[Lyne Morrison]

I am wanting to clarify my thinking with respect to handicaps and hole layout.

From time to time when I suggest a hole be shortened to improve playability for a particular set of golfers I am assured by various folk that the handicap system takes care of the difficulty issue.

If I could provide a specific example: On a par 3 of 176 Metres/ 192 Yards, I have recommended that the women's tee be moved forward so that more of these golfers have the opportunity to reach the green from the tee.  Out of a playing membership of around one hundred women possibly four or five can find the green with a good drive.

The decision makers believe that handicap accounts for the level of difficulty, while my feeling is that handicap is not related to hole length or engagement with the course but is instead connected to the variability or inconsistency of a golfers play.  

Is it right that a positive and interesting playing experience defer to - or be diluted by, the concept of handicap?

How is the architectural integrity and playing experience of a golf hole best defined or validated - when the defence of handicap is brought up?  

Lyne


Definition of a Handicap:
According to the USGA, a course handicap "indicates the number of handicap strokes a player receives from a specific set of tees at the course being played to adjust the player's scoring ability to the level of scratch or zero-handicap golf."

[Peter Pallotta]

Lyne - I'd imagine there's many ways to answer your question, and some of the answers would come from posters who really understand the handicap system and/or have a wide range of experience with golfers of all stripes . Since I have neither the understanding nor the experience, all I can offer is my personal view:

i) like you, I think handicaps much more connected to variability/inconsistency than to hole length/course engagement

ii) I find that my inconsistency is mitigated (i.e. the penalty for it less costly) when recovery from a mis-hit is a realistic possibility

iii) That possibility is enhanced and is more realistic when the hole is shorter, if for no other reason than that it means I'll either be coming into the green (from a bad spot) with a shortish (and easier to hit) iron; or that I'll be coming into the green from a good spot (in the fairway, but way back after a unintentionally short drive) from a still reachable distance.

iv) And getting to the green (in regulation, hopefully) is the best equalizer and handicap system around, for I find that, while the difference between me and a scratch golfer when it comes to (consistent) ball striking is great, the difference between me and him on the greens is much less so.  

So, yes, by all means: move those tees forward, because when the average golfer mishits it off the tee (as he or she by definition certainly will), he/she can more plausibly and consistently hit a better second shot and be on the green from a shorter distance than from a longer one.

Peter  

[Ken Moum]

If you want an argument for a new tee at that par three, just look at the pro's comments when asked to play a par three over 270 yards... Which they can all reach easily with a three wood.  The simple fact is that it's no fun playing golf when NONE of the holes are reachable in regulation.  Not long ago I played a famous golf course with my wife, who is a pretty good player at a 13 index, and she was having no fun on the back nine.

When I pointed out that it had five par fives, her displeasure made sense. Do YOU want to play a course with eight or nine unreachable par fives?

Re. the handicap argument, handicaps are intended to make it possible for players of disparate abilities to compete against one another. The have nothing whatsoever to do with your question.

K

[Bryan Izatt]

Are the decision makers male, female, or a mix?  Is the club all female or a mix of men and women?  If the decision makers are primarily male and they're satisfied with the architecture and playability for themselves, then this is going to be a tough sell.  If the decision makers are primarily female and they're using the handicap argument themselves, then it's going to equally be a difficult sell, but for different reasons.  The men probably don't care about the playability experience for the women.  And, the women probably wouldn't want to look weak in the face of the distance challenge.

Is it right that a positive and interesting playing experience defer to - or be diluted by, the concept of handicap?

Handicaps are intended to allow you enough strokes so that on your better days, you can have a net score that is close to the course rating.  It is useful to equalize net scoring in medal events or to equalize two competitors in match play.  It seems to me that that has nothing to do with a "positive and interesting playing experience".  It's an apples to oranges comparison.  Handicaps address scoring and competition.  The architecture and playability experience deal with enjoying and having fun with playing the game.  Most people don't enjoy playing the game when they are over-matched by the playing field.

It's like hitting yourself in the head and then taking aspirin to ease the pain.  It'd be better not to hit yourself in the head in the first place.

