Ran's challenge

[Jud_T]

How about

Longshore GC, Westport, CT
Pinehurst #1

Haven't played either.  The first is Orin Smith that I believe was recently renovated and looked pretty intriguing when I drove by and what would Pinehurst #1 be like if they renovated it?

[George Blunt]

Claremont Country Club must make top 25?
I played there yesterday, lots of fun with more width than you would expect for such a small property,plenty of quirk and interesting greens.  Back to back par 3s for #s 2 & 3: 3 wood for #2, 9 iron for #3.  I understand it is not a "pure" Mackenize, but it has some very solid bones.
George

[Steve Kline]

If they truly renovated Pinehurst #1 and #3 they would be great additions to this list. Very interesting hazards have been lost at both. Also, like #2 the texture of those courses has been lost because they are wall to wall grass.  If these courses were truly renovated, bringing back the hazards, the strategy, and the texture, then they would be good additions to the list.

[John Percival]

Why does a course's back tee length matter so? If people would simply play the tees that suit them, then anything 'behind' them wouldn't matter. I used to play tips, but now find that my age is better suited to the next shorter tees. My rule for the correct tees, for myself and anyone else...what tees will provide the greatest opportunity to use all or most of the clubs in your bag. That rule would have me tipping most any course at 6800 or less, but maybe using the middle tees at some of the newer, lengthier courses. And total distance still is not the greatest criteria, as conditions might play short (wet/cold/hilly) or fast (dry/altitude).
As evidence: Merion. New tees for the Open will have NO effect on members who will still play their usual tees. Moreover, a vital element of the game's growth is young/new player development and they want to hit the bombs, so let them stretch it out and enjoy.  What is far more damning  to the 'average' player are designs or renos that create forced carries, brutal rough and deepening bunkers.
 

[Jud_T]

John,

Which is a better walk, faster, cheaper, better for the environment and more likely to be designed with the specific yardage in mind: playing the 6200 yard tees on a 7200 yard course, if they're even available, or playing the tips on a 6200 yard course?

[John Percival]

John,

Which is a better walk, faster, cheaper, better for the environment and more likely to be designed with the specific yardage in mind: playing the 6200 yard tees on a 7200 yard course, if they're even available, or playing the tips on a 6200 yard course?

Jud,
First of all, were it up to me, we'd still be playing hickories and guttys. Then 6500 would be monstrous. But the genie is out and for me to hit all my clubs, 6200 wont do it. FOR THE RECORD- my woods and irons are 20 years old, so no oversized driver or hybrids in my bag. I agree that the extra space required is daunting financially and maintenance-wise. But, if an existing course is lengthened, then the walk to the current tees should not be altered, just the walks to the new, longer tees. And I have always said that the tee areas should be left more natural, especially the back two tees. Just a pad to launch and Ma Nature surrounding it. That keeps maintenance, water and costs down and looks really cool!
On new designs, the middle tees (which get the predominant use) should be located near the previous green and subsequent longer tees positioned behind whenever possible.

[Jud_T]

John,

If 6500 doesn't cut it for you than you needn't concern yourself with this list.  It does cut it for the vast majority of players, myself included, and we are a grossly underserved constituency.

[John Percival]

John,

If 6500 doesn't cut it for you than you needn't concern yourself with this list.  It does cut it for the vast majority of players, myself included, and we are a grossly underserved constituency.

Jud,
I dont understand your 'grossly underserved' comment. Do you mean courses are too long? Too difficult? If it's too difficult, i agree that many courses have stripped away the element of fun or enjoyment at the sake of challenging the better player. If it's too long, then what about the next set of tees?
My point is that a course shouldn't be 'criticized' for total length as long as it accommodates differing players' tees and, almost as importantly, varying skill levels (lack of forced carries and forced walks). Hypothetically, if Shoreacres (at about 6350 tipped?) or any course on the list were to add new back tees and become 7000 yards long, how would that affect the vast majority? The same tees that had been used are still there. Now, however, the course has flexibility for other players.

