A Lengthy Discussion

Long has been the debate over the perceived push for longer courses or the accommodation thereof in the game.  Frankly, this turns into a much broader topic than should be attempted in one post, but let’s take a shot and see where this goes.

Where are we now on the whole issue of advanced technology and the effects in golf? Our prescriptive clubs, super shafts and Pro V1’s have left us all scratching our heads as to what to do. We have turned repeatedly to our governing bodies for help in the USGA and the R&A, and aside from some interesting research and predictable administrational responses, we have really not seen much advancement on the issue. 

As an architect I have witnessed a number of resulting problems firsthand, including developers and green chairmen composing their courses to accommodate longer flying shots to satisfy their claims of being valid modern tests or “championship worthy”. While in truth, most of them had better odds of winning the lotto!  In the late ‘90’s and early/mid ‘00’s we saw so much yearning for length, it was definitely vogue and frequently an act of one-upmanship for competing clubs.   The going formula was to sign on the most recognizable designer and then produce the best (longest) course, all in a flash effort to market and sell real estate and memberships as quickly and profitably as one could.  Perhaps they attracted a few members in the beginning, but the aftermath has left an abundance of courses that are too hard to play and too expensive to care for; many of which have now fallen from favor.

Maybe the improved equipment has helped the average player marginally with some length and consistency, but from what I have witnessed it seems that which was gained also resulted in a net loss in control. With newfound length, our errant shots now stray even wider off-line and wildly into harms way – sort of a loaded weapon for most of us!   That leaves the architect begging for more land with which to work, expensive land to address safety concerns where golf corridors are surrounded by home sites, not to mention enough space to avoid 18 identically straight holes.

We are now in the midst of an era where most golf facilities have been forced to find new ways to survive – by cutting their maintenance measures, staffs and means – and having to settle on a product presentation that is a compromise from the norm.  And maybe that will ultimately prove to be a good thing, but for now the waning memberships suggest otherwise.   Again, the whole mantra of length and advancement seems to have gotten us all in a bit of trouble.

Yet, I cannot help but to ponder really whom we are lengthening the courses for in the first place? The majority of players seem find abundant pleasure and enjoyment on a course between 6000 and 6500 yards… sometimes even shorter.  Are we really that naïve to think that professionals and the smallest facet of single digit handicaps have that much influence over our game, our courses and our enjoyment?  What has all that technology done for the sustainability of our courses? Heck, I can’t recall ever shunning an opportunity to play a course because it fell short of 7000 yards… in fact I am certain to have more enjoyment if they are not in that ilk.  They certainly tend to have more palatable green fees, not to mention more likeable traits.

The ASGCA has recently taken a hard stance in trying to communicate our collective need for facilities that are geared more for our enjoyment.  Today, being more accessible and more affordable is the trend.  Our golf courses should be geared toward attracting new players to the game, taking less time and having the ability to be more competitive with other recreational opportunities that lobby for our time and our discretionary dollars. Long, difficult courses certainly don’t seem to fit that recipe and or any practical application for the majority of golfers today.  Architects are actively promoting “bunny slope” facilities that can make good use of smaller land parcels and are but a fraction of the cost to develop and operate compared to the average 18-hole facility.  So far, it is slow to take hold on the development side.

The National Golf Foundation recently identified three dominant reasons why golf has flat-lined. “The common complaint these days is that golf is too expensive, too time-consuming, and simply too hard too play, “ says one industry expert. “You find a solution to these problems, and the game may begin growing again, It’s future may rely on what we learned in the past.”  The past… as in the 1930’s, when noted architect William Langford was writing articles advocating 6-hole courses with multiple tees to speed play and accommodate play for the average man.

Clearly, this becomes a broader topic than “length”, but it provides an indication of just how far off-line we have tipped as a recreational industry.

 Ponder this:

1. Stop adjusting courses to provide for unnecessary length. A few back tees are occasionally appropriate if justifiably studied and planned, but when you start moving the bunkers and features around and changing the original design intent, the course will never fit right again or be enjoyed as it was intended. And for whom are we lengthening? Less than 1% seems to be the going rate.
2. If we can’t get on track in controlling the advances in equipment, then why not at least handicap the pros by taking the tee peg away? Scotland’s Master Greenskeeper, Gordon Irvine, proposes to do just that… if the pros are in fact the greatest ball strikers in the world, then allow them to go about their work without the benefit of the tee.  That sort of gives a whole new perspective on hitting the driver off the deck…no?  And more importantly, we may be able keep courses the way they are and without having to rely on the longest venues for tournaments or constantly tweaking others for the same. I can see it already… the equipment manufacturers will be hard at work right away developing the new “deck driver” so the pros can regain their edge.
3. Embrace this period of scaling back and doing more with less.  Use it to become more efficient and more responsible.  Become more creative and welcome change.  Realize the values that are most important to people and golf. 
4. Golf is a great game, no matter how or where you play it.  Those with the ability should seriously consider the value of developing less traditional facilities or reopening old ones.  Re-launch the Mom and Pop courses and promote fun activities. They represent a more attainable economic return and are an attractive land use option.
5. If you have kids…. introduce them to golf.  Use the game as an opportunity to spend time together.  Explain the values of the game and how it can be enjoyed throughout their lives.  We need the next generation to be playing golf along with the proper facilities to facilitate their introduction.  If we don’t, I worry what golf may look like in 15 years.