[Ken Moum]

See my post a few weeks ago about my recent experience in playing at 6200 yards rather than my customary 67-6800.  A blast and I wonder if more folks thought about fun rather than what tour pros shoot, design might be a lot different.

As a short hitter with a single digit index, married to a short hitting 10.something index, all this BS about multiple tees being a waste is starting to piss me off.

As Alice Dye has pointed out, on most golf courses, men have two, or three, tees that allow them to play a game with the kind of balance Shivas mentioned.  My wife rarely has such options.

For my game, If I am smart about it, I can find tees that allow me to play a game in which at least 2/3 of my strokes are full shots.

Since I hit it barely over 200 yards, those tees are somewhere in the area of 6,000 yards.  (Sadly, too many courses even those with five sets, have one set at 5,750 and one at 6,300)

At 6,400-plus, I inevitably have a procession of holes that play like unreachable par fives.  IOW, Driver--fairway wood--short iron, which is BORING.  Worse, I get holes like #4 at Firekeeper or #10 at Sand Creek Station where there's a pretty good chance I'll have to hit three wood shots to advance the ball before I start actually "playing golf."

Hell, when I played Sand Creek, I had to lay up 300 yards from the green with my second shot.

Don't EVEN get my wife  started on how much fun it is for someone who drives it 170-odd yards to play a 5,800-yard golf course--like many of the golden age courses are from the forward tees.

What the naysayers forget is that 70-80 years ago, a woman like my wife could count on 50-60 yards of roll on her tee shots.  These days, green, soggy courses take that away from her.

One of my best memories of Scotland on our only trip was her hitting a driver off the deck on the ninth at Royal Dornoch.  She was at least 225 yards out and hit one about head high that rolled, and rolled leaving her a 25-foot eagle putt.  She turned to me and said, "I LOVE a fast golf course."

At our home course, the new owners removed the markers and redid the scorecard, eliminating a set of 4,800-yard markers that were only a year old.  She tried, in vain, to get them to put down plates like those shown here, and they refused.  That among some other things they've done, may be enough to get us to leave Kansas for good.

K

[Sven Nilsen]

Gar,

You are a great debatist and typist regardless of the side you pick.

Thanks

Have fun

William:

Never asked, how much did your son and his friends enjoy their round the other day?

Sven

[Garland Bayley]

Seriously,

Generally becoming accomplished at skills like golf for most people requires work and dedication. Hiding the difficulty, or postponing it serves little purpose in my opinion.

I know it may be a bad analogy, but some of you remind me of parents that would tell me that my classroom standards were too severe for their children. However, it looked to me like all they were trying to get me to do was pass on people that would eventually wash out in their profession. I didn't see that as doing the school, the students, or the profession any good.

My first experience with golf as far as I can remember was about 9 years old. My dad and his playing partner would give me and my brother 3 irons, and have us play behind them with the instructions to keep up. So we played the course from the tips. Of course, there were no ponds or forced carries so it worked out. Of course alternative places to start a hole in the presence of such obstacles is fine. However, it does not have to be formal, nor does there need to be a formal scorecard. Kids are smart enough to figure out what their standard should be, and strive to reach it.

Par is a meaningless number used to give a psychological boost or downer. Par should be irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game, whether you are 10, 50, or 100.

Play it hole by hole,

Double Bogey

[Garland Bayley]

Gar,

You are a great debatist and typist regardless of the side you pick.

Thanks

Have fun

William:

Never asked, how much did your son and his friends enjoy their round the other day?

Sven

talk about quantifying the unquantifiable. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Seriously,

Generally becoming accomplished at skills like golf for most people requires work and dedication. Hiding the difficulty, or postponing it serves little purpose in my opinion.

I know it may be a bad analogy, but some of you remind me of parents that would tell me that my classroom standards were too severe for their children. However, it looked to me like all they were trying to get me to do was pass on people that would eventually wash out in their profession. I didn't see that as doing the school, the students, or the profession any good.