You could suggest (with tongue firmly in cheek) to the male decision makers that the men's regular tee should be moved back to say 300 yards so that only 5% of the male members could plausibly reach the green in regulation, and still keep as a par 3. After all, the handicap will take care of the increased difficulty.

It reminds me of taking my wife to Royal Dornoch, where the forward tees are quite long.  The course was a par 78 for women.  My wife hated it and won't go back.  Would any males want to play their home course if it had a legitimate par of 78?  It's not much fun, or all that interesting to have 10 par 5's.

How is the architectural integrity and playing experience of a golf hole best defined or validated - when the defense of handicap is brought up?

As above, they are really different things, and I doubt that there is a persuasive answer if those you are trying to persuade don't understand why they are different.  If you are trying to persuade males, you could try having them play the course from temporary tees that emulate the playing experience that 95 % of the women experience.  Maybe they wouldn't enjoy the experience, despite the fact that their handicaps would probably go up to accommodate the increased difficulty of the hole.

[Bill Brightly]

My bet is that the "decision makers" don't want to spend the money for a new forward tee...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lynne,

The handicap may take care of the score issue in matches.....it doesn't take care of the fun issue, which golf is supposed to be.

It doesn't take care of the speed of play issue, whereby we automatically add several shots per round to a forward tee player.

As many know, I am a huge advocate of forward tees being in the 4300 or less yards range.  Do the math and base every hole  on a 140 yard tee shot and that is the max a course can come out and let the typical forward tee player reach every green with 36 good shots.

I would never do a forward tee par 3 over that 140 yards (after figuring downhill, etc.) Most should be under 100 yards to play the same as for back tee players.

I rarely do forward tee par 4 holes over 280 and that is a stretch.  And par 5 holes are never much over the 405 yard par 5 limit for women, and they should be less.

At La Costa champions, we have a 178 yard par four from the front tees so forward tee players can have the same thrill of driving the green with a long tee shot as the back tee players at just over 320.

If you figure the typical champion caliber player has 280 yard tee shots, and the typical forward tee player is at 140, then the golf course and nearly every hole should be 50% of the back tee yardage, to give the same play experience.  Granted, sometimes that is hard to do but you can allow regulation play in about 66% of the length, max.  Something under 60% is much better, i.e., 60% of 7200 yards is 4320.  A little 10-20 yard difference does nothing for the forward tee player. 

There are several ways (sometimes debated very contentiously!) about how to arrive at "proper" forward tee distances, but that is my simplistic math.  When you do the math, it is both daunting and compelling.  For years, most architects (including Alice Dye, who I am convinced thought more about competitive females such as herself, because their forward tees were often over 5000 yards) just gave up and accepted that the forward tee players couldn't be truly accommodated on the typical course. 

Now, a few of us are figuring "why not?"  If anything, we accommodate those players, who pay the bills, and ignore the possibility of a Pro Tour event coming to the course.  Hey, I also don't account for aliens landing in my designs either, and its about the same probability! 

[Pete Lavallee]

Good comments so far, Jeff as a modern architect understands the plight of the forward tee player and designs accordingly. I totally agree that forward tees should be under 5000 yards. But to your original question about the handicap system offsetting additional length I think there is a definite flaw in the system. The real problem with overly long holes or just calling them par 5's is this: When the player is constantly hitting their 3 wood, either to reach the green or advance the ball as far as possible to reach with the next shot, things fall apart quickly. Better players love par 5's as they provide birdie opportunities. Poorer player loath them as they provide more opportunities to screw up! Skilled golfers score well because they are hitting irons, usually short ones, the dispersion factor demands they'll be somewhere close to the hole. Hitting longer clubs demands being farther from your objective and it doesn't take long for things to snowball from there.

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks all for your input and also for the reflective and well considered discussion to date. For me this is when the forum works best - when one can ponder views that aid and expand thinking and perhaps in some small way positively influence thought in others.

