[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

 I have some industry studies on what golfers play what distances, which I have posted before.  I back that up with my own observations, and actually, the TD distance thread was pretty consistent.

Then why did the USGA have to come out with a "play if forward" campaign in an attempt to get golfers to stop playing the back tees ?


I clearly understand your underlying premise, that isn't the problem.  Apparently, debating it with you is.  See other comments on this and other threads.  Funny, I haven't been called whiny by anyone else....

That's probably because you haven't chosen to make personalized comments when posting a reply to them.
You know, give and take.

OK, TOC is public, although technically there is a club or two associated with it if we want to quibble.....that said, I still believe that using iconic courses as examples for the typical isn't right (not just your example here, but that happens all the time around here)  When you go for a once a year or lifetime experience, you don't really play for par.  You take what they give you.

It's more than that.
Both are high profile courses that appear on TV every year, hence, there's an unusual familiarity with them, hence posters and lurkers alike can relate to them in the context of this thread.

Besides, you presume that in multiple tees that those fw bunkers come into play equally for all. 

Jeff, do you actually read what you type ?
I never said that they come into play equally for all, that's your ridiculous attempt to marginalize the premise.

It could be that way, but even at 25 yard splits, I find most of the fw bunkers are still just beyond the majority of the shorter hitters from the shorter tees.  Why?  The tendency to place them at 290-300 yards from the tips. 

Are you nuts ?
290-300 from the tee.
Well, that puts them out of reach for everyone at my club.
What are you talking about, I previously framed the premise in the context of local clubs, not PGA Tour stops.


The next groups don't hit it 275, 250, 225, etc.  And, the few who do, don't hit it that flush all the time.  The one odd thing about it is, while more average players have more partial misses and land well short of their max distance, the net result is that the guy who hits the best (maybe even career) shot has the best chance of getting into the hazard, which tends to anger them. 

Jeff, on most local courses I think your 225/250 from the back tees might be about right.
Ergo, from tees 50 yards closer, that brings them into range for 175 to 200 yard drivers.

So, I will give you that.  I will also agree that it is possible to cleverly arrange a mix of hazards, like cross slopes, mounds, etc. in the more likely to be found LZ, and use bunkers only where the best players might find them most often.  Of course, we do that now with multiple tees.

But, don't you find, on most local courses, that the LZ/DZ is common and collects most of the drives from different tees.

That said, I don't think the average golfer would like fewer options at a non iconic course. 

Let's look at Pine Valley.
In most events, you can play the back tees if your handicap qualifies you, or the regular tees and if your age and handicap add up to a certain number, from the Senior tees.

But, remember that the back tees were manageable just a short while ago until they lengthened # 3, 4, 7, 12 14 15, 16 and 18
If you played the back tees prior to that lengthening, it was a manageable course.
Today, holes like # 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16  and 18 are very long and difficult.

They, not me, are caught up in par, although, I do agree (and have seen industry studies again) that say camaraderie is more important to most. 
As you say, you would have to change the par mentality of the entire golfing world. 
That is a tall order, no?

It's an extremely tall order, but, remember, this was an intellectual exercise, not a demand to run out and change courses tomorrow

As to tees and greesn close together, that was lost for a while (housing and maybe even general safety and room for cart paths) and has been re-emphasized.  Just as roads, house lots, houses themselves, etc. are all bigger now than they used to be, so are golf courses.  That is not all mindlessly going astray.  It is logical reaction to both distance increases, but also play increases, experience in safety requirements, etc.  IMHO, placing tees and greens back closer together and limiting tees just because thats the way it was in the good old days is NOT a valid design premise.  Designing for now and the foreseable future is.

I understand that.
The exercise was an attempt to show that multiple tees just adds to the distance problem and segregates foursomes.
And that there's another way to design a golf hole.

If and when the ball rolls back, the carts go away, turf is damaged on tees, the lawyers agree there are no lawsuits, etc., design will change, I guarantee it.  Until then, the current paradigm makes more sense than you admit to.

I haven't admitted or denied anything, why do you continue to frame this as a demand on my part. 

