Why "Tee it Forward" is the antithesis of "the Golfe"

[Jeff_Brauer]

How do you say it applies the same to all players?  The original chart has many varying distances, and an overall guide.  You don't know from course to course that all play will be driver wedge, although it is presumed that all play will be driver iron, rather than driver, 3W, 3W, wedge.

I think you may be applying your own game to everyone's, and my experience is that shorter hitters would enjoy the game more if hitting reasonable clubs into greens.

[David_Tepper]

"As my analysis above pointed out, this would lead to wedging in to most holes. Is that what you think golf should be? Driver - wedge?"

Garland -

You analysis may be suitable for Kalen B., but it is not for a golfer who drives the ball 200-220 yards (such as yours truly). Such a player hits a pitching wedge 100 yards or so. A 350-375 yard par-4 will mean hitting anything from a 4-hybrid to an 8-iron into the green the vast majority of the time. Par-5's of 480-500 yards are true 3 shot holes for that player.

DT    

[William_G]

Gar,

Cranky? Did all your Camellia's die or what?

I suggest you start a "Tee It Back" program.

I like the "Tee it Forward" program as all the guys I talk with who have moved to a more forward tee are happier. They play faster, score better, enjoy their game, etc...

Over the last couple of decades golf has become more about length due to a variety of factors...(that's what she said, LOL) however at some point you lose distance as you age and should play the more forward tee, to keep pace, score, and enjoy the course...

Ultimately though, golf is not about length unless you are selling drivers, and I do love my driver.

In fact one the my epiphanies in GCA occurred on a Carrom Golf board with buddies in elementary school, it was about distance control..................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One the coolest things about golf is that in medal play you are really testing yourself for 18 holes each and every shot each and every hole....some folks just want to beat up on someone else for 18 holes, Gar?

Match play is a timeless game that is more in line with a pre-undustrialized society of sustainable living, not one where (an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions."

Golf is an individual game, and in match play the winner of each hole can determine where to tee it from.

If you don't have anything good to say, please don't say anything.

Thanks

[Garland Bayley]

...
I like the "Tee it Forward" program as all the guys I talk with who have moved to a more forward tee are happier. They play faster, score better, enjoy their game, etc...
...

Please explain to me how they play faster.

[Niall C]

A.G.

I think there is a point where the aging process erodes your distance to the degree that you can no longer handle tees that you've played from for decades.

But, I think that's a different aspect of the "play it forward" philosophy.

"Father Time" usually has a gradual influence to the point of recognition.

It seems to me, that the newest "push" to the forward tees is rather indiscriminate, almost implying a universal surrender on the part of golfers, irrespective of their ability today, versus say, five years ago.

Golfers should engage in introspection and as olde Shakey said, be true to themselves.

But, surrendering to forward tees, just to diminish the challenge sounds counter to the inherent challenge presented by the game.

Well said Patrick. In a nutshell, do you shorten the course to keep your handicap or do you continue to play the same course and accept that your handicap will go up, which was basically what Garland said in his very first post if I'm not mistaken. And just because you're now hitting more shots, does that necessarily lessen your enjoyment or increase your playing time on the courses ? I don't think so.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe shorter courses play faster.  It does stand to reason, even if the total time saved isn't a perfect X minutes per shot saved.

The math is pretty simple - average score of 90, average playing time of 270 mins, or 3 minutes per shot.  Save ten shots based on pure distance, and you save 30 mins, or as I say above, maybe 20.  Still signifigant.  For 130 yard driving women, who often play the equivalent of 8000 yard courses, the savings would be more dramatic, but everyone would enjoy the results!

As to "giving up" on the challenge of golf, why is eliminating shots that aren't tee shots or approach shots for the vast majority of golfers who drive it 180-225 giving up anything?  By creating more makeable approach shots from the LZ, it may actually be increasing challenge, or at least making more shots the type of challenge envisioned.   It just eliminates making about 6-12 holes par 5's in reality for those golfers.  It sort of bases course length on reality, not tour pros, not USGA limits, etc.

Again, MHO.  But, if you really watch the average golfer, we haven't designed around their games very much at all, we have designed for low handicappers.  If anything, this might be like the Occupy movement, where average golfers take back the game as they remember playing it, or allows them to play like they see the pros play it, where every shot counts.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The math is pretty simple - average score of 90, average playing time of 270 mins, or 3 minutes per shot.  ...

