[Garland Bayley]

Dan-
It would actually be just 12 seconds per shot, but I get that you're estimating. Also, I'm not saying that a 2-hour walking round isn't possible.  I just think that a lot of people who say they've played in 2 hours really haven't, and I also think one has to sacrifice a lot of things I enjoy about the game to play that fast.

Carl

I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

Ciao

Sorry Sean, I'm not buying it. Your 12 seconds per shot is meaningless unless you specify walking speed, and distance. Furthermore, playing one's home course, one home course doesn't take a lot of additional thinking. Plus, I have to wonder if your brain turns off while walking from shot to shot.

[Garland Bayley]

I've played a few rounds at 3 hours when my buddy and I are the 1st ones out on a summer morning...

....and even at 3 hours, you are moving along pretty quickly.  Playing 18 regulation in 2 hours does not sound enjoyable as it'd be a massive rush on each shot.

Have to wonder if you hated baseball. "Shots" there are measured in fractions of seconds, as opposed to seconds in golf.

And, I am sure you will admit (as I believe you have in the past) it would do you good to walk all rounds and walk them briskly.

[Garland Bayley]

While looking on Golf Digest site to see if I could come up with the article on research I remembered, I came across making golf fun.
Seems I'm not the only one to think medal play may be a bit of a problem.

9. SAY GOODBYE TO STROKE PLAY
When i joined a golf club last spring,

There you are. Match play will never be the format of choice at public courses, and there's no sense wasting time trying to re-educate the golfing public to it. Better to move them forward so they'll enjoy themseves more, play more quickly, and perhaps become 'core' golfers in the bargain.

OK, since you are going to use the public course excuse, please explain how they can possibly play more quickly on a course full of those public course players you are already being dismissive of. Isn't getting some to move up, just a recipe for more public course frustration?

[Garland Bayley]

...  I shot 78 yesterday morning from 6400 yds., and 78 today from 6700, but I had more fun yesterday. ...

At Chambers Bay, I shot 97 playing with Kalen from 6500 yards, and then shot 106 from the whites at 6000 yards playing with Mark Saltzman.

I'll let you guess which one was the most fun.

[Sean_A]

Dan-
It would actually be just 12 seconds per shot, but I get that you're estimating. Also, I'm not saying that a 2-hour walking round isn't possible.  I just think that a lot of people who say they've played in 2 hours really haven't, and I also think one has to sacrifice a lot of things I enjoy about the game to play that fast.

Carl

I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

Ciao

Sorry Sean, I'm not buying it. Your 12 seconds per shot is meaningless unless you specify walking speed, and distance. Furthermore, playing one's home course, one home course doesn't take a lot of additional thinking. Plus, I have to wonder if your brain turns off while walking from shot to shot.

Garland

I am a slow walker so I guess I have more like 4 seconds for a shot - tee hee.  I guess I need to pull my club out well short of the ball and never change my mind or else I can't possibly make it round in 2 hours.  I spose I could even save some time if I don't set me bag down - god forbid I should let my mind drift a bit with conversation and taking it all in.  Wait, I could even go faster if I had a cart.  It wouldn't take long before I realized that I could play Tiger Woods golf game whatever and finish in 20 minutes - no need to even pay a green fee.  The world is right.

Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

No one is saying you have to play in 2 hours. I have found only one partner at my club that will play a two ball with me and play at that speed. Since we both shoot over 90, we aren't invited to play with the single digits that play first thing in the morning and report times under 2 1/2 hours for their 4 balls.

[Joe Stansell]

Methinks you didn't read the chapter to the end. "it is absurd and unnecessary to attempt to arrange the course so that every single player can get around in par figures, if only they were to play the right set of tees." p. 122

Methinks you're wrong. As I said, I agree with you that TIF is wrongheaded to the extent it eliminates any challenge from the tees that are recommended.

I am also curious how many teeing distances you think he is writing about?

I think that when Tom writes about "multiple tees," he implies more than two. I imagine that he keeps it ill-defined in his book because it is different for every course, depending on a number of variables. 

I won't speak for Tom, but I imagine he practices what he preaches. You don't have to look too far down the list of his designs to see that the vast majority (all, save Ballyneal?) are designed with multiple teeing areas. E.g., Pacific Dunes (5 tees), Barnbougle Dunes (4 tees), the Rawls Course (4 tees), Commonground (4 tees), Old MacDonald (5 tees). Should I go on?

