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

[Kalen Braley]

Just an observation

....but if I had a dollar for every time someone on this site complained about going to thier local course and some yahoo was playing from the wrong tees....I'd be retired!   

[jeffwarne]

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.

Do a wider range of people really play golf now?
How about one large tee?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, you ignorant slut.    

I see you are moving your logic adjacent posts from the history arena to the design arena.  Lucky us.

Historically, you tend to forget that its not then and now (and then feeling good about one set of tees) it is THEN until NOW.  Somewhere in there, some of the greatest minds in golf found via experience that a whole lot of folks weren't having much fun and were complaining about not reaching greens in regulation, play being too slow, etc.  You also have a tendency to believe that no one in older eras ever got things right....   Really, it is very easy to look at what is NOT and complain, almost as easy as "knowing" what someone 100 years ago saw from a train, no?

Also, play grew.  We need more tee space anyway, or everyone would be playing out of divots, so building more tee solves a few problems - making the course flexible AND allowing better turf.  Granted, it could be one big tee and keep yardage about the same.

Building one tee at too long a length slows play, reduces flexibilty and makes maintenance of tees harder and more expensive.
Building many bunkers increases construction and maintenance costs and makes golf harder and less fun for hacks.  
Both also makes golf more expensive.  

Is that really a good combo?

Lastly, if anyone were going to build one set of tees, why on earth would you build it for the 1% who play at 6900 yards or more, or even the 16% who play at 6600 yards or more?  It would be better to build them at the much preferred 6300 yard length, or as Ian and the Tee It Forward program suggests, about 5800 yards.

BTW, I would think that the tees, however built, would focus on making golf enjoyable for all, not because they affect some numbers for the pencil and card set.  If I am having fun, I have met my main objective.  Studies show that only a small percentage of players are truly competitive and worry more about handicap than fun.

At 6900 yards, I can pay more, have less fun, play slower.  Other than that, it sounds like a perfect proposal to me....

[Garland Bayley]

Building one tee at too long a length slows play, ...

I'm sorry, but it is my experience that low handicappers play slow on a shorter course too.

Do you have any ideas how to get the low handicappers to drop the ego, and quit grinding for a meaningless score?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Also, play grew.  ...

That's why in the olden days they could space tee times at 7 minutes, but now they have to space them at 10 minutes! 

[Carl Rogers]

For the premise of this thread to gain wide acceptance, the follwing must occur:
- convince everyone to go back to the 1980 clubs and balls (maybe further back still)
- forget the notion of par & greens in regulation and go only stroke rating & slope
- limit course length to 5500 yards
- forget stroke play matches at the club level
- reject many of design tenants of target golf and forced carries

I am not holding my breadth........................................

As an experimetal course in an over saturated market like Myrtle Beach, it would be interesting

[Garland Bayley]

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

I hereby challenge you to a game of Horse. But we have to lower the basket to 8 feet, so you'll have a chance.

[Garland Bayley]

For the premise of this thread to gain wide acceptance, the follwing must occur:
- convince everyone to go back to the 1980 clubs and balls (maybe further back still)
- forget the notion of par & greens in regulation and go only stroke rating & slope
- limit course length to 5500 yards
- forget stroke play matches at the club level
- reject many of design tenants of target golf and forced carries
So this is a bad thing?
I am not holding my breadth........................................

As an experimetal course in an over saturated market like Myrtle Beach, it would be interesting

[Mike McGuire]

My wife plays twice a year. The last time she played from the black with me.  Made no difference to her at all. In fact it was more social. One person teeing off and then going 100 yards up to the ladies tee breaks the flow.

[Carl Rogers]

Mr.  Bayley,
No it is not a bad thing, just way too too different ..... the genie's been out of the bottle for too long.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben Sims had that thread that produced dozens of fantastic ideas for courses under 6500 yards -- courses that every single one of us (even the scratch-men) looked at and recognized as more than enough of a golfing test.  (Personally I was struck by the variety of holes -- and the number of long holes -- that can comprise a mean 6300 yards).  That thread (and others here) have also listed examples of similar courses, famed ones, wonderful ones, that come in at as little as 6100, spread out just perfectly. I think the shorter hitter (beginners, seniors, women, me on occasion) would find 6,100 yards about the same challenge as the 5,800 you usually see on courses with back tees at 7,200 -- and I think, as Sean points out, they'd find them even more enjoyable if there were no forced carries. And, since, as far as I know, not one architect who posts here makes his living designing courses for tour pros or for that famed 1%, it is interesting that we can even debate this; because, it seems to me, what came hand in hand -- whether there is a causal relationship or not, I don't know -- with the 6 set of tee world was the explosion of raised tee boxes and forced carries and cart paths.  (Hey, I'm soundlng like Melvyn!!).  But of course, as always, my point isn't so practical as much as philosophical (for lack of a better word) -- and that point is that in terms of actual experience the world of the 6 tee boxes have not brought down average handicaps or sped up the game.

