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

[Garland Bayley]

It occurs to me that those preaching umpteen sets of forward tees play only one day a year when the temperature is just right, when the air is dry, and when the fairways are running at their fastest.

For those of us that play all year find that one day we might hit driver sand wedge to a par 4, but a few short months later we are hitting driver fairway wood to the same par 4 in the absence of wind both times.

Or, maybe Pat and I don't understand the use of multiple tees. Maybe the back tees are for optimal conditions so we can hit driver 8 iron, and as the weather, or wind changes we simply move up so we can still hit driver 8 iron.  Boring!

[Joe Leenheer]

Joe Leenheer,

You stated:

So Donald Ross didn't favor accurate iron play?

That has to be one of the dumbest questions/statements posted on GCA.com and shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

Did he also favor accurate driving ?

How about precision putting ?

No argument on the dumbest questions/statments comment as I'm sure you are the authority on them 

Your comment was that "What you seem to miss is that architects forge a disinterested challenge, neither favoring nor disfavoring any particular type/style of play." 

I disagree.  I feel that Ross favored those that can play an accurate shot into a green (although a drive to a particular place may assist).  I've only played 15 Ross courses (including some biggies like #2, Inverness, Scioto) but I can tell you NONE of them put a PREMIUM on driving distance or accuracy.  Big Fairways and plenty of shorter holes. Played #2 from the US open tees.  Drove it fantastic that day...shot 80 because I couldn't hit a green and left myself in terrible positions.  It played the shortest of 8 US Open courses I've played. 

If you can play your approach shot accurately or make a good swing on a Par 3, you will be rewarded greatly...if not...you will be penalized.  I worked at a Ross course and there was one rule...Don't go long, right or left.  I didn't matter if you could drive it long  & straight and you didn't have to putt better then on any other course....but you better not be long (i.e. control your second shot)

"How about precision putting"....being a Ross characteristic?  Yeah...he's the only one that thought of that.

[Joe Leenheer]

A 4 for 3 or 5 for 3 on the Road Hole would not be talked about as much as an ACTUAL Birdie...regardless of which tee played.  All golfers want a shot at greatness...not a "net" shot.  Do you count 2 for 1's as Aces?

And that is why western society is going to shit.  let me guess, you run American education.   

If you want to birdie the road hole, you should have to earn it.  Not by playing the hole off a short tee that makes up for your ineptitude.  I would be a shot at breaking the world record for 100m if I only had to run 60m.  It would be as hollow as birdying the road hole off a short tee. 

So is a hole-in-one not legit if played from a forward tee? Rubbish. 

Do they play the exact same tees during each round of the Open? It doesn't matter where the tee, it's still a birdie on any hole when you finish it 1 stroke under par.  Although most would still make 5 from 100m (or 60M) out I'm sure.

and no I don't "run American education". 

[Tim Martin]

If you can play your approach shot accurately or make a good swing on a Par 3, you will be rewarded greatly...if not...you will be penalized.  I worked at a Ross course and there was one rule...Don't go long, right or left.  I didn't matter if you could drive it long  & straight and you didn't have to putt better then on any other course....but you better not be long (i.e. control your second shot)

Joe- Isn`t this pretty standard advice and not specific to Ross?

[Dan Kelly]

The notion that everyone should hit the greens in regulation, or that an 18 handicap should be presented with the same shots as a 1 handicap is insane.

Patrick --

I wonder who (if anyone) is promoting that notion. I certainly am not.

I'm suggesting, merely, that my daughter (a 4.9 handicap) and I (a 7.5) should be able to compete, without getting into the business of giving and taking bunches of strokes. I'm suggesting that golf is more fun (for her!) when her 215- to 225-yard drives don't leave her a long-iron or fairway-wood approach on par-4 after par-4 after par-4, and that there's pleasure in reaching a par-5 in two gigantic blows -- a thing quite impossible to achieve if she is playing from the men's tees.

Dan

P.S. I like the look of that hole David Elvins posted. Everyone I know could play it, in an interesting way. That's why my Rule No. 1, if I were an architect, would be: There must always be a route to the green (though not to every pin) on the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Leenheer,

You stated:

So Donald Ross didn't favor accurate iron play?

