Peter Kostis blames Architects

[Jeff_Brauer]

I got into it with Mr. Kostis on Twitter about this very subject.

His point was that the "ball" didn't arrive until 2002. Likewise, metalwoods in the 80s.

Ergo, what necessitated the general changes in length from 1960 to 1985?

Would love to see a detailed breakdown of course length by year or decade.  I believe the added length is more of a continuum than a few quantum leaps.

But, if I had to guess what drove the addition of length after 1960, I would bet it was Nicklaus and his 300 yard drives, long for the era.  Was it the architect who drove "defending against pro's length, either then or 1950? Or the USGA and Masters who had to "put up with" the longer hitting pros?  As golfers, we have traditionally spent so much brainpower and money on stifling long hitting good players, even when they really don't show up at most courses.......and I guess architects get sucked into that mentality, for a variety of reasons, too.

[BCrosby]

The arrow of causality here always points in the same direction. Kostis has it backwards.

Take the origins of the 'Monster' courses Trent Jones built or remodeled starting in the early '50's. They were done AFTER he had collected extensive data on how far pros were hitting drives at the time. His bigger, longer courses were a response players using clubs and balls that had improved since 1930. Every cycle of course lengthening since has followed something like that story-line.

Bob   

[Brent Hutto]

Regardless of any reciprocal causality in which the length of golf courses would be said to "cause" golfers to want to hit the ball farther, there is one inescapable fact. Anyone who has ever picked up a golf club wants to hit the ball farther. Always.

If golf courses were limited by fiat to no more than 4,000 yards for 18  holes, golfers would still wish to hit it farther than they can. They'd want to drive all the Par 5's on a 4,000 yard course.

It's up to rules makers to allow or disallow any particular implement for pursing the goal of hitting it farther. And it's up to golf course owners (not architects) to limit the length of courses for whatever reason they like. But it's never going to happen that the great mass of golfers favor restrictions on how far they can make a ball travel through the air. It's the most elemental pleasure in the game and the desire to experience that pleasure is the prime mover in the ongoing increase in distance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Correct.  But perhaps a subtle point, did RTJ lengthen Oakland Hills, or just move the FW bunkers from 225 to 250 yards?  

I don't think he did any re-routing or moved greens (although I know he extended many with "wings" to create harder pin positions, but I don't recall if he added new back tees, too.

Here is the blurb from the OHCC website:

1950:  Robert Trent Jones is hired to modernize and strengthen the South Course.  He narrows the fairways, eliminates bunkers that are out of play and adds new bunkers to squeeze the tee shot landing zones and the entryways to greens. The course goes from just under 90 bunkers to just over 120.  On 15 he replaces the old fairway bunkers with one new one – in the dead center of the fairway driving zone.  On 16 he nudges the green onto a new peninsula in the pond to create a more precarious approach shot.  He reduces par on eight and 18 to 4 for tournament play.  Most penal of all is the unintended consequence of over-seeding the ground around the new bunkers with rye grass to hold everything in place.  The rye grows in fast and thick and stubbornly resists letting go of golf balls.  In the process of this work, Jones invents the modern championship golf course.  After Oakland Hills, Jones is hired to renovate Baltusrol (1952), Olympic (1954), Oak Hill (1956), Southern Hills (1957), and Winged Foot (1958), all in preparation for U. S. Opens.  Jones becomes known as the “Open Doctor.”

1951:  U. S. Open.  Defending champion Ben Hogan shoots a 287 (76, 73, 71, 67) to win his third U. S. Open by two strokes.  He calls his final round 67 the greatest of his career and calls Oakland Hills “the hardest course I’ve ever played.”  At the award ceremony Hogan sums up his feelings with a few words that become more famous than any victory speech in the history of the U. S. Open: “I’m glad I brought this course, this monster, to its knees.”  Clayton Heafner is second with 289, Bobby Locke third with 291, and Lloyd Mangrum fourth with 293.


this is about the north course there in the 60's:

1968:  In preparation for the ‘72 PGA (and to avoid member shanks off the eighth tee), Trent Jones redesigns the seventh hole in order to move the green rightwards.  What was a relatively straight hole of 381 yards to a rolling green becomes a 408 yard dogleg right to a much more benign green.

1968-69:  North Course once again becomes private second course for Oakland Hills and undergoes a major redesign and renovation by Trent Jones.  First and ninth holes are reversed as are 15 and 16.  Course goes from fewer than 20 bunkers to over 90, and from 6,300 yards to 6,668.  An aluminum bridge (210 feet long, 11 feet wide, and weighing 40,000 pounds) is erected over Maple Road to connect South and North courses.


