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

[Garland Bayley]

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.

Is enjoyment equivalent to score? Do not people enjoy going to the range? To quote Anna Rawson after a visit to the range, "I just love hitting a golf ball." How many of you have not seen Tin Cup and Roy's description of the feeling you get from hitting it good?

Furthermore, this post completely misses Patrick's point. The course should be configured with hazards so that each and every shot by all levels of players would have interesting decisions to be made by said players.

[Dan Kelly]

Is enjoyment equivalent to score? Do not people enjoy going to the range? To quote Anna Rawson after a visit to the range, "I just love hitting a golf ball." How many of you have not seen Tin Cup and Roy's description of the feeling you get from hitting it good?

Furthermore, this post completely misses Patrick's point. The course should be configured with hazards so that each and every shot by all levels of players would have interesting decisions to be made by said players.

In no way did I miss Patrick's point. Nor did Jason.

Perhaps you won't miss my point here: What courses "should be" and what courses *are* are, more often than not, quite different things. If all (or even most) courses were, in fact, "configured with hazards so that each and every shot by all levels of players would have interesting decisions to be made by said players," we wouldn't have much to talk about here, would we?

Enjoyment is not at all synonymous with score! Who said it was?

I'll repeat Jason's question: How much do you enjoy 7,500-yard courses?

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'll repeat Jason's question: How much do you enjoy 7,500-yard courses?

Immensely. I love hitting a golf ball.

...
Enjoyment is not at all synonymous with score! Who said it was?
...

The primary difference between playing 7500 vs 6500 is score as I see it. After all, all this hogwash about forward tees is supported by give them a chance to make par/birdie/eagle/you name it. Therefore, to claim that 7500 is less fun that 6500 logically implies fun is synonymous with score. So it would be you who in effect said enjoyment is synonymous with score.

[Dan Kelly]

...
I'll repeat Jason's question: How much do you enjoy 7,500-yard courses?

Immensely. I love hitting a golf ball.

Fine. More power to you. And I mean that, in every way.

...
Enjoyment is not at all synonymous with score! Who said it was?
...

The primary difference between playing 7500 vs 6500 is score as I see it. After all, all this hogwash about forward tees is supported by give them a chance to make par/birdie/eagle/you name it. Therefore, to claim that 7500 is less fun that 6500 logically implies fun is synonymous with score. So it would be you who in effect said enjoyment is synonymous with score.

Hogwash back at you!

The primary difference as I see it, on most courses that exist today: On a 6,500 yard course, I will be forced to deal with hazards in the driving area and at the green as they were intended to be dealt with. At 7,500 yards, on most courses that exist today (which do not conform with your "random hazards" ideal), I won't be capable of reaching most of the fairway bunkers and many of the greens. Hence, for me: less fun -- regardless of score.

[JMEvensky]

Fine. More power to you. And I mean that, in every way.

Just didn't want this line to go by unnoticed--classic.

Sorry for the interruption,please continue.

[Kalen Braley]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...

Multiple tees provide that much more variety...and one need look no further than Ballyneal where the free flowing tee concept, makes for super fun golf.  1st time thru, play a hole from the back and make it a challenge to save par.  Then the next time thru you play from a tee 100 yards up and now its a birdie opportunity and you interface a whole new set of obstacles on the tee shot.  And these combinations only multiply when you add tees at various angles to the fairway.

[Rick Shefchik]

I think it's safe to conclude that the forward tee isn't going anywhere, despite this debate. The larger point -- that five or six or eight tees are overkill -- is probably something we can all agree on. The reds, the whites and the blues -- sometimes found on the same tee pad at my course -- have become standard in today's game, and if we keep it at three, nobody's really going to care.

It's kind of like the frequent discussion about yardage plates/marked sprinkler heads. I learned to play without a 150 yard marker, but now most courses give me a dozen distances on every hole. I'd be happy to go back to the 150 yard stake, but I'd prefer not to do without any distance aid -- and regardless of my preference, I'm sure that I'll never see another golf course with no yardage indicators in my lifetime.

[Garland Bayley]

...

...
Enjoyment is not at all synonymous with score! Who said it was?
...

