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

[David_Tepper]

Ulrich -

I will ask this question again, please cite 3 par-5's you have seen or heard of where the first 250 yards are covered by multiple tee boxes.

DT

[Thomas Dai]

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

I've played a few courses in the UK that have two sets of ladies tees, always red, and then a little further forward still, coloured blue. Don't know why there are two ladies sets though, I've only ever seen the ladies play off the reds irrespectively of whether it's competition or general play.

The thing that peeves me, and many men I play with, is that there is often such a huge gap between the men's general play yellows and the men's competition whites. This gap is often 20-40 yds and, when it's a runway style tee, it seems like the space between the yellow and white sets of markers is never used. To me there seems no sense in using/damaging the same areas all the time, if you've got the teeing space, use it, and if that means having another set of markers between the yellows and whites then so be it.

All the best.

[Ulrich Mayring]

My examples are from the Golf Club Valley near Munich. I have been there myself.

Ulrich

[Lou_Duran]

Many if not most courses I play set the tees well forward from the plates.  My home course typically has 3-4 tees one entire box up and 6-12 several paces short of the plates.  I can think of only one tee in the last 10 or so rounds where the 2nd set was at the front of the back tee box, and the hole was cut 15 yards short of center.  The effect is a course often 200 yards shorter than the distance used for the handicaps.  While it makes it easier, this form of grade inflation only hurts the golfer when it comes to competing against players at clubs who aren't sold on "play it forward".  The better solution is to set the course as rated and let the golfers overcome their vanities by selecting the set they most enjoy.    

[Ken Moum]

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.

While that's true, people seem to be overlooking Brent's excellent point that on a golf course with 9 or 10 par fives, like Royal Dornoch, forward tee players end up hitting a LOT of shots that aren't tee shots, and that have NO chance of getting to the green.

I don't know a single male golfer who finds pleasure in playing a series of unreachable par fives... yet people consistently suggest that changing par makes everything alright for women who hit it barely over half as far as they do.

although it might not have been one of her better days, you've seen my wife play so you know she's good enough to play most courses. But Royal Dornoch makes her crazy.  She's only played it twice, and she very much wants more opportunities...because she thinks she should do better.

She is also willing to have a go at a pretty long course in the UK, if only because she gets an additional 40-50 yards of roll there.

But if we talk about playing an American course while on vacation one of her first questions is "How long are the forward tees."

The first woman I ever heard talking about this was my aunt, a VERY serious golfer who played to a 10-12 handicap into her 70s.  She became a major proponent of courses under 5,000 yards, and hasn't changed her tune.

Even women who don't pay attention to yardage see the effect.  a couple of years ago one of my wife friends commented on how much she like one of the public courses in town.  She said she always played well there.

I pointed out that she should play well there, it's almost 800 yards shorter than our course from the forward tees.

[Gary Slatter]

The poster child for a couple long tee boxes.

WELL SAID, any relation to RTJ Sr?

[Garland Bayley]

"Only a nuclear masochist would take up the game from the middle or back tees."

The whole history of the game has pretty much been taking up the game from THE tees. There seldom was a selection of tees to take up the game from. Is the history of the game one of only "nuclear masochists"?

Maybe people don't want to play a game where the overloads hold out this false promise of making birdies if only they tee off from some forward tee.

[Dwight Phelps]

While that's true, people seem to be overlooking Brent's excellent point that on a golf course with 9 or 10 par fives, like Royal Dornoch, forward tee players end up hitting a LOT of shots that aren't tee shots, and that have NO chance of getting to the green.

I don't know a single male golfer who finds pleasure in playing a series of unreachable par fives... yet people consistently suggest that changing par makes everything alright for women who hit it barely over half as far as they do.

although it might not have been one of her better days, you've seen my wife play so you know she's good enough to play most courses. But Royal Dornoch makes her crazy.  She's only played it twice, and she very much wants more opportunities...because she thinks she should do better.