Sounds like it was still the club course, but thought to be a bit too easy. Was that RTJ or was that the members?

And into the 2000's back on the South Course:

2006:  Rees Jones, Trent’s son, updates and toughens-up the South Course, repositioning many bunkers, enlarging the ponds on seven and 16 and building new tees to stretch the course to 7,445 yards.


I know Art Hills was in there in between, but the club history doesn't say much about it.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Based on Hansen's book, RTJ moved tees back, fw bunkers forward, added some greenside bunkers and expanded some greens. He did not change fw corridors or green locations.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,
Thanks.  I need to go back and read that, for these quotes and for Mike Young's reference on page 155!

I would bet the length of long time major tournament courses would probably mirror the percentage of driving distance increases on the PGA Tour. 

[David Stamm]

Mr. Kostis' s assessment smacks of a Titleist staff member who is pointing the finger away from who pays him.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff -

Based on Hansen's book, RTJ moved tees back, fw bunkers forward, added some greenside bunkers and expanded some greens. He did not change fw corridors or green locations.

Bob

I just read that part of the book.  Jones only lengthened Oakland Hills from 6,850 yards to 6,927.  That's not a huge change.

GOLF DIGEST shouldn't be left out of the conversation.  In my mind, they had more to do with luring architects to build longer courses than anybody else, by focusing so much of their definition of a "great" course on "resistance to scoring".  I don't know about the 1960's and 70's, Jeff is probably right that Nicklaus' length had a huge influence, but I would love to have a dollar for every time I was told that I couldn't build a "top 100" course unless it was at least 7000 yards long ... by other architects AND by developers.  I think GOLF DIGEST drove the developers' ideas more than the other way around.

Even so, it was still my choice whether to build longer courses or not.  I kept down the yardage for Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle deliberately, just to make my point.  Ballyneal is just over 7000 but plays nowhere near that long due to altitude and firm fairways; Rock Creek is way over 7000 but still doesn't play it.  Still, we have had some clients [as at Sebonack and Streamsong] who insisted on a length well over 7000 yards, and we accommodated them, after some discussion.

[Greg Tallman]

Jeff -

Based on Hansen's book, RTJ moved tees back, fw bunkers forward, added some greenside bunkers and expanded some greens. He did not change fw corridors or green locations.

Bob

I just read that part of the book.  Jones only lengthened Oakland Hills from 6,850 yards to 6,927.  That's not a huge change.

GOLF DIGEST shouldn't be left out of the conversation.  In my mind, they had more to do with luring architects to build longer courses than anybody else, by focusing so much of their definition of a "great" course on "resistance to scoring".  I don't know about the 1960's and 70's, Jeff is probably right that Nicklaus' length had a huge influence, but I would love to have a dollar for every time I was told that I couldn't build a "top 100" course unless it was at least 7000 yards long ... by other architects AND by developers.  I think GOLF DIGEST drove the developers' ideas more than the other way around.

Even so, it was still my choice whether to build longer courses or not.  I kept down the yardage for Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle deliberately, just to make my point.  Ballyneal is just over 7000 but plays nowhere near that long due to altitude and firm fairways; Rock Creek is way over 7000 but still doesn't play it.  Still, we have had some clients [as at Sebonack and Streamsong] who insisted on a length well over 7000 yards, and we accommodated them, after some discussion.

As usual Tom has it right. Developers have the magic 7000 yard number on the brain. Even in doing some renovations one hears... "what's the total yardage, is it still 7000 yards?"

I would love the opportunity to build a wonderful 6600 yard course here in Cabo. Get the right guy to do it and it would blow the others out of the water in terms of profitability. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Going back to Ryan's OP and Kostis point about real estate lengthening golf courses, I haven't experienced that.  I do have one 7600 yard golf course in real estate done specifically for that purpose, and because the top dog at the development company golf division was a long hitter and low handicapper.  More than total lots, however, we wanted to reach each neighborhood on a 1600 acre parcel.

Colbert Hills is close to 7600 yards, but the reason was to host college golf tournaments, with only some consideration to real estate (Manhattan KS has about 50 homes built per year so we never felt the entire parcel, also about 1200 acres, would ever be developed)

The primary vehicle to add real estate frontage is to place houses on both sides of a single fw as much as possible, rather than cluster fairways on a core course, or pair them.  That about doubles it, whereas adding 600 yards only adds some in most cases.

