[jeffwarne]

Applying as a GD Rater last year I only got a letter back - I don't carry it with me, so this is pretty much what it says:

Dear Angela,
thank you very much for your interest in becoming a Golf Digest Rater. Unfortunately we cannot include you in our Rater community, as you have to have a maximum HCP of 5 (I'm a 7) and be able to tee of every range of tees.
Have a great day...

?? As a GD Rater with Hcp 5 or better would tee off a front tee...

PS: I don't really know why I wanted to be a GD Rater, but I think this letter speaks for itself.

So there's no truth to the rumor that there are 28,456,789 Golf Digest Raters?
Sure seems like that on 4th of July weekend

[Steve Lang]

  a challenging faz course, building a legacy

2004 TX State Amatuer
2007 USGA State Team Championship
2009-2013 AJGA HP Boys Championship
2011 TX State Mid Amatuer
2013 Southern Amatuer
2014 US Junior Championship


Tournament Tees:  76.4 / 145, 7274 yds
Faz Tees: 73.9 / 139, 6842 yds
Member Tees: 72.6 / 138, 6676 yds
Chairman tees: 71.8 / 137, 6202 yds
Forward Tees: 71.1 / 126, 5077 yds

top 14-17 year old AJGA'ers, can shoot 3-4 under par from the tips in a given round cause they're driving the ball up to 300 yards, and hitting irons very solid as well, and some fearless on and around the greens...  no question elite jrs making better college players and pros..  roll the ball back and the elite will still beat you with short game skills  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think most agree with Jeff Warne and you, but, consider the following.

What developer is going to agree to building a 6,500 or less yard course in the face of today's I&B ?

The course would almost immediately be rendered obsolete and unchallenging.

The opening would be a "thud" not a "big splash"

So, the two are inextricably related.

Ball go far = long course

Until there's some rollback with I&B I don't see any chance of rollback in designs.
At least not from the developer's perspective.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

I think most agree with Jeff Warne and you, but, consider the following.

What developer is going to agree to building a 6,500 or less yard course in the face of today's I&B ?

The course would almost immediately be rendered obsolete and unchallenging.

The opening would be a "thud" not a "big splash"

So, the two are inextricably related.

Ball go far = long course

Until there's some rollback with I&B I don't see any chance of rollback in designs.
At least not from the developer's perspective.

Patrick:

There's a big gap between 6500 yards and 7500. 

There are still a lot of great courses under 7000 yards ... Garden City comes to mind.  So does North Berwick, although it surely gets brownie points for its sea views.

You are right that most developers would be afraid to build a 6500-yard course.  Seems crazy, though, when you consider that 90% of the golf rounds played in America are played at less than that distance.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom Doak,

I think most agree with Jeff Warne and you, but, consider the following.

What developer is going to agree to building a 6,500 or less yard course in the face of today's I&B ?

ME

The course would almost immediately be rendered obsolete and unchallenging.

By Who?

The opening would be a "thud" not a "big splash"

I don't care about the opening I care about the revenues minus the expenses every year for the next 25 years

So, the two are inextricably related.

Ball go far = long course

Not for me and 90% of the golfers
When I started playing with more intent it was on a 6100 yard course


Until there's some rollback with I&B I don't see any chance of rollback in designs.
At least not from the developer's perspective.

Your developer has a narrow perspective
The pros get comped anyway - who cares about them

[John_Conley]

A 7,000 yard course at Par 72 with two 3s and two 5s per nine is common.

Take away two of the par 5s and you have a much "longer" course of 7,000 yards Par 70.  Same length though.

Another way to alter the common layout would be to add a Par 3 per nine at the expense of a Par 4, making the course now 6,550 or something.  Par 70.

I have not seen that done, but it doesn't seem hard to build a presentable course of around 6,500 yards.

A local course called Mystic Dunes is a lot of fun to play.  Gary Koch is architect listed and what they did was hit 7,000 yards with lots of short holes.  The yardage ends up on lots of long holes.  It works.

[V. Kmetz]

Unless we're talking courses "at elevation," who the hell plays courses over 7,000 yards?

