Are Golf Courses Too Long and Difficult? Lee Trevino Interview

[Paradox]

You don't necessarily have to place many trees or make forests along the sides of holes..but rather a small group or even a single mature tree can completely change the difficulty of a hole.

Some of the hardest shots I've ever faced have been because of a single mature tree that either makes you have to play a perfect shot on the preferred line or find a way to work around it.

A tree 50 yards from the fairway is a wasted tree.

[sean_miller]

A lot of people think they're in agreement with Trevino then promote things on his list of problems.

[Paradox]

not really...Trevinos complaint all stems from length..forced carries and yardages too long.  He's not talking about difficulty directly..just that courses are difficult for the average golfer because of how far you have to hit the ball.

[phillyk]

I personally like longer courses.  However, I hit the ball further than a lot of people and can handle the distance.

I'd like to say that longer courses give a good challenge, but I've gained more wisdom than that, I hope.  My biggest fault as a kid was to hit the ball further without care for consistency, and building longer courses can send that message as well to younger or beginner golfers.  The toughest courses I've played are actually 6500-6700 yds that have tight, tree lined fairways with many chances to hit the ball in the water.  Longer courses, not necessarily championship courses, seem to open the fairway more, offering more forgiveness to errant hit shots.

There are those courses that have 4 or 5 different tee sets, which offers 7200ish, 6900ish, 6600ish, and so on that offers a variety of distances to play.  I'd like to see more of those, because it offers difficulty for however far you may hit the ball.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Paradox

not really...Trevinos complaint all stems from length..forced carries and yardages too long.  He's not talking about difficulty directly..just that courses are difficult for the average golfer because of how far you have to hit the ball.

Yeah, that's what I just said. I wasn't replying to your post - I would have quoted you.

[uttexas]

Agree with Lee. One of the central issues here is that golf (historically) has been thought of a sport for the few (those with a wealth of time and money) This philosophy does not support growth of the sport. Golf, in general, missed out on a huge opportunity with Tiger being one of the most recognizable sports figures worldwide. Instead of making the game more enjoyable for the beginner and average golfers, large sums of money were spent on courses designed to impress Golf Digest and the top 1% skilled players.

[stogiesnbogies]

I've posted this in other threads but I believe its the very best guide regarding the correct course length for a golfers actual driving distance...

TEE IT FORWARD
Guidelines for Selecting Tees

Driver Distance	Recommended 18 Hole Yardages
PGA Tour Pro	7,600	-	7,900
300	7,150	-	7,400
275	6,700	-	6,900
250	6,200	-	6,400
225	5,800	-	6,000
200	5,200	-	5,400
175	4,400	-	4,600
150	3,500	-	3,700
125	2,800	-	3,000
100	2,100	-	2,300

I enjoy the game far more because some time ago I applied this chart and now realize that I need a course of 5,200-5800 yards ( my home course teebox is 5261 -and fyi I'm a senior duffer)

in order to have any reasonable chance of hitting a GIR on a par 4....it's not only helpful at my home course but a wonderful rule of thumb when playing new courses as well...I strongly recommend that those resisting this put aside the testoterone and give it a try...you might discover its a lot more fun ....and plenty enough challenge!

[Chas]

.... or at least they should.  Where I play, most people shooting high scores are not playing provisionals or going back to the tee.  It's the better golfers that do that.  But you're right of course, they ought to be doing that, which would slow down play.

stogies: re your table, all I can say is ...... wow!

[clubchamp]

The Club I play decided to try to have members use their handicaps to indicate what tees they should play. They even changed the scorecard to show if your handicap is from x to y you play from the white tees, blue tees, etc. They are going to enforce it in for all tournaments plus they made the back tees 0 to + and it's actually working we have a lot less people try to play the back tees. It's an older course so it's not overly long but it is very narrow and from the back tees it's a difficult course so I'd be interested to see if this more of a wide spread thing or is it in the minority.

[Mizuno Guy]

I consider myself to be a long hitter driving distance of about 280 and I dont always play the back tees at golf courses especially new ones. When a golf course is 7,000 yards it is more than likely going to challenge the golfer on more than how far you can hit the ball. I do not see why people feel the need to always play the back tees because at the end of the day is "what did you shoot?" not what tees did you play?" When someone asks what did you shoot many peoples answers are I shot 110 but I played the tips. If you move forward a set of tees or not and someone asks what did you shoot and you say 88 their response will be wow thats awesome! To conclude nobody cares what tees you play from the final number on the scorecard is all that matters.

PS. when I was a junior golfer I would play the whites and outdrive any adult in my group by 50 yards when there was only a 20 yard difference in the tees. How do you think that made them feel?

[CraiginKSA]

I would go more by the slope rating than the actual length.  If the course is a 105 from the whites and a 115 from the tips, I say go ahead and challenge yourself a little.  If it's 125 from the whites and 135 from the back, give yourself a fighting chance by playing the forward tees.

If you're hitting a rescue or a three wood into the green on 4-pars, but you can safely run it up there onto a big green, I think it's ok to try a little length.  If the course is long, very difficult, with long carries, why lose a bunch of balls and have a horrible round just to say you did it from the back tees.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

The problem with that is that people take forever looking for their balls in the trees, and if they don't find them they have to re-tee.