In general, design reacts to human need/conditions (form follows function) but shouldn't dictate them (function follows some predisposed form from the old days) except in some unusual circumstances like historically signifigant courses.

Human need opens Pandora's Box.
You more than anyone should know that.
How would you like to have every feature you design, voted on by the membership ?

So, I will agree with you to the point that this is an interesting discussion thread, and I know you start some of these to keep things lively around here, which we all appreciate.  I simply concluded, not once, but twice upon reflection on this thread that any idea that required rethinking of par, score, nearly the entire idea of the playing of golf from the early days on (play for score, or at least holes in match play) and whatever else to achieve the dubious goal of the tees like the old days is not practical.

This thread was an exercise in theory, not practicality.
An attempt to get people to think, and to think differently about GCA.
Don't take it so personally

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

Can we assume you were one of those thought that a walking only resort in a remote area wouldn't work too?

[Jeff_Brauer]

GJ,

I never said that.  Again, I think a destination seaside golf resort allows you to provide a much different experience than what a golfer would do everyday. 

That said, I do know Kemper Sports initially advised against it, and I have had several resort owners question designs of mine, thinking they might be too different from what golfers expect.  I always respond, "that is sort of the point of playing different golf courses, no?"  You will do better giving them something unique over giving them same old same old.....

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

Can a 180 yard hitter really roll it long enough to match a 300 yard carry hitter?  I doubt it, without being really firm!  The variation among tee shot length is that great anymore.

I agree that more and more folks seem to be eschewing the need to play "all of the course."  Maybe they always did.

Maybe the argument is much simpler than Pat portrays it - what course is willing to experiment with a shorter yardage to see if that 7000 yard moniker is really all that important?  I agree that in so many cases - local clubs and public courses, but not destination resorts and some others - don't benefit all that much from pure yardage for marketing.  The could skip the back tees.  Only 1% really like to play beyond 6800 yards anyway, so what do you lose?  

An excellent post.

I'll just address the lack of parity in length issue: In short, no, the 180 yard fella can't keep up wit the 300 yard guy. However, if I can knock it to 270 yards in your neck of the woods and 300 yards on a links in a dry year, the 180 yard guy can get the ball rolling out to 230 yards or so. So, consider now the 410 yard par......

Admittedly I still only have some sort of wedge in my hand, but I've still got some thinking to do because I can't just fly the ball at the pin and watch it stop dead. Meanwhile, the other guy might well be able to run a 4 or 5 iron in. Now lets add in a side wind (and I appreciate you just can't manufacture that) and all bets are off. Suddenly that wedge in my hands looks like a dangerous option and the low 5 iron from further doesn't sound at all bad.

Again, whilst the above might be a hypothetical, this is real golf by the seaside and anywhere else where the wind is a factor and the turf firm. Perhaps I'm romanticising it a bit, but hang around a firm course for long enough and you'll hear stories about the old boys that run everything to 10 foot. Actually (and I swear I'm not making this up because it sounds too timely to be true), I played a downlands course last week where a friend of mine is a member. The course, given the incredible rain we've had, was firm enough and I spent 18 holes in awe watching a 22 handicap old man produce a running game which, on his home course, I'd bet on against Mickelson. However, if you were to magically transport him to Florida and I wouldn't bet on him to break 120. And, naturally, that's not to say such courses are universally harder, just that they are harder for the low flight man.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

It's the combination of the idea and historical perception of "par" along with the elongation of the driving spectrum that inhibits the concept of but one set of tee markers for all golfers.

If you were playing match play, would par have any significance ?

If golfers played from but one set of tee markers and one golfer was a 2 handicap and the other a 12, why would playing from the same tee alter anything.  The higher handicap would get 10 shots.  They'd both tee off from the same tee and the mechanics of the handicap system would offset their difference in ability, thus, they'd be playing on an equal footing.

If you viewed the situation, circa 1960, when a 6,800 yard course was long and equipment couldn't produce today's results, why wouldn't anyone be comfortable with the one tee marker system ?

Going back 50 years, the disparity between forward, member and championship tees was minor when compared to today.

"par" is a nobel quest, but, it doesn't have to be the entire focal point of the game, especially at match play, and even at medal play under the one tee marker concept.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()