We've launched the new forums! Read more here

9000 Yard Courses

JB said:
Im curious if anybody has read the article or seen his take?
While I am not sure I agree with it, the reasoning and examples are fairly sound.
Click to expand...

truth be told i wasn't planning on it, but i did and i don't think he makes a very coherent point. he says he doesn't care what the score is, he says he doesn't want to see tactical golf, yet he says it's getting too easy for these guys. i'm not sure i understand what he wants. long drives in the fairway but missed greens and struggling to get up and down? i'm not sure how that is any more fun to watch.

i would like to see the ruling bodies look at other tournaments where guys struggle, or specific holes that play very difficult, and kind of "back into" what a championship course should look like. let's try to quantify why some courses play so much harder than others, and build on that.

dialing back equipment is, imho, bad for the game because we all know that what tour players play matters. if they start playing gear that is different than what we can buy at retail, i would worry about how that will negatively impact the retail space.

maybe the hard work needs to be in removing courses that aren't relevant anymore. that affects the history of the game, but i'm ok with that.
 
There is a point in his article where he talks about Merion, about how it wasn't length but tight fairways and tricky pin placements, which lead to a lot of irons off the tee and essentially boring golf. I agree with him on that point right there. Then bring in the quotes he has from players talking about Erin Hills at 7,800 yards, and really an 8,000 yard US Open or Major is right around the corner.

For me, what made Erin Hills fun was that we saw players hit driver, a lot. The length of the course was definitely not an issue for those guys. I really like the Knost quotes in there about how you can't bank of wind and weather every year to be the only defense of a course.
 
Sounds like something the USGA would want for the US Open.


Sounds like an awful idea for so many reasons.
 
The governing bodies have set limits on club performance. They need to set limits on ball performance. Yes there will be hue and cry from the manufacturers but too many venues are going to run out of real estate if the trend continues. Plus going even longer will eliminate players like Spieth who aren't the longest hitters but are still competitive. Not sure how that's good for the game.
 
#Cookie said:
Just did and fantastic points are made. I lean to narrow FW's and more challenging rough as the answer. It'll make some put driver away and force them to play longer clubs in putting a premium on shotmaking and short game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

c.a.eleric said:
truth be told i wasn't planning on it, but i did and i don't think he makes a very coherent point. he says he doesn't care what the score is, he says he doesn't want to see tactical golf, yet he says it's getting too easy for these guys. i'm not sure i understand what he wants. long drives in the fairway but missed greens and struggling to get up and down? i'm not sure how that is any more fun to watch.

i would like to see the ruling bodies look at other tournaments where guys struggle, or specific holes that play very difficult, and kind of "back into" what a championship course should look like. let's try to quantify why some courses play so much harder than others, and build on that.

dialing back equipment is, imho, bad for the game because we all know that what tour players play matters. if they start playing gear that is different than what we can buy at retail, i would worry about how that will negatively impact the retail space.

maybe the hard work needs to be in removing courses that aren't relevant anymore. that affects the history of the game, but i'm ok with that.
Click to expand...

I see these points a lot about "well see ABC course and it plays harder" and I agree. The problem is that it is not realistic at all (any moreso than 9k courses) to have courses setup at US Open conditions for regular tournaments honestly.
I do think they could fix all of this, but not mowing the fairways tight. You get some flyers, the ball doesnt run, etc.
 
There is no land left nowadays as it is. Increasing course length is not the answer.

*Make all pro's play with hickory shafts and feather balls.*
 
I don't have a problem with this. They have been pushing "Tee it forward" forever... why not make the pros "Tee it back"?

Oh, and add a shot clock
 
I agree with a lot of what is said. I don't know if it has to go the full 9000 distance but having 3 shot par 5's and hitting 5 and 6 irons into greens on par 4's makes sense to me. A stress free 65 at a major is not entertaining to me.
 
JB said:
I see these points a lot about "well see ABC course and it plays harder" and I agree. The problem is that it is not realistic at all (any moreso than 9k courses) to have courses setup at US Open conditions for regular tournaments honestly.
I do think they could fix all of this, but not mowing the fairways tight. You get some flyers, the ball doesnt run, etc.
Click to expand...

that really wasn't the point i intended to make. what i was trying to say was that there are courses that host non-majors with elite fields of guys who struggle. i would like people smarter than i am to attempt to quantify or at least analyze what it is that made those courses so difficult, and look to that conditioning to find solutions to toughen up the majors.

i like your idea about slowing down the fairways. i was thinking they could be watered to play softer. limit drives to pretty much carry distance, but still keep the greens really firm. your idea would work much better, though.
 
I think it's ridiculous. Tighten up the courses, put more hazards around the landing areas and force them to hit fairways. So many better ways to make courses tougher for longer hitters. Making them that long virtually ensure nobody but the longer hitters have a shot at winning.
 
kevin81002 said:
I think it's ridiculous. Tighten up the courses, put more hazards around the landing areas and force them to hit fairways. So many better ways to make courses tougher for longer hitters. Making them that long virtually ensure nobody but the longer hitters have a shot at winning.
Click to expand...

