What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?

[Tom_Doak]

Alternative title:  Why Does Anyone Have an Answer for This Question?


We've covered this ground before, over the years, but I wonder now if there has been any progress made on the front of not caring what the overall scorecard says.


The knee-jerk reaction of ten years ago was "7,000 yards," or something longer ... even though top-100 courses like Shoreacres and North Berwick are down around 6,500, and my two top-ranked courses [Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle] weigh in around 6,750 yards each.


I ask, because I'm working on a plan for a new course in California, and I am pretty sure the setting alone is going to get this course serious consideration for the top 100.  It's for a new, very-high-end resort, so for 95% of the clientele anything over 6000 yards will be plenty.  I started with a longer version, but between trade-offs with the land planners for the resort, and trying to avoid wetlands issues on three holes, it's leaking yardage, and I'm down to 6600 or 6700 yards, par 70 -- or even, dare I say it, par 69!  But the quality of a top-50 course is absolutely there for the taking. 


So ... what do I tell my client?  Can I say confidently that it's long enough for the rankings?

[Mike Hendren]

You know darn well that's plenty long.  In California, if I'm the owner I'd be more concerned about including a fall-out shelter at the furthest point from the clubhouse. 

Bogey

[Ira Fishman]

Tom, you know the answer--Cypress is top 5 in every ranking.  Now, you just need to be confident enough to build another California course that good.


Ira

[Sean_A]

So ... what do I tell my client?

Trust me.

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

3 of GD's top 6 courses in the world tip out at 6700 yards or less; and 9 of their top 20 come in under 7000, with a quite a few in the 6500-6600 range (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100-greatest-golf-courses-2016-ranking).  So the length you're talking about is by no means the kiss of death.

Seems to me the main question is what the client wants.  The best course possible on that site?  Or is he fixated on building a championship course that top pro's will struggle on?

That said, I suspect par 69 is a bridge too far today for serious consideration in the world top 100.       

[John Kavanaugh]

Well, if you build it under 7000yds you just shamed every rater on this board to vote it top 100. It's like asking a butt boy if your course is too big.

[Mike Hendren]

Well, if you build it under 7000yds you just shamed every rater on this board to vote it top 100. It's like asking a butt boy if your course is too big.

Boom goes the dynamite.

[David Royer]

I just returned from a great return visit to Ballyneal.  It didn't matter which tee we played.  Is 7 any less than one of the great short 4 or is 8 any less spectacular because we moved up one day?  I just played a beautiful course called Plumbrook CcC in Sandusky Ohio.  It's not long just a great old track.  Your imagination will compensate for issues regarding length. 

[Tom_Doak]

Well, if you build it under 7000yds you just shamed every rater on this board to vote it top 100. It's like asking a butt boy if your course is too big.

You know as well as anyone that some raters are shameless 

[Ulrich Mayring]

I rate courses for the length I play them at, so the total length is irrelevant. Isn't that what everyone does?

That being said, I'd be wary of a par 69, but not because of yardage. It's just that this course is likely lacking variety in the par 5 department or has too many par 3s.

Ulrich

[Kalen Braley]

My first thought was, what the ladies always say, but I think they're lying: "Size isn't important"

That being said, I don't think your reputation relies on 7000+ yard beasts,so I wouldn't worry about it if I were in your shoes.

P.S.  Can you disclose in general terms where this land is? 

[Mike Sweeney]

When I break 80 from the historical/classic 6146 yard (I think) Merion East, I will get back to you.


PS - Obviously the answer depends on who you are building the course for? PGA or me?

[Joe Hancock]

Did your client care about this previously?

[Matt_Cohn]

I would think it's easy enough to build a 6,700 yard course, then stick a handful of tiny back tees way back somewhere that they can put on the scorecard if they want to, even if they never use them and they're basically invisible to golfers who aren't looking for them. Yeah?


PS, please consider this my official offer to help you locate those back tees!

[Tim Leahy]

Is it SoCal or NoCal? If it involves wetlands it must be NoCal.
Is there a chance the major orgs roll back the ball? 500+ par 4's and reaching 600 yd par 5's with irons regularly is getting ridiculous.

[jeffwarne]

Is it SoCal or NoCal? If it involves wetlands it must be NoCal.
Is there a chance the major orgs roll back the ball? 500+ par 4's and reaching 600 yd par 5's with irons regularly is getting ridiculous.

No because the "grow the game" police seem to to outweigh the sustainability and common sense police.
When do we see the first 600 yard par 4? (with 100 yard safety corridors in each direction)
No worries-they're making plenty of extra real estate and land these days aren't they?


#heads in sand continues at an alarming rate.
McIlroy FLYING it 365 off the range yesterday-he's what 5'9 ?


Imagine baseball where every pop fly was a home run

[John McCarthy]

Mid Ocean Club is 6530.  I am not a belt notcher but this notch will be made.


While generally a terrible golfer, distance is not my problem.  For the usual bogey +golfer a 6200, 6300 course is all they want. 


Build the best course available, damn the length.  If there is wind on the site none of it matters.

[jeffwarne]

Alternative title:  Why Does Anyone Have an Answer for This Question?


We've covered this ground before, over the years, but I wonder now if there has been any progress made on the front of not caring what the overall scorecard says.