My first experience with golf as far as I can remember was about 9 years old. My dad and his playing partner would give me and my brother 3 irons, and have us play behind them with the instructions to keep up. So we played the course from the tips. Of course, there were no ponds or forced carries so it worked out. Of course alternative places to start a hole in the presence of such obstacles is fine. However, it does not have to be formal, nor does there need to be a formal scorecard. Kids are smart enough to figure out what their standard should be, and strive to reach it.

Par is a meaningless number used to give a psychological boost or downer. Par should be irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game, whether you are 10, 50, or 100.

Play it hole by hole,

Double Bogey

How'd that work out for you?

[Garland Bayley]

Seriously,

Generally becoming accomplished at skills like golf for most people requires work and dedication. Hiding the difficulty, or postponing it serves little purpose in my opinion.

I know it may be a bad analogy, but some of you remind me of parents that would tell me that my classroom standards were too severe for their children. However, it looked to me like all they were trying to get me to do was pass on people that would eventually wash out in their profession. I didn't see that as doing the school, the students, or the profession any good.

My first experience with golf as far as I can remember was about 9 years old. My dad and his playing partner would give me and my brother 3 irons, and have us play behind them with the instructions to keep up. So we played the course from the tips. Of course, there were no ponds or forced carries so it worked out. Of course alternative places to start a hole in the presence of such obstacles is fine. However, it does not have to be formal, nor does there need to be a formal scorecard. Kids are smart enough to figure out what their standard should be, and strive to reach it.

Par is a meaningless number used to give a psychological boost or downer. Par should be irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game, whether you are 10, 50, or 100.

Play it hole by hole,

Double Bogey

How'd that work out for you?

The answer to my best guess about what your question is asking is that I have had students come up to me in public and thank me for preparing them rigorously for the rigors of their profession.
Another answer is that although I may not be a low score shooter, I am an avid player that enjoys the game immensely.

Does either of those answer what you were asking?

[Sven Nilsen]

Just like there are varying styles of teaching that can lead to success, there are varying ways a child can experience the game of golf.  No one is discussing restrictions, we're talking about options.

As for quantifying the "unquantifiable," the word "alot" would tell me all I need to know.  If your little language lesson is some kind of message that I'm not cut out for a career in golf blogging, I'm happy to tell you I've never entertained giving up my amateur status.

[Garland Bayley]

Sven,

What language lesson?

[Sven Nilsen]

You confuse me Garland, and not in the gay way.

[William_G]

Gar,

You are a great debatist and typist regardless of the side you pick.

Thanks

Have fun

William:

Never asked, how much did your son and his friends enjoy their round the other day?

Sven

talk about quantifying the unquantifiable. 

nice cut and pasting....clever yet undeniably certifiable

[William_G]

Gar,

You are a great debatist and typist regardless of the side you pick.

Thanks

Have fun

William:

Never asked, how much did your son and his friends enjoy their round the other day?

Sven

 

[Sean_A]

The concept doesn't impress me - its merely formalizing what I hope folks have been doing for donkey's years.  If it costs one penny more I am against it. 

The reason we have the multiple tee concept is courses are far too long.  The 3 tee concept worked fine for many years until everybody got wrapped up in "championship" golf.  I am against multiple tees because I am against the concept of length being the primary defence of a golf course and the idea of every course needing to be of championship length.  The only time I really dig more than three tees is when there is a harsh carry or different angles of play can be utiliized. 

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean - these tees are used by kids from 7-10 years old.  There's no way they can play the full-size course because of forced carries.   Many graduate quickly to the forward tees and keep moving back till they enter the club championship and win!

Remember - these are not teeing areas - it's just a marker with a peg that 90% of golfers never see.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Even since Sand Creek I have started shortening the forward groups of tees.  However, I generally figured that shorter golfers would expect a few holes that they couldn't reach in regulation.

At La Costa, when we put the family tees in at 4400 yards, a decent female golfer said she hit 13 of 18 greens.  She wondered why we didn't do all 18 that way.  Of course, topography sometimes plays a role, but perhaps its just the evolutionary thinking of "they should be happy to be playing" to really designing the course to the average lengths of various types of players.

