News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Course length/Appropriate tees
« on: January 14, 2011, 11:20:58 AM »
One of the more thought-provoking golf course articles I have read in some time can be found at:
http://frontpagegolf.com/News/News2011/Barney Adams 011211.html
Adams argues that the main problem with golf popularity today can be cured by shorter courses and appropriate tees.  Read the article and thoughts?
I hope I got the link formatted properly so it can be found.  If not, maybe someone with more computer skills than I can help me.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2011, 11:25:11 AM »
I think the whole link needs to be underlined to work.  How do I do that after the fact?

Cory Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2011, 11:37:19 AM »
I completely agree, one of the most frustrating things I see is a course with men's tees at 5800, 6500, and 7000+.  So your average 15 handicap player will probablly think the 5800 are too short, so they'll choose the 6500, which are too long, and a lousy pace will result.  I remember at Crosswater we required a PGA card or proof of a handicap below 5 in order to play both sets of 7000+ tees.
Instagram: @2000golfcourses
http://2000golfcourses.blogspot.com

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 11:38:29 AM »
Jim,
You're missing some of the link, that's all.  Re-copy it and then modify your post.    
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2011, 11:47:57 AM »
My favorite subject lately.  At my newest projects, I make sure we have 4000 yard forward tees, and 5600 max white tees.  Here are two of my Golf Industry Magazine articles from last year:



Last month, I advocated moving from Par 72 to Par 70 to shorten courses.  This month, I will go further and propose that when golf course development resumes, most new golf courses should be vastly shorter.
Gut feel tells me that longer courses cost more to build and maintain and require more turf and water usage.  Research presented by golf course architect Phil Ryan at the World Forum of Golf Architects in St Andrews, Scotland, confirms my gut feel. For 26 golf courses in the Melbourne, Australia area the cost of maintaining the course increases by 1.7-2 per cent for each 100 meters of additional length, which is about the distance of two “extra” par 5 holes. 
But, if we started building even shorter courses, the savings would multiply further.  When money and water didn’t seem like a deterrent, developers touted 7,600-8,000 yard courses.  The problem is, even most PGA Tour players have no chance to win and average golfers have no fun at all (the original goal of recreational golf, no?) on such long courses.  nearly 67,000 drives have exceeded 300 yards this year,.
But, everyone focuses so much on the PGA Tour and actually over estimate the length of these players. Based on current Shot Link Data, only four Tour players average over 300 yards for all tee shots and 300 yard plus tee shots account for less than 18% of the PGA Tour’s drives. However, golf fans think they are the norm.  The mystery even Sherlock Holmes can’t unravel is why so much time is devoted to designing around today’s long hitters when they represent about 0.07% of all players, rounds and shots.
In honor of Sherlock, I propose “The 0.07 Per-Cent Solution” whereby new designs simply ignore those long hitters and concentrate on building “companionship” courses (since this is why most golfers play) rather than “championship courses for players and Tour Pros who probably never show up, leaving actual future users to not enjoy golf as much as they should. 
If we admit that we have all the “championship” courses we need for the 40 something pro tournaments annually, we would nicely accommodate over 97% of players on courses with maximum yardage of approximately 6800 yards. Yes, some longer hitters might migrate to other longer courses more suited to them.  And, many golfers would need some convincing that their course is just as good, even without those “way back” tees that they use about as often as I date supermodels. (i.e., never)  If these courses need hazards 300 yards down the fairway, narrow the fairway or rumple it up.  But don’t spend money on hazards in those areas.

Those golf course developers who can’t be convinced to build a 6800 yard course should consider a reasonable maximum length of about 7250 yards, which wouldn’t cause too big an ego blow since that is are just 5% shorter than a US Open course.  That length should only be considered IF the first 200 yards off each back tee can be low maintenance areas and the back tees are only well hidden 15’ x 15’ areas. (Trust me, these tees won’t get divot scarred) to save cost. 
I once wrote, “For better or worse, the opinion of your course is determined by better players.”  I think it’s for the worse.  It may be time for golf courses to re-think the “one size fits all” mentality moving forward. It rarely works for fashion or golf and future courses may have to be more specialized to target markets, instead of designing every new course for everyone, especially when the tendency is to design for Tour Pros who aren’t likely to actually play.   
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never has so much (design thought, acreage, and length) been devoted to so few.”  In this age of belt tightening, wasting resources on so few in so many places just doesn’t make sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of us are simply staggered by current driving distance stats from the PGA Tour:

