Even if it's true that "some" are building 7500+ courses, and they're doing it because they fear that equipment gains will overpower their courses, they shouldn't. If we can change this faulty perception, we'll change the behavior, and JP's excellent article is a step in that direction. We can't stop people from doing dumb things, but perhaps we can stop them from spreading the virus.

Long drivers events are so bad taste, its like golf meets monster trucks.

Good thing this article isn't really about long drive events!

Ken: You're right, I should have said "4 minute mile"...but I guess in my mind the sub-4 minute mile is thought of as the "3 minute mile."

Mark: I know you're replying to Erik's reactions to your comments, but FWIW--I think you are both right. I think there certainly are more golf courses being built anew today or redesigned today that are very long. I don't know percentages, but would imagine "most" courses probably aren't built to ultra-long distances. I am sure where it happens it is because developers want to say they are building a "Championship" course, so as to make the project appear more attractive to investors, real estate buyers, etc. I would also guess that the number of such courses which are actually used as Championship venues is probably minimal, but I don't really know.

But I also am sure that there are many new courses or courses recently built - probably "most" - and naturally the vast majority of existing courses, that are of "normal" length and are not pushovers for golfers.

Don's point that "shortness" is absolutely zero impediment for challenge and enjoyment for virtually all golfers other than competitive, high level amateurs and pros is correct, I think.

Also, something that's hardly ever mentioned, is that isn't it really more enjoyable for almost all of us to shoot, say 88, rather than 102? I mean, isn't it a _good_ thing that the course we played 20 years ago with the old equipment now "plays" 300yards shorter? Isn't it more fun for us, as a recreational pursuit?

One of the things that I can never understand about this debate is that we have a group of people who, on the one hand complain about distance and there not being enough "challenge" in the game, yet on the other hand object vehemently to rough and course set up that makes the game more difficult. They want to butter their bread on both sides, and they want to choose the type of bread and brand of butter for all of us. They want to tell us the way the game "should" be played, and how far all of us should be able to hit the ball.

As a general rule, I would much rather see golf courses play shorter and easier, and, when necessary, tricked up for added challenge, rather than pursue some golf snob/dilletante's idealized notion of a golf course and the "proper" equipment for play.

Personally, I like the fact that even as a mediocre golfer, I can play many of the holes on my home course with a driver and short iron. Does it mean the game is easy and technology has made me a 2 hcp? Of course not. I still hit the ball out of bounds and fat it and miss short putts and blade bunker shots. But the prospect of playing golf the rest of my life with constant distance pressure on my game is something I'd perceive as suffocatingly depressing. For me, the balance of modern equipment with a golf course playing to a distance of about 63-6400 yards from standard "white" tees is fantastic. Of course everyone will have their own opinion, but the fact is for most of us, courses haven't lengthened significantly in the last 20 years, but if we use good modern equipment, we can all hit the ball a little longer.

The point about the cost/impact of 700 added yards by Don is excellent. The cost argument is one of a litany of "straw man" arguments, for which there are really no factual basis, that are used to attack technology.

Are a small cluster of courses that host tour events getting longer? Yes. Are a small cluster of courses that want to promote themselves as tour-level facilities quoting 7,500-plus yardages from the tips? Sure. But the overwhelming majority of courses, and the majority of golfers playing them, are not having problems because the courses are too short. Two of my favorite new courses (in the last 10 years) in Northern Michigan each play less than 6,400 yards from the tips, and are plenty challenging to anyone not carrying a tour card.

And one other thought: Adding 100 yards to a golf hole doesn't mean adding 100 yards of fairway that needs to be heavily watered and fertilized. Many courses with ultra-long yardages from the tips just have an extra tee box well back of everything else – it isn't as if they're extending the fairways closer to the tees (quite the opposite, sometimes). A 7,500-yard course doesn't have to have a larger footprint than a 6,800-yard course if done right...

... using more land, water and money than if courses were shorter?

First off, I said I was happy with where we are relative to the ball, technology, and distance. The courses I play do not use "more land, water, and money." Just this year I joined a course that - from the tips - plays to a par of 72 from under 6800 yards. My other home course is likewise 72/6800 or so.

You're throwing catch phrases out there as if they're concrete fact, and they're not. The number of courses being built for PGA Tour players - courses that are "using more land, water, and money" - are incredibly small.

And frankly, I don't care about "more land, water, and money" - better a golf course than a strip mall, regulations control water, and it's not my money.

Mark said on November 2, 2007:

Are you taking issue with the factual correctness of the post

What facts? In your comment or the article itself? I haven't seen any facts coming from you. You're just assuming several things to be true. I just played Tobacco Road recently - from the "tips" (6554 yards!!!), and I was happy to play in "only" five hours. Course length is a very small factor in the length of time a round takes.

