[Erik J. Barzeski]

It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology.  Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).

I don't think there's a distance issue. I think a small group of people (a high concentration is here) give too much weight to the pro game and the distance a tiny percentage of golfers hit the ball, and bemoan that the Tour can't play classic or great courses… while simultaneously pointing out that the PGA Tour doesn't really even play "great" courses.

On the PGA Tour, the ball goes farther. For the average golfer, the ball goes farther. Why? Everything. Technology. Understanding. Instruction. Fitness. Agriculture/maintenance practices.

If players were still hitting balata balls with steel-shafted metal drivers, they'd be hitting the ball farther now, too. Not as far as they are hitting it, but farther. Tiger in 1997 hit it far. We understand the physics of launch angle, spin, etc. to maximize carry. Players are more fit. The lighter shafts and larger heads only further increase that, as does the ball.

Everything contributes.

I just don't think there's an issue, because I don't really care about a tiny fraction of the golfers playing PGA Tour level golf. While I can appreciate the added skill of having a 4-iron to a green, over an 8-iron, on TV you see a player hit a ball, you see a ball against the sky, and you see the ball land on the green. With an 8-iron it's likely going to land closer, and the player is more likely to birdie, and that's more exciting.

About the only thing I wish the rules makers had done was limit the size of the driver clubhead a bit more. 460cc is big. But that still wouldn't change much on the PGA Tour. Those guys still hit their 3-woods far (with relatively small heads).

6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.

So who cares what the PGA Tour does? It's entertainment, and if you don't find it entertaining, go PLAY golf. You probably aren't playing from 7700 yards. Can you still go play Interlachen and have a good time?

If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt.

And it was for Tiger in 1997, pre-ProV1, pre-graphite-shafted-drivers. Tiger swung faster.

I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals.  That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.

I've never thought that there was/is a "distance issue." 

The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.

So build a few different lists.

[V_Halyard]

Vaughan,


The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.


If the concern is the impact on great classic architecture of the technology arms race, then surely the focus should be on all the great courses in pro golf that have been adversely affected and not just those that couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up.


A list simply comprising the latter will be short enough that many would say “see, it’s not a big deal - only a handful of courses.”

Perhaps but the discussion is the best part of the enlightenment as the complaints need to be debunked or qualified.
“Joe Blowhard” at a club will blather on how “the ball” has ruined great courses and they can’t hold PGA events.” 

Well if “Joe Blowhard” is up to it (rarely is) making them define their list of lost great courses would be sporting.  Is Firestone on the list? The old ANGC vs post Tiger? Is it length or lack of strategic architecture that doomed it or did it just look bad on TV?
Or a PGA event is so huge and invasive, the course just doesn’t want it. (CPC)
Expanding and defining the “list of the lost”  should be part of the excercise because it’s not an easy answer but a great thread for this very group.

It would be interesting to me to understand what people consider were the “great” courses that were lost to technology 

[V_Halyard]

issue."   

The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.

So build a few different lists


Exactly.
If golfgeek ground zero can’t expand and explore this very topic, why are we here?

[V_Halyard]

I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.

This means the courses should be considered good or great. The courses should be former PGA Tour courses that are no longer used (i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count). The courses should be unused now primarily because of the distance they play, not because of infrastructure problems, lack of a sponsor, etc.

Ideally the course hosted more than a few PGA Tour events and was not just a one-off type thing.

I’m thinking the need to cross reference old PGA schedules with the corresponding Top lists of that day.

[Ira Fishman]

I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.

This means the courses should be considered good or great. The courses should be former PGA Tour courses that are no longer used (i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count). The courses should be unused now primarily because of the distance they play, not because of infrastructure problems, lack of a sponsor, etc.

Ideally the course hosted more than a few PGA Tour events and was not just a one-off type thing.

I’m thinking the need to cross reference old PGA schedules with the corresponding Top lists of that day.

Vaughn, I did a quick but fairly full cross-reference when I listed some of the courses that meet Erik's question.  The reality is that the tour never has played on a high percentage of top tier courses.  So although the list of courses that have become obsolete plus those that have been "bastardized" may seem small, it actually is a high percentage of the top tier courses the tour uses/used.