From a personal view point, i find it perplexing that in seeking to provide reasonable, engaging and enjoyable levels of playability for women, so many barriers are brought forth - when, with the benefit of an open mind much good can be achieved - and on so many varied and meaningful levels that not only aid the game but also golf as a business.

Lyne

[Garland Bayley]

"Better players love par 5's as they provide birdie opportunities. Poorer player loath them as they provide more opportunities to screw up!"

IMO that's absolutely wrong! Poorer players love par 5's because they provide an extra shot to catch up with.

[jeffwarne]

If you figure the typical champion caliber player has 280 yard tee shots, and the typical forward tee player is at 140, then the golf course and nearly every hole should be 50% of the back tee yardage, to give the same play experience.   

 

Unles you're going to shrink the fairway, hole, and corridors by 50%,and cut the rough down, and reduce the severity of all bunkers,  a player who hits it 1/2 as far as another, isn't going to have the same experience
and furthermore IMHO, can't, and shouldn't.
I enjoy bowling-would I enjoy it more from 10 feet away?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

No, but you wouldn't enjoy it if the pins were so far from your rolling point that you couldn't get the ball there, either.  A 5200 yard course for the "typical" women is like asking the typical male to play at about 8250.

I realize that all hazards are about 4X harder for shorter hitters than good players.  I agree you cannot and should not try to equalize score or even challenge.

If someone hasn't already pointed this out to you, please allow me to tell you that you may not realize it, but you are a male chauvinist pig! 

PS- Most of us are.....

[Paul Gray]

I am wanting to clarify my thinking with respect to handicaps and hole layout.

From time to time when I suggest a hole be shortened to improve playability for a particular set of golfers I am assured by various folk that the handicap system takes care of the difficulty issue.

Lyne


Definition of a Handicap:
According to the USGA, a course handicap "indicates the number of handicap strokes a player receives from a specific set of tees at the course being played to adjust the player's scoring ability to the level of scratch or zero-handicap golf."

Lyne,

In my mind it is undoubtedly true that course handicapping (or SSS as we use over here) absolutely allows adequately for variance in ability, particularly as the primary tool used for calculation is length and, time and time again, length has been shown to be the foremost factor in scoring.

However, none of this even begins to legitimately explain why a game which is supposed to be fun puts such a high value on difficulty rating. Indeed, if we accept that course handicapping works well, it can be reasonably said that the argument can be reversed and therefore, rather than using length as a means to keep course rating high, shorter yardages for women would see an appropriate adjustment in course rating whilst actually making the course more enjoyable. And how could that be anything other than a good thing?

[Rich Goodale]

Great thread, Lyne (and Jeff, as a supporting contributor)

It seems to me that a significant flaw in golf course design (and day-to-day set up) is that there is only one set of "women's" tees, and only two set's of "men's" tees.  On most courses (new and even ancient), you have (let's just say for discussion purposes) a 7000 yard set of tees, a 6400 set and a 5800 set.  The good (and young but demented) men players go for the 7000 option, every other man goes for the 6400 option, and every women has no option--it's 5800 or nothing!

In the real world, of course, only a very small % of players (all men except perhaps Laura Davies) should play the 7000 (or 7000+) option, maybe 50% of men and 5% of women could handle the 6400 yard option, the next 20% of women and 30% of men would be most comfortable at the 5800 option, and the great majority of women and 15-20% of the men (super seniors and beginners) would do best playing the (mostly non-existent) 5000 (or less) yard option.

So...one of the keys is to incorporate that latter design and/or set up on most courses.  I say "and/or set up" as I am a long time member of a club (Dornoch) which is considered one of the finest tests of golf for low-handicap women, but forces less-competent women to play day to day on a ~6000 yard layout, even though it actually has and regularly maintains forward tees on 1/2 of the holes.  If these holes were made available daily, there would be a ~5200 yard course available for the average woman golfer.  For whatever reason, they do not do so.....

Finally, let's not forget the Juniors (i.e. age <12 years).  There should be a ~4000 yard option for them (and this does exist on more and more course these days, at least here in Scotland).