"There's a big gap between 6500 yards and 7500."

Amen to that TD...let's not even let the premise slide so deeply into the 7s. 

Working and living within the scope of the Metropolitan District, I can't think of one, not one course, in this gold mine of classic GCA that is carded over 7000 yards, in the ultra-rare exception for certain courses championship tees...which are never played.  I work at WF and you might say, "Idiot, WF was the longest Open course in its time." No one, I repeat no one plays near 6 or 7 of that 7,250(?) courses tee boxes...the "7250" tees on 2, 3, 12, 14, 18 are the world's most pristine turf nursery, that get used once every 15 years.  The crack flights and top competitors at the club sometimes play a WEST course of just over 7000.  Most (and I mean 99%) play a "blue" tee of 6750-6850 or a white tee of 6250 - 6400.

Quaker Ridge...plays 6950...for the Hochster, not for the 99.99% who are experiencing a 6300-6850 course.
Siwanoy...says its 6450 from the tips...no one plays the course over 6350...the white course is 6180....
What's NGLA?
Who's playing Shinnecock from the Open Yardage
The Creek
Yale
Fishers
Bethpage Black
apawamis
Piping Rock
Tom mentioned Garden City
Friar's Head
I could literally name 100s

...who is playing these courses regularly over 7000 yards, even in the rare instance where there is a 7000yard+ tee available; or a national event doesn't alter the everyday focus?

But concurrently, and perhaps more importantly to a purely GCA interest, what the deuce is this entire site about?

topics:

10th at Riviera
Best Short Fours
Great Half-Par Holes
Drivable fours
etc....

Isn't that perhaps the thesis, the ethos of the whole site...to reject the notion that technology overwhelms GCA's natural essence. that static sub-design elements like "total yardage" matter at all?  It's no great trick to make something hard.  I'll bet I can design a par 5 in your back yard with a garbage can for a hole that you can't bogey...but to design one that you can make 2,s 3s, 4s and par, and that you want to play repeatedly is a different matter.  That "different matter" is GCA.

I do not understand this hand-wringing (on one side) and capitulation (on the other) when:

A. Hardly ANY classic courses are either instituted or played from a distance of over 7000 yards.
B. We're in the very presence of working architects, designers, builders, writers, historians, afficianados, talking about the guts of it.
C. Most times, even if a 7000+ tee is available, its not even used.

Of course, we come to TD's and other's mention of  where the rubber hits the road..."The Client"..."The Client, the Development Group, the Very Rich Man specifically wanted a course over 7000 yards" A client who doesn't want a course of the quality of the ones above...because yardage is that barrier...is lunatic...I say fine, build them their championship tee.  I trust any working architect to design the course from the every-day tee 6300 - 6700 and just add yardage to a "black" tee box...what is the issue?

I'm not here to judge anybody or sanction anybody's enjoyment of play over 7000 yards or their desire to do what they want with their development riches.  The situation will transact organically as it will.  However, to state: "7000 yard courses are a fact of life - damn technology" is a non-sequitur given what we know about classic GCA. We know it doesn't have to be that way.

I just think it has nothing to do with the game as it experienced by the overwhelming majority.  The NYT published an interesting article 2 or 3 years ago in early May detailing one study which revealed that a player should, to derive the most enjoyment commensurate to challenge, be playing a tee that is 36x the distance he/she hits their 5-iron.  For me that's just over 6400...which turns out, is right about on the target as I reflect about what yardage produces the most stimulating play for me.  I hit my 5-iron 180-85...are we really THAT populated with people who hit over 195...and if so, is there no way to resist the smaller and smaller segment over those figures to give them challenge?

cheers

vk





 

[Jeff Taylor]

Tell the customer what they want enough times and they just might start believing you.
Or not.

[Matthew Petersen]

I agree it’s a good thing that Jack now champions the average Joe (now that he has become one).  I disagree that Joe would not notice a ball roll back (bad words).  Joe would notice.  Logic has nothing to do with it.  All golfers love the long ball. Yet, that same golfer who wants lush green fairways would not want to lose 20 yards off a good drive.  Therefore, my doubt he’d respond to “logical reasons.”

