Your favorite course Rendered Obsolete for Touring Professional Play by Restricted Length?

[pdksca]

Many great courses have been rendered obsolete for professional play because of limited length.

 

 

Which one do you 'miss the most?'

 

 

Just a few blocks from my Toronto place is a Donald Ross gem called Rosedale that was built over 100 years ago. Every bit as tough and beautiful as Ross's Pinehurst No.2 masterpiece, Rosedale hosted Canadian Opens in its 'youth' and was stretched to 6500 yards for the last one held there, which was a long time ago. (Greg Norman holds the Rosedale course record at 63, in a non-PGA Tour event)

 

 

 

 

There was much more available land in rural North Carolina than the heart of Toronto, and as a result, Pinehurst No.2 remains relevant for professional golf (not to mentioned being the largest golf course resort by area in the world). The course was a 5860 yards when it opened in 1907, and played to a grizzly 7588 yards for the 2014 US Open.

 

 

 

 

The 'path to obsolescence' was not linear. Great golf courses remained relatively unchanged for over half a century. Way back in 1927, the first US Open hosted at Oakmont was won by Tommy Armour with a score of +13. The course was a bear for the time, playing to 6,929 yards. Fast forward, and Ben Hogan was the only one in red figures in 1953, when he won the second of his three straight majors at five under par. The course played to essentially the same length. In 1962, a young upstart named Jack Nicklaus defeated the reigning 'king of golf' in a playoff. The course had been adjusted down a stroke to a par 71 when one of its par 5's was set-up as a par 4, but it had not been lengthened. In the 1972 US Open, Oakmont played to 6921 yards. Coming from 12th place on Sunday morning, Johnny Miller shot his record breaking 63 to win. Yet the average score for the tournament was 5 over.

 

Amazingly, venerable Oakmont held to that original 6900-some yard Donald Ross design through US Open wins by Nicklaus (his first PGA victory, and first major), Nelson (1983) and Els (1994). And then everything changed. To host the 2007 US Open, Oakmont had to be stretched to 7230, and par reduced to 70. The old girl was essentially playing to 7400 yards.

 

 

 

 

From the St. Andrew's Old Course to Scioto in Ohio, the suitability of grand old layouts for professional play is being questioned. Do you have a favorite that makes you wish Jack Nicklaus's suggestion that all players use a standard, de-tuned ball had been acted upon?

 

 

 

.

[pinhigh27]

Detuning the ball is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and no matter how many old men that can't stand these whippersnappers hitting it hard, it will never happen.

[pinhigh27]

6500 yards is plenty for 99 % of golfers.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440796371' post='12226362']
Detuning the ball is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and no matter how many old men that can't stand these whippersnappers hitting it hard, it will never happen.
[/quote]

Yeah, lets spend billions of $$ instead to update all the courses.

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440796494' post='12226374']
6500 yards is plenty for 99 % of golfers.
[/quote]

Save the great old courses for those that appreciate golf and leave the all the TPC du jours for the whippersnappers.

To me, golf is like baseball - a game that has a balance of elements - the bat, the ball, the distance between bases, even the height of the pitcher's mound. Change any of these elements slightly and the balance of the game changes drastically. With golf, the lack of oversight from the ruling bodies has allowed equipment makers to change the balance of the game.

[pinhigh27]

You don't need to update the courses. What percentage of rounds do you think are played from 7000+ yds? At courses where they have tees that far, probably 1/100 rounds are played from there.

Making fuss about nothing. Avg golfer can't break 90 from 6500 but youre concerned about real estate for the miniscule amount of golfers that play from longer than that.

[JaNelson38]

A golf course isn't defined by the number of yards on the scorecard.

In any case, I'd like to know what golf planet you live on where you think a 6500 yard course is "obsolete". Just because it might be too short for the top 1% of golfers in the world doesnt mean it wouldnt be entertaining and challenging for the rest of us.

[knock it close]

[quote name='JaNelson38' timestamp='1440802223' post='12226824']
[b]A golf course isn't defined by the number of yards on the scorecard.[/b]

In any case, I'd like to know what golf planet you live on where you think a 6500 yard course is "obsolete". Just because it might be too short for the top 1% of golfers in the world doesnt mean it wouldnt be entertaining and challenging for the rest of us.
[/quote]Bingo, I was a member at Victoria Golf Club in Victoria BC for a couple years when I was in school, it's only 6300 ish but has 5 par 3s and still remains one of the toughest courses I've played, sure the pros could dismantle it but its plenty of stick for everyone else.

