The golfer's and the architect's dilemma

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

The problem I have with your solution is the arbitrary nature of tee selection and the recording of a proper score for handicap purposes.

If there are 3 to 5 sets of tees, a golfer shouldn't have to craft a combo course.

Tom Doak,

To a degree, handicaps are part of the problem since they act as a "buoy" or "floatation device" with the golfers game.
As the golfer's game deteriorates, his handicap goes up, giving him a false sense of his ability to cope the the tees he's selected because he remains competitive with his peers with his higher handicap.

Our group, who has been playing together for close to 50 years faced this dilema.

Handicaps for some were escalating upward, some reaching 24-26.

For decades, we've had a rule, no more than 1 shot per hole.

The older fellows who were losing distance and those whose handicaps were 20+ wanted to play from the white tees, which we agreed to, but, they didn't want to give up any strokes based on their blue tee handicap.

We finally said, play by the rules the group has established over the last five decades or find a new group.

We have another dilema.

Some in our group have handicaps that don't reflect their ability.
When we play best ball of the foursome, against other foursomes, they'll sometimes take a 5 foot putt for their bogey when a teammate has made a 3 or a 4 or a 5, thus, their handicap is lower than it should be, because their game can't handle the blue tees.
You love them as an opponent, but, it's a dilema when they're your partner.

Golf egos are difficult to deal with because we all feel that we'll play better, not worse, tomorrow.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think the approaches to slope and rating should be altered so as to encourage players to mix and match the tees they play from hole to hole.  This would require organizing the slope and rating of a golf course by hole, rather than by nine and by course.  I don't know too much about the intricacies in the process of putting together the slope and rating for a golf course.  Is it possible to express the slope and rating for a single hole?  This would allow people to post scores from rounds where they've mixed up the tees, guilt-free.

[Phil Benedict]

One behavior I've observed is how resistant aging club members are to using the gold tees.  Am I alone in this?  I kind understand it approaching the big '60.'  Playing the forward tees is an admission of lost youth; that your best years are behind you.

[Tom_Doak]

Lots of interesting comments on the teeing choices.  A question to the architects:

When looking at tee box options, how often would you like to put in different tee boxes to provide variation in strategy vs. Just variation in length?

When you look at nine hole courses some have different tee boxes to make the holes play differently, taking out doglegs, short vs long, etc.  When does that come into the equation, and are there situations where owners are receptive to that?

Dave

David:

The idea of alternate teeing grounds which create really different tee shots is an interesting one, but it really isn't applicable to very many courses.  If you've got a course with limited acreage and lots of parallel holes, or if you've got a course cut through trees, then you are not going to be able to provide different angles from various tees; all you can do is vary the length.

The percentage of courses built on land with perfect native cover that allows play from all angles is probably well under 10% of all courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

One behavior I've observed is how resistant aging club members are to using the gold tees.  Am I alone in this?  I kind understand it approaching the big '60.'  Playing the forward tees is an admission of lost youth; that your best years are behind you.

We have found the solution to this problem.  Gambling.  One of the older members of out group initially balked on moving up a set a tees that fit his game.  He lost, he lost and he lost some more, he move up, he won.  He won't move back.

The best part of the story is that we switch partners every six holes and were begging for our chance with him.  It put a perk back in his step.

[jeffwarne]

Tom, for those of us trying to maintain a handicap in the US of A, the USGA slope/rating formulas kind of tie us to a set of tees for each round, as I know you know.  The game of trying to improve your handicap is fun, after all, so I don't want to overstate this point.

Going back to Pat's original point, and tying that back to a point you've made Tom in the past, about how if a player complains they can't hit driver-hybrid and score on his course, he's done his job, if players have the freedom to pick their tees, how many are going to do so to bring the strategy into play versus taking the strategy out of play, especially when playing stroke play?

Most of the choices we make on course are choices on how to beat the course.  If we play by Hoyle, the course is defined tee box to hole.  The only choice you get on where to tee off is between the markers, two lengths back.