I was having this discussion with a friend yesterday (he's about a 16 HCP, I'm around a 4) and we both felt this was pretty overblown.

How many 16 HCPs even use a premier tour-caliber ball? Probably not too many and those that do are pretty much deluding themselves. But this is true of all equipment advances. I don't for a moment believe that even the tour pros in the ads for the new RocketBlades actually hit them all 10 yds further, but even if we assume that were true ... that means that's the max benefit to the top caliber player who makes essentially perfect contact with every swing. (Also figure at best we're talking a % increase, it's not going to be 10 yds for someone who hits it 170 and for someone who hits it 130.)

How are these clubs/balls/etc really supposed to help the 16 HCP who rarely makes perfect contact and who's pretty happy with a 220yd drive in the first place? How much benefit are they really seeing?

I think the giant clubhead drivers have been good for low handicappers. Some ball technology probably has as well. But rolling back what the pros really isn't going to change the way the typical 15 plays his game.

[Chris Johnston]

Here is how it works in reality.

My (am I the developer?) involvement in the new Dismal River course,  Tom asked/said:

1.  May I cross the road?  Answer:  No.  Thankfully, he did it anyway.

2.  Do you care what par is?  Answer: I would think between between 69 and 72.

3.  Do you care how long it is?  Answer: Don't much care if we hit 7,000 yards total, probably don't want longer than 7,000 yards, but it will be what it is.  We have a new technology out here that makes length rather mute...wind.

4.  What kind of grasses do you prefer?  Answer:  Fescue with bent greens.

5.  Do you know Don Mahaffey?  Answer:  You mean the mean guy on GCA?  Note: Don has some great tales about "innovative" irrigation that should be shared.

6.  Do you care if it finishes where it starts?  Answer:  Huh? Well...do guess I care if it starts and finishes.

7.  How involved to you want to be?  Answer:  Not very.

8.  Should we have regular meetings?  Answer:  Nope.

9.  How do you feel about a 250 yard par 3, really a 3-1/2?  Answer:  Huh?  Do I put 3-1/2 on the card?

10.  Do you have Diet Coke and Blue Moon?  Answer:  Yes.

11.  Where do we stay?  Answer:  In your rooms.

12.  Ever play dirt golf?  Answer:  Huh?

13.  Had a friend up and I just changed the 8th green while you were home.  Response:  "Whatever"

14.  Mahaffey just buried the excavator in an undergorund spring - up to the cab.  Response:  Call Mark + is the machine ok?

15.  The Dozer just broke.  Response: Call Mark, McGuyver can fix anything.

16.  Can Brian Schneider (and crew) put up a weight set and chin up bar at maintenance? Answer:  They never asked but made themselves at home.

17.  When can we start?  Answer:  When you get here.

18:  Do you know what your doing?  Answer:  No, not really - that's why you're here.

19.  What should we call it?  Answer:  I like "Doak Course" but it's up to you.

On length:  It's a static number and probably not particularly important in the whole.  A really good hole should be what it wants to be. The goal should be 18 really, really good holes.  Add em up when you're done and you get length.  Building to length to fit technology is a fools errand.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

As to who plays the 7000+ tees, I have said this before, but according to industry stats I have seen, less than 1% of all rounds.  Probably less than 0.1%. My course in Myrtle Beach got about 50 back tee rounds in its first ten years.  I cannot imagine the average public course getting much more, but some clubs catering to top players might.

Then, its:

+/- 6800 - 17%
+/- 6300 - 58+%
+/- 5800 - 19%
+/- 5000 - 4%

I also hope that Tee It Forward skews those percentages even further to lower yardages.  If you run the math, the 225 hitter really should be playing closer to 6000 than 6300 to reach greens in regulation.

I paraphrase Churchill here, but "Never has so much golf course been built for so few....."

