The case against "play it forward" (as well as "play it back")

[jeffwarne]

Golf was (and should be IMO) a game pitting players against one another. Tee it forward is an ego massaging program for the misguided players that think they are playing against the course. Tee it forward is dishonest from the get go, as it wants you to tee it forward so you can hit wedge into most greens as the pros do. Frankly, that is not golf. Frankly that is just technology gone wild.

Forget what par is and try to get the ball into the hole in fewer strokes than your opponent. Forget a bunch of absurd looking "tee boxes" and play golf by teeing off near the last green, and beating your opponent.

There are of course practical concerns with forecd carries, but in general....
I'd agree with that.

I play a lot of golf with a formerly good player who has serious health issues and is 65.
We tee off at the nearest tee we find, and often play whatever flat spots we find nearest the previous greens.
We have a blast, yet he's certainly now better than an 18, and lacks the strength to finish any bad holes.
I never ubderstand why if the terrain and carries allow, why it's more fun to walk 100-150 yards forward, then tee off, rather than just teeing off, then walking.
better forward than backward though
Seems to me those who deny the pencil and card mentality are often quick to point out how "tee it forward" adds fun to the game.
If you're not keeping score, why worry about playing MORE golf, something most of us aspire to

But, most importantly, to each his own.

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

You are welcome to play golf for the reasons you see fit. I trust I am allowed to do the same. For you to say what is and is not the right or best way to play golf is as arrogant and as presumptuous as Ulrich making his declarations and saying "case closed." Possibly more so.

In what way are either of you qualified (or more qualified than of the rest of this on this chat board) to make these statements? 

I never mentioned bomb & gauge or suggested that everyone should be entitled to hit wedge into every green. I simply suggested that, contrary to Ulrich's statement, multiple tee boxes allow players across a wide spectrum of abilities to actually engage and enjoy the architectural integrity of the course.

DT

[Brett Wiesley]

I like the play it forward mentality.  Keeps the course moving and more people are likely to enjoy their rounds.

As for 250 yards from back tee over all the forward tees, this is not rewarding or aesthetically pleasing.  Except to one's ego I suspect.  I think a variety of tee angles on 3s, 4s, and 5s gives a greater challenge from any tee, by altering the angle of approach.  It also gives a different feel to the course, which may provide the frequent player/member an opportunity to have multiple courses to play in one.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

The specifications of the Tee it Forward program advocated by the USGA and PGA produce a majority of wedge shots to the greens and it is their statement that the goal is for players to play the course like tour pros. If you support tee it forward, presumably you support their guidelines and goals.

You can play golf anyway you want. My point is from a historical perspective golf did not resemble Tee it Forward, nor did it emphasize medal play. When it began, they did not even count strokes, but instead kept track of the stroke differential between two players.

If golf is in the doldrums, then perhaps it is the current emphasis on stroke play and the opportunities to make birdies that discourages people when they find how fleeting those goals are.


I suggest tee it up, and defeat your opponent if you can no matter how many strokes it takes.

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

Why do you keep bringing up the "Tee if Forward" program and "bomb & gouge" and hitting wedges into every green? Nothing I have written here in any way implies that I endorse or engage in those concepts.

Ulrich's initial post refers to a par-3 with tee boxes ranging from 135 to 240 and claims that is a detriment to its design. I am of the opinion that such a range of tee boxes allows players of a wide variety of abilities to, in fact, engage in the integrity of the design on a relatively equal basis.

If, on a par-3, my wife is hitting her hybrid from 135 yards, I am hitting mine from 170 yards and Johnny hot-shot is hitting his from 220 yards, how is that a bad thing?

I fail to see how my wife hitting driver from 155 yards, while I am hitting 5-iron from 160 yards and Johnny hot is hitting 8-iron from 170 yards is a better scenario. Nothing either you or Ulrich has said so far convinces me otherwise.

As for the virtues of match vs. medal play, I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to this thread.

DT  
 

  

[Brent Hutto]

I never ubderstand why if the terrain and carries allow, why it's more fun to walk 100-150 yards forward, then tee off, rather than just teeing off, then walking.
better forward than backward though
Seems to me those who deny the pencil and card mentality are often quick to point out how "tee it forward" adds fun to the game.
If you're not keeping score, why worry about playing MORE golf, something most of us aspire to

I know you are partly just tossing out a Swiftian semi-tongue-in-cheek "modest proposal" type thing. But I'll point out one general reason and one specific one that walking forward beats "hitting forward".