 

[Jud_T]

Oh, now I get it.  Perhaps if Rye would tack on say 1500 yards, they could get in the Open rota, move up the rankings and no harm no foul!  Silly me, now we can simply stop wasting time with this list and just wait till all these tracks add the proper back markers!  Fyi-  Shoreacres has already pushed the limit at 6521 and there's no more real estate to stretch it further.  To even suggest that a perfectly charming place like Shoreacres needs another 500 yards with a straight face makes one shudder.  Perhaps underserved is the wrong term. It should be overserved...

[John Percival]

Oh, now I get it.  Perhaps if Rye would tack on say 1500 yards, they could get in the Open rota, move up the rankings and no harm no foul!  Silly me, now we can simply stop wasting time with this list and just wait till all these tracks add the proper back markers!  Fyi-  Shoreacres has already pushed the limit at 6521 and there's no more real estate to stretch it further.  To even suggest that a perfectly charming place like Shoreacres needs another 500 yards with a straight face makes one shudder.

Jud,
Lengthening a course does not make it less charming or less playable. I played Shoreacres and enjoyed it very much. But it was too short for ME. My drives are about 270 yards, with the old technology, and my 5 iron is about 180. Perhaps the implications of longer tees for many people is that they have to move back. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, I enjoy hitting long irons on 4 pars after a good drive and wailing on long 3 pars with woods. Does that make me less charming than the player who hits a 7 iron 130 yards? Again, the extended tees make the course relevant for the longer player and the middle tees are suitable for the average player. What is wrong with that? Wouldn't the great architects want to see approaches hit into their greens with the same club today as when the course was first built?
My wife (6 hdcp) and I played the Ocean Course at Kiawah about 10 years ago. I played from 7200 yards and she played the fwd tees. We absolutely enjoyed the round and had a great match. Appropriate tees for each skill level made that possible.

[Jud_T]

John,

I'm not trying to deny you a course to play or be confrontational, just answer a few questions:  what percentage of all golfers regularly drive the ball 270?  And what percentage of courses have been stretched or designed to accomodate those who do?  How much time, money and water has been wasted by the sub 270 crowd in order to accomodate the big hitters?

[Andy Troeger]

I think the more interesting question than "percentage of golfers" is "percentage of rounds." There are certainly plenty of short-hitters that play regularly, but better players usually have to play regularly to maintain that status. I'm not convinced that the "vast majority" of rounds are played by golfers that would be happy at 6,500 yards. I usually play around that yardage, but I have a lot of friends that are better players than I am that need more golf course than I do. 

That said, not every course has to appeal to every realm of golfer. Truly, most of the best courses are not particularly playable for short-hitting high handicaps, so having some shorter and more playable courses is not a bad thing. It appears from the suggestions thus far that many of the candidates are outside of the United States so this may be more interesting from an international standpoint.

PS: Where is The Creek (NY)? The scorecard listed the tips at under 6,500 yards as of last year--are there other tees that I didn't notice? I went through the posts quickly--perhaps I missed something.

[John Percival]

John,

I'm not trying to deny you a course to play or be confrontational, just answer a few questions:  what percentage of all golfers regularly drive the ball 270?  And what percentage of courses have been stretched or designed to accomodate those who do?  How much time, money and water has been wasted by the sub 270 crowd in order to accomodate the big hitters?