So, in that context, depending on how much natives they carry, to keep turf down to reasonable standards - and it IS possible to do that - then that last 500 yards for marketing, possible tournaments, and to make the course play reasonably for the top golfers might not be all the much extra cost.  And, if in a development, gains valuble frontage.  We may not care about grand opening splash, but the developer sure cares about his lot premiums.

[John Kavanaugh]

A member of a private club does not need to play the back tees to gain enjoyment from their presence.  As an older gentleman who no longer plays the back tees I get a huge kick out of playing with elite golfers who do while I move up.  The handicap system does not work near as well as a good ole length adjustment when competing near the scratch level.  It's just more fun if we are all hitting driver off the tee.

Sometimes I even play from tees further back than my opponents.  None of this would be possible if there were only one set of tees set at 6400 yds.  Hard to believe considering how on paper 6400 sounds so reasonable.

[Paul Jones]

A member of a private club does not need to play the back tees to gain enjoyment from their presence.  As an older gentleman who no longer plays the back tees I get a huge kick out of playing with elite golfers who do while I move up.  The handicap system does not work near as well as a good ole length adjustment when competing near the scratch level.  It's just more fun if we are all hitting driver off the tee.

Sometimes I even play from tees further back than my opponents.  None of this would be possible if there were only one set of tees set at 6400 yds.  Hard to believe considering how on paper 6400 sounds so reasonable.

John,

I really enjoyed the couple of courses that I have played were there were tee boxes but no markers.  The winner of the hole picks which tee box to play from.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul,

I like that too but have found that it doesn't work as well as adjusting the set off tees for the player based on his ability to hit the ball with the problems associated with age.  One of my very best golf buddies just hit 70 and suddenly can't reach the par 4's from 6400 yds.  We can still enjoy playing together by playing different sets of tees. 

Playing your game I could pick a set of tees where he couldn't even reach the fairway.

I think it is interesting at my age of 53 I play regularly with guys in their 70's and 30's who are all serious golfers.  We just can't all play from the same tees.

[jeffwarne]

Here's where newer back tees get so screwed up IMHO.
You can have 3,4,5,or 6 holes with a new way back tee, and create great variety in length.
Do you really need 5 distince sets of tees on a 380 yard par 4? or a 150 yard par 3?(other than for turf wear)

ironically, when  a club puts in a way back set, the next set up, the old blues, usually gets shorter, because the club just can't bear to put the blues flush against the blacks on a hole where there's no room for expansion, so the old blues get shorter, rather than staying the same.

[Matthew Petersen]

Paul,

I like that too but have found that it doesn't work as well as adjusting the set off tees for the player based on his ability to hit the ball with the problems associated with age.  One of my very best golf buddies just hit 70 and suddenly can't reach the par 4's from 6400 yds.  We can still enjoy playing together by playing different sets of tees. 

Playing your game I could pick a set of tees where he couldn't even reach the fairway.

I think it is interesting at my age of 53 I play regularly with guys in their 70's and 30's who are all serious golfers.  We just can't all play from the same tees.

My main golfing buddy is right around my same age, but his golf game isn't really relatable to mine. Yet we have fun, competitive matches ... so long as I'm giving him about 14 strokes. And that's assuming I'm up playing the tees that fit his game ... usually as long as we're under 6500 he's fine.

So I agree, "picking" tees is just adding to the already significant advantage I have over him. I could easily pick tees where I know he couldn't possible make a carry or get home in two. I wouldn't do that to him, but then I'm making the tee decision half out of pity, so ... it just doesn't work in every situation.

[V. Kmetz]

ironically, when  a club puts in a way back set, the next set up, the old blues, usually gets shorter, because the club just can't bear to put the blues flush against the blacks on a hole where there's no room for expansion, so the old blues get shorter, rather than staying the same.

That sure is true JW, and one telling instance where the "black tee" players can risk the enjoyment and rating/slope factors for the preponderance of course players...

