[Philip Gawith]

I recently played a few course in the States where i was playing about 6,800 yards and my wife was playing 4,900 or up to 5,200. This seemed about the right length for both of us. At my home course in the UK meanwhile - Huntercombe, old and traditional - the men's card is about 6,400 and the women play about 5,500 yards. By my calculation she was playing 70-75% of the length i played in the US but in the UK is playing about 85%. My question to architects/anybody else is whether there are any accepted norms in this regard? Admittedly in the US i was playing the second to back markers which don't really exist at Huntercombe, which affects the ratio, but 5,500 also seems long for ladies.

Anyway, interested to hear perspectives. There is no doubt in my experience that modern courses are much more playable for women. Seems to me that if we are playing a par four and i am hitting a 7 iron second then, all other things being equal, an equivalent woman golfer should be hitting the same approach club. And the tees should be set up to try and create this sort of outcome? Is this how architects think when they are setting courses up for women?

Philip

[Jeff_Brauer]

In the US, the traditional accepted norm was that women would play where we tell them and like it!

Some work is being done by Arthur Little, Barney Adams/Play it Forward and a few others based on relative tee shot distances.  He recommends the forward tee be more like shown below.  I presume most women hit it about 130, but the best female ams are more like 160.  Tiger probably has a swing speed of 129 from memory.


Driver       Carry          Total                   Suggested               Suggested Course Length
Swing Speed(mph)   Yardage          Yardage                  Tee Length (Little)   (Adams)
55      91         113      3350-3550      3160

65      130          146        4100-4300      3850

75      160         175                        4850-5050      4540

85      183          192                        5600-5800      5225

95      211           225                      6350-6550      5910

105      242          256                      6720-6960      6600

115      268          284                      7155-7420      7290

125      286          302                      7540-7830      7975

As you can see, Barney is more aggressive, based on wanting every tee to have the same approach club in their hands.  Little bases his on field research at his own course, with money out of his own pocket and found those yardages attracted the most play.

In my work I have found it hard to make the fw tees below 4000 yard, and sometimes have trouble getting clients to buy off on less than 4400 yards.  It all helps, over courses just a few years ago when the forward tee was an altogether too long 5-5200 yards.  Even 4800 is too long for 130 yard bangers.

[Mike Policano]

Philip,

Go to www.golfwithwomen.com. It is Arthur Little and Jan Lemming's website regarding the placement of forward tees. They consulted on the forward tees for Old Macdonald and Cabot Links. There study has resulted in a rule of thumb that the average women should play a yardage that is approximately 67% of the yardage that the average man plays.

The website has some very good articles and much more in depth analysis.

Cheers, Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about?  The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap?  That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.

We enjoyed having Mr. and Mrs. Little's input on Old Macdonald, but I don't agree with some of the numbers proposed above.  If you are going to play from 3800 yards, you're really just starting from the landing area in the fairway for each hole -- which is exactly what I would have my wife or daughters do.  But I don't see the need to build them a "tee" for that. 

Your chart would indicate EIGHT tees per hole.  Do you really want to start building that many?  At some point, you could just eliminate the fairway entirely, and make the back tee guys land their tee shots on one of the other tees! *

The difference between the two professional tours [women's to men's] is more like 75 to 80%, and I believe the USGA handicap system used something along those lines when they set up the Slope system as to how much longer a course had to be to be rated one shot higher for women, as opposed to men.  (Can't find the numbers quickly in an internet search, unfortunately.)


* I'm going to declare a copyright on this idea, just to prevent someone else from stealing it and actually trying to implement it somewhere.

[David_Elvins]

Won't the ideal length of ladies tees (in relation to mens tees)  vary depending on fairway role?  On a reasonably firm surface the average woman could almost get as much role as her carry.  A man is not going to achieve that.

[Dan Herrmann]

Shhh - Don't let Patrick Mucci hear about this thread - he wants everybody to use the same set of tees

[David_Tepper]

Philip G. -

One of the reasons my wife, a 28-handicap, enjoys playing at Castle Stuart so much is that the ladies tees are well forward (I would guess 50-100 yards forward) of the mens tees on most of the par 4's & 5's. If she hits a good drive, she stands a chance of reaching some of those greens in "regulation."

When playing Dornoch and Golspie, there are a number of par 4's & 5's she has absolutely no chance in reaching in regulaton, even if she hits the ball as well as she can.

DT

   

[Dan Herrmann]

My wife is has an index of 18.0 (take that, Tepper!) and she plays our course at about 5000 yard.  We have tees rated for women at about 5300, but she has a lot more fun from the shorter tees.  Plus, to be honest, the next set of tees has a forced carry she can't make.