Jud,
You're preaching to the choir. Sort of. The answers...dont know the percentage, but it is low. Do know that younger players hit it PAST 270. On the fly! Again, were it up to me, we'd all be playing hickories. But, the game has changed. Those youngsters are the future. And the future norm. And building tees is inexpensive, especially if done the way i mentioned earlier. ****In no way am i advocating buying land or creating unsafe corridors with tees*** But building them can be a wonderful compliment to a course if the effort takes into account land forms, green access, SAFETY, and the walking experience. A great example is the job done about 8 years ago at Detroit Golf Club's North course. About 6 holes were lengthened; those that originally played long. For instance, #9 went from 435 tips to 460 and #11 went from 200 to 225. The middle tees were left alone, so the golf experience for the majority was unchanged.
We tend to look at a course and think of it now as the standard, when what we see is an accumulation of work and tweaking (and yes, lengthening) of decades. Now, not all work is done well or thoughtfully (tree plantings!), but the vast majority of renos and lengthening have greatly enhanced the course, the game and the experience. Sand Hills, Friars Head, Sebonak and many other new courses demonstrate that modern work can still have sophistication and charm, while accommodating players of all skill levels. Even the bombers.

[John Percival]

I think the more interesting question than "percentage of golfers" is "percentage of rounds." There are certainly plenty of short-hitters that play regularly, but better players usually have to play regularly to maintain that status. I'm not convinced that the "vast majority" of rounds are played by golfers that would be happy at 6,500 yards. I usually play around that yardage, but I have a lot of friends that are better players than I am that need more golf course than I do. 

That said, not every course has to appeal to every realm of golfer. Truly, most of the best courses are not particularly playable for short-hitting high handicaps, so having some shorter and more playable courses is not a bad thing. It appears from the suggestions thus far that many of the candidates are outside of the United States so this may be more interesting from an international standpoint.

PS: Where is The Creek (NY)? The scorecard listed the tips at under 6,500 yards as of last year--are there other tees that I didn't notice? I went through the posts quickly--perhaps I missed something.

Andy,
The Creek is on the western/north shore of Long Island.

[DMoriarty]

Wilshire Country Club is at 6506.  Maybe they'd lose 7 yards if it would put them on a list.

[Andy Troeger]

John,
Sorry bad wording on my part. Regarding The Creek I meant to ask why it had not been mentioned yet since I believe it qualifies under 6,500 yards (?).

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not convinced that the "vast majority" of rounds are played by golfers that would be happy at 6,500 yards. I usually play around that yardage, but I have a lot of friends that are better players than I am that need more golf course than I do. 

That said, not every course has to appeal to every realm of golfer. Truly, most of the best courses are not particularly playable for short-hitting high handicaps, so having some shorter and more playable courses is not a bad thing. It appears from the suggestions thus far that many of the candidates are outside of the United States so this may be more interesting from an international standpoint.

Andy:

What % of rounds do you think are played from over 6500 yards?  If you think it's more than 10-15%, I think you need a reality check.  A sizeable % of courses that have tees listed at 6600 or 6800 yards move up the markers to get people to play those tees.

I should really be banging on John Percival about this instead of you, but it grates on me that there are so many experts among good players who think that every course HAS TO HAVE tees at 6800 or 7000 yards or it will be marginalized.  There are lots of courses overseas that prove this theory wrong.  Have either of you ever played Rye or Swinley Forest or Woking or any of the other good ones mentioned here?

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Any chance your new Confidential Guide will downgrade some courses for succumbing to peer pressure in the chase for distance, narrow fairways, and difficulty?   That might go further than any list we come up with here.  

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I'll stand by my point that there is a class of golfers (15% of rounds is a lot of golfers) that want more than 6,500 yards. I'm not even in that group, unless perhaps I'm in Colorado. Some of the most fervent posters on this thread are the ones that whine about courses that have more than 2 forced carries in a round. I'm glad there are courses out there that appeal to the different demographics, but all the same this "list" of courses with an arbitrary cut-off at 6,500 yards (with courses not qualifying because they succumbed to peer pressure and are now 6,553 or something) is about as useful to me as a list of courses with five or more par threes and a waterfall.

