Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Rob Marshall on March 29, 2023, 05:43:49 PM
-
https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bryson-dechambeau-proposed-rollback-ball-isnt-problem-course-design
-
The Roid Rage is strong with this one.
-
I still would love to see one of the top architects (so it gets credibility) design what I proposed a year or two ago - a par 66 course that had 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. If the par threes averaged 200 yards, the par fours averaged 500 yards and the par fives averaged 600 yards the course would still only be 6400 yards long saving a ton of real estate and maintenance expense. It could easily challenge the best players in the world if designed well and also be fun for the average golfer by having varying sets of tees. Maybe one day this will be done.
-
Are you implying that Jon
Rajneesh Rahm [*curse you spell check*] is also on steroids? Because he said essentially the same thing yesterday, changing the ball will be bad for the game, we should just design better. Standard industry talking point.
It would be more helpful if they gave some concrete examples of what courses should be our models, but then they’d be in a real debate. Much easier to push it off on architects who are not around.
-
Tom, I assume you meant Jon Rahm.
I don’t consider the proposal to be bifurcation. This is an optional Rule. Bifurcation would be requiring Committees for all events over a certain level to use the ball (or other equipment). This is optional and any tournament Committee can chose to ignore it, but if you want to play in those events that do, you’re going to have to use the new ball.
Given the buzzing by the Killer Bees (Bryson, Bubba and Brooks) they might be able to get LIV to ignore it presuming they still exist in 2026. As far as I’m concerned they can buzz off.
As for the cost of developing the ball, all the manufacturers design new balls every year and most, if not all, made balls that went quite a bit shorter a few years ago for the USGA / R&A studies so they shouldn’t have a big problem or expense that they can’t handle. Again, if they don’t want to, I’m sure some company will do it and the players will use one that is available.
There is going to be a cheese shortage with all the whining.
All that being said, I do have an issue with two balls. Say a player establishes a handicap with the shorter ball and then plays in a handicap event using the longer ball making his handicap higher than it might have been otherwise. Or posts his scores with the longer ball giving him a lower handicap, then enters a tournament with a handicap limit, possibly getting in because his handicap is lower than the upper limit or someone else who used the shorter ball. I wonder if the World Handicap System will need to take that into account. I worked with a handicap expert at a regional association who felt you should only post scores when you made your “best effort”, which meant that if I usually play with 14 clubs but decided that day to play with 10 I couldn’t post my score. Given that, I shouldn’t post scores made with the shorter ball. I’m not sure how this all plays out.
-
I still would love to see one of the top architects (so it gets credibility) design what I proposed a year or two ago - a par 66 course that had 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. If the par threes averaged 200 yards, the par fours averaged 500 yards and the par fives averaged 600 yards the course would still only be 6400 yards long saving a ton of real estate and maintenance expense. It could easily challenge the best players in the world if designed well and also be fun for the average golfer by having varying sets of tees. Maybe one day this will be done.
Would you want to join a club that built such a course?
-
I still would love to see one of the top architects (so it gets credibility) design what I proposed a year or two ago - a par 66 course that had 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. If the par threes averaged 200 yards, the par fours averaged 500 yards and the par fives averaged 600 yards the course would still only be 6400 yards long saving a ton of real estate and maintenance expense. It could easily challenge the best players in the world if designed well and also be fun for the average golfer by having varying sets of tees. Maybe one day this will be done.
Would you want to join a club that built such a course?
Cullen has quite a few members as well as attracting a lot of visitors.
Niall
-
I still would love to see one of the top architects (so it gets credibility) design what I proposed a year or two ago - a par 66 course that had 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. If the par threes averaged 200 yards, the par fours averaged 500 yards and the par fives averaged 600 yards the course would still only be 6400 yards long saving a ton of real estate and maintenance expense. It could easily challenge the best players in the world if designed well and also be fun for the average golfer by having varying sets of tees. Maybe one day this will be done.
Mark
Why does having varying sets of tees make it fun ? Can you not design a fun course with only one set of tees ?
Niall
-
I still would love to see one of the top architects (so it gets credibility) design what I proposed a year or two ago - a par 66 course that had 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. If the par threes averaged 200 yards, the par fours averaged 500 yards and the par fives averaged 600 yards the course would still only be 6400 yards long saving a ton of real estate and maintenance expense. It could easily challenge the best players in the world if designed well and also be fun for the average golfer by having varying sets of tees. Maybe one day this will be done.