She is also willing to have a go at a pretty long course in the UK, if only because she gets an additional 40-50 yards of roll there.

But if we talk about playing an American course while on vacation one of her first questions is "How long are the forward tees."

The first woman I ever heard talking about this was my aunt, a VERY serious golfer who played to a 10-12 handicap into her 70s.  She became a major proponent of courses under 5,000 yards, and hasn't changed her tune.

Even women who don't pay attention to yardage see the effect.  a couple of years ago one of my wife friends commented on how much she like one of the public courses in town.  She said she always played well there.

I pointed out that she should play well there, it's almost 800 yards shorter than our course from the forward tees.

I agree with this 100%.  My wife has recently started playing and the thing that most saps her energy for the game is having to hit her longest hybrid 3 or 4 or 5 or more times in a row on one hole.  It's not fun and she just gets bored.  So making a 430 yard par 4 a par 5 for her doesn't really solve the problem.  She wasn't discouraged by a high score, she was discouraged by forced repetitive action with little to no reward.  Her most enjoyable round to date was not her best scoring round, but one in which the layout and slight hilliness of the course prompted her to make and take different shots, with different clubs, throughout her round.

Also, I wanted to chime in on the debate between medal scoring and playing another player.  I mostly golf on my own, so I'm almost never playing against someone else.  When I do play with my wife, I have no desire to add my competitiveness as a complication to her learning the game, no matter how many strokes given.  For me, it's not strictly about playing against par or someone else, there's also the element of playing against yourself.  You want to continue to get better.  But this is only worth it if you're having fun.  And fun, to me, includes playing from the correct tees for your game.  Fun can be had in other ways - an outstanding course design can be fun without widely disparate tees - but I would suggest that that type of course is more the exception than the rule.

On the OP questions:
"How can a par 3 between 135 and 240 have any integrity to its design" & "How ugly must a par 5 be, if the first 250 yards are just tee boxes?"

Don't know of any holes/courses I've played with quite this disparity, but you got my curiosity up, so I went over to the DB website and looked up a well-liked course around here: Old Mac.

Old Mac has both the 'Royal Blue' and 'Orange' tees forward tees and 5 sets in all.  The Par 3 12th plays 237 from the tips, 149 from the Orange, and 91 from Royal Blue.  The Par 5 15th plays 535 from the tips, 340 from Orange, and 326 from Royal Blue.

I must now turn the questions back on the OP (or those that have played OM - I have not): Does OM #12 'have integrity to its design"?  How ugly is OM #15?  I'm not trying to play Gotcha!, instead just trying to get some perspective on real-world examples of the ideas you've stated (I'm completely unfamiliar with the Munich course you mentioned being the impetus for these questions).

[David_Tepper]

It appears that those of us who play with women on a regular or occasional basis have a different perspective on this issue than those who don't.


Dwight Phelps -

Thanks for referencing the holes at Old MacDonald as examples of holes that can retain their design integrity even with a wide variety of tee box distances.

DT

[Thomas Dai]

Any adult male remember when they were a young, small size boy/junior golfer?

The most used club in your bag other than the putter? A fairway wood. Typical par-4 hole - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-3 - fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-5 - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Pretty well, boring, just like folk are suggesting golf can be for lady golfers if played from inappropriate tees, but at least with age young, small junior boys get bigger and stronger. Golf ought to be for all, not just big, strong, fit, long-hitting men.

All the best.

[Dwight Phelps]

"Only a nuclear masochist would take up the game from the middle or back tees."

The whole history of the game has pretty much been taking up the game from THE tees. There seldom was a selection of tees to take up the game from. Is the history of the game one of only "nuclear masochists"?

Maybe people don't want to play a game where the overloads hold out this false promise of making birdies if only they tee off from some forward tee.

