[Matt_Ward]

Bob H:

Let me turn things around -- how much relevance do you believe those who do play CP from the tips should have in assessing the qualities of the course?

Sean A:

You say the added length for courses in the 7,000+ range is simply there for "markleting." Interesting.

Under your own comments -- a course can be seen as "inferior" if it bores the hell out of longer solid players who simply play shots that fail to test them in any meaningful way. Or is that where you draw the line with your other comment "damn near everybody?" Better to entertain Joe Sixpack than the elite few at the top. That's why I posted this thread -- under your own reasoning why have such worries -- forget those very few players and concentrate the emphasis elsewhere.

Jud:

Good points. Let me respond by saying that I enjoy a few Seth Raynor layouts -- but I don't find Shoreacres notable. Was it because I could not pull out the big stick? Not really. It was because I found quite a few of the other holes as dull and uninspired. In my mind, those who are enamored with the place have turned a blnd eye to such concerns. I have opined previously on GCA that other Raynor courses -- such as Morris County in NJ, get lost in the sauce because it is surrounded by so many other fantastic courses and that it's short overall distance doesn't really inspire raters and others to see it clearly.

PPallotta:

I raised the topic because GD clearly is influenced by the "resistance to scoring" dimension and it can be seen by the courses that often fare well because of that category. In other cases, such as Golfweek, you see less empahsis but I wonder if that other emphasis on character / touchy feely concerns has simply jettisoned any concern with the back tees because such players do not see them as being either relevant and/or important enough to consider.

Shane:

Quick question - would it help to have split evaluations - one for those at the middle tees -- the other from the rear? When lumped together -- it's possible that the weight of the course is only coming in one direction. For example, one course that I know very well -- Bethpage Black -- is a beast from the tips but from the middle markers is far, far different because the length and carry elements become far less so and the green contours at the course are not that really unique -- save for roughly 5-6 holes.

Tom D:

Interesting comments -- I have tried to play many of the courses you mentioned from different markers to see if the design elements still has a role to play -- albeit without the emphasis on sheer distance. In specific cases -- the bunkering and turning points become more of a factor. In other cases -- less so. No doubt the imagination of the green designs always is there -- although the length of the approach may temper one's feelings because of the wherewithal to hold such targets with higher-lofted clubs.

Tom, let me clarify that length for the sake of length bores me. But let me say this as well -- those who don't value length often times do not have that skill and therefore tend to mark it down because of their own limitations and simply see it as brute strength factor alone. Let me emphasize that I don't see length as "the" critical fasctor but it is a major element when combined with other skill sets that are needed. Great courses usually provide a mechanism for a combination of all such skills.

I much prefer courses that require more imagination -- I have opined previosly that shaping shots -- especially tee shots to certain specific landing zones is something that really fascinates me. Courses that are smply long are akin to the baseball pitcher who can only chuck the same ole fastball 100+ but has nothing else to provide.

Gib:

Quite the contrary -- I have my share of short courses that I thoroughly enjoy and have said as much that have elements of quirk included. In fact, I often play return rounds from the more frontal tee pads and see what changes are there and if such changes are actually improvements to the hole(s) then the most rear tee positions.

I just wonder, as I said initially, if back tees really need to be factored into the equation if they apply only to the top 1-2% of players? Cleary, plenty of people on this site have weighed in that they believe too much focus is geared towards such a narrow and limited objective -- some of that feeling is no doubt tied to their inability to handle the intensity it provides. In fact, these same people believe that such articles on ratings should jettison that emphasis and feature more realistic connections to the broader masses. In sum, flip "resistance to scoring" with "playability."

Gib, I agree with you that playing the appropriate tees is a must for maximum enjoyment. The issue becomes one of balance -- I do agree that greatness has moved noticeably from the very first time GD started ratings with it only criteria being toughness. Amen for that evolution.

[Jud_T]

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.

John,

Point taken, but do the 14 handicaps need your friends' advice on where to play, because given the current ratings system that's overwhelmingly what they're getting...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, I also think it depends on the club.  I belong to two clubs that have a goodly number of single digits handicappers, one in MD and the other in SC.  I dare say the SC club has more who play the back tees than the other tees.  The MD course probably has between 15 and 25% of the guys play the back tees.  Now they are not 7500 yards either.  One is just shy of 7000 yards at par 72.  The other is a shade over 7100 yards at par 71. I moved back, not because I wanted to but because at 63 I can't hit the ball out of my shadow anymore. 