Would you want to join a club that built such a course?
Yes!
Indeed for John and Jane Average-Amateur, both players without ego and vanity, a much shorter version would be fine.
atb
-
All that being said, I do have an issue with two balls. Say a player establishes a handicap with the shorter ball and then plays in a handicap event using the longer ball making his handicap higher than it might have been otherwise. Or posts his scores with the longer ball giving him a lower handicap, then enters a tournament with a handicap limit, possibly getting in because his handicap is lower than the upper limit or someone else who used the shorter ball. I wonder if the World Handicap System will need to take that into account. I worked with a handicap expert at a regional association who felt you should only post scores when you made your “best effort”, which meant that if I usually play with 14 clubs but decided that day to play with 10 I couldn’t post my score. Given that, I shouldn’t post scores made with the shorter ball. I’m not sure how this all plays out.
John
I say this with all due respect, but your post shows what a lot of bollocks the WHS is.
Niall
-
All that being said, I do have an issue with two balls. Say a player establishes a handicap with the shorter ball and then plays in a handicap event using the longer ball making his handicap higher than it might have been otherwise. Or posts his scores with the longer ball giving him a lower handicap, then enters a tournament with a handicap limit, possibly getting in because his handicap is lower than the upper limit or someone else who used the shorter ball. I wonder if the World Handicap System will need to take that into account. I worked with a handicap expert at a regional association who felt you should only post scores when you made your “best effort”, which meant that if I usually play with 14 clubs but decided that day to play with 10 I couldn’t post my score. Given that, I shouldn’t post scores made with the shorter ball. I’m not sure how this all plays out.
I'd think that there'd be a simple way to adjust for this using strokes gained. You know how much shorter the ball is going on average and you know how much drive length contributes to strokes gained. So you just add up the extra strokes you'll take on average for the additional distance on each driving hole. These calculations should be pretty simple and courses could post different sets of generic course/slope ratings for the short/long balls.
You could also adapt the handicap system by comparing the distance that the balls travel for different skill levels. You could make the adjustment by driving distance (vary the swing speed on the machine) or by handicap (test with actual golfers). Then you could develop a flexible handicap adjustment based on how big the distance differential is between the two balls at different skill levels.
-
It would be more helpful if they gave some concrete examples of what courses should be our models, but then they’d be in a real debate. Much easier to push it off on architects who are not around.
He did mention Riv 10 as a model. Kind of interesting in a way. Basically, saying edge of par holes, as many here promote. It could also be seen as the need to get more spectacular in design (like action movies keep having more special effects) to keep golf interesting to a new generation, and I can see that. The old thought was a few heroic holes per round should suffice, if well interspersed with "standard" strategic holes and a few penal ones also design to elicit cries of anguish. Maybe now, at least some golfers need more holes on the extreme edge to stay entertained over 18 holes.
The golden age started when some realized golfers were getting tired of steeplechase holes and needed more nature, more shot choices, etc. Some will hate the idea, but with all of the Barseski type strategic teachings, i.e., nearly always play conservatively, which may dull the game for some here, maybe design should change again. If the best play is to be defensive, maybe the best design is holes that don't allow you to play defensively and still make par.
Just a thought.
-
Tim,
If the conceptual course I proposed was well designed I absolutely would be interested in joining. Many would need to get over the idea that a Par 66 course (or something less than Par 70) can’t be a truly great golf course and one that is not only enjoyable for the masses but also capable of challenging the best players in the world.
That leads me to the question Niall asked about multiple sets of tees and can you design and build a “fun” golf course with just one set? First of all, the word “fun” is relative. Would Oakmont be “fun” if the only set of tees was at 7400 yards and everyone had to play from that yardage? Same question would go for my conceptual 6400 yard course if there only one set of tees - I don’t think it would be fun for everyone (regardless of who designed it) simply because of the distance. There are so many aspects of design that impact the “fun” factor but the length of holes is ABSOLUTELY one of them.
-
Some will hate the idea, but with all of the Barseski type strategic teachings, i.e., nearly always play conservatively, which may dull the game for some here, maybe design should change again. If the best play is to be defensive, maybe the best design is holes that don't allow you to play defensively and still make par.
