball plays a 6800 yard course in 4 hours I am betting they can get around a 6000 yard course in 3.5 hours. 

Ciao

[PCCraig]

I agree with Barney Adams that the majority of golfers, men and women, play golf courses that are way way way too long for them. But it'll never happen in the real world.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I am sure we have been through this before.  Given equal difficulty of designs and routing, the shorter the course, the quicker one should finish.  It doesn't matter if a player is slow or fast.  If the walk is reduced, then one should get in the clubhouse quicker compared to a course 1000 yards longer.  If a 4ball plays a 6800 yard course in 4 hours I am betting they can get around a 6000 yard course in 3.5 hours. 

Ciao

Although 6000/6800 * 4 is a little more than 3.5, they will take the same number of putts, and nearly the same number of strokes. So your math is good for hiking, but lousy for golf.

And why on earth would a 4 ball need 4 hours to play a 6800 yard course? Other, than the six sigma guys in front of them?

[Sean_A]

Garland

I am sure we have been through this before.  Given equal difficulty of designs and routing, the shorter the course, the quicker one should finish.  It doesn't matter if a player is slow or fast.  If the walk is reduced, then one should get in the clubhouse quicker compared to a course 1000 yards longer.  If a 4ball plays a 6800 yard course in 4 hours I am betting they can get around a 6000 yard course in 3.5 hours.  

Ciao

Although 6000/6800 * 4 is a little more than 3.5, they will take the same number of putts, and nearly the same number of strokes. So your math is good for hiking, but lousy for golf.

And why on earth would a 4 ball need 4 hours to play a 6800 yard course? Other, than the six sigma guys in front of them?

Garland

Simple bet.  Take your group out on a 6800 yard course.  Then find a 6000 yard course and do the same.  If your group doesn't play faster on the shorter course (assuming the same sort of routing styles etc) I will pay for your second green fee.  This is not rocket science.  A shorter course will produce shorter games of golf.  To me, the more pertinent question is how do we design and market 6000 yard courses so that folks will be happy to play them.  The first proposition is a known quantity.  There are very good 6000 yard courses about.  Good enough to challenge scratch players.  The hard part is marketing. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I am sure we have been through this before.  Given equal difficulty of designs and routing, the shorter the course, the quicker one should finish.  It doesn't matter if a player is slow or fast.  If the walk is reduced, then one should get in the clubhouse quicker compared to a course 1000 yards longer.  If a 4ball plays a 6800 yard course in 4 hours I am betting they can get around a 6000 yard course in 3.5 hours.  

Ciao

Although 6000/6800 * 4 is a little more than 3.5, they will take the same number of putts, and nearly the same number of strokes. So your math is good for hiking, but lousy for golf.

And why on earth would a 4 ball need 4 hours to play a 6800 yard course? Other, than the six sigma guys in front of them?

Garland

Simple bet.  Take your group out on a 6800 yard course.  Then find a 6000 yard course and do the same.  If your group doesn't play faster on the shorter course (assuming the same sort of routing styles etc) I will pay for your second green fee.  This is not rocket science.  A shorter course will produce shorter games of golf.  To me, the more pertinent question is how do we design and market 6000 yard courses so that folks will be happy to play them.  The first proposition is a known quantity.  There are very good 6000 yard courses about.  Good enough to challenge scratch players.  The hard part is marketing. 

Ciao

Sean,

I didn't say they wouldn't take less time, I indicated that a 30 minute savings was an unreasonable estimate. If you had suggested a 15 minute savings I would not have much disagreement.

[Garland Bayley]

I would also point out that if you play a 6800 yard course in 6 hours, you will take perhaps 5:45 to play the 6000 yard course. The length of the course is just a small matter in the time it takes to play with dawdling players around.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The problem is we already have 6000y courses and that most golfers rarely play from those tees in the 6800y to 7500y layouts that already exist. How many public/resort courses in the USA are willing to close off tees beyond 6000y or so in order to produce 4 hour or less rounds? How many are willing to reduce the number of bunkers and/or lessen the severity of greens?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I agree with Barney Adams that the majority of golfers, men and women, play golf courses that are way way way too long for them. But it'll never happen in the real world.

This is indeed true, but typically for two different reasons. Men play tees too long because they want to and think they can handle them. Women play tees too long because they are forced to much of the time. Too often the most forward set of tees is in the range of 5,000 yards and simply put that is too long for the average lady golfer to handle, the 18-20 handicap lady. The forward set probably needs to be 4,000 yards and the tee for the average man, again 18-20 handicap, probably needs to be less than 6,000 yards. But thats hard to pull off.

I think a decent solution for length can be seen at a course like Jeff Brauer's Wildhorse Club in Davis, CA. They don't put out the Black markers on weekends (or possibly any other day, but I've only seen it on a Saturday) so the longest set you can play is like 6400 yards or so. But I played there with John Moore and he said that a friend of his who had played golf for UC-Davis pointed out some 'Aggie' back tees that can stretch the course to around 7,400 yards. Perhaps that is the answer. Route a course in such a way that it is designed short and playable for all, but with the capability to be played much longer if necessary, but those tees in really odd locations such that the normal golfers wouldn't really even consider them to be teeing areas. Just a thought.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - We have done this before. I think it depends where tees are on the 7000 yarder/ 6000 from the front are in relationship to the previous green, looking at B&B for instance I don't think the walk is much different, you tend to walk the full length of course even from those front markers, there are walk backs at 6 and 8 but those arent really much. I walk the front or back nine every morning and I do 3000 metres in 30 minutes,  thats 100 metres in 1 minute. So time wise I got to side with Garland and you will get no arguement from me with 15 minutes. Lets say you walk 100 yards back to a tee the theory gets trashed if you are still waiting for the guys in front when you get there.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Geoff Shackelford's Quote of the Day:

A great many players are averse to using forward tees perhaps because they were originally christened "ladies tees" but regardless of that fact it seems that a great deal more enjoyment could be had if golfers used the tee on the various holes that really suited their game.
WILLIAM FLYNN

I follow Flynn's advice whenever I see a 440y  par4 in a casual round, I usually move up.

As a side note, I think more courses should have "mixed tees" on the card to create a course of about 6000y or so if there is a big gap between yardages on the existing tees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My sample size certainly may not be valid, but I think I have seen a general recognition that playing shorter is acceptable.

My personal ephiphany came from being paired with Rees Jones at Pinehurst 2 one year at ASGCA.  The other three figured we would play at the 6700 tees and Rees walked up on the tee and said "Are you nuts?" or something to that effect, also saying the 6200 yard tees would allow us to play it like the pros.

I have seen other examples of that.  Back when I played in the Vegas Pro Am, my tee shots were equal to the shorter hitters and not far behind the longer hitters (maybe 255 to 275 yards).  Now that the difference between me and the longest pro tour hitters is closer to 50-100 yards (245 yards to 295-345 yards) I (and a lot of others) seem to be giving up the idea of playing the next set up in favor of playing a set that lets us approximate the short and mid irons to the greens we used to get and that they get now!

I also recall my Dad not wanting to play under 6000 yards no matter what, but now many seniors report to me that if there is no set of tees between 5500-6000 they know they won't have a lot of fun and don't feel comfortable booking a tee time.

So, in a perverse way, maybe increasing pro tour distance is having a good effect on the game!

As to the contention that some ladies could play longer courses just as fast, well, statistically there are a few,  but not as many as you would think.  And some of it is pure distance math - 40 shots averaging 110 yards (140 tee shot, shorter approach) on a 4400 yard course has to take less (at about 3 min per shot average) than 50 shots on a 5500 yard forward tee course.