[Matt_Ward]

When reading the posts of others --- I am struck by the fact a core group of people -- the actual numbers are hard to estimate for sure -- that see quality design as being seen through the eyes of those who only play courses from the mid-markers. In sum, the role of the back tees and what they constitute really don't mean much at all and in their mind should not really stand for anything when overall assessments of courses are made.

The argument being if only 1-2% of people play such markers -- why should they be permitted to weigh as much as they seem to be doing now. I wonder if true greatness of a course can be had if the back tees are completely eliminated as a rating / review consideration. That would mean the greatness of a design is only meaningful when viewed from the mid-markers or those that cater to the vast preponderance of the golfing population.

If that were the case then how do places featuring quite muscular designs such as Bethpage Black, Oakmont, Winged Foot / West, and OH/S, to name just a few, then be assessed in the area of golf course architecture.

For those who constantly whine and moan about back tees and their role -- well, I'm calling you out now to show how such a narrowed position would be so much more beneficial than what is being done now.

[Jud_T]

matt,

i think it's more a matter of leveling the playing field vis-a-vis the ratings.  i would hazard a guess that many here feel that currently courses with significant tournament pedigree that challenge that 1-2% significantly from the back markers are the tracks that many bow down to as mecca while loads of fun playable courses that don't have boxes with a slope over 135 are not taken seriously...however the tips should be taken into consideration when assessing a course regardless of one's abilities...simply removing the "resistance to scoring" criteria goes a long way in this regard IMHO...

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

OK -- given what you just said -- how much weight would you apply to the "back tees" when you assess a course ?

Frankly, I'm amazed that certain people can really comprehend the nature of the back tees when it's likely they don't have a game to appreciate what it takes to play from such distances.

The flip side to that is a simple question -- when assessing course greatness what does the extreme tips have to do with an overall course's standing. Clearly GD still believes it does with the "resistance to scoring" criteria still in operation.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
If you can understand the nature of a golf course at all you should be able to understand it from any set of tees.

You're not going to make an average course 'great' just by adding length.   

[Gib_Papazian]

Matt,

From my set of spikes the discussion is simple. I believe it is extremely difficult for players to evaluate the strategic arrangements of a golf course unless they play it from the appropriate tees. I'm told you are a very low-handicapper and your posts in the past leave me with the impression of a man with little appreciation (read: tolerance) for quirky, shortish layouts.

Perhaps I am wrong. But I do not think so. It always seems to come down to the difference between an objective examination or whimsical adventure. Your sort normally falls in the former. Skilled hackers like me in the latter.

One could turn the question around and ask if a gunner like you is capable of grasping the architectural nuances and placement of hazards on a course where your tee shot is still rising when it blows over the fairway bunkers.

Trying to quantify a numerical value for "Resistance to Scoring" requires enough imagination to ascertain how the golf course plays through the eyes of a Scratch Player from the back tees. For most panelists, the number in the box is a hopelessly subjective guess because there are few *real* scratch players.

Personally, I have never carried better than a two or three handicap - although I did for many years. However, in order to make an informed evaluation with respect to the rest of the categories, a player of my ability should be playing the Blue Tees and NOT the Black tees. I used to think I knew how Tour Pros and NCAA Division 1 players would fare on a given golf course from the tips, but have come to realize that the number I put in the box is a kinda-sorta-maybe-blind speculation that is 80% nonsense and 20% bullshit.

The same goes for Scratch Players - because there is an ENORMOUS difference between a comfortable three-handicapper and a TRUE Scratch. Ask me how I know. Those three or four shots (in the case of a +1) are from here to the Moon in relative distance. From Scratch to an NCAA Pac-10 starter is from here to Mars. Vijay or Phil? From here to Neptune. Tiger in the year 2000? To Andromeda.

So we have no real idea how to ACCURATELY determine "resistance to scoring" or "fairness" through the eyes of somebody who is quite frankly playing a different game than we do. I think the entire category should be scrapped or reduced in value to a small percentage of the overall. Whitten is a sharp dude, but I cannot see how he can provide a numerical worksheet to assist with that one.

Everyone should play the tees that fit the distance they hit the golf ball and make their determinations from there. If you hit the ball such vast distances that the Tippity Tip Tips are still too short for your magnificence, then downgrade it as you like. There are only a handful of you anyways.