•   21 PGA Tour players average 300 yard tee shots
•   42 Nationwide Tour players average 300 yard tee shots
•   The average PGA Tour Drive is 288 yards 
•   15% of PGA Tour Drives now exceed 345 Yards
•   0.25% of PGA Tour Drives exceeds 400 Yards (about 16 per tournament) 

What’s most staggering is the exaggerated influence those drives have on course design.  Those 63 long driving players represent 19% of tour players, and about 0.00025% of the US golfing population.  If there are 100 times that many other golfers matching that length, their combined tee shots comprised tees shots would amount to only 0.1% of annual US tee shots, which doesn’t seem like as big a problem as the press would make it.
 
The ball manufacturers sell hope to the other 25 Million golfers, but most don’t get actual additional distance.  And yet, golf courses keep getting longer to accommodate this miniscule portion of golfers, when achieving proper total playing distance for the masses is critical to two key elements in golf enjoyment - scoring and speed of play.  If average players can’t reach greens in regulation, with even their best shots, they must play additional shots, raising the time of play by 10-20 minutes.

The extra time and strokes diminish a course’s popularity and profitability, and real even estate sales, according to John Wait of Sirius Golf Advisors, a leading consultant on golf operations.  He consulted on a senior oriented residential golf course in Florida with forward tees measuring over 5700 yards.  He told them they wouldn’t sell many lots or memberships if women were responsible for the home buying decision (and they typically are!) with a course playing, by his figures, like a 7152 yard course for men, and recommended adjusting tees to a better yardage.

Many of today’s courses could benefit from tee adjustments. Any course built to the modern standard of approximately 7000/6700/6400/5600 yards now often play at unsuitable yardages for almost everyone, with the back tees too short, and the middle and forward tees too long.

Golfers want a course that’s not too hard, but not too easy.  Men gravitate to tees they enjoy, and the 6000-6400 yards tees are typically the busiest among males.  “Male ego” plays a part in tee selection, as most men won’t play courses marked below 6000 yards, while seniors prefer course yardage well below that figure.  At many courses, those choices are often either not present, or combined together, which subtly forces players into playing too long a yardage for their games.

Shot distances for common skill levels are fairly well known, based on research by many, including ASGCA member Bill Amick, who published his research on in 1996.  His data is summarized (with updates) in the following table:
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2011, 11:59:26 AM »
Short version is that I believe most courses ougth to have tees at 4000-5600-6300-6800 and whatever the back tees come out to, no longer than 7250, and really, those may not have to be bigger than 15 x 15 feet and maybe not even mowed every day.

Just think about the typical 140 yard hitting female or 190 hitting senior.  To get them around the course in regulation strokes, similar to stronger men would require 14 tee shots at that length, and 22 shots of something other than that length, maybe averaging 2/3 that distance.  Thus:

14 x 140 = 1960
22 x   95 = 2090
Total      = 4050

For seniors

14 x 190 = 2660
22 x 125 = 2750
Total      = 5410

For the 225 Hitter

14 x 225 = 3150
22 x 145 = 3190
Total      = 6340





Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2011, 12:02:10 PM »
Here is the correct linkage - Click on the blue ------>  It's Time To Do Something For The Game Of Golf
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2011, 12:08:49 PM »
Jeff,

Agreed.  A well designed 6800 yard par 70 should be enough for almost anyone.  Me, I'll be at the 6300 box collecting your money...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Matt_Ward

Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2011, 01:04:27 PM »
I agree that many people should be playing from shorter distances but here's the rub most people don't get -- the folks who need to play from such markers are DEAD SET against it.

The feelings I have heard many times is that they want to play the WHOLE course -- not the miniature-golf version of it.

Until that mindset is broken -- it's tough to overcome.

Now let me point out the flip side of that story.