I worked on that a lot for Houston -- mainly by making it difficult to play safely for the center of the green. There's often a contour there, or something they don't want to aim at because their ball might go the wrong way. I'm trying to make them pick a side. Strangely, no one has really commented on it.
In general, though, I don't think there is a good solution to how they play defensively off the tee. If you did restrict the tee shot by making the 300-yard drive untenable, they'd scream bloody murder.
Also, when I was talking through my ideas with some of the previous generation of Tour pros, they all said not to bother, and just keep doing what I've been doing . . . that strategic design and angles still had an effect on these guys, even if they were being taught not to take the bait, and that would reward the player who picked a side and was good enough to pull it off consistently.
-
they'd scream bloody murder.
Yeah, anything architects could do to combat distance would almost certainly elicit this reaction from the players.
-
TD,
Coincidentally, I was talking with an older generation pro who had just been playing one of your courses, and he commented, "What's he doing? The safe middle of the green should be "sacred."
He also mentioned TPC a few times, recalling that a hump in the middle of the green was okay every once in a while, but Pete liked it so well that he did it 18 straight times.
As to the 300 yard tee shots, I kept asking Fawcette whether (if he says 64-67 yards wide tree to tree is safe for driver) the designer could create a sucker punch by making corridor widths, say 62-63 yards wide, i.e. "close enough" to the safe play to say, "oh, what the heck." Proponents of his (and others) system say that the disciplined golfer would decline to hit the driver at 62 yards wide. I still have to believe you would fool them some of the time, especially late in a round or match where the need to hit driver may be more required to square up a match.
Posted just to reinforce just how strongly one generation of pros felt about the "correct" nature of the golf challenge. That said, safe middle vs tucked pin is not a bad ideology. As another pro said, it makes it hard to shoot 66 but easy to shoot 72, depending on where the pins are set.
-
In general, though, I don't think there is a good solution to how they play defensively off the tee. If you did restrict the tee shot by making the 300-yard drive untenable, they'd scream bloody murder.
It very much seems that straight up removing a driver from a tour players hands is not an acceptable solution, but I wonder about circumstances in which the design of a hole could encourage a player to lay back to sub 300.
Speaking from my armchair, I had 2 ideas come to mind:
The first uses a diagonal hazard like a creek that bisects the fairway and creates a dogleg in the hole. If the carry over the creek to the second fairway is not reachable, and all players are required to play down the second fairway, the difference in approach distance playing into the green can be reduced based upon the angle of the 1st fairway in relation to the green. While a drive of 300 yards would leave an approach of 190 into the green, a drive of 350 would only better the approach distance by 15 yards. If the landing zone for the +300 yard drive is tighter than the 300 yard drive, that might be enough to discourage use of the driver.
The second uses a valley to bisect the fairway. Whereas the 300 yard driver would play to the edge of the valley, any drive longer would stop on the downhill slope of the valley or collect in the bottom. Leaving a potentially downhill lie to an uphill and now blind green. I could see some players hating the approach from within the valley, and others not minding if it gets a wedge in their hands, so this idea would probably present less of a risk to the bombers, even if the approach is better from just short of the valley.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AMWts8BJtBsQx_H_myahyCARnLZ4VATLYKX9uiNz4Gb_zRCx9ay1HqrUvu-6gjseYEus8TiC1aAHSCsmTQ1T-9CVdDberZK8sLos-2aYQ48or2RhIjXL-U1M=w2400)
-
Tim,
If the conceptual course I proposed was well designed I absolutely would be interested in joining. Many would need to get over the idea that a Par 66 course (or something less than Par 70) can’t be a truly great golf course and one that is not only enjoyable for the masses but also capable of challenging the best players in the world.
That leads me to the question Niall asked about multiple sets of tees and can you design and build a “fun” golf course with just one set? First of all, the word “fun” is relative. Would Oakmont be “fun” if the only set of tees was at 7400 yards and everyone had to play from that yardage? Same question would go for my conceptual 6400 yard course if there only one set of tees - I don’t think it would be fun for everyone (regardless of who designed it) simply because of the distance. There are so many aspects of design that impact the “fun” factor but the length of holes is ABSOLUTELY one of them.