That has to be one of the dumbest questions/statements posted on GCA.com and shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

Did he also favor accurate driving ?

How about precision putting ?

No argument on the dumbest questions/statments comment as I'm sure you are the authority on them 

Yes, especiallly when you and others keep supplying me with an abundance of them.

Your comment was that "What you seem to miss is that architects forge a disinterested challenge, neither favoring nor disfavoring any particular type/style of play." 

I disagree. 

I feel that Ross favored those that can play an accurate shot into a green (although a drive to a particular place may assist). 

What architects DON'T favor an accurate shot into a green ?

I've only played 15 Ross courses (including some biggies like #2, Inverness, Scioto) but I can tell you NONE of them put a PREMIUM on driving distance or accuracy. 

Bingo, ring that bell, we have a winner.  Another incredibly dumb statement.
Inverness doesn't place a premium on driving accuracy and distance ?  ?  ?
Pinehurst # 2 doesn't place a premium on driving accuracy and distance ?  ?  ?

How did Ran let you on this site ?
Do you have compromising photos ?
Does he owe you money ?

Joe, evidently some deranged individual has broken into your computer and is posting under your name on golfclubatlas.com

Big Fairways and plenty of shorter holes. Played #2 from the US open tees.  Drove it fantastic that day...shot 80 because I couldn't hit a green and left myself in terrible positions.  It played the shortest of 8 US Open courses I've played. 

What's your handicap ?

If you can play your approach shot accurately or make a good swing on a Par 3, you will be rewarded greatly...if not...you will be penalized. 

Would you tell us on what par 3's that doesn't apply ?
Would you tell us which architects don't employ, inherently, that aspect/feature/function into their designs ?

I worked at a Ross course and there was one rule...Don't go long, right or left. 

As a general theme, can you tell us which architect's designs deviate from that basic principle ?

I didn't matter if you could drive it long  & straight and you didn't have to putt better then on any other course....but you better not be long (i.e. control your second shot)

If I drive it long and straight, thereby causing me to use a shorter iron into the green, won't that inherently produce greater accuracy into the green ?

Would you say that that's true for WFW, NGLA, Oakmont, Merion, Pine Valley.

How many approaches go long ?   6 % ?

Would you say that that your statement holds true for any green sloped from high back to low front, irrespective of the architect ?

"How about precision putting"....being a Ross characteristic?  Yeah...he's the only one that thought of that.

Yeah, just like your approach and driving theories.

YIKES, you have to be on double secret probation.

[jeffwarne]

The notion that everyone should hit the greens in regulation, or that an 18 handicap should be presented with the same shots as a 1 handicap is insane.

Patrick --

I wonder who (if anyone) is promoting that notion. I certainly am not.

I'm suggesting, merely, that my daughter (a 4.9 handicap) and I (a 7.5) should be able to compete, without getting into the business of giving and taking bunches of strokes. I'm suggesting that golf is more fun (for her!) when her 215- to 225-yard drives don't leave her a long-iron or fairway-wood approach on par-4 after par-4 after par-4, and that there's pleasure in reaching a par-5 in two gigantic blows -- a thing quite impossible to achieve if she is playing from the men's tees.

Dan

P.S. I like the look of that hole David Elvins posted. Everyone I know could play it, in an interesting way. That's why my Rule No. 1, if I were an architect, would be: There must always be a route to the green (though not to every pin) on the ground.

Dan,
wouldn't she be the one giving the strokes?
Perhaps it's an even game if she moves back or you move up (or meet in the middle)

[Patrick_Mucci]

The notion that everyone should hit the greens in regulation, or that an 18 handicap should be presented with the same shots as a 1 handicap is insane.

Patrick --

I wonder who (if anyone) is promoting that notion. I certainly am not.

I think it's an inherent message in some of the responses.

I'm suggesting, merely, that my daughter (a 4.9 handicap) and I (a 7.5) should be able to compete, without getting into the business of giving and taking bunches of strokes.

But if you're of different abilities, how do you expect to compete without the weight ?