If markers for a given course are set -- Pebble Beach is a great example -- I resent having to play from markers that are 50-60 yards ahead of the actual hole distances from the champ tees. I believe my game is strong enough to play from there but it's really a rip-off of the $$ involved to be forced to play only from one such box.

Private clubs have an easier time with this -- but frankly the public courses are going to really educate people on what is indeed possible for the masses. It's no different than the inane thoughts that go through the minds of many people who winter ski. Many actually believe they can handle the double diamond hills when in reality the bunny slopes are closer to their talent level.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2011, 01:12:10 PM »
I think groups ie a 4 ball should play off different tees if they wish, my friends are good players but the course is then too long for me as they playing at 7000, if my frends play off MY tees 6300 they dont enjoy it I played yesterday with some people 10 years older than me and I enjoyed it, I guess the course was 6000, I played the last 10 holes in even par, from the backs I cant get on the holes in regulation. Yesterday I hit 11 out 13 fairways and 11 greens in reg.... that word FUN.... from the backs.... HELL
I dont know if groups playing with some off the whites and some of the yellows happens much in the rest of the world but in the UK its rare.
There is too much variation these days in what long and short hitters hit.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2011, 01:20:05 PM »

I think groups ie a 4 ball should play off different tees if they wish,




This is where the problem is,IMO.There will always be a one back/all back mindset because of handicaps.Even if every permutation of combinations is rated,everyone in a group is going to walk to the same set of tee markers.


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2011, 01:25:55 PM »

I think groups ie a 4 ball should play off different tees if they wish,




This is where the problem is,IMO.There will always be a one back/all back mindset because of handicaps.Even if every permutation of combinations is rated,everyone in a group is going to walk to the same set of tee markers.


Ladies and Gents play off different tees, that works. It's kind of a macho thing too not go off the fronts. I play less golf because many of my friends are good players, so the 'wrong tee' for me spoils golf.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2011, 02:01:40 PM »

I think groups ie a 4 ball should play off different tees if they wish,




This is where the problem is,IMO.There will always be a one back/all back mindset because of handicaps.Even if every permutation of combinations is rated,everyone in a group is going to walk to the same set of tee markers.


Ladies and Gents play off different tees, that works. It's kind of a macho thing too not go off the fronts. I play less golf because many of my friends are good players, so the 'wrong tee' for me spoils golf.

The reason is gambling.Nobody wants to spot someone strokes and distance.Few people believe a bet can be made equitable from different tee markers--too many handicap permutations to figure out.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2011, 02:23:44 PM »
JM,

It's pretty straightforward.  Take your respective course handicaps for the various tees and normalize by the difference in course rating of those tees.  Problem solved....
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2011, 02:24:33 PM »
Considering golfers are meant to be an honest lot, it may be worth exploring the concept of different green fees for different sets of tees with a handicap certificate to validate (as much as it can) the golfer's ability to play further back.  It might be quite something if a certain number of golfers were allowed off the back tees if they paid an extra say $15 on a green fee of $50 from the normal or forward tees.  

But in general, the way forward has to be redcuing par to sub 70, less par 5s and more par 3s.  I don't know too many 5-10 cappers that said Addington or Swinley was too easy at 6000 yards.    

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Matt_Ward

Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2011, 02:41:11 PM »
Sean:

All the so-called certificates and the like can be forged -- handicap cards are the same BS.

If people want to play from the tips -- they should head down to the range where a staff person can monitor them hitting balls.

If they can't carry the 200-yard mark each time with their driver -- then the far forward tees are where they play.

The issue is that public courses don't have the wherewithal to mandate that people play from forward tees -- the only way is to place one tee box that is far forward -- the net result is that the stronger players are forced to play a course that is far below what their talents can handle. The insertion of extra par-3 holes and no par-5 holes is not something that would interest the better players.

Pebble Beach does this and frankly it sucks because better players have to pay the same fees but get the "challenge" of a 6,000 yard course.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2011, 02:46:12 PM »
Considering golfers are meant to be an honest lot, it may be worth exploring the concept of different green fees for different sets of tees with a handicap certificate to validate (as much as it can) the golfer's ability to play further back.  It might be quite something if a certain number of golfers were allowed off the back tees if they paid an extra say $15 on a green fee of $50 from the normal or forward tees.  