The general reason is, multiple shots in a row that are neither tees shots nor aimed at the green are boring. In fact, those are the least interesting shots in golf. Nothing wrong with a handful of them per round on Par 5's or long Par 4's but having, say, half the hole in a round requiring three or four full swings before reaching the green is just not as fun as the normal flow of a course mixing one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes.

The specific reason is there are many courses on which the "landing area" from the 7,200 yard set of tees for a 200-yard hitter is not just a nice, flat expanse of fairway. Even at my rather modest-length home course, a 200-yard driver from the way-back tees as often as not would place the ball at the bottom of a 10-25 foot hill, the top of which being a ridge line that's intended as the landing zone for drives and which is still 150-200 yards from the green. Teeing off to the bottom of a hill then trying to hit a shot from a severe upslope that advances the ball over the ridge and down into short-iron range is another thing that may be fine once or twice a round but not on every third hole or so.

[Tom_Doak]

The specific reason is there are many courses on which the "landing area" from the 7,200 yard set of tees for a 200-yard hitter is not just a nice, flat expanse of fairway. Even at my rather modest-length home course, a 200-yard driver from the way-back tees as often as not would place the ball at the bottom of a 10-25 foot hill, the top of which being a ridge line that's intended as the landing zone for drives and which is still 150-200 yards from the green. Teeing off to the bottom of a hill then trying to hit a shot from a severe upslope that advances the ball over the ridge and down into short-iron range is another thing that may be fine once or twice a round but not on every third hole or so.

Brent:

Exactly!   And that's where you are getting it wrong ...

The problem on the hole you described is THE BACK TEE.  If it was up where the middle tee was, then the average player would be fine, but the pro would be faced with a decision to lay up to the flatter lie or bomb driver over the ridge, possibly into trouble.  We are building a set of tees (and indeed designing the entire course) around 2% of the players, and it's stupid.

For Tepper's friend Johnny Hot, he probably doesn't pay dues anyway.


David Tepper:  When you play golf with your wife, do you play even up, or do you give her strokes?  If you're giving her strokes, why not give her a stroke on the 170-yard hole and play from the same tee?  Or are you afraid you'll lose that way?  

[Ulrich Mayring]

@David Tepper:
Sorry for coming across as arrogant and presumptuous. Will do a better job on the next thread I start.

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

I never ubderstand why if the terrain and carries allow, why it's more fun to walk 100-150 yards forward, then tee off, rather than just teeing off, then walking.
better forward than backward though
Seems to me those who deny the pencil and card mentality are often quick to point out how "tee it forward" adds fun to the game.
If you're not keeping score, why worry about playing MORE golf, something most of us aspire to

I know you are partly just tossing out a Swiftian semi-tongue-in-cheek "modest proposal" type thing. But I'll point out one general reason and one specific one that walking forward beats "hitting forward".

The general reason is, multiple shots in a row that are neither tees shots nor aimed at the green are boring. In fact, those are the least interesting shots in golf. Nothing wrong with a handful of them per round on Par 5's or long Par 4's but having, say, half the hole in a round requiring three or four full swings before reaching the green is just not as fun as the normal flow of a course mixing one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes.

The specific reason is there are many courses on which the "landing area" from the 7,200 yard set of tees for a 200-yard hitter is not just a nice, flat expanse of fairway. Even at my rather modest-length home course, a 200-yard driver from the way-back tees as often as not would place the ball at the bottom of a 10-25 foot hill, the top of which being a ridge line that's intended as the landing zone for drives and which is still 150-200 yards from the green. Teeing off to the bottom of a hill then trying to hit a shot from a severe upslope that advances the ball over the ridge and down into short-iron range is another thing that may be fine once or twice a round but not on every third hole or so.

That would be the par where I stated " if terrain and carries allow"

By your logic, courses would be better if everyone walked within range of the green

Of course I should let you know I'm a big fan of cross country golf

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

I've referred in various other threads to my belief that there's a meaningful reason 99% of golf courses are somewhere within spitting distance of the "standard" lineup of 10 Par 4's, 4 Par 3's and 4 Par 5's. Sure lots of course have one more or two less of each type. But generations of golfers seem to have shown a preference for mostly "two shot" holes with several each of "one shot" and "three shot" ones mixed in for variety. That's just a very pleasing rhythm to fall into without being too repetitive.

Tom D,

Continuing on my above-mentioned line of reasoning, I think everyone playing from some middling distance can work within broad limits. A course that plays "too short" for strong players could be fine up until they suddenly find the majority of holes become "one shot" drivable (or less) instead of "two shotters". And shorter hitters are OK with it up to the point there are only a handful of holes reachable in two shots and there are 11-12 de facto "three shotters".

