One set of tees, random bunkering and handicaps will take care of themselves

[Patrick_Mucci]

For about a century or more, golf was played by having the golfer tee his ball up for the next hole by teeing it up within ONE club length of the hole/cup just completed.

It took about a century to change that rule................. to TWO club lengths.

Subsequently, tees were moved to independent sites removed from the previous green.
Why do we have 3, 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees ?

Why not have just one set ?

If golfers played from a single set of tees, handicaps would automatically adjust for the change in distance.
Is it ego, the need for a low handicap that prevents but one set of tees ?

Ahh, you say that one set of tees will deprive groups of golfers from interfacing with the features, the hazards associated with the DZ.

Would you agree that all golfers will face the same features at the green end ?
That the green and surrounds, including greenside bunkers remain the targeted object along with the perimeter obstacles.

So, wouldn't random bunkering, in combination with one set of tees, provide a worthy challenge for all golfers that's interesting and fun to meet ?

The hole that stands out as the poster child for this concept is # 18 at NGLA.

Go to Google Earth and look at the bunker pattern and see how that pattern allows different bunkers to come into play for different golfers, from the tee, up to the green.

Heroic carries ?

Should there be some minimal playing standard for venturing onto a golf course ?

[Bill Brightly]

You make a good point, Pat. NGLA #18 may be the poster child for this, but it also is a par 5 which plays as a par 4 for long hitters. How many fairway bunkers at NGLA have become obsolete with the distance people can carry the ball today?

[Philippe Binette]

About the minimal playing standard:

One thing I love in Scotland is all those Wee courses that exist beside the championship courses... You learn to play on the Wee course which features shorter holes, simple bunkering and design.

than once you can hit the ball every time, you can venture on the big course.

Perfect

[Philippe Binette]

One set of tees is a little extreme, but 2 should do.

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick, from the woman golfer's perspective -- at least at our club -- you have identified an important principle.

Our tenth hole plays about 360 yards, slightly downhill, to a plateau green that falls away on all sides, including behind, where out of bounds is just ten yards away. As long as I've played there, the red and white tees have been within five yards of each other. The hole plays driver-wedge for a single-digit male, but there are, at best, five or six women at our club who can reach that same green in regulation. (Almost all shots that land short will stay in the valley of sin in front of the green.)

Some of us -- the head pro, a number of men and a few women -- have advocated a new forward tee that gives women a better chances at reaching #10 in regulation. The majority of women object to a tee that shortens the hole. The reason? Their handicaps might fall, and they would get fewer shots in competition, both at other clubs and within our own club events.

This is a pretty clear example of architecture affecting handicaps, and vice versa. Most of the women at our club would probably agree with your premise: one set of tees. Our women love their dots.



  

[JMEvensky]

One set of tees is a little extreme, but 2 should do.

Just to play Devil's advocate,if 2 sets is less extreme,wouldn't 3 sets be even better?

To PM's premise,it's a slippery slope once you start limiting the extremeness.Unfortunately,the only way to get back to a single set of tee markers is to find a club where every member can remember when and why it was thus.

[Garland Bayley]

One set of tees is a little extreme, but 2 should do.

Just to play Devil's advocate,if 2 sets is less extreme,wouldn't 3 sets be even better?

To PM's premise,it's a slippery slope once you start limiting the extremeness.Unfortunately,the only way to get back to a single set of tee markers is to find a club where every member can remember when and why it was thus.

If you identify the 3rd sex for me, then I will accept three.

Pat,

I don't really understand the handicap issue here. Are you saying there will be no need for course ratings? How do players from different courses compete then?

[PCCraig]

There are more sets of tees now because a wider range of people now play golf, it's no fun hitting the ball 4-5 times to get it in the general vicinity of the green. Plus, more people play golf now, and small classical tee boxes wouldn't be able to handle the additional foot traffic.