I do think courses in the US are too bent on hosting various events (with tees for those events), even though most of them never will or never do. Some new courses have back tees that are almost never used and are generally a waste of time. But the problem is not courses with 6,700 yard back tees; it is that I am able to go out and buy a new 3-wood this year that literally added 30+ yards to the "old" (late 90's) model. Many of the golfers that play short tees are perfectly capable of handling more distance, but they can't handle the distance plus severe hazards and green complexes that are so hard that half the field three-putts!

[John Percival]

I'm not convinced that the "vast majority" of rounds are played by golfers that would be happy at 6,500 yards. I usually play around that yardage, but I have a lot of friends that are better players than I am that need more golf course than I do. 

That said, not every course has to appeal to every realm of golfer. Truly, most of the best courses are not particularly playable for short-hitting high handicaps, so having some shorter and more playable courses is not a bad thing. It appears from the suggestions thus far that many of the candidates are outside of the United States so this may be more interesting from an international standpoint.

Andy:

What % of rounds do you think are played from over 6500 yards?  If you think it's more than 10-15%, I think you need a reality check.  A sizeable % of courses that have tees listed at 6600 or 6800 yards move up the markers to get people to play those tees.

I should really be banging on John Percival about this instead of you, but it grates on me that there are so many experts among good players who think that every course HAS TO HAVE tees at 6800 or 7000 yards or it will be marginalized.  There are lots of courses overseas that prove this theory wrong.  Have either of you ever played Rye or Swinley Forest or Woking or any of the other good ones mentioned here?

Tom,
It appears this has gotten out of hand. My initial comment was to ask why a cut-off at 6500 yards. And the example of the new tees at Merion prompts the question...in the Confidential Guide, you gave Merion 10 out of 10. Will that grade change with the new length? Forget the modifications. Solely on length, does your evaluation of the course change? And if so, why. The average player still has the same tees to play.
I have NEVER diminished another player because of their skill or length. On the contrary, I constantly begged the GD brass to make the Panelist process more favorably geared to the average player and to include 'Fun or Enjoyment' as a criteria. In many of my written evaluations there were comments about course qualities and the effects on the regular tees/player. My requests fell on deaf ears, but that's all I could do.
In this instance, I was simply stating that to preclude a course because it was longer seems illogical. And yes, I played Rye and yes, I enjoyed it and yes, I wanted more distance to 'complete' my bag. Would it be awful if two or three long 4 pars had an additional 30 yards? (But not #4!)

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I think you are missing the point of this thread.  It is simply to identify the best courses that measure 6500 yards or less from the tips.  That is it.

It has nothing to do with Tom Doak's personal rankings or any golf ranking entities Top 100 list.

Any course that measures over 6500 yards can still be great, it is simply excluded from this particular list.   

[David Harshbarger]

Glens Falls CC is at 6432.  Could also qualify on the list of courses where both 9's end with a 3.

[Jim Nugent]

I'll stand by my point that there is a class of golfers (15% of rounds is a lot of golfers) that want more than 6,500 yards. I'm not even in that group, unless perhaps I'm in Colorado.

Whatever the cutoff is, we should make allowances for courses at altitude. 

[D_Malley]

I think the important point of a list like this is that these courses still provide a strong challenge to all level of players at the shorter yardage.

it is easier to design a difficult course which is long, but not as easy to build a challenging short course.

isn't this why we always love the places like merion (pre-usga modifications) and maidstone, because they are great, challenging golf courses despite the shorter overall length. they do make a longer hitting player use every club in their bag by having short par 4's where driver is not always the best choice.

i know this is why my course (Paxon Hollow) is such a popular public golf course at 5709 yards from the tips.

[Niall C]

Updated list.  9-holers eliminated, frankly that's a whole other thread.  Also North Berwick out unless we hear definitively that it should be in.

