Should future courses be shorter?

Last month, I advocated moving from par 72 to par 70 to shorten courses. This month, I will go farther and propose that when golf course development resumes, most new golf courses should be vastly shorter.

Gut feel tells me that longer courses cost more to build and maintain and require more turf and water usage. Research presented by golf course architect Phil Ryan at the World Forum of Golf Architects in St. Andrews, Scotland, confirms my instinct. For 26 golf courses in the Melbourne, Australia area, the cost of maintaining the course increases by about 2 percent for each 100 meters of additional length, which is about the distance of two “extra” par-5 holes. 

But, if we started building even shorter courses, the savings would multiply. When money and water didn’t seem like a deterrent, developers touted 7,600-8,000 yard courses. The problem is, even most PGA Tour players have no chance to win and average golfers have no fun at all (the original goal of recreational golf, no?) on such long courses. Nearly 67,000 drives have exceeded 300 yards this year.

Since everyone focuses so much on the PGA Tour people actually over estimate the length of these players. Based on current Shot Link Data, only four Tour players average more than 300 yards for all tee shots and 300 yard plus tee shots account for less than 18 percent of the PGA Tour’s drives. However, golf fans think they are the norm. The mystery even Sherlock Holmes can’t unravel is why so much time is devoted to designing around today’s long hitters when they represent about .07 percent of all players, rounds and shots.