[JaNelson38]

[quote name='knock it close' timestamp='1440802534' post='12226852']
[quote name='JaNelson38' timestamp='1440802223' post='12226824']
[b]A golf course isn't defined by the number of yards on the scorecard.[/b]

In any case, I'd like to know what golf planet you live on where you think a 6500 yard course is "obsolete". Just because it might be too short for the top 1% of golfers in the world doesnt mean it wouldnt be entertaining and challenging for the rest of us.
[/quote]Bingo, I was a member at Victoria Golf Club in Victoria BC for a couple years when I was in school, it's only 6300 ish but has 5 par 3s and still remains one of the toughest courses I've played, sure the pros could dismantle it but its plenty of stick for everyone else.
[/quote]

Yeah, exactly.

Some of the most golfing fun I've had is on a 9-hole par 3 course.

It's not all about yards. It's about design.

[TheGeekGolfer]

[quote name='pdksca' timestamp='1440796269' post='12226356']
Many great courses have been rendered obsolete for professional play because of limited length.
[color=#252525]... And then everything changed. To host the [/color][color=#252525]2007 US Open, Oakmont had to be stretched to 7230, and par reduced to 70. The old girl was essentially playing to 7400 yards. [/color][/quote]

And yet, the winning score in 2007 was still +5. The didn't 'have to stretch it', they chose to stretch it to get publicity and grab more ratings. While I agree that more pros are hitting it longer and more are in the 290-310 range, that is not the only reason they are lengthening courses. Courses are also being lengthened so that they can grab attention and headlines in this 'one up the last one' news cycle we live in on the internet, social media, etc.

They might as well say, "Oakmont was lengthened to 7230 yards, what happened next is unbelievable!"

[John L.]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440796371' post='12226362']
Detuning the ball is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and no matter how many old men that can't stand these whippersnappers hitting it hard, it will never happen.
[/quote]

There are plenty of old guys that can fly it past young whippersnappers..................wanna bet? It isn't about age...........?

[knock it close]

Lotta tough short courses, lotta easy long courses.

[highergr0und]

It does suck that some gems are becoming irrelevant by tour standards.... It would be nice to see the champions tour to include these courses in their rotations.

[duffer987]

Agree with TJ and PH, and well pretty much all the replies, who gives a toss?
One of the best courses at combining the enjoyment and challenge of golf was deemed 'obsolete' in 1925 and the golfing world is a much better place for that having occurred. I'd hate to think what could have happened to Prestwick Golf Club if they went chasing tournament requirements/conditions for the property.

Professional tours can have their pick of RTJ/RTJ Jr courses, just be sure they leave all the classic ones well enough alone

[LittleLeftToRight]

Personally I think changing the great old courses because tour players hit the ball farther is like changing all the roads because a few people own cars that can go 200 mph.

[DTXgolfer12]

In my experience the ONLY amateur golfers that complain about the length of courses are the high handicappers that slice the ball

[One_Putt_Blunder]

Guess what else has improved immensely since the old days? Agronomy, seems like todays tour fairways are rolling as fast as yesteryears greens. When you give PGA level players 40+ yards of roll out low scores are gonna happen.

[MadGolfer76]

Show me a golf course of any length, and I will show you a membership where the majority can't break 90 on it despite playing it every day of the year. No need to change up courses just because some committee wants to attract a tournament.

[Shambles]

In my mind the new guys are the most eager to complain about short courses and rush eagerly to play the longest and least kind courses. It's more a matter of having played a course that beat them roundly than of facing the challenge of a course that they have a decent chance of scoring well on.


Shambles

[RSinSG]

I work Monday mornings at The Ledges in St. George, and it amazes me when I see some people playing from the tips. It's not US Open long, but at 7150 yards it is a challenge. I would estimate 99% of the people playing that distance are doing so based upon ego rather than skill level. Occasionally a really good golfer will play through and he obviously is up to the task. Usually it is someone who barely hits it 250 and struggles on the second shots.

I play the whites at 6400+ and it is a very comfortable distance for me. I play longer courses all the time, but once it gets to 6900+ I don't have as much fun. I like hitting mid-irons or less into the greens.

One of the leagues I play in is on a very short course - 5800 yrds. Oddly enough this course has given me fits at times. I've had my career lowest score there, only to shoot a 92 a few weeks later. Short, target golf that if you miss your targets you get hammered. I enjoy it as much as the longer courses, and even though I'm retired I can still hit it above average length.

