[Paul Gray]

Questions to be answered by those supporting a one tee concept.

Tom Doak - Do you think you could build such a course and, with a straight face, say that "golfers of every age and skill level should be able to enjoy the course from the one set of tees we have bulit"?

Greg:

EVERY age and skill level?  Including Jason's handicapped grandfather?  That's a pretty tall order.

But I think I could build a course that 40,000 people a year would enjoy. Good enough for me, now if Pat will fund it we have a wonderful testing ground that could facilitate real change. Publicity could be off the charts. When do we start? I mean when do you start? And Pat, recession and all, do you fancy funding a flight to your side of the pond in order for me to play this little gem? 

If my market were big enough to aim at only one segment of the market, the course would be between 6300 and 6500 yards, and most men would enjoy it.

If I had to appeal to seniors and women, too, the course would be about 5500 yards with par 67 or 68, like many of the smaller courses I've seen in the UK.  It would have plenty of cool par-3's and short par-4's, and a few longer par-4's, and maybe one par five.  Even the best players would enjoy it, unless they are just too stubborn to have fun playing golf.


P.S.  I'm off the computer and on vacation with my wife for the rest of the week starting in half an hour, so I hope that's a sufficient answer for the purposes of this thread.

[Garland Bayley]

Questions to be answered by those supporting a one tee concept.

Tom Doak - Do you think you could build such a course and, with a straight face, say that "golfers of every age and skill level should be able to enjoy the course from the one set of tees we have bulit"?

Greg:

EVERY age and skill level?  Including Jason's handicapped grandfather?  That's a pretty tall order.

But I think I could build a course that 40,000 people a year would enjoy.

If my market were big enough to aim at only one segment of the market, the course would be between 6300 and 6500 yards, and most men would enjoy it.

If I had to appeal to seniors and women, too, the course would be about 5500 yards with par 67 or 68, like many of the smaller courses I've seen in the UK.  It would have plenty of cool par-3's and short par-4's, and a few longer par-4's, and maybe one par five.  Even the best players would enjoy it, unless they are just too stubborn to have fun playing golf.


P.S.  I'm off the computer and on vacation with my wife for the rest of the week starting in half an hour, so I hope that's a sufficient answer for the purposes of this thread.

While the Olympics course design contest was going on, I started a thread with subject "Which course would give the broadest spectrum of players a chance to compete?" containing this:

From Ben's aggregate course thread.

Here's the scorecard that works.  Will see if I have time to make up a course for it:

Par 3 holes:  125 - 160 - 180 - 205 - 230 yards

Short 4's:  300 - 320 - 340 - 360 - 380 yards

Long 4"s:  400 - 420 - 440 - 460 - 480 yards

Par 5 holes:  500 - 550 - 600 yards

That adds up to 6,450 yards, par 70.

...
What would you think of a course like this

130 155 180 205 230 255 280 305 330 355 380 405 430 455 480 505 530 555 = 6165
W    9I    7I   5I    3I    3W 1W  1/2 1/2  LW SW GW 9I  8I    6I    4I    2I    3W

as perhaps a par 70 (or dare I say it? 69) for you?

One person (other than me) made one comment on the thread. However, Tom sent me a PM saying he was basing his Olympics design on my idea of equitable competition using gradated distances like I had, which I have kept quiet until know. Why expose this now? Because, Tom has come out and stated his use of this idea for the Olympics design and another since then on the "How many sets of tees are really needed?" thread.

Hopefully this will illuminate what kind of course I believe he was talking about in his above pre-vacation post.

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't golf supposed to be fun? And don't golf courses want to make money by encouraging players to come back?

I think we're grasping at straws here. Most golfers don't carry a handicap, and most bad golfers don't have an ego that architects are pandering to. But they do want to have fun, and slogging it out from 6500 yards isn't fun for them.

Likewise, it's not much fun for strong players to bunt it around from 6500 yards either.

Sometimes it's ok for a game to be enjoyable.

People get your act together. You complain that high handicappers play from tees too far. Then you complain that they won't have fun if you make a course with tees too far. Is there not a logical brain in the bunch of you?