But I take issue with the notion that the major objection to increased length among those on gca.com is that it means that the tour cannot play classic courses or that such courses must become bastardized.  I have found the weight of objection is similar to Tom Doak's point--the tour courses/length influence/influenced new course design negatively.  We are seeing fewer classic courses of the 6000-6500 yard length which as Erik points out is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers.  Just look at how much attention was generated by the announcement of the Doak short course at Sand Valley--if that were close to the norm, we would have a different view about how far the pros hit it. 


Ira

[Sean_A]

It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology.  Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).

I don't think there's a distance issue. I think a small group of people (a high concentration is here) give too much weight to the pro game and the distance a tiny percentage of golfers hit the ball, and bemoan that the Tour can't play classic or great courses… while simultaneously pointing out that the PGA Tour doesn't really even play "great" courses.

On the PGA Tour, the ball goes farther. For the average golfer, the ball goes farther. Why? Everything. Technology. Understanding. Instruction. Fitness. Agriculture/maintenance practices.

If players were still hitting balata balls with steel-shafted metal drivers, they'd be hitting the ball farther now, too. Not as far as they are hitting it, but farther. Tiger in 1997 hit it far. We understand the physics of launch angle, spin, etc. to maximize carry. Players are more fit. The lighter shafts and larger heads only further increase that, as does the ball.

Everything contributes.

I just don't think there's an issue, because I don't really care about a tiny fraction of the golfers playing PGA Tour level golf. While I can appreciate the added skill of having a 4-iron to a green, over an 8-iron, on TV you see a player hit a ball, you see a ball against the sky, and you see the ball land on the green. With an 8-iron it's likely going to land closer, and the player is more likely to birdie, and that's more exciting.

About the only thing I wish the rules makers had done was limit the size of the driver clubhead a bit more. 460cc is big. But that still wouldn't change much on the PGA Tour. Those guys still hit their 3-woods far (with relatively small heads).

6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.

So who cares what the PGA Tour does? It's entertainment, and if you don't find it entertaining, go PLAY golf. You probably aren't playing from 7700 yards. Can you still go play Interlachen and have a good time?

If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt.

And it was for Tiger in 1997, pre-ProV1, pre-graphite-shafted-drivers. Tiger swung faster.

I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals.  That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.

I've never thought that there was/is a "distance issue." 

The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.

So build a few different lists.

Eric

I don't understand why you need any lists if you don't care about the PGA tour.  I am in the same boat as you...let the tours do what they do and we can individually decide if we want to buy the product. 

What most people say is the tours effect decision-making in terms of length.  Meaning if clubs want to remain relevant to the big boys then added yardage is a necessity.  I have long believed this to be about the worst reason possible to alter a course unless clubs actually do wish to hold top events...which very few ever do. Even then, it is entirely their choice to stay on the big boy band wagon or hop off in favour of doing what is right by their members and as caretakers of classic courses. Even then take two, most courses aren't worth worrying about architecturally speaking so its a complete non-issue for a huge percentage of courses.

IMO...given that folks have been railing on about out of control distance, it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back.  Yes, I do agree distance is out of control, but to a large extend it doesn't matter because we all have the power to play where we wish.  If ya don't like what a club has done and it means that much...walk.  Its no different from any other product on the market...we make a decision each and every time we put our hands on the wallet. 

What I really find stupidly ironic is all the people who moan about distance then stand in line for the next does it all driver and balls.  It is very difficult for me to have much sympathy for guys who are part of the problem they wish to see mitigated. 

Each club and person is responsible for their decisions.  Don't blame the USGA or tours for the equipment you buy or for the changes to your golf course.  Take responsibility for your actions and the odds of change happening will rise.  I think the new Doak course in Wisconsin and the other smaller projects we see are absolute evidence of this.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But I take issue with the notion that the major objection to increased length among those on gca.com is that it means that the tour cannot play classic courses or that such courses must become bastardized.

If I've said that it's the weight or majority objection, I misspoke. I'm simply of the belief that it's ONE of the objections. And I'm pretty sure I never said it was just here on GCA.

I don't understand why you need any lists if you don't care about the PGA tour.  I am in the same boat as you...let the tours do what they do and we can individually decide if we want to buy the product.

Because I care about golf, and because people will bring this up when talking about golf and specifically about the distance players hit shots these days.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't think there's a distance issue. ...