(Edit - What Mike M just said above, and what Jeff W just said, below))

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Mr.  Bayley,
No it is not a bad thing, just way too too different ..... the genie's been out of the bottle for too long.

It would seem to me that the sad thing is that the golf industry has bought their propaganda hook line and sinker.

[jeffwarne]

For the premise of this thread to gain wide acceptance, the follwing must occur:
- convince everyone to go back to the 1980 clubs and balls (maybe further back still)
- forget the notion of par & greens in regulation and go only stroke rating & slope
- limit course length to 5500 yards
- forget stroke play matches at the club level
- reject many of design tenants of target golf and forced carries

I am not holding my breadth........................................

As an experimetal course in an over saturated market like Myrtle Beach, it would be interesting

when my 12 year old son plays basketball, does he expect to dunk or knock down 22 footers?
Wjy should a 27 hdcp expect a set of tees that allows him to (potentially) hit many/most greens in regulation.

I remember the thrill of making the carry on a par 3 when  growing up playing the white tees.
Now the softies all play the reds until they can hit it about 280

6300 should do it on a course with no forced carries.
That yardage certainly challenges better players at Southampton and Palmetto

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

You have to be absolutely sure your experience is typical to base any design on it.

That said, I do go back to my experience at Royal Melbourne where I shot 80, my ex shot 130, and we followed a ladies league but never played in over 2 h 45 M there (three tries, similar scores and conditions)

Design somehow affects pace of play.

[Joe_Tucholski]

My wife plays twice a year. The last time she played from the black with me.  Made no difference to her at all. In fact it was more social. One person teeing off and then going 100 yards up to the ladies tee breaks the flow.

Mike did your wife pick up on most holes or drop balls in the fairways after tee shots.  I know that my wife who is pretty athletic and plays at most 1-2x a year really dislikes it when there is much more than 10 yards between the tee and fairway.

[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.

Pat,

They only "figured it out" by keeping woman, child, and non-rich/non-white males off the courses through discrimination or otherwise.


Kalen,

What NON-WHITE males were kept off the courses in Scotland in the 1600's, 1700's and1800's ?
Chinese ?  Puerto Rican ? Blacks ?  Mexicans ?  Japanese ?  
Since when were women and children prohibited from playing ?
Enlighten us

The demographics of who plays the game now, compared to then is so different...that this thread is an exercise in futlity.
Race, religion and ethnicity have nothing to do with it, or as President Clinton would say, "it's about the yardage stupid"

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

Even in failure, the pursuit of a lofty goal is a noble endeavor.

Get a life.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For the premise of this thread to gain wide acceptance, the follwing must occur:

- convince everyone to go back to the 1980 clubs and balls (maybe further back still)

NOT TRUE

- forget the notion of par & greens in regulation and go only stroke rating & slope

Greens in regulation is a meaningless statistic.  Score is the only stat that matters.
Par, in match play is also meaningless, the only stat that matters is your score relative to your opponents.


- limit course length to 5500 yards

There's no need for that either.

Did they limit courses to 3,200 yards in the early days.
The length of the course is almost irrelevant.
But, 6,500 to 6,900 seems about right for most club play

- forget stroke play matches at the club level

99 % of all club golf is probably played at match play.
But, that doesn't preclude stroke play.

- reject many of design tenants of target golf and forced carries

Which ones ?

How did TOC fare under those conditions ?

I am not holding my breadth........................................


Neither am I, but the notion that golf architecture must be custom tailored to accomodate every golfer who picks up a club is ridiculous.
4,5 and 6 tees are ridiculous.

As an experimetal course in an over saturated market like Myrtle Beach, it would be interesting.

I think it would make an excellent falll experiment in the northeast.

What's the harm in trying ?

What is everyone afraid of ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JeffWarne,

Southampton might just be the poster child for this experiment.

At 6,300 yards, it's a terrific challenge, fun and interesting.

The misguided notion that 12, 18 and 24 handicaps should be concerned about greens in regulation is beyond ridiculous.

If everyone who played Southampton played from the near back tees, there would just be a broader range of handicaps and the short game would take on a more significant role.

