[Tim Pitner]

This past fall, my parents were visiting me in Denver and I brought my mom to play Wellshire one morning (mom, not dad, is the golfing parent in my family).  I chose Wellshire because it's close to my house and it's similar to Midwestern courses, with which my mom is familiar.

To my surprise, I realized that Wellshire is not at all a friendly course to women.  In many instances, they simply placed the women's tee markers 10 yards ahead of the regular men's tees and called the hole a par 5 (or a par 4 instead of a 3).  I think the card for women says it's a par 76.  My mom's a pretty good player, but the length was too much.  I don't blame her--I wouldn't particularly want to play a par 76.  

My question is this:  would Ross or whoever designed or built Wellshire have put in women's tee pads?  Were these taken out or did they never exist?  How did the Golden Age architects handle women's tees?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

A lot of the old classics were 5700 yards par 76 for women to start with.  I guarantee you they haven't taken any tees out, they just never put the forward tees in when the country clubs did.

[PThomas]

was playing the other day when a course had those stupid women tees only 10 yards ahead...

...made me think that if I was a woman - like the one I was playing with - I'd just march down the fairway and stick a peg in the ground in the fairway 50 or 75 or whatever yards ahead

that seems to make so much sense to me, but I've never seen it done

[Jeff_Brauer]

It is instructive to go around a course with a decent woman player and see just how poorly most forward tees are laid out for their games.  I have seen them behind trees, itting into slopes, at poor angles, across from the cart path, etc.

So yes, I have to assume these were all after thoughts, except that there was no thought put into them at all.  In some cases, its seems like bitter men went out of their way to make sure they were horrible!

[Shane Sullivan]

In my experience part of the problem is this idea of "women's" tees.  I have played many times with men who would benefit from moving forward a set of tees but of course they would not consider it because they are "women's" tees.

My most enjoyable golfing experience was at Barnbougle Dunes.  There are no specific tees based on gender.  Instead, in the proshop you tell them your average score and they recommend a set of tees.  You only get the score card for those tees but I think that it says players are encouraged to play from any tee box which captures their interest.

Another problem I have found is that quite often the front tees are just that - in front.  Sometimes moving the angle, elevation etc can make a huge difference.

I also find that there are few short par fives or short par fours.  Less of the variation in length that there is from the back tees.  Consequently my game becomes less strategic and more a case of hit it as far as possible - then hit it as far as possible again.

I have occasionally played back a set of tees for variation.  Perhaps some men out there might benefit from moving forward to the front tees for a round - I don't imagine it would take much to gain an appreciation of how small changes to the tee box positioning could improve enjoyment.

[Dan Kelly]

It is instructive to go around a course with a decent woman player and see just how poorly most forward tees are laid out for their games.  I have seen them behind trees, itting into slopes, at poor angles, across from the cart path, etc.

My daughter's No. 1 pet peeve. She says that a lot of tees are like those Jeff describes.

Last summer, she was playing in a tournament up north. Came to a straight-away par-4 where the architect (or some greens committee, or someone) had placed the women's tee 40 or 50 yards ahead of the men's tees -- and about 30 yards to the right (to keep the women out of the way as the men teed off?).

The result was that the women were aimed directly at a big tree at the right edge of the fairway. Rose hit a pure drive right down the middle of the fairway -- but at the right-to-left angle to the fairway that the women's tee established, her ball landed on down-to-the-left sideslope and bounded into the woods. She never found it. She wasn't happy, walking back to the tee.

[Adam Sherer]

Whether its a wife, girlfriend, mom, sister, daughter, whatever, we all have someone that makes us realize that women's tees are largely assonine (in their design, placement, and fairness).

It is an issue that will need to be addressed, especially to keep women interested in the game. Women are an increasing percentage in the golfing population and as such their abilities (and pride) should be acknowledged.

A question: Is there any course that has a women's tee behind a men's tee?  (ie a par 5 for women @ 430 - 460 yards and a par 4 for men @ 400 - 420 yards, where women would tee off first?) Did I explain that well enough?