Furthermore, strong players are not bunting it around from 6500 yards if they are playing a properly designed course. A lot of dark ages courses got their 6500 yards from having lots of par fours at right around 400 yards. That of course is just monotony for everyone, not just strong players. Strong players playing a course of 6500 yards may be playing a par 69, but they aren't bunting it around if the course has a variety of hole lengths.

[Garland Bayley]

... Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable? ...

450 / 8 = 56.25

So he hits 3w about 55 yards, assuming the 8th shot, the Driver off the tee, went a little farther.
I suggest Pinochle in the Clubhouse.

[Garland Bayley]

...But it's not much fun when they're either hitting the same shot over and over or rooting around in woods and native grasses because shot demands are just too steep for them. Playing from shorter tees gives them more variation. ...

So woods and native grasses magically disappear at shorter tees?
 

[Jason Thurman]

... Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable? ...

450 / 8 = 56.25

So he hits 3w about 55 yards, assuming the 8th shot, the Driver off the tee, went a little farther.
I suggest Pinochle in the Clubhouse.

[Garland Bayley]

... Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable? ...

450 / 8 = 56.25

So he hits 3w about 55 yards, assuming the 8th shot, the Driver off the tee, went a little farther.
I suggest Pinochle in the Clubhouse.

Did I get the math wrong? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

Bill,

"Par" becomes mostly irrelevant with a common tee

[Bill_McBride]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

Bill,

"Par" becomes mostly irrelevant with a common tee

Unfortunately "par" is how we keep score and establish handicaps. 

[Paul Gray]

... Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable? ...

450 / 8 = 56.25

So he hits 3w about 55 yards, assuming the 8th shot, the Driver off the tee, went a little farther.
I suggest Pinochle in the Clubhouse.

Jason,

This did make me laugh.

GJ,

From what I can tell, you and I are seemingly preaching something similar, thus if I have no common sense, it follows that you don't either.  There was me thinking that Pat had actually instigated a rather pleasant exchange of opinions.

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

Bill,

"Par" becomes mostly irrelevant with a common tee

No it doesn't (not over here, anyway). We just don't pander to people and pretend they've made par when in fact they've made bogey (see previous posts).

Speaking of previous posts, you never did get back to me about that flight Pat.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

Bill,

"Par" becomes mostly irrelevant with a common tee

Unfortunately "par" is how we keep score and establish handicaps. 

No it's not.

Par isn't how you keep score.

You keep score by adding up your strokes for each hole, then you add the strokes for all of those individual 18 holes and get your total score, and par has nothing to do with that calculation.

If you make 5 on every hole, you add up the individual scores for each hole, for all 18 holes you get your cumulative score of 90.
If you made nine 5's and nine 6's you add them up and get 99, and in each and every case that process has nothing to do with par.

You're problem is that you're mentally locked into the concept of different course ratings and slopes from multiple tees on the same course and its relationship to the concept of par.

With just one tee, handicapping is about as easy as it gets.

If your average score on the course with one tee is 90 and mine is 80, you get 10 shots.

Doesn't get much easier than that does it.

If you assign par based on the distance of each hole and that totals 72, and you average 90, you're an 18 handicap.
If I average 80, I'm an 8 handicap.

If we compete against one another, I give you 10 shots.
Pretty simple isn't it

Paul,

There's nothing unpleasant about the discussion, it's simple math

[Bill_McBride]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

Bill,

"Par" becomes mostly irrelevant with a common tee

Unfortunately "par" is how we keep score and establish handicaps.  

No it's not.

Par isn't how you keep score.

You keep score by adding up your strokes for each hole, then you add the strokes for all of those individual 18 holes and get your total score, and par has nothing to do with that calculation.

If you make 5 on every hole, you add up the individual scores for each hole, for all 18 holes you get your cumulative score of 90.
If you made nine 5's and nine 6's you add them up and get 99, and in each and every case that process has nothing to do with par.

You're problem is that you're mentally locked into the concept of different course ratings and slopes from multiple tees on the same course and its relationship to the concept of par.

With just one tee, handicapping is about as easy as it gets.

If your average score on the course with one tee is 90 and mine is 80, you get 10 shots.

Doesn't get much easier than that does it.

If you assign par based on the distance of each hole and that totals 72, and you average 90, you're an 18 handicap.
If I average 80, I'm an 8 handicap.