[Jason Thurman]

Jeff:

When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about?  The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap?  That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.

I agree the statement is incorrect, but it's not like the players in the Women's Amateur are playing the "red tees."

I played Pine Needles and Tobacco Road with my 52 year old mother today. She hits it a solid 180-200 even now, though she's probably a 28 handicap. Watching her play Pine Needles, I realized that even though she's longer than most players of her ilk, she's still usually stuck laying up on 3+ par 4s each side (she'll usually hit one far enough offline or mishit it badly enough that she'll have a hard time reaching in 2 even if it's only 320 yards or so).

It's a much tougher game for high handicap women than most of our forward tees give it credit for.

[Steve Lang]

  Jeff, you and Barney need to get out more..  Ms Sheila says "that's bogus, USGA says woman bogey golfer hits it 150..  whoever said that is a bigot, must be someone that doesn't think ladies should play on saturday mornings!" ... She notes for example that at the WCC and arch rival Kingwood CC, the champ flight ladies who range in age 35-60 hit it regularly 180-220+ yards off the tee.   Of course they're also putting 100-140 rounds in the machine each year too!

p.s. 6000 yards is fine for Ms sheila but she also plays from the middle tees, she says most women don't like more than 5400-5700 yards.
p.s.s most womens tees are BORING, especially when in holes

[Mike McGuire]

Shhh - Don't let Patrick Mucci hear about this thread - he wants everybody to use the same set of tees

My wife plays occasionally, but is not an avid golfer.  Recently we we were a twosome on a  twilight 9 round before dinner.

I suggested we both play the back tees as she  "was going to shoot a million anyway".  

" sure, why not" she said.

Much more social to tee off from the same place if you are not in a competition and no one knows what  "the landing area" means.  

I would have played the reds if she would have asked.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about?  The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap?  That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.

I agree the statement is incorrect, but it's not like the players in the Women's Amateur are playing the "red tees."

I played Pine Needles and Tobacco Road with my 52 year old mother today. She hits it a solid 180-200 even now, though she's probably a 28 handicap. Watching her play Pine Needles, I realized that even though she's longer than most players of her ilk, she's still usually stuck laying up on 3+ par 4s each side (she'll usually hit one far enough offline or mishit it badly enough that she'll have a hard time reaching in 2 even if it's only 320 yards or so).

It's a much tougher game for high handicap women than most of our forward tees give it credit for.

Jason:

I'm glad your mom is enjoying her golf.

What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation.  A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.

I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.

[David_Elvins]

It's not just length that women struggle with.  Many of them struggle getting out of deep greenside bunkers. 

I have always thought that if a green had two bunkers on the left hand side, then one should be shallow and one should be deep.  Women and high handicap men play from the shallow bunker and low handicap men play from the deep bunker. 

[Lyne Morrison]

Steve it would be interesting to know what Sheilas handicap is – I am betting  12 – 13 or less.

There is a general tendency with golf to view the typical game through one’s own game (be it a male or female perspective) and while Sheila and her playing group may hit the distances she states this does not mean it is a representative scenario.

Sheila is right in that the more accomplished /athletic women do have handy distance off the tee – but there are many, many women who do not. There are also many, many women who rarely find a par 3 green off the tee and play five or six woods to reach par 5’s. Not much fun I imagine!  - they may as well leave their mid irons at home.

The USGA stats for bogey women golfers are averages - longer hitters fall above the average and shorter below - and while not a perfect system these do appear to be indicative of ‘average distance’ in my experience of having rated some 30 odd courses in our district.

We really need to be mindful of making sweeping generalizations when discussing this topic – there is a very large group of women golfers who are poorly served and frankly marginalized - in playability terms - because their game is misunderstood - and this need not be the case.

While I am not an advocate for numerous tees for a number of reasons I would like to see two tees for women to provide more variety, elasticity and interest in the game. When well sited and of a lower profile where possible, they should not detract from the overall golfiing environment.

Philip – thanks for the thread and thanks for noticing what was happening with your wife's game.

Cheers, Lyne

[Ken Moum]

What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation.  A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.

I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.

So how about 2 for women and two for men... instead of 3 for men and 1 for women?

FWIW, the flaw in your argument about 28 handicappers is that a male 28 is worse than 95 percent of the men with handicaps, while a female 28 is barely below the mean.  

Proof that our courses are a disaster for women is that in order to make it into the top 5% a man has to have an index under 3, while a woman can be in the top 5% with an 11.9 index.