[Sean_A]

Pat

I have been saying this for ages with the proviso that for any lengthy carry (50+ yards) an alternative should be provided, but there should be very few carries from the tee.  

If we think that at most 50% of well placed bunkers will be truly encountered by any given golfer on any given day, I don't see an issue with trying to design hazards for tees - especially if the green complexes are interesting.  I truly hate the modern concept of 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees.  Its a platform for archies to not be creative and to deliver cookie cutter designs.

I would also add that adding shots to par will help as well.  What is the problem with a par 80 for 20 cappers, 75 for 10s and 68 for scratch?

finally, if we are going to talk about extra tee boxes, they concentrate on width, not length.

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

One thing that would be fun...  3 or so tees per holes... but one set of blocks that moves and changes the course each day.

the course could be played 5700 yards one day, 6400 yards the next... who cares about par

[Matt_Cohn]

Why do we have 3, 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees ?

Why not have just one set.

If golfers played from a single set of tees, handicaps would automatically adjust for the change in distance.
Is it ego, the need for a low handicap that prevents but one set of tees ?

Pat,

I think it would simply be unenjoyable. How would you feel about playing a 9,000 yard par 85? I'd hate it. But isn't that the equivalent experience of most women, juniors, and seniors on even a modest length golf course, say 6,300 yards?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I don't really understand the handicap issue here. Are you saying there will be no need for course ratings? How do players from different courses compete then?

Garland,

I expected so much more from you  

The handicapping is the easiest of all.

If everyone plays from the same tees, just take the 10 lowest out of the most recent 20 scores and differentiate it from par or the course rating and divide by ten and you have a handicap.

Everyone plays the same course.

If par was 72 and one fellow's ten lowest scores totalled 720 and another's 820, he'd get ten strokes.
If his total was 920, he'd get 20 strokes.
Now, you can refine this, but that's the general method.
It's fairly simple.

The complex issue is the placement of random bunkers/features.

I would think that the "tee" would have to be of significant size, or, current tees could be used, since only one set of tees would be in play and the course could be balanced to play at close to the same overall yardage every day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why do we have 3, 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees ?

Why not have just one set.

If golfers played from a single set of tees, handicaps would automatically adjust for the change in distance.
Is it ego, the need for a low handicap that prevents but one set of tees ?

Pat,

I think it would simply be unenjoyable.

It wasn't unenjoyable for centuries, why do you feel it would be unenjoyable today ?
Do you feel that the modern golfer is too spoiled, pampered and too driven by ego ?

How would you feel about playing a 9,000 yard par 85?


Matt, how unrealistic/absurd can you get ?
Is anyone playing a 9,000 yard golf course today ?

I'd hate it.

I think you're predisposed to hating it, but, I'm not so sure that you'd feel that way once you adjusted to playing the new course.

Look at all of the golfers who currently play from tees beyond their ability.
Look at all the golfers who love playing from the back tees, the same tees that the best golfers play from.

The other culprit is "par" or the medal play mentality.
If you played all, or the great majority of your golf at match play, why would you care where you play from ?
Par would be irrelevant

But isn't that the equivalent experience of most women, juniors, and seniors on even a modest length golf course, say 6,300 yards?
NO.

EGO is probably the major culprit.
The notion or goal that one must hit a green in "regulation"

If a 6 handicap from the 6,300 yard course you cite, had to play, along with everyone else, a 6,900 yard course, his handicap would simply go up.
Perhaps he'd be a 9, which would offset the extra incremental distance he'd now encounter when he played the 6,900 yard course.

Only his ego would suffer.

On certain holes he wouldn't be able to reach the green in regulation, but, his revised handicap would factor that in.

The "medal play" mentality is the impediment.

How many times have you heard golfers refer to their games as "breaking 100", or breaking 90", or "breaking 80" or "breaking par"

How many of us play medal play rounds versus match play ?

Yet, when we play a match, we post our medal play scores to determine a handicap.

