Are Golf Courses Too Long and Difficult? Lee Trevino Interview

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I've played a few Pete Dye courses and also a course designed by his kid P.B.  IMO the course designs really only work if played from the tips (blacks).  Playing them from the white, blue, or gold tees makes the course feel awkward.  I guess Pete and his son envision every course they design being a PGA Tour stop someday.  Makes no sense to me why their courses are so popular with the masses.

I 100% agree with Lee and the point you made in a way goes with what Lee is saying.

Today's monster course has 5-7 tee's that range from a variety of distances for both men and woman.  When the everyday golfer who hits under 250 yards on the tee follows the tee it forward rule, they will be playing right behind the ladies tee's.  We have commented in other posts and what Lee mentioned on how "macho" this game can be and to have to follow a "tee it forward" rule in this case isn't attractive to most golfers.  It makes most people feel inferior to others which is usually the driving force to moving back to a longer tee when they shouldn't.

Back to your point, courses that only work from the tips is what makes all of this new course designing wrong.  Build a ladies tee, and a men's tee that's 6500 yards and that's it.  Build the course to suit that 6500 distance.  Doing this removes the akwardness of playing way up on a white tee box and looking back at another 3 tee's and feeling like a crappy golfer.

[Booya]

It comes down to the design talent of the team putting together the course... I know through some personal experience that they have different philopsophies and approach, on design, bunkering, drainage... For example Rees Jones likes to make use of the surroundings and contour the fairways in a concave fashion to promote natural drainage. Whereas Jack Nicklaus likes convex fairways with more drainage basins.

The talent is really dialing in risk/reward on the course, making shorter landing areas safer and tightening up further out. Keeping the rough reasonable to respect pace of play and skill level. Eliminating blind tee shots and blind landing areas...Having bunkers to protect OB and also force those risk/reward scenarios...  Undulation to make even short holes have more variability of shotmaking because of the lies...

Seems using alot of false fronts in very popular with pretty much everyone...

The real talent in my opinion is making a challenging course that still plays fairly fast, because you want it to work well for players of varying skill levels, you don't want a course that get constipated by a few senior groups....

[Dloy]

I've been involved (through my company) with many of the new courses here in Washington. Course designers have huge egos and they typically want to build a statement, rather than a pleasant track. Amplify that for the first design of a new architect. The urge is to pack way too much difficulty into that first course. I've seen parts of courses re-done after the first year or so, to get to some sort of reality.

I read a few years ago that Jack was approached by members of some of his courses, asking him to tame it down so they could actually enjoy the round. Not positive it's true but I can sure imagine it.

[Golfingdad]

I agree with LT about the courses being made excessively long and difficult.  Everybody wants to advertise that they have a "championship" course, but that doesn't do us amateurs much good.

I'm not so sure, though, that it directly relates to the dip in the game's popularity like he suggests.

[mdl]

I think Trevino's view of the forced carry issue is skewed by the fact that he plays fancy country club courses where you have to be super rich to be a member, so the average member is incredibly old and could really use the option of hitting 3W ground balls 120 yards into all the greens.  I've played with very few people on affordable public courses in LA where the thing that would help them most is not having a front bunker.  Even the quite bad players I end up playing with are not usually 85 and can get the ball in the air, they just can't hit it where they want.  They'd benefit from no trees, wide fairways, and huge greens with front bunkers MUCH more than thinner fairways with trees and standard sized greens with no false fronts or front bunkers.

I actually don't run into the distance problem Trevino's talking about much, but that's probably cause I'm on a tight budget and can only afford to play "championship" courses pretty rarely.  The munis and public courses I play generally have back tees in the 6,600-6,800, with only a couple with any tees longer than that.  And a couple of those really tough, expensive courses I've played around LA are actually quite short, but still quite difficult.  I don't really have a problem with courses having a set of tee boxes that make the course 7,000-7,400 yards.  Sure it ups maintenance costs a little, but not THAT much.  One solution is one I saw just last weekend.  Played a new (for me) course with tournament tee boxes that make the course ~7,000 yards, but they don't actually put tee markers in those boxes most of the time.  If you choose "back" tees, you're actually playing the 2nd longest tees, so you can play the "middle" tees at a very reasonably length and not have to feel like you're playing the women's tees.

[Jwat381]

I don't play many championship level courses that often, but I will say that I agree with Lee on the Tee It Forward idea, and how that makes you feel as a golfer. I usually just play the middle tees in between the tips and the ladies tees, makes me feel not so bad, and I can still enjoy the track for the most part.

