If the architecture of an 18-hole course isn’t interesting at 6,400 yards ...

[Ronald Montesano]

"If the architecture of an 18-hole course isn’t interesting at 6,400 yards, there is no chance it will be more interesting at 7,400 yards."

This statement is found on this website. I'm going to think about it a lot over the coming weeks. I have a trip to the 27th state coming up, for a story. I plan to play a pair of courses from separate teeing decks, to determine if the architectural interest is altered.

I begin with the premise that the statement is false. Onward.

[Michael Moore]

I believe that Kis ‘n Greens will be a stern yet compelling test at 7400 yards.

[Ronald Montesano]

To make Kis'n Greens (http://kisngreens.com/course/) 7400 yards would take a bit of doing. It is legendary stuff in the Alden, NY parts, however. Everyone has a KG story (not all related to golf.)

[jeffwarne]

It depends entirely on the course and the player/judger.

[Thomas Dai]

It depends entirely on the course and the player/judger.

And on the equipment, especially the ball and the driver.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Silly statement.  Totally relative to the player. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I would think that the statement rings pretty true. I can't see how adding 55.5 yards per hole could turn lead to gold. There might be 'improvement' on a couple of holes, but not across all 18.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim Kennedy! 
One of my most favorite posters, and one of the best.
I hope you've been well.
I wish you'd post more often, but I assume you're happier and healthier when not!
Best

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Kennedy! 
One of my most favorite posters, and one of the best.
I hope you've been well.
I wish you'd post more often, but I assume you're happier and healthier when not!
Best

Ha Ha! Thank you Peter, and my best wishes to you. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have thought about that statement when I play home courses. Are Hidden Creek or Ballyhack more interesting from the back tees than they are from more forward tees? It certainly is more difficult from the back but I don’t think either is more interesting. The shots on and around the greens are what make the courses fascinating.

[Ken Moum]

Okay, if ADDING a thousand yards doesn't make it more interesting, how about subtracting a thousand?


My answer...totally player length determined. 


You can't possibly think that for someone who hits it 300+ yards off the tee will find most (there are clearly exceptions) 6400-yard courses compelling.  There either will be a ton of irons off the tee or mostly wedges into greens--or both.


By the same token, my ~180-yard average drive really makes 6400 yards a boring slog.


I just played an ABCD with that guy.  200-yard eight irons. 2-iron and wedge from 400 yards.  Our back tees are 6600 yards and I just didn't see him engaging with the difficulty of the course, except around the greens.


Add a thousand yards in the right places, it's a whole other situation.

[Jim_Kennedy]

When I read the question, "If the architecture of an 18-hole course isn’t interesting at 6,400 yards, there is no chance it will be more interesting at 7,400 yards", I wasn't compelled to think about it in terms of my length, or anyone else and how far they hit the ball.   The question is about whether or not the architecture of a course is interesting, which has little to do with length and everything to do with the merits of what is on the ground.

As Tommy notes about his home courses, the architecture is  interesting from multiple tees due to the fact that "the shots on and around the greens are what make the courses fascinating".

I really don't believe anyone thinks that a dozen and a half tree lined runways of various lengths that end at pancakes flanked by sand is somehow going to be much better if 1,000 yds. is added to the overall length - at least I hope they don't.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Maybe on good courses the interest works backwards, from the greens towards the tees; while on not so good courses it only works moving forward -- and then at St Andrew's Old (the answer to every question) there's 'interesting' in both directions.

[Kalen Braley]

Given the vast depth and breadth of course knowledge on this site (I doubt there is a course in the world regardless of how exclusive or remote it is, that at least a few haven't played it), is there a course that can be posited as interesting from 7000+ yards but not so at 6200-6400?


Torrey Pines? 

[Tim_Weiman]

Silly statement.  Totally relative to the player.

What was the yardage at Merion when Nicklaus and Trevino had their playoff?

[Kevin_Reilly]

6544.

