[Duncan Cheslett]

For average golfers like myself - the mid handicappers who pay most of golf's bills - holes between around 440 and 470 yards long are more likely to be three shotters than two shotters.  In terms of scoring, this rarely matters as these are generally the holes which carry a low stroke index or handicap. In terms of enjoyment however, I would suggest that these are often the holes which average players like the least - particularly when they come one after another after another.

Two or three holes of this length are absolutely fine on a course, and add to the variety on offer while separating the good players from the pack. I would argue that seven or eight long par 4s however, is just far too many to be enjoyable for average players while not necessarily offering a great challenge to the long hitter.

Why should length be the primary measure of difficulty? I would contend that most golfers would rather be challenged by the necessity for accuracy and tactical nous rather than the somewhat one-dimensional ability to smash a golf ball 300+ yards.

Very often, the primary difference between a 6200 yard course and a 7000+ yard course is simply the number of long par 4s it has.  Personally, all other thing being equal, I would rather play the course with more holes which I could hope to reach with a good drive and accurate mid iron. That means a maximum of between 400 and 440 yards for the vast majority of golfers.

I appreciate that in the States you have the option of playing off the tee that you wish to, which probably goes some way to addressing the issue. In the UK however, everyone generally plays off the same tee, and I don't see that situation changing. No man is ever going to  play from the "Ladies" tees.

So am I unusual in not taking masochistic pleasure in being beaten up by a stretch of interminable long par 4s such as are found towards the end of the otherwise lovely Sherwood Forest, for example?

How many long par 4s on a course is "about right"?

 

[Jud_T]

Duncan,


I am with you.  The average middle aged golfer could be perfectly challenged with a 6000 yard course which included a couple of long par 4s.  The problem is that the disparity in length that has developed in the game with better technology renders many holes that you and I might find fun and sporty as drive and pitch holes for the bigger hitters.  Low cappers, for the most part, don't like courses where they can't hit their drivers on more than a handful of holes (this has hurt the reputation of many otherwise classic courses or leads to their adding yardage etc.).  These folks also tend to be the movers and shakers on greens committees etc.  But to answer your question more directly regardless of individual ability, I would think that more than 3 or 4 become quite tedious in fairly short order.

[Carl Rogers]

As a mid single digit that has lost some length, these holes are playable when the run up shot is allowed.  Having played a lot with higher handicappers, the real culprit of the
problematic is the 570 par 5.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Duncan - I tend to think 6 par 4 holes between 400 and 475 yard is about right for 'perfect design'. Perfect design being ten fours, four fives and four threes and a course of equal par 36 halves and 7000 yards from the back tees.


Who cares about perfect though.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan - I tend to think 6 par 4 holes between 400 and 475 yard is about right for 'perfect design'.

Fair enough Adrian,

My point is that there is a huge difference between 400 yard holes and 475 yard holes for the average player. 400 - 430 yards is reachable but challenging requiring two very good shots. 440 - 475 yards is pretty well unreachable for most and plays like a par 5.  Too many of the latter becomes very tedious, particularly if there are four par 5s on the course as well.

Playing fairway woods 3 or 4 times in a round is fun; 8 or 9 times isn't, particularly on a course you are going to play 2 or 3 times a week as a member.

[BHoover]

Isn't this a good reason to have multiple sets of tees?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree with you Duncan. I personally would much rather play a 6000 yard course than a 7000 yard course. Most modern courses play around 500 yards shorter than the 'advertised'.


But there is no right and wrong, every person wants different.

[Jon Wiggett]

Duncan - I tend to think 6 par 4 holes between 400 and 475 yard is about right for 'perfect design'. Perfect design being ten fours, four fives and four threes and a course of equal par 36 halves and 7000 yards from the back tees.


Who cares about perfect though.

You've described the ideals behind much of the GCA from the 50's through to the late 80's Adrian. What a golden age that must have been .

Depends on the lie of the land. I would have thought that every course should require the player to hit three or four long irons/fairway woods into the green for the second shot.

Jon

[Jud_T]

Duncan,

If you think 5 or 6 long approaches are tiresome imagine how the average woman feels...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Duncan - I tend to think 6 par 4 holes between 400 and 475 yard is about right for 'perfect design'. Perfect design being ten fours, four fives and four threes and a course of equal par 36 halves and 7000 yards from the back tees.


Who cares about perfect though.

You've described the ideals behind much of the GCA from the 50's through to the late 80's Adrian. What a golden age that must have been .

