Are Courses "Too Short"?

[iacas]

The average golfer doesn't drive the ball much further now than they did a bunch of years ago, and as courses are more well watered, I think that 6500 yards plays longer than it did 25 years ago when a lot of courses offered 30 yards of run on your drives.

[Ben]

The course I work on is 6090 yards. Not so tough during the summer, but come give it a shot in the winter with the winds blowing and you'll see that this course is far from obsolete.

In the summer it has it's challenges too. With three very tough par 3s and some tricky driving holes the course leads you to play every club and every shot in the bag.

[muskegman]

No, no, no. Maybe I say this because I'm no professional but this is a bogus argument. The only people who struggle with course shortness are the less than one percent who play professionally and a select group of very talented amature players. The vast majority of golfers will never benefit from lengthened courses because they aren't playing at this high level.

I imagine that even scratch golfers enjoy the satisfaction of shooting par or occasionally below and lengthening courses won't make 18 holes more satisfying for them.

The PGA of America is pushing for longer courses so that the pros won't shatter long standing records with improved play because of equipment and the like.

I would go so far as to say the game would suffer if courses are lengthened because the people who pay the tabs for courses are average golfers. The vast majority of golfers aren't going to need longer courses. Again, its only the "cream of the crop" who need longer courses.

The best way to deal with this is to limit equipment somehow. Many have suggested playing a golf ball that doesn't fly as far as a good solution to the problem. I'd be all for that.

Rant over.

[jcgolfpro]

I use a couple of measurements to support my stance that the golf courses are NOT becoming obsolete. First, the scoring average on the PGA Tour for the BEST player each year hasn't even improved an entire stroke in over 20 years. Second, as a tournament operator, I know I can setup a course in a fair but difficult manner. This year, I ran the Hilton Head Open which is a very prestigious local Professional event with Amateur flights. Last year at a course a little longer than ours, there were over 20 players under par on Day 1 and 15 on Day 2. This year there were 2 total rounds under par for both days and about 10 nines under par between the amateurs and professionals. Is this because the course was tricked up? No, the course was setup thoughtfully and very balanced. I didn't have to "tuck" the flagsticks but I did make it so if you missed the green, you had many difficult up and downs but people keep forgetting that if you are in the rough, you should be penalized about a 1/2 shot and bunkers are HAZARDS. We've become way to spoiled with the upkeep of rough and if a course has a longer rough that we still can't stiff a 7-iron out of from 150/160 then we are upset...in the name of "pace of play," we have desecrated many golf courses by lowering the rough height, expanding the fairway width, marking OB as lateral hazards and water hazards as red...the bottom line is you still have to get it in the hole...which is a whole different post on the improvements in maintenance/difficulty of the greens complex.

[jcgolfpro]

One other note, how many golf courses want to have sets of tees to be used one time a year because they are insanely long. We can stretch to 7500 yards if we want to but WHY? Places like Colleton River's Dye Course and Kiawah's Ocean course have tees/sets of tees that are NEVER used. To play the Ryder Cup tees at Kiawah, you have to be given DIRECTIONS on how to find them or you'll constantly be climbing the wrong sand dune.

[iacas]

My home course hosted the PA state amateur championship a few years ago. It can be "stretched" to 6600 yards, and it's a stern test of golf. It measures 135 from the tips (slope rating of course).

There's all of this talk about how courses are becoming obsolete, but I am just not seeing it. Thanks to those who have commented here. Saying that golf courses are becoming obsolete is like saying bowling alleys are obsolete because pros regularly bowl 250s. Alleys should be narrower, longer, and the pins should be spaced out more.

One has only to look at a course like St. Andrews to realize that there is more to golf than hitting the ball a long way. I appreciate courses that test shotmaking, not distance. Shotmaking courses may never go out of style.

[flap]

Lets see 7300 tds and the pros cried about the roughand it was an old course?sounds like toe open at the BLACK.No, old courses if they are good courses are still good today.