Please don't ever marshal at a course I am playing. I often take less than 10 seconds per shot. The problem you are discussing is not a need to move forward, but a need to be courteous to other players on the course.

But, you are right, the math is pretty simple. Moving up a tee doesn't change the par for the course. It changes the course rating by about 2 strokes. That means that for 0 to 18 handicaps it might change the score at most 4, unless it has some ungodly slope rating. Anyone that cannot get a shot of in a minute should be run off the course, tarred and feathered. So you might save 15 minutes in shot making in a four ball.

Playing the wrong tees is not what makes 5 and 6 hour rounds at public golf courses.

Even a Duck should be able to figure that out.

[Joe Stansell]

Garland, have you played the "Teal Tees" at Chambers Bay yet? If not, why not?

Apparently it won't take anymore time for you to complete your round and you would undoubtedly enjoy the greater challenge of forced 200+ yard carries on holes like 4, 11, 14, 16, and 18. I'm sure gouging the ball out of the waste areas would be tons of fun for rare misses, and you probably wouldn't lose any golf balls along the way so hunting for them wouldn't add any time either.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, have you played the "Teal Tees" at Chambers Bay yet? If not, why not?

Apparently it won't take anymore time for you to complete your round and you would undoubtedly enjoy the greater challenge of forced 200+ yard carries on holes like 4, 11, 14, 16, and 18. I'm sure gouging the ball out of the waste areas would be tons of fun for rare misses, and you probably wouldn't lose any golf balls along the way so hunting for them wouldn't add any time either.

Joe,

I suspect you are trying to get at this problem.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51418.0.html

To that one would add the time to walk back to the teal tees, which will add time. However, playing white over sand saves no walking time.

Other than architectural problems of penal golf's forced carries, I would lose no more time looking for balls playing back as playing forward. Hitting bad shots is not a function of what tees you play.

If I'm smart enough to play away from waste areas from the sand tees, what makes you think I will play at them when I move back. Besides, match play, two strokes in the waste area and I concede the hole and we move on. May actually be faster that way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

I understand that not all of slow play is length related, but if the total average time per shot )270min/90 shots) reducing shots does reduce time.   Yes, it may only be 30 seconds to select a club, waggle, etc. but besides that, we might save 300 total yards of walking/driving time.  Or, driving to the other guys shot time, etc.


I said it wasn't a 100% correlation, but I respectfully disagree with your contention that shorter playing courses won't save time.  I have studied it in my own play among other things and find it true.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I understand that not all of slow play is length related, but if the total average time per shot )270min/90 shots) reducing shots does reduce time.   Yes, it may only be 30 seconds to select a club, waggle, etc. but besides that, we might save 300 total yards of walking/driving time.  Or, driving to the other guys shot time, etc.

It is a rare course that moving from playing the blue tees to playing the white tees saves any walking/driving(ugh) time.

I said it wasn't a 100% correlation, but I respectfully disagree with your contention that shorter playing courses won't save time.  I have studied it in my own play among other things and find it true.

As my earlier reply pointed out, there is some time to be saved by playing forward. But, it is insignificant compared to what can be saved by courteous quick play.

[Garland Bayley]

"As my analysis above pointed out, this would lead to wedging in to most holes. Is that what you think golf should be? Driver - wedge?"

Garland -

You analysis may be suitable for Kalen B., but it is not for a golfer who drives the ball 200-220 yards (such as yours truly). Such a player hits a pitching wedge 100 yards or so. A 350-375 yard par-4 will mean hitting anything from a 4-hybrid to an 8-iron into the green the vast majority of the time. Par-5's of 480-500 yards are true 3 shot holes for that player.

DT    

David,

A simple, rough interpolation on their recommendations recommends a course of approximately 5400-5600 yards for you.

In that case half the par 4s are 305 yards or shorter. 305-210 leaves 95 yards or shorter for half of your approaches to par 4s. Welcome to bomb and gouge my friend.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

As per above post, I do admit that the Tee It Forward guidelines seem about one notch short for the way I think.  In other words, I think the 225 guys ought to be over 6000 yards at least, maybe to 6300, not under 5800 yards.  I am not sure if they exagerated the shortening to prove a point, or maybe its like the 55 MPH speed limit really only got us to hold to 65 MPH.

