[Kari Haug]

Following is an excerpt of an article that I wrote for publication.  I'm interested in feedback on it.  
Please keep in mind that it is an excerpt and the full article contains much more information including a research study of 300 existing courses that found a lack of appropriate course length for women.  I also propose that there is a lack of strategic elements that contribute to enjoyment and skill development for women and may contribute to stagnation in the growth of women's golf.  Your comments are appreciated.  Thank you!  Kari
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A source of discontent for many women golfers is the placement of forward tees off to one side of the fairway.  Ironically, the concept of offset tees was included in a publication of forward tee guidelines written decades ago by the famous female golf course architect, Alice Dye.  Although the guidelines have produced countless tee improvements for women over the years, and while I have tremendous respect and admiration for Mrs. Dye’s work, I think some of the guidelines for tee positioning may benefit from modernization.  

One of Mrs. Dye’s guidelines was to locate tees out of the sight-line of the back tees and close to the cart path.  While the benefits to safety and speed of play are obvious, often the tee placed according to this guideline is located along a tree line (sometimes with overhanging branches), in the shade causing poor regrowth of grass on the tee, away from benches and ball washers, or with a poor angle to the landing area for drives.  Assuredly, this was not Mrs. Dye’s intent, but this is what has often happened.  Mrs. Dye’s suggestion that the forward tee be placed so that it would be “out of the line of vision” for safety and pace of play reasons has morphed into contemporary reasoning that the forward tee is a “distraction”.  Even if there was a traditional social code of conduct that compelled women to stay out of the way and that underpinned the concept of the offset tee, this message in contemporary women’s golf societies is offensive and should be abandoned.

A second guideline which suggests placing tees on the outside of a dogleg has often erased the strategic element of deciding how much of the inside corner one is able to negotiate.  If the forward tee complex were simply moved further down the fairway and not offset, the strategic element would still be in place, but could be surmountable.   It is important to note, however, if the angle of the dogleg and width of the fairway is such that a good drive would run through the fairway, offset positioning on the outside corner would still be appropriate.  This brings up an important issue, guidelines are only meant to guide and thoughtful design consideration is necessary to consider the best design solutions from all tees.  

Finally, another guideline suggests that tees should fit into the natural contour of the ground.  While this is nearly always the goal of a good architect, this practice can produce a huge disadvantage for shorter-hitters since loss of elevation subtracts from ball flight distance in addition to diminishing the vista and awe factor which all contribute to enjoyment of the game.  In many cases, an offset tee that maintains elevation could be a better option as long as sound strategy is retained.  

The game has changed for women.  Since the arrival of Title IX, women have more athleticism, are more interested in strategic challenge, and less tolerant of dismissive design practices.  I propose that forward tee guidelines be updated as recommended above with reduced offsets, and that incremental forward tee systems start between 4,800 – 5,200 yards and include course length that plays in the gap distance (5,500 – 5,700 yards).  Finally, architects should avoid automatic application of guidelines and formulas without careful consideration about strategy, playability, and landscape architecture principles that will produce exciting golf experiences for all skill levels.

In addition to proper course length, incremental distance challenges and courses that play in the gap range, contemporary forward tee placement should maintain alignment of the tee complex with the back tees in most cases.  Using small elevation changes and vegetation, while maintaining clear navigation with walking and cart paths, is sometimes an acceptable design solution to maintain the integrity of strategic play from the forward tees.  These are just a few of the many possible solutions, but unless your chosen architect takes the time to employ thoughtful design solutions from the forward tees, or until women get more involved in the design process, it likely will not happen.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think 4,500 to 4,000 is a good yardage to start with
And I like to ignore all guidelines
Put the forward tees in as many different interesting places as possible
Sometimes in front of a hazard they can play over or around
Give them as many choices (if not more) as the regular player
cheers

[Garland Bayley]

On the one hand, it seems to me that the appropriate length to put the ladies tees at would be the length that would make the ladies tees have the same USGA course and slope ratings as the standard men's tees.
On the other hand, I suspect that would be too short for ladies with any kind of game at all.

[Jim Johnson]

I think 4,500 to 4,000 is a good yardage to start with

Mike, did you mean 4,500 to 5,000? Or 4,500 to 4,000?

[Tom_Doak]

Kari:

The problem with way-forward tees, as you understand, is that on longer holes the most-forward tee sometimes falls right around the start of the fairway, or even past it.  If the tee is shoved to the side of the fairway, it not only plays bad from there, but it looks horribly awkward from further back, especially if the architect insists on building rectangular tees and the land has some side-slope to it.