If every modern course was built like courses that typify the history of the game, playing the THE tees wouldn't be such a big difference.  As Brent mentioned above, the driving distance for a relative beginner can vary by 50 yards or more  based on the firmness of the course.  But a soggy course with no roll, while not part of the history of the game, is very much a part of modern American golf.  If all courses were set up this way and designed like so many of the UK courses, this might be less of an issue.  But that's not the way of American golf, and that is highly unlikely to change.  I'm less concerned with the history of golf than I am with the future of golf.

As I mentioned above, my wife just recently got interested in the game.  I'll think you'll find that, in the history of golf, the population of working mothers who picked up the game, and enjoyed it, at the suggestion of their husband is relatively low.  Now we're talking about how soon we can get our son on the course with us.  That's not an excitement that comes from playing long shot after long shot to move the ball forward.  That's an excitement from variety and fun, and I very much think that differing tees are a huge part of fun, especially for beginning golfers.

[Andrew Buck]

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.

Tom,

Didn't Brent address this a little in his post as well

"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."

Granted, they are still tee shots, but hitting a steady diet of 200 yard tee shots to the flat area with mid to long irons isn't very fun.  Now if you're talking about the 7,500+ tees for the true 2%, I fully understand that.  However, for the general modern course that offers a 6,800 - 6,300 and 5,900 yard set for male golfers, I'd say each of those tees represent the "best option for enjoyment" for at least a 20% population.  

[Jason Thurman]

Golf ought to be for all, not just big, strong, fit, long-hitting men.

Agreed. And what's beautiful about this thread is that I'm sure the guys who want just one or two sets of tees don't want them at 7500 yards. That would be no fun, as I doubt most of them are "big, strong, fit, long-hitting men."

I suspect most of them are of average build and average skill and average distance and believe a set of tees at 6400 yards should be sufficient for everyone, just as it is for them. Damn the women and the virile.

[Garland Bayley]

Dwight,

The problem with your analysis is that most holes were at least three shot in the early days of the game. For example, the 1st at The Old Course at 376 yards was for a long time a three shot hole.

Instead of feeling obligated to reach holes in a certain number of strokes they simply kept track of how many shots you were ahead or behind on a hole. It was called playing the like, playing the odd.

Now putting. That's boring.

[Jason Thurman]

Dwight,

The problem with your analysis is that most holes were at least three shot in the early days of the game. For example, the 1st at The Old Course at 376 yards was for a long time a three shot hole.

Instead of feeling obligated to reach holes in a certain number of strokes they simply kept track of how many shots you were ahead or behind on a hole. It was called playing the like, playing the odd.

Now putting. That's boring.

People in Scotland did a lot of things 400 years ago that no one does now.

[Garland Bayley]

Dwight,

The problem with your analysis is that most holes were at least three shot in the early days of the game. For example, the 1st at The Old Course at 376 yards was for a long time a three shot hole.

Instead of feeling obligated to reach holes in a certain number of strokes they simply kept track of how many shots you were ahead or behind on a hole. It was called playing the like, playing the odd.

Now putting. That's boring.

People in Scotland did a lot of things 400 years ago that no one does now.

Jason,

You'd be easier to get along with if you didn't engage in such hyperbole.

Perhaps a useful thread would be on the guttie changing golf by bringing about the possibility for John Lowe to write a treatise on golf course design that highlighted strategy on two shot holes. Basically I believe it was the guttie that changed holes like the first at TOC from three and more shot to two shot. That was what, 150 years ago at most.

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight,

The problem with your analysis is that most holes were at least three shot in the early days of the game. For example, the 1st at The Old Course at 376 yards was for a long time a three shot hole.

Instead of feeling obligated to reach holes in a certain number of strokes they simply kept track of how many shots you were ahead or behind on a hole. It was called playing the like, playing the odd.

Now putting. That's boring.

I'll agree with you when all new courses are as good as TOC.  Also, re: putting - every putt has a chance to go in the hole (by and large, maybe Riv #6 disagrees among others).  What makes the repetition boring is lack of any significant reward.  A significant reward is present on every putt.