I would think that a club like Champions with some 150 single digits might be the same.  There are many more with similar characteristics.

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

I've seen you post threads like this in the past, and it always seems to boil down to you believing that those who apply less value to the challenge from the tips than you do are doing so because they don't have the length to handle them.  I have to call you out that, its a load of crap!  Wishful thinking at best, and your ego's way of allowing yourself to dismiss their arguments without considering them.

I play the tips pretty much all the time.  I've never played a course as long as French Lick at 8000 yards (and I never will - if I go there, I would NOT play those tees) but I've played courses over 7500 yards (and in wet conditions)  I'm not a rater, nor do I pretend to be, and probably wouldn't want to be.  But I've been on GCA for long enough, seen enough of the courses discussed here, and seen enough of the courses Doak saw fit to give his candid opinions on in an earlier life to know that my opinions about architecture are not that far out of step with many of the people here.

And I have to say, I agree with what I'm reading here.  And you can't dismiss me because I'm not long enough to play the tips....though I suppose you could still dismiss me for not being scratch - my best index being 4.3, which I realize is a long way away from scratch.  Even though I'm in my mid 40s now I'm still long - not as long as the longest guys on tour like I used to be up until 15 years ago, but still long enough to realize how rare golfers are who can hit it as far as I do.  And because its so rare, I don't see why my opinions on the challenge of a course from the tips (on courses where the tips are long enough to give me all the length that I can handle) should be given much weight.

If a course is truly good, it will be as good from the mid to upper 6000 yard range where the majority of players will play it.  If its challenge is only truly revealed for guys like you and me playing the tips, why the hell should that be given much weight, when the huge majority of golfers will never see it?  They'll show up expecting a great course and then look at each other on the 18th green wondering why they were lied to, diminishing the value of the ratings and people's belief in them (OK, many in GCA are now reading this and thinking, hey, maybe Matt's onto something after all )  A course that only truly reveals itself from the tips, and only to those who can handle the tips, does not justify a top 100 ranking.  There are already so many different categories, how about you just lobby to add a "top 100 courses for power hitters", throw the Bethpages of the world onto it, and be done with it?

I've seen enough of these discussions with you taking the same intrasigent position, and many have butted heads against you and been unable to budge your opinion, so I am under no illusions this little posting will change that.  But I am curious why you started this thread, knowing that your position is not subject to change?  Do you think you will convert some of us, or do you just like a good argument even knowing that the thread will peter out with the matter unresolved?

[Sean_A]

Sean A:

You say the added length for courses in the 7,000+ range is simply there for "markleting." Interesting.

Under your own comments -- a course can be seen as "inferior" if it bores the hell out of longer solid players who simply play shots that fail to test them in any meaningful way. Or is that where you draw the line with your other comment "damn near everybody?" Better to entertain Joe Sixpack than the elite few at the top. That's why I posted this thread -- under your own reasoning why have such worries -- forget those very few players and concentrate the emphasis elsewhere.

Matt

No, your first sentence is not an accurate reflection of what I wrote. 

So far as the second part, my comments about being inferior were for all class of players, not merely the long ball hitter.  Additionally, my comments were meant to point out the relative unimportance of yardage as a determiner of quality.  The course must be well designed regardless of the length of its holes if it is to be held in high esteem by myself.  As soon as length becomes the primary instrument to challenge a player I am not interested.  Additionally, much of the time yards are added courses are narrowed - a double whammy if you will.  As you likely know by now I don't give a rats ass how far a guy hits the ball.  The object is to put the ball into the hole and there are plenty of bangers out there who can't shoot par on a consistent basis.  I cringe at the thought of archies and owners responding to length with added yardage.  While this approach does knock most of the wannabe amateurs on the head, we know it isn't satisfactory for the best players.  These guys can go low on 7500 yard course if the setup is kept in tune with weather conditions leading up to and during the event.  While I certainly have sympathy for archies who try to create interesting courses which can handle the big boys, imo, archies aren't needed for this class of player.  It is obvious what is needed if the idea of par is sacrosanct - narrow courses with punishing rough and nasty greens.  Why bother hiring an archie - the formula is obvious?  If we want to forget about the concept of par (ie the test of the game) and concentrate on the challenge (meaning stimulating situations - not merely a test), interest and fun elements of design than we are getting somewhere.  This is probably the aspect of Doak's many dictums that I most appreciate - he isn't trying to design championship courses and openly states this as the case.  I think this a wise move because he can easily design courses which stimulate practically every golfer out there, yet make the courses playable for the same lot as well.  The sacrifice is the elimination of any possiblity (and lets face it - the possibilities are very small for nearly all courses even though the marketing gimmicks state otherwise) of hosting a proper mens championship.  Its a small price to pay.  My only beef (and it isn't just TD) is that archies (developers/owners?) don't seem willing to go to the next level and build quite short courses - practically eliminating length as an important feature of the course for an even broader range of players - say down to 5 cappers or whatever.  I have a feeling the only way this will happen if is the property demands this sort of design and that is a shame. 