[chicagogolf]

i love this interview. I have been saying for years that equipment is taking this game in the wrong direction. watching a golf tournament is absolutely boring. watching tour guys play a 500 yard par 4 with driver 9 iron is a yawn. and all we are doing is making this game more expensive for us to play. it's stupid. Example, Player A was always 10 yards shorter than Player B. So Player A spends $700 on a new driver with the latest and greatest shaft. He picks up 25 yards. Now he is 15 yards longer than Player B. Now Player B responds by getting a new $300 shaft and adds 20 yards. He's back on top. Its so stupid. Then, as Lee said which I've always said, by making the courses longer all we are doing is driving up the greens fees when less than 1% of golfers use all that length. Soooo the majority are paying more to allow the few to play from over 7000 yards. IT's SOOOO FREAKING STUPID. Does anyone here understand what is happening? I want my game to improve with hard work, not with technology everyone can buy. In my opinion, the USGA has not protected this game. IT sold out long ago to the equipment companies.

[Gioguy21]

i believe the majority of courses are too long from the back. i also believe courses in the north are being strung out to lengths they shouldn't b/c as everyone knows, a course in phoenix playin 6,900 yards and a course in the northeast measuring the same 6,900 are night/day. i can go to phoenix, play a 'long' course at about 6,900 and shoot 4-5 strokes better than my home course which measures from the back around 6,700. to make a good golf course you have to make it challenging to ALL types, consider the membership (we talking muni or full-blown country club?) for costs, and consider location/climate/etc to determine a FAIR, challenging course for everyone. most designers (as mentioned) are looking to design gorgeous, difficult courses with huge price tags in hopes of drawing elite golfers in the top 5% at most. i can think of at least 4 courses in my area that are too long even for low handicappers (from 5-plus handicappers) to score well.

[longbow]

Trevino is dead nuts on.  I live next to a RTJ Sr. designed and built golf course.  It is a muni course a county parks course.  Has one creek on the front snaking around it and one on the back snaking around.  Some swamp acerage and tons of wildlife.  Elevated tees, greens and narrow fairways with guess what lots of countors.  It is short with one par 5 on each side.  Some of the par 4's are long though and are dog legs left and right.  Alot of trees around it too.  Everything comes into play at some time or other.  If you can play here you can play anywhere, at least that is what I say.  It is absolutely not a beginners course by any stretch.  One thing I learned on this course playing it hundreds of times(literally too) is that once you get in trouble get out by the shortest and quickest means possible.  It only has 3 sets of tee's too.  Red, white and blue.  If the County I live in put some honest money into the up keep I have no doubt it would be the jewel it used to be for Monroe County public courses.

This course is relatively short, narrow, elevated and multi contoured and it is fun when you are playing well.  There is a story about this course way back when that Palmer played it in the 50's at some point.  Said the 18th par 5 was the toughest finishing hole in Western NY at the time in his opinion.  Don't know if that is true or not but I can believe it.  So courses don't have to be super long to be fun, frustrating or challenging.  thanks

[Chas]

Originally Posted by lumpuckeroo

I really have no issues playing from a distance that works for me, I've been telling my brother for years, I have no intention of having to hit driver, 3 wood to all par 4's, I'm not that proud to move forward.

I know what you mean.  Sometimes, as a walk-on single, I play with guys who hit from the back tees (blue) when it's clear they'd do better playing from the middle (white).  Just recently I decided to join a guy on the back tees (to speed up play a bit) and it quickly became clear that he didn't really have the length or the accuracy to be doing that - far from it .  He was hitting 5i or longer to the green all day and his scoring showed it.  Note that this was not a long course - your typical muni.  He didn't seem to be enjoying himself much.  Then again he might just have been having a bad day

[max power]

My guess is you're talking about Glen Oak, right?

Originally Posted by longbow

Trevino is dead nuts on.  I live next to a RTJ Sr. designed and built golf course.  It is a muni course a county parks course.  Has one creek on the front snaking around it and one on the back snaking around.  Some swamp acerage and tons of wildlife.  Elevated tees, greens and narrow fairways with guess what lots of countors.  It is short with one par 5 on each side.  Some of the par 4's are long though and are dog legs left and right.  Alot of trees around it too.  Everything comes into play at some time or other.  If you can play here you can play anywhere, at least that is what I say.  It is absolutely not a beginners course by any stretch.  One thing I learned on this course playing it hundreds of times(literally too) is that once you get in trouble get out by the shortest and quickest means possible.  It only has 3 sets of tee's too.  Red, white and blue.  If the County I live in put some honest money into the up keep I have no doubt it would be the jewel it used to be for Monroe County public courses.

This course is relatively short, narrow, elevated and multi contoured and it is fun when you are playing well.  There is a story about this course way back when that Palmer played it in the 50's at some point.  Said the 18th par 5 was the toughest finishing hole in Western NY at the time in his opinion.  Don't know if that is true or not but I can believe it.  So courses don't have to be super long to be fun, frustrating or challenging.  thanks

[newtogolf]

I also agree with Trevino, but IMO a major reason for why designers want to develop longer courses is their hope to be selected to host a PGA tournament.  If you design a course that's 6500 yards and can't be expanded it's not likely to attract much attention from the Tour unless it has some tricked out holes with island greens or some other gimmick that just makes it tougher for average golfers to play.