If we compete against one another, I give you 10 shots.
Pretty simple isn't it

Paul,

There's nothing unpleasant about the discussion, it's simple math

You spend more time on inane bullshit than anyone I know.  Are you bored?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

No, I'm not bored and you seem to spend an equal amount of time on nonsense.

Are you bored ?

And, I noticed that you get a little testy when you're made to look foolish, which seems to be occurring with greater regularity lately.

Just because you don't understand a concept, that's no reason for you to get cranky.

Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are.

Paul,

I'll fund everything except travel , food, drink and lodging

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

I'll fund everything except travel , food, drink and lodging

Nicely done. You're a good man, Pat. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

No, I'm not bored and you seem to spend an equal amount of time on nonsense.

Are you bored ?

And, I noticed that you get a little testy when you're made to look foolish, which seems to be occurring with greater regularity lately.

Just because you don't understand a concept, that's no reason for you to get cranky.

Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are.

Your one tee proposal is attractive in its simplicity.  but how would you account for all the X's the shorter hitting and perhaps less skilled players would make that single tee compared to the better players?  It makes it difficult to compute average scores when holes aren't finished.

The current USGA handicapping system takes all that into account to promote fair competition between players of varying ability from different length tees.    It's cumbersome but it works. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

 For the longest time, golfers, upon holing out, had to tee off for the next hole, from within one (1) club length of the cup where they just holed out.

It took approximately 100 years to change that rule.

After approximately 100 years that rule was changed to two (2) club lengths

So, for the longest time, well over 100 years, EVERY level of golfer played the EXACT same hole, from the exact same tee.

Then, the area for teeing off was moved off the green of the previous hole to a separate area.

Why you conclude that contracting the teeing area would result in incomplete holes is beyond me.
Why you think that contracting the teeing area would result in an abundance of X's is beyond me.

There was a reason that the ODG's and some of the modern icons in golf course architecture locate the tees for the next hole just a short walk from the prior green.

With the ODG's it was a concession or attachment to the principle that you teed off for the next hole from as close as possible from where you just holed out.  Many old courses have one footpad located in close proximity to the prior green.
No one failed to finish holes and no one took X's as a result.

Your "Chicken Little" declaration that the sky will fall if but one tee is employed is nonsense.
The notion that altering a hole from 380 to 420 will result in incomplete holes and an abundance of X's is sheer nonsense.
Golfers are neither that fragile nor that inept.

Many on this site enjoy and champion tees located close to the prior green.

Part of the problem over the last six decades is the disparity in distance that's increased dramatically between the best, average and poor player.

On TV this weekend, a golfer, from the back tee, at 176 or slightly more, in cool temperatures, hit a smooth 8-iron.
60 years ago, I hit my 8-iron 140 routinely, and 150 when needed.
The PGA Tour Pro probably hit his 8-iron 150, 160 when needed.
So the tees for the best, average and poor player were much closer to one another.

It's the explosion in distance that's created lengthening vis a vis extending back tees or relocating back tees.

Very little, if anything, has been done to lengthen the tees for the average and poor golfer over the last six decades.

Since handicaps are essentially irrelevant to PGA Tour golfers, and since a PGA Tour event doesn't come to every local course each week, let's exclude them from the discussion for the time being.

One common tee, where every golfer would play from, would work quite well.

Look at Tom Doak's survey and Tom's personal opinion on overall length.

If everyone played from the same tee markers and the golf course played anywhere  from 6,500 to 6,700 how would that result in incomplete holes and innumerable X's ?

Handicapping would be easier, comraderie would improve amongst more diverse sectors of the membership and maintenance cost would go down.

Then, the remaining issue would be reigning in the ball.

It's much simpler, you just have to abandon your rigid concept of multiple tees for every level of golfer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I thought again about your "one tee, many lz" concepts last night.  It struck me that with the vast distance disparity we see today, I have really designed with multiple tees and multiple LZ for a while now.

You might have anyone from a 270 to 320 player on your back tees.  You might have anyone from a 200 to 320 player on your blue tees. You might have anywhere from a 140 to 320 player on your white tees in a scramble.  Even with two or three challenge landing zones, we usually need at least two or three tees to make better use of them.

The distance disparity also means I try to put my main tees, not my back tees closest to the previous green.