The primary difference between playing 7500 vs 6500 is score as I see it. After all, all this hogwash about forward tees is supported by give them a chance to make par/birdie/eagle/you name it. Therefore, to claim that 7500 is less fun that 6500 logically implies fun is synonymous with score. So it would be you who in effect said enjoyment is synonymous with score.

Hogwash back at you!

The primary difference as I see it, on most courses that exist today: On a 6,500 yard course, I will be forced to deal with hazards in the driving area and at the green as they were intended to be dealt with. At 7,500 yards, on most courses that exist today (which do not conform with your "random hazards" ideal), I won't be capable of reaching most of the fairway bunkers and many of the greens. Hence, for me: less fun -- regardless of score.

So why do you play golf? Putting?
Other than your score will be higher, what is not fun about not reaching many of the greens?
Do you dislike hitting the golf ball?

The golden age architects debated whether putting had too much influence on the game. Some of them advocated keeping the length of courses the same, but reducing the number of holes to twelve. From what you write, it seems you would have never become a golfer under those circumstances.

[Matt_Cohn]

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 ?

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.

I guess you're not a big fan of the Tee It Forward program.  

[Niall C]

The primary difference as I see it, on most courses that exist today: On a 6,500 yard course, I will be forced to deal with hazards in the driving area and at the green as they were intended to be dealt with. At 7,500 yards, on most courses that exist today (which do not conform with your "random hazards" ideal), I won't be capable of reaching most of the fairway bunkers and many of the greens. Hence, for me: less fun -- regardless of score.

Dan

Is that not Patrick's point ? A well designed course, whatever the length and with one set of tees would give enjoyment/interest/challenge, call it what you will, to every standard of player. Instead we get as David Elvins said courses where there is a prescribed way of playing a hole and the various tee lengths are set out to let the various standards of players play it that way.

Niall

[Niall C]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...

Multiple tees provide that much more variety...and one need look no further than Ballyneal where the free flowing tee concept, makes for super fun golf.  1st time thru, play a hole from the back and make it a challenge to save par.  Then the next time thru you play from a tee 100 yards up and now its a birdie opportunity and you interface a whole new set of obstacles on the tee shot.  And these combinations only multiply when you add tees at various angles to the fairway.

Kalen

Not sure who was saying that the one set of tees concept had to mean long courses or prescribed hole lengths or a set yardage. Why not a 6,000 yard course with one set of tees ?

Niall

[Dan Kelly]

Dan

Is that not Patrick's point ? A well designed course, whatever the length and with one set of tees would give enjoyment/interest/challenge, call it what you will, to every standard of player. Instead we get as David Elvins said courses where there is a prescribed way of playing a hole and the various tee lengths are set out to let the various standards of players play it that way.

Niall

Niall --

Yes, it was his point -- and I said, on a previous page of this thread, that I agree with the gist of much of what he said.

What I DON'T agree with is the idea that one tee would fit all, without drastic and expensive redesign of most courses. In the world we actually live in, a one-tee course wouldn't usually work ideally, IMO, because most courses weren't designed as one-tee courses. The tee-ball hazards are usually placed (unless I'm very sadly mistaken) to challenge the longest hitters from the backmost tees and the typical hitters from the middle tees. (Women are an afterthought, if a thought at all.)

On a typical, non-ideal (without multiple, "random" hazards) golf course of, say, either 6,000 or 6,500 or 7,000 or 7,500 yards, either the longest hitters would bomb it over all of the hazards or the typical hitters wouldn't be able to reach them. That's the reality I see.

Would the golf world be a better place if all of the courses were as challenging to all players as apparently NGLA is? Sure thing! But I don't think we should pretend that NGLA (and other courses that meet Patrick's test) are in any way the norm.

Dan

[Kalen Braley]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...

Multiple tees provide that much more variety...and one need look no further than Ballyneal where the free flowing tee concept, makes for super fun golf.  1st time thru, play a hole from the back and make it a challenge to save par.  Then the next time thru you play from a tee 100 yards up and now its a birdie opportunity and you interface a whole new set of obstacles on the tee shot.  And these combinations only multiply when you add tees at various angles to the fairway.

Kalen

Not sure who was saying that the one set of tees concept had to mean long courses or prescribed hole lengths or a set yardage. Why not a 6,000 yard course with one set of tees ?

Niall

Niall,

Garland was saying he would have no issue playing from 7500 yards, even though he would have no business trying to play from there...as would be the same for 98% of golfers.