On several recent courses, we've located a handful of forward tees WITHIN the start of the fairway ... just leveled off a reasonable sized flat spot at the start of the fairway, and put the markers there.  It enables us to get the angle of the hole where it makes sense for the players who use that tee, and it just disappears visually for everyone else.  I've heard some grumbling that women won't like being asked to tee it up in the fairway, and will want their own separate tee -- even one with a bad angle, I wonder? -- but the feedback from players has been very positive to date.

Sadly, some of the debate about where is the best place for forward tees is guided by political correctness, instead of golfing sense.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, we did that awhile back on a couple courses.  With bent fairways mowed at 7/16, they were as nice as any tee.  We did it for 2 reasons, 1) it allowed to bring the fairway start back closer to the other tees (which also gave the illusion that the hole was longer than it was) and 2) it could be mowed with the fairway - thus effectively eliminating 14 tees that needed mowing. 

I tried to impliment this in Europe and caught all kinds of grief,  God help those who break from the Status Quo.

One item the orignal poster needs to reassess is 1) they are Forward tees, not Ladies tees and as such, ladies looking for more challange are free to move back to the next set.  Thus, the forward tees should not readily take into consideration whether one should/could cut the dogleg as that is above this players pay grade. Alices reasoning for placing tees at the outside of doglegs was to allow a more unencumbered shot up the fairway and to not have a hazard or inside corner of rough for thise whodidn't make it to the corner.

Guidelnes are just that - guidelines.  Food for thought.  Alices work cast a light on an area that, up until then, had not received much attention.  More than anything else, I believe they made architects "consider" how ladies play.  A whole generation of architects now have this ingrained nto their thinking.  I now we had a copy of her poster hanging in the drafting studio.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kari,

No doubt all things should be looked at again.  The Wright Bros didn't come out of the chute with the 747 and I am sure even Alice would try to improve on her own system.

Not sure why anyone would be against guidelines, if they are based on the real math of forward tee golf, and then sensitively applied.  I agree with you that many forward tees have been placed awkwardly.  A female golf writer made that point to me while I was Prez of ASGCA and we went out the nearest course.  Sure enough, at least half the forward tees were stuck behind trees or otherwise awkward in some way.  A few points where I disagree a bit include....

I don't know why you would think following the natural ground would put forward tees down in a hole.  Its an easy matter to put them on a hill naturally.  If there is some strict formula (say, putting the tee 500 feet in front of the back tee, then I would just move it up or back as required for a good, elevated location)

Mike Nuzzo is correct - 4000-4500 yards is good, and it should probably be closer to 4000 yards.  The Title X gals can move back to the 5400-5700 tees.  Nothing has changed for the average forward tee player.  They might hit it 140 off the tee instead of 130.

If the goal is to have them get round a par 72 course in regulation figures, the longest it could be would be 36 x 140 yards of 5040.  Of course, no one wants the second shots to be full out off the deck drivers, so if they averaged 2/3 of the drive, or about 100 yards, then we would have 36 x 120 or 4320 as a "guideline," subject to topo and individual hole requirements.

To start with, the USGA guide of 405 yards for a par 5 means many women can't even hit the minimum length par 5 in three shots, or just barely.  I am starting to place my par 5 tees so they are all about this length, and no more than 425 or so.  And wherever there are cross hazards, the forward tee should probably be located to keep those out of play, even at the expense of an extra shot to the green.  I think most women would be happy if 40-42 full strokes constituted regulation play.  I think an average of 3 shots per par 4 would get a little boring (at least, that is what I hear)

Lastly, everyone benefits when all golfers play at a reasonable length for them.  It speeds up play (at an average of 3-5 minutes a shot, taking out 10-12 shots speeds things up by a half an hour).  Why we all feel the need to play much longer than we really are comfortable is beyond me, but I do see it changing in this generation as opposed to my fathers generation. 

Oddly, I think its in part because we realize we are nowhere near as long as Tiger and Phil, whereas back in the day, if you played in a pro am with, say Homero Blancas, you were only 10-15 yards behind the pros.  Now, you are 50-75 yards behind them.

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff, I am 50-75 yards behind my SON these days. I love those white tees at 6000-6300 yards!

[Kari Haug]

ladies looking for more challange are free to move back to the next set.  Thus, the forward tees should not readily take into consideration whether one should/could cut the dogleg as that is above this players pay grade.

Thank you for the feedback.  There are many good points brought up.  I hope to get some good discussion on these.

