[Ran Morrissett]

Why would Joe Sponcia feel the need to write an In My Opinion piece entitled Homogenizing the Game? After all, what club would intentionally make its course less interesting?
 
Yet, that’s what is happening and Joe details the neutering of holes that tease – short par 3s, drivable par 4s, and reachable par 5s. Golf clubs and golfers mistakenly identify such holes as weaknesses and add tees/length that inadvertently turn them into more straightforward, bland affairs. Also, additional tees that shorten long par 4s that once called for some kind of a long scoot shot have the ill effect of transforming a memorable, ground hugging approach into a ho-hum routine aerial one. In the process, all these new tees cost more to maintain and junk up the aesthetics. Yikes, Joe wonders, what are we doing?! Not only are 5 and 6 and 7 sets of tees not beneficial, they are undermining what were once thought-producing holes.
 
Joe cities several examples around his native state of Tennessee to substantiate his premise, places that have NOT succumbed to mindless tees/length. Toward the end, Joe quotes Henry Longhurst, who warned of this in …1953!  “What a farce is the business of length? Golf is surely the only game, either in the United States or Britain, whose whole character has been changed solely by so-called improvements in instruments in which it is played.”
 
Another way that well-intentioned committees inadvertently reduce their members’ enjoyment is through a lack of width. This is another topic that Joe wants to address and he will do so in a follow-up In My Opinion piece next month.
 
Have a read  - I imagine that you’ll be reminded of a club near you?

Best,

[Rees Milikin]

Excellent work.

[Jason Thurman]

I was fortunate to get a sneak preview of this piece. While we've all heard the rollback argument a few dozen times, it's often presented as a self-evident proposition that the game isn't the same as it used to be. Alternatively, others point to the increased costs of longer courses or the way that equipment has rendered old courses obsolete. All of these arguments are valid and Joe even touches on them, as any piece discussing a ball rollback should.

However, what sticks out to me the most about Joe's piece is the way that he cites examples of holes that are more interesting either because they're shorter or longer than usual. The short par 4 fifth hole at Idle Hour he cites is one that I know well and am constantly amazed by. On a course with just three par 4s under 430 yards, you look at the scorecard and expect this to be a welcome breather. It's not a driver-5 iron like the rest of the course, but notably, it's also not a #DrivablePar4 (at least not until Mike Davis bastardizes it when the club allows him to set it up for a tournament). It is instead one of a handful of holes with which I'm familiar that simply cause mass confusion, because they aren't drivable but also don't have a clearly spelled out "conservative" route. I've hit everything from 5 iron to driver off the tee and made birdies and double bogeys.

Of course, Joe also mentions the thrill of hitting a good long iron or wood approach. Just two holes before that aforementioned short fifth hole is the stout third, a typical Idle Hour par 4 of about 460 yards and one of the toughest holes in Kentucky. The first time I played it, I played a layup off the tee with 3 wood trying to stay short of the pond to the right of the fairway, and then hammered a hybrid that climbed the hill to the front of the green. I probably 3-putted - I don't recall. But I recall the shot because it was so unusual to hit an uphill hybrid approach to set up a birdie putt on a par 4, just as I remember the birdie I converted two holes later.

Great golf courses give opportunities to hit those shots. No one is ever too disappointed to miss a green with a long iron or hybrid approach on a long hole, but when they pull it off, they remember it for weeks, months, or years. We also remember birdies and eagles on the shorter holes. When a course presents a steady stream of mid-length par 3s, 4s, and 5s, those memorably unusual moments just happen less often and the joy of the game clearly diminishes. Sadly, the least variation in lengths of holes on modern courses tends to occur from the middle sets of tees that the most players choose, leaving them an experience with far less character than a more creative distribution of hole lengths would allow.

[Greg Tallman]

Why would Joe Sponcia feel the need to write an In My Opinion piece entitled Homogenizing the Game? After all, what club would intentionally make its course less interesting?
 
Yet, that’s what is happening and Joe details the neutering of holes that tease – short par 3s, drivable par 4s, and reachable par 5s. Golf clubs and golfers mistakenly identify such holes as weaknesses and add tees/length that inadvertently turn them into more straightforward, bland affairs. Sad but true. It has been a few years since we relocated/redesigned the par 3 seventh hole on The Ocean Course, cutting from a relatively boring, development impaired 207 yard head scratcher to a far more interesting and infinitely more attractive 139 yarder on the beach. Sadly, but not surprisingly, many a "retail golfer" criticized the changed based on nothing more than yardage. "You built a nothing little hole". After watching the same complainants play the hole I can only assume they prefer to make double bogey on a 200+ yard hole versus the same on a sub 150 yard hole.


Also, additional tees that shorten long par 4s that once called for some kind of a long scoot shot have the ill effect of transforming a memorable, ground hugging approach into a ho-hum routine aerial one. In the process, all these new tees cost more to maintain and junk up the aesthetics. Yikes, Joe wonders, what are we doing?! Not only are 5 and 6 and 7 sets of tees not beneficial, they are undermining what were once thought-producing holes.
 