But depending on ones assumptions about "stronger" and "weaker" players on a suitable bit of terrain I think the basic idea is doable.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't care what the "Tee it Forward" campaign says about hitting wedges into holes. No one who plays from a forward tee at my club hits a wedge before their third shot on any par 4s. This game beats those guys up plenty already. I can't believe there are people in this game that are so self-focused that they think courses should just have one or two sets of tees and force those guys to play as far back as everyone else.

That's how I know Ulrich prefers to play from 6300-6600 yards. He's part of the plurality, which makes it easy to ignore the things that make weaker players and stronger players happy. And yet, somehow he wants to take that which is currently easy for him to ignore and eliminate it altogether. I still don't understand for what purpose.

What I do know is that I played my home course yesterday with my 53 year old mother. She played from 1000 yards shorter than I, and still had to hit great shots just to get a par putt on a few holes and a birdie putt on one. There's no doubt that we're not playing the same course. If that means that architectural integrity is dead, so be it. But we both had a great time. She was raving on the way back to my house that she felt like she'd been on vacation for the day, and was going to feel relaxed when she went to work the next morning.

If allowing people who hit the ball 135 yards with a six iron to have a great day on a golf course playing with someone who hits it 50 yards longer with the same club means that architectural integrity is dead, then I'll happily send a few flowers to its funeral.

[David_Tepper]

"David Tepper:  When you play golf with your wife, do you play even up, or do you give her strokes?  If you're giving her strokes, why not give her a stroke on the 170-yard hole and play from the same tee?  Or are you afraid you'll lose that way?"  

Tom Doak -

I can think of fewer roads to marital discord and disharmony than a husband playing a golf match against his wife. I don't go there.

DT

[Michael Felton]

The 3rd hole at Bethpage Black is a par 3 that is about 230 yards from the tips and about 130 from the red tees. The green is angled from front right to back left, with a couple of bunkers on the left side, so it has some redan feel to it. The back edge of the green slopes sharply away into rough over the back of the green. Really don't want to go long.

From the back tee, the good player is forced to play a shot that either moves right to left and hits and releases (which it will do because it's such a long shot), or fashion something very high that will hold when it hits. The high shot is tough because it's more than likely going to be coming in from the angle that makes the green shallowest. Good players also play this hole from around 170 or so. From here, it's harder to get the ball to release, so you have to fly it to the hole to hit it close. Quite a different hole from there, but still challenging for a different reason (it brings going long into play when the pin is close to that back slope). Were there only one tee on the hole, you couldn't have that varying challenge and there's no way that weaker players could play from that back tee. What a miserable hole that would be. The ladies can play from 130 yards and still have that shot that releases along the green and gets back to the hole. Without that front tee, a lot of them probably couldn't even make the shorter grass.

How do you keep the challenge for the long hitters, while keeping it playable for the short hitters? Why shouldn't the course be made playable for everyone of all abilities?

[Joe Sponcia]

The general reason is, multiple shots in a row that are neither tees shots nor aimed at the green are boring. In fact, those are the least interesting shots in golf. Nothing wrong with a handful of them per round on Par 5's or long Par 4's but having, say, half the hole in a round requiring three or four full swings before reaching the green is just not as fun as the normal flow of a course mixing one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes. - B Hutto

Great Point Mr. Hutto.

Ulrich's initial post refers to a par-3 with tee boxes ranging from 135 to 240 and claims that is a detriment to its design. I am of the opinion that such a range of tee boxes allows players of a wide variety of abilities to, in fact, engage in the integrity of the design on a relatively equal basis.

If, on a par-3, my wife is hitting her hybrid from 135 yards, I am hitting mine from 170 yards and Johnny hot-shot is hitting his from 220 yards, how is that a bad thing?

I fail to see how my wife hitting driver from 155 yards, while I am hitting 5-iron from 160 yards and Johnny hot is hitting 8-iron from 170 yards is a better scenario. Nothing either you or Ulrich has said so far convinces me otherwise. - D Tepper

That is the same thing I experience.  My wife is 35 and in good shape, but just learned to play 4 years ago.  A 150 yard par 3 is a 4 wood for her (!) vs. my 8 iron.  When I play the back tee at 205 and hit hard, hard 4 iron or knockdown, choke down 5 wood, she still has a tougher shot because I am a 1 handicap and she is a 39.  Golf is the only game we can play and be on relatively equal footing.