TD's point about RTJ lengthening OHCC only about 100 yards makes sense.  Drives went from 225 to 250 or 10% and 650 yards would equal that.  Then take Rees Jones expansion to 7445 and measure it against how much average drives of pros went up after the ProV1 and it is probably proportional.

[Mark Fedeli]

GOLF DIGEST shouldn't be left out of the conversation.  In my mind, they had more to do with luring architects to build longer courses than anybody else, by focusing so much of their definition of a "great" course on "resistance to scoring".  I don't know about the 1960's and 70's, Jeff is probably right that Nicklaus' length had a huge influence, but I would love to have a dollar for every time I was told that I couldn't build a "top 100" course unless it was at least 7000 yards long ... by other architects AND by developers.  I think GOLF DIGEST drove the developers' ideas more than the other way around.

This is what Kostis said as well, and what I think some people who didn't listen to the podcast are missing. He talked about how the Top 100 lists first started out as 100 Hardest lists, and how that became a huge influence on people thinking hard=good. He sidestepped putting any blame on the equipment manufacturers, of course, but some of his points were still valid.

[Joe Zucker]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

It's silly that the public wants these tees since very few people play them, but they are influenced by magazines and other rankings.  As we all know, the members of this site are not typical golfers and maybe see things a little more clearly.

[Tom_Doak]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith. 

[Rob Marshall]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith.  

Tom, I read an article a few years ago that said you thought Philly CC was a course under 7000 yards that  could host an Open. I played there this summer and thought it was a really strong course. What would it need to do, just lengthen the rough? Any other courses sort of under the radar that could host one also?

[Joe Zucker]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith. 

Tom, you don't think being able to say your course is 7,000 yards helps in marketing it?  I agree it's bullshit and does not tell you whether or not the course is worth playing, but I think many people view that as a benchmark a course must have in order to be considered "good".  I have no evidence that suggests 7,000 courses get more rounds, but the fact that most new courses are that long suggests the market is rewarding those coures

[Garland Bayley]

So, if courses were shorter, golfers wouldn't want "17 more yards?"

WW

+1

[Garland Bayley]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith. 

Tom, you don't think being able to say your course is 7,000 yards helps in marketing it?  I agree it's bullshit and does not tell you whether or not the course is worth playing, but I think many people view that as a benchmark a course must have in order to be considered "good".  I have no evidence that suggests 7,000 courses get more rounds, but the fact that most new courses are that long suggests the market is rewarding those coures

Or, it could be that people like something shiny and new over something tired and old.

[Joe Zucker]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith. 

Tom, you don't think being able to say your course is 7,000 yards helps in marketing it?  I agree it's bullshit and does not tell you whether or not the course is worth playing, but I think many people view that as a benchmark a course must have in order to be considered "good".  I have no evidence that suggests 7,000 courses get more rounds, but the fact that most new courses are that long suggests the market is rewarding those coures

Or, it could be that people like something shiny and new over something tired and old.

I definitely think that is part of the appeal.  They could build a shiny and new course at 6,500 and save money doing it.  But they aren't doing that.  They build the new courses at 7,000 which suggests they are getting something for those extra 500 yards.  I'm assuming that the owners/developers want to make the most money possible and they could save some cash by making a shorter course, but they choose not to.

[jeffwarne]

The developers asking for 7,000 yard courses are not necessarily wrong, considering they are in the market of making money.  If being able to say their course is 7,000 yards gets them more rounds or higher greens fees and a better ranking then they are absolutely right to ask Tom and other architects do design one.

But there are thousands of courses that are 7,000 yards long, and they're not all winning awards, and they're certainly not getting more rounds than other courses, and I doubt they command a higher green fee, either.  It's a bullshit criterion that too many people have just taken on faith. 

Tom, you don't think being able to say your course is 7,000 yards helps in marketing it?  I agree it's bullshit and does not tell you whether or not the course is worth playing, but I think many people view that as a benchmark a course must have in order to be considered "good".  I have no evidence that suggests 7,000 courses get more rounds, but the fact that most new courses are that long suggests the market is rewarding those coures

Given that most golfers don't play at 7000 yards, one would have to be pretty stupid to pick a course based on it being at least that long. (unless of course he played a set of tees at a yardage of 7000 yards or more)
The fact that most new courses are over 7000 yards suggests DEVELOPERS think that number is important, not golfers
The "market" for golf was not the driving force behind the development of most new courses. but rather the perceived "market" for real estate, and the people driving those decisions weren't particularly golf savvy.

