[Patrick_Mucci]

Architects, vis a vis multiple tees, can bring a common "drive zone" into play for all level of golfers.
Thus all golfers can challenge the same features/hazards

But, that's just where the dilema begins.

How can the architect present an approach that's equivalent for all level of golfers ?

The architect can present the identical challenge on the putting surface and at the green surrounds, but, how can they present the same challenge on the approach ?

Would a lower performance ball compress the game such that the seperation between players is more equivalent ?

[Bill Gayne]

The longer or stronger player will often default to the high shot all the way to the hole. The shorter or weaker player needs to have the ground game available to them to make up the difference.

[Philippe Binette]

Built a course with variety, let the players figure it out..

any architect who show up and says: they are going to hit here, then to that spot, set up the angle and then to that part of the green... he doesn't know what golf is about.

[JC Jones]

The longer or stronger player will often default to the high shot all the way to the hole. The shorter or weaker player needs to have the ground game available to them to make up the difference.

I'll tell you Bill, a great course that does exactly what you say is Hidden Creek.  That course is designed for firm conditions with every green being open on the front to a run up shot.  The member I played with is a short hitter that can really take advantage of the run up approach shot at Hidden Creek.

Pat,

I don't know if the architect can provide the EXACT same approach for each golfer on every hole but, what they can provide, are strategic and preferred angles of play that will make the approach easier for both the low and high handicapper if they execute their previous shot to take advantage of the preferred angle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC,

If the DZ is the same, how can an architect provide equivalent approaches ?

Won't the better player always have an enormous advantage ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick,

Your premise is wrong.  If I wanted to give the average player equivalent approach shots, I would need to move the tees up to where he could hit his drive PAST what you call the "landing zone" so he could have a shorter approach.  And that's easy enough to do ... to allow them to hit past the fairway bunkers if they hit it solid and straight (which they often don't).

You can also defend the greens fiercely on the longer par 4's and 5's so that the average guy can lay up and make the good player take on the risk if he wants to cash in his advantage.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Are we forgetting that the Tees are the first in a long line of weapons at the disposal of the designer or have they all become pacifists

Each Tee should offer the golfers options, but if he/she is blind to the architecture then the fault should not rest at the feet of the Designer.


Melvyn

[Phil_the_Author]

He can't.

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

Your premise is wrong.  If I wanted to give the average player equivalent approach shots, I would need to move the tees up to where he could hit his drive PAST what you call the "landing zone" so he could have a shorter approach.  And that's easy enough to do ... to allow them to hit past the fairway bunkers if they hit it solid and straight (which they often don't).

You can also defend the greens fiercely on the longer par 4's and 5's so that the average guy can lay up and make the good player take on the risk if he wants to cash in his advantage.

Tom,

That's obviously right but is it an answer?  I was struck when I played Hanse's Craighead Course with my wife (a 14 handicapper who drives it around 200 yards) that she complained afterwards about the positioning of the ladies tees.  The Craighead can be a challenging driving course, cleverly bunkered around where most male golfers play to.  Lorna's complaint was that the ladies tees were too far forward, so that she was always hitting beyond the trouble off the tee.  That left interesting approach shots but she felt robbed of the chance to meet the challenge of the tee shots.

Isn't that what Pat is getting at?  You can replicate one challenge or the other for the shorter hiitter, but replicating both is very difficult.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Obviously distance is the key.  The total length of the hole under the proportional distance hole cannot reduce just the tee shot to 66% (say 200 yards vs 300 yards) of the back tee.  The entire hole length must be 0.66 x 0.66 = 44% for the white tee player aimed at those hitting tee shots 200 yards.

Whether using multiple tees or fewer tees where the tee shots are spread out, to make that work equally for all, you must sort of extend the usable or designed LZ area beyond the traditional 30-40 yard circle into a 30-40 yard by 60-100 yard oblong area, because where balls land is quite variable either way.

The question is, whether adding bunkers all along the LZ is financially practical, and in lesser used areas, perhaps fw rumples, grass bunkers, and the like become more the norm.  Also, centerline bunkers and any cross hazards get to be more problematic in some ways, because if you plot out where many typical players land from any tee, you may find that someone will be adversely affected by the cross hazard more than you or they would like.  Multiple tees may be partly responsible for the reduction of these features, in the name of fairness.