As for me, I've learned to recognize when something has way more pussy than I got dick. Plow horses have no business pretending to run with thoroughbreds.            

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

It is easy to throw out the relevance of the back tees, as long as you are also willing ton throw out the relevance of the course for the 1 to 3 percent of players who should really be playing the tips. Obviously, that's impossible form you, but it is really NOT NEARLY as difficult for others as you imagine.

For example, if I want to throw out that population of golfers, Winged Foot West is still the same ... an unrelenting test of accuracy in driving and iron play.  Oakmont is still unrelentingly difficult due to its tilted and super fast greens.  Bethpage Black, on the other hand, does not stand up as well architecturally if you stop worrying about the back tees.

The interesting part is that when you throw out the back tees, you can see clearly that some 6300 yard courses are clearly more interesting than your vaunted championship courses played from the same yardage.  And the fact that the rankings fail to take that into account, because they are clearly all dominated by the view from the back tees, is somewhat sad.  The place I noticed it the most was in looking through ballots from the few women who were on the GOLF Magazine panel ... their perspective was radically different, because they are not even looking at the back tees.

[Shane Wright]

Gib - well put.  You are spot on in your description of Scratch players vs. NCAA, Phil/Vijay, etc.

The evaluation of a golf course, in my opinion, should come from players of all skill levels. An analysis from players only playing middle tees wouldn't be a true and thorough analysis nor would it be from players only playing the backs.  A healthy balance is......healthy.

But taking out the back tees in an analysis takes out those players who play them and while it is a minority that do, it would fall short of a true evaluation.

 

[Mike Nuzzo]

The place I noticed it the most was in looking through ballots from the few women who were on the GOLF Magazine panel ... their perspective was radically different, because they are not even looking at the back tees.

Tom
Would you share some of the women's perspectives?
It may even be helpful for Matt. 
Thank you
Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Terrific answers so far. But what I don't see (and what I rarely see in these discussions) are the underlying assumptions regarding scoring/resistance to scoring being made explicit. That is, I'm always left to wonder whether we're still operating under the old adage/rule of thumb that says a good golf hole is one that rewards two well struck shots with a par and that allows for a relatively easy bogie but a difficult birdie? If so, I ask - really? Is that the rule of thumb raters are really operating/judging within? If not, I ask - well, shouldn't we make explicit what we think 'scoring' says about architecture and how we will measure scoring (from our own tees) before we start speculating on what it might mean from tees we can only dream about?

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

The place I noticed it the most was in looking through ballots from the few women who were on the GOLF Magazine panel ... their perspective was radically different, because they are not even looking at the back tees.

Tom
Would you share some of the women's perspectives?
It may even be helpful for Matt. 
Thank you
Mike

Mike,

Well, I can't really, because (1) it was a secret ballot and (2) none of the panelists were required to justify their votes on courses in writing.  All I can share is that the women's votes were completely different than the men's ... Some consensus top-25 courses were put on the garbage heap while others stayed right up there.  It was partly a function of the placement of women's tees, although you have to remember that the women who were asked to vote were nearly all very good players like Alice Dye or Carol Semple Thompson who can and do play from the white tees.  Knowing that, I think you'd have to say that the ratings were produced by a bunch of very good players and independent thinkers who were unimpressed by long hitting as being the critical factor in evaluating the quality of a golf course.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I've played with enough scratch players to , as Gib says, cuff it in terms of how far my friend x hits his rescue club etc...Personally, it doesn't add or subtract to my appreciation of a given course, but I can appreciate that for folks like you to have a similar challenge/club on a given hole that those markers need to be there.  I wonder if you're relative lack of appreciation for places like Shoreacres comes from the relatively few number of holes where you're able to let the big dog eat (not putting words in your mouth but I know this is the case for some of my scratch friends).  Can you list a few 6500 yard max courses that you think are truly top notch?

The reality of the current ratings focus translates into a lot more situations where guys like me, who'd have a lot more fun playing the 6300 yard box get dragged back to 6700+ than visa-versa IMHO...

[Jeff Shelman]

I think the importance of the back tees depends on the length of such tees.