What does “need to get over” mean? Couldn’t someone just join a club with a more traditional par design?
-
I still have to believe you would fool them some of the time, especially late in a round or match where the need to hit driver may be more required to square up a match.
Which is likely not really "fooling them" because certain situations warrant departing the typical "lowest average score" approach.
-
I'm curious, do these top pro's carry round a manual, calculator and compass so they can work out the percentages and decide what shot to hit ?
Niall
-
Yep, design is the problem. Solution? Design the course with a pond in the center of the fairway on every par 4 and par 5 that begins 300 yards off the tee and runs for about 100 yards...forced lay up! Cool!
-
For the non-major, PGA Tour event (the only ones who are b!tch!ng about too far...don't hear it in Europe, the senior tours, the women's tours) no one cares. Shoot 30-under par. Lowest score wins the trophy. Even the elevated events have to understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it, at the same time.
As for the major championships, well, that's a different puddle. Augusta and Sawgrass own their own courses. The problem with the Open champioship is the driving; they essentially have to wait until the group ahead reaches the green on nearly every hole, before driving. Well-paid minds can figure that one out. Tee them off earlier in the morning, I guess.
As far as the US PGA and Open are concerned, I remember a conversation I had with the then-tournament director at the Porter Cup, an amateur event at Niagara Falls Country Club. I suggested the building of some distant tees that would only be used during tournament week, and only for two of the four rounds. They could be quite small, as they would be in use on par four and five holes, and would not have many divots on them. Independent of me, they built one on the eighth hole, about sixty yards behind the deep tee, but have since abandoned it.
The NBA doesn't demand the set shot only, is one example of a sport outgrowing its founding principles. Lord knows our country is divided on the 2nd amendment. Golf is not exempt from this. I suspect that it's the routing that people love, not the greens. As Mr. Tom Doak suggested, make the center of the green tougher. Or, expand the edges and put hole locations out there.
-
Coincidentally, I was talking with an older generation pro who had just been playing one of your courses, and he commented, "What's he doing? The safe middle of the green should be "sacred."
Posted just to reinforce just how strongly one generation of pros felt about the "correct" nature of the golf challenge. That said, safe middle vs tucked pin is not a bad ideology. As another pro said, it makes it hard to shoot 66 but easy to shoot 72, depending on where the pins are set.
Jeff:
I might agree with the old school guy, if greens were still 5000 square feet. But superintendents pretty much insist we can't build them that small anymore. And letting pros aim for the middle of a 7000 sf green makes it easy for them to shoot 66.
-
In general, though, I don't think there is a good solution to how they play defensively off the tee. If you did restrict the tee shot by making the 300-yard drive untenable, they'd scream bloody murder.
It very much seems that straight up removing a driver from a tour players hands is not an acceptable solution, but I wonder about circumstances in which the design of a hole could encourage a player to lay back to sub 300.
Speaking from my armchair, I had 2 ideas come to mind:
The first uses a diagonal hazard like a creek that bisects the fairway and creates a dogleg in the hole. If the carry over the creek to the second fairway is not reachable, and all players are required to play down the second fairway, the difference in approach distance playing into the green can be reduced based upon the angle of the 1st fairway in relation to the green. While a drive of 300 yards would leave an approach of 190 into the green, a drive of 350 would only better the approach distance by 15 yards. If the landing zone for the +300 yard drive is tighter than the 300 yard drive, that might be enough to discourage use of the driver.
The second uses a valley to bisect the fairway. Whereas the 300 yard driver would play to the edge of the valley, any drive longer would stop on the downhill slope of the valley or collect in the bottom. Leaving a potentially downhill lie to an uphill and now blind green. I could see some players hating the approach from within the valley, and others not minding if it gets a wedge in their hands, so this idea would probably present less of a risk to the bombers, even if the approach is better from just short of the valley.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AMWts8BJtBsQx_H_myahyCARnLZ4VATLYKX9uiNz4Gb_zRCx9ay1HqrUvu-6gjseYEus8TiC1aAHSCsmTQ1T-9CVdDberZK8sLos-2aYQ48or2RhIjXL-U1M=w2400)
"Making a 300-yard drive untenable" would include your first drawing, for sure. No Tour pro is going to aim for either of your dots A or B -- not enough margin for error. They are going to aim for your label of approach shot lengths, and tell every golf outlet that your design is stupid, because it doesn't give them the necessary target area to aim at.