[Ken Moum]

Would a lower performance ball compress the game such that the seperation between players is more equivalent ?

A lighter ball almost certainly would achieve that.

There's already a patent that claims a slightly lighter ball would increase distance for those with lower swing speeds.  See http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html.

Such a ball would also have the effect of forcing players with the highest swing speeds to back off a bit to be able to control the ball. Ballistically, a lighter ball has the property being inversely efficient. IOW, the faster its initial velocity, the higher its rate of deceleration.  Of course, it would never reach the point where a slow swinger could outhit a fast swinger, but the two could be brought closer together.

The beauty of a lighter ball is that it would also force a return of shotmaking, as it would tend to curve more than the current ball, especially at high bal speeds.

K

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I like the concept of multiple tees;however, Jack Nicklaus once remarked that it's hard to design a course for someone who shoots 110. I think a course should be at least playable for bogey golfers. I still like the "hard par,easy bogey" concept of RTJ.

[Sean_A]

Patrick,

Obviously distance is the key.  The total length of the hole under the proportional distance hole cannot reduce just the tee shot to 66% (say 200 yards vs 300 yards) of the back tee.  The entire hole length must be 0.66 x 0.66 = 44% for the white tee player aimed at those hitting tee shots 200 yards.

Whether using multiple tees or fewer tees where the tee shots are spread out, to make that work equally for all, you must sort of extend the usable or designed LZ area beyond the traditional 30-40 yard circle into a 30-40 yard by 60-100 yard oblong area, because where balls land is quite variable either way.

The question is, whether adding bunkers all along the LZ is financially practical, and in lesser used areas, perhaps fw rumples, grass bunkers, and the like become more the norm.  Also, centerline bunkers and any cross hazards get to be more problematic in some ways, because if you plot out where many typical players land from any tee, you may find that someone will be adversely affected by the cross hazard more than you or they would like.  Multiple tees may be partly responsible for the reduction of these features, in the name of fairness.

Jeff

That seems to be the modern way of dealing with the huge gap in distance between players; create what is essentially a long landing zone frought with bunkers and rough - tons of championship courses have done this.  I would have thought centreline bunkers would be FAR MORE EFFICIENT in maintaining the challenge across the board and that well placed cross bunkers could hassle long hitters and short hitters, plus nag the second of those who hit a poor drive.

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your premise is wrong. 

I don't think it is.
Almost every course I play has varying sets of tees designed to present roughly the same DZ to the golfer.

I rarely run across a golf course that presents different levels of golfers with different features in different DZ's.

If I wanted to give the average player equivalent approach shots, I would need to move the tees up to where he could hit his drive PAST what you call the "landing zone" so he could have a shorter approach.  And that's easy enough to do ... to allow them to hit past the fairway bunkers if they hit it solid and straight (which they often don't).

But then, he'd have NO challenge in the DZ with his drive

A golfer has but one opportunity to create a perfect lie and that's on the tee, thus he should be greeted by a reasonable challenge off the tee.  To eradicate that challenge by allowing him to fly over any defensive feature would invert the game.
Then, you'd have to do the same for the laides, seniors, juniors,  etc, etc.

You can also defend the greens fiercely on the longer par 4's and 5's so that the average guy can lay up and make the good player take on the risk if he wants to scash in his advantage.

While that's true, severe green and green surrounds present a disproportionate challenge to the higher handicap player even though their approach shot may be shorter.  Their failure to execute, which is likely due to their diminished ability, results in a recovery challenge beyond their ability

[Mark Pearce]

While that's true, severe green and green surrounds present a disproportionate challenge to the higher handicap player even though their approach shot may be shorter.  Their failure to execute, which is likely due to their diminished ability, results in a recovery challenge beyond their ability

That's OK, though.  These are higher handicap players, they expect to drop shots.  If the recovery challenges on good courses weren't beyond my ability, I'd have a lower handicap!

[Ian Andrew]

Architects, vis a vis multiple tees, can bring a common "drive zone" into play for all level of golfers.Thus all golfers can challenge the same features/hazards

Pat I don’t think you can. Tees can “theoretically” provide an opportunity to hit the ball to the same point through reduced distance. If we actually tried to apply the theory there would be tees in the fairway since the difference can be as great as 250 yards between players.

How can the architect present an approach that's equivalent for all level of golfers?