I guess for me, it all comes down to variety.  I'm not oppposed to 6000 yards, but to me the real value of having multiple tees is being able to play the same course in multiple different ways. The one thing I wish people would get over is the need to have to play every hole from the same set of tees.  I can think of few things funner on the course than playing from the backs on one par 4, and grinding for that par, and on the next hole, playing from the reds and having it then be a driveable par 4....or visa versa on the next playing.

So once again, its all about variety to me and only have 1 tee = less variety.

[JMEvensky]

What I DON'T agree with is the idea that one tee would fit all, without drastic and expensive redesign of most courses. In the world we actually live in, a one-tee course wouldn't usually work ideally, IMO, because most courses weren't designed as one-tee courses. The tee-ball hazards are usually placed (unless I'm very sadly mistaken) to challenge the longest hitters from the backmost tees and the typical hitters from the middle tees. (Women are an afterthought, if a thought at all.)

Unfortunately,there's a lot of truth to this.I'd argue the "drastic and expensive redesign" part--I think drastic maintenance changes would vitiate some,maybe even most, of the problem.

Ultimately,we're at a place where most golfers don't give a rat's ass about anything but making a golf course easier for them to score.Multiple tee boxes have been sold as a way to equalize the game for everyone.Whether true or not,most believe it and don't want to see it changed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...
Why do you make that assumption ?

Multiple tees provide that much more variety

That's not true.
You only play one course, at a finite length, once you choose the tees you're playing from.
Why would that be any different from playing a similar course where you just don't have a choice in tee selection

My recollection, when I wanted to play the back tees at TOC and other courses in the UK was that they were off limits and that I had to play the tees of the day.  I enjoyed every round irrespective of where the tees were set.

...and one need look no further than Ballyneal where the free flowing tee concept, makes for super fun golf.  1st time thru, play a hole from the back and make it a challenge to save par.  Then the next time thru you play from a tee 100 yards up and now its a birdie opportunity and you interface a whole new set of obstacles on the tee shot. 


You can do the same thing from one set of tees that are changed from day to day.

And these combinations only multiply when you add tees at various angles to the fairway.

Realistically, to what degree does the angle of attack vary from multiple/various tees.

The only course I can recall, off the top of my head, where the angle of attack on the tee shot is substantially different is on # 16 at NGLA and # 2 at Sand Hills.  # 17 at Sand Hills if you count the abandoned 17th tee up on the hill.

At the great majority of courses I've experienced, the angles of attack differ minimally from the various sets of tees.
In fact, at most courses, multiple tees reside within the same platform or foot pad of the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Garland was saying he would have no issue playing from 7500 yards, even though he would have no business trying to play from there...as would be the same for 98% of golfers.

I guess for me, it all comes down to variety.  I'm not oppposed to 6000 yards, but to me the real value of having multiple tees is being able to play the same course in multiple different ways. The one thing I wish people would get over is the need to have to play every hole from the same set of tees.  I can think of few things funner on the course than playing from the backs on one par 4, and grinding for that par, and on the next hole, playing from the reds and having it then be a driveable par 4....or visa versa on the next playing.

From a practical perspective, that's pure rubish.

The enormous majority of golfers play from the same tees, day in and day out.
They don't play the back tees one day, the forward tees the next, the middle tees the next and the women's tees the next.

Day in and day out they play the same tees, year in and year out.
And, the course they play, balances out to about the same yardage.
The rating from the tees selected is FIXED, it doesn't vary even though the tees on a given hole may vary.

So once again, its all about variety to me and only have 1 tee = less variety.

Absolutely and unequivically false.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

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.

I guess you're not a big fan of the Tee It Forward program.  

Matt, the tee if forward program makes what some might call an arrogant assumption, namely, that the golfer is and has been playing from the wrong tees.

There's a unique dynamic at play here.

On one hand, we're all driven by the desire to play better, to elevate our games.
There's a special ego associated with golf, an ego that inherently tempts/lures the golfer into trying to hit shots beyond their routine abilities.
It's that desire to excel, the desire to improve, to attempt and succeed at more difficult shots that brings us to the game.
It's that same desire that causes us to test ourselves in our battle against this static enemy, the golf course.