The members at my course insist on tight tree lined fairways so that bombers can't turn the course into a pitch and putt. Bombers complain they can't use anything more than a hybrid off the tee, and don't join. Don't tell me there's not a distance problem.

[V_Halyard]

it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back. 

"protecting one's club against architectural abuse" is classic.

I think GCA is the "Amber Alert" org for that. (Non-US GCAers, the US "Amber Alert" system sends regional warnings to cel phones and other media such as billboards when a minor is reported missing.)Sean I agree but that said, until recently, isn't the PGA tour on TV the primary influence on the "proliferation" of architectural abuse?  Do all roads lead back to Tiger and his fitness and club head speed,... and irons accuracy,... and putting acumen,... and mental toughness etc..?

[James Brown]

Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with.  So it's kind of a trick question.

You see, when I started this topic, I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself. It's a common thing, at least it seems to me, for people to bemoan all the great courses the PGA Tour can no longer play because of the distance the players hit the ball. Would I generally prefer to see the players play at great courses over crappy courses? Yes (then again I'm also not a "typical golf fan").

But… it might turn out that this statement, when made, is a bit of a false statement. If the PGA Tour hasn't had to stop playing a lot of great classic courses - then this argument doesn't hold as much water as some people seem to think it does. The PGA Tour (and top-level pro golf) is still played at some pretty old courses here in the U.S. (despite the fact that the game isn't particularly old here), and yes, they've been lengthened, which is why I think we should list those too if they've been ruined in their lengthening.

And my intent is not at all to create yet another distance debate topic, but to actually create a list of courses that are no longer playable (or ruined), as is so often cited.

But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.

That may be your argument, but it's not the one I see cited widely, or the reason I started this topic.

Erik, you dolt. if you are going to restrict it to great courses that have hosted PGA Tour events, then perhaps you should list which courses you think are great courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event. Tom seems to think at most a very small number of great courses have hosted a PGA Tour event (e.g. Cypress Point), so if you really mean courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event, then it is a trick question.

Probably, when people bemoan there are great courses that can no longer host a PGA Tour event, they are referring to great classics that have not been bastardized enough to allow hosting a PGA Tour event to make some semblance of sense. E.g., Seminole, which in your myopic view you say doesn't qualify as one that can be one that can no longer hold a PGA Tour event.

Great of course is in the eye of the beholder. if you allow the definition of great to be US Open worthy, then a great example that shows how distance has affected the pro game is Pumpkin Ridge in Oregon. When it was built, it was targeted to be a US Open site, because the USGA wanted more sites on the west coast, and the pacific northwest has great weather at US Open time, with hardly an chance of an electrical storm. However, it just happened to come online when the new ball created a distance explosion, and was obsolete for US Open purposes from the get go. The USGA had to wait for Chambers Bay to get their pacific northwest Open site.

I think lots of great courses host Tour events or have in the past.  My top three:

Riviera
Sawgrass
Pebble

[Garland Bayley]

Riviera
Sawgrass
Pebble

Riviera lengthened over 300 yards.
Pebble lengthened and par reduced.
Sawgrass don't know.

[Peter Flory]

While I was researching something on Lido earlier today, I came across this passage in an article by George Trevor that I believe was published in the early 1930s. 


"Lack of watering system system caused the fairways to dry out so that the ball ran a mile, hole values were distorted and farcical scores in the sixties became fairly common." 


Later, he adds "The installation of a modern fairway sprinkling system, plus the devoted greenskeeping of Charley Mayo, have now restored Lido to something like its original virility....   Thanks to Mayo's efforts at rehabilitation, Long Island open contestants found a snarling, treacherous Lido which resisted domination with all its former guile." 


In this case, distance inflation was caused by conditioning changes, but the effect was the same as if it had been equipment changes. 


I think that the timelessness of this passage is that for a sporting person, there is some thrill in watching golfers battle the course, not dominate it.  We want to see stresses that cause the golfers to have to have to think, play, and deal with adversity.  Basically, we want the course to be an opponent, not just a venue. 


With weekly winning scores hovering around -20 (event with par 5s turned into 4s), sporting persons only really have the majors to look forward to for some stress on the players.  I'm a huge golf fan in my heart, but I can't imagine watching 2 hours of a normal weekly tour event.  It's just putting. 

[Sean_A]

it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back. 

"protecting one's club against architectural abuse" is classic.