Jon - I still think its the model everyone tries to work too today. Some people today are prepared to have par 70 or 71 and 400 yards shorter and sling a bit of quirk in. The 'signature pro's' were always less prepared to compromise and often moved a lot of dirt to grab 40 yards and hit those numbers.
A new course needs to be 7000 yards really, but have the tee options to play much much shorter. That way you can cater for everyone the game has dramatically changed many people don't feel challenged with short courses.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon - I still think its the model everyone tries to work too today. Some people today are prepared to have par 70 or 71 and 400 yards shorter and sling a bit of quirk in. The 'signature pro's' were always less prepared to compromise and often moved a lot of dirt to grab 40 yards and hit those numbers.
A new course needs to be 7000 yards really, but have the tee options to play much much shorter. That way you can cater for everyone the game has dramatically changed many people don't feel challenged with short courses.

Adrian, how many courses have you designed? and how many of them were 7000 yards? If you believe that a new course needs to be 7000 yards then why build the Stranahan at under 5500?

I would suggest a course needs to fit the demographic al needs of its clients.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Duncan - I tend to think 6 par 4 holes between 400 and 475 yard is about right for 'perfect design'. Perfect design being ten fours, four fives and four threes and a course of equal par 36 halves and 7000 yards from the back tees.


Who cares about perfect though.

I often don't agree with Adrian but I'll come to his defence in this instance. He was very careful to put 'perfect design', meaning it wasn't necessarily perfect at all. As Duncan rightly said in his original post "all else being equal."

So, in that imaginary world with perfect turf on utterly pancake flat ground, with nothing more than a gentle breeze off the sea in any variable direction, I'll take playing six holes over 400 yards. 410, 420, 430, 440, 450 and 460. Fine.

Off course all things never really are equal, meaning there isn't really an ideal figure.

What I did have confirmed for me (confirmation bias not withstanding) when working in the golf business was what I'd always expected: the average golfer lies. Well, the men do. Everyone plays the back tees and claims to want to play longer, tougher courses. They never leave their 6,100 yard home course though and join the 7,000 yard thing down the road. Funny that.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - I still think its the model everyone tries to work too today. Some people today are prepared to have par 70 or 71 and 400 yards shorter and sling a bit of quirk in. The 'signature pro's' were always less prepared to compromise and often moved a lot of dirt to grab 40 yards and hit those numbers.
A new course needs to be 7000 yards really, but have the tee options to play much much shorter. That way you can cater for everyone the game has dramatically changed many people don't feel challenged with short courses.

Adrian, how many courses have you designed? and how many of them were 7000 yards? If you believe that a new course needs to be 7000 yards then why build the Stranahan at under 5500?

I would suggest a course needs to fit the demographic al needs of its clients.

Jon

Jon - I have designed 15 courses, only 1 is actually over 7000 yards but quite a few are 6500 but par 70 which really means the same if you strip out 500 yards and deduct two shots. The Stranahan is 5500 yards because it's only on 73 acres, I was very inspired by this forum and what it likes to build a course based on what we like on this site. 5500 yards is not good commercially, last year 6 out of 7 plays was on our long course, some of our members just flatly refuse to play it, length and the undulating greens are the main reasons, that aside it is does have fans and the number of rounds are building up. Yes the course needs to fit the land but most most people would suggest 9 holes for 73 acres, most of my 18 holers are on 125 acres but they good commercial courses that do plenty of outings, decent membership levels. Most new courses have championship type aspiration, not many good club member courses are likely to spring up in the next 20 years certainly in the UK, any are likely to be redo's, relocates or high profile top end stuff. I like the same sort of courses as most do on here, most people that come up to me and ask about my latest project want to know how much water there is, they seem dissapointed when I say none.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Duncan,
 
The architect has to create a field of play that can accomodate and challenge the very broad spectrum of golfers.
 
He can't lock himself into crafting a course for a defined "subset"
 
The solution is to design the best course possible, considering the end user, and to allow for variety in terms of tees, such that all of those defined "subsets" can be accomodated and challenged.
 
GCGC plays close to 7,000 from the back tees and I don't find playing the back tees particularly burdensome.
 
Yet, other courses at 6,6,00 to 6,800 are very difficult for me.
 
One course that I play fairly often has 9 long par 4's and 2 short/medium par 4's.
 
I find that course to be very difficult, although, all but one of the par 5's are fairly benign.
 
The problem as Sean alluded to is that the spectrum has widened out.
The disparity has become excessive, ergo, the architect finds himself faced with a dilemma, how to design for that broad spectrum.
 
More tees, as unpleasant as that may sound, is the answer, unless the golf culture were to revert to where it was centuries ago.

[Sean_A]

Duncan


I like shortish courses so I think its critical that these places should have at least two 440+ and probably at least two 475+.  I could care less if I ever see another 500+ hole again...biggest waste of time I can think of when we consider how many of these holes exist and how much space they use.  So call it four holes between 440 and 500.  That said, for me its really important to use that yardage between 230ish and 310ish...liberally...so just as much as there are holes of the 440-500 range.  Of course, this is dream world.


Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Sean, could not agree more.
Duncan, I think when answering this question, the question of what profile or type of golfer are you designing for?
Long holes:
-take longer to play, exacerbate the slow play problem
-more grass to cut, water, fertilize
-consume more acreage to purchase

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean, could not agree more.
Duncan, I think when answering this question, the question of what profile or type of golfer are you designing for?
Long holes:
-take longer to play, exacerbate the slow play problem
-more grass to cut, water, fertilize
-consume more acreage to purchase

The problem with this theory is you create a golf course that MANY people do not want to play and also a situation where golfers get better they move on so you actually build a customer then lose it. Whilst you and others like something its imperative in any development to step back and accept the wider view rather than plump an opinion as the definitive. This is why people do research and accept experience and is also the reason many projects fail.
Most architects and developers take the view if you build at 7000 yards to start with you can nozzle down to 5000 with forward and shorter tees.
People thinking they like to play a golf course that is 7000 yards but play from the 6000 tees then say they tamed the monster is very commonplace.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon - I still think its the model everyone tries to work too today. Some people today are prepared to have par 70 or 71 and 400 yards shorter and sling a bit of quirk in. The 'signature pro's' were always less prepared to compromise and often moved a lot of dirt to grab 40 yards and hit those numbers.
A new course needs to be 7000 yards really, but have the tee options to play much much shorter. That way you can cater for everyone the game has dramatically changed many people don't feel challenged with short courses.

Adrian, how many courses have you designed? and how many of them were 7000 yards? If you believe that a new course needs to be 7000 yards then why build the Stranahan at under 5500?

I would suggest a course needs to fit the demographic al needs of its clients.

Jon

Jon - I have designed 15 courses, only 1 is actually over 7000 yards but quite a few are 6500 but par 70 which really means the same if you strip out 500 yards and deduct two shots. The Stranahan is 5500 yards because it's only on 73 acres, I was very inspired by this forum and what it likes to build a course based on what we like on this site. 5500 yards is not good commercially, last year 6 out of 7 plays was on our long course, some of our members just flatly refuse to play it, length and the undulating greens are the main reasons, that aside it is does have fans and the number of rounds are building up. Yes the course needs to fit the land but most most people would suggest 9 holes for 73 acres, most of my 18 holers are on 125 acres but they good commercial courses that do plenty of outings, decent membership levels. Most new courses have championship type aspiration, not many good club member courses are likely to spring up in the next 20 years certainly in the UK, any are likely to be redo's, relocates or high profile top end stuff. I like the same sort of courses as most do on here, most people that come up to me and ask about my latest project want to know how much water there is, they seem dissapointed when I say none.

Adrian,

thanks for the reply much of which makes perfect sense. I only asked because what you were pushing as the norm and your own experience are so much at odds. As with the guys who want to be challenged by 7000+ yarders but in reality play from 6000 yards it seems to me that your vision of what you think the golfing market needs and the reality of what you have and others have built seem very much at odds. No criticism intended I am just puzzled by the apparent discrepancy.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean, could not agree more.
Duncan, I think when answering this question, the question of what profile or type of golfer are you designing for?
Long holes:
-take longer to play, exacerbate the slow play problem
-more grass to cut, water, fertilize
-consume more acreage to purchase

The problem with this theory is you create a golf course that MANY people do not want to play and also a situation where golfers get better they move on so you actually build a customer then lose it. Whilst you and others like something its imperative in any development to step back and accept the wider view rather than plump an opinion as the definitive. This is why people do research and accept experience and is also the reason many projects fail.
Most architects and developers take the view if you build at 7000 yards to start with you can nozzle down to 5000 with forward and shorter tees.
People thinking they like to play a golf course that is 7000 yards but play from the 6000 tees then say they tamed the monster is very commonplace.

Adrian


The problem with the "tees solve it all" approach is the walk is spoiled, the rhythm of the game is sacrificed for most people.  Then what happens...we bring in carts to enable the "tees solve it all" approach...or continue to curse 4.5 hour rounds.  I played a modern course yesterday...a handful of very good holes and only a hole or two which are questionable.  However, the down time between greens and the tee (because just reaching the tees is meaningless when there are 2000 yards of spread between tees) added 45 minutes to the round!  You may say many people don't want to play 6000 yard courses, but many people don't want to play 4.5 (and the rest!) rounds.  Isn't the time to play one of the biggest deterrents for people who think about taking the game up or are just quitting the game?


This is why I think you need to different courses to suit different markets.  Clearly, the huge footprint course clicking down to manageble length for most golfers is not the solution.  The game needs all approaches to work well. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I played in a mixed team event (stableford) recently, an event which for team consistency purposes had a regulation that all scores used the ladies handicap index. Yippee, no long par-4's! 400 or so yds....no worries.....birdie time!