It's my understanding, that in the UK, only tournament rounds are used in determining handicap.
Why couldn't that system be adopted ?

Give it more thought.

Think of the maintainance savings

[Ian Andrew]

I'm good with this as long as your good with playing off of 5,800 yard tees.

[Garland Bayley]

Pat,

I don't really understand the handicap issue here. Are you saying there will be no need for course ratings? How do players from different courses compete then?

Garland,

I expected so much more from you  

The handicapping is the easiest of all.

If everyone plays from the same tees, just take the 10 lowest out of the most recent 20 scores and differentiate it from par or the course rating and divide by ten and you have a handicap.

Everyone plays the same course.

If par was 72 and one fellow's ten lowest scores totalled 720 and another's 820, he'd get ten strokes.
If his total was 920, he'd get 20 strokes.
Now, you can refine this, but that's the general method.
It's fairly simple.

The complex issue is the placement of random bunkers/features.

I would think that the "tee" would have to be of significant size, or, current tees could be used, since only one set of tees would be in play and the course could be balanced to play at close to the same overall yardage every day.

Pat, I expected so much more from you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm good with this as long as your good with playing off of 5,800 yard tees.

Ian,

I'm not endorsing a universal length for every course, just one length course at each club.

Each club would decide........ 5,800 or 6,300 or 6,900 or 7,200

I tend to think that the yardage would probably fall between 6,500 and 6,900 based on modern equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

Why do we have 3, 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees ?

Why not have just one set.

If golfers played from a single set of tees, handicaps would automatically adjust for the change in distance.
Is it ego, the need for a low handicap that prevents but one set of tees ?

Pat,

I think it would simply be unenjoyable. How would you feel about playing a 9,000 yard par 85? I'd hate it. But isn't that the equivalent experience of most women, juniors, and seniors on even a modest length golf course, say 6,300 yards?

Ever play any hoops? What kind of fg% do you manage?
Ever play {base,soft}ball? What kind of batting average do you manage?
People play all sorts of sports that they perform dismally at.
In golf, five and six sets of tees simply lets them perform dismally over smaller and smaller distances.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I don't really understand the handicap issue here. Are you saying there will be no need for course ratings?

How do players from different courses compete then?

The same as they do now.
Each course would have a rating, 74.2, 69.7, that would be used to determine handicap.

Ask yourself this question, how did golfers from different courses compete when golf was played from one to two clublengths from the previous cup ?

Garland,

I expected so much more from you  

The handicapping is the easiest of all.

If everyone plays from the same tees, just take the 10 lowest out of the most recent 20 scores and differentiate it from par or the course rating and divide by ten and you have a handicap.

Everyone plays the same course.


Correct.
Everyone at NGLA plays the same course.
Everyone at WFW plays the same course
Everyone at Van Cortland Park plays the same course.

At a course rated par 76, someone whose ten lowest scores total 860 would be a ten handicap.
At a course rated par 70, someone whose ten lowest scores total 860 would be a sixteen handicap.

If the two played each other one fellow would get six (6) shots.

If par was 72 and one fellow's ten lowest scores totalled 720 and another's 820, he'd get ten strokes.
If his total was 920, he'd get 20 strokes.
Now, you can refine this, but that's the general method.
It's fairly simple.

The complex issue is the placement of random bunkers/features.

I would think that the "tee" would have to be of significant size, or, current tees could be used, since only one set of tees would be in play and the course could be balanced to play at close to the same overall yardage every day.

Pat, I expected so much more from you.

[Garland Bayley]

Pat,

I don't really understand the handicap issue here. Are you saying there will be no need for course ratings?

How do players from different courses compete then?

The same as they do now.
Each course would have a rating, 74.2, 69.7, that would be used to determine handicap.

Ask yourself this question, how did golfers from different courses compete when golf was played from one to two clublengths from the previous cup ?