[Shane Sullivan]

A few times in Australia I have played holes where the ladies tee is behind the mens tee and the par has been increased.  I don't mind it although it usually leads to debate regarding strokes if I am playing against my husband in a match (not fair to get a stroke if it is a low index hole and have a different par).  

There is a par four for the ladies at Newcastle Golf Course which is a par three for the men.  I love it - it's a real risk reward hole - a short par four.  However, I always seem to make a mess of it - the pressure of expecting to make an easy par I guess.

As a sidebar - I would ask that men consider the women they play golf with.  I almost never get to have the honour even if I have earned it.  If it will not slow down play - consider giving lady golfers the honour if they have earned it.

[Adam Sherer]

As a sidebar - I would ask that men consider the women they play golf with.  I almost never get to have the honour even if I have earned it.  If it will not slow down play - consider giving lady golfers the honour if they have earned it.

That is kind of what I was thinking with the women's tee behind mens tee question.  I think that women would appreciate the honor of teeing off first and men would begin to admire the "forward" tees.

[Bill_McBride]

As a sidebar - I would ask that men consider the women they play golf with.  I almost never get to have the honour even if I have earned it.  If it will not slow down play - consider giving lady golfers the honour if they have earned it.

That is kind of what I was thinking with the women's tee behind mens tee question.  I think that women would appreciate the honor of teeing off first and men would begin to admire the "forward" tees.

#16 at La Cumbre CC in Santa Barbara (G. Thomas 1928 with many revisions) is 420 par 4 for the men and 425 par 5 for the ladies, off the same tee with the ladies first.  It's a good way to play the hole, which is uphill with a blind shot into a green in a valley.

Not sure I've ever seen that anywhere else.

[JSlonis]

During the recent restoration project at my club, the most opposition and difficulty we ran across was trying to create new women's/forward tees.

Even though it was clearly pointed out that the course was extremely long for the women members, they were very opposed to the addition of more proper tees.  

With the equivalent yardages taken into account, we explained that the women are playing a course that would equal about 8000 yards for the average man.

Based on the opposition, apparently the majority of women at our club enjoy hitting drivers into the par 3's and rarely if ever reaching a green in regulation.  I don't get it.

[Rick Shefchik]

Shane is exactly right -- the first thing we need to do is eliminate the concept of "women's tees." I know that "forward tees" does not come easily to the lips of those of us who have been playing the game for 30 years or more, but that's what they are, and that's what they should be called. Or maybe use a simple numbering system -- first tee, second tee, third tee, etc., depending on how many tee boxes a course offers.

And once we eliminate the stigma of the forward tees, we've got to place them in better spots, as Jeff and Dan suggest. I've played hundreds of rounds with my wife, who doesn't gladly suffer the forced hook around a tree 100 yards in front of her tee. In almost all cases, a course would be better off merely positioning the forward tee ahead of the middle and back tees, rather than off to the side, but on many courses they are indeed tucked out of the way, almost as though male golfers didn't want to see the forward tees or the people who played them.

I grew up playing Northland Country club in Duluth, Minn., and I learned the game from the forward tees that Donald Ross designed. He put the forward tees a good 60 or 70 yards ahead -- and on the far side of the creek valleys that had to be crossed -- but on the same playing lines as the back tees. It worked then, and it should still work today.

[Ryan Farrow]

How about a tee in the fairway?

I noticed this at the Valley club on number 9 and I don't understand why this is not done more often, maybe I am missing something?

As long as the fairway is flat would anyone really be against this? I would rather see tee markers in the fairway than a 5th set of tees.

Here is what I am talking about, can you find the tee box?

























































O..... here it is:







I really don't understand why 3 sets of tees can not accommodate every skill level of golfer as long as the architect puts some thought into his tee placements. Is there a lot of demand from clients to add 4+ sets of tees because that is the norm and how we are supposed to make the game playable for everyone?

[Tim Pitner]

I've played enough golf with women to know that you guys are absolutely right--the placement (as well as conditioning, often) of most women's tees is atrocious.  

In addition to the length, what made me feel bad for my mom at Wellshire was the sameness of the holes.  She (in her 60s, but no bunter of the ball) was hitting woods into every par 4, not typical for her.  And, after so many repetitive long par 4s, what did she have to look forward to?--a par 5 where she could hit 3 woods.  