[tatertot]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440796371' post='12226362']
Detuning the ball is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and no matter how many old men that can't stand these whippersnappers hitting it hard, it will never happen.
[/quote]

Oddly, I'd rather play with an old man than a young jerk.

[ryanarneson]

Sometimes I think that golf would be better of if we abolished the PGA TOUR and forced people to forget about "what the pros shoot" or "what the pros do".

You ain't the pros. Don't worry so much about them.

[Woodrow]

Banff springs comes to mind in the Canadian rockies. Believe it's a Thompson course.

[LittleLeftToRight]

[quote name='tatertot' timestamp='1440810172' post='12227440']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440796371' post='12226362']
Detuning the ball is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and no matter how many old men that can't stand these whippersnappers hitting it hard, it will never happen.
[/quote]

Oddly, I'd rather play with an old man than a young jerk.
[/quote]

Yes Tatertot! Old men rule! I always want to hear the stories of their lives. You can learn a lot from them. I am getting there myself these days and I notice that the young'uns don't really want to listen to those that go before them. I have played with some young kids since I took up the game again and when I offer advice, even the most meager, they look at me like I am smokin' crack. I just shake my head.

For anyone that thinks old courses are obsolete just because of yardage, I would call that illogical logic. One word for you. Merion.

[pdksca]

Interesting discussion on amateur egos and golf course length, but not germane to the question asked! My fault ...although I asked the question in the first line of the OP, I didn't spell it out in the title (now fixed):

what is your favorite course rendered obsolete [u]for touring professional play[/u] by restricted length?

Woodrow gave a perfect example a couple of posts above. The great Scottish-Canadian architect Stanley Thompson created a spectacular course in the Alberta Rockies called "Banff Springs." With some perversions to his original design, Fairmont Hotels have stretched the old girl to 6900 yards; par 71. But at 5000 feet above sea level, it is just to short for professional play today.
[attachment=2934262:banffspringsgolf.jpg]


Royal Dornoch in Scotland used to named by the likes of Tom Watson (an honorary member of the club) as a great British Open championship venue. Donald Ross (Pinehurst, Rosedale per my original post) grew up on the course. Pete Dye launched his design career after an inspirational visit to the great links. But stretched out, she's only 6700 yards; par 70.
[attachment=2934264:17th_hole_royal_dornoch.jpg]


What about others? The Chicago Golf Club? Brae Burn in Massachusetts?


LittleLefttoRight raised the counter argument, above, that a course doesn't have to be monstrously long to create a test for today's equipment and professionals, citing Merion (2013 US Open) as proof. But Merion isn't short, by any means. It played to 7000 yards for the Open but only to a par 70. That is approximately equivalent to a 7350 yards par 72 course (par 70 less 30 putts equals leaves 40 blows over 7000 yards, or 175 yards per swing). Once you've designated a couple of the member's par fives as fours for the pro's, you've done all you can do, I suppose.
[attachment=2934266:merion us open 2013.jpg]



It does open up questions about the future of the game: equipment trends and further restrictions on using technology to hit the ball farther; and the importance (or not) of historic, great layouts as stages for the world's best players.

.

[duffer987]

You ask "what is your favorite course rendered obsolete [u]for touring professional play[/u] by restricted length?" and then offer up two courses that have never hosted a modern professional tournament to begin with. Neither of those courses have been 'rendered obsolete', they were never in the conversation to begin with.

You don't have to look any further than the 2014 and 2015 Scottish Open venues to see that it's not all about length. They play a similar average distance to par as Dornoch.

[raynorfan1]

[quote name='pdksca' timestamp='1441063924' post='12242016']
Interesting discussion on amateur egos and golf course length, but not germane to the question asked! My fault ...although I asked the question in the first line of the OP, I didn't spell it out in the title (now fixed):

what is your favorite course rendered obsolete [u]for touring professional play[/u] by restricted length?

Woodrow gave a perfect example a couple of posts above. The great Scottish-Canadian architect Stanley Thompson created a spectacular course in the Alberta Rockies called "Banff Springs." With some perversions to his original design, Fairmont Hotels have stretched the old girl to 6900 yards; par 71. But at 5000 feet above sea level, it is just to short for professional play today.
[attachment=2934262:banffspringsgolf.jpg]


Royal Dornoch in Scotland used to named by the likes of Tom Watson (an honorary member of the club) as a great British Open championship venue. Donald Ross (Pinehurst, Rosedale per my original post) grew up on the course. Pete Dye launched his design career after an inspirational visit to the great links. But stretched out, she's only 6700 yards; par 70.
[attachment=2934264:17th_hole_royal_dornoch.jpg]


What about others? The Chicago Golf Club? Brae Burn in Massachusetts?