However, I disagree again, respectfully, about the relative benefits of courteous, fast play, if only because I have been on the lookout for it for many decades, and have yet to see it occur.  Everyone thinks slow play is the other guy, while talking on cell phones, taking forever to select a club, etc.  So, since the PGA has been lobbying for all that for years, and it hasn't happened, a program directed that way has no chance of results in practice, even if it would help in theory! 

So some time saving is a welcome thing, I think we all agree, and the TIF is a good initive for that.  Moreover, it should make golf fun for all those who have maxed out on the supposed extra distance of the Big Bertha generation of drivers.  If you can't hit longer, play shorter courses to reach more greens in regulation, like your idols.  Makes perfect sense to me since the other stuff hasn't worked out. 

It's funny, but years ago, I was "just behind" the pros in distance.  I was within 20 yards of Tom Watson, but I ain't within 70 of Bubba Watson now.  I am so far behind I don't care about playing just one tee forward.  I will gladly play two or three to hit a mix of irons to the green.

[Sean_A]

For the life of me I can't understand how one doesn't play quicker from 6000 yards compared to 7000 yards.  Garland, please explain how one plays the same pace yet steps back 1000 yards.  Something doesn't add up with your logic.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

... Still signifigant.  For 130 yard driving women, who often play the equivalent of 8000 yard courses, the savings would be more dramatic, but everyone would enjoy the results!

...

Jeff,

Do you understand that the PGA has recommended the 130 yard driving woman play a course approximately 3000 yards long?
I play golf with women who drive it 130 yards. They would absolutely think you were nuts for suggesting they come to the course and then walk more than half of it to get to the tees they are supposed to play for their driving ability.

I hope you are beginning to realize that the PGA/USGA recommendations is condescending, arrogant, and ill-informed.

Lets make these ladies happy! Lets build 36 greens. An additional one half way down each hole so that they can enjoy the game more. I got lotsa bucks to fund it.

[Garland Bayley]

For the life of me I can't understand how one doesn't play quicker from 6000 yards compared to 7000 yards.  Garland, please explain how one plays the same pace yet steps back 1000 yards.  Something doesn't add up with your logic.

Ciao

I've explained my position in the thread a couple of times. It should be clear by now that yes you take longer to play, but the difference is not significant enough to cause a Tee It Forward program. I will also note that even the Tee It Forward program is not asking people (except for the very shortest hitters, Jeff's example of the 130 yard hitter) to move forward 1000 yards. So your attempt at hyperbole is not working here.

[A.G._Crockett]

Pat,
I turn 60 in July.  I'm still fit and fortunate with my health, but not as long as I once was, and I was never above average in length for a single digit golfer.

What's up with that A.G.? I was significantly longer in my 61st year than I was in my 60th year. Maybe you need to see Bob Toski about maintaining distance with age.

I hope to be longer when I'm 61 than I am now, too.  But I'm pretty sure I won't be as long this year or next as I was when I was 40.  Or 50.  And so on...

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

I think there is a point where the aging process erodes your distance to the degree that you can no longer handle tees that you've played from for decades.

But, I think that's a different aspect of the "play it forward" philosophy.

"Father Time" usually has a gradual influence to the point of recognition.

It seems to me, that the newest "push" to the forward tees is rather indiscriminate, almost implying a universal surrender on the part of golfers, irrespective of their ability today, versus say, five years ago.

Golfers should engage in introspection and as olde Shakey said, be true to themselves.

But, surrendering to forward tees, just to diminish the challenge sounds counter to the inherent challenge presented by the game.

Patrick,
The GSGA sends out index updates every 15 days, and my index has varied only slightly over the past 10 yrs., despite the aging process and changing my membership three years ago from a course that was 6200 yds. to a course that is 7000 yds.  I love the challenge of golf; hit balls for an hour today and then chipped and putted for another hour!

But I don't find it to be much fun to play courses at 7000 yds. now.  I just hit the same shots over and over, and lots of GCA features are not in play; I can't reach them.  For me, the game is just much more interesting (and no less challenging) at around 6600, give or take.

I don't hear TIF as asking golfers to ignore the challenge of the game, and I don't hear it as indiscriminate.  I hear it as trying to get golfers to think about where they ought to be playing from, rather than playing a course designed for much, much better players.  While there might be the occasional golfer who moves up to lessen the challenge of the game, there are far, far more golfers whose egos cause them to play distances that they just cannot manage.

[Garland Bayley]

... While there might be the occasional golfer who moves up to lessen the challenge of the game, there are far, far more golfers whose egos cause them to play distances that they just cannot manage.