A new course with back tees at 7700 aren't as important in my opinion as the back tees of an older course that are at 6800.

Tips at 6800 or 7000 are going to get much more play than 7700 tees.

[Scott Warren]

Gib:

As for me, I've learned to recognize when something has way more pussy than I got dick.

Bravo! Sadly I am sitting in a room full of women, so I can't even share that gem with others who'll appreciate it.

[Sean_A]

I think back tees do matter for a small percentage of golfers, but mostly for marketing.  My objection to back tees (and indeed a large spread of tees) is that archies are really trying to make courses fit everyone rather than build the best course.  If a course can't stand up as interesting, with some challenge, fun and be playable for damn near everybody at 5500, 6000, 6200 or 6500 yards then it is inferior.  To suddenly say that same course is now superior when 7000 yards long is a load of rubbish. 

Ciao

[Alex Miller]

This is starting to sound a lot like the 7500+ yard courses thread.

[Scott Warren]

Frankly, I'm amazed that certain people can really comprehend the nature of the back tees when it's likely they don't have a game to appreciate what it takes to play from such distances.

Frankly, Matt, I'm in awe 

As Sean says, a +1 marker who bombs it 290 and can flight a 3i like I hit a wedge can't appreciate my game any more than I can his.

We are all who we are, with the game we have and other than the very gifted few, that is the prism through which we view the game.

[Bill_McBride]

For the reality of magazine ratings, all this discussion just reinforces the need for a panel of widely varying ability to insure a rating that makes sense for all players.

[archie_struthers]

 

If you can thow in some turbo boosts for the average hitter for the shorter hitter, and make some hazards come into play for ourl long hitting friends , it's good architecture.  Really hard to do as many on board can testify.   

I particulalry like having hazards that challenge the better players more, and they typically hit it further. So, you have to figure out just how much they will bite off , how you can twist them, yet still leave a golf course that is fun to play from further up. Typically great architects do it with angles and their greens , and often make the area to approach from the one most heaviily protected. 

[Scott Warren]

Bill:

For the reality of magazine ratings, all this discussion just reinforces the need for a panel of widely varying ability to insure a rating that makes sense for all players.

I wonder, would it make sense for everyone? Or would it not make sense for anyone?

[Bob_Huntley]

Matt,

Would you dismiss the comments of those who play from the tips at Cypress..... which is quite short?


Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

I obviously think they matter as stated in the thread about the elasticity of Riviera.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46796.0.html

My favorite quote was "At my age and fitness every athletic field should make me want for lost potential and wasted days." I want a great course to make me dream.

[Tom_Doak]

John,

There is a difference between saying the back tees matter, and insisting that a course can't be worthy without them.  I'm not sure if we are really talking about the latter or not.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

For the reality of magazine ratings, all this discussion just reinforces the need for a panel of widely varying ability to insure a rating that makes sense for all players.

I wonder, would it make sense for everyone? Or would it not make sense for anyone?

I think if there is a bell curve of raters, not just scratch players. a course's relative ranking will be useful to players of all caliber.

[Andy Troeger]

I think a lot of this depends on the length of the course from the back tees. There's a huge difference between courses like Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, and Prairie Dunes that aren't that long and courses like Pete Dye's French Lick course that measure 8000 yards, mainly because more golfers can play the back tees at the shorter courses and still get around in a reasonable fashion.  I'm not sure anybody is really expected to play the 8000 yard tees at French Lick on a regular basis, although I'm sure there's someone that does.

Without going to either of those extremes, however, I do think the back tees matter. The front tees matter too. It certainly is desirable for a course to challenge the longer hitter at least at times during the round. I think where Matt and I likely differ is that he wants courses to challenge him as a longer hitter regularly during the round, and I don't find that necessary. The courses I enjoy most tend to have a variety of hole lengths, regardless of the tees played. Pine Valley is easily the best example that I'm aware of and I do think that variety is one area where it is superior to Cypress Point. On the other hand, some 7500-8000 yard courses suffer from lack of variety because they don't include shorter holes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfers with the skill to play the back tees care more about where championships are played than antiquated paper magazine ratings.  That includes the great amateur events also so don't get all uppity on me.  My friends who play in the Anderson or Crump Cups hardly need the opinions of 14 handicaps for advice where to play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()