That's the beauty of the handicap system, two people, of different abilities, can compete on an equal footing thanks to the allocation of strokes based on the disparity in the handicaps.

I'm suggesting that golf is more fun (for her!) when her 215- to 225-yard drives don't leave her a long-iron or fairway-wood approach on par-4 after par-4 after par-4, and that there's pleasure in reaching a par-5 in two gigantic blows -- a thing quite impossible to achieve if she is playing from the men's tees.

It reallly works both ways.
Under the current set ups, with drives of 225, if she's playing from tees 75 to 100 yards in front of my tees, she now has a huge advantage IN ADDITION to the strokes she's alloted.

If she hits a drive 225 and is a 6 handicap, she's not supposed to hit 460 yard par 4's in two.
And, I don't know many courses that have 460 yard par 4's from the men's tees.
With 225 drives, 430 yard holes would require a 205 3-wood and that's not unreasonable.

Dan

P.S. I like the look of that hole David Elvins posted. Everyone I know could play it, in an interesting way. That's why my Rule No. 1, if I were an architect, would be: There must always be a route to the green (though not to every pin) on the ground.

Do you really know anyone who plays golf by rolling their ball on the ground from tee to green ?
I don't.
Everyone I know attempts to get to the green through the air.

Playing a ground game, rolling the ball, requires special conditions, and I don't know of any U.S. courses where those conditions exist all year long.

[Michael Essig]

I have two ideas for course set up and design. I totally agree that a longer course is not any more enjoyable - and yes I have the length and game to shoot sub-80 rounds on 7000 yard courses. Here are my thoughts.

1) If the course has 2 sets of tees, one for women, juniors, and seniors at about 6000 yards and one for men at 6500. There is no need to have longer tees unless it was designed for pros to be playing on it.

2) If the course has 1 tee box, with the hazards and bunkers not starting until about 250 where only long hitters and pros would be affected. It may seem unfair for the women, juniors, and seniors, but that is what the handicap system is for; and it may seem mentally tasking for women, juniors, and seniors to shoot double bogeys or worse on every hole, but what really matters is the final score with the handicap. The handicap would adjust for the scores they would shoot. Remember that in the Open championship that they always announce the scores as the total number of strokes, not how many over or under they are. After adding the handicap, women, juniors, and seniors would have scores that would as closely resemble the way they played compared to the mens' scores.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

Random bunkering allows every level of golfer to play a hole while interfacing with those hazards that impact or interface with their respective games.

There's no need for the same bunker to interface with everyone's game.

Please go to google earth and look at the 17th and 18th holes at NGLA.
They provide a mix of bunkers that various levels of golfers will find interesting.

[David_Elvins]

Random bunkering allows every level of golfer to play a hole while interfacing with those hazards that impact or interface with their respective games.

Pat,

Not sure I agree with 'random bunkering' as a good thing.  Bunkers at a variety of distances off the tee is a better idea imo, but describing the bunkering at NGLA as 'random' may be selling the designer short. 

[Mike McGuire]

I'm all for random bunkering.

Placeing  them to be strategic and also claiming  randomness is perhaps not possible.

One way .. (that will never happen)

1- Site the greens and tees
2- Decide how many bunkers you wish to construct / maintain
3- grab as many die as decided bunkers and roll them on the course map
4 - put bunkers where the die fall.

[JC Urbina]

Patrick,

Just for fun I will share a quick story.

In my 2002 interview for GCA the last question posed to me was the other things I would like to talk about," Food for thought".

I listed,

# 1 Perfect Yardage

# 2 Base Camp Golf

# 3 A bunker for all players.

 Many years ago I laid out some holes for Tom Doak at dinner one night traveling from Oakmont to Stonewall. I borrowed the waitresses pen and scribbled the layout on a table covered with paper.  I described in detail how I was use only one tee and that I would create a series of bunkers for all players to navigate depending on their line to the green.  The discussion ended and we paid our bill and headed out the door.  The busboy wrapped up the paper along with the other items and promptly threw it in the wastebasket never to see the light of day again.  