Drawing B is slightly less "untenable", it just introduces a feature that players wouldn't like to discourage them from hitting it so far. I did some similar things for Mr. Dye years ago, trying to make the players not lay up to 100 yards, when that was a thing. My guess is that most of them would just bomb it down to the blind spot on your hole, anyway, unless you had a bunker 40 or 50 yards from the green down there . . . they would all avoid that. That's what Padraig Harrington suggested we do for the 13th hole at The Renaissance Club [16th during the Scottish Open]. Again, though, you would have the entire field [plus the TV announcers] calling you an idiot for building an unfair blind bunker.
Honestly, putting some bunkers in the 300-350 range is not much different from these drawings. Some players would think twice about the bunkers, because it seems too unorthodox for them to aim into a bunker off the tee; others would realize that's not much different than taking a chance of getting into the bunker, and fire away as long as the bunkers weren't so penal that they were prevented from attacking the green.
I heard Mr. Dye suggest to Tom Weiskopf that he could get over his criticism of the 11th hole if he just played into the waste bunker for his second shot . . . I thought Tom's head was going to explode, because he was a traditionalist at heart. It kind of threw me for a loop, too.
-
... Would Oakmont be “fun” if the only set of tees was at 7400 yards and everyone had to play from that yardage? ...
I don't think Oakmont was designed to be "fun". Bad example.
-
... Would Oakmont be “fun” if the only set of tees was at 7400 yards and everyone had to play from that yardage? ...
I don't think Oakmont was designed to be "fun". Bad example.
+1
-
While I have little "in the dirt" experience, it seems like the least invasive and most efficient solution is to make bunkers true hazards once again.
Since sand varies across regions and Tour stops, is it feasible that the Tour adopt a special set of rakes? Design a set of rakes to reduce the opportunities for players to spin their bunker shots. Players can choose to play a higher spin (softer) ball that will not travel as far, or play the longer balls and have to be more strategic in their games to avoid the bunkers.
This seems far simpler than rollback, extending golf courses, spending a ton of $$ and water on growing rough and pushing greens to the limit.
-
The NBA doesn't demand the set shot only, is one example of a sport outgrowing its founding principles.
Your sentence here sort of capsulizes one of my "existential" gripes about the roll back. All sports evolve, and outgrow not only their founding principles, but also ideas and "fashions" that come along as years go by in the history of these games. It seems silly to me to fight this. IAnd it's one reason why I don't think changing course design is necessary or even desirable.
It's one thing to change the rules if, say, a basketball team gets a lead and then passes the ball around in a 4 corners delay for 10 minutes each time they get the ball. In this instance, you need a rule change to make them stop farting around and actually play basketball. In the case of golf, the modern game is exciting and magnificent. No, we don't have players hitting 3 irons into par 4 holes. The 3 shot par 5 is rare. But - and all the rest of my comment here is just opinion - I think the players still demonstrate an impressive and varied array of skills. If they need to hit a 3 iron into a par 4, they can do it, and it wouldn't surprise me if all of them can do it better than the average pro could 50-60 years ago. Even if you could make them hit tiny blades and balata balls, I think in about a year they would be playing better than their ancestors did with the same equipment.
Maybe some day we will, in fact, run out of land for golf. I have heard many in the industry say that this part of the argument has been overplayed. Anyway, if it happens, by all means roll back the ball. But for now, I prefer we just let them play.
-
I don't care how strong a player becomes or how much speed he can generate...if you take the driver clubface back down to where it was in the 80's and 90's then the sweet spot becomes smaller, so shaft becomes shorter and it's more difficult to generate the same smash factor and all of these balls are tested at a premium smash factor. Driver distance used to be a skill but now it is the easiest shot out there for the pros..let them keep playing with the ball... ;D
-
I don't care how strong a player becomes or how much speed he can generate...if you take the driver clubface back down to where it was in the 80's and 90's then the sweet spot becomes smaller, so shaft becomes shorter and it's more difficult to generate the same smash factor and all of these balls are tested at a premium smash factor. Driver distance used to be a skill but now it is the easiest shot out there for the pros..let them keep playing with the ball... ;D
That size is roughly comparable to a modern 3 wood, and they hit those between 260 (Fowler) and 295 (DeChambeau). It could have the effect of dialing it all back to the late '90s driving distance, and as you suggest, w/no ball change.
