[George Pazin]

I've been thinking about this one for a loooooooooooooong time (see Matt, I can talk like you! ).

I've never been a fan of the 4, 5, 6 tee monstrosities that have become commonplace. I can understand the desire for 3 (though I still don't like it) - ladies, member, tourney - but even then, I'm not really a fan.

Why?

I think it really truly deeply misunderstands and mischaracterizes the game of golf. Is there really such thing as a typical scratch golfer? Pro? 10 handicapper? 20 handicapper?

I'm not nearly as widely experienced as most on here - haven't done the heavy lifting! on the golf course, anyway - but in my experience, I have met many many many different types of golfers - short hitting low handicappers, long hitting wild guys, and just about everything in between.

So I ask further: Is it even helpful or meaningful to have ideas in mind regarding stereotypical golfers?

I say no, what say you?

If you say yes, please elaborate with what your specific ideas of these guys are!

[Garland Bayley]

...
So I ask further: Is it even helpful or meaningful to have ideas in mind regarding stereotypical golfers?
...

Yes. Low handicappers play waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooooooooo slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.












 

[Kyle Harris]

George:

This has some potential to open new avenues of discussion that aren't much explored anymore.

For example, the concept of strokes used as currency for the game, spent for this concept of score.
Furthermore, the archetypes of golfer can very much be defined by the amount of tees. Imagine a golf course designed for flexibility and two sets of tees. Forced carries would be minimalized one would hope!

There is also a psychological aspect to the game, especially when one considers the feeling of playing the furthest set of tees forward.

[JMEvensky]

So I ask further: Is it even helpful or meaningful to have ideas in mind regarding stereotypical golfers?

This thread has good possibilities.

With respect to design,I think I agree with your premise with one exception.I think the closest thing to a common denominator is interesting greens.In my experience,the overwhelming majority of golfers like them--irrespective of ability.

Maybe one could make the argument that multiple tee boxes have had the unintended consequence of making golf more splintered.That can't be a good outcome.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Short hitting scratch golfers are atypical, long hitting wild guys are more typical, but everyone wants to feel that the designers had them in mind when they laid out the course.

If I owned my own public access course I might have a few sets of tees, including a way-back set, but I'd charge a few dollars more to play back there and a few dollars less to play up front.

[JESII]

George,

Inside a bubble, or GCA.com, I agree.

But in reality, I personally would hate to play a hole that took me 5 shots to reach the green just as much as I would hate driving it right next to every green I played. So how do we solve the issue of such vast differences in the distances people can hit the ball? I don't think a rollback solves it...I think it's people's perspective/expectations.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

Inside a bubble, or GCA.com, I agree.

But in reality, I personally would hate to play a hole that took me 5 shots to reach the green just as much as I would hate driving it right next to every green I played. So how do we solve the issue of such vast differences in the distances people can hit the ball? I don't think a rollback solves it...I think it's people's perspective/expectations.

Jim:

Why does that matter?

How would you design for a one or two tee system to ameliorate this problem?

[JESII]

Why does what matter?

I think the best set up would be for me to play a course that's a little too short to feel fully challenged and for higher handicaps to feel like it's a little too long, but not penal at all. Gulph Mills with wider fairways!

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

[Kyle Harris]

Why does what matter?

I think the best set up would be for me to play a course that's a little too short to feel fully challenged and for higher handicaps to feel like it's a little too long, but not penal at all. Gulph Mills with wider fairways!

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

Nevermind. I think we're in agreement then based on your last statement.

[Jason Topp]

I think Jeff Brauer has some data on this issue.  My recollection is that golfers do generally group into specific categories regarding how far they hit the ball.

[Phil McDade]

George:

This is a distinctly American question.

I was struck, on my trip to Scotland several years ago, how few tees boxes there are on most courses. But the game is often played differently there. Match play is much more common -- and has been, for centuries -- and thus the need for multiple tee boxes seems redundant. Multiple tee boxes commonly found on many American courses is reflective of a game played here that's fairly obsessed with individual scores, handicaps, and playing a course that "challenges" your game.

As a friend and I both recently agreed, I enjoy the game much more now that I don't care about my score.

[Jud_T]

George:

This is a distinctly American question.

I was struck, on my trip to Scotland several years ago, how few tees boxes there are on most courses. But the game is often played differently there. Match play is much more common -- and has been, for centuries -- and thus the need for multiple tee boxes seems redundant. Multiple tee boxes commonly found on many American courses is reflective of a game played here that's fairly obsessed with individual scores, handicaps, and playing a course that "challenges" your game.

As a friend and I both recently agreed, I enjoy the game much more now that I don't care about my score.

Ding, ding ding....we have a winner!

[Brent Hutto]

Another factor that renders "a tee for every golfer" moot is...all together now...wind. If a "two-shot" hole might be drivable on a severely downwind day and barely reachable in three shots on the next day when the wind switches direction, who's going to quibble about having to play a set of tees that 30 yards longer or shorter than their preference?

[JESII]

That's alot of wind...

[Brent Hutto]

Well I would say it was based on my last (windy) trip to England except it never really changed direction. Five days of basically the same wind. But yes, I am talking about 99th-percentile type winds and not a realistic scenario.

I think my point scales, though. I know if my home course had the kind of winds that are normal on the Kent coast we could lose one a couple of our four sets of tees and it would matter very little.

[Dan Boerger]

This is a great topic. I'll add a different angle.

It would be a never ending quest to find the "stereotypical" golfer. It would also, for the most part, be a silly and academic endeavor [IMO]. There's a wide spectrum out there, particularly in these United States. Many years ago my statistics professor would point out that if your head were in the oven and your feet in the freezer, you would be mighty uncomfortable although the average temperature would appear reasonable.