On a different topic re new courses with multiple tees. When you play a newer course with a 7300 set of tees, I'm always frustrated at how similar the holes are at the say one set up markers(i.e.Blues vs. blacks). No par 4's over 450-etc.
A course could have a much MORE variety of hole lengths (within a given set of chosen markers) with LESS tees. I.e. a hole that's 475 from the Black tees could also be 475 from the one set up Blue tees, but instead it's 438 like 4-5 other "long" holes on that course will be one set of markers up-i.e the course is too homogonous within a given set of tees out of a need for "fairness"

Same with the short par 3' which could be 120-140 from all sets, and instead are 95 from the forwards and 180 from the way backs.
In other words a course with 5 sets of tees markers doesn't need 90 distinct tees.
Certainly a short par 4 could be 300-320 from every set of tees and therefore be driveable by some who play the back markers and a drive a pitch for others, and two full woods for the forward tee player.

[Joe Zucker]

I know most players don't play the back tees, but I think the retail golfer views 7,000 as a signal that the course is "good".  I don't think this is a good signal, but I think it exists.  And yes in this regard most golfers are "stupid", because we all know most golfers are playing tees way too far back for their ability.

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid. They want to make money and they are building 7,000 yard courses, which suggests this is what the market wants.  Jeff makes a great point on the distinction of building courses for golf vs real estate development. That probably has a lot to do with it because they are not as concerned with the quality of the golf.

[Tom_Doak]

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid.

How many developers have you interviewed to test this theory out? 

Perhaps the problem is that the developers don't even care what the golfers want ... they think that having a 7,000 yard course INCREASES THE PRICE OF THE HOMES because it implies some prestige that the prospective homeowner [many of whom do not play golf] will attach a higher value to.

This myth would not have perpetuated if golf course architects had gotten together at one of their plaid-jacket meetings and determined that longer courses were bad for the game and they should refuse to build them.  Sadly, the architects as a group can never manage to take a stand on anything like that, because they're all afraid one of their fellows will do what the developer wants and steal the job away from them.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom and others,

Don't forget that a 7000y+ course probably has more fairway lots than a 6200y course.

[jeffwarne]

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid.

How many developers have you interviewed to test this theory out? 

Perhaps the problem is that the developers don't even care what the golfers want ... they think that having a 7,000 yard course INCREASES THE PRICE OF THE HOMES because it implies some prestige that the prospective homeowner [many of whom do not play golf] will attach a higher value to.

Developers(and that is a broad spectrum) usually have advisors.
Those advisors may well be savvy about RE, or perceived of Real Estate value, but rarely about golf, nor do they care one bit about the golf if/when they sell out the development.
"7000 yards" and "championship" seemed to be the words most marketers jumped on, and they usually knew nothing about golf.
After that the word "signature" whether it was describing an architect or a hole was good buzz.
Nowadays the catchphrase is "golf as it was meant to be played"

I really have no objection to courses that can played over 7000 yards. I'd just like to see that happen by having 5-8 hidden semi maintained tees that the routing and land easily allow that add the length on certain holes to challenge the occasional elite player.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom and others,

Don't forget that a 7000y+ course probably has more fairway lots than a 6200y course.

Yes, but assuming the hole corridors are 300 feet wide, a 6200 yard course has room for 35 more acres of lots to sell.

Jeff is correct, consultants have had a lot to do with these trends.  You could make the above argument to a real estate developer, but not to his damned consultant.

[Adam Lawrence]

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid.

How many developers have you interviewed to test this theory out? 

Perhaps the problem is that the developers don't even care what the golfers want ... they think that having a 7,000 yard course INCREASES THE PRICE OF THE HOMES because it implies some prestige that the prospective homeowner [many of whom do not play golf] will attach a higher value to.

This myth would not have perpetuated if golf course architects had gotten together at one of their plaid-jacket meetings and determined that longer courses were bad for the game and they should refuse to build them.  Sadly, the architects as a group can never manage to take a stand on anything like that, because they're all afraid one of their fellows will do what the developer wants and steal the job away from them.

Slightly unfair dig at ASGCA that Tom. Bearing in mind that the society has never represented anything like the entirety of global golf architects, even if it had made such a resolution it would simply have been an invitation for non member archies to take that business.

But I do agree that in game theory terms it's a classic prisoners' dilemma. My experience is that there are very few golf designers who don't recognise that the game would be better off without all the championship courses that are never going to host a championship. But business is business.