[Garland Bayley]

Joe,

Funny how I've played only Pacific Dunes and Old MacDonald but haven't seen the 5 tees you claim he built there.

One also has to separate what a client specifies vs what the architect would do on his ideal course.

I read his book as really only talking about 3 sets of tees, but only Tom could tell us the reality of the matter.

I also read the last sentence of the chapter to essentially be a rebuttal of the PGA's TIF concept.

[Joe Stansell]

Funny how I've played only Pacific Dunes and Old MacDonald but haven't seen the 5 tees you claim he built there.

Take a look at the yardage guides.

[Garland Bayley]

Funny how I've played only Pacific Dunes and Old MacDonald but haven't seen the 5 tees you claim he built there.

Take a look at the yardage guides.

I don't have any yardage guides.

I wonder about what you said about Ballyneal. I know there are many teeing areas, but my impression from what people have told me is that many of them are essentially equivalent. I.e., there might be 3 or 4 that would be classified as "white". They exist to give a different look at the hole, but not a different distance per see'.

[Joe Stansell]

I confess that I know absolutely nothing about Ballyneal, other than what I've read on this site. My impression, though, is that, you drop and play from wherever you want, near the green just played. But again, I may be mistaken.

Hopefully I'll get to find out first hand sometime.

[Anthony Gray]

  Do  blades help?

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

  Do  blades help?

  Anthony

Immensely, but that's another thread.

[Kalen Braley]

I confess that I know absolutely nothing about Ballyneal, other than what I've read on this site. My impression, though, is that, you drop and play from wherever you want, near the green just played. But again, I may be mistaken.

Hopefully I'll get to find out first hand sometime.

Joe they do have designated tee areas...just not markers telling you where to hit from on those teeing areas.

[A.G._Crockett]

Sean,

No one is saying you have to play in 2 hours. I have found only one partner at my club that will play a two ball with me and play at that speed. Since we both shoot over 90, we aren't invited to play with the single digits that play first thing in the morning and report times under 2 1/2 hours for their 4 balls.

Garland,
What is the name of your club where players (of ANY handicap) are routinely playing a four ball in UNDER 2.5 hrs.?  I would like to read about the course, if possible.  The routing must be remarkable.
I am, btw, in that very group at my club.  Second tee time EVERY Sat. and Sun., 4 single-digits walking; the club gives us this because they KNOW to a certainty that we will set a good pace for the day.  We just flat haul a**, and it takes just over 3 hr, week in and week out.  I've already posted on the way twe play the game; hard to imagine cutting down a 4 ball much beyond what we are doing.

[Sean_A]

Garland

Send that 2.5 lot to NJ for USGA medals.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

OOPS! Having not played with them I don't know if they use carts or not. My impression is they don't. However, the particulars are Orchard Hills, Washougal, WA, Under 6000 yards, par 70, tees close to greens.

I do have another single handicap friend that Tri-Mountain (6300, 6600) in Ridgefield, WA regularly gave the first tee time every Saturday to. His foursome played in 2 1/2 hours. He calls it aerobic golf. He has since joined a private club. I haven't asked him about his pace of play there. I suspect he plays slower there now the kids have all flown the nest.

[A.G._Crockett]

OOPS! Having not played with them I don't know if they use carts or not. My impression is they don't. However, the particulars are Orchard Hills, Washougal, WA, Under 6000 yards, par 70, tees close to greens.

I do have another single handicap friend that Tri-Mountain (6300, 6600) in Ridgefield, WA regularly gave the first tee time every Saturday to. His foursome played in 2 1/2 hours. He calls it aerobic golf. He has since joined a private club. I haven't asked him about his pace of play there. I suspect he plays slower there now the kids have all flown the nest.

Ok, I suppose that it would be possible (barely) for 4 single-digits to play a 4 ball walking in 2.5 hrs. on a 5896 yd. course with few if any green to tee issues.  BUT, and this is important, that group, like mine, are MAJOR outliers.  Most people are simply not going to enjoy that pace, and in fact many are not capable of that pace.  To set that as some ideal is not realistic.

