[David_Tepper]

Article in the WSJ discussing distance in the context of Erin Hills and Plainfield:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532600643828770.html
l

[Tim Gavrich]

"This is a great course at the length that it is," Jerry Kelly told me, "It tests every club in your bag."

So if this is the case, and Plainfield is less than 7,000 yards, then championship courses don't *need* to be as long as they are, necessarily?  Instead, they need thoughtfully-designed, challenging, and varied green complexes?  Huh.  What a concept.

Is the simultaneous championing of F&F and the perceived need to reward the best players in the world by forcing them to use inferior-performing golf balls inherently hypocritical?

[Chris Johnston]

"The older I get, the longer I was"

Tim - I agree 100%!  Give me 6,600-6,800 yards with variety and personality and the game is fun.  With varied wind conditions out our way, that is plenty for 99% of people who play. 

Chasing length is a fools errand for the most of us.

[Tim Gavrich]

Chris--

I agree with you.  Of my three favorite courses in my home state of CT, TPC River Highlands is the longest at just over 6,800 yards, par 70.  The other two are Yale (6,749) and the Country Club of Farmington (just over 6,400 I believe).

Nevertheless, I have to ask, then, about the fact that Dismal River has two sets of tees longer than its ~6,600 yard set.  How much is the golf course shortened by your firm playing conditions and what percentage of play comes from those back two sets?

[Chris Johnston]

Chris--

I agree with you.  Of my three favorite courses in my home state of CT, TPC River Highlands is the longest at just over 6,800 yards, par 70.  The other two are Yale (6,749) and the Country Club of Farmington (just over 6,400 I believe).

Nevertheless, I have to ask, then, about the fact that Dismal River has two sets of tees longer than its ~6,600 yard set.  How much is the golf course shortened by your firm playing conditions and what percentage of play comes from those back two sets?

Tim - we dumped the course and slope rating and mix the tees quite often.  We only have three sets on the card, but a few holes have 6 tee areas so moving them around makes sense.  We don't worry about distance and prefer people play where they like.  Similar to Sand Hills, 13 of our back tees are also elevated helping to "cheat" the overall distance a bit.

I too liked TPCRH, CC of Farmington and Yale from my days at Royal Precision. 

[Tim Gavrich]

Chris--

Very good.  I googled "Dismal River scorecard" and what I found was from an independent site, so I figured it might be outdated or something like that.  Good to hear about your positive deviation from the rigid norms of tee placement and such.  It must be fun to have a membership that enjoys the opportunity for elasticity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I love and am an advocate for F&F, but, if Mother Nature doesn't co-operate, there's little you can do.

In addition,t there's a transition time to convert a course to F&F, along with a monetary committment.

All obstacles to F&F.

[Garland Bayley]

As the length of courses, increase the cost of ground and upkeep must of course increase proportionately. In my early days as a golfer, 6000 yards was as a good length course and two hours the usual time allotted to play a single. At the present rate of growing, particularly with four ball matches -- generally in vogue -- on the good course of the future, nine holes in one day may be as much as the majority can enjoy without intense discomfort. This is not a tendency to increase our pleasure, and after all we, or most of us, play golf for recreation.

[Garland Bayley]

The previous post is a quote from A. Vernon Macan reproduced in Just Call me Mac his biography by website member Michael Riste.

[Phil McDade]

I think Hurdzan's being a bit disingenious here:

"It's a second-shot game," Hurdzan said. "Off the tee, you're only trying to position yourself strategically for the approach shot. That's what's it all about—the approach shot and making the putt. If it were just about length, we'd never be able to separate the best players."

Um, EHills is a course that -- at the highest level of competition it's seen yet (the just-concluded US Amateur) -- seems to reward length off the tee. Look at the folks who made the quarter-finals and beyond -- alot of folks who can hit the ball a long way (Uihlein, Cantlay, Russell, Senior the Brit). I wouldn't call the guy who won -- Kraft -- exactly short. He just rode an extremely hot putter to the win. Length seems to be a real asset at EH.

[Rick Wolffe]

Jeeez...do any of the "powers to be" give a hoot about the cost of golf?

...why don't these just short of 7000 yard courses like Plainfield and Merion just install sub-air systems in the fairways so they can always be firm and fast?  And for that matter, while they're at it, go ahead and replace the fairways with artificial turf...

[Sean_A]

Two great concepts which have flourished with the long ball era are drivable par 4s and reachable in two par 5s for the good club players rather than only for the great players.  So many of these newly created half par holes would be far less interesting if we could hit a driver only 200-225 yards.

Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Two great concepts which have flourished with the long ball era are drivable par 4s and reachable in two par 5s for the good club players rather than only for the great players.  So many of these newly created half par holes would be far less interesting if we could hit a driver only 200-225 yards.