Rich

[Andrew Buck]

"Better players love par 5's as they provide birdie opportunities. Poorer player loath them as they provide more opportunities to screw up!"

IMO that's absolutely wrong! Poorer players love par 5's because they provide an extra shot to catch up with.

Our club collected scorecards for the year to determine handicap of holes the way USGA suggests.  Essentially, track all the scores of the lowest handicap players, and all the scores of a group of "bogey" golfers.

The holes with the largest differences are the lowest handicap holes and the smallest difference are the highest handicap.  Without fail, the par 5's had the biggest differences and the par 3's the smallest.  In fact, the numbers said the longer the hole, the bigger the difference, with one exception, par 3's.  Bogey golfers tended to average about bogey on both 160 yard par 3's and 220 yard par 3s, however low handicaps made a lot of bogeys on the long par 3.  Therefore, the hole that was hardest on the course for a low handicap player actually had the lowest "difference".

[Pete Lavallee]

Par 3 holes are generally allocated the highest stoke ratings. So in Lyne's example the 96 golfers who couldn't reach the green in regulation would not be receiving a stroke in match play from the 4 women who could reach. Changing the length of the hole by 100 yards would not considerably alter the course rating or slope to the point that the higher handicap would receive one less shot. Sounds like those 4 women who can reach that hole don't like to loose! Again don't assume proficiency in the game should give you the right to make the rules that govern us all.

[Jason Thurman]

Toughness relative to par is generally irrelevant to how handicap strokes should be allocated. Toughness relative to the scratch player is a better way of handicapping holes. That's why par 5s are so often the toughest handicapped holes, even though they may be the easiest relative to par. A strong player has a chance of reaching in two shots and making a tough 3 or easy 4. A misstep from a weaker player can make it impossible to reach in three shots and leave them with a tough 5 and likely 6.

Should a handicap stroke be allocated on a long par 3 if it's unreachable for 96% of players from that tee? I don't necessarily think so, as even the 4% who can reach it will likely have a lower-than-usual GIR percentage. If I were a short hitting woman, I'd still know that I can get on in two and have a tough 3, easy 4 situation. That sounds pretty similar to what the stronger player faces 60 or 70% of the time. There just isn't a big disparity between our skillsets on that hole unless the stronger player hits a superb tee shot.

Furthermore, the entire discussion for me is separate from the discussion of architectural integrity and playing experience. Par is largely irrelevant to playing experience, especially for women. My club has an active women's playing membership, and yet an 85 might win our women's championship some years. Women don't shoot par at our course, and yet they love to play it because it's full of variety. One of the things you learn when you play a Langford course every day is that there are no off-limits hole yardages dictated by par. He wasn't afraid in the '20s of building 250 yard holes for men, or 460 yarders, or uphill 600 yarders. The number written in the "par" row on the scorecard is irrelevant on those holes, but the shots you hit are often unusual. That's what makes the course fun for men, and it's what makes the course fun on a smaller scale for women. The average player doesn't need to make a ton of pars, but they need to feel like they're getting to face a variety of shots with a variety of clubs.

[Pete Lavallee]

Jason,

I can certainly see what Lyne is up against; you have defended the opposition point of view, resorting to their typical arguments. Although you insist that the women at your club thoroughly enjoy the course as it stands, could they not enjoy it more if they had a chance to reach holes in regulation? Although the scale of your golf course is adequate to provide variety for men, as Jeff points out it is basically doubled for women.  What you fail to realize is that golf is just plain more fun when you get the chance to knock a shot close instead of sneaking up on the hole gradually. Even with shorter tee shots on par 3's, I can guarantee you you that there will be plenty of variety elsewhere to keep the ladies engaged.

[JMEvensky]

Thanks all for your input and also for the reflective and well considered discussion to date. For me this is when the forum works best - when one can ponder views that aid and expand thinking and perhaps in some small way positively influence thought in others.

From a personal view point, i find it perplexing that in seeking to provide reasonable, engaging and enjoyable levels of playability for women, so many barriers are brought forth - when, with the benefit of an open mind much good can be achieved - and on so many varied and meaningful levels that not only aid the game but also golf as a business.

