[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

You got exactly where I was going.  Thanks for fleshing it out.

Gotta get in the shower.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

What was once clearly defined, is now but a blur.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

What was once clearly defined, is now but a blur.

Patrick,

Garden City is pretty close to an architectural model for where I'm going with this.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

That's interesting.

GCGC has some well defined "landing areas" in that there's a degree of confinement presented by hazards.

Cross bunkering/roughs come into play on a good number of holes, defining the upper limits of the landing zone.

In other cases, fairways pinched by bunkers/roughs also define the "landing areas" for the prudent golfer.

On the short side, high rough and bunkers define the minimum borders for the "landing areas.

Flanking high rough and/or bunker define the lateral margins.

While the fairways are very generous, I'd agree that the "landing areas" are defined and/or confined to the degree that they tend to be finite rather than non-existant.

I think that presentation, that combination of architectural features has helped in terms of "resistance to scoring" since additional length ceases to be a desirable goal, thanks to the architectural impediments crafted 100 or so years ago.

I'd like to see the cross rough on # 17 grown a little higher to further define the "landing area".

If possible, I'd also like to see the 11th tee moved back 20 or so yards to assist in redefining the "landing area"

Stretching it a bit, holes # 1, 4, 5, 7,  8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17 seem to have their "landing areas" defined as well as limited when it comes to the long ball.

That's something you don't often see in golf courses, modern or old.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

If somehow some courses in the future decided to play everyone off the same markers as in the very old days I don't think that would mean courses that are not designed for that currently need a rethink. Theoretically the handicap system would just need to accomodate both somehow.

But trying something like that should be considered because if it worked once there's no real reason it couldn't be done again.

It seems to me too many in golf and architecture think everything should be an "either/or" situation. The fact is both could be done.

It would be pretty hard to handicap effectively if some holes required all players to play off the same markers and others didn't but frankly computerization today could actually handle even that, particularly if handicap posting was done via hole by hole posting. Essentially that hole by hole method could solve practically every single handicap problem there is right now.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

This kind of golf using one tee for all could be done but far more fairway area would obviously have to be used and obviously that would run up the cost. One tee might help offset that but nonetheless it would add maintenance cost.

And not to mention the problems topography and such would create trying to do this architecturally, both in a routing sense and otherwise.

Behr, by the way, did not really believe in using rough on his courses. He even said that if some golfer felt his best strategy was to hit the ball at right angles to the hole he should be able to.

Some say Behr's basic idea for his architecture was to only defend at the green-end against various approach angles.

Apparently he saw that this was the way many holes were at TOC and I think we all know this was something of the theme of what Bob Jones was trying to do at ANGC.

[paul cowley]

"Now, if you place three or four sets of tees all in a straight line (i.e. focusing on distance mainly), the good player from the back and the average player from the middle and the good or average woman/senior from the front are ALL called on to hit the same draw, or risk having a long approach shot left to a narrow green over a large bunker.  

In other words, the "character of the hole" stays intact/is the same for all three players; but it is a very difficult hole for the players who can't hit a long, controlled draw.  Of course, those players can always lay-up short and left of the green with their 2nd, and still have a chance for a chip and putt par (or an easy bogie); but it's simply a very hard hole for them...and MORE hard for them than it is for the good player playing from the back tees.  

On the other hand, if the architect doesn't line up straight the various tees in terms of distance only, but instead moves them progressively further in and further right, the "character of the hole" begins to change quite dramatically: the forward tees would not, for example, call for any kind of draw at all, and from that tee any element of "blindness" will have been removed from the golf hole. In this case, it seems to me that the hole becomes LESS hard for the average/short player than it does for the good player playing from the back; perhaps that test is more "commensurate" with the various skill levels, but the "character of the hole" is now certainly different for each of them."

Bravo Peter .......your intuition and inquiring mind has led you to the first half of the 'S' Curve of the three main Curves of Charm [actually the right hand 's' curve versus the left, or reverse 's' curve].

Since you are already halfway there, I want you to go back to the beginning, and imagine a slightly bending 's', with the tees on one end and the green on the other.

Now also imagine the tees arranged along this spine as you have already suggested.