I can't count the times that we have had debates when a par 3 is just in reach of a clubs longest female player, or a par 4 of about 280-300 yards, where 90% of women come up just short.  Then you get into designing for the lower half of the feminine side, and the top competitive players have a fit.  Even using averages, (for any level player) it gets difficult to satisfy everyone.

[Bill Seitz]

I've seen these markers at Pine Meadow, and where I've seen them, they sit just off the cart path, usually in the rough (note that they don't intend the kids to play from the rough, they're just marking the location, for any of you hyper-literal types), and I'd be surprised if half the people playing the place on a given Saturday even notice them.  I'm a bit dumbfounded that a set of plates which are completely innocuous, nearly invisible for those who aren't looking for them, and a presumably very inexpensive addition to the course in order to make the game a little more fun for those who choose to use them has generated four pages of debate.  Gotta love the internet.  

[Tom Dunne]

Very interesting thread. The executive summary of my position is to wonder who is actually harmed by family "markers" (I prefer that designation, so that we're clear we're not talking about constructed tee boxes). Reading through this, though, it's apparent that some question their utility on symbolic grounds. It seems that some who are opposed to the concept are drawing from their experience from their own family. But I think the whole "drop where dad's drive ends up" thing is taken for granted as far as how you start the game...but that's actually a much greater luxury than a couple of disks unobtrusively stuck in the ground. Those opposed to family markers are implicitly saying, I think, that they are unnecessary because the structure is expected to come from the adult.

Well, what about the kids whose parents don't play, or only play (horribly and/or grudgingly) because their kids love the game?

Like most people on this thread, my position stems from my own childhood, which was pretty "free-range" by today's standards. I basically started playing golf because my parents wanted to go see R-rated movies (or whatever) without me and were looking for a safe place to dump me for a couple of hours. (I don't mean that to sound sad; I loved it.) I played at a land-bank par-3 course. I'd go out by myself or with a couple of other neighborhood kids. It was just a way of killing time over the summer. Never in a million years would we have thought to go to a regulation-length muni and drop at the 150--we went where we were welcome, i.e. a course where everyone was basically making a mess out of every shot. I grew up always having a tee from which to play--it may not have had grass, but it was there to define the hole.  

It's worth noting that these types of low-end golf facilities have basically gone the way of the drive-in over the past couple of decades. In their absence, maybe family markers on a regulation course can help bridge that gap a bit. For the parent who plays golf, they're more appealing--if you dump a pitching wedge in the bunker, you get to practice the same shot you might face when playing the course with your buddies on Sunday morning. There's also another kind of parent--you won't find them on this site, but there are plenty of moms and dads out there who couldn't care less about golf but whose kids are really into the game. The less golf course those people have to play, the happier they'll be--their only goal is to enjoy spending time with their kid(s).

The irony is that the deeper golf roots run in a family, the less "family markers" are necessary.

[BDuryee]

The concept doesn't impress me - its merely formalizing what I hope folks have been doing for donkey's years.  If it costs one penny more I am against it. 

For our club it was not finding a way to spend more it was an attempt to improve the junior experience to keep family memberships. We are a golf only club and compete for members  with a year round club in a neighboring town. We have also found many members with kids active in other youth sports are dropping membership until the kids have moved on. So the thought process is if the plates get one kid more into the game they will easily pay for themselves in keeping a membership.

They have seem to be a success based on the increased number of kids I have seen on the course not to mention the reduced stress level for me in keeping up with pace of play when I have both my son and daughter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave,

I agree with you that Pat is using his typically spurious logic simply to be argumentative.  And, he called at least one person in this thread "disingenous" which to me seems really strong for a discussion of this type.

That said, I have seen where the location of multile tees can negatively affect speed of play, and was especially conscious of it in my last new design.  Specifically, if the back tee is near the previous green, more players walk further to the next tee.  If the middle tees line up with the last green, and only the 1% of back tee players have to walk more,  it would seemingly speed up play, if only by a little.  It might be intersting to have Mr. Yates chime in if he is following this thread.