Joe cities several examples around his native state of Tennessee to substantiate his premise, places that have NOT succumbed to mindless tees/length. Toward the end, Joe quotes Henry Longhurst, who warned of this in …1953!  “What a farce is the business of length? Golf is surely the only game, either in the United States or Britain, whose whole character has been changed solely by so-called improvements in instruments in which it is played.”
 
Another way that well-intentioned committees inadvertently reduce their members’ enjoyment is through a lack of width. This is another topic that Joe wants to address and he will do so in a follow-up In My Opinion piece next month.
 
Have a read  - I imagine that you’ll be reminded of a club near you?

Best,

[Jason Topp]

Thanks Joe for the thoughtful piece.  This is my attempt to honor your work with a thoughtful response.

I am a little confused by the article.  In part it addresses a very interesting subject – homogenizing golf holes through adding length to short holes and taking it away from long holes – and argues that multiple tees contribute to the problem.
  
It also, however, argues for a rollback of the ball.  While I agree with that position, I think that horse is out of the barn.  Courses have for the most part already added length in response and I do think that the USGA overall distance standard has effectively halted the length people drive the ball and at least will prevent the problem from getting worse.  A rollback would have been a terrific idea in 2000.  I just do not think it is practical now. I would prefer to focus on how to make courses interesting based on the state of things today.

The list of points at the end of the article seem more directed at the length issue and the use of multiple tee boxes to deal with that length.  I agree and disagree with some of the points and offer this commentary:

"1.   Aesthetics – I don’t know what is more foul to the eye: a runway of oversized tee markers covered in purple, red, white, blue, black, blue, yellow, and green or a scorecard that looks more appropriate for bowling? What about the short green-to-tee walks many of the golden age architects insisted upon? Many have been replaced with the obligatory forty to sixty pace hikes. Clean and simple always looks more elegant than cluttered and haphazard.”

Response:  I agree that fewer tee boxes look a bit better but do not think this point is a compelling one.  I would rather have a good hole with multiple tees than a poor hole with one.  If multiple tees result in the neutering effects discussed at the beginning of the article, then the multiple tee boxes are a problem.

2.   "Slower play – Many would claim having multiple tees speeds play but the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Players who used to be traditional ‘white’ tee players would rarely attempt the championship tees, but many will today venture back into the ‘buffer’ box and slow play often ensues as their games aren’t good enough for the increased yardage. It’s also no accident that 7,500 yard courses take longer to play. 1,000 steps equals an additional 1/2 mile of walking."

Response:  I agree that 7500 yards lengthens the time it takes to play because it increases the time it takes to walk the course.
I disagree that people playing the back tees that do not belong there is much of a problem.  The two courses I play the most have back tees that can get close to 7500 yards.  They get almost no use despite both courses having many members with handicaps of 0 or in the plus range.  This experience is consistent with direction given from Jeff Brauer, Micheal Hurzdan and others advising on the amount of turf to dedicate to each tee box which is based on percentage of rounds played at each length.  The percentage for back tees is extraordinarily low because no one uses them.  

3.   Increased maintenance costs – More tee boxes require more labor to maintain, plain and simple. Ditto this for the reduction in natural areas that have to be moved back so that Johnny-can-only-carry-it 225 yards can play the 6,850 box

Response:  I would need to defer to others on maintenance costs for multiple tee boxes but I suspect it is relatively negligible.  You need a certain amount of tee area to accommodate the volume of play on a particular course and whether that area is in one box or broken up into multiple boxes is a function of labor but I doubt it is a huge impact.

4.   Bland rounds – When every shot into every green is about the same distance, character and fun are lost. Players no longer have to adjust to the course and the challenges presented by the architect which many say is the reason great courses hold their attention for repeated rounds of play.

I completely agree with this point and am interested in whether multiple tee boxes truly have this impact.

5. Bland holes – Ever heard of Arnold Palmer’s historic shot on the drivable first hole in the final round of the 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills? Which hole is considered the best at the Northern Trust Open at Riviera Country Club? Many say it’s the risk/reward 315 yard, par 4, number 10. Lastly, what architect today is building holes like the feast or famine 135 yard, third hole at Wannamoisett Country Club? Holes like these are becoming an anomaly because they don’t fit the mold of the armchair architect who ‘designs’ with an ideal yardage in mind for each box compared to the architects of old who used the land as their guide.

I agree with this point in theory but am not at all convinced that in fact architects today are neglecting short par 4s and par 3s.  Coore/Crenshaw and Doak has build such holes regularly.  Hardly anyone else is building any courses in the US.  
The bigger problem I see is courses altering existing par 3s and 4s to take away this variety and creating hybrid sets of tees that use back tees on the short holes and forward tees on the long holes, thereby diminishing the variety inherent in an existing course.  Tallman’s example of the 7th at Cabo Del Sol Ocean is a terrific example of bucking the trend.  That hole demonstrates that a short hole can provide a fantastic and memorable challenge.

[jeffwarne]

   I don’t know what is more foul to the eye: a runway of oversized tee markers covered in purple, red, white, blue, black, blue, yellow, and green or a scorecard that looks more appropriate for bowling?  

new tagline

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()