Two things I'd like to see more of: USGA ratings for men from forward tees, and, a little more out there, USGA ratings by hole, so you could build a slope and rating for each round if you do move around.

Tom, I do love your attitude.  If more people shared it golf as experienced in the US would be very different.  Jeff, I love the way you challenge assumptions in the name of innovation, like the split tees.  That's really commendable.

I do have some sympathy for the other way of doing things -- the Scots' egalitarian attitude that dictates everyone play a particular tee regardless of conditions.  But in America, where the customer is always right, there is no way in hell you could run a golf course like that anymore.

Has anyone tried?

[Tom ORourke]

We have 2 sets of forward tees, presumably for juniors and women, 2 sets of "white" tees, and the back tees. The back tees are around 7,000 and the 2 whites are 6,300 and 6,700. Our scorecard also has 18 holes circled so one can play a mix of the shorter white and the longer forward tees. The yardage and slope are on the card so you can post a score for handicap. This would seem to be a good choice for some seniors who do not want the 410 yard par 4 that they can't possibly reach anymore. I am a 59 year old 7 handicap and my usual carry with a driver tops out at 220, so I avoid anything over 6,700. Unless I am curious to see just how old I have gotten. I don't want driver / wedge all day, but driver / 3 wood is even less fun. We have a lot of tee boxes to change lengths more so than angles, but some tees are offset, especially the par 3s.

[Tim Martin]

One behavior I've observed is how resistant aging club members are to using the gold tees.  Am I alone in this?  I kind understand it approaching the big '60.'  Playing the forward tees is an admission of lost youth; that your best years are behind you.

We have found the solution to this problem.  Gambling.  One of the older members of out group initially balked on moving up a set a tees that fit his game.  He lost, he lost and he lost some more, he move up, he won.  He won't move back.

The best part of the story is that we switch partners every six holes and were begging for our chance with him.  It put a perk back in his step.

The 6,6,6, system you are describing is a great way to avert a situation where someone feels they are being taken advantage of especially when money is on the line.

[Pete_Pittock]

How does a golfer decide which tees to play from ?
And how often does he make the right decision from the perspective of maximizing his ability to interface with the intended architectural features ?
We're all aware of how increased distance has obsoleted the interfacing process due to the long ball, but what about the golfer who can no longer reach the intended features ?
When does it become self evident that he needs to move up ?
Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision ?
/quote]

Ego.
I hope your can prevail upon owner/operators to install combination tee ratings. At the course I'm laying this week I have a choice between 5900 and 6600. There are four holes at the longer distance which don't fit my game but I'll go longer because the other 14 more than make the difference. Same at Old Mac, I'd like a combo course rating that shortens 4,10,11,15,18 and gets my personal par below 78.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Part of the dilema is the architect's obligation to present an enjoyable challenge, and that includes having every level of golf hit 3-woods and long irons during the course of their round, along with medium and short irons.

But, how do you accomplish that when the golfer is playing from tees not commensurate with his ability.

Allowing golfers to play whimsical tees isn't the answer when that course isn't in the handicap system.

JakaB,

I don't understand why the fellow who moved up is winning.
Handicaps travel to the set of tees you're playing.
If he was underhandicapped at the longer tees, he would be underhandicapped at the shorter tees since his shorter tee handicap is also a function of his "lower than shot" scores.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

Handicaps do not adjust accurately when moving up.  For instance I am a 2.1 index and have to play from a 3 handicap from both the 6400 yd tees and the 7300 yd tees.  I am 8 shots better from the 6400.  I also establish my index from the 6400 yd tees which are only rated 1.5 strokes easier.

As wise and traveled as you are I would think you understand that moving a crafty straight hitting older golfer up a set of tees is not reflected in the USGA rating of a course.  They are too focused on hitting balls out of play which is not what the CSHOG does.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Handicaps do not adjust accurately when moving up. 