Tom Dunne mentions that we are all influenced in this by our childhood experiences in golf, and I agree, even as I try to base my designs on current needs rather than nostalgia.  One thing I do recall is that my 12 year old golf buds all knew the difference between the good courses and the bad.  For example, my neighbors belonged to Medinah, and he and I resented playing the ladies course after a while, and wanted to play no. 1 or especially no. 3 ASAP.  I know my own son resented any sort of "over accomodation" or even make shift accomodation, and preferred a real tee.  Ditto with seniors, who won't play the ladies tees, but want their own tee just behind that one.  And my ex wife often thought the ladies tees were condescending, too.

So, I am against the "that's good enough for them" mentality that many here have.  I doubt you would walk on any course that made you feel just lucky to be there, excepting ANGC and a few others real prize courses.

[Sean_A]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

+1

[Tim Martin]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

Sean-What about "Family Tees" has you making the leap that we don`t trust our kids?

[Bill Seitz]

I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.

They are not a constraint.  No one is required to use them.  And I can't speak for your childhood, but I was a pretty competitive kid.  That came from having an older brother, not because my parents pushed me.  And as a kid who grew up playing par three courses, I can tell you that for me and my friends, score was very important.  That didn't mean playing in structured tournaments, but it meant comparing our games with one another.  

I'm also not sure where the "structure is bad" stuff comes from.  I've seen this on a particular baseball message board as well, and I just don't get it.  When I was kid, we'd play wiffle ball in the front yard every day and have a blast, but it was never as exciting as putting the uniform on and playing our actual Little League games.  Sometimes kids like structure.  

[Sean_A]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

Sean-What about "Family Tees" has you making the leap that we don`t trust our kids?

I don't want to make a big issue out of this.  Some people love it when everything is just so, I would rather have elements spontaneity - especially if we are talking about kids.  I see it as just another way to organize children rather than allowing children to organize themselves.  I didn't seem to have a problem going round the course with friends dropping balls here there and everywhere to have a friendly yet competitive game.  Why is it necessary to put that structure in place rather than allowing kids to do it?  I can only assume its a trust issue - can't think of another reason to create fake teeing areas.  And if it costs money to create this structure I am very much against the idea.   

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

Sean-What about "Family Tees" has you making the leap that we don`t trust our kids?

I don't want to make a big issue out of this.  Some people love it when everything is just so, I would rather have elements spontaneity - especially if we are talking about kids.  I see it as just another way to organize children rather than allowing children to organize themselves.  I didn't seem to have a problem going round the course with friends dropping balls here there and everywhere to have a friendly yet competitive game.  Why is it necessary to put that structure in place rather than allowing kids to do it?  I can only assume its a trust issue - can't think of another reason to create fake teeing areas.  And if it costs money to create this structure I am very much against the idea.   

Ciao

"Johnnie is 6 years old and I caught him grabbing an oreo out of the cookie jar yesterday. He loves golf but after that little show of bravado I think I better have him play from the Family Tees. It`s really becoming a trust issue with this kid".

[BDuryee]

Dan

Being against something and tolerating that something are two very different things.  I would rather see kids place the ball where they like and have a go.  I see these family tees as yet another constraint which is unnecessary.  It seems adults these days forgot what childhood was like and prefer to structure everything about kids.  Its a great pity that we raise kids we don't seem to trust.

Ciao 

Sean,

What age kids do you envision using these markers? I can tell you the kids who are old enough to go out in their own foursomes are doing exactly what you would hope for them to do. Playing their own games from where they want to.  It is the fathers lugging around 5-9 year old beginners that the tees are great for. Total cost of plates is less than 1000

Sean-What about "Family Tees" has you making the leap that we don`t trust our kids?

I don't want to make a big issue out of this.  Some people love it when everything is just so, I would rather have elements spontaneity - especially if we are talking about kids.  I see it as just another way to organize children rather than allowing children to organize themselves.  I didn't seem to have a problem going round the course with friends dropping balls here there and everywhere to have a friendly yet competitive game.  Why is it necessary to put that structure in place rather than allowing kids to do it?  I can only assume its a trust issue - can't think of another reason to create fake teeing areas.  And if it costs money to create this structure I am very much against the idea.   

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()