Tim:  I agree that the label “forward tee” is more appropriate in contemporary golf culture and I hope more people are thinking this way.  Not only will it help with design from the forward tees, but will help with pace of play since maybe more golfers will play from the tee appropriate for their skill level. 

Your reply also scratched the surface of a big problem encountered by women looking for more challenge on the golf course.  Sometimes simply moving back to the next set of tees is not a reasonable option.  Sometimes the next tee is 800-1,000 yards back.  For women (or beginners in general) who are developing skill level, this jump is too big.  Confidence and satisfaction emerges with challenges met and overcome. 

A comfortable increase in distance may be 300-500 yards, but often the increase for women is far more and leads to frustration and insurmountable challenges that I think ultimately leads to attrition.   For sustainability and growth of the sport and retention of new golfers in general, I think courses should take a serious look at course distances between 5,000 and 6,000 yards making sure that there are incremental increases in challenge to distance.  In my article, I call this an “incremental forward tee system”.   In particular, I think courses should ensure that they have a course set up for play between 5,500 – 5,700 yards (I call this the “gap range” which bridges the gap between 5,000 and 6,000 yards).  This range (5,500 – 5,700) is often the distance that many golfers developing their skills prefer to play.  Many good amateur women golfers top out between 5,500 – 5,700.  In my research, I found only 20% of courses providing play in this range. 

One problem I see with moving the forward tee to the outside corner of a dogleg is that it nearly fully erases the strategic element that creates the challenge and excitement that is fundamental to the game.   I think boring design from the forward tees is another reason that women’s golf hasn’t grown over time.

[Tom_Doak]

Kari:

I've played golf exactly once so far this year, but most of the times I do play, I use the "combo" tees -- meaning we will play whatever tee we want on a given hole.

Instead of designing [and building, and irrigating, and maintaining] two or three sets of tees for women, could we not accomplish the same thing by simply mixing and matching the tees we already have?  Say, pick six to nine holes on the course where it would be appropriate for the women to move back to the next set of markers, and have them play up front on the balance of the holes?

I recognize that some will not find this ideal, but I do not believe in providing an "ideal" set of tees for every different player, man or woman.  To do so would essentially require you to just extend every fairway all the way back to the back tee, and few golf operations can afford to do that.

[Jason Topp]

I recognize that some will not find this ideal, but I do not believe in providing an "ideal" set of tees for every different player, man or woman.  To do so would essentially require you to just extend every fairway all the way back to the back tee, and few golf operations can afford to do that.

Anyone playing the back tees should be able to carry the ball to the start of the fairway so I disagree that providing different teeing grounds requires extra fairway to be constructed.

Having said that, we have a bunch of forward tees that sit unused because the women hate them.  They would rather hit driver off the tee and play some par fours as par fives than play from a point where they would hit certain clubs into the green.  I wonder how much they were consulted when the master plan containing the new tees was drawn up.

[Mike Nuzzo]

The following shows the forward tees - green center lines.
I put them in interesting places - or so most of their shots will be interesting.
Often they play very different from the regular hole (orange center lines).
There is also a separate and completely different shot for a forward tee on #7 - a very cool spot indeed by the tree.
It is under a 6,700 yard walk for the forward tees.

[Kari Haug]

we've located a handful of forward tees WITHIN the start of the fairway ... just leveled off a reasonable sized flat spot at the start of the fairway, and put the markers there.  It enables us to get the angle of the hole where it makes sense for the players who use that tee, and it just disappears visually for everyone else.  I've heard some grumbling that women won't like being asked to tee it up in the fairway, and will want their own separate tee -- even one with a bad angle, I wonder?

Hi Tom, good to hear from you.
I guess I’m not so fond of the mowed spot on the fairway…unless this tee was for juniors.  If intended to be a tee for adults, I think this type of design sends a dismissive message to users and I could understand the grumbling that may occur.  In most cases, I would imagine that there also is a loss of elevation with this type of tee, and no access to minor amenities like a bench or ball washer.   

Nicklaus had some creative ways of incorporating invisible forward tees using topo, vegetation, and the cart path at Kinloch in New Zealand; however, they rarely got the drive distance and landing area correct from the forward tees.  It was a bummer for me (and my high score) as I hit through many of the fairways.  I tried playing the back nine from the next tee back, but again - bummer, then the course played too long and I had difficulty reaching landing areas to set up a decent approach.