Lyne

One way to strengthen your argument for the forward tees is to include the juniors.It gets exponentially more difficult for a Board to say no to their wives AND their children.

This from someone who's sat on both sides of the discussion table.

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

I can certainly see what Lyne is up against; you have defended the opposition point of view, resorting to their typical arguments. Although you insist that the women at your club thoroughly enjoy the course as it stands, could they not enjoy it more if they had a chance to reach holes in regulation? Although the scale of your golf course is adequate to provide variety for men, as Jeff points out it is basically doubled for women.  What you fail to realize is that golf is just plain more fun when you get the chance to knock a shot close instead of sneaking up on the hole gradually. Even with shorter tee shots on par 3's, I can guarantee you you that there will be plenty of variety elsewhere to keep the ladies engaged.

Pete, two questions.

1. How many women have complained to you about their scarcity of birdie putts being a design flaw in a course?

2. How is taking a drive-and-pitch 2-shot hole and reducing it to a driver or wood 1-shot hole going to make the hole MORE interesting for women who already hit woods into 15 holes per round?

Contrary to your blind assumption, I actually play a ton of golf with high handicap female players. I have several co-workers who fit that description, as does my mother, and I play at a club full of active female members. I probably play a third of my rounds with women who are 18 handicaps or worse.

My experience tells me that they care far less about the notion of par than their male counterparts. Sure, they enjoy making them, but it just isn't their primary goal. Perhaps it's different for lower handicap women, but then again, they can probably find a way to par that 192 yard hole.

The idea that a golfer should be able to reach greens in regulation is primarily a function of male ego and the desire to pretend we're better at this game than we really are. The women I know are far more concerned with hitting varied shots and feeling like they're given a fair shake. I don't see how reducing a long par 3 to a mid length one helps that cause. If chalking up a GIR is really that important, wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to just reprint the scorecards with a "4" in the par row for that hole? And wouldn't that also give more variety to a demographic of golfers that, again, already hits woods into the majority of holes?

[Paul Gray]

I've never been great at understanding what women want....

However, if women want a shorter course (and Lynn is undoubtedly better at judging this than any of us men on here) why fight it?

Just to play devil's advocate, is the comparative length of a golf course (having adjusted for technology vs physical strength) for women not currently similar to that for the average man 100 years ago? Was golf not fun back then? An understanding should surely prevail that recognises that not all golfers should ever be able to reach all greens in regulation.    

[Lyne Morrison]

1. How many women have complained to you about their scarcity of birdie putts being a design flaw in a course?

Jason - my feeling is that women are less engaged with the design of the course and what it can offer them because of the design flaws. They may not recognise this because they don't understand the nuances of a course - but the fact is that most have never been provided the stage to experience the real joy the game can bring forth.

2. How is taking a drive-and-pitch 2-shot hole and reducing it to a driver or wood 1-shot hole going to make the hole MORE interesting for women who already hit woods into 15 holes per round?

You are right - it won’t. So what we need to do is ensure the hole is more enjoyable by adjusting the length to shorter than a driver or wood. Then we are heading in the right direction, hence Jeff’s advice and recommendations above.

3. Contrary to your blind assumption, I actually play a ton of golf with high handicap female players. I have several co-workers who fit that description, as does my mother, and I play at a club full of active female members. I probably play a third of my rounds with women who are 18 handicaps or worse.

That’s good to hear and I can tell by the detail in your post that you have observed their play. I know those women golfers too. By the way, the average women's handicap is in the high 20's, so while you feel that your friends are high handicappers they may in fact just be typical female golfers. Designers, clubs and decision makers can do more to aid their game and help them connect with the course.

4. My experience tells me that they care far less about the notion of par than their male counterparts. Sure, they enjoy making them, but it just isn't their primary goal. Perhaps it's different for lower handicap women, but then again, they can probably find a way to par that 192 yard hole.

Jason, it is difficult for par to be their primary goal when the course set-up doesn't support it. Lower handicap women recognise the thrill of par and chase it, but statistically these golfers are in the minority.

