What Is Too Short for a Top 100 Course?

[Thomas Dai]

Golf is, well, ought to be for all whether they be young, old, male, female, fit, unfit etc etc.
I wonder what % of the players (customers) likely to play on this course are likely to be long hitting men who want to play from the back-most tees and are likely to dismiss a par-69 out of hand? Just asking.
Atb

[James Brown]

Golf is, well, ought to be for all whether they be young, old, male, female, fit, unfit etc etc.
I wonder what % of the players (customers) likely to play on this course are likely to be long hitting men who want to play from the back-most tees and are likely to dismiss a par-69 out of hand? Just asking.
Atb

Doesn't have to be actual long hitting men.  My 73 year old Dad hits it 160 in the air and insists on playing the same tees as me.  Grew up learning golf in the 50s and 60s and adores Firestone.  Pretty close to the average demographic I suspect. 

[Thomas Dai]

Golf is, well, ought to be for all whether they be young, old, male, female, fit, unfit etc etc.
I wonder what % of the players (customers) likely to play on this course are likely to be long hitting men who want to play from the back-most tees and are likely to dismiss a par-69 out of hand? Just asking.
Atb

Doesn't have to be actual long hitting men.  My 73 year old Dad hits it 160 in the air and insists on playing the same tees as me.  Grew up learning golf in the 50s and 60s and adores Firestone.  Pretty close to the average demographic I suspect.

Nice to hear this James. Father and son golf can be a bit special.
Would I be correct in assuming there are no forced carries over the kind of yardage mentioned? I'm not keen on forced carries myself, might be a challenge for some but they can really impact on the enjoyment of the game for some young, old, lessor and fairer sex players.
Atb

[Jim Nugent]

GD has one course in its top 100 with par under 70; and GM has two.  So the bias against sub-70s isn't as strong as I thought, and maybe Tom can make it work fine for this course. 

[Sean_A]

I will tell ya that Rye is less than 6000 yards from the daily tee and tops out at 6500 yards from the blue tee....the medal tees are 6300.  Its a damn tough course from any tee.  Even from the yellows there are 7 holes over 400 yards.  The design is a relentless probing of all facets of the game for the handicap player.  I felt no need to step back to over 6000 yards yesterday and indeed I think some holes are better from the yellows...starting with #1.  #s 2, 7, 13, 14, 15 & 17 are all arguably better holes for handicap play from the yellow tee.  I don't think many people would say that configuration totaling 6005 yards and par 68 is too easy. I do think many would strongly consider that configuration for top 100 world.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean's post had me rethinking the premise/assumption underlying the initial question (ie as the question *reads* and not necessarily how Tom intended it).
If a Top 100 is reflective of great architecture as experienced by a golfer-rater on a hole by hole basis, one can very easily imagine a Postage Stamp here and a Riviera 10th there and a Valley of Sin or a DA bunker here and there, and a Merion type feel and Crystal Downs' greens, and how (excluding idiotic 650+ yard Par 5s from the mix) the resulting course -- in the actual playing and before the 'totals' were added up by the golfing equivalent of soul-less number-crunchers -- would be recognized as a top 100 course the very moment said golfer-rater stepped off the 18th green.
But the trouble is that most of us aren't satisfied with the subjective/personal experience, and when we crave for the external approval that 'objectivity' seems to demand we immediately go to the 'numbers' -- in this case, total yards and total par -- to assure ourselves and others that we hold a legitimate and respectable view.
I think that's one thing that's changed: maybe those old monied establishment figures long ago were so established and had so much money that they didn't give a sh-t about appearing 'respectable'.
Respectability is a very middle class virtue, and one of the least helpful and most banal/boring of all virtues.
My guess is that folks like Sean and Tom and others here have played golf for so long and on so many different courses and have had so much approval/support for their views for so long that they now couldn't care less what anyone else thought of their views or whether those views were considered 'legitimate'. The folks Tom needs to worry about are the ones like *me*, give or take -- ie the ones who have played just enough to feel like they have something to say, but not enough to be so sure of themselves that they can happily throw convention out the window.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Thanks for your post.  You are correct, I don't spend much time worrying about whether my designs are "respectable" as I have bigger goals in mind.


I think the old guys did, too, but I think they also did a lot of their work in the days before the middle class had any ideas about what constituted a "respectable" course.  That probably didn't happen until - ironically - those same architects wrote their books and told the middle class what to expect.  [Even though most of their books only sold 3,000 copies, and I'd guess that few of those were to the middle class.]


