The Future of Golf?

[Philippe Binette]

I know the 5600 yards course might be extreme... but it would get the job done for 95% of the golfers.

at 6000 par 70, you can challenge eveybody.

[Philippe Binette]

as far as championship course:

normally a course that maket itself a championship course look like this:
7000 + yards
4 lakes
65 bunkers
big USGA greens
5 sets of tees

and it never hosted a championship

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think 5600 is too short to cater for all. I also think its hard perhaps even impossible to please everyone. We just built a second 18 holer at 5500 yards, it has fans but it has an awful lot of people that dont want to play it because its not long enough. That aside I agree that 6000 par 70 is probably the best way to cater for as much as you can, it can test the good players and not too tough for lesser whackers.
The length of courses and championship standards etc etc is nothing to do with the current downturn. Excluding the current economic gloom, two big factors are against golf. THE TIME IT TAKES TO PLAY and THE COST TO BE A MEMBER. The more golfers that become nomadic will equate to them playing golf less and less, if you are a member you tend to pop up for 9 or just turn up on speck, these things are not so easy for nomadic play.
When the world recovers, golf courses will start in Eastern Europe where there are not many courses, there is some great land there too but they are likely to be low standard affairs for the locals who have SKY TV and have watched, liked and now want to play golf. I assume Cuba, South America and other places will be hot spots too.

[Ian Andrew]

I think 5600 is too short to cater for all.

I'm with everyone else on this one Philippe.
I think your on the right track, but went too far short in the process.

[George Pazin]

It's funny. 5600 sounds way too short.

But this: 340+500+140+320+160+400+430+290+310+420+510+200+300+370+120+270+180+340 - doesn't really look way too short.

It's almost surprising to me that it's only 5600. Bump the 400 and 430 to 450 and 470, and the 160 to 180 and the 510 to 550 and you've only added 150 yards, but you've added some long par 4s and a bit more testing 3's and 5's. Still isn't even 6000.

Thanks, Philippe, that was an eye-opener.

[Philippe Binette]

I didn't put the par of the course on purpose... but the 5600 yards course was a par 68...

The thing I care about is the number of driver the long hitter (280 yards get to hit), even if he doesn't go for the greens on the tee shots of par 4, he gets to hit 6 drivers (granted there's enough width)
- the 4 par 4's of more than 370 yards
- the 2 par 5's

the club player hitting his drive 220 yards has room to play.

[Philippe Binette]

Ian,

I don't see why it's too short... it's only too short for maybe 3% of the golfers, and even then, it doesn't mean they can't play it.

the player shooting 92 might shot 88 on a course like this... but he would definitely appreciate playing his round in 45 minutes less and paying 10$ less per round..

I'm not saying all course should be that short,
and 5600 yards doesn't mean bad architecture.

Scotland is a great example of short and fun course...

[paul cowley]

I'm with you Phillippe, if it helps....tough road to hoe.

[paul cowley]

Btw....that probably should be "tough road to haul" as opposed to "hoe".....which probably could also be "tough field to hoe" as an alternative. Geesh. Why would you hoe a road? Or maybe it came from "tough road to hold"? Yeah, probably.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

I think it's actually "a tough row to hoe", from a row in a field.  My parents were both raised on farms in Missouri and I heard the expression once or twice growing up.

I think Philippe's 5600 yard course would be well received by golfers; the problem would be finding a developer who would let him try it.  My guess is that it would only happen on a property of +/- 100 acres, where that was the most you could get, otherwise the client would insist on more.

[paul cowley]

Tom, yes I agree...and I'm sure you probably heard that expression more than once or twice!

For what it's worth, and as far as this discussion, I am 'sprucing up' (Tom help me please with this expression) a course we designed 12 years ago...Cabin Bluff, part of the Sea Island Resort...an 18 hole golf course with 18 tees and 8 fairways -  par 72 -  6500 yds back and 5200 yds front....that has been built on 50+/- acres. One needs to see it to understand it.