[march11934]

I don't see how length is a good excuse to make a course challenging, just expensive. Merion did a pretty good job of humbling the field in 2013 at a shade under 7000 yards. Looked it up and Rose won with a 1 over par 281. I recall the talking heads going on about how the field was going to shred the "little" course. Who fooled who?

The tour wants to show all the bombed drives they can. I guess accuracy, good golf course management and playing smart doesn't give as much of a thrill?

[Pretzel]

I never knew we had necromancers of uncanny power lurking about TST...

As to the topic (if it's still relevant), I don't mind long courses because they cater to a wider variety of people. Without the super changing the length of the rough or the speed of the greens to excessively penalize beginners, better players can still challenge themselves on the course by playing longer tees. I don't think there's a single beginner who would've enjoyed playing Merion the way it was set up for the U.S. Open. If people don't "feel like enough of a man" for not playing the back tees, that sucks for them. I enjoy playing the forward tees when I'm not practicing seriously to improve, and I would love to get to play them in a money game!

[march11934]

I never knew we had necromancers of uncanny power lurking about TST...

As to the topic (if it's still relevant), I don't mind long courses because they cater to a wider variety of people. Without the super changing the length of the rough or the speed of the greens to excessively penalize beginners, better players can still challenge themselves on the course by playing longer tees. I don't think there's a single beginner who would've enjoyed playing Merion the way it was set up for the U.S. Open. If people don't "feel like enough of a man" for not playing the back tees, that sucks for them. I enjoy playing the forward tees when I'm not practicing seriously to improve, and I would love to get to play them in a money game!

I was addressing Trevino's references about challenging pros with long courses while there is a way of setting up a golf course to be challenging without the length, hence Merion. So in summary of my point No i don't believe a course needs to be very long to challenge modern tour pros. Never mentioned a beginner taking it on, nor would a beginner enjoy playing any course that is set up for PGA competition standards for that matter...

[jsgolfer]

Yeah, that's how P.B Dye Golf Club (Ijiamsville, MD) plays from the forward tees.  Some of the doglegs are too severe to be shortened so much.

Definitely agree, with the PB Dye course in Ijamsville. Played the middle tees due to the group I was playing with and I was in trouble all day.

[mcanadiens]

The occasions where I've played the newer public courses have never been particularly enjoyable rounds for me. My two favorite courses are short,open munis built in 1949 and 1919 respectively.

Paying big fees to shoot big numbers isn't my style.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretzel

I never knew we had necromancers of uncanny power lurking about TST...

As to the topic (if it's still relevant), I don't mind long courses because they cater to a wider variety of people. Without the super changing the length of the rough or the speed of the greens to excessively penalize beginners, better players can still challenge themselves on the course by playing longer tees. I don't think there's a single beginner who would've enjoyed playing Merion the way it was set up for the U.S. Open. If people don't "feel like enough of a man" for not playing the back tees, that sucks for them. I enjoy playing the forward tees when I'm not practicing seriously to improve, and I would love to get to play them in a money game!

I was addressing Trevino's references about challenging pros with long courses while there is a way of setting up a golf course to be challenging without the length, hence Merion. So in summary of my point No i don't believe a course needs to be very long to challenge modern tour pros. Never mentioned a beginner taking it on, nor would a beginner enjoy playing any course that is set up for PGA competition standards for that matter...

But surely Pretzel's point (which I agree with) is that a course that has been made more difficult by adding length can be played quite happily by all. Those that don't have the length necessary to play from the tips just need to accept that and not play from there. But a course that has been made difficult for the better players by adding massively sloping greens, tight fairways, deep rough etc will indeed be tough for the better player ......... and unplayable for the begginer. I'd argue a course that all can find challenging but acceptable from one tee or another is better than either a course that begginers can't play on because it's frankly too difficult or one that better players don't enjoy because it doesn't challenge them.

The part of Lee's argument relating to length of course is all about ego - guys wanting to play from the tips when they don't really have the length off the tee to do it. What people seem to be arguing is that long tees shouldn't be allowed because they can't play from there and don't want to feel bad about it. If that's not what you're arguing why do you care if there are tees further back than you play? Has anyone actually sat down and worked out the cost of maintaing a set of back tees and a path from them past the existing tees (all that is required to lengthen a course for better players) compared to the overall maintenance budget of a course? It's utterly insignificant - I almost bought a course with a partner a couple of years ago and lengthening the course was one thing we looked in to. The cost of maintaing the extra tees wasn't even a consideration in the grand scheme of things.

Play from the tees that suite you and don't worry if somone else plays from further back. Just enjoy your own game.