Further, all this razz-ma-tazz about match play and so on are red herrings.  I'd make it even money that the foursome at Orchard Hills is playing stroke play the way my foursome does; picking up, conceding putts, not looking for lost balls, ready golf, continuous putting, etc.  None of that has a single thing to do with TIF, but it is just about the only way for 4 golfers to play in 2.5 or 3 hrs.

To return to the original subject of the thread, though, I find it delightfully ironic that you are opposed to the TIF program while playing a 5896 yd. course!  You are already TIFing!  What in the world to you care if the PGA or Barney Adams or anybody else convinces me that rather than slogging along from 7050 (the tips at my course) I would have a lot more fun if I played it at a distance better suited to my 60 yr. old body? 

You're like the Tea Party guy who yelled at a confused House candidate in the '10 elections, "I don't want the government messing with my Medicare!"  You are yelling about the PGA trying to get people to move to realistic tees as a terrible idea, but you are yelling from the very distance they are recommending!  Sheesh...

[Garland Bayley]

...
To return to the original subject of the thread, though, I find it delightfully ironic that you are opposed to the TIF program while playing a 5896 yd. course!  You are already TIFing!  What in the world to you care if the PGA or Barney Adams or anybody else convinces me that rather than slogging along from 7050 (the tips at my course) I would have a lot more fun if I played it at a distance better suited to my 60 yr. old body?  

You're like the Tea Party guy who yelled at a confused House candidate in the '10 elections, "I don't want the government messing with my Medicare!"  You are yelling about the PGA trying to get people to move to realistic tees as a terrible idea, but you are yelling from the very distance they are recommending!  Sheesh...

Sorry to spoil your "delightfully ironic" conclusion, but due to the configuration of the course on 90 acres, the approach shots work out to be longer than much longer courses. And after all TIF is about shortening approach shots.

Have you heard of cart before the horse holes?

Besides, which part of I enjoy 6500 yards at Chambers Bay more than 6100 yards didn't you understand?

EDIT: To be specific. With 250 yard drives on the holes where you can hit driver, the approach shots are 80, 130, 150, 120, 150, 150, 125
The cart before the horse hole (where you can't hit driver unless very highly skilled) leaves you with a 200 yard approach unless you can work your ball around the corner some at will. This is not teeing it forward in any fashion advocated by the PGA. Pity poor Kalen only driving 225.

[A.G._Crockett]

...
To return to the original subject of the thread, though, I find it delightfully ironic that you are opposed to the TIF program while playing a 5896 yd. course!  You are already TIFing!  What in the world to you care if the PGA or Barney Adams or anybody else convinces me that rather than slogging along from 7050 (the tips at my course) I would have a lot more fun if I played it at a distance better suited to my 60 yr. old body?  

You're like the Tea Party guy who yelled at a confused House candidate in the '10 elections, "I don't want the government messing with my Medicare!"  You are yelling about the PGA trying to get people to move to realistic tees as a terrible idea, but you are yelling from the very distance they are recommending!  Sheesh...

Sorry to spoil your "delightfully ironic" conclusion, but due to the configuration of the course on 90 acres, the approach shots work out to be longer than much longer courses. And after all TIF is about shortening approach shots.

Have you heard of cart before the horse holes?

Besides, which part of I enjoy 6500 yards at Chambers Bay more than 6100 yards didn't you understand?

EDIT: To be specific. With 250 yard drives on the holes where you can hit driver, the approach shots are 80, 130, 150, 120, 150, 150, 125
The cart before the horse hole (where you can't hit driver unless very highly skilled) leaves you with a 200 yard approach unless you can work your ball around the corner some at will. This is not teeing it forward in any fashion advocated by the PGA. Pity poor Kalen only driving 225.

Garland,
Please don't misunderstand.  For 15 yrs. I was a member at a course that was 6100 from the tips, par 70, and it was both challenge and lot of fun. The GCA did a great job of preserving shot values and variety; it was a great club, and I'd be a member there still if the new owners hadn't blown up the price structure.

I watched the entire video of Orchard Hills, and it looks terrific.  Appears to be in great condition would be a lot of fun to play without a doubt.  I HAVE heard of "cart before the horse holes"; not a fan of a lot of them on one golf course, but I didn't get that sense from the video anyway.  The course appeared to be pretty straightforward, and I'd assume that hitting it straight is at a premium, as is being below the hole.