Moving forward is sometimes viewed as surrendering to the enemy, to admitting that the golf course has won, that the golfer doesn't possess the ability to rise to that particular challenge.

In some cases, that's true.
But, not in all cases.  In many cases moving forward conflicts with the golfer's assessment of his abilities, it's an admission that he can't aspire to greatness, that he can't handle the challenge that's presented.  So, in a fashion, its tantamount to giving up, a move in the wrong direction.

When I was younger, I remember the burning desire to move back to test my game against a more severe challenge
Driver - wedge ceased being an exciting challenge, as did driver - 8 iron, then driver - 6 iron.
I remember playing WFW and wearing out my 2 and 3-iron and the exhilaration associated with striking superior long irons into the green.
It's not what I'd want to do every day, but, there's nothing wrong with placing demands on various parts of your golf game.

One of my great thrills in golf occured after my dad, brother and I had finished 18 on Pinehurst # 2 back in the early 60's.
I went out for another 18 in a misting rain.
On the second hole I hit a really good 3-iron to about 10 feet to a pin tucked back right.
That shot had that unique "click" that you feel when you hit it dead solid perfect, and I enjoyed watching the entire flight of the ball as it came to rest so close to the pin.  Suddenly, a woman's voice rang out.  "Hey sonny, what did you hit there ?"  It was an elderly woman with white hair, in a yellow rain slicker, off to the right side of the fairway almost in the pines.  I said, " A 3 iron"  She said, "I haven't seen a 3 iron hit like that since Jug MacSpadden did it back in 38.?  As good as I felt before she spoke, I was on cloud nine after her comment.  And here it is, 50 years later, and I remember that shot and her comment.

Had I been playing forward tees I would never have been confronted by that very difficult shot, I never would have gotten the chance to attempt it and never would have enjoyed the euphoria of pulling it off, in front of a grand witness, by chance.

So, that's what golf is about, aspiring to achieve lofty goals.

I'm not so sure I want to dampen or kill that spirit by conceding to father time.

But, as Clint stated, "A man has to know his limitations", which is an adaptation of Shakespeare's "Above all things, to thine own self be true"
Golf leads us into deceiving ourselves, but the temptation is glorious.

Conversely, when playing with my youngest son, he's been playing from the white tees.
Recently he asked me if he could play from the blue tees.
I said, sure, bite off as much as you feel comfortable with, that will test, but not overwhelm your game and enjoyment.
So now, he's playing from the blue tees and meeting the challenge quite well.
I suspect that by next year he'll be asking to play from the silver tees on some courses and the back tees on other courses.
And, I like his trajectory.

Me, the last round I played, I moved back to the Silver tees at Pine Tree and handled it quite well.

I'm now thinking, that if I can hit my irons consistently well, maybe, just maybe, I'll move back to the golf tees.

The competitive fire burns brightly in all of us, and moving forward has a way of dousing that competitive fire, if you've still got the distance/ability to handle the longer course.

For those whose game and length have abandoned them, for whatever reason, moving up makes sense.

But, it's not a universal.

[Tom_Doak]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...

Kalen:

Nice straw man argument there.  Who ever said that the one-tee course wouldn't have a good variety of lengths of holes?  You are assuming that the one tee will be put in the same place that the stupid back tees are put now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

I think you feel that way because, historically, your only experience, all of our experiences, have been with courses with multiple tees.

But, in reality, do you play the black tees one day, the women's tees the next and the member's tees the next.

I don't.

I generally play the same tees, day in and day out.
I do confess to moving to the back tees for a few reasons.
To eliminate intimidation when playing a long course
To force myself to execute shots with longer clubs.
To force myself to be more accurate but just as long with my driver.

I usually engage in that exercise late in the afternoon after hitting balls for a half an hour.
I do NOT engage in that exercise in the spring as the course is clearly too long for me.

I think what you and many others are hung up on is the concept that the golf course is static every day, when that wouldn't be the case.  The golf course would change every day.  While it might be or probably would be almost the same overall length, each hole would be of differing lengths from previous days, ergo plenty of variety.  Tell me, how much variety you see when playing the same color tee set every day ?  Very little from my observations.  Most of the variety comes from hole location, wind and weather and NOT tee movement.