Ciao   

[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.

John,

Point taken, but do the 14 handicaps need your friends' advice on where to play, because given the current ratings system that's overwhelmingly what they're getting...

Not if they have an ounce of sense.  The only advice anyone needs is how to become a rater.  Given that Digest no longer uses raters to formulate the best new courses to play can anyone give a single benefit annual ratings provide beyond cheap entertainment. 

Does People magazine give enough credence to height when determining Sexiest Man Alive?  I think not.
 

[Ronald Montesano]

CONTRIBUTOR'S DISCLAIMER:  I am a traveling 5 handicap.  I have no home course and play many courses from the tips.  I am 5'9" tall, 175 pounds of thunder and lightning, and hit a drvier 260 on average, topping out at 290 on a crusher and 230 on an "oops."  I putt erratically and accept the 28-putt rounds with glee and the 38-putt rounds with melancholic gratitude for being on the course in the first place.  Mizuno blades, a Nike driver, fairway and hybrids are my choice of cudgels.
--------------------------------------------------------------

When you're not trying to get the girl, you often get the girl.  And, as we know, they never openly try to get the guy, yet they always seem to lasso him (speaking of heterosexual relationships, as they are the only ones I've known in this lifetime.)  An architect who openly abandons claim on major championships will get her/his share of mid-major ones, should the unaimed aim be true.

Does a great, great player (like those from Andromeda galaxy and Neptune, since Pluto's now just a yellow dog) have the time, sense and ability to represent the true and sole assesor of the relative greatness of a list of over 250 courses in the USA, added to another 400 courses in the British empire, added to on and on and on?  Answer at your own risk.

Matt Ward seems to take a lot of hits from this group of renegades.  If one's sole purpose is to minimize the importance of one group over another in the ranking of courses, the effort is off the mark, in my opinion.  My only direct question to Matt would be, are you seeking an effect of back tees on mid and high handicappers, versus middle tees on lower handicappers?  That's the only sensible aim of this type of thread, from my vantage point.  Afactor, as raised by Bob H., is the relative percentile difference of back versus middle tees.  6800 versus 6200 is a difference of less than 10% overall course difference.  7600 versus 6300 is nearly double the percentile difference and much more telling.  And what of an elusive place like Augusta, which has no middle tees?

And for Gib, ohh that we might all live our lives in the presence of way more pussy than dick.  What a lovely way to go...

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Chill down partner -- who's dismissing you? Appreciate your take -- albeit with a bit of a different emphasis / slant.

Quite the contrary -- I think GD's point of emphasis clearly shows how much they believe "difficulty" is central to a course's greatness. I have learned a good deal when moving up to other markers and seeing what a course still provides. I try to see the qualities of the layout through such movement of tee pads / pin locations, etc -- I just wonder if those who play from the other tee boxes can do likewise and be able to see a course's qualities without presuming that the additional length goes beyond what they deem appropriate. I do believe that far too many people can only appreciate a course as it relates to their game. Some have accused me of that too !

The earlier points made by a few people here clearly move towards a sane / balanced approach -- try to have a mixed bag of people provide as much input as possible. I do believe it's easier for those who play the back tees to move up and see what's still present design wise -- those doing it in the reverse manner may simply view the added length as being excessive and therefore come away with an entirely tilted point of view. I believe places like WF/W is a great example of this.

Doug, try to appreciate this -- the architect's focus is often tied to the mandate he's been given. Tillie was given the "man-size" edict when he created WF and he did so. Many people on this board loathe the place because of what it provides. But let me point out that plenty of people on this site are enamored with the touchy feely elements (nothing wrong with it mind you) where the length equation is taken out of the prime role. I'm glad to see such courses get their fair share of attention. However, a more balanced role of what GD rates and what GW provides is somewhere in the middle of things in my mind. Would love to tee it up with you someday.