Now also imagine a series of hazard along the left side of the midpoint of the spine. These could be sand or water or anything really......but the main thing is that they provide a 'cape' type challenge....of various difficulty...starting with the more severe from the rear tees, while progressively less as you move forward.

Now also imagine some form of hazard or challenge to the right side at the green at the end of the 's' spine [you are now beginning to feel vary sleepy]....but also imagine a an open front to this green, but remember that the centerline of the green is also aligned with the spine of the 's' curve, so it is really aligned on a slight diagonal when viewed from what ever landing area you happen to find yourself in.

Now imagine all the angles of play that occur from various points along the spine.

Now also imagine his 's' as a much more exaggerated one, with hazards along both sides of the spine [now I'm beginning to get very sleepy ].

That's enough for now....but if you want to explore this further on your own, just use the same analysis for the other two main Curves.....the 'C' and the 'J'.

Hope this helps......p ;)ul.  

[paul cowley]

.....but while you are at this, also imagine bunkering occurring along these spines in a random fashion....and also with only one tee [as TP has suggested] because it works as well, but with less options as with multiple teeing areas.

[paul cowley]

....and if you really want to explore this more [I percieve you as the persistent type ].....go out and find a topo map and try to make these images relate to an area on it that looks promising.

[Bradley Anderson]

As a veteren golf course superintendent I have seen a lot of golf played over the years and I can say that there are so many different kinds of golfers and so many different kinds of games being played out there.

From what I have observed there is no archetypal golfer. I don't know if that observation adds anything useful to this dialogue about randomness, but there you have it.

Another thing that I have observed is that often when a club remodels and modernizes itself against equipment length, the low handicap members continue to score well while many of the other members end up with a golf course that is too difficult to enjoy - unless they move to the forward tees, while the "real men" play the lengthened tees.

I just sometimes wonder if more randomness in design might actually serve to equalize the game and make it more interesting and fun than lenthening and shortening the playing field to a specific landing area, and arranging all of the hazards in relationship to the landing area.

Has any architect out there ever designed a truly random golf hole? I mean with hazards and contours that are there for no specific strategy. How cool would it be if someone actually tried that and it was declared afterwards to be ingenious.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley Anderson,

BINGO!  

How much fun can it be for a short hitter...whether a senior, a woman, a short-hitting man, a junior...to play on a course without hazards?  

About as much fun as going to the driving range.

Because...that's what we're largely designing for them today.

God bless his genius soul, but Tillinghast was wrong.   He called them "duffer's headaches", but the fact is that interesting challenges and hazards in the range of the normal duff that he or she must try to negotiate to tack their way to the hole are what make the game fun and make you want to try a shot repeated times.

I know I'm writing in seemingly unrelated bursts as time permits, but this thread is going exactly where I hoped it would, so please...carry on, gentlemen!  

[paul cowley]

Mike ....I don't think it is all that bland for the players you describe, at least not on our courses, as we get many compliments from those playing the more forward tees, and thanks for taking them into consideration....which is not an accident BTW.

On occasion I think some of our holes play best from the forward tees.

What might be a flanking hazard from the back, can become a carry hazard from the front as example.

[JC Jones]

Reading what Tom Paul wrote, Im relating this back to the fixation on Par.  At some point along the way we decided that the women/senior golfer was entitled to the same "par" as the male scratch player.

The less we become fixated on the number 72, the less of an issue having multiple tee boxes is.  With the handicap system, so what if a woman is a 24 if it takes her twice as many strokes as the male 12 to get to the green (math notwithstanding)?

Why cant we have one set of tees and have a player's handicap adjusted accordingly.  The only place this becomes an issue is in the case of the hole with the forced carry, which I think we should get rid of anyways.

just my thoughts.  not sure how to articulate them but when reading Tom Paul's remarks, somehow the fixation on par came to mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

JC,

You're absolutely right...it's the fixation on par that's a big part of the problem.

Today we seem to want to provide something akin to social promotion, or affirmative action, or even social engineering when it comes to delineating levels of golfer and then trying to bring them up to snuff by moving them forward...a "head start" if you will.