I also don’t think that’s our role. Our role is to make everyone’s game interesting to play – not to give everyone the same experience.

The architect can present the identical challenge on the putting surface and at the green surrounds, but, how can they present the same challenge on the approach ?

We can’t since each player has a different trajectory and flight pattern. Open fronted greens remain the one solution to what your getting at. The short grass in front is often a great equalizer.

Would a lower performance ball compress the game such that the separation between players is more equivalent ?

It reduces the gap between players, this makes it easier to use less bunkering since we are no longer trying to bridge a gap on carry distances.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I agree with TD on making long par 4 greens smaller and better defended.  Hitting them with a wedge vs a long iron seems to favor or at least equalize the hole for shorter hitters.  Granted, with more bunkers or whatever, they could possibly top one in there.  It just illustrates the theory of the architects dilema - bad shots or exceptionally good ones can ruin any theory temporarily, but if we take a big enough sample size of shots, eventually it should work out as intended.

And, as I noted, its possible to extend the LZ to create different challenges, using narrower fw, rumpled fw, grass bunkers, and even the occaisional sand bunker for a staggered visual effect in lesser used areas of the fw.

Sean,

I disagree on cross bunkers be efficient.  Thinking of something similar to the Principles Nose at TOC, whereever you place them, they challenge just one particular carry length.  If 275/245/215/195/145 from the various tees, anyone who drives well past that has no issue.

Angled bunkers, extending some length, in combo with multiple tees have potential to challenge a whole range of tee shots similarly.

[Sean_A]

Patrick,

I agree with TD on making long par 4 greens smaller and better defended.  Hitting them with a wedge vs a long iron seems to favor or at least equalize the hole for shorter hitters.  Granted, with more bunkers or whatever, they could possibly top one in there.  It just illustrates the theory of the architects dilema - bad shots or exceptionally good ones can ruin any theory temporarily, but if we take a big enough sample size of shots, eventually it should work out as intended.

And, as I noted, its possible to extend the LZ to create different challenges, using narrower fw, rumpled fw, grass bunkers, and even the occaisional sand bunker for a staggered visual effect in lesser used areas of the fw.

Sean,

I disagree on cross bunkers be efficient.  Thinking of something similar to the Principles Nose at TOC, whereever you place them, they challenge just one particular carry length.  If 275/245/215/195/145 from the various tees, anyone who drives well past that has no issue.

Angled bunkers, extending some length, in combo with multiple tees have potential to challenge a whole range of tee shots similarly.

Yes, of course angled bunkers are also a good hazard, but to sugest that a wellplaced centreline bunker or two can't challenege all but the best is short sighted especially when is taken into account.  I would also say cross bunkers can do a damn fine job of challenging a high percentage of people - either on the drive or the second shot.  I think we have had this conversation before and I still advocate using ALL types of placement  for bunkers as all have their place, but the most efficient for challenging the most players and creating exceitement are the well placed centreline bunkers and the least effecient are straight up wing hazards.  Angled bunkers are just behind centreline and cross bunkers just behind that, but all are necessary for well placed hazards to have maximum impact and yet be varied.  I have always worked on the theory that anything from 20ish to 50ish bunkers is enough to the job for 18 holes if bunkers are going to have a major role in creating interest.  More than that and I bet the archie is into some sort of personal kick with aesthetics (can be good or bad depending on the archie and the land) in trying to justify is fee or his "hazard" budget is extravagent and that amounts to the same thing.  There is just no need from a strategic PoV for more than ~50 bunkers on a course if they are well placed and the archie isn't on some fool's errand in trying to please all people all the time.  Of those 50ish, I am guessing that any one player on any given day should only hve to really contend with about 50-75% of those bunkers if they are well placed.  This is a mistake many make in assuming all bunkers need to be in play for most players on a daily basis - not so imo. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I would tend to side with the view that you cant create for both. If you had a different ball for the better player it would go some way to equalise the golf course from the perspective of driving in the same place and same type of approach shot. Is it really worth considering past the tee shot anyway.... golfers will always be better or worse than another. I think we should just stick to helping the lesser player with the tee shot and finding an alternative routing into the green for the lesser player and let him use his handicap allowance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak, Sean, Jeff, et. al.,

If one of the objectives of the architect is to present a thorough examination of a golfer's game, then it would appear, that other than on par 3's. different holes would be utilized as a method of presenting that part of the examination applicable to select clubs.