You say 'feel obligated to reach in a certain number of strokes', but I would say that there's a reason we don't have standard pars of 6, 7, 8, or more.  The history of golf has seemingly indicated that 1-3 shot holes are ideal for the enjoyment of the game.  Those numbers don't simply increase when one hits it shorter.  4-5 shot holes ARE NOT equally as fun for a short hitter as the corresponding 1-3 shot holes for big hitters, and, to me, the most important factor bringing back to the course each time is fun.

[jeffwarne]

Any adult male remember when they were a young, small size boy/junior golfer?

The most used club in your bag other than the putter? A fairway wood. Typical par-4 hole - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-3 - fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-5 - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Pretty well, boring, just like folk are suggesting golf can be for lady golfers if played from inappropriate tees, but at least with age young, small junior boys get bigger and stronger. Golf ought to be for all, not just big, strong, fit, long-hitting men.

All the best.

Thomas,
I remember EXACTLY that.
and it provided a number of wonderful advantages.
1.I certainly learned how to hit a fairway wood!
2. Gave me plenty of tries to practice different lies and stances
3.I developed a great short game
4.I had a benchmark to track my progress.

It seems we have a number of players who think shots not aimed directly at a green are boring.
I call it practice, but advanced practice as every lie and stance are diferent, as well as every target.

Golf is hard.
perhaps we should stop aiming to lure the new player who needs to be instantly gratified, and focus more on the great things golf has to offer, rather than trying to offer ALL things to all people.
If instant gratification (short irons to par 4's) is what it takes to keep a player's interest, how long before they're bored and onto other things.

I am not suggesting newer players play impossible forced carries or impossible shots.
i am suggesting golf is hard and that perhaps a bit of practice, imaginative on course play, and yes hitting three or fairway woods in a row is not exactly too much to ask for player fairly new to probably the most difficult game out there.

Enjoy the process-play three holes-play from the beginning of the fairway-play from the 150 mark-play from the fringe-skip the "boring" middle part of the hole.
Just don't make me build yet another set of tees.

But as always, to each his own, and certainly many would vote with their feet if they disliked the1-2 tee course that I presented.
I'd like to think it would be cleverly designed and versatile enough that that would not be the case.

[Garland Bayley]

Dwight,

Your claims for 1-3 shot holes being the most fun doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that more than half of golfers are 20 or higher handicappers and that playing holes in 1 to 3 shots doesn't really apply to them.

You are going gain players to the game by adding handicappers higher than 20 (at least when they start) than by adding birdie shooters.

Perhaps I should add a quote from Anna Rawson. "I just love hitting golf balls." How about that, a + handicap that has the mentality of the 20 and higher handicappers that stick with the game through thick and thin.

[Andrew Buck]

Any adult male remember when they were a young, small size boy/junior golfer?

The most used club in your bag other than the putter? A fairway wood. Typical par-4 hole - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-3 - fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-5 - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Pretty well, boring, just like folk are suggesting golf can be for lady golfers if played from inappropriate tees, but at least with age young, small junior boys get bigger and stronger. Golf ought to be for all, not just big, strong, fit, long-hitting men.

All the best.

Thomas,
I remember EXACTLY that.
and it provided a number of wonderful advantages.
1.I certainly learned how to hit a fairway wood!
2. Gave me plenty of tries to practice different lies and stances
3.I developed a great short game
4.I had a benchmark to track my progress.

That process was fun.  However that process was fun for me because I was getting bigger and stronger each year to improve.  

I don't anticipate it being as fun on the downside.  

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight,

Your claims for 1-3 shot holes being the most fun doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that more than half of golfers are 20 or higher handicappers and that playing holes in 1 to 3 shots doesn't really apply to them.

You are going gain players to the game by adding handicappers higher than 20 (at least when they start) than by adding birdie shooters.