[Matt_Ward]

Ron Montesano:

Interesting comment you mentioned ... "Matt Ward seems to take a lot of hits from this group of renegades.  If one's sole purpose is to minimize the importance of one group over another in the ranking of courses, the effort is off the mark, in my opinion.  My only direct question to Matt would be, are you seeking an effect of back tees on mid and high handicappers, versus middle tees on lower handicappers?  That's the only sensible aim of this type of thread, from my vantage point."

Ron, my point was not to minimize the importance of one group over another but to find out what the emphasis is for those who only play from one set of markers and deem the others, at times, as being excessive in regards to the difficulty dimension. Your final two sentences are indeed what I am seeking to do. I do try to play layouts now from different markers to see if what's provided still has the goods -- believe it or not, the demand dimension has now evolved for me. Likely tied to my increasing age !

 

[Ronald Montesano]

All right, Matt, let's try this path.  You and I, as back-tee denizens, know what a grind it can be to go back there.  We know that the course is going to get us, sooner or later, yet on we grind.  When that double or triple jumps up and bites us, we have two options:  we can throw our hands up in failure and quit (yet play on) or we can do the same, albeit in release, refocus ourselves and play on.

Can the mid-handicapper do the same?  Ultimately, isn't a scratch mental golfer required to handle the tips?  Less opportunity for birdies and pars, unless one goes 310 off the tee.

Perhaps you and I are on to what the parallel Redan thread signals: the original intent and challenge of the golf course.  You and I, back-tee habitues, face a day of mid to long irons, hybrids and metals from the fairway, with the occasional wedge/short iron thrown in to tantalize (par fives excluded, unless they top 600 yards.)  If that's what others face from the middle tees, then they are facing the course as it was meant to play.

I would presume that it is damned difficult to make a course play the same  from the tips as from the middies, , unless your tip golfer hits it the same percentage farther off the tee as is evident in the yardage differential.  Since the yardage differential is not standard, there will be advantages for one or the other on every hole.  Hopefully they all balance out.

[Matt_Ward]

Ron:

And the point of your last post was ?

I just said previously that getting a proper intersection of different players -- all playing from the appropriate boxes does help matters. Unfortunately, I see GD being enamored with the "resistance to scoring" dimension that fails to highlight other design elements.

[George Pazin]

To summarize:

1) Know your limitations, pardner, and play the right tees

and

2) If you don't play the tips, your opinion is meaningless.

Cue credits:



 

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Great stuff !

Small correction -- those playing elsewhere are fine and dandy -- just don't trash the place if your game can't handle it the tips.

[George Pazin]

I'm just having fun with you, Matt, I actually kinda agree with much in your posts (in this rare instance... ). I'm also in agreement with Jax's question of why a scratch would ever ask a 14, etc, though I can think of occasions where it might matter (friends who know each others' game, etc).

Much like my good friend JohnV responds with "My 170 club" or whatever is appropriate when someone asks what he hit, I generally respond to those asking for recommendations with "What courses do you like?" or "What type of courses do you like?" I know my friends well enough to guess fairly accurately at what they'd like or not like, but it would be somewhat meaningless for me to guess what John likes, for instance.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

When you played Oakmont at what distance do you enjoy ?

Please don't say the ladies tees !!!

[Matt_Ward]

I think there are some people who may have believed my desire to post this thread was to simply repeat some previous thoughts.

Quite the contrary --

I just wanted to find out if back tees are really not applicable for the smallest of groups -- then why have them emphasized as much as they are with certain ratings and the like.

Clearly, this site goes in another direction with emphasis in terms of playability and the like.

No doubt if the difficulty meter is lessened the overall impact of the ratings would face some serious changes.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

A question:  are "difficulty" and "shotmaking interest" one and the same for you?

I suspect not, from your past posts.  And if so, don't you think that golf would be a better place if architects thought more about the latter than the former?

[Tony Weiler]

Tom D, when you design a course, do you find the "best" hole from the spot that eventually becomes the tips, then add up tees, or what is the process?  I thought SH was better from the tips, then the "up" tees.  It was just a better course, and I thougth, wow, I see what C and C was thinking here more so than from up.  That concerns me because I very seldom play the tips even though I'm a 3. I have no idea if that is what Matt is saying, but it is something I have given serious thought to since my trip in August to SH.   

[Chris Johnston]

Matt:

A question:  are "difficulty" and "shotmaking interest" one and the same for you?

I suspect not, from your past posts.  And if so, don't you think that golf would be a better place if architects thought more about the latter than the former?

Tom:

For every hole, by definition, there is always a back tee.  

