Most people should be playing 5,500 yard courses with no rough.

[Tommo21]

Last months Golf World had a article by Mike Clayton a former touring pro and now course designer. He touches on something that hits bang on with my thinking.

This is the last bit in a very interesting article.

“I live in hope. Ultimately golf is fun, even if we seem to be making it less fun and more expensive. Pro golf on the TV is largely to blame. People watch that and think that is what their course should look like and how it should play. And they are wrong. Most people should be playing 5,500 yard courses with no rough. They’d have a lot more fun if they did.”

Okay, I’m up for a challenge, I joined Dunbar as it can be tough at times and it is at the end of my thoughts on how hard, and how long, a course should be….for my golf anyway. But I believe Clayton is right. Most of the guys at my two clubs who say they could extend this, they could extend there, are on the whole, bigger hitters and when I ask them why, they cant really answer apart from just wanting it longer.

 

[bluetoon]

I like this train of thought, i love shorter courses.

long courses have their place, but would love to see more short courses where you need to have a good think on the tee instead of smashing a driver.

Take Dalmahoy, they lengthened it and is now total poo.

 

[DelB]

Absolutely agree Tommo. Kilspindie, as an example, is a great fun course and it's only 5502 off the whites. :thup:

 

[The_ACE]

I agree with the fact that some courses should be shorter, but no rough sounds silly. One of the reasons I like golf is because of the challenge rough adds to that challenge. There are many goat tracks around with minimal rough and wide fairways, do i score well yes do I enjoy it as much as a championship course (or any other course for that matter) no. Its the variety of courses that also makes golf intresting no two holes are ever the same

 

[Tommo21]

Absolutely agree Tommo. Kilspindie, as an example, is a great fun course and it's only 5502 off the whites. :thup:

I've thought about there................played it years ago, a super little course.

 

[duncan mackie]

the answer lies in people using tees appropriate to their enjoyment - simple.

I wonder how many males have played their own course of the Red tees, let aone when visiting other courses on cold, wet, windy days?

In fairness to Dalmahoy they have 2 courses; one of which is just a little longer than the other! However, at the end of the day it's a good example because the changes were fundamentally made for the professional tournaments they wished to host - however they dressed up the arguments. IMO the new pair of holes do not have appropriate normal amateur tees relative to the rest of the course but are simply perfect for their intended use.

 

[wull]

i don't believe in having no rough but rough that is cut to a sensible length.courses like crieff are managed well and is almost impossible to lose a ball.it does make the round much better and easier to enjoy.

 

[joer422]

i think this would ruin golf in my opinion i love the challenge of hitting fairways and deciding to play over the trouble or drop it short thats what makes it fun and as for shorter courses, long hitters will feel like they are playing very little golf on a course only 5500yards

 

[JustOne]

I don't mind long or short courses, I can chop it round both! :angry:

I don't like 'tricking up a hole' for the sake of it but worse than that is what was touched on in earlier threads.. (crap bunkers and not cutting greens etc) it's about the quality not the quantity. Having more tees would be a great asset to most clubs who normally have not much more than a muddy patch of ground 12ft square.

I'm not a great fan of ponds that are only 10ft round either.. if you're going to make a pond make a flippin' pond not a puddle!

If the course has a ton of trees then you should allow a decent cut of rough, otherwise the penalty is too great for rolling off the fairway, in my opinion.

 

[timchump]

i much prefer longer courses,

really don't enjoy playing generic 330 yard par 4's over and over again, driver wedge, driver, wedge

like my par 4's to be around the 400 yard mark a good drive and mid iron normally,
its harder but so much more satisfying when scoring well

 

[JustOne]

Pathetic as it may sound I'd like wider fairways... but with the rough grown in more (and sculpted nicely!!!) like you see on tour... so you CAN rip it and yet be punished by rough rather than just losing a ball in the trees or OOB every time

 

[In_The_Rough]

Surely if the courses are shorter and there is no rough everybody will take Driver anyway as there is no penalty for errant shots

 

[Balti snr]

The length of the hole is often irrelevant, the position of hazards relative to the tee is more important. The ability to hit the ball further off the tee can often be counter-balanced simply by the addition of an extra bunker or narrowing the fairway at these distances.

 

[GB72]

Strategic placing of hazards is all you need. Compare my current course with the one I going to. My current course is longer but the lack of fairway bunkers etc means that it is driver off the tee every time and a sever advantage to the big hitter however wayward. Belton Park needs some more thought. My mate from Stoke played with me there the other week, took a driver off every tee and hit a fairway bunker on most holes. I varied my clubs and was shorter but on the fairway. Give me a course that involves thought and has a number of ways to play a hole than one that needs a booming drive off every tee.

 

[Iaing]

i don't believe in having no rough but rough that is cut to a sensible length.courses like crieff are managed well and is almost impossible to lose a ball.it does make the round much better and easier to enjoy.

Agree 100% with this. Not a lot of fun in losing golf balls. Will speed play up a bit too!!

 

[DelB]

Agree 100% with this. Not a lot of fun in losing golf balls. Will speed play up a bit too!!

Yep, being in the rough should be penalty enough without losing a ball and having to take that penalty too.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

There are some good short courses around. I agree that they don't need to be tricked up either and I'm another that would prefer some definition from fairway with a strip of semi and then rough. It doesn't have to be silly knee high stuff. Make it 2 or 3 inches but with the bal sinking to the bottom and it is possible to find it relatively easy (good for speed of play) but still makes it penal enough to cost at least half a shot (in terms of lost distance) if you find it

 

[jpenno]

Castle hawk in Rochdale has a fantastic short 18 hole course and a longer 9 hole course. 17 of the 18 are par 3's some of them reasonably long with various ditches and trees around, an accurate tee shot is required or you will quite quickly rack up a high score - it makes an interesting change to have to think about what to hit off every tee rather then just rocking up with the driver on 14 or 15 tees.

http://www.castlehawk.co.uk/course.html

 

[Yer Maw]

i much prefer longer courses,

really don't enjoy playing generic 330 yard par 4's over and over again, driver wedge, driver, wedge

like my par 4's to be around the 400 yard mark a good drive and mid iron normally,
its harder but so much more satisfying when scoring well

But thats just bad course design when it's drive and wedge. My course is a bit funny because on all the longer Par 4s they put bunkers both side of the fairway at 250yds and I'd prefer one side only but it does catch loads of fades or draws. I like shape and a variety of hazards not just bunkers. Not enough use of mounds, ridges and sculpted rough.

 

[JustOne]

Castle hawk in Rochdale has a fantastic short 18 hole course and a longer 9 hole course. 17 of the 18 are par 3's some of them reasonably long with various ditches and trees around, an accurate tee shot is required or you will quite quickly rack up a high score - it makes an interesting change to have to think about what to hit off every tee rather then just rocking up with the driver on 14 or 15 tees.

http://www.castlehawk.co.uk/course.html

Not my kind of course (well not 17 par 3's)... although the 8th on the 9 hole course must be quite easy at only 12yds