The other routing scratched on to the paper that night was my theory on # 7  Triangle Golf

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

By random I mean the opposite of fixed as in one zone

One might also use TOC as another example of bunkering to accommodate/ interface with various levels of golfer

[Garland Bayley]

The notion that everyone should hit the greens in regulation, or that an 18 handicap should be presented with the same shots as a 1 handicap is insane.

Patrick --

I wonder who (if anyone) is promoting that notion. I certainly am not.

...

In essence, the PGA of America with it's tee it forward program, that's who.

[Niall C]

Sorry Bradley, "the only way" ? Thats nonsense. Patricks basic premis is absolutely right. You don't need any more than one tee. Why have various tees so that different standard players can finish the hole in the same number of strokes. Thats whats handicaps are for.

Niall
[/quote]

If I were an 18, I would much rather make 9 pars and 9 doubles then 18 bogeys....and I would be more likely to win my match that way as well.  A 4 for 3 or 5 for 3 on the Road Hole would not be talked about as much as an ACTUAL Birdie...regardless of which tee played.  All golfers want a shot at greatness...not a "net" shot.  Do you count 2 for 1's as Aces?
[/quote]

Joe

I'm not sure you understand my point of view. What's the worth of a birdie if you teed off 100 yards down the fairway from everyone else ? Well to my mind thats what you get with multiple tees. But forget playing relative to par, if the course is well designed it can give a challenge for all standards even off the same tees so why clutter up the course with 6 sets of tees per hole.

Niall

[Jason Topp]

Some of the men suggested building the tee anyway. The women said they wouldn't use it, but it was proposed that the gold, or senior tees, could be put there. The seniors would definitely use it -- they are far less concerned about their handicaps going down than they are about making more pars (recapturing old glory?) The theory is that once the senior men began using the tee, the women would, too. I have no doubt that they would. After all, the white tees are open to them on every other hole, but none of the women choose to use them.

Rick - we had some similar situations at Oak Ridge and the result has been that the women's tees are behind the senior tees on a few holes. The women like having extra par 5's and the seniors like to be able to reach a par 4 in two.  I don't think it will change as views are quite adamant on the subject. 

As to the general subject, I agree that shorter walks make a huge difference in pace of play.  Having a zillion tee boxes either lengthens the walk or forces someone playing the back tee to turn around and walk backwards which is always unsatisfying for some reason.  It also detracts from the camraderie of the game a bit.  I would go with two sets of tees and label the par differently.  Such an approach would allow for some hole distances that are relatively rare for a given set of holes - such as a 250 yard par 3/4 or a A 460 yard par 4/5.  Such an approach would also eliminate the need to choose between getting scewed by bets with someone playing a forward tee or explaining that handicaps need to be adjusted to account for ddifferent tees being played.

Hazard placement is a bit of a problem but I think it is the same problem rargedless because of the wide variety in distances people hit balls and the impact of varying weather/ground conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

Strokes are the currency of the game. How one spends those strokes to overcome distance is the only measure of ability. Period. There's no getting around it without lumping on unnecessary statistics that mean nothing.

A one tee system, well-designed, will already "accommodate" (whatever that means) all levels of golfers.

There are a few truisms here worth considering though:

1. 3 is always a good score, do it 18 times and you shoot 54.
2. We accept par as a guideline for ability because the result of par on a hole is achievable for a large portion of golfers at least once per round. Par accommodates the fact that making 3 is usually a very difficult proposition (regardless of distance).
3. Par is always a good score. The average par is usually around 4 per hole (do it 18 times and you shoot 72).

Let's push the per hole average to 5. Do that 18 times and you get 90 - which is just above average for most active golfers, I believe.

Now, turn that average of 5 shots per hole into the par of every hole on your course and suddenly the concept of playing from one tee makes a lot of sense - and guess what. It works for really any golf course, from any tee. Most greens are reachable in three shots by average active golfers. Add 6/108, and we are probably looking at 2-3 sigmas of average active golfers.

So for those really caught up on the one tee system - ask yourself - how many golfers would consider 90 a favorable score?

[jeffwarne]

Strokes are the currency of the game. How one spends those strokes to overcome distance is the only measure of ability. Period. There's no getting around it without lumping on unnecessary statistics that mean nothing.

