Mike Davis on Distance

Bubb · June 21, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.

Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard 4-wood and even "shorter" hitters had no problem competing on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

ConcentricDimples · June 21, 2017

Wait wait! US Open on longest course in history had one of games longest and shortest hitters in contention down the stretch.

Can we all (and the USGA) agree that nothing needs to be changed?

It sure is tougher on the guy hitting fairway woods into par 4s and copping <240 yd carry at times, but he did finish second.

Shilgy · June 21, 2017

Well the MLB instituted a juiced ball and when the blame landed on steroids, they reduced it's flight so that they could claim to have fixed the issue.

And by most accounts the baseball is back to old specs. Harder and lower seams.

nix · June 21, 2017

Well the MLB instituted a juiced ball and when the blame landed on steroids, they reduced it's flight so that they could claim to have fixed the issue.
And by most accounts the baseball is back to old specs. Harder and lower seams.

Yep, the juiced ball is back.

North Butte · June 21, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard 4-wood and even "shorter" hitters had no problem competing on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

People build ultra-long golf courses in service of their own ego and deep pockets. Blaming it on the titanium and urethane is silly.

If a bunch of rich guys want to go broke building an 8,000 or 10,000 or for all I care 15,000 yard golf course to try and make guys like Koepka cry uncle, that's their own problem.

AceCatKY · June 21, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard 4-wood and even "shorter" hitters had no problem competing on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

Most courses do not need lengthening. The vast majority of recreational golfers do not hit the ball 300 yards, hell, most not even 250. And if courses decide they do need to lengthen, most any hole can be lengthened by 50 yards by doing nothing but putting in a back tee box, its not like new land is needing to be bought by courses to accommodate weekend golfers. Aside from a select few courses that were built long ago and feel they have to be at 7800 yards to try and host professional and elite Am events there is not a need to lengthen courses.

One_Putt_Blunder · June 21, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard WIND and SLOPE ASSISTED 4-wood and even "shorter" hittershad no problem competing EXCEPT BIG HITTING WORLD NO's 1, 2, and 3. on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

FTFY

Again we're talking about the best players in the world playing a championship using the widest fairway corridors in the history of the championship. When your local 7,000 yard golf course becomes too short for the average 90-100 shooter then we'd have a problem(hint that aint happening)

See prior example Oakmont has grown 324 yards in 90 years. Pebble 200ish in at least 40 years. Merion was 6694 in 1932, 2013 it was 6889 to 6966 The average player is not going to need a 7500 yard golf course let alone 8k under the current rules. I'd even argue the only reason the tour players do has to do more with firm/fast playing conditions, agronomy improvements, and width of the fairways.

Bubb · June 21, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard WIND and SLOPE ASSISTED 4-wood and even "shorter" hittershad no problem competing EXCEPT BIG HITTING WORLD NO's 1, 2, and 3. on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

FTFY

Again we're talking about the best players in the world playing a championship using the widest fairway corridors in the history of the championship. When your local 7,000 yard golf course becomes too short for the average 90-100 shooter then we'd have a problem(hint that aint happening)

See prior example Oakmont has grown 324 yards in 90 years. Pebble 200ish in at least 40 years. Merion was 6694 in 1932, 2013 it was 6889 to 6966 The average player is not going to need a 7500 yard golf course let alone 8k under the current rules. I'd even argue the only reason the tour players do has to do more with firm/fast playing conditions, agronomy improvements, and width of the fairways.

That's hilarious. His 379 yard 4-wood was "wind assisted." Unbelievable.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the courses that have been built the past 20 years have been over 7000 yards. There is one around here that is 7700+ yards long and it won't see a pro tournament in a million years.

The associated costs of building bigger courses has resulted in increased fees and decreased participation. So maybe we should just continue along this same path and exacerbate the situation, right? Common sense has to prevail at some point and it sounds like the powers that be have at least acknowledged the issue.

One_Putt_Blunder · June 21, 2017

Wind and slope SMH. I'll just stop there because there's no point in continuing points that have already been discussed

new2g0lf · June 22, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard WIND and SLOPE ASSISTED 4-wood and even "shorter" hittershad no problem competing EXCEPT BIG HITTING WORLD NO's 1, 2, and 3. on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

FTFY

Again we're talking about the best players in the world playing a championship using the widest fairway corridors in the history of the championship. When your local 7,000 yard golf course becomes too short for the average 90-100 shooter then we'd have a problem(hint that aint happening)

See prior example Oakmont has grown 324 yards in 90 years. Pebble 200ish in at least 40 years. Merion was 6694 in 1932, 2013 it was 6889 to 6966 The average player is not going to need a 7500 yard golf course let alone 8k under the current rules. I'd even argue the only reason the tour players do has to do more with firm/fast playing conditions, agronomy improvements, and width of the fairways.
That's hilarious. His 379 yard 4-wood was "wind assisted." Unbelievable.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the courses that have been built the past 20 years have been over 7000 yards. There is one around here that is 7700+ yards long and it won't see a pro tournament in a million years.