That's where a rule change would help, especially with out of bounds.  Instead of re-teeing, play a one stroke penalty as in a water hazard and go to where your ball went out.  Nicklaus has suggested that for out of bounds.  This would speed up play.  We do this in a casual round to keep play moving.

[Otis32]

I get that players hitting Driver/Wedge on a 440 yard par 4 can be a problem on even a moderately long course but why does there need to be a generous landing area at 300+ yards. Why not put that target landing area in 230-270 yard range and neck down the fairway after that so the risk/reward is appropriate for the shot.  Mowing the rough properly can narrow down a course every bit as effectively as planting trees. Graduate the rough more where you want the golfer to play the ball and graduate it less if they choose to go for the hero shot and bomb it out there.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by poser

I like the idea of restricting the golf balls

I hear what you are saying but am not sure if I agree- the introduction of the Pro V1, I think, boosted distances on the PGA Tour something like 10-15 yards over night.  Other equipment improvements have also added distance to the top players and to a lesser extend, all golfers.

A bunker that used to be in play for the top players becomes an easy carry, etc.  Obviously, this has an effect on difficulty of courses and how courses get designed/re-designed.

In basketball, it would be very easy to create a ball that is easier to get in the basket (an example is the 28.5 women`s ball) but the rules of the game have restricted "improvements" of this type.

Golf could do the same, but there is a Catch-22:  players LIKE to hit it farther and score lower and most don`t mind if this comes from technological improvements to equipment.  To this end, golf would be more popular with many by allowing equipment improvements without offsetting challenges being added to their home course.

There are some downsides to this:

1. It becomes expensive to keep up with the latest technology, putting some players at a disadvantage.

2. Certain technological improvements can narrow the gap between good and bad players/shots- i.e. something like square grooves which make it easier to hit good shots from the rough.

[I-league]

the irony is that designers started lengthening courses to make them harder for long hitters. In doing so they have actually created course that were relatively easier for big hitter (compared to shorter hitters).

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Otis32

I get that players hitting Driver/Wedge on a 440 yard par 4 can be a problem on even a moderately long course but why does there need to be a generous landing area at 300+ yards. Why not put that target landing area in 230-270 yard range and neck down the fairway after that so the risk/reward is appropriate for the shot.  Mowing the rough properly can narrow down a course every bit as effectively as planting trees. Graduate the rough more where you want the golfer to play the ball and graduate it less if they choose to go for the hero shot and bomb it out there.

I agree with your first statement, but I don`t like the idea of always having a tighter (or more wide open) landing area at a particular distance that is the same all the time.   Something to remember is that it is harder to hit it into a 30 yard wide landing area that is 300 yards away than a 30 yard wide landing area 250 away.  No reason to always make it tighter 300+ yards away other than to penalize length. Being able to hit it long is a skill just like being able to hit it accurate is a skill. Both should be tested fairly. Either have equal size landing areas at all distances or provide a mix of holes, some which offer a reward for a longer shot while others have a more forgiving landing area at a shorter distance.

I think that courses that put all their trouble the same distance off the tee, say 250 yards, are more likely to become outdated and need to be redesigned.  It is a mistake to always reward or penalize a certain distance shot just like it wouldn`t make sense to have all dog leg rights or all dog leg lefts.  A course that has the reasonably accurate long hitter always keep the driver in the bag is a poor design.

[Otis32]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I agree with your first statement, but I don`t like the idea of always having a tighter (or more wide open) landing area at a particular distance that is the same all the time.   Something to remember is that it is harder to hit it into a 30 yard wide landing area that is 300 yards away than a 30 yard wide landing area 250 away.  No reason to always make it tighter 300+ yards away other than to penalize length. Being able to hit it long is a skill just like being able to hit it accurate is a skill.  Both should be tested fairly.  Either have equal size landing areas at all distances or provide a mix of holes, some which offer a reward for a longer shot while others have a more forgiving landing area at a shorter distance.

I think that courses that put all their trouble the same distance off the tee, say 250 yards, are more likely to become outdated and need to be redesigned.  It is a mistake to always reward or penalize a certain distance shot just like it wouldn`t make sense to have all dog leg rights or all dog leg lefts.  A course that has the reasonably accurate long hitter always keep the driver in the bag is a poor design.

I agree that both should be tested fairly just not sure that has to be the case on every hole. It can be done over the course of a round and done in a way to keep a perfectly good 6500 yard track from falling into the catagory of obsolete.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Otis32

I agree that both should be tested fairly just not sure that has to be the case on every hole. It can be done over the course of a round and done in a way to keep a perfectly good 6500 yard track from falling into the catagory of obsolete.

I agree that a shorter course with a good design can test all the clubs in the bag and reward both distance and accuracy.  My point was that it wasn`t fair to only put trouble 300 yards from the tee.

Ignoring wind, forced lay ups and dog legs that can be cut to shorten holes, something like the following could be a very good course (but would probably see PGA pros average about 65 depending on greens, trouble, etc.)

150
175
200
225
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
6630