Instead of designing [and building, and irrigating, and maintaining] two or three sets of tees for women, could we not accomplish the same thing by simply mixing and matching the tees we already have?  Say, pick six to nine holes on the course where it would be appropriate for the women to move back to the next set of markers, and have them play up front on the balance of the holes?

I think the combo tee is a good solution in many cases and recommended it in my article that I hope gets published. 

[Tom_Doak]

I recognize that some will not find this ideal, but I do not believe in providing an "ideal" set of tees for every different player, man or woman.  To do so would essentially require you to just extend every fairway all the way back to the back tee, and few golf operations can afford to do that.

Anyone playing the back tees should be able to carry the ball to the start of the fairway so I disagree that providing different teeing grounds requires extra fairway to be constructed.

Having said that, we have a bunch of forward tees that sit unused because the women hate them.  They would rather hit driver off the tee and play some par fours as par fives than play from a point where they would hit certain clubs into the green.  I wonder how much they were consulted when the master plan containing the new tees was drawn up.

Jason:

What I meant was that if my own "ideal tee" is 30 or 40 yards forward of the back tees, and yours is 10, and Kari's is 79, then the only thing to do is mow the grass short all the way to the back.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I’m not so fond of the mowed spot on the fairway…unless this tee was for juniors.  If intended to be a tee for adults, I think this type of design sends a dismissive message to users and I could understand the grumbling that may occur.  In most cases, I would imagine that there also is a loss of elevation with this type of tee, and no access to minor amenities like a bench or ball washer.   
 

It is not intended to be dismissive at all, it is intended as a better landscape solution to a real problem.  The fact that some people choose to find it dismissive, says more about them than it does about me.

No need to worry about benches or ball washers, though, I like to minimize them on my courses anyway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George Thomas did promote the "fair tee" which is basically just that - an extension of the fw back to the tee and incorporating it.  Maybe its time for a revival, perhaps in connection with Flogton or some other variation of the game where you don't need to start from set markers, even though they may be there as a guide in some form.

The only problem is, with current and likely future emphasis on turf reductions, maybe it wouldn't fly in some areas.  For that matter, Americans are so used to following signs and what not, I think they would feel uncomfortable NOT starting from a defined spot.

[Don_Mahaffey]

My sense of logic tells me with all being equal, it makes the most sense to design from the front back; layout the ladies/super senior/junior tees first since they have the shortest carry distance and then work back. If you’re going to cheat anyone cheat the guy who can fly it 230+ as he can deal a lot better with a less than perfect position to start.

We should be spending a lot more time worrying about the front set then the back set.

[Kari Haug]

Mike Nuzzo is correct - 4000-4500 yards is good, and it should probably be closer to 4000 yards.  The Title X gals can move back to the 5400-5700 tees.  Nothing has changed for the average forward tee player.  They might hit it 140 off the tee instead of 130.

Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the input.  I did a random study on approximately 300 golf courses and only 20% of them played in the 5,500 - 5,700 range, the range that many Title IX gals may like to play.  So just moving back is often not an option.  Putting a "combo tee" course on the scorecard as Tom has suggested (and which I agree is a good option) might be one solution, but the point is that 'just moving back' isn't really an option most of the time.  I hope course architects start to recognize this is a big issue.   We need a surmountable intermediate distance challenge to develop skill in order to move to 6,000 yards.

I would disagree with the 4,000 - 4,500 yard range for the "average" female golfer.  I thought it was a typo, and still wonder if Mike meant 5,000 yards.  I think 4,000 yards is ...well, I don't know what to say - maybe okay for a junior tee.  I think some of the distance challenges women face are due to poor equipment for women (I'm not sure yet whether equipment is designed poorly or if most women are improperly fit.)  Whatever the case, I think we need more research.

[Jeff_Brauer]

http://www.golfwithwomen.com/?cat=10

Kari,

Check out the website above, and try to get past the ugly mug currently on the front page.  Arthur has been at this many years and bases it on his research, not just the sort of "feelings" we gca's have had that lead to a lot of problems in the first place.  He says 4100 yards may be optimum. I have trouble getting clients to go that short, usually stopping about 4400 yards.

I had one club start out fighting me on really shortening up the course, and as usually happens, it was the good women players on the committee who were very much into 5400 yards or so.  But, the more they started thinking about how the other 30-45 women at the club played, the more something below 4500 yards got accepted as a pretty good idea.

Again, do the math on even 36-40 shots X 110 yard average shot (140 tee, 80 yard average second) or 4400 yards.  Obviously we can play with the numbers a bit, but for golf to be like we know golf from the mid tees, the forward tees for the 130-140 yard hitters needs to be down in that range, even accepting a few holes they can't get home in regulation.