Ciao 

Guess I don't understand the comment. 40 years ago I found there were reachable par 4s and 5s in 1 and 2.
And why would you create half par holes that were beyond the technology if the technology had remained constant?

[Sean_A]

Garland

40 years ago not many guys could bang drives 250 let alone alone 275.  This length makes many more holes drivable and reachable in two par 5s for guys like me.  I don't recall ever reading literature from the hey day golf design about drivable par 4s for Joe Schmoe.  Now, some people, including myself, believe any great course needs at least one drivable par 4. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

40 years ago not many guys could bang drives 250 let alone alone 275.  This length makes many more holes drivable and reachable in two par 5s for guys like me.  I don't recall ever reading literature from the hey day golf design about drivable par 4s for Joe Schmoe.  Now, some people, including myself, believe any great course needs at least one drivable par 4. 

Ciao

Define "hey day" and "Joe Schmoe". If CBM lived in the "hey day" then he disinherited his "Joe Schmoe" son for driving a par 4.
I hope "hey day" doesn't mean the RTJ era. It seems that hard par/easy bogey would be anti-reachable.

[SL_Solow]

Assuming the apocryphal story is true, i believe it was his son in law who was a fine player.  Moreover, if CBM disinherited him for driving the green, it is clear that he did not intend it to be a drivable par 4.  Whether I agree about the "benefits" of "distance creep or not, the observation that the equipment has effectively shortened courses and created many more half pars is correct.  My assessment comes nt only from reading but from having played since the 1960's.

[Sean_A]

Garland

I am not sure why this concept is hard to grasp.  Guys hit the ball much further today than 40 years.  A great many drive and pitch holes have not been lengthened to keep them so.  Thus, these holes varying in distance from 250ish to 300ish have become drivable for a great many more people than previously who are good, but nowhere near scratch standard.  This also means that some par 5s in the 470ish for 520ish range have also become reachable in two for a great many more people who are not good, but not anywhere near scratch standard.  I believe this in general to be a positive outcome of added distance.  In essence, to my knowledge anyway, the drivable par 4 is a concept which has come to full fruition in recent years and was at best a rarity design intention for archies of the Golden Age.  I read about drive/pitch par 4s, but not drivable par 4s.  

Joe Schmoe equals me and many other people who could never dream of driving a 275 yard par 4 40 years ago.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Shel,

You're probably right it was the son-in-law. A look in The Evangelist of Golf would ascertain who it was. CBM may not have intended it to be a drivable hole, but he may have been measuring by his standard, not the Joe Schmoe standard.

Sean,

Part of this argument has been gone over many times. 40 years ago there were lots of Joe Schmoes driving 300+ yards. There have always been high handicappers that have driven the ball a long way. But, since you never read about high handicappers, you wouldn't have read about them. If you can now drive 275 when you couldn't 40 years ago, I would say you have improved, whereas I have shortened by at least 25 yards. I would have said I shortened by more, but this year I have uncorked some drives to distances I thought previously unattainable for this old man.

But, that's kind of beside the point. I think the confusion came from your wording in the first post you made. You wrote "newly created half par holes". You last post says "drive and pitch holes have not been lengthened" which changes the meaning of created from built to obsoleted.
I thought your first post was about the re-emphasis of half par holes by current architects causing them to be newly built.

[Jud_T]

How much has the average USGA handicap come down in the last 30 years?

[Sean_A]

Shivas

Maybe its Chicago lawyers who choose to place any meaning they like to the written word.  Go back and read my posts.  Both you and Garland are of in right field picking daisies when the ball has come your way - you don't have a clue where to throw it.

I seem to recall that in the mid 70s the long drive winner was somebody Williams with a drive of maybe 325 yards on a very wide fairway.  At the time 275 was a BIG hit and I heard many more claims of it being done than it actually happening.  Furthermore, I still haven't come across any old literature mentioning the designed for drivable par 4.  Maybe it was designed for, but if so it was a rarity.  My point is that these days, FAR MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE A GO AT THIS TYPE OF HOLE AND THAT TODAY WE HAVE SOME DESIGNED TO HAVE A GO AT.  Why?  Because its fun.  Golf is a game and meant to be fun.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
I seem to recall that in the mid 70s the long drive winner was somebody Williams with a drive of maybe 325 yards on a very wide fairway. ...

The Education of a Golfer. By Sam Snead page 2. At age 23 he drove over the green of a 330 yard hole in a tournament and had to chip back. This is just the first of many stories he relates about hitting drives well over 300 yards. And, he claims to be the short driver in the family as his older brother could out drive him.