The associated costs of building bigger courses has resulted in increased fees and decreased participation. So maybe we should just continue along this same path and exacerbate the situation, right? Common sense has to prevail at some point and it sounds like the powers that be have at least acknowledged the issue.

The issue is the barn is on fire and the owners keep screaming fire while pouring gasoline on the barn. Courses are set up to favor long hitters, the long hitters bomb the ball on the course and then Mike Davis and his minions complain the ball goes too far.

North Texas · June 22, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard WIND and SLOPE ASSISTED 4-wood and even "shorter" hittershad no problem competing EXCEPT BIG HITTING WORLD NO's 1, 2, and 3. on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

FTFY

Again we're talking about the best players in the world playing a championship using the widest fairway corridors in the history of the championship. When your local 7,000 yard golf course becomes too short for the average 90-100 shooter then we'd have a problem(hint that aint happening)

See prior example Oakmont has grown 324 yards in 90 years. Pebble 200ish in at least 40 years. Merion was 6694 in 1932, 2013 it was 6889 to 6966 The average player is not going to need a 7500 yard golf course let alone 8k under the current rules. I'd even argue the only reason the tour players do has to do more with firm/fast playing conditions, agronomy improvements, and width of the fairways.
That's hilarious. His 379 yard 4-wood was "wind assisted." Unbelievable.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the courses that have been built the past 20 years have been over 7000 yards. There is one around here that is 7700+ yards long and it won't see a pro tournament in a million years.

The associated costs of building bigger courses has resulted in increased fees and decreased participation. So maybe we should just continue along this same path and exacerbate the situation, right? Common sense has to prevail at some point and it sounds like the powers that be have at least acknowledged the issue.

Exactly!

Way too many people on this thread have zero ability to see the big picture.

North Butte · June 22, 2017

You must think the "big picture" is the rich-guy courses you see on TV. I suspect Mike Davis has much the same perspective. How can I put this politely? I don't give a darn about how long a course they build to host tournaments for millionaire professional golfers.

I only see the "little picture". My course built over 50 years ago has not been lengthened AT ALL during the ProV1+Titanium era. OK, we built way-back tee boxes on a couple of holes that get mowed down to use in big tournaments. But the course I play is pretty much exactly what the members played 20 years ago. Same goes for most (if not all) of the other courses in my area.

So how far Brooks Koepka hits his ball or how long a course Mike Davis builds to try and keep Koepka from going too much under par has exactly zero effect on the cost or availability of playing golf where I play. It is simply a "problem" that does not exist in my world.

But that's admittedly a "little picture" view. That's the only view that matters to me.

AceCatKY · June 22, 2017

You must think the "big picture" is the rich-guy courses you see on TV. I suspect Mike Davis has much the same perspective. How can I put this politely? I don't give a darn about how long a course they build to host tournaments for millionaire professional golfers.

I only see the "little picture". My course built over 50 years ago has not been lengthened AT ALL during the ProV1+Titanium era. OK, we built way-back tee boxes on a couple of holes that get mowed down to use in big tournaments. But the course I play is pretty much exactly what the members played 20 years ago. Same goes for most (if not all) of the other courses in my area.

So how far Brooks Koepka hits his ball or how long a course Mike Davis builds to try and keep Koepka from going too much under par has exactly zero effect on the cost or availability of playing golf where I play. It is simply a "problem" that does not exist in my world.

But that's admittedly a "little picture" view. That's the only view that matters to me.

This is exactly right. Aside from PGA Tour venues and the rota of courses that hosts majors and elite Am events this "problem" doesn't exist. There are 0 courses in my area that can't be played by amateur players because of equipment making the ball fly "too far". 6,500 - 7,000 yard or less courses are plenty long enough for 95% of amateur players and with Championship tees stretching most even longer they can accommodate most any longer hitter. Courses that are being built for recreational use aren't feeling the pressure to build 8,000 yard courses to accommodate average golfers. It is not even remotely logical to use a perceived distance problem for courses hosting Tour events to say that course development for recreational golfers is being affected. It would be like saying "guys in the NBA are taller now and dunk too much compared to 40 years ago so all basketball goals at the local park have to be 12 feet now".