I concur 100% on shotmaking over sheer difficulty every time.  Shotmaking can be difficult enough.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D, when you design a course, do you find the "best" hole from the spot that eventually becomes the tips, then add up tees, or what is the process?    

Tony:

I seldom decide upon the location of a green without looking around to figure out where the next tee is going to be, because I believe that easy transitions are crucial to the flow of the game.  I know Bill Coore believes that at least as much as I do.  But, that tee does not always turn out to be the BACK tee.  Sometimes the next hole is going to be better if that's the middle tee, and you find another spot (perhaps a bit more remote or awkward) to put a back tee.  That's how I look at it, at least.  I suspect that architects who always play the back tees will always find the back tee first.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

So much is in the eye of the beholder.

I have noticed a number of the courses I have played with your name attached have emphasized the putter in a big time way.

Interestingly, your CG book stated as much in terms of what you found endearing to the game when you were just starting to play.

I wonder if those elements you sought to include were overdone in certain instances ?

Might it be possible that green designs and areas immediately next to them can be as demanding / excessive no less than having long holes which require more brute strenght than anything else.

To answer your question -- I don't see difficulty and shotmaking one in the same.

However, I do believe length gets a bad wrap from a quite a few people -- here and elsewhere.

I do agree it would help if many courses weren't stages for sheer demands alone. Excessive yardage wastes valuable real estate but for many developers the thought of a course having something far less than a par-72 7,000+ course can mean having a faulty golf dimension. No doubt such thinking doesn't make much sense but perceptions are tough to overcome.

I do believe shaping shots is a testament to overall golf skill -- knowing how to flight one's balls and getting it to move in a certain direction when called upon is a good way to test players without the excessive length dimension alone.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Yes, my golf courses emphasize the putter more than the driver.

I suppose that is partly a reflection of my own game, but mostly, it's a reflection on two things I noted long ago:

1)  Becoming a long hitter with the driver is beyond the ability of most golfers [women, seniors, kids, etc.], while putting and short game skills are something that, IN THEORY, anyone could become proficient at.  [IN PRACTICE, it never ceases to amaze me how few players practice their short games or try to improve in that area, and are defeatist that they could ever improve their touch.]

2)  A severe green can defend the approach shot from any angle you want it to, and provide the same sort of scoring headaches for a "long and wrong" player that hazards in the fairway might.  However, a severe green does NOT generally require the player to exhibit any shotmaking skill with the driver, so in more recent years I have gone back to trying to figure out how to achieve that goal without beating up the weaker golfer.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I agree -- the short game skillset is often underpracticed by so many players -- what's so funny is how many people spend time trying to hit the driver properly and still can't do it -- even with today's technology assisting them.

Shockingly, you see so many places with short game areas and multi-target greens to hit pitches and chips. So few people actually use them.

Tom, I think you have done well in the evolution of testing the skill of the longer hitter without eliminating the weaker player. Two quick examples come to mind -- the 14th at Rock Creek is a good example of that. The stronger player needs to find the correct position to provide for a reasonable play with the approach. For the weaker player -- the hole is likely a three-shotter and such a player can opt to play further left without blocking themselves out.

The other one that comes immediately to mind is the closer at Stone Eagle. I think it's a fantastic hole and it serves as a great counterbalance to what the rest of the round has provided. A corset-type fairway pinches in at the right spot for those inclined to try to get the ball as deep down the fairway as possible. The weaker player also has options that can permit a safer play without being overburdened.

I think the really key function is to marry strong holes with ball movement -- this then makes then have to be proficient at two different skills at the same time.

[Matt_Ward]

Interesting comment by Tom Doak --

Sometimes the next hole is going to be better if that's the middle tee, and you find another spot (perhaps a bit more remote or awkward) to put a back tee.  That's how I look at it, at least.  I suspect that architects who always play the back tees will always find the back tee first.

The "central emphasis" of a hole being geared towards the middle tee position. Fascinating.

I wonder then if the back tee when placed is really nothing more than an afterthought and that the overall golf course is really more compelling from the mid markers instead.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I can't remember from what other thread you borrowed the quote above, but it's slightly out of context.  My point was that I try to find greens & subsequent tees together, but the perfect spot for the next tee doesn't always avail itself for the back tee ... because the ideal landing area for the hole is only 215 yards from there, for example.  So in that case, the perfect tee becomes the middle tee, and we find a more remote spot for the back markers.

That's more the exception than the rule, but it does illustrate that I don't design EVERY hole from the back tee first, as some other architects surely do.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()