Here's a re-post of a post from my early days here at GCA.com, long enough since that the sting of being labeled a moron is no longer instructive.
All the architects here talk eloquently about design in terms of accommodating a number of constraints in a flexible system, expressed in tee boxes, pinnable locations, cut heights, irrigation schemes, and the other variables that the course operator can manipulate to provide a varied product from day to day and for members and guests of different interests.
What is not done in golf, but is in world class entertainment venues like Disney, is layering information technology on top of the management structures. Now, at Disney, you get an RFID that is used to whisper your daughter's name in Snow White's ear, or has Nemo say hi to you, by name! Snow White is there in the flesh, but now she's augmented with information technology.
The closest personalization concept expressed on this or other recent threads is crafting cumbersome
paper scorecards that vary par by handicap ranges.
People, this is the 21st Century! The rest of the world is innovating around Big Data and we are innovating around Big Paper?maybe this old post is naďve, but if nothing else, instead of a scorecard with a bunch of lines with handicap ranges, can we at least agree that the pro shop should at least print a personalized scorecard for the group with the pars listed based on each player's handicap? I know it's kind of like using your teleportation super power to cross a busy street to catch a bus....but at least we're using our super powers
Here's a little thought exercise based on some of the themes from this site: the corrupting influence of yardage and handicap, the strategic downside of multiple tee boxes, technology.
What if every time you went to the course, you got to play the strategic challenge the architect intended, regardless of whether you hit the latest hot ball and big clubs, or an old set of hickories, with a swing grooved through 70 years of practice, or a swing on the way to a 70 year groove?
First, you wouldn’t be on a conventional course available today. Sure, you probably have a choice of tee boxes, but does every tee box bring into play the key strategic challenges? Or, would you be willing to move from gold to the white to the blue from hole to hole to experience the challenge as it is meant to be? Willing? How would you even know?
Imagine, however, that instead of 5 tee boxes, and one choice before the round, you could provide the Pro at the shop some simple information about yourself, how far you drive, your standard yardages on your irons, maybe whether you are comfortable with forced carries or not, and in an instance, the Pro would hand you your own personal scorecard, with the recommended or required tee locations for you for every hole, tee selections that make sure you are playing the clubs, and facing the strategic challenges the architect intended?
How would this work?
1st, the simple info at the pro shop:
Driver: 300
3-Iron: 225
5-Iron: 195
7-Iron: 165
PW: 135
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y
My playing partner:
Driver: 240
3-Iron: 185
5-Iron: 165
7-Iron: 145
PW: 110
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y
Out of the printer comes our scorecards, and we’re off.
The first hole, a Par 4 with water on the right, a bail out area on the left, with the preferred approach into the green from the right.
On the scorecard, for me, Tee location “M” (the tips). For my partner, Tee location “I”. Why?
The architect designed the first hole to be a mid-length par 4, designed for Driver, Mid-Iron. From the tips, the yardage is 490. From tee I, it’s 410. (You see, it’s right there on the scorecard.) Both players are out on the course, and the hole is playing to the design. The strategic option exists for each: play to the right, challenge the water for the better approach, or stay safe mid-to-left and take a lesser angle into the green. If we both hit our “typical” drive, My partner is closer in, but that’s good, he needs to be closer to fly a mid-iron. We finish the hole. On to number 2.
As the opener, the strategy on number 1 was simple. On number 2, the architect has conceived a hole with 4! Strategic puzzles. On any given day, he expects you to be confronted with 1 of these, and based on your abilities, your selected tee location will present that challenge to you.
The hole is a par-4 with a flat plateau. There’s a pot bunker in the middle (1), just before a diagonal fall off to a section of fairway that slopes right and away towards a creek (2). A level layup area sits in front of the creek that crosses in front of the green (3). The green is up a slight hill (4), protected on the right by a bunker. The green is more receptive to a shot from the left of the fairway.
The architect has conceived four distinct challenges.
1. Driver to 1, the pot bunker. The strategy: lay up in front of the bunker, hit the full driver potentially landing in the bunker, or try to play to the left of the bunker for the advantageous approach.
2. 3 wood to Bunker (or Driver to 2). Here the screws tighten. Play less than a driver to stay on the plateau, when you know that you can clearly drive the bunker? Play the driver to the left and use the terrain to run out to the layup area?
3. Driver to 3, the layup area. Here, is the wise choice to fly the layup area, or to use a lesser club to run down the slope.
4. Driver to green. The most diabolical of all. Who can resist the 1 in 100 shot to fly the green on the short Par-4, even with the creek and trap waiting?
Unbeknownst to you, the Pro has set this to challenge 4 today, drive the green. You, the long hitter, are hitting from tee location “D” (290). Your partner is at “B” (230). (In the group behind you, the testosterone fueled bunch has asked to play the long course. They’ll be teeing it up at the tips all day. See what they are missing? They probably don’t.)
And so the day goes, every hole, a tee location selected for you, based on your abilities and preferences, aligned with the architect’s strategic intent.
What is different, if anything, in this approach, relative to just moving the tee markers?
First, the assumption is that the architect knows this is how the course is going to be operated. Holes are designed with multiple challenges in mind, a la Thomas’ course-within-a-course. The architect is working with the freedom in mind that to a large extent, the strategic challenge will be accommodated by placing each golfer at the appropriate starting point, or at one of many starting points the hole supports.
Second, some of the challenges of equipment and ball flight are overcome. Of course, you can only keep building the tee grounds back so far, but for advances that make the white tees easier and easier for the average golfer, you don’t have to rebuild the white tees, just let those golfers tell you where you need to put them.
Third, the course is always setup to play a variety of ways. No need to move the tee locations up, just specify a different spot.
Fourth, to the extent golfer’s begin to understand that the course will respond to length by getting longer, the golfer’s need to increase length will be lessened.
Fifth, there’s great opportunity to mix and match the challenges between groups. On some holes, players with different abilities may be starting together, on others, apart by great distances. Earlier in the day, when the wind is calm, players play one place, but as the wind picks up, the “windy tees” are brought into play. A group with different skill levels may be able to play from the same tees, each facing strategic challenges conceived by the architect, but different based on their skill. The options are largely unlimited.
Sixth, the four horsemen of the dumbing down, Par, Yardage, Slope, Rating Index are put on notice. Every round could conceivably have a different slope, rating, and yardage, and even variations in Par.
So that's my thought exercise.