What's wrong with playing a hole that's 440 one day and 390 another ?
Same green, same bunkers, but a different tee, albeit ONLY ONE TEE.

[Sean_A]

Count me in as another one whose not interested in hitting Driver 3 wood into every par 4, and long iron/fairway wood into every par 3...
Why do you make that assumption ?

Multiple tees provide that much more variety

That's not true.
You only play one course, at a finite length, once you choose the tees you're playing from.
Why would that be any different from playing a similar course where you just don't have a choice in tee selection

My recollection, when I wanted to play the back tees at TOC and other courses in the UK was that they were off limits and that I had to play the tees of the day.  I enjoyed every round irrespective of where the tees were set.

...and one need look no further than Ballyneal where the free flowing tee concept, makes for super fun golf.  1st time thru, play a hole from the back and make it a challenge to save par.  Then the next time thru you play from a tee 100 yards up and now its a birdie opportunity and you interface a whole new set of obstacles on the tee shot. 


You can do the same thing from one set of tees that are changed from day to day.

And these combinations only multiply when you add tees at various angles to the fairway.

Realistically, to what degree does the angle of attack vary from multiple/various tees.

The only course I can recall, off the top of my head, where the angle of attack on the tee shot is substantially different is on # 16 at NGLA and # 2 at Sand Hills.  # 17 at Sand Hills if you count the abandoned 17th tee up on the hill.

At the great majority of courses I've experienced, the angles of attack differ minimally from the various sets of tees.
In fact, at most courses, multiple tees reside within the same platform or foot pad of the tee.

Pat

Its a shame that extra tees focus so much on length and so little on width.  This in and of itself is the biggest reason I am not in favour of multiple tees.  I think most of the time there has to be a reason to add more tees than just for the sake of added length.   

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland was saying he would have no issue playing from 7500 yards, even though he would have no business trying to play from there...as would be the same for 98% of golfers.
...

Hey Dude,

Is there any sane reason that statement could be true?

[Garland Bayley]

...
What I DON'T agree with is the idea that one tee would fit all, without drastic and expensive redesign of most courses. In the world we actually live in, a one-tee course wouldn't usually work ideally, IMO, because most courses weren't designed as one-tee courses. The tee-ball hazards are usually placed (unless I'm very sadly mistaken) to challenge the longest hitters from the backmost tees and the typical hitters from the middle tees. (Women are an afterthought, if a thought at all.)

On a typical, non-ideal (without multiple, "random" hazards) golf course of, say, either 6,000 or 6,500 or 7,000 or 7,500 yards, either the longest hitters would bomb it over all of the hazards or the typical hitters wouldn't be able to reach them. That's the reality I see.
...

I guess I just don't see the "expensive redesign". Most courses have multiple tees already, which would make picking a set for one tee use that would give variety pretty easy. You need more random hazards? Have you seen David Kidd using "mohawks" and "eyebrows"? Until some sand bunkers can be added as regular maintenance, what's wrong with growing grass tall in semi-random locations to provide the variety of hazard that Pat is advocating?

[Kalen Braley]

To Garland, Tom, Pat, et al.

When I made that statement, I was responding specifically to what Garland has said in response #102 to the question that Dan has posed via Jason.  So I can see where it all got confusing...I should have clarified better.

Quote from: Dan Kelly on Today at 11:18:02 AM
...
I'll repeat Jason's question: How much do you enjoy 7,500-yard courses?

To which Garland replied: Immensely. I love hitting a golf ball.


I would have little fun playing a 7500 yard course once, much less multiple times.

[Garland Bayley]

...

I would have little fun playing a 7500 yard course once, much less multiple times.

Why would you have little fun playing a 7500 yard course? Do you play par 3 courses? Are they the wrong yardage to have fun too? If the golden age architects had gone ahead and dropped 6 holes from the courses, but kept them full length, would you not have fun playing those courses, because the holes are too long?

[jeffwarne]

...

I would have little fun playing a 7500 yard course once, much less multiple times.

 If the golden age architects had gone ahead and dropped 6 holes from the courses, but kept them full length, would you not have fun playing those courses, because the holes are too long?

That might be the most thought provoking remark I've read in a long time.
Plenty of turn of the century courses had holes consolidated into one longer hole.
I can think of a few I'd like to simply blow a 3 wood over on the way to something better.