Yes they do, unless, the course has been improperly sloped

For instance I am a 2.1 index and have to play from a 3 handicap from both the 6400 yd tees and the 7300 yd tees.  I am 8 shots better from the 6400.  I also establish my index from the 6400 yd tees which are only rated 1.5 strokes easier.

The problem isn't the handicap system, it's the slope rating assigned to the 6,400 and 7,300 yard courses.
One, or both of them are wrong.

As wise and traveled as you are I would think you understand that moving a crafty straight hitting older golfer up a set of tees is not reflected in the USGA rating of a course. 

Even more so If the courses have been rated/sloped correctly.
That crafty, straight hitting golfer, forget his age, only has a distance problem.
Going from 7,300 to 6,400 should be a huge difference in slope, not 1.5.
If 900 yards only translates to a 1.5 decrease in the slope I can understand why you want to be his partner.

They are too focused on hitting balls out of play which is not what the CSHOG does.

[Tim Gerrish]

David,

I look to vary the tee length and angle just as you try and vary the strategy.  If you are trying to vary club selection, obviously length will do that most often, though developing a green concept that will be more receptive to a certain club range will test teh more perceptive players.  I see most people pulling out driver and not "getting it".  

Varying the angle plays more with strategy by influencing the line of play they chose. Do I risk that cross bunker or play it safely away..

I remember walking Whistling Straights during the 2004 PGA and on 17 seeing a tee way left down by the water... Tough angle and increased distance through elevation change.  Good stuff.

I suggest alternate tees for every nine holer.  Owners are usually receptive because it makes there facility more interesting and it is a hell of a lot cheaper than building alternate greens!

I like to look at some of the other tees on a particular hole and position such that it would even change par.  i.e. use a forward tee on a par 5 and play it as a long par 4 (as long as green is receptive too such).

[Jason Connor]

Handicaps travel to the set of tees you're playing.
If he was underhandicapped at the longer tees, he would be underhandicapped at the shorter tees since his shorter tee handicap is also a function of his "lower than shot" scores.

While the later part of your statement is true, the point is that not all 14s are created equal.  I'm a 14 because I inevitably put a tee shot or two OB each round and my short game is mediocre.

I've played with lots of old men who might be 10-14s who drive perfectly straight, albeit 175, and chug along making pars and bogeys. They might not even hit greens in regulation very often, but they have a way of getting up and down, or at the very least making bogey.

My handicap will 'travel' from tee to tee.  Theirs won't.  Because if you move them from 6200 to 6700 now they're hitting irons on their 3rd shot rather than just chipping on their 3rd shot to par 4s.

[JMEvensky]

Handicaps do not adjust accurately when moving up. 

I'm with you on this one.My place is the same--600 yards difference in length is worth about 1 stroke.

[Jason Connor]

[In fact, the whole Slope system could be obsoleted if you just used a computer and entered scores and handicaps to produce a daily course rating tailored to the conditions of the day ... but that would minimize the USGA's control of things, and cut out all those free rounds that course raters get!]

Amen!  As perhaps the only statistician on here, this is exactly what should happen.  Many of the best courses will play totally differently on two consecutive days depending on wind, hole location, etc.

The 'technology' to calculate handicaps systems this way is very straightforward and with the internet, handicaps would still be immediate.  Courses would still have to have some average slope in order to not penalize the bogey golf too much when playing against a par golfer on a tricky course, unfortunately.

I think one benefit to the USGA here would be that more people might pay for handicaps.  Right now the formula to calculate handicaps is well known and there are plenty of free websites that will calculate handicaps for you (you can also basically do it on a napkin). But under this system not only are handicaps better, but you'd have to have an official USGA handicap because now handicaps are dependent upon what others shot at the course that day, data only the USGA has.

Also I don't understand why raters still exist on anything but new courses.  Established courses have thousands of rounds played on them each year.  A few hours (if that) worth of analysis on handicap data would give far more accurate estimates of course ratings and handicaps than someone walking the grounds with a clipboard.