The knee-jerk reaction of ten years ago was "7,000 yards," or something longer ... even though top-100 courses like Shoreacres and North Berwick are down around 6,500, and my two top-ranked courses [Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle] weigh in around 6,750 yards each.


I ask, because I'm working on a plan for a new course in California, and I am pretty sure the setting alone is going to get this course serious consideration for the top 100.  It's for a new, very-high-end resort, so for 95% of the clientele anything over 6000 yards will be plenty.  I started with a longer version, but between trade-offs with the land planners for the resort, and trying to avoid wetlands issues on three holes, it's leaking yardage, and I'm down to 6600 or 6700 yards, par 70 -- or even, dare I say it, par 69!  But the quality of a top-50 course is absolutely there for the taking. 


So ... what do I tell my client?  Can I say confidently that it's long enough for the rankings?

absolutely
just do what a local club here did and add 10- 20 yards to the scorecard on every hole
Cheapest renovation ever

[Tom_Doak]

The irony is, this project is on 22,000 acres.  It's not like we don't have enough land to make it longer ... although they do have plans for a lot of things besides golf.


The project is in northern California.  I posted a couple of pictures of future golf holes on Instagram last week @doakgolf




Ulrich:  Your comment that the course is either "lacking in variety in the par-5 department, or has too many par-3's" is odd.  How else would you get to par 69?  There are two or three par-5's [if you call the third one a par-5 at 485 yards], and five par-3's as the plan sits today.

[Terry Lavin]

I would think it's easy enough to build a 6,700 yard course, then stick a handful of tiny back tees way back somewhere that they can put on the scorecard if they want to, even if they never use them and they're basically invisible to golfers who aren't looking for them. Yeah?


PS, please consider this my official offer to help you locate those back tees!

I affirm this judgment.

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  I am not so sure.  This audience is clearly biased against distance/difficulty as a measure.  But at least one of the rating magazines lists resistance to scoring as a criteria and some raters prescribe to the hard is good mantra.  So if your owner is asking for a "guarantee" that the lack of yardage will not preclude a top 100 rating, I can't say the answer is yes.  I also suggest that it is easier for older courses that made their reputations before the changes in balls and clubs to achieve a high ranking absent length.  Its easier to "excuse" the "issue" when the course already has a high rating. You have bucked the trend (perhaps helping to start a new one) by getting a couple of courses in the top 100 that are not long courses but most of the newer entries go the other way.  Indeed some questionable entries base their claim on length, difficulty and exclusivity (e.g. Rich Harvest).  But I suspect that since you can't guarantee the rating regardless, you'll just try to convince the owner to allow you to build the best course that you can and be satisfied.  Given your track record, if the property is that good, you'll have a pretty good chance.

[James Brown]

Just me, but at least par 70 and 6400 yards from the back tees seems like a commercially viable set of numbers for an oceanside setting.  I'm sure someone will say these are arbitrary, but if you want to attract visitors for the golf alone, those numbers can't turn people off, even if those people are making their own perspective choices.  I don't imagine Bandon or Cabot or Streamsong would have succeeded if the first course was par 69. 

[Matthew Essig]

The irony is, this project is on 22,000 acres.  It's not like we don't have enough land to make it longer ... although they do have plans for a lot of things besides golf.


The project is in northern California.  I posted a couple of pictures of future golf holes on Instagram last week @doakgolf




Ulrich:  Your comment that the course is either "lacking in variety in the par-5 department, or has too many par-3's" is odd.  How else would you get to par 69?  There are two or three par-5's [if you call the third one a par-5 at 485 yards], and five par-3's as the plan sits today.

If you can make that third par 5 500-505 yards, then you are in the clear of any flak from the average golfer.

[James Brown]

Alternative title:  Why Does Anyone Have an Answer for This Question?


We've covered this ground before, over the years, but I wonder now if there has been any progress made on the front of not caring what the overall scorecard says.


The knee-jerk reaction of ten years ago was "7,000 yards," or something longer ... even though top-100 courses like Shoreacres and North Berwick are down around 6,500, and my two top-ranked courses [Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle] weigh in around 6,750 yards each.


I ask, because I'm working on a plan for a new course in California, and I am pretty sure the setting alone is going to get this course serious consideration for the top 100.  It's for a new, very-high-end resort, so for 95% of the clientele anything over 6000 yards will be plenty.  I started with a longer version, but between trade-offs with the land planners for the resort, and trying to avoid wetlands issues on three holes, it's leaking yardage, and I'm down to 6600 or 6700 yards, par 70 -- or even, dare I say it, par 69!  But the quality of a top-50 course is absolutely there for the taking. 


So ... what do I tell my client?  Can I say confidently that it's long enough for the rankings?

Ranch Mission Viejo?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think there's much wisdom in a combination of Sean's "trust me" and Shel's excellent post. 
Which is to say: there's no bullet-proof "argument" to be reasonably/convincingly made here, and there's no one "right" answer.
There is only this:
Do *you*, Tom, genuinely believe that the best and most interesting and most acclaimed course you can find and build there is a 6600 yard Par 70?
And -
If so, does your client believe that *his* best chance for pride and success (in the rankings and in the pocket-book) lies in trusting your instincts and talents on this question?
I think the client might appreciate the courtesy and respect of being asked to make that fundamental and determinative choice: i.e. to trust you, or not.
Peter