What's a good solution to the issue when the tee pads aren't long enough to put the women's tees there?  Sticking them off in a corner doesn't work well.  On the fairway isn't a bad idea.  Any other thoughts?

[TEPaul]

"Based on the opposition, apparently the majority of women at our club enjoy hitting drivers into the par 3's and rarely if ever reaching a green in regulation.    I don't get it."

Jamie:

If that's true that your women's tees play for your women members like an 8,000yd course for good men, and your women members actually like that kind of thing and oppose a shorter more reasonable course, that situation (preference) really does need to be looked into very carefully as to what it means!!

I'm certainly not denying they feel that way because we apparently found somewhat the same thing at GMGC. We created a number of shorter tees recently to address the concern that the course was too long for some women members. I've heard a number of them complain that made the course too easy for them.

Of course my first reaction was to tell the ones who complained to just play the longer women's tees but perhaps they feel the distance differential is too great. Or perhaps they are thinking of something else entirely of which we may not be aware.  

However, if they really do enjoy playing a course that is seemingly too long for them, perhaps we need to take a much closer look at what the whole idea of playing to a green in "regulation" means.

I do know that the theoretical "bogey" male golfer is assumed to hit a drive 200 yards and only capable (distance-wise) of reaching a 370 yard par 4 in two shots. Obviously there is the same theoretical distance guidelines for women in a rating sense. And we can't deny that in various handicap brackets the distance players are capable of hitting a golf ball varies tremendously. We also can't deny that all tees are rated for both the scratch and bogey player (at least I think they are).

So perhaps women or some portion of them are not even supposed to reach their par holes in what we consider to be a regulation number of shots.

It seems to me that something is seriously falling through the cracks here.

All I can think of is various women over time have gotten used to playing golf in a certain way and maybe for them that now includes not being able to reach some holes in what WE think is "regulation". I realize that's hard to believe and seems counter-intuitive to us but how else can it be explained if they really do oppose a course length that allows them to hit more greens in fewer shots, at least potentially distance-wise?

[Matt_Sullivan]

"All I can think of is various women over time have gotten used to playing golf in a certain way and maybe for them that now includes not being able to reach some holes in what WE think is "regulation". I realize that's hard to believe and seems counter-intuitive to us but how else can it be explained if they really do oppose a course length that allows them to hit more greens in fewer shots, at least potentially distance-wise?"

I think there is a lot of truth in this. Without trying to sound ageist and sexist, it is often the long term more elderly lady members who have this view, which is even more perverse since they presumably have most to gain!

However, in China, and to some extent in Asia generally, the high handicap husband is forcing the women back even from the red tees. At our club in Beiijing the women are required to play all medal and other comp events from the white tees (6100 yards or so) rather than the front tees (5300 yards or so) because the 20 handicap husband, who insits on playing from the plates, doesn't like being outdriven by his wife! It's a question of face and all that. This is not a surmise on my part either. When my wife enquired as to why she had to play the medal from the whites, this was the official reply!

Sometimes everybody loses because of the male ego!

[Matt_Sullivan]

BTW, the hole at Newcastle that my wife refers to above (long par 3 for men, short par 4 for women) is the third. Any Newcastle members around? It's a great hole, 240 yards or so for men and women from an elevated tee. The shortest part 4 my wife has ever played and the longest par 3 I have ever played. And great fun for both of us just for that reason!

[Rob_Waldron]

Jumbo Shrimp, Government Intelligence, Womens Golf. The one thing these phrases have in common is that it is not worth your while to attempt to understand them.

During discussions with Bill Love about the masterplan at my club the concept of repositioning the womens tees to a length where more than .00001% of the women could reach several of the par 4's in regulation was brought up for discussion. There was overwhelming opposition from the women. Wait it gets better. The reasoning was that if the holes were shortened the course rating would go down and their handicaps would go down. Have you ever heard anything so stupid???