However, that makes no logical sense, and our courses that then attempt to build everything (including the concept of a socialistic, mutually-agreed-upon, communal "landing area") around this fallacial premise almost by definition fail to provide the most enjoyment to the most people.

[JC Jones]

JC,

You're absolutely right...it's the fixation on par that's a big part of the problem.

Today we seem to want to provide something akin to social promotion, or affirmative action, or even social engineering when it comes to delineating levels of golfer and then trying to bring them up to snuff by moving them forward...a "head start" if you will.

However, that makes no logical sense, and our courses that then attempt to build everything (including the concept of a socialistic, mutually-agreed-upon, communal "landing area") around this fallacial premise almost by definition fail to provide the most enjoyment to the most people.

I totally agree.  Its like Communist Golf Course Architecture.  

The handicap system was developed for a reason.  If you want to fix par at 72 because that is what the scratch golfer will shoot from a single set of tees, then fine.  But everyone's handicap will be based on that.  I'm sorry if you cant hit the ball 280, your handicap will reflect that.

But to design a course around a community landing area based upon average tee shots of the various handicaps is ridiculous.  It basically gives everyone the same shot to the green, which is fine, except the person who needs the extra 175 yards at the tee box, probably cant hit the same shot from 150 yards into the green that the person from the tips can.  So what then?  Multipe green sites?  one for every level of handicap?

One set of tees, like it or leave it or live with your handicap... even if it is a number you dont like.

[Brent Hutto]

OK, I'll stipulate that modern golfers place too much emphasis on the number "72" specifically and are slaves to their concept of "par" in general. Regrettable but I don't see it changing in my lifetime.

That said, there's a reason that for thousands of course built over hundreds of years the vast majority of golf holes are reachable by most golfers with one, two or three good shots. And of those, the ones either reachable or darned near reachable with two solid shots are by far the most common. To the best of my knowledge this state of affairs obtained even before the execrable raising of "par" to its current level of influence. I'd suggest that the game must be the most fun to the most people with at least a plurality of two-shot holes. I include for this argument the few holes that are just beyond two-shot range plus the ones that are three shots for most but reachable in two for the strongest players.

So putting a 130-yard driving woman 550 yards from the green and saying "Go ahead, hit it five times, you'll have that much more fun than the guys who get there in three shots" is most disingenuous. Think about the member's tees at your own home course. How many holes are legitimately "two-shotters" for someone who drives it 130 and hits approach shots 110? Probably only the one designated as "Par 3" and many of those would be hopelessly penal for a senior woman or even a short-hitting senior man or younger woman.

Same thing for one-shotters. Nobody I know would enjoy playing a course with not a single hole on which one can dream of making two with one shot and one putt. Those are some of the most fun and anticipated holes on most courses for a reason. It's because it's fun to contemplate a chance at an ace or a near-ace and tap-in birdie two.

So unless you're designing a course for a single class of players, I see some accomodation for wildly varying shot-length capabilities as a must. Now I agree completely that the trend that started a few decades back of having four, five or even six set of tee markers is nonsense. But at the very least a course needs one set of teeing grounds well forward of the set that will appeal to players who hit the ball more than 200 yards in the air.

P.S. Might I suggest the word "irregularity" rather than "randomness" as a desirable characteristic of the placement of bunkers and other hazards. With land of any topographical interest beyond the bare minimum, we certainly wish the architect free to take advantage of interesting ground features.

[Tom_Doak]

Hey, I'm not arguing about the over-use of multiple tees.  I think I'm on the record about that.  One of the things that's different about my designs is including long par-4 holes with some hazards placed (and greens contoured) for the many golfers who will have to play them as three-shotters.

Nor do I think that every hole needs to have the same strategy for every level of golfer.  That's silly -- not every golfer can hit the same shots, even if you give them a distance handicap.  My four-iron shot does not look like Jack Nicklaus' four-iron shot; and my mom's certainly didn't!

I think of a landing area as being about a sixty-yard strip.  That doesn't accommodate the shortest of hitters, and it doesn't really take into account the guys who drive it 330 yards, either -- but it's workable on all but the most undulating pieces of property.  if you want to accommodate those players, too, you need some separate tees for them.