If things were even close to being reasonable, the range of handicaps would be within a stroke or two of each other.

My wife is a 10 and so am I.  So i am just barely in the upper third of men.

She's in the top FOUR percent.

And if anything, I think there are more sub-average men with handicaps in those stats than there are women

K

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, that makes sense. In fairness, she's a pretty good ballstriker with no semblance of a short game or putting stroke. She doesn't practice and only plays 5-10 times a year (last year she played four rounds: two at Lawsonia, one at Pebble Beach, and one at Erin Hills. Not bad).

I joke with her that she hits three different putts: a short putt (rolls 4 feet), a medium putt (rolls 15), and a long putt (rolls 25). If she's "between strokes," she's not getting closer than 10 feet. If she's 75 feet away, she's taking three putts of 25 feet apiece just to reach the hole. My guess is she averages around 45 putts per round, and maybe more. She also almost never gets up and down.

My point is that she's not a 28 handicap because of her ballstriking. She can turn it both ways, she almost never misses a fairway, and she hits it pretty far for a 52 year-old woman. But she still gets stuck with a lot of holes where reaching in regulation is almost impossible. Frankly, that's not even a big issue in my eyes. The bigger issue is that she virtually NEVER gets to hit a short iron approach, and I think that's true for most women who play recreationally.

I'd like to see more forward tees around 42-4500 instead of 5000, and I think female players would really appreciate it. I don't think we need a zillion tees and, if we do, a course could just build three or four sets and use combinations to make the course playable. Honestly, the game would probably benefit if people played from a comfortable tee of their choosing anyway and didn't worry so much about "playing the blues today."

But then, you built Ballyneal, so you already know this.

[Mike McGuire]

What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation.  A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.

I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.

So how about 2 for women and two for men... instead of 3 for men and 1 for women?

FWIW, the flaw in your argument about 28 handicappers is that a male 28 is worse than 95 percent of the men with handicaps, while a female 28 is barely below the mean.  

Proof that our courses are a disaster for women is that in order to make it into the top 5% a man has to have an index under 3, while a woman can be in the top 5% with an 11.9 index.

If things were even close to being reasonable, the range of handicaps would be within a stroke or two of each other.

My wife is a 10 and so am I.  So i am just barely in the upper third of men.

She's in the top FOUR percent.

And if anything, I think there are more sub-average men with handicaps in those stats than there are women

K

How about 4 sets of tees MAX and stop labeling them men's or women's.

[Jason Thurman]

Rather than talking about "2 tees for women, 2 for men" vs. "4 tees for men and 1 for women," I think the discussion needs to shift to "4 sets of tees irrespective of gender." Plenty of men play from too far back, and plenty of women are marginalized by forward tees that don't suit their game.

I think the answer to building fewer sets of tees is to build three or four sets and then create combo tees from those sets that can be used to create 6 or 7 different total yardages. You could even have a separate scorecard for short hitters (women/seniors) and long hitters (anyone who hits over 210).

One thing that sucks for female players is that their tees don't get shorter as they age, unlike senior men who usually get to scoot up a tee or two. Using combo tees could give a lot more flexibility and get us out of this current paradigm where all women are treated as though they have equal abilities.

[Lyne Morrison]

Genderless (is that a word?) tees that are rated for both women and men are the way to go.

Probably unnecessary to rate the very back for women.

Some newer courses have these of course and they appear to create no problems.

Cheers

[Ken Moum]

How about 4 sets of tees MAX and stop labeling them men's or women's.

Perfectly reasonable, as long as we remember that 5500-yard courses for average women are about equivalent to 7500-yard courses for average women...  

Tees of  5000, 6000, and 7000 would be a great plenty, IMHO.  Average women can handle 5,000 and the elite women are more than comfortable at 6,000.  Average men are good at 6,000 and the elites should all be playing 7,000 or so.

As a short-hitting senior (age 65) with a 10 handicap, it gripes me no end that I often have displeasure of choosing between almost 6,500 or barely 5,500.  I need to get over it and start playing courses that are too short, rather than hitting fairway woods for my approach shots on 14 holes.

BTW, a GREAT step toward your suggestion would be to get our state associations to start rating every set of tees on a course for both men an women.  On courses with multiple tees, I don't think i have EVER seen the forwad tees rated for men, and rarely--if ever--have I seen more than two sets rated for women.  And often it's only one set.

At my course, for instance, the two forward tees are 5,400 and 5,800 and they are rated for women.  The two back sets are 6,300 and 6,600 yards and the college women who play here usually play at 6,300 and don't post scores because they aren't rated..  