To paraphrase what's been said before, once a certain level of golfing ability and course management has been reached scoring is all about how far the player can hit the ball.


atb

[Dave McCollum]

As an ancient golfer who mostly plays with his peers, other ancient types, I’ve noticed that there is a clear advantage to having a 200+ yard approach shot.  We play from 6,100 yards, yet one third of the course (4’s and 5’s) presents this shot during most rounds.  Those that don’t have it have generally higher handicaps or depend on accuracy and a tidy short game. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


The problem with the "tees solve it all" approach is the walk is spoiled, the rhythm of the game is sacrificed for most people.  Then what happens...we bring in carts to enable the "tees solve it all" approach...or continue to curse 4.5 hour rounds.  I played a modern course yesterday...a handful of very good holes and only a hole or two which are questionable.  However, the down time between greens and the tee (because just reaching the tees is meaningless when there are 2000 yards of spread between tees) added 45 minutes to the round!  You may say many people don't want to play 6000 yard courses, but many people don't want to play 4.5 (and the rest!) rounds.  Isn't the time to play one of the biggest deterrents for people who think about taking the game up or are just quitting the game?


This is why I think you need to different courses to suit different markets.  Clearly, the huge footprint course clicking down to manageble length for most golfers is not the solution.  The game needs all approaches to work well. 


Ciao
Firstly I agree slow play is a killer. I don't agree that 2000 extra yards of walking to tees equals 45 minutes. You can walk that distance in 20 minutes. Long courses versus Short courses don't add much time relative to a 5 hour round, 5000 yard courses can be walked in 50 minutes 7000 yarders are 70 minutes. A huge amount of time is spent on the green. Walking back to tees actually only adds time if it's clear in front, if the course play is slow anyway you are merely governed by what is ahead, not many early groups seem to play in 5 hours. Competition golf adds about 30-45 minutes to a round of golf, simply because players take more care. Easy golf versus difficult golf will subtract time but there are limits on how easy you can create the set up to make the golf course desirable. Plenty of other things can add time.
It is hard for golf clubs to make ends meet as it is, restriction is exactly what you don't want, you need to gather more and be attractive to more. A range of tees may not suit but it is the best way to mitigate the problem as it stands, the good players can play from the back, shorter hitters can play forward. Groups and friends do not all hit the ball the same distance or even play the same, friends can be 4 and 24 handicap so a course designed for just big hitters or just short hitters is exactly what not to do. It is important to understand the patterns of how most people join a golf club and the reasons to favour one course over another. How near, Price, Friends all come in front of what the course is actually like.

[Duncan Cheslett]

To paraphrase what's been said before, once a certain level of golfing ability and course management has been reached scoring is all about how far the player can hit the ball.

I disagree.

I would say that once a certain level of golfing ability and course management has been reached scoring is all about consistency, accuracy, and a good short game. Above all, putting.

The differences on how far players can hit the ball are taken care of by the handicap system.

 I don't have a problem with courses having too many long par 4s because of the difficulty. I have a problem with too many long par 4s because it gets tedious. 

The vast majority of golf is played within 150 yards of the green; what happens then is far more important than what happens on the way there.

[Adrian_Stiff]

To paraphrase what's been said before, once a certain level of golfing ability and course management has been reached scoring is all about how far the player can hit the ball.

I disagree.

I would say that once a certain level of golfing ability and course management has been reached scoring is all about consistency, accuracy, and a good short game. Above all, putting.

The differences on how far players can hit the ball are taken care of by the handicap system.

 I don't have a problem with courses having too many long par 4s because of the difficulty. I have a problem with too many long par 4s because it gets tedious. 

The vast majority of golf is played within 150 yards of the green; what happens then is far more important than what happens on the way there.

I can see where you are both coming from though I think you can't be a great player unless you hit it a long way. If you go back 25 years, people did not hit it silly distances past their playing partners like they do today. I don't remember anyone hitting it more than 30 yards past me, nowadays some are 100 yards past their playing partners. It's almost unsocial.

[Duncan Cheslett]

But this is not a problem affecting many players.

Last week I played in a social 4-ball including a +4 handicapper, and thus one of the best amateurs in the country. On the handful of occasions he played a driver, he hit the ball well over 300 yards, and consequently had a district advantage over the rest of us. However, the shot that we all had on him on these holes meant that he had to press home that advantage with a good short game. Which of course, he did.

A few days later I played with a very good 2 handicapper in a Stableford comp. He clearly had an advantage over me off the tee, but this time it was maybe 30 yards at best, and not the 70 yards+ I had experienced a few days earlier. This I could live with, and is far more the norm.

You might imagine that the +4 guy would want to play regularly at a "Championship" course of 7000 yards so that he could use his prodigious length to his advantage. But no, he would rather be a member at a course of true quality which tests his all-round ability, even at only 6000 yards.

The large number of very low handicap golfers we have at Reddish Vale suggests that  good players do not necessarily crave long courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()