There is no discussing the issue with these women either. They have their owned warped logic. We tried to explain that since their handicaps were based on the relationship between their scores and the course rating there should be no impact on their handicaps. This concept cannot be rationalized by a woman.

Getting back to the womens tees. Most courses are designed from the womens tees because there are not enough women players to justify the expense. It is unfortunate that there are not more women golfers. However it is a fact that women make up a miniscule portion of rounds played. It is very difficult economically for a golf course operator to cater to such a minority of his customer base.

 

[Dan Kelly]

... it is a fact that women make up a miniscule portion of rounds played. It is very difficult economically for a golf course operator to cater to such a minority of his customer base.

Maybe, just maybe, if golf-course operators "catered to" this minuscule minority by making their courses more fun for that minuscule minority to play (even over their initial objections), they would find this part of their customer base growing?

And maybe, along with the women, more seniors and young golfers would find their courses more attractive?

Doesn't seem there's much future in catering exclusively to men of certain ages.

[Tony Ristola]

Quoting Rob:
"The reasoning was that if the holes were shortened the course rating would go down and their handicaps would go down. Have you ever heard anything so stupid???

There is no discussing the issue with these women either. They have their owned warped logic. We tried to explain that since their handicaps were based on the relationship between their scores and the course rating there should be no impact on their handicaps. This concept cannot be rationalized by a woman."

Rob, this is a common challenge I've had with developers on the continent. One board member of a club wrote an article in a national magazine taking a swipe at me for not following the German Golf Association rules for the placement of Ladies Tees. They had a "12% Rule" saying the women's tees should be 12% shorter than the men's tees. Result, some of these tracks have enough length to host a women's US Open, and tons could host the US Am. Luckily at the club where the nice board member wrote the article, I got to build all but three forward tees where I wanted. They pulled out their calculators (and they did) too late.

The 12% Rule (12% shorter than the Men's tee) created a little friction between myself and the board, and then, before the course opened, the German association altered the 12% Rule, but still had a recommendation. They simply don't understand there is no recommendation except for what the architect deems optimal. So, in the eyes of the board I wasn't quite the villian. It did motivate me to write a few articles explaining the placement of forward tees and taking on the DGV (German Association). Now to get developers to understand that plans aren't everything.

Many here still have a thing here about getting the course ratings to match par, and to have the women's rating as close to the men's as possible. They use the rating as a measure of worth, instead of as a tool to calculate a fair handicap. The joys of dealing in a pioneer land.

[Rob_Waldron]

Dan

I take my wife to a nice resort in Hawaii. The price tag for golf is $275.00 per player. I ask her (25+ handicap) if she wants to play golf or take the $275 and go shopping. There is only one answer....shopping. Why bother?

The majority of women golfers (the few that there are) do not have nearly the passion for the game that men do. I would rather try to get an extra round or two from an avid male golfer who will bring three buddies than try to create a warm and fuzzy atmosphere for a minority who aggrevate my core customers.

Many women are accused of playing slow. You would play so too if you shot 135 and could not reach any holes in regulation. The solution is to put a set of tee patios at 4,700 yards and let the women have at it.

[Dan Kelly]

I take my wife to a nice resort in Hawaii. The price tag for golf is $275.00 per player. I ask her (25+ handicap) if she wants to play golf or take the $275 and go shopping. There is only one answer....shopping. Why bother?

Rob --

Why bother with WHAT? Trying to make it more pleasurable for a woman to spend an insane amount of money on a round of golf?

I'd probably go shopping, too -- especially if I knew that my husband didn't particularly care that the course to which I was handing an insane amount of money didn't particularly care if it gave me the best possible experience for my insane amount of money.

The majority of women golfers (the few that there are) do not have nearly the passion for the game that men do.

A classic case of blaming the victim.

And an absolutely dead-end way of thinking.

What I'm saying, in case it's not clear, is that fewer women have the passion for golf BECAUSE they're an afterthought -- if they're a thought at all.

Would YOU develop a passion for an activity in which YOU were an afterthought, at best?

I would rather try to get an extra round or two from an avid male golfer who will bring three buddies than try to create a warm and fuzzy atmosphere for a minority who aggrevate my core customers.