Today, there is much more marketing, and most of our clients worry about respectability.  I might get a pass from this particular client, though, as they have never aimed at the middle market in anything else they've done.

[Tim Leahy]

If Cypress Point was a par 69 would it be any less great? If you build 18 great holes the par wont matter.

[Ulrich Mayring]

18 great holes won't cut it, you need to build a great course. That has as much to do with balance, variety and flow as it has to do with individually great holes. You wouldn't call TOC great, if it played #1 and #18 back and forth nine times. Although every golfer loves to play those two holes individually.

Par is, of course, just a number. But if it's a number the client cares about, then I would give it to him at the expense of a great hole, if it helps make the course as a whole better.

Ulrich

[Jim Nugent]

I just looked at the top 100 U.S. lists from GD and GM.  No courses with par under 70. Maybe Tom can pull it off.  If so, he'll be the first. 

As a client who wanted a top 100 course, par 69 would make me nervous.  i definitely agree with whoever posted earlier that Tom experimenting like that with his own money is quite different from experimenting with OPM.     

[Tom_Doak]

As a client who wanted a top 100 course, par 69 would make me nervous.  i definitely agree with whoever posted earlier that Tom experimenting like that with his own money is quite different from experimenting with OPM.   

I will likely call it a par 70 even if one of the 5's is so short that it's a de facto 69, just to make you less nervous.  But, really, this way of thinking is why most architects don't build great courses.  Can't take the chance!


One of these days I will definitely find the client to let me build a par-68 course.  Maybe that client will have to be me, I don't know.  Surely I'm not the only person in the world who thinks this way?

[AStaples]

I've enjoyed reading this post - it's interesting listening to a conversation/debate about why we should debate this topic in the first place!


Do any of the rankings use actual yardage or par as a qualifying factor? I always thought it was a variety/quality of each types of par?  I guess if your par 69 didn't have a true par 5, that may be a problem, right?


In terms of the client, it does come down to their perspective. And their trust in their architect. I'm always skeptical of my owners and their ability to "get it."  Most say they do, but I think a good design allows the user to be educated on architecture, and what is fun, interesting and natural. However, since many golfers are just tying to get their balls airborne, they use the lists to help them understand/substantiate what more knowledgable people think is great. Maybe just my opinion.


Andy

[Tom_Doak]

However, since many golfers are just tying to get their balls airborne, they use the lists to help them understand/substantiate what more knowledgable people think is great. Maybe just my opinion.

But if the lists were only based on knowledgable people's opinions, then this wouldn't be an issue -- unless it's the so-called knowledgable people who are really the gatekeepers for conventional wisdom.

[Jim_Coleman]

     The Pennsylvania Open is being contested this week at the 6,600 yard Gulph Mills Golf Club.  The greens are running at around 12, and the pins were probably set up on the easy side to get the field through the day.  I've always considered it a terrific and challenging Ross course - probably not top 100, but maybe top 100 classic.  (I understand that it doesn't get rated because the club wants no part of the rating game.)
     After the first round, minus 9 is leading, and almost half the field is at even par or better.  These guys are pretty good, but I suspect that not one of them could play on the Web.com tour, let alone the regular tour.  Does that mean that 6600 yards is too short today?  I hope not, but under some definitions it seems that it may be.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - that's the thing, isn't it: the very people who promote the conventional wisdom are usually the very last ones to recognize it! It's a vicious circle: if you spout off conventional wisdom no one will question you (precisely because it's so conventional), and so very soon you start believing not that you're conventional but that you're infallible -- thus giving you carte blanche to spout off even more of the same!
I've seen it happen to some pretty prominent names in the media/industry. It's not a pretty sight -- and I get red faced thinking of how much of those conventions I myself have trotted out over the years!
Jim - that's a striking real world example. I take your word for it that the competitors couldn't make it on the Web.com tour; but I'm guessing that there's hardly one of *them* who wouldn't be the very best golfer most of *us* have ever played with!
Peter

[Garland Bayley]

As a client who wanted a top 100 course, par 69 would make me nervous.  i definitely agree with whoever posted earlier that Tom experimenting like that with his own money is quite different from experimenting with OPM.   