LittleLefttoRight raised the counter argument, above, that a course doesn't have to be monstrously long to create a test for today's equipment and professionals, citing Merion (2013 US Open) as proof. But Merion isn't short, by any means. It played to 7000 yards for the Open but only to a par 70. That is approximately equivalent to a 7350 yards par 72 course (par 70 less 30 putts equals leaves 40 blows over 7000 yards, or 175 yards per swing). Once you've designated a couple of the member's par fives as fours for the pro's, you've done all you can do, I suppose.
[attachment=2934266:merion us open 2013.jpg]



It does open up questions about the future of the game: equipment trends and further restrictions on using technology to hit the ball farther; and the importance (or not) of historic, great layouts as stages for the world's best players.

.
[/quote]

A lot of these courses suffer more from "middle of nowhere" syndrome than from lack of length. Dornoch has never hosted an Open - it's too far away and the village has too few services to even consider hosting the event.

Courses in the U.S. like Oak Hill are in the same boat. The course could handle a big event, but Rochester just isn't much of a destination. And then you have membership considerations. Somewhere like Brae Burn isn't going to want the hassle of hosting anything short of a U.S. Open, and that's probably beyond their reach.

But if you look at the list of courses that hosted a significant event after say, 1975, very few of them are no longer capable of hosting today.

[pdksca]

Good observation - while the major championship venues have been getting longer, I can't think of any that have hosted in the past forty or so years that have been 'written off' as outdated for future events of the same caliber.

[CDM]

Interesting topic. Though I understand the OP's original question and I am not sure I agree, I will concede there are some great course that probably can not host a championship because the pro's "are too long" theory.. BUT I think location is a bigger factor in that.

Length aspect, my example would be last years [b]BMW Championship [/b]at Cherry Hills. Having played the course numerous times, from the back tees and the championship tees a few times I don't think length has "AS" much to do with it as setup. And trust me they can set it up. played the last possible day before the US Womans open there.... there was forecaddies on almost every hole. you could watch a ball role in, I mean trickle in and you would not find it, it was sooo thick. Were told the forecaddies were for the tourney, not us, they did not want "random" balls in the rough to be found during play.

CH had very limited events after Phil won his us amateur there, mainly because they were told "Sorry to short..." and it offended the new members ([i]younger...should I dare say Whippersnappers...lol[/i]). Anyway they took the course back to its original layout ([i]somewhat...[/i]) and they added length. Now it plays 7350-7400 yards. Sure seems long until you subtract for the 10% gain in elevation for Colorado.

[b]Now[/b] your talking only 6600 yard at sea level... So does that mean it was obsolete based on the distance? [b]Nope...[/b] CH/PGA set the rough stupid thick and the greens FAST and FIRM and that offset the lmited length. So I estimate it could done at most courses depending on setup.

I would completely agree with #[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/user/119065-raynorfan1/"]raynorfan1[/url] that location makes a big difference in the caliber of event over length all day.... MONEY is were its at and always will be, length or not.

[i]Edit: great photos you posted by the way...[/i]

[HoffTTM]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1440797648' post='12226460']
You don't need to update the courses. What percentage of rounds do you think are played from 7000+ yds? At courses where they have tees that far, probably 1/100 rounds are played from there.

Making fuss about nothing. Avg golfer can't break 90 from 6500 but youre concerned about real estate for the miniscule amount of golfers that play from longer than that.
[/quote]

Yeah, but the average retail golfer who does not play from these tees ends up being the one paying for their creation, upkeep and other methods of toughening to course.

[knock it close]

Banff is a resort course, a beautiful course and a very very well thought out layout, but its still a resort course. Thompson was never thinking "oh this should be able to challenge tour pros." He was thinking "I'm going to build an awesome course playable for everyone and its going to be the most expensive course ever."

The problem is is that we are told that courses are too short. I completely disagree, look at the short courses on tour (Riv, Colonial, Harbour Town) alot of times they play tougher than the big ball parks (with the exception of the year Gay won harbour by 10). The reason we are told that some courses are too short is that they are too small. They simply don't have the room for all the infrastructure and the people for major championships in order for the tour to maximize revenue. I think we proved this year in the majors that length really isnt too hard for these guys.