Higher handicap women know that par is an unlikely prospect - this is directly due to the set-up of the course – and most specifically the position of the tees. In my experience these golfers are thrilled when they achieve par. Low handicap women chase par because they can - even so, few walk off that particular 192 yard hole with par.

5. The idea that a golfer should be able to reach greens in regulation is primarily a function of male ego and the desire to pretend we're better at this game than we really are. The women I know are far more concerned with hitting varied shots and feeling like they're given a fair shake. I don't see how reducing a long par 3 to a mid length one helps that cause. If chalking up a GIR is really that important, wouldn't it be a whole lot cheaper to just reprint the scorecards with a "4" in the par row for that hole? And wouldn't that also give more variety to a demographic of golfers that, again, already hits woods into the majority of holes?

Mid length to shorter par 3's will provide the varied shots you refer to and that your playing partners favour; recovery shots around the green will further add to the variety. Such holes will eliminate the need to automatically pull driver from the bag and will likely improve their enjoyment of the game.

The new card scenario with Par 4’s will eliminate the Par 3's and the opportunity to test hybrid/short iron play from tee to green. What you are left with is a game of Par 4's and Par 5's - granted the new Par 4's become more fun by virtue of the revision, but golf is designed to be played over Par 3's, 4's and 5's.

From the R&A : Each hole will have a ‘par’ of three, four or five – though there are rare exceptions to this rule. On a ‘par-four’ or a longer ‘par-five’ hole, players will aim to hit the fairway with their first shot before attempting to reach the green with their next strokes. On a ‘par-three’, however, a player will attempt to strike the ball onto the green, directly from the teeing-ground.


Thanks for your thoughts and input; my view is that you have highlighted what we need to move away from. We have six, Par 3's at my course (27 holes), the average woman hits driver or long wood on five of them, there is no alternate option. If you are a senior or newcomer – too bad, you don’t figure. That’s a lot of golfers who are simply disregarded.

Wood from the tee on 25 out of 26 holes and only one opportunity to test a mid-iron or hybrid from tee to green - crazy!

How can this be good for business? How is it aiding participation in the game?

As an industry we can do better.

Lyne

[Jason Thurman]

Lyne, I have a big day of golf ahead of me so I don't have a lot of time to reply, but I wanted to post quickly.

I agree with almost everything you said in the context of talking about the COURSE. Courses are too long for the typical female player, even from the forward tees. My mother can still drive the ball 200 yards on a good swing at the age of 53. She's an inconsistent player, but has a lot of strength. She still rarely hits an iron. Her six iron travels 100 to 110 yards. It's hard for many to wrap their heads around the idea that a 100 yard six iron is long for a woman when it's a half wedge for an average male hitter like me.

Yes, women absolutely have to play too long a course. My point is merely that if we're looking at ONE 190 yard hole on that course, and thinking we should reduce its length to give them a chance at an extra GIR, we should think hard and make sure we're not actually ELIMINATING variety for them in doing that. Women don't often think about GIRs, mostly because, as you say, their courses are so poorly set up for them that GIRs are rarely in consideration. If that hole's length reduction comes as part of a bigger picture effort to make the course more playable, and one that involves adding multiple shorter forward tees elsewhere on the course, then I'm more on board.

[Sean_A]

Sometimes there are very easy fixes to accommodate the short hitters, but to think an archie can create the same imaginative test for the 4000 yard tees as 7000 yards tees is miles off base.  It can't be done.  Somewhere, somehow, concessions have to be made.  Currently, the trend is leaning toward the big hitter.  I think short hitters would benefit if archies leaned toward average length hitters and by average length I mean 5800ish to 6400ish yards.  We can do far better by building toward the middle range, but it is completely unreasonable to expect one set of 18 holes to be everything to everybody.  Then there is the marketing hype which needs to be dealt with.  For some reason 15 cappers find it important their course can stretch back X amount of yards even though they never dream of stepping back themselves.  Golfers are a most curious and overly-proud bunch who seem to revel in playing vicariously through scratch players.