Some other basic "facts," from my perspective:

• How far Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball has little to no effect on my golf game, the tees I'll play from, or the courses I'll play.
• JP's main point is that distance gains have come to a head. The "sky is falling" crap about "400 yard drives are coming" is boloney. Whatever road we've been going down, not only have we hit the end, but with courses like Pacific Dunes I think we've actually made a U-turn and are getting back to building "fun" courses that still remain challenging.
• golf can be made a cheaper, faster game without changing any of the equipment. We did a whole week on Slow Play earlier this year, and none of the suggestions required equipment modification. As for "cheaper," simply not demanding über-green fairways would be a start.

Mark said on November 2, 2007:

7500 yard courses are being built and have been built… I never said every new course is that long.

And I'm saying the 7500 yard courses are not being built at the rate you seem to believe is common. Most courses these days are being built to about 7000 yards, just as they were 10 years ago. The fact that some high-profile courses top out at 6700 or 6800 should be pleasing to you. For every Erin Hills there's at least one Pacific Dunes (or three, in the case of Bandon).

Mark said on November 2, 2007:

The point is that the distance the ball goes these days is influencing "some" people to build 7500 yard golf courses

If that's the point you're trying to make, then not only have you failed, but you're quite a bit off-topic and you've yet to respond to JP's original post very much at all.

Mark said on November 2, 2007:

Are new courses built these days longer than they were 20 or 40 or 60 years ago? If they are, does it matter?

People hit the ball further these days than they did 60 years ago. Obviously some courses are being built longer, and the average course is longer today.

Does it matter? Clearly I do not believe it does. I don't think distance has gotten away from us and made the game any less fun and I don't think distance can be "blamed" for much of anything.

I'm okay with it, that's for sure. I'm very happy with where we are.

... using more land, water and money than if courses were shorter? Are you taking issue with the factual correctness of the post or whether longer courses might not be so good for the reasons I stated.

Erik J. Barzeski said on November 1, 2007:

I'm not, and I would bet most courses being built for the average player do not stretch to 7,500 yards. You're throwing that out there as if every course is that long. Pacific Dunes doesn't even reach 7,000, IIRC, and I rarely even play tees that start with a "7" let alone a "75."

... I know you don't build golf courses and you may win that bet, but 7500 yard courses are being built and have been built, regardless of how long Pacific Dunes is. Also, they don't seem to be places that are going to host a PGA tour event next year. I never said every new course is that long.

Erik J. Barzeski said on November 1, 2007:

7500 may be needed to test the world's best (though I can easily counter with Hoylake, Merion, Pebble Beach, and even Harbour Town) on occasion, but the world's best is by definition an incredibly small minority. I've played Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Bethpage, and a few other courses Tiger and the world's best have played ... from the appropriate tees.

... the post was not about what is needed to test the best players, where you've played, the length of any existing famous golf courses, or what tees you should play from. The point is that the distance the ball goes these days is influencing "some" people to build 7500 yard golf courses, or possibly better to say longer courses in general - and whether THAT is a good thing? If you are disputing whether or not there are any 7500 yard courses being built, I'll rephrase the spirit of the post - are new courses built these days longer than they were 20 or 40 or 60 years ago? If they are, does it matter?

"Some argue that just as a 3-minute mile and a host of other track and field records have been consistently blown out of the water year after year, there is potentially no limit to what golfers might one day......"

Good article otherwise!

You make a good point about being maxed out for distance, but it begs the question - "are we happy with where we are?"

I'm okay with it, that's for sure. I'm very happy with where we are.

Mark said on November 1, 2007:

We are building 7,500 yard courses.

I'm not, and I would bet most courses being built for the average player do not stretch to 7,500 yards. You're throwing that out there as if every course is that long. Pacific Dunes doesn't even reach 7,000, IIRC, and I rarely even play tees that start with a "7" let alone a "75."

7,500 may be needed to test the world's best (though I can easily counter with Hoylake, Merion, Pebble Beach, and even Harbour Town) on occasion, but the world's best is by definition an incredibly small minority. I've played Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Bethpage, and a few other courses Tiger and the world's best have played… from the appropriate tees.

Mark said on November 1, 2007:

If my average drive went from 260 to 220 (and Tiger's went from 300 to 260), I wouldn't care one bit, so long as I was playing shorter, cheaper, quicker games of golf.

I dare say there are a multitude of ways to play cheaper, quicker games of golf without throwing in "shorter" as well.