[Ian Andrew]

I don't see why it's too short... it's only too short for maybe 3% of the golfers, and even then, it doesn't mean they can't play it.

I never said it was bad.
I'm sure you can find a set of holes from famous courses that would be fantastic to play too.

I happen to play at "that" distance everytime I play with my father (in his eighties).
He's had too much surgery to play anywhere but up front.

It's fun, but you find you tend to hit the same club a lot.
That my point about it being too short a distance.

I'm with you, I just think the yardage needs to be a little further.

[Philippe Binette]

Ian, you're just too good of a player for 5600 yards  ..

Tom Doak: you're right, I doubt somebody, except me if I become a millionnaire, would go and say... let's built it shorter...

although:
on a recent master plan, I convinced the ownership to take out about 120 yards of a 6240 yards par 71 course. It's mostly for safety reasons (it's a tight property in spots) but it also allows to remove edges, ugly straight line planting etc..
the point is, we are taking out length, but adding up character... it's going to be a fun place if we get to do everything there.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ian,

I don't see why it's too short... it's only too short for maybe 3% of the golfers, and even then, it doesn't mean they can't play it.

the player shooting 92 might shot 88 on a course like this... but he would definitely appreciate playing his round in 45 minutes less and paying 10$ less per round..

Scotland is a great example of short and fun course...

It is too short for about 50% and there lies the problem. Your theory of (in real time 3%) is probably right but a lot of golfers snub a par 68 and the number must have a 6 in front of it (from the back tees) theres a lot of kidology in it but thats the world we live in. You are right with your 45 minutes too, but adding everything up you got too many minus points and golfers will join somewhere else first call and outings will want a bigger challenge. You do have a market ibut its a bit restricted. Sometimes developers know more than architects.

[Philippe Binette]

Most club players hit the ball 400 yards max in 2 shots (their best 2 of the day)... so the 420 and 430 holes are par 5's... add up 150 yards to the theoric layout and at 5750 yards, par 70, it's plenty to have fun


I mean, just don't add up the numbers in the end and nobody would bother...
Players are so unrealistic about their own game...

On my former home course, the first hole needed a 195 yards carry over a creek, not a lot of people were flying that thing

Golf is about having fun, not a "who's the toughest" challenge

[Mike_Young]

I would bet there are more than a few 5800-6000 yard courses we all play but the scorecard says they are 6800.

Changing the subject just a little:  I was with some guys yesterday that reminded me of our main issues with golf in the future.  The older guys play but as they quit the younger guys just aren't picking it up and this particular group blames it on the two earner household.  Which equates to shared weekend responsibilities.  So whatever we do it has to take less time to play and I mean a lot less time.  JMO

[Ally Mcintosh]

I would bet there are more than a few 5800-6000 yard courses we all play but the scorecard says they are 6800.

Changing the subject just a little:  I was with some guys yesterday that reminded me of our main issues with golf in the future.  The older guys play but as they quit the younger guys just aren't picking it up and this particular group blames it on the two earner household.  Which equates to shared weekend responsibilities.  So whatever we do it has to take less time to play and I mean a lot less time.  JMO

I agree with this. Problems all boil down to 3 things in the following order:

1. TIME (i.e. door to door duration of a round + travel to and from)
2. MONEY (i.e. cost of equipment and green fees)
3. DIFFICULT (i.e. not an easy sport to learn to a base level of proficiency)

Perhaps we should turn golf back in to an athletic sport... Speed golf with time penalties (in the form of added strokes) for rounds taking over two hours...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mike is spot on with the call it 68 put play it at 58 and a problem with building a course at 5600 yards is that its 5000 from the front. Kidology is a key part, give them a good time let them score low let them think they are playing the same as the pro's. That total yardage must have a six infront of it, but your not wrong (Phillipe) with the real bones of what your saying, your just not going to convert the masses.
Theres nothing we can really do NOW as designers since there is no need for new courses and almost any new course s still going to be a 'bigger and better' one than the one down the road, developers wont be aiming at the middle of the road market . Courses can be shortened but it wont be popular, you find at many clubs when the members are given options to use diffent tees most do not want to use the front pegs.