What empirical evidence do you have of this ego thingy?

What about the alternative thesis that they just love playing with friends, therefore the distance doesn't matter to them?

[Garland Bayley]

...
If you don't have anything good to say, please don't say anything.

Thanks

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ducks are sensitive too.  

C'mon Gray, if you can't tell there is a big implied after everyone of my Duck digs, then you just need to chill out.

Oh,

And, in the future you are to address me as Dr. Bayley, Sir!

PS

Have you seen the OSU commercial about how Beavers make significantly more money than graduates of other "Oregon" universities. The school is getting in its digs at you too.

[Garland Bayley]

... Match play is a timeless game that is more in line with a pre-undustrialized society of sustainable living, not one where (an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions."
...

What? You think Warren is a medal score player? Out to bring Augusta National to its knees every time out?

Methinks, you need to think again.

[Joe Leenheer]

Joe,

As a universal, I think length does equate with difficulty

According to the USGA it is significanlty the primary factor in determining course and slope rating.

Well we all know the USGA gets it right all the time :-)

The hardest thing to determine is what "difficult" is "for most players".  I do think distance can help a course in the "resistance to scoring" category, but does that make it "difficult" or just long.  Complexity of green structures, size of landing areas, course conditions, hazard placement, and shot type requirements would be a truer measure of "difficulty" (with some consideration to distance).

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, have you played the "Teal Tees" at Chambers Bay yet? If not, why not?

Apparently it won't take anymore time for you to complete your round and you would undoubtedly enjoy the greater challenge of forced 200+ yard carries on holes like 4, 11, 14, 16, and 18. I'm sure gouging the ball out of the waste areas would be tons of fun for rare misses, and you probably wouldn't lose any golf balls along the way so hunting for them wouldn't add any time either.

18 forced carry 164 yards, Can you say cape hole baby?

I had to measure these in case you were BSn. I may have measured beyond the teal tees as there have been tees added for the pros that are these little circles to be used once a decade. We both know if the USGA had kept the ball under control there would not be such extreme tees that benefit the young and the restless.

I've played blue, sand, and white. It basically amounts to what my group wants to play. I have already told my man Alex Miller that if he wants me to play all the way back with him, I'd do it.

Oh, BTW, I guess the rest can't be classified as cape holes.



16 forced carry 235 yards
14 forced carry 249 yards downhill
11 forced carry 213 yards
4 forced carry 232 yards
 

[Garland Bayley]

...
 length due to a variety of factors...(that's what she said, LOL) however at some point you lose distance as you age ...

Is that what she's telling you now?
















 

[Ken Moum]

They give a table saying if you drive 225 yards you should play between 5800 and 6000 yards. I suppose that means 6000 yards for par 72, and 5800 yards for par 70.

So now we have a hypothetical 6000 yard par 72 course for Kalen to play that has par 3s of length 135, 145, 155, and 165. The par 5s are 460, 475, 490, and 505 (Kalen is salivating over that. He has never seen such short par 5s). That leaves the average par 4 at 345 yards. 345 - 225 is an average of a 120 yard approach. On average you are hitting pitching wedge approaches to the par 4s.


They didn't take the 5 wood out of your hands, they took the 5 iron out of your hands. It's not boring because it's almost all driver 5 wood. It's boring because it's all driver wedge.

What you've described in the middle paragraph isn't Tee it Forward, it's a shitty golf course. I see lots of them.  all the par threes are bunched around 150, all the par fours are 350-375 and all the fives are 475-500.  I hate them.

I hit it about 200-210 and decided last year to assiduously avoid playing tees longer than about 6,100 yards.  (FWIW, I think the TIF chart is a little too pessimistic, Brauer is right people can handle at least 200-500 yards more than indicated.)

I've been playing my lovely Donald Ross home course at about 5800-5900 yards, and the par threes aren't closely bunched, they are 124, 145, 160 and 198.  Which means today I hit nine wood, four wood (my longest fairway club), nine iron, six iron.

I can just barely reach the shortest par five, if I manage to cut the corner of the dogleg.

And the par fours range from 300 to 404.  My approach shots today included two four woods, a seven wood, a nine wood, a six iron, two seven irons, two eight irons, a nine and a wedge.

Driver-wedge indeed.

I decided to do this because I've played a bit of travel golf lately, and started choosing the tee @ 6,000 +/- a bit, and decided I liked not having to hit a wedge into almost every green.... after two or three wood shots.

K