Regardless, those breaks are silly.  We end up having three sets of markers within 15 feet on several holes.

[Sean_A]

Philip

I had a chat with your wife about this while on the course.  I proposed an increase in par (beyond the obvious of courses being too long and carries off tees too long for either gender) for ladies.  Say a par 80 for a course like Huntercombe.  She thought it was a good idea in that she would have opportunities to earn birdies and hit more greens in regulation.  To be honest, I would rather see the old Bogey system come back into style for men!  The entire concept of par has been so twisted from its original intent that the game has suffered because of it.   

I am skeptical that courses can continue to build more and more tees with the idea of presenting an interesting test to all abilities.  A well designed course playable and a challenge for practically everybody can easily have three tees.     

Ciao

[David Davis]

the chart doesn't seem to be far off based on swing speed. What might be slightly off indeed is the assumption that most women hit it 130 yds. Or is that just American women? Or British women? I assure you that Dutch women for some reason don't fit into this mold. Perhaps they are just, bigger, meaner, tougher and more aggressive swingers, plus a lot of them are ex hockey players and I'll tell you what, they kill the damn thing.

I'm all for 4 non sex biased tee boxes.

Front ones for seniors, some women and juniors.

Next set for good playing longer hitting women and average playing, short hitting men.

Next set for club medals and perhaps top women

last set for good single hcpers and pros or others wishing to bite off more than they can chew.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Most courses don't need a tee for elite players, because there are so few elite players that the tees go unused most of the time. Hell, my club has 1200 members and about ten of those could play 7000 yards. Losing the very back tee saves a lot of space, makes the course more walkable and prettier. That's the way to go for 95% of all courses. Three genderless tees (i. e. rated for men and women) is plenty and allows a reasonable spread.

Those other 5% of courses can add a fourth way back tee.

Ulrich

[Anders Rytter]

I recently played a few course in the States where i was playing about 6,800 yards and my wife was playing 4,900 or up to 5,200. This seemed about the right length for both of us. At my home course in the UK meanwhile - Huntercombe, old and traditional - the men's card is about 6,400 and the women play about 5,500 yards. By my calculation she was playing 70-75% of the length i played in the US but in the UK is playing about 85%. My question to architects/anybody else is whether there are any accepted norms in this regard? Admittedly in the US i was playing the second to back markers which don't really exist at Huntercombe, which affects the ratio, but 5,500 also seems long for ladies.

Anyway, interested to hear perspectives. There is no doubt in my experience that modern courses are much more playable for women. Seems to me that if we are playing a par four and i am hitting a 7 iron second then, all other things being equal, an equivalent woman golfer should be hitting the same approach club. And the tees should be set up to try and create this sort of outcome? Is this how architects think when they are setting courses up for women?

Philip

I play a lot of different courses with my wife. I'm not able to generalize but she surely enjoys the game a lot more when she's able to reach/get close to green-areas at regulation instead of playing 10 three-shot or more holes. I have no clue whether this is a general tendency among female golfers.

Re: Ulrichs post
I think it's annoying to play more than two sets of tee's in a group and just play what the rest of the group wants to, but i always play the backs if i'm alone or if i play with people capable of playing them. Are the back-tees genereally that seldomly used?

[Tom_Doak]

What we are getting at is that there is a wide range of abilities among women golfers -- probably close to the same wide range there is for men, although there is a smaller percentage of women at the low-handicap end of the scale.  [Indeed, the USGA's handicap formula probably needs revising for women.  The same women who are scratch in their formula would be +4 handicaps if they were men exhibiting the same dominance.  But, that's for another day.]

I am fine with genderless tees, though the only way I want to see more than 3-4 tees per hole is if we can make them disappear in the landscape by looking like fairways.  A lot of the problem in these arguments is the assumption that we can't just let people play from wherever they want to, because they need to post a score from a set of tees with a course rating.  If we could eliminate that mindset, and return the handicap system to something based on how the player has fared in competition against others, more people could have more fun.  [Ironically, the Brits, who do handicap this way, are even more stodgy about choice of tee locations than we Americans are!]

You guys should have seen my set-up proposals for that hypothetical once-every-four-years competition I'm not allowed to discuss.  It involved long tees and moving the markers up or back every day, but it also involved having one day where the men played the forward tees and one day where the women played the back tees, just to see how much the scoring differentials really were, and so as to minimize the bias in favor of short or long hitters.

I can vouch for the fact that most women do NOT want to play a par-80 course.  Many of the older clubs in the U.S. had forward tees like that for years [well, par 76], and 90-95% of the women hated it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()