Guys (Rahm, etc.) will still be hitting there 6 irons 210, so they'd really have very little to bitch about.
-
I don't care how strong a player becomes or how much speed he can generate...if you take the driver clubface back down to where it was in the 80's and 90's then the sweet spot becomes smaller, so shaft becomes shorter and it's more difficult to generate the same smash factor and all of these balls are tested at a premium smash factor. Driver distance used to be a skill but now it is the easiest shot out there for the pros..let them keep playing with the ball... ;D
That size is roughly comparable to a modern 3 wood, and they hit those between 260 (Fowler) and 295 (DeChambeau). It could have the effect of dialing it all back to the late '90s driving distance, and as you suggest, w/no ball change.
Guys (Rahm, etc.) will still be hitting there 6 irons 210, so they'd really have very little to bitch about.
Jim,I'm not sure..I do know they play games w the three wood etc...
Since the MOI rules are not in affect for lofts of 15 degrees or more , alot of the guys have thinned the faces to where they spring...Also, I look at some persimmon drivers and they are smaller than modern three woods...JMO
-
"Making a 300-yard drive untenable" would include your first drawing, for sure. No Tour pro is going to aim for either of your dots A or B -- not enough margin for error. They are going to aim for your label of approach shot lengths, and tell every golf outlet that your design is stupid, because it doesn't give them the necessary target area to aim at.
Drawing B is slightly less "untenable", it just introduces a feature that players wouldn't like to discourage them from hitting it so far. I did some similar things for Mr. Dye years ago, trying to make the players not lay up to 100 yards, when that was a thing. My guess is that most of them would just bomb it down to the blind spot on your hole, anyway, unless you had a bunker 40 or 50 yards from the green down there . . . they would all avoid that. That's what Padraig Harrington suggested we do for the 13th hole at The Renaissance Club [16th during the Scottish Open]. Again, though, you would have the entire field [plus the TV announcers] calling you an idiot for building an unfair blind bunker.
Honestly, putting some bunkers in the 300-350 range is not much different from these drawings. Some players would think twice about the bunkers, because it seems too unorthodox for them to aim into a bunker off the tee; others would realize that's not much different than taking a chance of getting into the bunker, and fire away as long as the bunkers weren't so penal that they were prevented from attacking the green.
I heard Mr. Dye suggest to Tom Weiskopf that he could get over his criticism of the 11th hole if he just played into the waste bunker for his second shot . . . I thought Tom's head was going to explode, because he was a traditionalist at heart. It kind of threw me for a loop, too.
Thanks for your feedback Tom,
In drawing A, I expect the fairway width at 300 yards is ~30 yards from the right bunker to the right edge of the fairway, how does that compare to tour average? At what point would the tour play feel more comfortable, and at what point as an architect do you not care if they don't like the shot? If a tour player was to chose to play left of the fairway bunkers into the rough, they'd end up leaving a ~220 yard approach out of the rough, would that discourage them?
If placing bunkers 300-350 yards would provide the same pause for a tour player as either drawing A or drawing B, I would think that providing a similar pause and response while not relying strictly on bunkers would be a beneficial strategy? Or is the impact of either drawing, or bunkering the landing zone, insufficient at influencing the actions of the tour player towards throttling back off the tee?
-
Ben:
It's possible some players would play toward the bunker in Diagram A, instead of left of it, if the bunker was deemed not too penal -- if they had a chance to reach the green from it. Otherwise, they'd play left, or possibly short. But they are never going to play closer than 32 yards from the water line.
What I can assure you is, you're never going to see anything like Hole A on Tour, or my own suggestion of bunkering heavily from 300 to 350 yards. The Tour would tell the club it wasn't acceptable, and if that didn't work, they'd tell the tournament sponsor they might get some bad press out of the players if the hole wasn't changed. Your option B might make the cut, but only if it was deemed that the players didn't mind driving it down in the hollow . . . indeed, some players would think this gave them more run-out and a bigger advantage!
Also, I didn't realize your holes were quite so long. These are 500 yard holes? Are you suggesting that every hole needs to be 500 yards to make it interesting for those guys?