What is important -- save that, absolutely necessary -- is for any golf course or enterprise to attract enough golfers to their facility to make it a profitable, ongoing concern. An example: Here is Delaware County, Pennsylvania are clubs like Aronimink and Rolling Green, which do well in attracting and retaining avid golfers seeking a private golf experience. Also here is Old Masters, a driving range with a number of holes you can play at a very attractive price. It always looks busy to me. There's probably not a lot of overlap among the regular patrons of these places, but there's certainly room for both.

[Tom_Doak]

As always, men golfers focus too much on the subject of length.

Women golfers are entirely different animals.  They may not hit the ball very far, but nearly all of them hit it on a string ... they could hit it through a ten-yard wide pinched opening, which practically no man can do with regularity.  They don't care much about the wide fairways common to my courses, but they benefit immensely from firm and fast conditions which allow short drives to roll out further than normal ... I've had women tell me they shot their best career round at Pacific Dunes by 5 strokes or more!

Even at the level of Tour players, different golfers have very different games.  Think Lee Trevino, Mike Reid, John Daly, Bobby Locke, Dustin Johnson ... those guys had very little in common, other than the capacity to shoot low scores.

[JESII]

Brent,

There were holes that could be nearly driveable with the wind and barely reachable IN THREE into the wind? Three or two shots?

When I played there it was as much wind as I've ever played in...2 iron and punch 6 iron onto the 14th hole at Sandwhich...but still can't imagine a flip like you describe.

[Jud_T]

It's true that you get the scrappy scratch player who is only average length but is deadly inside 100 yards as well as the bomb and gouge crowd.  I never fully understood the generalizations about bogey golfers hitting it 220, 10 hdcp hitting it 250, scratch 275, etc....

[Brent Hutto]

The fourteenth at Sandwich is probably as good an example as any. And it illustrates that I am indeed exaggerating the "fliip" that can come from wind direction. The asst. pro I played with (on a very downwind day) played it driver and something like a 9-iron or pitching wedge. If I recall correctly he hit wedge and didn't get a big enough bounce, should have taken 9-iron. During the Amateur I watched in 2006 the players were coming up short with driver, 2-iron into the wind. But their third shots were just punched wedges and such from maybe 100 yards out.

My exaggeration may be due to my recollections of irredeemably hitting banana balls up into the wind on the day I played with Jamie Barber at Princes. My first day there and the windiest day of the trip. Sliced driver, sliced hybrid, sliced hybrid was indeed coming up well short of the Par 4 greens into the wind but that says more about my swing than the way the holes were truly playing. I managed to lose the slice by the fifth day but on the sixth day I was on the plane coming home. Sigh.

[George Pazin]

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

Do you really find many high handicappers who feel they should reach greens in regulation? I sure don't. I find, as a general rule, high handicappers have fewer expectations than all other categories combined. Most of us realize the problem is the Indian, not the arrow!

[George Pazin]

Even at the level of Tour players, different golfers have very different games.  Think Lee Trevino, Mike Reid, John Daly, Bobby Locke, Dustin Johnson ... those guys had very little in common, other than the capacity to shoot low scores.

This is a big part of my reasoning. If Corey Pavin and Dustin Johnson have to play the same course, why shouldn't Matt & I?

 

[JESII]

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

Do you really find many high handicappers who feel they should reach greens in regulation? I sure don't. I find, as a general rule, high handicappers have fewer expectations than all other categories combined. Most of us realize the problem is the Indian, not the arrow!

George,

I wasn't so much saying the high handicappers currently complain about reaching in regulation, I was speculating on their complaint about playing from my tees...the same way I was complaining (for myself) about having to play from their tees.

[Pete Lavallee]

This is a big part of my reasoning. If Corey Pavin and Dustin Johnson have to play the same course, why shouldn't Matt & I?
 

Well at one point in the Golden age they surely did! Just pick up one of the books from the Old Dead Guys that we revere and there are countless drawings of holes with but one tee. The paths are mapped for the A, B, C & D player to follow; with the A player challanging the hazards and by virtue of his boldness reeping the reward of a better angle or not having to play directly over a greenside bunker. The D player would have to tack his way around the hazards and by skirting them costing himself strokes in the process. I've never seen a diagram of this nature which gave the C and D players a head start as it were.

My suspicion is that these types of holes are harder to design as more thought must be put in to make the hole play reasonably well for a very disparate group of players. I suspect that of the many well known courses Riviera would be a good example of this. I believe you and Matt could have a fair match there form the same tee, if you able to beg for enough strokes. But you would in essensce be playing two different courses; it would be expected that Matt would be hitting PW in and you would be hitting 5-7 iron. Didn't the problem really start when someone said: "George should be able to hit a PW into this hole too, because I've made the green receptive to only PW shots or better. Now we are forced to give you your head start to allow that to happen.

I say we blame RTJ; he started building greens protected by water. If the A player gets to hit a PW than it would be grossly unfair to expect a less skilled D player have to attack that green with a 3 wood. The  runway tee does more that spread wear and provide daily elasticity; it provides a false sense of equity. I would suspect that the people who are attracted to this web site would rather play the course with the alternate paths rather than the equitable we'll both hit 7 iron holes.

[George Pazin]

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

Do you really find many high handicappers who feel they should reach greens in regulation? I sure don't. I find, as a general rule, high handicappers have fewer expectations than all other categories combined. Most of us realize the problem is the Indian, not the arrow!

George,

I wasn't so much saying the high handicappers currently complain about reaching in regulation, I was speculating on their complaint about playing from my tees...the same way I was complaining (for myself) about having to play from their tees.

Your tees? Your tees are in Philadelphia, that's a par 2000 from Pittsburgh!

Good point, as always.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()