But in general, the way forward has to be redcuing par to sub 70, less par 5s and more par 3s.  I don't know too many 5-10 cappers that said Addington or Swinley was too easy at 6000 yards.    

Ciao
Sean-Why should players with the requisite ability pay up to play the back tees? Your example puts a 30% surcharge to move back. Seems discriminatory. My two cents.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2011, 02:46:50 PM »
JM,

It's pretty straightforward.  Take your respective course handicaps for the various tees and normalize by the difference in course rating of those tees.  Problem solved....

I'm pretty aware of how course ratings are done.It's not really relevant,however.

A large percentage of golfers play for money.While the stakes don't matter--it's the reason they play.Kind of like the NFL,take away gambling and the interest nosedives.

When groups get accustomed to giving/getting shots from one set of tee markers,there isn't much chance of one guy's desire to move up a set being accepted.He can either play the same set or not get any action from the others.

Basically,the majority will rule on the set of tee markers played.

It may not be right,but it's the way things are.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2011, 02:48:24 PM »

But in general, the way forward has to be redcuing par to sub 70, less par 5s and more par 3s.  I don't know too many 5-10 cappers that said Addington or Swinley was too easy at 6000 yards.    

Ciao

I'd concur.

My home course, Reddish Vale, is a tad over 6000 yards and very tight, with little scope for lengthening holes with tees further back. There has been talk at the club about the need to 'lengthen' the course for the modern age, as at 6000 yards and par 69 it was difficult to be 'taken seriously.'

If there is a trend back towards shorter but very challenging courses we run the danger of becoming fashionable!


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2011, 02:55:41 PM »
Better players (sub 5 handicap) tend to pay less for golf not more. No chance of a surchage for them. A lot of their golf is team matches, county, regional, open tournaments where the green fee is zero and they play from the backs.
There is no reason why back tee players should pay more, its just a case of that today some courses are too short for some and some find some too long. A lot of people want to play golf at 7000 yards these days, and the enjoyment range is probably 100 yards per hole.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2011, 02:58:31 PM »
There is no reason why back tee players should pay more

How about the fact that they require more real estate, which costs more to buy and maintain?  Furthermore, women and children would pay a reduced fee for playing the up tees, thus encouraging more participation....
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Joe Grasty

Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2011, 03:00:43 PM »
I generally play from the 6000 yd tees, otherwise, there will be some par-4 holes I can't reach.  I used to torture myself on the 6500 yd tees, as I play in a golf association that played from 6500 yd tees.  Finally, they gave in to the membership and allowed the C and D flights to go off the 6000 yd tees.

Golf is more fun up there.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2011, 03:01:42 PM »
BTW these are not far off the same:
7000 yards par 72
6750 yards par 71
6500 yards par 70
6250 yards par 69

Equally a make up outside of 10x par 4 holes and 4x par 3 holes and 4x par 5 holes can raise some quirk. TOC with just 2 short holes and 14 par 4 holes measures about 7300 yards, yet it combines 4 driveable 4s and mayb ??six?? 4s under 400. On the same reasoning a course with 5 short holes can play longer than its total (if that makes sense!)
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2011, 03:03:30 PM »
There is no reason why back tee players should pay more

How about the fact that they require more real estate, which costs more to buy and maintain?  Furthermore, women and children would pay a reduced fee for playing the up tees, thus encouraging more participation....
lol
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Matt_Ward

Re: Course length/Appropriate tees
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2011, 03:10:25 PM »
Jud:

How bout this -- how bout we charge people more for playing slow rather than worrying if they can handle the back tees. I am well aware of blue-tee-itis that exists for a small portion of players -- the solution for that disease is quite simple.

When one skis they don't charge you a different rate to ski the double diamond hills.

The problem is that many people really think they have the game to play something in the range of 6,500 yards.

Most of the culprits are guys who can't hit a driver 200 plus yards in the air.

Frankly, I think it would be great for people playing a course to head down to the range -- be observed by a staff person after warming up -- and seeing what they are capable in doing.

Unfortunately, few people take the Eastwood admonition seriously -- a man's got to know his limitations.