North Butte · June 22, 2017

It would be like saying "guys in the NBA are taller now and dunk too much compared to 40 years ago so all basketball goals at the local park have to be 12 feet now".

It's like doing that and then complaining about how expensive it was to go raise all those neighborhood hoops!

Bubb · June 22, 2017

Look at it a different way. If this issue had been nipped in the bud, all of the courses that were built over the last 20 years would have been 6500 yards and not 7200. The result would have been cheaper greens fees and increased participation. Instead, we've had inordinately increased greens fees and reduced participation. Not complicated. Golf as a whole would be much better off if the USGA would have tackled this issue decades ago instead of now.

To continue down this current path would be ludicrous given what we know the consequences are. I give the USGA credit for at least acknowledging the obvious, albeit late in the game.

North Butte · June 23, 2017

I don't ever play golf on courses built in the last 20 years. Well, one course that opened I think 19 years ago but that's the newest.

They all have back tees longer than 6,500 yards. Even the ones built in the 60's.

BlackDiamondPar5 · June 23, 2017

I don't ever play golf on courses built in the last 20 years. Well, one course that opened I think 19 years ago but that's the newest.

They all have back tees longer than 6,500 yards. Even the ones built in the 60's.

That has been my observation as well. So besides those courses that want higher level tourneys, I don't see the distance issue being any different now than it was 30 years ago since those courses are largely the same as they were back then.

One_Putt_Blunder · June 23, 2017

Wait so you're saying my home course is ripping me off because they charge the same for the 6850 yard course as they do for the 2nd course on property which is 7207? Ironically the longer course is the older of the two................

Breaking news in most markets courses are going to charge what the market area plus demand or pedigree (big name designer tournament history etc) commands regardless of how long they are.

Ole3wiggle · June 23, 2017

Not sure anything needs to be done in terms of amateur golf. But in Professional golf, the courses will continue to be lengthened to combat scoring, at least if the current way they set up courses continues.

Here's some food for thought, what if instead of limiting how far the ball travels, they limited how much spin the pros were able to put on the ball (harder covers). This is why they are able to get up and down from places they shouldn't and can spin shots out of the rough, when in the past they could not. I think it would put a MUCH larger premium on finding the fairway, and it would be much more penal for missing greens.

Anyways banter on.

SadTrombone · June 23, 2017

There is soooooo much argument from presumption going on here I don't know how anyone can take any of this seriously anymore.

North Texas · June 23, 2017

There is soooooo much argument from presumption going on here I don't know how anyone can take any of this seriously anymore.

You serious, Clark?

Sean2 · June 23, 2017

If the USGA is worried about a juiced ball, they could always randomly drug test golf balls. :-)

Roadking2003 · June 26, 2017

There is soooooo much argument from presumption going on here I don't know how anyone can take any of this seriously anymore.

Here is an interesting stat. Only one (DJ) of the 10 longest drivers is also in the top 20 in scoring average. And only four of the 20 longest drivers are in the top 20 in scoring average. Four golfers ranked 85th or worse in driving distance are in the top twenty in scoring.

Hello Mike Davis..... read the stats!!!!!!!!!!!!

BeerPerHole · June 26, 2017

We aren't the pros. To propose changes to the game based on what we are watching on tv doesn't make sense. The average weekend warrior sees a 200-yd drive as very good. I was watching Koepka hit 2x that and never once thinking that had anything to do with me.

jslane57 · June 26, 2017

We aren't the pros. To propose changes to the game based on what we are watching on tv doesn't make sense. The average weekend warrior sees a 200-yd drive as very good. I was watching Koepka hit 2x that and never once thinking that had anything to do with me.

It has everything to do with you. Why? You're the green fee/private club payer. You're the one the marketing is geared to. You're the one they want to vacation near Erin Hills. The sponsors are hoping they catch your attention. The length of the modern course, and the technology sending the ball to greater lengths is directly paid for by the regular golfer. The longer these things get, the more you pay, across the board, to play a game that hardly resembles the game that Koepka plays...

rangersgoalie · June 26, 2017

We aren't the pros. To propose changes to the game based on what we are watching on tv doesn't make sense. The average weekend warrior sees a 200-yd drive as very good. I was watching Koepka hit 2x that and never once thinking that had anything to do with me.
It has everything to do with you. Why? You're the green fee/private club payer. You're the one the marketing is geared to. You're the one they want to vacation near Erin Hills. The sponsors are hoping they catch your attention. The length of the modern course, and the technology sending the ball to greater lengths is directly paid for by the regular golfer. The longer these things get, the more you pay, across the board, to play a game that hardly resembles the game that Koepka plays...