Perhaps I should add a quote from Anna Rawson. "I just love hitting golf balls." How about that, a + handicap that has the mentality of the 20 and higher handicappers that stick with the game through thick and thin.

I disagree.  With tees the way they are currently, a 20 handicap still has the chance of reaching almost all holes in 1-3 shots, with 1-3 well-struck shots.

Why do think I'm an advocate of 'birdie-shooters'?  I'm advocating a system that ensure that my triple-bogey shooter wife will have as much fun as I'm having.

Your use of a professional golfer to make your point that forward tees shouldn't be there carries no weight with me.  Anna Rawson is in the top echelon of golfers in the world and would certainly qualify as a long-hitter based on this discussion.  Does she cheer and jump around because she reached a Par 3 from the tee?  Is using her hybrid only once per hole a reason to celebrate?

[Garland Bayley]

But Dwight,

We are talking about getting rid of the tees that are already there that allows the 20 handicapper to get to the green in regulation.

In general, you don't seem to understand, so I'm signing out. I'm not going to right volumes so that you can be lead by hand to the meaning of the words on the page.

[Dwight Phelps]

But Dwight,

We are talking about getting rid of the tees that are already there that allows the 20 handicapper to get to the green in regulation.

In general, you don't seem to understand, so I'm signing out. I'm not going to right volumes so that you can be lead by hand to the meaning of the words on the page.

You can by all means sign out if you wish.  But, while you are talking about getting rid of the tees, I am not.  I am arguing against you and am arguing for the forward tees (to reference the OP, I'm arguing for 'play it forward').  So, when you say, "playing holes in 1 to 3 shots doesn't really apply to them" I'm pointing out, that in the system for which I'm advocating, it does apply.  While you may be coming from a historical perspective or from a perspective of a course with limited tee options, that is not my perspective.  No amount of hand-holding will get me to adopt your perspective as my own.

You can certainly argue for your perspective, but saying "Your claims for 1-3 shot holes being the most fun doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that more than half of golfers are 20 or higher handicappers and that playing holes in 1 to 3 shots doesn't really apply to them" and then claiming that I cannot apply a current real-world example, for which I am arguing, as a counter-argument doesn't make sense - from your perspective it doesn't 'apply to them', but from mine it very much applies to them and their enjoyment of the game.

What have I failed to understand?  I readily admit that I've failed to AGREE, but that is not the same as a lack of understanding.

[Jason Topp]

Ulrich -

I will ask this question again, please cite 3 par-5's you have seen or heard of where the first 250 yards are covered by multiple tee boxes.

DT

David -
While 250 might be overstating a bit, it is not by much.  At my club, I come up with 219 yards from the back of the back tee to the front of the front on number 9,  196 on number 12 and 178 yards on 18.  The spreads on the par 4's are mostly above 100 yards with a few approaching 200.  You can measure them using this link:    

http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/windsongfarmgc/aerial.htm#


While less visually jarring, Hazeltine has some par 5's with over 200 yards of difference - see numbers 11 and 15 for example.  One par 4 has 205 yards difference in listed yardage.  The other par 5s are 3 and 7.

http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/hazeltinengc/aerial.htm#

I doubt either of these examples are too unique.

[Tom_Doak]

It appears that those of us who play with women on a regular or occasional basis have a different perspective on this issue than those who don't.


Dwight Phelps -

Thanks for referencing the holes at Old MacDonald as examples of holes that can retain their design integrity even with a wide variety of tee box distances.

DT

Old Macdonald does the trick by putting tee markers for some players who opt for them IN A FLAT PLACE ON THE FAIRWAY.  There are no extra "tee boxes" of the sort Ulrich was complaining about.  This is the perfect solution for players who don't want to tackle the "real" course and are just out to have fun ... and it works just fine there.  However, at so many clubs, the solution is rejected because everyone wants their very own tee.