A one tee system, well-designed, will already "accommodate" (whatever that means) all levels of golfers.

There are a few truisms here worth considering though:

1. 3 is always a good score, do it 18 times and you shoot 54.
2. We accept par as a guideline for ability because the result of par on a hole is achievable for a large portion of golfers at least once per round. Par accommodates the fact that making 3 is usually a very difficult proposition (regardless of distance).
3. Par is always a good score. The average par is usually around 4 per hole (do it 18 times and you shoot 72).

Let's push the per hole average to 5. Do that 18 times and you get 90 - which is just above average for most active golfers, I believe.

Now, turn that average of 5 shots per hole into the par of every hole on your course and suddenly the concept of playing from one tee makes a lot of sense - and guess what. It works for really any golf course, from any tee. Most greens are reachable in three shots by average active golfers. Add 6/108, and we are probably looking at 2-3 sigmas of average active golfers.

So for those really caught up on the one tee system - ask yourself - how many golfers would consider 90 a favorable score?

huh?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What puzzles me is the ignoring of history, when the game was played by teeing up within one or two club lengths of the previous hole/cup.

It worked at one club length for over a century, then moved to two club lengths where it worked for more time.

Why are some forgetting that the one tee system has a history of being successful.

[Michael Goldstein]

Dan, on many great courses your daughter would not be hitting fairway woods into the par fours.  Take the course played at RM for example - she'd be hitting wedge into a number of holes.

[Jason Topp]

While I agree generally with many of Patrick's thoughts I would suggest that those who want to force women to play 6500 yard courses should go play a 7500 yard course and see how much they enjoy it.   

[Rick Shefchik]

What puzzles me is the ignoring of history, when the game was played by teeing up within one or two club lengths of the previous hole/cup.

It worked at one club length for over a century, then moved to two club lengths where it worked for more time.

Why are some forgetting that the one tee system has a history of being successful.

Pat, we can pick and choose from a host of golf modifications that may or may not make the game more enjoyable today.

Fourteen clubs are not a historic limit -- why not go back to the days when 20 or more were not uncommon, or move the arbitrary limit down to ten, or five, or three?

The golf tee was not in common usage in the early 1900s. We could go back to clumps of sand, or simply playing the ball off the deck.

I know you're in favor of bringing back the stymie, so I won't bother with that one -- but it does raise the question of which aspects of the original game you'd like to return to, and which ones you'd just as soon forget.

[Garland Bayley]

What puzzles me is the ignoring of history, when the game was played by teeing up within one or two club lengths of the previous hole/cup.

It worked at one club length for over a century, then moved to two club lengths where it worked for more time.

Why are some forgetting that the one tee system has a history of being successful.

Pat, we can pick and choose from a host of golf modifications that may or may not make the game more enjoyable today.

Fourteen clubs are not a historic limit -- why not go back to the days when 20 or more were not uncommon, or move the arbitrary limit down to ten, or five, or three?

The golf tee was not in common usage in the early 1900s. We could go back to clumps of sand, or simply playing the ball off the deck.

I know you're in favor of bringing back the stymie, so I won't bother with that one -- but it does raise the question of which aspects of the original game you'd like to return to, and which ones you'd just as soon forget.

I think the distinction here is that a modern tee works better than a pile of sand. Limiting clubs to 14 (and a lot of us here think there should be fewer) works better than unlimited.

However, multiple tees don't appear to work better to Pat, I, and many others. They add expense. They add a certain social distance. They don't make the course provide its best strategic configuration for all players.

Pat is saying semi-random bunkering will provide interesting strategic options for all players, albeit not the same options.
(Semi-random, because naturalism would make truly random incongruous.)

[Dan Kelly]

While I agree generally with many of Patrick's thoughts I would suggest that those who want to force women to play 6500 yard courses should go play a 7500 yard course and see how much they enjoy it.   

Thank you, Jason. That's better-expressed than I've managed.

(I, too, agree with many of Patrick's thoughts -- just not the perfection of a one-tee system, on most courses.)

To Michael Goldstein --

Thank you for that observation.

I wish that were more universally true than it is.

On the holes you mentioned: Put the tees within spitting distance of each other.