PS to Brent:  I don't think anybody is really advocating building courses with just one set of tees.  However, I think that if more courses were designed so that the average player could get around from the back tees, those courses would be more interesting no matter which tee you played from on a particular day.

[JC Jones]

Hey, I'm not arguing about the over-use of multiple tees.  I think I'm on the record about that.  One of the things that's different about my designs is including long par-4 holes with some hazards placed (and greens contoured) for the many golfers who will have to play them as three-shotters.

Nor do I think that every hole needs to have the same strategy for every level of golfer.  That's silly -- not every golfer can hit the same shots, even if you give them a distance handicap.  My four-iron shot does not look like Jack Nicklaus' four-iron shot; and my mom's certainly didn't!

I think of a landing area as being about a sixty-yard strip.  That doesn't accommodate the shortest of hitters, and it doesn't really take into account the guys who drive it 330 yards, either -- but it's workable on all but the most undulating pieces of property.  if you want to accommodate those players, too, you need some separate tees for them.

But Tom,

If you dont put rough between the tee and the "landing area" and you dont have ridiculous forced carries, then we dont have to worry about 60 yard or 100 yard "landing areas," right?  Generally speaking, of course.

[Brent Hutto]

...However, I think that if more courses were designed so that the average player could get around from the back tees, those courses would be more interesting no matter which tee you played from on a particular day.

Now we're talking. As of last month's Buda Cup I have new mental model for this. I played three rounds from the visitor's tees at Alwoodley and one round from the next set back. Between the slightly longer distance and the way in which the angles are varied, it's like playing tee shots on two totally different courses. And even with my modest distance limitations the course was totally playable and fun from the back tees.

In fact, that's a backhanded argument for multiple sets of tees (by "multiple" I mean two or three, not half a dozen). For a member's course that may be played by some people more than 100 times a year being able to tee off at a different angle and/or distance is great. This past week I had to play five times around the "third nine" at my club because of a tournament using the main course. I played twice from the 3,250 yard tees and three time from the 3,000 yard ones plus I played a couple holes here and there from the short senior tees. I never got bored even hitting to the same greens and hole locations over and over and that's with a very modest difference in length.

[TEPaul]

There are a number of factors that have led me to consider the possibilities of all golfers trying to play from a single set of tees.

One of them was the suggestion of Shinnecock's long time green chairman (who we've gotten to know very well and who we consult with on the historical aspects of Flynn's Shinnecock) to play the course from the US Open tips just to see what would happen.

It was very interesting. I was always pretty short off the tee and have gotten shorter but he was amazed how the course allowed me (and us) to play our own best strategies regardless of such things as GIR.

The fact is most all the holes are designed in a way that allows a much shorter hitter to find his own best way around very nicely from even the Open tees. It's not exactly true of every hole (such as the 11th) but it's true of most of them. On the other hand if the club adds distance to most of the holes (as they have) there are certain holes which get to be what I call a "strategic disconnect" this way.

To me that's great architecture for a so-called championship golf course to allow shorter players to get around that well even if they are not playing many hole in GIR.

This factor of Shinnecock may be the primary reason why even if the course seems to be very hard to score on it at the same time appears to accomodate most everyone architecturally and this may be the reason so many suspect that somehow it may even be the "ideal" type of design and architecture.

For those of us who really study architecture if you want to know how a course like Shinnecock does this just analyze it carefully and you will see that the basic use of the "diagonal" is pretty much everywhere in all kinds of subtle ways.

[JC Jones]

There are a number of factors that have led me to consider the possibilities of all golfers trying to play from a single set of tees.

One of them was the suggestion of Shinnecock's long time green chairman (who we've gotten to know very well and who we consult with on the historical aspects of Flynn's Shinnecock) to play the course from the US Open tips just to see what would happen.

It was very interesting. I was always pretty short off the tee and have gotten shorter but he was amazed how the course allowed me (and us) to play our own best strategies regardless of such things as GIR.

The fact is most all the holes are designed in a way that allows a much shorter hitter to find his own best way around very nicely from even the Open tees. It's not exactly true of every hole (such as the 11th) but it's true of most of them. On the other hand if the club adds distance to most of the holes (as they have) there are certain holes which get to be what I call a "strategic disconnect" this way.