I'm 55. My entire family is full of golf professionals who have won section events, State Open, even a National Club Pro Champ.

NOT one person I grew up around, or played against played a game similar to Nicklaus either. There are more physical freaks playing, bigger/more powerful, and better dialed in equipment wise than any generation to date. Of course it's getting absurd.

lengthening a course because of what we see at Erin Hills, is like putting in a runway for a 747 in a municipal airport, because O'Hare has that.

Sean2 · June 26, 2017

I think you guys overestimate the willingness of strong players to give up the performance they've been experiencing for the past two decades. Just so they can hit it shorter and not embarrass guys who can't swing as fast or hit the sweet spot as often. What's in it for them? And keep in mind, in the big picture the USGA can only do whatever the majority of golfers are willing to go along with.

You seriously overestimate the proportion of weaker golfers like myself who are so consumed with envy that we want better players cut down to our size by equipment changes. I look at someone who drives it 50 yards past me and marvel at their ability to do it. It never even crosses my mind that the equipment they use ought to be re-jiggered to make their shots shorter. Frankly, that's the damndest idea I've heard in a long time.
Does it ever cross your mind that increasing distances make golf more expensive in that courses need to acquire more land and also maintain it? If the length of courses goes from 6500 to 8000 in a few decades, there is an associated cost with that which hurts participation.

We are at the point where Brooks Koepka just hit a 379 yard WIND and SLOPE ASSISTED 4-wood and even "shorter" hittershad no problem competing EXCEPT BIG HITTING WORLD NO's 1, 2, and 3. on a 7800+ yard course. 350+ yard drives are so ubiquitous that they're hardly worth mentioning for the commentators now. Maybe ignoring the implications of that isn't the best strategic thinking.

FTFY

Again we're talking about the best players in the world playing a championship using the widest fairway corridors in the history of the championship. When your local 7,000 yard golf course becomes too short for the average 90-100 shooter then we'd have a problem(hint that aint happening)

See prior example Oakmont has grown 324 yards in 90 years. Pebble 200ish in at least 40 years. Merion was 6694 in 1932, 2013 it was 6889 to 6966 The average player is not going to need a 7500 yard golf course let alone 8k under the current rules. I'd even argue the only reason the tour players do has to do more with firm/fast playing conditions, agronomy improvements, and width of the fairways.
That's hilarious. His 379 yard 4-wood was "wind assisted." Unbelievable.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the courses that have been built the past 20 years have been over 7000 yards. There is one around here that is 7700+ yards long and it won't see a pro tournament in a million years.

The associated costs of building bigger courses has resulted in increased fees and decreased participation. So maybe we should just continue along this same path and exacerbate the situation, right? Common sense has to prevail at some point and it sounds like the powers that be have at least acknowledged the issue.

I think many developers asked the architects to build a courses more suitable to the 1% of golfers, as opposed to the 99%.

Sean2 · June 26, 2017

There is soooooo much argument from presumption going on here I don't know how anyone can take any of this seriously anymore.

Here is an interesting stat. Only one (DJ) of the 10 longest drivers is also in the top 20 in scoring average. And only four of the 20 longest drivers are in the top 20 in scoring average. Four golfers ranked 85th or worse in driving distance are in the top twenty in scoring.

Hello Mike Davis..... read the stats!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which goes to show you don't have to be long, only long enough. Last week's tournament played at just over 6800, the US Open played at I think around 7700, yet the longer course had the lower winning score.

new2g0lf · June 26, 2017

Davis seems more concerned about being aligned with Jack regarding a ball rollback than he is about what's best for the game. Equipment is at it's theoretical max right now, so let's focus on making courses more difficult for the long hitters.

tannyhoban · June 26, 2017

Look at it a different way. If this issue had been nipped in the bud, all of the courses that were built over the last 20 years would have been 6500 yards and not 7200. The result would have been cheaper greens fees and increased participation. Instead, we've had inordinately increased greens fees and reduced participation. Not complicated. Golf as a whole would be much better off if the USGA would have tackled this issue decades ago instead of now.

To continue down this current path would be ludicrous given what we know the consequences are. I give the USGA credit for at least acknowledging the obvious, albeit late in the game.

Its done. Unless you have a time machine. Been said before here but length alone is not requisite to test tour pros. Lengthening the courses are purely a course prerogative. Harbour Town?