All the way back in 2004 or 05, Whistling Straits was 7500+ yards and Darren Clarke shot something like 65 to go along with like 150 rounds under par.
Im not so sure it really favors the bombers any more than 7000 favors them by hitting wedges in vs 7 irons.
 
c.a.eleric said:
truth be told i wasn't planning on it, but i did and i don't think he makes a very coherent point. he says he doesn't care what the score is, he says he doesn't want to see tactical golf, yet he says it's getting too easy for these guys. i'm not sure i understand what he wants. long drives in the fairway but missed greens and struggling to get up and down? i'm not sure how that is any more fun to watch.
Click to expand...

I read the article and agree....that guy was all over the place with his opinions. His only solution to his perceived problem was lengthening the course.
Course redesigns could help with this. Move or place bunkers out to the average tour drive distances, add water hazards, narrow the fairways in strategic areas.
Any of these would give pause to the bomb and gouge play that is the current norm.
 
I guess I would simply state that the ruling bodies will always lose because they are moving slower then technology.
 
JB said:
All the way back in 2004 or 05, Whistling Straits was 7500+ yards and Darren Clarke shot something like 65 to go along with like 150 rounds under par.
Im not so sure it really favors the bombers any more than 7000 favors them by hitting wedges in vs 7 irons.
Click to expand...
Yeah... but stretch that out another 1500-2000yds and I seriously doubt they'd be able to keep up.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
Yeah - just shrug and say these guys are too good. When weather leads to soft conditions then scores are going low. When old links courses need weather to make them difficult tests and they get early wet conditions then little wind/rain during the event the scores will be low.
 
I would be interested to see a balanced course. One where there is a driveable par 4 with high risk/rewards. Tempting enough that people go for it. Another par four where long hitters are hitting a 6 iron into the green, shorter players maybe a 4 iron. A par 5 where you can get there in two and others where you can't. Also, maybe fairways where water is reachable with driver, tempting enough to try to carry it, but all who try may not succeed.

I don't see a problem where some holes are quite short if they are countered with holes that are longer.
 
To me, the US Open at Merion pretty much confirmed that you don't need super long courses to make scoring conditions tough and fair.
 
I read the article. Many of the recent courses the author mentions are links courses which obviously require weather. I'd have to look it up but I think we've seen plenty of instances where shorter courses have resulted in modest scores. It can be done without going to 9k. Small landing zones and actual trouble for the golfer who misses seems like an obvious solution. The author talks about equipment as the cause. I think that misses the mark. The sanctioning organizations want low scores. It's like the days when MLB a turned a blind eye at steroids...they wanted, if not needed, those superstars. Golf seems to be going through something similar where they are trying to help someone become the next Tiger. So I say forget the extra yardage, just set the courses up properly.
 
Did not read but wanted to input, but wasn't it the tournament right after the US Open where the course was playing around 6,600 yards and the winning score was -7. Think it was the Kyle Stanley win. Didn't take a long course to keep the pros at bay. But I get it, the only way we're seeing pro's hitting 3 or 4 irons into greens is on their 2nd shots into par 5's.
 
If you don't wanna see -21 scores I think the way to make things harder is by taking the driver out of the hands of the players. Make them have to hit tricky long iron shots and make golf a finesse over power game. Smaller greens, tighter fairways, mid fairway bunkers/hazards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The only question to his arguments I have is if pros really are more accurate with 3 woods. I remember reading somewhere that wasn't necessarily the case.

I completely agree with the argument he makes against growing up the rough a ton and tightening the fairways - that plodding/grind style of golf could be awful to watch.
 
No no and no. Erin hills was what 8100 or close to it and they went pin seeking brooks ended up -16. Two week later Stanley wins the quicken loans at -7. Course wasn't even 7000 yards. Set your course up properly and you won't need these 4 mile long course to "test" the golfers. Oh I'll add that this will kill any chance of the short hitters of winning again.
 
Northwest_Trey said:
If you don't wanna see -21 scores I think the way to make things harder is by taking the driver out of the hands of the players. Make them have to hit tricky long iron shots and make golf a finesse over power game. Smaller greens, tighter fairways, mid fairway bunkers/hazards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If your referring to the Canadian open results. 520 par 5 will do that. 18 was driver 8I There's a 515 par 5 on a course in play. If it's downwind, it's driver, 5I for me. To me no par 5 should be less then 580 for the pros.
 
Northwest_Trey said:
If you don't wanna see -21 scores I think the way to make things harder is by taking the driver out of the hands of the players. Make them have to hit tricky long iron shots and make golf a finesse over power game. Smaller greens, tighter fairways, mid fairway bunkers/hazards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The article states he doesn't care what the winning score is but how it is achieved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top