I can't help think we already have the basic good model in place.  Visit England for two weeks - no need to reinvent the wheel at the risk of coming up with a square one.

Ciao  

[jeffwarne]

I can't help think we already have the basic good model in place.  Visit England for two weeks - no need to reinvent the wheel at the risk of coming up with a square one.

Ciao  

+1

Lyne and jeff B. and Jason of course make many valid points.
Quite frankly we're all kind've saying the same thing, only different with a different range of experiences.

My one quibble with Jeff B. was his comment (which I may have taken out of context) that designers should attempt to give "the same play experience" from every set of tee markers.
All red, white, blue tee players, regardless of handicap, are not created equal distancewise.
I've seen women who play forward tees who drive it 240 yards, and players who use the white tees drive it 280 yards.
A high handicap doesn't always mean short hitter.
All tees can't be all things to all those who play them.

In our renovation work, the biggest complaints we've gotten have been from the WOMEN who complained that we "dumbed down" the tees after relocating many of them from their original awkward, clear afterthought, positions to more strategic and interesting angles as well as easy to walk to and access.
On one hole, a 290 par 4 from the back tees, when the forward tee was moved to 223 in a much more convenient and improved angle, they howled loudest.
The reality is none at our club would drive that either, but it was a change from the original 276 and all ranges of players complained because it was different.

My comment was that anyone who thought the "dumbed down tee" was too easy, was welcome to play from the forward men's tee located at 270, but at least the shorter hitting women and juniors now had a chance to reach in regulation.

What I'd like to see would be golfers to mix and match tees, and come up with whatever length, variety, and strategy they would like.
Every hole could have two or three sets of tees (rather than 4 or 5), and golfers could choose or staff could provide a thoughtful setup considering all players.
This is impossible though when theres a myth out there that each hole should provide the same play experience for each player, as long as he plays the "right" set of tees.(6 billion players on the planet last I checked)

i.e. a 10 handicap male player can play the same tees as a scratch player on a 180 yard hole, yet on a 490par 4, perhaps he chooses to play from the middle tees at 400.
Using this method, one could devise a 4000 yard course, a 5000 yard course, a 6000 a 7000 yard course,or anything in between, without tees littered all over the place.
The problem with this, most golfers want it dictated to them in the fear that someone in their group will gain some advantage unless it comes on a preprinted scorecard, and a distinctly colored separate set of tees.

[Pete Lavallee]

Here's my take based on what happened this week, my wife and I are on vacation in Massachusetts. She is a 20 handicap and carries her  drives 160 yards and can hit her 5 iron 140; she plays once a month whether she needs to or not and usually shoots around 100 although her best rounds have been 85 five times. We played three courses:

Achunet River Valley, a Brian Silva course built in the 90's, her tees were 5009 yards. She had a great time and shot 44, 48 for a 92; she mentioned she would love to play there again. She was actually enthused about the experience. I played off the blues at 6302.

Marion GC, a George Thomas design from 1904. It's a very short course at 5390 for men and 4178 for women. Again she had fun and shot 91.

Allendale CC, a 1956 Geoffry Cornish design, where for the most part women tee off from the front of the primary tee pad. The front tees where 5540 yards and frankly it was a slog for her; I played off the 6410 whites. We had played there before and due to the CC conditioning she suggested we play there again. We were behind an unusually slow group and quit after 13 holes to make a dinner commitment; she was on pace for 100. The only hole where she had fun was a 400 yard par 4 with a pond 70 yards short the green. Her tee was moved forward to make it a 290 yard hole, she drove to the water's edge and hit the green in regulation; frankly that one hole made her day. She did mention we shouldn't play there again!

Frankly she is spoiled by modern designs, with forward tees less than 5000 yards; she hits short irons on many holes and has a chance to post a good score. Playing at older layouts like Torrey Pines or Balboa Park she is relagated to the front of the original tee pads and I've never seen her smile after a round there. I'm absolutely sure that if every venue offered a choice of less than 5000 yards she would play more frequently, simply because she actually enjoys her self!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()