In other words, you're saying that the same hole wouldn't be employed to test all level of golfers with equivalent challenges since it's almost impossible to create the equivalency.

But then again, how do you test the higher handicap's ability to hit a long iron or 3-wood without providing the equivalent challenge for the lower handicap ?

[Tom_Doak]

But then again, how do you test the higher handicap's ability to hit a long iron or 3-wood without providing the equivalent challenge for the lower handicap ?

Pat:

You are starting to catch on, with this last question.

Someone earlier [or perhaps on another thread I read today] quoted Nicklaus as saying it is impossible to design for the guy who shoots 110.  Well, it's not impossible to be sure that fellow is going to have to hit a long iron or 3-wood approach shot somewhere in his 18 holes; it's just impossible to plan where it will be, because he is too erratic with his tee shots.  That's why it's okay to put his tee markers up to where he ought to have a short iron into every green, if he just hits every tee shot solidly ... because he won't.


P.S. to Ian:  There are tees in the fairways on many holes we've done lately, particularly at Old Macdonald.  That's one reason we are trying to disguise them so well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I never said the X bunkers would be only for the good players.  I jus t said their nature provides only a challenge to one particular distance in any given instance (or five if there are five tees)

I agree angled bunkers and all sorts ought to be used. Even if CL bunkers aren't efficient, there are other reasons to use them once in a while.

Patrick,

You are right aht the long par 3 can be used as a long iron test.  There is no need to challenge various golfers on the same hole with the same club.  The long iron could come from the long par 3 for the good player, but the forward tees could be way up, while some other hole could have the forward tees set back to assure a long iron for average guys, even if it was a wedge for better players.  Detail designs are harder that way.

At the same time, we may not really be charged with challenging the lesser golfer to the same degree as the scratch golfer.  In reality, we are trying to get them around the course.

[Sean_A]

Pat

Yes, as Tom states, the high capper will provide his own long iron/wood play due to his inconsistent (PC for poor) play.  Hell, I do the same once or twice in many rounds myself.  The problem is, as we have seen on other distance threads, many don't equate length with skill.  They figure even if they are only an 18 capper, but can hit the ball a mile that they should be back at 6800 yards.  To me this is daft thinking, but how else do we explain the growth of back tees unless folks who don't belong back there are using the tees anyway?  Which is why I think it is better not to put these tees in play on most days anyway.  Tom can say that there should be tees built that are well forward, but that doesn't mean that a high percentage of folks will use them and I find this surprising since so many people like the shorter courses of the UK.  I am not sure its as much an architect's dilema as a golfer's dilema.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I never said the X bunkers would be only for the good players.  I jus t said their nature provides only a challenge to one particular distance in any given instance (or five if there are five tees)

I agree angled bunkers and all sorts ought to be used. Even if CL bunkers aren't efficient, there are other reasons to use them once in a while.

Patrick,

You are right aht the long par 3 can be used as a long iron test.  There is no need to challenge various golfers on the same hole with the same club.  The long iron could come from the long par 3 for the good player, but the forward tees could be way up, while some other hole could have the forward tees set back to assure a long iron for average guys, even if it was a wedge for better players.  Detail designs are harder that way.

At the same time, we may not really be charged with challenging the lesser golfer to the same degree as the scratch golfer.  In reality, we are trying to get them around the course.

Jeff

I think you are totally off base with centreline bunkers and likely stuck in some "fair" time wharp - doing the dance as well- tee hee.  You are only considering centreline bunkers in terms of the carry distance.  There is also the possibility of skirting them left or right or laying up.  Now, combine two centreline bunkers say 20 yards apart and you have a potentially huge area covered to challenge a nearly everybody and with wind, everybody at some point.  Go and see some really well bunkered courses like Lederach or New Zealand or even a course like Huntercombe with its centreline hollows and the odd bunekr and perhaps you will change your views and how best to get the most out of the least in terms of hazards. 

Ciao

[Carl Johnson]

Brad Klein has this figured out.  In GolfWeek, Nov. 18, 2010, at page 62, third column, he attributes the proliferation of tees to "liberal social values."  I am not making this up.  Do you think he is serious, or just pulling our legs?  I don't know enough about him myself to figure this one out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()