The architect's dilema

[Bill_McBride]

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.

I expect this is a joking reference to the trend toward "fairness" as a requirement in modern society.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Pat this is a sad thread that you started if in fact you are serious.

1.  Show me in the rule book where golfers are entitled to being capable of reaching all par 4's in two, or par 5's in 3.

2.  What is this Drive Zone?  Is there where today's silly architects have placed bunkers (or even lakes) on the outside of the fairways?  Isn't it a test of one's driving ability to place the ball in a position that best enables one to reach the green?  I don't think the DOGuys ever intended bunkers to catch a lot of drives, but to merely direct them away from a spot.

3.  The best hole I have ever seen that making interesting the drive of golfers of all abililties is the 9th at Riviera.  Two cross bunkers well placed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder about Brad's reference. Is it really liberal social values to recognize that many more women play now, and that their needs have been ignored far too long? I presume more country club republican women play golf than libs, no? 

Just joking, but I don't think trying to design courses for more than just the low handicapper is a bad thing or political in any way.  its not an all or nothing thing.  Specifically, the single thing you can do to make it doable for average golfers is reduce length and mostly eliminate forced carries, which the ODG's espoused, too.

Does a forward tee reduce challenge for those playing the back tee?  Do less forced carries reduce the challenge?  Since not too many good players hit the grounder very often, not really.  We take out what doesn't bother the good player but does bother the average players, so the challenge isn't greaty reduced.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It is only a dilemma when you try to give every type of golfer the same challenge on a particular hole. However, when you take that approach and spread it out over 18 holes it becomes doable. Maybe not the exact challenge, but it is the course that presents gofers of differing abilities the chance to have a competitive match. Trying to make that happen on every hole leads to a very boring and predictable course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To answer PM's original question directly, the solution would be not only more tees, but staggered fw bunkering/hazards.

If some holes had fw bunkers 220, 270 and 320 off the back tee, but the most forward tee was 140 yards ahead of the back tee, then those bunkers would be 80, 130 and 180 off the front tee.  Maybe not all bunkers come in equally for all tees, but all would come in nicely for some tees.