I will likely call it a par 70 even if one of the 5's is so short that it's a de facto 69, just to make you less nervous.  But, really, this way of thinking is why most architects don't build great courses.  Can't take the chance!


One of these days I will definitely find the client to let me build a par-68 course.  Maybe that client will have to be me, I don't know.  Surely I'm not the only person in the world who thinks this way?

My home course is a par 68 that we call par 70, and no one seems to notice or criticize. If it weren't for some trees planted to prevent direct access to a green on a "fish hook" hole we would be par 67.

I am making proposals to get rid of the "fish hook" hole and raise the par. Wish me luck. 

[Mark_Fine]

When someone defines exactly what constitutes a Top 100 golf course or what is a “great” golf course, then this question can be answered.  Until then, who knows as the answer is completely subjective. 

I have my own set of “best courses I have ever played rankings”.  I just added one to my “Top 100” list that few people on this site might agree with - Bandon Preserve.  If anyone doesn’t think that is a great golf course, they just don’t know golf    (or their criteria of "great" is much different than mine) 

[John Kavanaugh]

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?

Mark,


Read the above original post and notice the use of I. The question is not what constitutes a Top 100, the question is what Doak has to do to not build a top 100.

[Josh Tarble]

Tom,


I'm guessing you have received what you want out of this thread already, but in my opinion it isn't the length it's how it plays.  I believe for a course to be "top-whatever" it has to play "big".  Look at all of the top courses and there is only one thing in common and that is almost all (especially new ones) are large scale courses.  I personally think that small courses that plays "big" is exactly what you need and can show others how it works.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Coleman:  What are they calling par at Gulph Mills?  I doubt the leader would be nine under if they'd called it par 69!  But of course anything' possible these days; I recall Gary Woodland shooting 59 on my course at Dismal River while practicing for the U.S. Open at Chambers Bay.

[Jim_Coleman]

   They're calling 18 a par 5, so the par is 71.  I'm pretty sure they've called it a par 4 in some prior events.  It's a par 5 on the card for regular play.

[Tom_Doak]

   They're calling 18 a par 5, so the par is 71.  I'm pretty sure they've called it a par 4 in some prior events.  It's a par 5 on the card for regular play.

That's the shortest par-5 I've ever seen.  It was 421 yards when I saw it years ago, though it's way way uphill.  Long hitters probably have wedges for their second shots, though not many members are hitting the green in two with regularity.

[Jim_Coleman]

  You are exactly right. Except I think it's playing at 460

[Ulrich Mayring]

Ok, in the interest of my further education, please let me rant a bit

If it's driver+wedge for the longhitter, then how can it be a great hole? Certainly it seems quite boring for the longhitter. And how could a hole, that can be played in two shots like that, carry any strategic interest for the average hitter?

So, why would anyone want to build a hole like that and then complain that he has to call it a par 5 for "Top 100" reasons? Get rid of that hole and build two interesting holes instead, you'll get a par of 6 or 7 out of the same acreage and a much better course to boot

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

If it's driver+wedge for the longhitter, then how can it be a great hole? Certainly it seems quite boring for the longhitter. And how could a hole, that can be played in two shots like that, carry any strategic interest for the average hitter?

So, why would anyone want to build a hole like that and then complain that he has to call it a par 5 for "Top 100" reasons? Get rid of that hole and build two interesting holes instead, you'll get a par of 6 or 7 out of the same acreage and a much better course to boot

I'm not sure whether you are referencing the Gulph Mills hole mentioned above [driver-wedge] or my routing in California, but I'll answer your questions and comment on your proposed solution.


1)  A hole can be great even if it's driver-wedge.  The fact that pros are able to hit driver-wedge on a short par-5 nowadays isn't so great.


2)  There can be all sorts of stuff going on for the shorter hitter, that the longer hitter ignores.  Too much of that is a bad thing, but it's easy to generate interest for shorter hitters.


3)  You're the one who's insistent on having three par-5's to get par up to 70, because to have variety you think you need to have par-5's. I would be more inclined to take your alternative suggestion at the end, but sometimes you have to do that for other holes, instead, and if you're going to wind up with eighteen you have to pick the least bothersome spot to make one of them the par-5, even if it's not as good a hole as some of the others.


In this particular case, our options for changing the routing are reduced because both the client and I think it's important to have two nine-hole choices.  We believe that the nature of the resort, the terrain, and the summer weather means that a fair number of guests might choose to play nine holes per day instead of all 18 at once.