But let's be serious about the yardage.  You are playing a course that tops out at or below the distance that TIF would probably recommend for you, so I've got an idea for you.  Hit a 7 iron off every tee of ANY par 4 below 400 yds., and any par 5 below 550 yds. 

I know you love math, so you can probably figure out that on #1 and #3 you'd still have about 200 left, more on #4 and #6, but only 75 yds. or so on #2, and so forth.  Wouldn't that let you simulate a much, much longer course and highlight your opposition to the TIF ideals?

Speaking for myself, I got very, very comfortable playing from 6100 yds.  When I started playing a much longer course on a VERY regular basis (don't tell me about Chambers Bay again unless you play there three times a week!) I realized what an additional 700-1000 yds. meant.  You should, too.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I know you love math, so you can probably figure out that on #1 and #3 you'd still have about 200 left, more on #4 and #6, but only 75 yds. or so on #2, and so forth.  Wouldn't that let you simulate a much, much longer course and highlight your opposition to the TIF ideals?
...

You mean like when I single club the course with only a 6 iron? I can't hit the longer par 4s in regulation, but I still have fun trying to hit half shots with a six iron to get there in 3.

Golf is fun. It shouldn't be trivialized like the PGA is trying to do.

[Garland Bayley]

Oh, the irony of it.

Last night I got to the essay "The Great Revulsion" in Playing the Like.

Some quotes.

""I am able to reveal" that a well-known and highly respectable golf club has decided to chop some 500 yards off the length of its course."

"I know that this surprising thing is true because I am writing from the place where it has just happened. This is Aberdovey."

Note: the reduction was from 6700 to 6200.

"Not very long ago there was the usual and apparently inevitable movement in the favor of lengthening."

"They were, I think, just a little to over zealous, and they made a course full of tremendous qualities on which most of us would have loved to see Bobby Jones play, but on which we found it a little backbreaking to play ourselves."

"during the round we shall think we are not quite so short, and at the end of the round not quite so old"

"It so happened  that we had at Aberdovey several holes that were played in quite open country and called for very long wooden club shots. Very few people could hit those shots far enough to get up in two, and at the same time there was no great skill required in keeping out of trouble, nor was there any particular problem to be solved in the matter of alternative routes. In short there was nothing to think about except the depressing and obvious fact that we could not hit quite far enough."

Note: He seems to me to be saying that poor architecture is justification for teeing forward.

Concerning "championship courses"

"why in the name of goodness should we set up this nonsensical standard and then spoil our courses and break our backs in trying to live up to it."

Who knew someone who's essays are collected in a book titled Playing the Like would be such a pencil and scorecard golfer. Not only that, he apparently was one of those guys you don't want to be. According to the forward he was not above dressing down his playing partner, and often blew off a bit of steam during the course of a round.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

I think you have to diffeferentiate or bifurcate the "play it forward" concept.

I think there's a major difference in "aging" golfers who have lost their length to father time and golfers who haven't lost length due to the aging process.

For those in the "aging" category, eventually, they tend to move up, albeit not on the USGA's/PGA's timetable.
Ego's and hope tends to lag behind reality.
And, for them, moving forward occurs at some point.

But, for the non-age issue golfers, moving forward seems like a concession, an abandonment of hope with regard to improving or meeting the challenge, and on that score, I agree with you.

But, again, we have to bifurcate that group as well.

Some, for various reasons, play from tees which are clearly beyond their ability, and for them, moving forward isn't a bad idea.
Think of it as being sent to the minors until their game is ready to meet the challenge of a longer course.

But, for the others, they should aspire to meet the challenge, they should aspire to improve their games and not concede by moving forward

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

I guess I need to know what you mean by "clearly beyond their ability".

But also note that my primary thesis is that when absorbed in a match play contest, it matters not whether you reach greens in regulation. It only matters how you are doing in relation to your opponents progress.

Another thesis is that directionally challenged golfers are often directionally challenged with all clubs, and therefore really gain insignificant advantage to teeing it forward. Perhaps the largest grouping of golfers are the directionally challenged with their handicaps in the neighborhood of 20 and above.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()