Besides my own work, some other courses, including Bandon resort are starting to adopt this.   I'm doing it at La Costa Resort now.  I got quoted in the Wall St Journal about three years ago on this topic.  (The back tees should be merely a rumor to most, I said) I am a big advocate for shorter and shorter in all tee ranges but the very back.  

[Kari Haug]

I guess I’m not so fond of the mowed spot on the fairway…unless this tee was for juniors.  If intended to be a tee for adults, I think this type of design sends a dismissive message to users and I could understand the grumbling that may occur.  In most cases, I would imagine that there also is a loss of elevation with this type of tee, and no access to minor amenities like a bench or ball washer.   
 

 it is intended as a better landscape solution to a real problem. 

Hi Tom,
It may be a good landscape solution, but is it a good golf solution?  Sustainability of the sport will depend in part on growth of all market segments including high handicappers who are charmed and captivated by the same design elements as the low handicappers (whether they know it or not - it is basic environmental psychology).  If these elements are missing for today's high handicapper, the next generation of low-handicap golfers may go missing.  PS - I wouldn't miss the bench either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kari,

It is an interesting debate as to whether golf needs to be harder or easier to captivate players. I bet most in the golf biz would say it needs to be easier.  Women in particular who are starting golf later in life when they get into the professional world say fear of looking bad (both in golf game and style, which of course is a whole different discussion) hold them back.

I do play golf with a variety of age appropriate (to me!) females, and I can attest that they are generally not fond of playing golf with men, mostly because of fear of not being great players (well, and the fact we can be real pigs, but again, a whole nother subject.......)

[Kari Haug]

Hi Jeff,
I have seen the golf for women website and have kept up with your work on women's golf, including the WSJ article.  I think the website has some great information and I am hoping the research continues.  I have followed Nancy B for years and have studied your work based on Bill Amick's? work.  My vote is still out on the course that plays less than 4,500 yards.  javascript:void(0); Kari

[Kari Haug]

Jeff:
I think the key that captivates high handicappers is "looks hard, plays easy."  It is often the visual and emotional aspect of the game that creates the hook.  Golf gets us psychologically...."the trill of victory and the agony of defeat."  A hard course for beginners without any thrill would probably deter repeat business.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kari,

No doubt about that.  That is why I love the idea of shorter courses where everyone plays shots either to the fw or to the green.  As we all know, the least thrilling shot in golf is the second on a par 5, and yet, we ask typical women and newbies of all sorts to play 18-20 of those per round, even if they hit them all perfect.

Rarely is there a thrill or agony in hitting one down a featureless fw (because its between hazard zones)  But, reaching the green in reguation figures, that still rocks everyones world!

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I’m not so fond of the mowed spot on the fairway…unless this tee was for juniors.  If intended to be a tee for adults, I think this type of design sends a dismissive message to users and I could understand the grumbling that may occur.  In most cases, I would imagine that there also is a loss of elevation with this type of tee, and no access to minor amenities like a bench or ball washer.   
 

 it is intended as a better landscape solution to a real problem. 

Hi Tom,
It may be a good landscape solution, but is it a good golf solution?  Sustainability of the sport will depend in part on growth of all market segments including high handicappers who are charmed and captivated by the same design elements as the low handicappers (whether they know it or not - it is basic environmental psychology).  If these elements are missing for today's high handicapper, the next generation of low-handicap golfers may go missing.  PS - I wouldn't miss the bench either.

Kari:

I don't understand what part of the golf experience you think is missing from a tee mowed out in the fairway.  This location is often ideal for bringing the fairway bunkers up ahead into play for short hitters, because you can center the tee on the fairway instead of having to stick it over to one side where the angle is no good. 

Is it really as simple as people wanting to be put on a pedestal?  I try to make every tee sit as low on the ground as I can, as I found at St. Andrews.  I hate when they are built up, and they cost more to maintain that way, too.

Or is it that carrying a bit of rough off the tee (even 20-30 yards) is considered part of the challenge of golf?

The way-forward tees we put in for Old Macdonald were suggested by an elderly couple in their 80's who are regular guests at the resort.  Both husband and wife play from them, and they are thrilled with being able to get around the course without any forced carries.  There are plenty of other options there; considering we are mowing something like 90 acres of fescue at fairway height, you could play from just about anywhere you want.  But with other grass species on fairways, that's not a viable solution, so we have to make some decisions on teeing grounds, even though I am totally comfortable with people making it up as they go.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()