[Mark Pearce]

There's no doubt that we're not playing the same course.

I hate this expression and it distorts the conversation.  If you don't play from the same tees, you aren't playing the same course.  Of course, from the same tees the course does not play in the same way for a long and short hitter.  The idea that we should all experience the course in the same way, have the same shots and face the same challenges is, I suspect very new.  If I play in a medal, should I be playing from a set of tees 50 yards forward of the club champion?  Should Luke Donald play from 50 yards forward of Dustin Johnson?  Until recently people understood that a benefit of hitting it further was that you got to play shorter clubs for your second shot.  Most UK courses work fine with just 3 sets of tees: medal, mens', womens'.  You can add a set of "championship" tees, if you must but I don't see a real need for any others.

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, I pretty much agree with everything you said despite any implications in my previous post. My point is just that any quest to make the course play the same for everyone is silly. The fact that my mother and I play a very different course has nothing to do with tees we choose. It has everything to do with the fact that the architecture of the course affects our games very differently.

I agree that three or four sets of tees should be sufficient. And I don't think the goal of those tees should be to make the course play the same for everyone. I think the goal should simply be to make the course enjoyable to play for everyone.

Of course, I thought that was a given around here. I would've thought that the people on this forum would define a great course as one that challenges strong players while still engaging and accommodating weaker players. The real premise in this thread that I disagree with is Ulrich's idea that a course should be designed for a certain type of player, and if a weaker or stronger player wants to play, they should have their own course to go visit that is built around testing their games. I don't know about you guys, but I LIKE playing golf on the same course with people who are stronger or weaker players than me. Some of my favorite playing partners include a pro built like a small forward who carries it a smooth 320, a 2 handicap who hits a low 290 yard bullet, a guy who shares my handicap but hits it 50 yards shorter than me with far more consistency, a 13 handicap who hits a low 210 yard draw, a 25 handicap who took up the game after his football career ended a few years ago and has a cone of dispersion wider than it is long, and my mother who hits it 200 yards on a good swing and 10 yards on a bad one.

If I got those six people together for a 3-on-3 basketball game, it would be a disaster. But on a golf course, they could have a really great time together even if the pro never hits more than 7 iron while the single digit guys play from 6600, the 13 and 33 play from 6000, and the old chick plays from 5200.

[David_Tepper]

"Most UK courses work fine with just 3 sets of tees: medal, mens', womens'."

Mark -

I agree with you on this, with the proviso that many courses in the UK do raise the par on a number of holes from the womens' tees.
As I noted before, par for women from the red tees at Royal Dornoch is 76 vs. par of 70 from the mens' tees. Clearly this recognizes that a number of the par-4's that are 400 yards or longer are unreachable for the vast majority women.

DT

[John Percival]

U,
Isn't the game losing players?
Shouldn't we be doing whatever we can to encourage new players?
And if we are encouraging them, then the fwd tees are a must.
Only a nuclear masochist would take up the game from the middle or back tees.
And a woman would have zero chance.

Also, does each hole require the same shot for all tees? What about a short 4 par from the middles that plays long from the back. What about a forced carry over a hazard from the back that allows a run-up from the angled fwd tee (am sure you've seen this example)? What about a balanced shot shape from the back tees that skew to a heavy dose of fades from the fwd (4/4:5/3:6/2).

The idea is to create an experience for every player.

And, TD, why not just design for the middle tees and then tack on distance for the tips? Of course, that's simplistic, but you undoubtably get the idea. The back tee, with little or no maintained areas about, represents a miniscule expense in construction and upkeep.

Remember everyone, today's middle tees are yesterday's tips and tomorrow's forwards.

[jeffwarne]

Where do you guys play from when you play tennis against a better player?
How about bowling?-same starting point?
basketball?
softball?

Funny, the several dozen players (men and women)with handicaps ranging from + to 31 have never complained about playing one set of tees(all of us) when traveling in the UK.

David Tepper brings up a great point about Dornoch and its lack of disparity between tees, but justifies it due to different pars for different players.
can't we all just establish our own personal goals and pars?
6 sets of tees, multiple pars? can't wait to see that scorecard

Just do away with par and establish generally one or two (when terrain dictates) sets of tees.
Feeling chipper-play all the back ones.
Weak? play all the front.
Can't decide-mix.
Better players will shoot lower scores.
Worse pllayers will shoot higher scores and have longer shots in.
The idea that every hole should present the same challenges is silly.
A well designed course can be playable for all, with different, yet interesting, challenges for each player, playing from nearly similar starting places-which as Tom Doak points out could very well be the middle tees

as Brent points out I'm mainly playing Devil's advocate, but I do get frustrated when a player complains that we (or another course) doesn't have an XXXX length set of tees)
Whatever happened to saying " Course X is a long course" or "course y is a short course" as opposed to ALL courses trying to be all yardages to all people.