[dipgolf]

i guess i wouldn't mind a longer course if the fairways were alittle wider than normal.

[mediaguru]

For the pros the courses aren't too short. They are too wide. They are too forgiving. If you are going to bomb a 315 yard drive and miss the fairway, the rough should be long enough to penalize that missed fairway. Vijay himself said recently that the most meaningless statistic on tour is fairways hit.

Now look what happened at the Players this year. The rough was very wet and deep. If you missed a fairway it was going to be tough to get a par. In those conditions, where were all those top 4 big players? You know, the ones who rank terribly in driving accuracy? No where.

They need to make it so that driving accuracy AND driving distance are equally as important on tour. You don't need to lengthen a course to do that.

[AtlantaGolfer]

Too much length in a golf course is bad, IMO. Look at the Robert Trent Jones trail in Alabama. On all of there courses they have their purple tees and the minimum length is about 7,400 yards. If you are going to have tees that play that long then give us the same rock hard, concrete fairways the pros use, and the same perfect greens. To me it is a stretch for any golfer over a 5 handicap to play anything over 7,000 yards. It takes all of the fun out golf. Many consider Harbour Town and Colonial CC to be the shortest on the tour, what were the winning scores there? I think Harbour Town was -7 and Colonial was -11 or so. Short narrow courses allow everyone the chance to win as opposed to the 7,400 yard bombers paradise that are most tour events. Again though the pros are not playing the same courses as us. They have rock hard fairways that adds easily 40 yards to their drives and perfect course conditions (excluding rain).

BTW, I assume everyone is talking about 7,000 yards at sea level. Here in the south the air is heavy so our ball does not travel as far as it does in Vegas, Colorado, etc.

[hig4s]

Saw an interview on course design with Nicklaus. He said he designs as much for the average golfer as for pros and he agrees the average golfer does not hit any farther now than 20 years ago. He believes the average golfer deserves as nice a course that is enjoyable to play as a pro, so on courses that may have pro events he puts the back tees to 7000 to 7500 depending on the course, but puts the club tees at 6300 to 6500 so the average golfer will not be tempted to try from too far back to have fun. It makes for a long distance from back tees to member tees, but if the course has enough low HCs that they want tees in between it can be done no problem, but they have to ask for it.

[erik]

I dont really know about this,but I would say that I was at a course on Saturday which was 5225 yards in length. I found this too long, and skipped from the 13th to the 18th hole. I am used to playing about 18 holes at least in a day, but, as it is a 9 hole course, going to the clubhouse halfway through. I am a teenager, and would say that courses are too long, not too short. The course I normally play on is 2237 yards.

[Rafcin]

I don't think overal length says enough. I think a course is designed well when average driving player (I'd say 230-270 off the tee) gets to use most of his clubs on the second shot. That of course includes fairway woods. Pro would play from back tees, with avg. drive of 270-320 and have the same conditions. I don't think hitting 5i or above into the greens is the "intendend" way of playing the game...

[PowerXSwing]

The courses are not too short, the sand traps and doglegs are not in the right spot for todays equipment.

[ashvin]

personally i think 6500 yards is just about right...

... as long as the challenge is maintained in the course design. a good short par four will encourage the use of a fairway wood or long iron off the tee... and discourage driver use by placement of strategic bunkers/rough/water/trees... of course on a poorly designed course the driver-wedge game that is encouraged just isn't right. as with all holes a good drive should be rewarded, but slight errs should be penalised resulting in more people thinking 'maybe i'll use a three iron and get it on the fairway, rather than risking that hazard'... and end up having to use a longer iron approach shot. of course there should still be driving holes... where length above all else is rewarded, as the driver is still a part of this game!

its weird how even though technology seems to have come so far, the pros are actually scoring higher (fractionally) on average compared to ten years ago! the average non-pro score is also still being maintained at around 100....

long story short... i don't think length is an issue.

-ash