Garland,

I expected so much more from you  

The handicapping is the easiest of all.

If everyone plays from the same tees, just take the 10 lowest out of the most recent 20 scores and differentiate it from par or the course rating and divide by ten and you have a handicap.

Everyone plays the same course.


Correct.
Everyone at NGLA plays the same course.
Everyone at WFW plays the same course
Everyone at Van Cortland Park plays the same course.

At a course rated par 76, someone whose ten lowest scores total 860 would be a ten handicap.
At a course rated par 70, someone whose ten lowest scores total 860 would be a sixteen handicap.

If the two played each other one fellow would get six (6) shots.

If par was 72 and one fellow's ten lowest scores totalled 720 and another's 820, he'd get ten strokes.
If his total was 920, he'd get 20 strokes.
Now, you can refine this, but that's the general method.
It's fairly simple.

The complex issue is the placement of random bunkers/features.

I would think that the "tee" would have to be of significant size, or, current tees could be used, since only one set of tees would be in play and the course could be balanced to play at close to the same overall yardage every day.

Pat, I expected so much more from you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

If they figured it out in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's, I'm sure that we can figure it out today, unless you're in charge of the project.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

If they figured it out in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's, I'm sure that we can figure it out today, unless you're in charge of the project.

Pat,

They only "figured it out" by keeping woman, child, and non-rich/non-white males off the courses through discrimination or otherwise. The demographics of who plays the game now, compared to then is so different...that this thread is an exercise in futlity.

But then again, you like futile attempts at things...so its perfect!! 

[Kyle Harris]

Holy crap... I've now agreed with Mucci on two things in a row.

One set of tees also eliminates multiple tee boxes as an architectural crutch. It takes a boat load of talent to design a golf course to be played from one tee.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

Golf should be accessible to the older players who grew it, and to the younger players who will sustain it. And it should be challenging to the accomplished player. The only way to provide for all that is by varying distances with multiple tees.

But that said, I think it gets ridiculous when you have more than 4 sets of tees. And for most clubs three sets would be fine.

I still like the idea of letting the player with honors decide where to tee off.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm in full and enthusiastic agreement with Pat's original suggestion. God forbid that a beginning or less adept golfer should, as a consequence of these 'limitations', shoot a higher score than that of his/her more talented and experience playing partners! What an injustice! What a blow to the ego! What a drag! No, much better by far is to curtail the time spent together on shared tees and to mar the landscape further and to make walking a course more onerous, and all in the name of fairness and the joy of playing the 'appropriate tees' - which tees, in fact, do nothing to mask a golfer's deficiencies nor his/her lack of experience, or to meaningfully lower their scores; but  instead add yet another way for human beings to separate 'us' from 'them'. The defense of multiple tees is that they make the game more enjoyable for a wider range of golfers; but what they actually do is further highlight the importance the game places on one's score as a measuring stick for fun, and further stress the card and pencil as the true judge and jury for what kind of golfer one is. Ironic, isn't it?
Peter   

[JMEvensky]

I'm in full and enthusiastic agreement with Pat's original suggestion. God forbid that a beginning or less adept golfer should, as a consequence of these 'limitations', shoot a higher score than that of his/her more talented and experience playing partners! What an injustice! What a blow to the ego! What a drag! No, much better by far is to curtail the time spent together on shared tees and to mar the landscape further and to make walking a course more onerous, and all in the name of fairness and the joy of playing the 'appropriate tees' - which tees, in fact, do nothing to mask a golfer's deficiencies nor his/her lack of experience, or to meaningfully lower their scores; but  instead add yet another way for human beings to separate 'us' from 'them'. The defense of multiple tees is that they make the game more enjoyable for a wider range of golfers; but what they actually do is further highlight the importance the game places on one's score as a measuring stick for fun, and further stress the card and pencil as the true judge and jury for what kind of golfer one is. Ironic, isn't it?
Peter   

Preach my brother.