I think GCA is the "Amber Alert" org for that. (Non-US GCAers, the US "Amber Alert" system sends regional warnings to cel phones and other media such as billboards when a minor is reported missing.)Sean I agree but that said, until recently, isn't the PGA tour on TV the primary influence on the "proliferation" of architectural abuse?  Do all roads lead back to Tiger and his fitness and club head speed,... and irons accuracy,... and putting acumen,... and mental toughness etc..?

Vaughn

In matters related to golf we can choose our influences, so I don't buy that the tours are to blame.  The decision makers may have thought their reasoning was sound and in some cases I bet it was, but the decision makers pulled the trigger.

Peter

There is a huge difference between aerial 300+ yard drives and running 300+ yard drives.  In today's world, the running shot can be dealt with via shaping and features in ways that simply don't work very well for the aerial attack.  To me, its the difference between strategic and penal architecture. 

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.

My current course is a 7 mile walk from the 6700 yard tees and covers 240 acres.  It can be played from 7600 yards or so.
My prior course which was 6600 from the back tees was a 5 mile walk on 160 acres.

Maybe a million dollars in additional land costs, a significant addition to annual maintenance costs and an extra half hour to finish the round? 

[Garland Bayley]

... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...

Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.

You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.

Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.

So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?

[BHoover]

... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...

Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.

You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.

Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.

So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?

I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?

[Garland Bayley]

... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...

Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.

You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.

Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.

So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?

I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?

Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.

[BHoover]

... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...

Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.

You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.

Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.

So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?

I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?

Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.
 

But it helps with credibility.

[Garland Bayley]

... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...

Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.

You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.

Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.

So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?

I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?

Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.
 

But it helps with credibility.

So how's your credibility? A PGA pro has verified to you that I can indeed get the ball airborne, but yet you harp on the same old thing.

[Tom_Doak]

I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses.  As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course.  You've gotta pay them!


But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today.  If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result.  [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]


And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege.  Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play.  But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.


Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started.  [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]


So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem.  It's a straw man.  The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.

[PThomas]

I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses.  As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course.  You've gotta pay them!


But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today.  If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result.  [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]


And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege.  Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play.  But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.


Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started.  [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]


So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem.  It's a straw man.  The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.

it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......

[Ira Fishman]

I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses.  As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course.  You've gotta pay them!


But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today.  If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result.  [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]


And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege.  Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play.  But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.


Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started.  [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]


So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem.  It's a straw man.  The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.

it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......

+1. But as Congressman John Dingell said, "You write the substance. I write the rules.  I will beat you every time."  USGA gets to write the rules for better or worse.


Ira

[PThomas]

I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses.  As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course.  You've gotta pay them!


But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today.  If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result.  [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]


And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege.  Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play.  But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.


Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started.  [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]


So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem.  It's a straw man.  The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.

it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......

+1. But as Congressman John Dingell said, "You write the substance. I write the rules.  I will beat you every time."  USGA gets to write the rules for better or worse.


Ira

way worse in this case...I wish the Masters had the balls to dictate a tournament ball, but Ridley is a USGA flunky so he won't..


amazing how a few at the USGA know what's better than Jack and Tiger and everyone else who has opposed their view for decades


Ran's essay on his 147 Custodians gets at this issue too...golf should be a game that can be played quickly...hard to play quickly when courses keep getting longer and longer...what a waste of resources

[Tom_Doak]

Someone brought up Colonial on another thread as a course that has unfairly fallen out of the top 100.  They still play an event there "because Ben Hogan," but it has gone from being one of the toughest tracks on Tour to being the course where Annika felt like she had her best chance to compete, because the trees and doglegs make the long hitters rein it in.


At least they haven't f'd it up trying to correct that.

[jeffwarne]

I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses.  As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course.  You've gotta pay them!


But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today.  If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result.  [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]


And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege.  Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play.  But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.


Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started.  [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]


So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem.  It's a straw man.  The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.

it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......

No what's more amazing is that this is the same organization that consistently said the distance gains were statistically irrelevant, all while lengthening every venue they held an event....


We can all say we don't care what PGA tour players do-fair enough.
What about the athletic 11 handicapper I played with who twice hit into the group on 330-350 yard par 4 greens a couple days ago, to say nothing of how much more dangerous his foul balls are at 320 rather than 290.
It's not just a PGA Tour thing.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()