[Niall C]

I really don't believe anyone thinks that a dozen and a half tree lined runways of various lengths that end at pancakes flanked by sand is somehow going to be much better if 1,000 yds. is added to the overall length - at least I hope they don't.   

Jim



I think you basically have put your finger on the core assumption most if not all have made on here and that is that all that is been done is adding length while nothing else happens. In adding length you bring different hazards and landforms into play, which may or may not add interest. Also there is nothing in the quote that says that in adding length you necessarily have to retain the line of play. If all that is involved in adding length is moving the tees then there is no reason why in setting the tees back that they can't be off-set to the line of play/fairway.


You see that in a lot of old courses where they have set the tees further back and generally they are the better for it. Off-set tees introduce the need to gauge line and length rather than just line.


Niall

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,


Adding length or offsetting a tee could increase the interest, but that's just the opening salvo. Of equal importance, if not more so, is what fun and games lie ahead for the the next several swings and strokes. No one I know has ever been compelled to make numerous replays of a course because they fell in love with the architecture from the tee, but little else.


Yes, older courses have chosen, or felt the need, to add length from the tee in order to keep pace with equipment and ball changes, but if it has complemented the course it is due to the simple fact that the ensuing architecture was already interesting.





"That's my story and I'm sticking to it" -P. Mucci 

[Niall C]

Jim


I'd counter that on your standard course you hit 18 tee shots and usually about 14 of them are with a driver or similar so if you can make a number of tee shots more interesting then straight away you have improved the architecture.


Then you might have the knock on effect of bringing hazards into play that weren't in play previously. More decisions to be made and therefore more interest. I'm not saying it is all a given but neither is it impossible as suggested by the quote in the OP.


Niall

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim


I'd counter that on your standard course you hit 18 tee shots and usually about 14 of them are with a driver or similar so if you can make a number of tee shots more interesting then straight away you have improved the architecture.


Then you might have the knock on effect of bringing hazards into play that weren't in play previously. More decisions to be made and therefore more interest. I'm not saying it is all a given but neither is it impossible as suggested by the quote in the OP.


Niall

Niall,


I while back I played with a professional colleague who played on the mini tours for a couple years. He was very pure and consistent in his ball striking, but probably didn’t possess a good enough short game to make it on tour.


The funny part was he was just as impressed with my ability to work the work in either direction as I was in his ability to consistently hit the ball straight. I was no better than about a 10 handicap, but he didn’t grow up playing persimmon and balata.


What interests me is whether knowledgable architects believe modern club and ball technology makes it more difficult to produce interesting courses.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If the architecture of an 18-hole course isn’t interesting at 6,400 yards, there is no chance it will be more interesting at 7,400 yards. Distance and toughness are less meaningful measures of a design’s worth than the simple test of how badly one wishes to play the course on a consistent basis. Forget about how the holes photograph and ask yourself after the round: are you worn out or energized? If the latter, then the course should have a real hope of earning a place on this list. How has our original game, featuring a quick and enjoyable stroll outdoors, with engaging puzzles to solve, taken a back seat to the unimportant values of length and difficulty? How did the discussion become so messed up? Stimulating a desire to play again and again is the intangible attribute of great architecture. Alas, too many designs are mediocre, meaning they fail at their most basic duty of motivating one to pursue the sport. - From Ran Morrissett, Preamble to "147 Custodians"

I rest my case. 

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

Agreed on all points.

P.S.  I asked a couple of weeks back for examples where this would be the case.  Still waiting for even 1 nomination of an uninteresting course at 6400, that is so at 7400..

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,

Agreed on all points.

P.S.  I asked a couple of weeks back for examples where this would be the case.  Still waiting for even 1 nomination of an uninteresting course at 6400, that is so at 7400..

 

[Jeff Schley]

Jim,

Agreed on all points.

P.S.  I asked a couple of weeks back for examples where this would be the case.  Still waiting for even 1 nomination of an uninteresting course at 6400, that is so at 7400..

Good challenge Kalen, the list must be very small or not at all. Can't think of one, but then again I'm not play 7400 yards much anymore.