I do agree on the camaraderie of playing one set of tees being increased.  That said, how do we know that it doesn't just happen naturally among groups even when there are multiple tees?  However, if there is one 300, two 200 and one 150 hitting players, THEY get to choose which of those yardages are best for them, rather than the course owner or gca?

In the end, all players pay the same $XX to play, and deserve and demand a golf course that fits them best.  In the end, multiple tees goes a long way to achieving that, even if not perfect.  I place NO thought on how it was done in the old days, because frankly, that was totally skewed to the strong male, either by social conventions and/or some sort of leftover Victorian idea that somehow we all ought to be punished somehow, even in pursuing our recreation.  Times seemed to have changed!

[Bill_McBride]

You mean I just should agree with you, right?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Who really has the rigid concept here?  It strikes me that you think you should be King of the World and everyone needs to enjoy golf your way.  As most of us would expect, that just doesn't fly, even if you have a few good points.

[Paul Jones]

When playing in your club tournament - say a Four Ball. 

What set of tees do you play from?

Is it the set that you play on a regular bases?

Is it the set the Pro assigns to you based on your handicap?

I am a good golfer, but do not like to play the back tees at my home course.  However, most others with my handicap <5 usually play the back tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Who really has the rigid concept here?  It strikes me that you think you should be King of the World and everyone needs to enjoy golf your way.  As most of us would expect, that just doesn't fly, even if you have a few good points.

Jeff,

You just can't help yourself, you have to let your true colors come to the fore with your whining and sniveling.

I merely expressed and put forth a concept,  and now, like the douche bag you are, you have to personalize it, and initiate your attack.

It's an "idea" Jeff, a concept, a premise.
Do "ideas" , concepts and premises scare you?
And, it's an idea, concept, premise related to the distance issue, although I'm sure that escaped you.

Stop being a dork and examine and discuss the concept.
Stop being a douche bag and confine your comments to the topic, it's merits or demerits.
I know that it's difficult for the leopard to change it's spots, but give it a try. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

You mean I just should agree with you, right?   

No Bill, I want you to reflect upon the concept. 
I want you to evaluate the idea,  Then, agree with me.

Then, expand your thinking to how that concept might influence the distance issue.

In all seriousness, look at the issue from an historical context and in conjunction with Tom Doak's survey
And the impact of the one tee concept on the social aspect of golf.

I created this thread as "food for thought"

Little did I know how limited "thought" would be

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

So politely disagreeing with you gets one called a douche bag?  Sorry, but you're the prick here.  Good bye.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, how does the concept of a single tee help alleviate the distance issue?

It seems pretty obvious that long hitters have even more of an advantage if shorter hitters can't move up a tee or two. It also is obvious that, unless that single tee is at about 6800 yards or more, our courses are still going to be obsolete for the long hitter. Of course, if the tee is 6800+, that makes the course a pretty big slog for shorter hitters.

You're right that handicaps would work out the scoring difference. Your predictions of improved comradery and decreased maintenance costs are interesting, though I'm still skeptical. But having a single teeing ground creates a BIG gap in enjoyment, particularly with regards to very high handicappers who might only drive it 150 yards or so. The simple answer is that those players should learn to hit it farther, but I think one of the great things about our game is its ability to accommodate people with wide-ranging abilities who can still have fun, even if they shoot a huge number or don't keep score at all.

I play with those players from time to time, and I can't imagine there are many who would enjoy taking 50+ full swings with power clubs. And honestly, it doesn't sound like much fun to me either.

Again, I'm not saying "Everyone has the right to hit greens in regulation or protect their ego!" But I do think golf is a better game when everyone has a right to enjoying themselves and seeing variation in the shots they hit. And seeing as golf courses are businesses, I would say the lack of examples of any courses that still use the old method of a single teeing ground is pretty good proof that the idea is unpopular. To paraphrase what you said yourself in a few anchoring threads, businesspeople running golf courses wouldn't build more tees than one if it didn't work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So politely disagreeing with you gets one called a douche bag?  Sorry, but you're the prick here.  Good bye.

That wasn't "politely" disagreeing and you know it.
If you were politely disagreeing with me you would have stuck to the subject matter instead of personalizing it.
But, you were true to your feminine side and returned to your habitual form.
And, as is typical, you start something, get your nose bloodied and run away.
No surprise there

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()