Great call on the challenge at Southampton.

[jeffwarne]

JeffWarne,

Southampton might just be the poster child for this experiment.

At 6,300 yards, it's a terrific challenge, fun and interesting.

The misguided notion that 12, 18 and 24 handicaps should be concerned about greens in regulation is beyond ridiculous.

If everyone who played Southampton played from the near back tees, there would just be a broader range of handicaps and the short game would take on a more significant role.

Great call on the challenge at Southampton.

Pat, Like many Golden Age courses, the Ladies tees are quite long at Southampton, and most men play from the blues.

Interestingly, I played Augusta CC last weekend, where I grew up.
They've put in a set of Tiger tees , pushing the last set of tees (they now have 4 sets) quite a bit back on 7-8 holes.
the funny thing is, the blue tees or third set back, which used to be about 6780 (circa 1980) are now 6600yards, almost the same as the whitte tees I grew up playing.
So while everybody talks about the new length, very few are playing it, and the course is about the same if not shorter for most ,many of whom continue to play the new whites which are shorter than the old whites.
so go figure

[Joe Leenheer]

They have courses like this all over the country...they are called "Par 3" or "executive" courses.

I wouldn't want to play courses where I can drive it close on most par 4's, hit the par 5's in two, and wedge it on Par 3's (although I love it when I can wedge it on one of them). 

Nor would I want to never reach a par 4 in two, be in the pocket on all the par 5's, and have no chance of hitting the green on a par 3...regardless if my match is close because of handicap variance.  4-5 Tees allows one course to meet the needs of customers desiring different products/experience.  1-2 tees would eliminate 30-40% of your customer. 

It's no surprise existing courses are looking to expand in both directions..longer to draw in & challenge the golfer who wants to grind and shorter to encourage beginner play and provide prolonged enjoyment for the aging player. 

Don't take away my double cheeseburger because a single would be more of a challenge to make enjoyable for all.     

 

[Sean_A]

Joe

I think you are misunderstanding Pat and likely several others.  There are plenty of superb sub 6500 (or even 6200 for that matter) courses which can challenge all but the very best.  Why this model of short length and short par isn't used for modern design is a mystery to me.  People can shout out all sorts of reasons, but none make any sense when we accurately reflect on the abilities of 98% of golfers.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You have to be absolutely sure your experience is typical to base any design on it.

That said, I do go back to my experience at Royal Melbourne where I shot 80, my ex shot 130, and we followed a ladies league but never played in over 2 h 45 M there (three tries, similar scores and conditions)

Design somehow affects pace of play.

I don't follow how your example leads to "Design somehow affects pace of play."

You example says to me that when you play on a course where people habitually play quickly, then shooting high scores does not impede pace of play.

That said, we all know that design affects pace of play. It is well known that design that causes searching for balls slows down play. However for the most part, playing a longer course only lengthens play in proportion to the amount of extra time it takes to walk the longer distance.

[Joe Leenheer]

Joe

I think you are misunderstanding Pat and likely several others.  There are plenty of superb sub 6500 (or even 6200 for that matter) courses which can challenge all but the very best.  Why this model of short length and short par isn't used for modern design is a mystery to me.  People can shout out all sorts of reasons, but none make any sense when we accurately reflect on the abilities of 98% of golfers.

Ciao

How do you measure a golfers ability so that you can group everyone into such a high (98%) number?

[Garland Bayley]

Joe

I think you are misunderstanding Pat and likely several others.  There are plenty of superb sub 6500 (or even 6200 for that matter) courses which can challenge all but the very best.  Why this model of short length and short par isn't used for modern design is a mystery to me.  People can shout out all sorts of reasons, but none make any sense when we accurately reflect on the abilities of 98% of golfers.

Ciao

How do you measure a golfers ability so that you can group everyone into such a high (98%) number?

That's easy. Those not carrying a plus handicap.

[Joe Leenheer]

I don't think a golfers scoring average or handicap is a true representation of their ability.  "Ability" would need to be measured more by individual skills (i.e. Driving Carry Distance & Accuracy, putting, bunker play, etc).  Every course gives people of similar handicaps different challenges based upon their Ability, not score average.  That ability, is a direct relation to if they score well at a course. 

If one golfer scores well and the other suffers (because the course exposed their inabilities...forced carries, aerial game required, ground game required...etc), how do you get them to return with only one or two miserable length tees.   

I'm a +.4   My scoring average in tournaments this year was 76.6.  What are my abilities?