No need to be insulting, Rob. I haven't heard anyone suggest that "warm and fuzzy" is what we want.

We're talking about reasonable architecture for women (and seniors, and kids -- in case you missed that point). We're talking about putting tees, especially, where they belong.

You would play so too if you shot 135 and could not reach any holes in regulation. The solution is to put a set of tee patios at 4,700 yards and let the women have at it.

I don't know what you mean by "patios" -- but 4,700 yards might be a good distance, to help increase the number of women (and seniors, and kids) with a passion for golf.

-------------

To all: Am I alone here? If you think I'm nuts, say so.

[Mark Pearce]

Dan

I take my wife to a nice resort in Hawaii. The price tag for golf is $275.00 per player. I ask her (25+ handicap) if she wants to play golf or take the $275 and go shopping. There is only one answer....shopping. Why bother?

The majority of women golfers (the few that there are) do not have nearly the passion for the game that men do. I would rather try to get an extra round or two from an avid male golfer who will bring three buddies than try to create a warm and fuzzy atmosphere for a minority who aggrevate my core customers.

Many women are accused of playing slow. You would play so too if you shot 135 and could not reach any holes in regulation. The solution is to put a set of tee patios at 4,700 yards and let the women have at it.

I'd like to show my wife that quote and lock you in a room with her.Only one of you's coming out aliveand I don't rate your chances.

Seriously, my wife grew up in Scotland and has played golf since her father thought he could safely leave her with the pro while he sneaked off.  I didn't play golf until we met, it was her who got meintothe game.  Having kids may have lessened the amount she plays but she's still keen and competitive.

Back in 1992 when I was still very much a beginner, her father took us to play at Muirfield the week after the Open.  At that time Lorna was a low teens handicap and she has always been reasonably long for a woman golfer (even back then before thin titanium faces she drove well over 200 yards, albeit with a low, running trajectory).  Muirfield didn't have women's tees at all back then and the tee boxes hadn't been moved up from where the pros had played.  There were several holes where none of us could make the carry to the fairway.  A couple of years later we went back, still noladies tees and still a few holes where the carry to the fairway was simply impossible for her.

Muirfield aside I suspect most Scottish clubs have sensible ladies tess, though that's for ladies who are golfers.  Lorna would no more want to play a course that's 4000 yards long with no par 4s over 300 yards than I would.

[Paul Payne]

Dan,

No, I happen to think you are right on. In fact I am kind of suprised by some of the responses you are getting.

I for one have an only child, a daughter, and I have tried to encourage her to play golf just because it is a FUN thing to do together. I would hate to see her discouraged in the future simply because there is an underlying sentiment that this was meant to be mens game only. I like to cook too you know.

Also, I have played with women who are single handicappers from the white tees and men who suck! I don't think you could differentiate talent by sex, I would believe it has far mor to do with experience.

I am not understanding why as a business a golf course would overtly exclude a large part of the population as potential clients. I would think that women would enjoy playing in foursomes as much as men and could get really pissed off by the slow playing, for-ever-putt-aligning mens nassau ahead of them. As they should.

I would look at this as not just a womens tee issue but a high handicap issue. The biggest barrier to getting people into the game is giving them a comfortable way to gain the experience they need to become a good golfer, man or woman.

[Cassandra Burns]

During the recent restoration project at my club, the most opposition and difficulty we ran across was trying to create new women's/forward tees.

Even though it was clearly pointed out that the course was extremely long for the women members, they were very opposed to the addition of more proper tees.  

With the equivalent yardages taken into account, we explained that the women are playing a course that would equal about 8000 yards for the average man.

Based on the opposition, apparently the majority of women at our club enjoy hitting drivers into the par 3's and rarely if ever reaching a green in regulation.  I don't get it.

Many women have gotten used to playing fairway woods, and have gotten quite good at it.  That is, it's a more predictable shot than her wretched six-iron - so guess which shot makes for better strategizing?  Strategy is near to impossible without a consistent shot!  Plus, it's always fun to see the ball go as far as you can hit it, so fairway woods are more fun than irons in the long run.  Finally, fairway woods are more likely to skip through a bunker.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()