Yes, club X has 6800 blue, 6500 W course for 50 years...puts in Black tees that gets it just over 7000, all of sudden Blue is 6650 and White is 6300...White is now thought to be, on a yardage basis, as less challenging, so players who were playing a 6450-6550 course are more regularly playing a hundred yards longer and the former blue players have to decide if they'll go 200> yards more or 200> less, and in both cases, the extra thing breaks them while the shorter thing is pooh-poohed as un-challenging. 

the other club I work at besides WF had the greatest Mens system up until a decade ago.  On six tees the blues were up, on six they were back, and on six they were in the middle...the same for white and yellow.  Each day they would fly a small pennant over the putting green to indicate which Men's color was to be used.  Because of the nature of 18 individual teeing grounds, the courses had distinct yardages that had about 150 yards in variation...Blue was longest, about 6600, White was 6500 and Yellow was 6450 or so...yet the manner in which the yardage was reached on any individual tee made for distinct qualities of each color course...Yellow did have the most opportunity for low scores (it was Up on two key long holes) but was an absolute bear on others., this was true of the other two colors courses as well.  What a great system...which was sadly abandoned in the mid 90s when the black tee came, the bunkers were made harder and the course became slave to rating and reputation of difficulty.  Perhaps it will someday go back.

cheers

vk

[V. Kmetz]

Well I'm glad Tom extended (and Joe tabulated) TD's survey of 123 responses*** - see Doak's "what yardage do you actually..."...and that my post 31 in THIS thread was not so off the mark.

I guess to wrap this thread (and where it went) up...

Even with club and ball technology, even with better yardage guns, even with most consistent and premium turf conditions, most of us do not play from something nearly so long as  7000 yards; and a rare, championship set of tees over that figure and its elite play should not be having undue influence on the principles of GCA so well-defended and well-articulated on this site.

If the course is great from a sensible, even puny yardage...it's great.  If it can resist elite ravages and still be enjoyable from its middling distance, you probably have a classic on your hands.

cheers

vk

[Joe_Tucholski]

I don't for a moment believe that even the tour pros in the ads for the new RocketBlades actually hit them all 10 yds further

Matthew I very much believe they are hitting their 6 iron 10 yards further with the RBZ irons, but that is because the loft on the RBZ 6 iron is the same as the 5 iron on the set they are comparing it to.

[Matthew Petersen]

I don't for a moment believe that even the tour pros in the ads for the new RocketBlades actually hit them all 10 yds further

Matthew I very much believe they are hitting their 6 iron 10 yards further with the RBZ irons, but that is because the loft on the RBZ 6 iron is the same as the 5 iron on the set they are comparing it to.

I know that has happened over time. Not sure it happened from last year's model to this year's (and as I understand the ad, that is the difference they are claiming).

[Mike Feeney]

Tom Kite echoing Nicklaus -- "Golf is not Sustainable"

http://back9network.com/article/fairways-of-lifekite-says-golf-not-sustainable/

[Patrick_Mucci]

VK,

It would be interesting to know, how many of those 123 respondants actually sit on their green/golf committees or their boards at their club,  and how many of them would be willing to stand up and face their membership when announcing the yardage changes they've proposed for their course.

I've seen really tough guys buckly under the pressure of an irate membership, especially when you consider that committee chairmen, board members and club officers are not compensated for their volunteer work.  Those committee chairmen, board members and club officers are also members and as members, they want to enjoy themselves at the club, and not be harangued by irate members.

Like the great philosopher MikeTyson once stated, "Everybody's got a game plan........ until they get hit."

[V. Kmetz]

PM,

While the politics of any one club are their own minefield; you are speaking the truth.  Even when they get into it for vanity or "axe-grinding" reasons, the climate of most board and committee positions is a terrible bit of service for members to have to render.  It levels all who enter there.

In 6 or 7 different clubs with which I'm intimately familiar, I can think of two or three people who weren't disgusted and happy to go when the gig was up.  You can't eat dinner at the club in peace.  Your email has 20-50 demanding messages a day.  You don't want to be seen in the tee plaza on weekend mornings and on and on...

So, I empathize and agree with the sentiment you expressed about how it is to do anything at a club..especially in the venue of course works.  Rationality, reason and statistics don't seem to get the job done. 

cheers

vk

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()