I think it is quite common knowledge that Jack regularly drove over 300 yards when he found the need or conditions to do it. The problem was that it was very risky to try to hit the big drive, because of how much the ball spun. Therefore, the big hitters generally did not try to hit it as long as possible like they do now. When they took the spin out of the ball, they opened up the possibility that more people could compete at the upper echelons of golf.

Mickey Mantle regularly hit his 3 wood over 300 yards.

[Sean_A]

Garland

Read before you write.  I have written repeatedly that short 4s and and 5s have become more reachable for guys like me - Joe Schmoes and I think golf is better for it.  There are plenty of stories of pros banging it a long way, but usually there is a reason - downwind, hard surface, downhill.  Yet there is no getting round the fact that in the mid 70s hitting the ball 275 in normal conditions was considered a big whack.  Of course we have the notion of designing a par 4 to be driven to explain away as well.  

I give up.  The most basic concepts are just too hard to explain around here - that is if they needed explaining!  That and everybody wants to talk about golf from the perspective a pro - which btw is something very few can even relate to including many of those doing it.  Okay, Joe Schmoe has been driving par 4s since the dawn of time and archies have designed for it as well.  Why?  Because Jack was a big hitter in his day.  

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

Read before you write.  I have written repeatedly that short 4s and and 5s have become more reachable for guys like me - Joe Schmoes and I think golf is better for it.  

Sorry, I missed your definition of Joe Schmoe, but you didn't acknowledge my definition either. To me Joe Schmoe is someone you will seldom be reading about to know whether or not he is bombing it.

There are plenty of stories of pros banging it a long way, but usually there is a reason - downwind, hard surface, downhill.  

A long ways in those conditions is 525 yards by George Bayer in a tournament. He held the record 40 years ago. Not at 300.

Yet there is no getting round the fact that in the mid 70s hitting the ball 275 in normal conditions was considered a big whack.  Of course we have the notion of designing a par 4 to be driven to explain away as well.  

Since it is not a fact, why do we need to get around it? What you are confusing is the self limiting done due to the nature of the golf ball, with true big whacks.

I give up.  The most basic concepts are just too hard to explain around here - that is if they needed explaining!  That and everybody wants to talk about golf from the perspective a pro - which btw is something very few can even relate to including many of those doing it.  Okay, Joe Schmoe has been driving par 4s since the dawn of time and archies have designed for it as well.  Why?  Because Jack was a big hitter in his day.  

You best give up, because you don't recognize facts. The reason Jack is given as an example is that we need to give examples of what you may have heard of. I would have thought you had heard of Mickey Mantle. But, certainly you wouldn't have heard of him as a golfer. What you need to understand is that the players on the PGA tour have long dialed it back, primarily in the past because of the ball spin. However, they still do it today to score even with the modern ball. Check out Bubba and Camilo's driving distances from the Nationwide tour, vs. what they had dialed it back to on the PGA tour. Check out how much farther they are driving it on the Nationwide tour than on the PGA tour. I have witnessed Joe Schmoe (my definition) obscure University golf team member regularly drive it 300 yards in the mid 1970s. These are facts!

Ciao

EDIT: One always has to question one memory. So I set about to verify my claim about George Bayer.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1072609/1/index.htm

[Eric_Terhorst]

DT, thanks for posting the Newport article which I missed.  Garland, that article about George Bayer was fascinating--I'd never heard of him.  And it is notable also for the use by the author of the word "Brobdingnagian" to describe Bayer's length--paging Terry Lavin!

Yet there is no getting round the fact that in the mid 70s hitting the ball 275 in normal conditions was considered a big whack.  

Sean, I don't disagree with you that more of us can hope to drive a par 4 or make a par 5 in two than in the old days.  But I have to agree with Shivas and Garland that 275 was not considered a "big whack" in the mid-70s.  At that time in Sacramento, I was a kid playing Northridge CC, which had (and still has):  #5, a 445yd par 5 that us kids us to hit in two regularly; #7 a 309yd slight downhill par 4 that we would be disappointed if we weren't pitching at most a half-wedge to; and #9, a 493 yd par 5 that we were often nearly on in two shots. 

At #5 the second shot plays over a little pond, so you had the classic risk-reward calculation.  It was a tough chance if you weren't at or beyond the 200-yd marker with your tee shot.   As you've emphasized, it was fun to have that opportunity--it's a well-designed hole, and I was frankly pleasantly surprised to see when I looked it up just now that it's still called a par 5 http://www.northridgegolf.com/vt_hole_description.asp?HoleID=5 .  I'm sure it still thrills most of the members to make 4 there, even if it is a pitch and putt 3 for the flat-bellies.

I can't recall what kind of balls we used back then--they weren't balata, too delicate.  But there were plenty of guys who could hit them 275 yards. 

Alas, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at dragging down memory lane--I can't hit as far now as I could when I was 15!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()