Aberfoyle
Addington
Aiken GC
Algonquin
Alyth
Apawamis
Arbroath
Arrowtown
Ashburn (Old)
Bald Peak Colony
Balnagask
Banhory
Beau Desert
Berkshire Blue
Birkshire Red
Blackhawk
Blackwell
Boat of Garten
Brancepeth Castle
Broadstone
Brora
Buckpool
Buddon
Burlington GCC
Burnside
Camberly Heath
Cape Arundel
Cardross
Carnoustie Burnside
Cavendish
CC Fairfield
CC Farmington
Clearwater CC
Coombe Hill
Copake
Crail Balcomie
Cullen
Dealmere Forest
Duff House Royal
Dunbar
East Renfrewshire
Eastward Ho!
Edgaston
Edzell
Elie
Forfar
Fortrose & Rosemarkie
Fraserburgh
Friford Heath
Gleneagles (Queens)
Golspie
Gramouth & Kingston
Gullane 2
Gullane 3
Hanover CC
Harborne
Healesville
Highlands
Hindhead GC
Hockley
Hopeman
Huntercombe
Hyannisport
Inverallochy
Invergordon
Kebo Valley
Kilspindie
Kings Links
Kingswood
Kington
Kirrienuir
Knole Park
LACC South
Lakeview
Laytown & Bettystown
Leatherstockings
Lincoln Park
Liphook
Longniddry
Lulu CC
Lundin
Machrihanish
Maidstone
Maple Bluffs
Merion West
Metacomet
Milngavie
Misquimicut
Monifeith
Monroe CC
Monterey Peninsula
Montrose
Moray New
Moray Old
Morfontaine
Mount Dora GC
Murcar
Murrayfield
Nairn Dunbar
New Zealand
Newburgh
North West
Old Del Monte GC
Old Elm
Pacific Grove
Painswick
Palos Verdes
Panmure
Paraparaumu Beach
Parkstone
Pedrena
Peterhead
Piltdown
Portrush Valley
Powfoot
Prestbury
Raey
Ranfurly Castle
Ravisloe CC
Reddish Vale
Roring Gap
Rosedale
Royal Tarlair
Royal West Norfolk
Rye
Scotscraig
Seaview Bay
Siwanoy CC
Southampton
Southerndown
Speybay
Spring Valley
St. George's
Stamford GC
Stirling
Stoneham
Stonehaven
Stowe CC
Stranhill
Strathlene
Strathpeffer Spa
Swinley Forest
Tadmarton Heath
Tain
Town & Country Club
Vicotria GC
Waunumetonomy
Wentworth East
West Sussex
Westborough
White Bear YC
Wianno
Wick
Wood's Hole
Worplesdon

Jud

Thanks for listing all the candidates to date. What I love about the list is all the Scottish ones, the vast bulk of which simply don't appear on the radar on this site. If you were to cull the list down to the "best 50" or some such most of them wouldn't make the cut but let me tell you there are some terrific courses there that might not be "great" because they don't have the required length, correct number of par 3's, par 4's and par 5's, and they border the local industrial estate or caravan park or whatever, but they do provide some great golf and are huge fun to play. I've said it before, what Scotland needs is Sean Arble to relocate to the central belt of Scotland to carry on his sterling work of showcasing those courses that don't feature on the Perry Golf tours.

If I have one reservation about the whole concept, its this, I really don't judge courses on yardage but on how they play. That's not to say I can't tell a short course from a long course, I can, but length's not necessarily the defining characterisrtic, particularly on links. Indeed I have a confession, I'm not really clued in at all about course lengths. I was member for years at Glasgow Gailes, Silloth on Solway and Moray GC, played hundreds of rounds on each of those courses and yet couldn't tell you the yardage of any of them. That will possibly prove once and for all to the cognescenti on GCA that I'm nothing but a golfing ignoramus, but there you go. In mitigation I would guess that if you asked the average club member in this country about course yardages the would be equally clueless. Long may that continue. By focusing on length and bringing it to the attention of the average punter in this country (assuming of course GCA had such powers) are we not in danger of making it an issue and it having an opposite effect of encouraging clubs to focus on length with the inevitable result of courses being lengthened ?

Niall