[Brent Hutto]

A good 90% of the rounds I've played in the UK were on courses where the ball will bounce and roll. It will bounce and roll on tee shots and it will even bounce and roll onto (or over) the green on approach shots.

--It means a golfer like myself whose "150 club" is somewhere between a 6-iron and 5-iron might be able to hit that 6-iron on a 185-yard approach shot

---And a golfer who drives the ball 200 yards back home occasionally has to back off from driver to 4-wood on a 260+ yard tee shot just to avoid trouble.

Firm and well drained turf is a great equalizer. Put myself and your typical college-scholarship bomber playing at Deal from the same tees and I can at least follow him around the course keeping within hailing distance. Put me and that same kid playing an inland USA course where every single shot from driver on down finished within five feet of its pitch mark and where a dozen holes per round have forced carries over wetlands or ponds...it's as though we are (excuse the term) playing two totally different courses.

[Mark Pearce]

Jason,

I think I agree with every word.

David T,

Again, I agree.  Most UK courses have different pars from the Ladies tees and the mens' tees.  Indeed many have different pars from the medal and mens' tees.  That seems a sensible solution to me.

[Tom_Doak]

A good 90% of the rounds I've played in the UK were on courses where the ball will bounce and roll. It will bounce and roll on tee shots and it will even bounce and roll onto (or over) the green on approach shots.

--It means a golfer like myself whose "150 club" is somewhere between a 6-iron and 5-iron might be able to hit that 6-iron on a 185-yard approach shot

---And a golfer who drives the ball 200 yards back home occasionally has to back off from driver to 4-wood on a 260+ yard tee shot just to avoid trouble.

Firm and well drained turf is a great equalizer. Put myself and your typical college-scholarship bomber playing at Deal from the same tees and I can at least follow him around the course keeping within hailing distance. Put me and that same kid playing an inland USA course where every single shot from driver on down finished within five feet of its pitch mark and where a dozen holes per round have forced carries over wetlands or ponds...it's as though we are (excuse the term) playing two totally different courses.

Brent:

Have you ever played Ballyneal with any of the members who make up a new "tee" to play the next hole from wherever they decide?

My understanding is that whether it's long or short or whatever, they all use the same tee when they play.  And I doubt they are all of equal ability.

Let's choose up sides on this.  I've got Jeff Warne and Ulrich, you've got Tepper, and whoever else agrees with you.  We'll play a match to sort it out. 

Does it really matter what set of tees we play? 

[David_Tepper]

Gentlemen -

This thread seems to have gone off the rails a bit (what a surprise!).

The question, as initially raised by Ulrich, is not who should be playing from which tees or which tees are more "enjoyable" to be played from.

Ulrich initially stated, rather definitively, that multiple tee are detrimental to the "integrity" of the design of a golf course. No one has yet explained, at least to my satisfaction, why that is.

My contention is simply that a variety of tees enables golfers across a wider spectrum to actually appreciate the integrity of the design of the course. 

For the record, my strong preference is to play as much of my golf as possible on courses ranging from 6,000 to 6,400 yards.

DT

[Ulrich Mayring]

If anyone can design a par 3 with six tee boxes that play between 135 and 240 yards and it is a world class par 3 from some tees and a great par 3 from the rest, then my hat is off to them.

If anyone can design a par 5, where the first 250 yards are just tee boxes, and it still looks and walks great for everyone, then my hat is off again.

The only problem is: I haven't seen this course.

I have, however, seen several courses where playing interest, visuals and flow had to be compromised in order to put in all those tees.

Question to raters: a course's position in your "Top X Golf Courses" ranking is determined by:

[ ] the tee I played from when rating
[ ] a mixture of all tees available and we had raters for each
[ ] always the back tee

Ulrich

[Jason Thurman]

If anyone can design a par 3 with six tee boxes that play between 135 and 240 yards

If anyone can design a par 5, where the first 250 yards are just tee boxes

Forget about the quality of the holes. Are there really holes that meet just the criteria listed above? I've never seen a single par 3 or par 5 that matches the descriptions you've laid out above.