To me that's great architecture for a so-called championship golf course to allow shorter players to get around that well even if they are not playing many hole in GIR.

This factor of Shinnecock may be the primary reason why even if the course seems to be very hard to score on it at the same time appears to accomodate most everyone architecturally and this may be the reason so many suspect that somehow it may even be the "ideal" type of design and architecture.

For those of us who really study architecture if you want to know how a course like Shinnecock does this just analyze it carefully and you will see that the basic use of the "diagonal" is pretty much everywhere in all kinds of subtle ways.

Other than forced carries and the preconceived notion that there is a 2-putt built into every par, I see no reason not to play the course from the back tees, or the tees the course was designed "around/for."

[Brent Hutto]

Other than forced carries and the preconceived notion that there is a 2-putt built into every par, I see no reason not to play the course from the back tees, or the tees the course was designed "around/for."

You are presuming match play, no?

I can attest that in a strictly medal play situation (and to a lesser extent in Stableford) a player of limited ability can almost always find a particular set of tees that yields the best chance for an interesting game and/or a particular set giving one the best chance for success in that format.

Once again, while it's quite enlightening to have these discussions in the context of the purest form of the game the fact remains that golf course architecture (at least in the USA) generally must appeal to those engaged in stroke play as well.

[JC Jones]

Other than forced carries and the preconceived notion that there is a 2-putt built into every par, I see no reason not to play the course from the back tees, or the tees the course was designed "around/for."

You are presuming match play, no?

I can attest that in a strictly medal play situation (and to a lesser extent in Stableford) a player of limited ability can almost always find a particular set of tees that yields the best chance for an interesting game and/or a particular set giving one the best chance for success in that format.

Once again, while it's quite enlightening to have these discussions in the context of the purest form of the game the fact remains that golf course architecture (at least in the USA) generally must appeal to those engaged in stroke play as well.

I would include stroke play as well.  Play the course, however many strokes it takes you is your score.  For competition purposes or even for match play, your handicap will level the playing field, not the tee from which you play.

[Brent Hutto]

I would include stroke play as well.  Play the course, however many strokes it takes you is your score.  For competition purposes or even for match play, your handicap will level the playing field, not the tee from which you play.

Except it doesn't really work out that way. The handicap system can't work miracles. I play regularly with a fellow who has an 8.7 index, compiled from rounds played at anywhere from 6,200 to 6,700 yards. He hits 7, 8, 9 irons into most Par 4 greens when playing with me from the 6,250 yard tees and his course handicap is 10. I have a 18.5 index, compiled from rounds played at 5,700 to 6,300 yards. I hit anywhere from 5-iron to 5-wood into Par 4 greens, there are usually one or two Par 4's that aren't reachable in two with any club in my bag and my course handicap is 21.

Playing from those 6,250 yard tees he gives me 11 strokes and I can probably beat him at least half the time because so much of my handicap comes from double and triple bogeys. But if we were to play the course from 6,800 yards he will be giving me maybe one more stroke (higher slope rating) but now I can't reach but one or two of the Par 4's, I can't get to the Par 5's in three shots and I have to lay up on at least one of the Par 3's. But all it does to him is make him hit 4-irons and 5-irons into some greens and maybe lay up once a round on a really long Par 4.

The only way I'm going to play within a dozen strokes of him is if he has a bad day and hits the ball in the woods a few times. In match play maybe I can play my ass off and give him a game but in a stroke-play setting I'm going to end up shooting 105 to his high 80's and the game is over before it even starts. Of course I could go back and play all my handicap rounds from the Tiger tees at 7,000 yards and then play off the resulting 24 index. But then I'm going to be accused of sandbagging the first time I shoot 86 on a 6,200 yard course.

There's no way around the handicap system having built-in assumptions. Broadly speaking, one of those assumptions is that everyone will be playing some semblance of the same game. They only have two parameters to play with (course and slope ratings) and that doesn't admit the possiblity of accounting for rounds played in 60 strokes on a executive length course and 110 strokes on a brutally long one then mixing and matching those to produce a handicap useful in every situation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()