[Ian Andrew]

Changing the subject just a little:  I was with some guys yesterday that reminded me of our main issues with golf in the future.  The older guys play but as they quit the younger guys just aren't picking it up and this particular group blames it on the two earner household.  Which equates to shared weekend responsibilities.  So whatever we do it has to take less time to play and I mean a lot less time.  JMO

I'm that guy, I love the game, but do not play more than one week-end a year.
I don't blame anything or anyone, I would rather do things with my kids (that's my generation's view).

You don't need to attract the adult, you need to attract the kids.
The local Jr. B hockey team has done it perfectly, kids are given free tickets regularly at their practices.
My son and I go quite often, I pay full price by drinks and popcorn and they have two regular customers.

Golf needs to be more creative.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Changing the subject just a little:  I was with some guys yesterday that reminded me of our main issues with golf in the future.  The older guys play but as they quit the younger guys just aren't picking it up and this particular group blames it on the two earner household.  Which equates to shared weekend responsibilities.  So whatever we do it has to take less time to play and I mean a lot less time.  JMO

I'm that guy, I love the game, but do not play more than one week-end a year.
I don't blame anything or anyone, I would rather do things with my kids (that's my generation's view).

You don't need to attract the adult, you need to attract the kids.
The local Jr. B hockey team has done it perfectly, kids are given free tickets regularly at their practices.
My son and I go quite often, I pay full price by drinks and popcorn and they have two regular customers.

Golf needs to be more creative.

I'm beginning to think that free golf for kids is the only way... Green fees take priority and kids slot in around...

[Ian Andrew]

I'm beginning to think that free golf for kids is the only way... Green fees take priority and kids slot in around...

I grew up with $10. to $20. (max.) green fees on Mondays for juniors.
This was almost everywhere around Toronto (1976-1979).
At that time it was the culture.
 
I booked those days off of work every week and agreed to work week-ends.
I bought my golf balls, food, gloves and occasionally a putter in the golf shop.

[Jud_T]

It drives me nuts when places don't offer rates for juniors.  Unless the tee sheet is chock full 24/7, there's no excuse for it.  My old club let juniors carry on weekday afternoons and bring a friend for free...

[Sean_A]

Mike is spot on with the call it 68 put play it at 58 and a problem with building a course at 5600 yards is that its 5000 from the front. Kidology is a key part, give them a good time let them score low let them think they are playing the same as the pro's. That total yardage must have a six infront of it, but your not wrong (Phillipe) with the real bones of what your saying, your just not going to convert the masses.
Theres nothing we can really do NOW as designers since there is no need for new courses and almost any new course s still going to be a 'bigger and better' one than the one down the road, developers wont be aiming at the middle of the road market . Courses can be shortened but it wont be popular, you find at many clubs when the members are given options to use diffent tees most do not want to use the front pegs.

Two of my most favourite courses on the planet are less than 6000 from the tips and around 5600 yards from the daily tee.  Whether folks accept  it or not, both can be all nearly every golfer on the planet can handle.  On calm days, one gets the added benefit of being able to go low once in a while.  I won't quibble over the exact numbers, but shorter courses IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE if folks can climb down from their high horses.  How do I know this, because we have many examples of outstanding courses, some considered world class, which are very short by today's standards.  Yet not many who know these courses well walk away thinking there is nothing that 500 yards couldn't do to cure its ills.

Ciao

[PThomas]

Paul:

I think it's actually "a tough row to hoe", from a row in a field.  My parents were both raised on farms in Missouri and I heard the expression once or twice growing up.

at about the 50 second mark the Dixie Chicks sing about not having rowed a hoe since I dont know when...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4NTn3Pn05A

[Philippe Binette]

If you go to a developer saying you're going to make the course 6300 yards instead of 7000 yards so it will be cheaper to built and maintain and he'll have 500 000 sq. ft more of real estate to sell at 5$ / sq. ft = 2 500 000 $, that's good economics