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

[Ulrich Mayring]

It's not about GIR. If it were, then Royal Dornoch would be fun to play for short women from the forward tees, because it is a par 76 from there. Alas, we hear they don't have fun. For the same reason, by the way, that you guys hate 700 yard par 7 holes, even if you can reach them one under regulation.

Ulrich

[Tim Lewis]

Jeff W. -

Now you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole. I don't think anyone here expects or is advocating for "optimum precise yardage" on any or all holes on a golf course. Nothing that I have written here states or implies that. No one here expects that every green should be reachable in "regulation." Garland seems far, far more obsessed with the thought of making birdies than I am!

The reality is that many, if not most, male golfers cannot hit a drive and a fairway wood more than 400 yards. There are few women golfers who can hit the same 2 clubs more than or even close to 300 yards. I am not advocating that all 10 par-4's on a course be "reachable." But it would be nice if more than  one or two of them were.

I don't think that women, or anyone for that matter should be able to reach a hole in "regulation." There should be no such thing as "regulation."  Golfers should just try to reach the given green in the least amount of strokes possible, whether it be 1 or 5.

[Garland Bayley]

David T,

Every time I have opposed tee it forward. You have argued against it with the argument that players should be allowed to reach the green in regulation. What do you want to reach the green in regulation for? To three putt? And you say I'm obsessed with the idea of birdies. 

[David_Tepper]

Ulrich -

With regard to your initial post, about whether a course with multiple tees could retain its design integrity, I would encourage you to visit Castle Stuart the next time you are in Scotland. Case opened and closed!

Any course that both my wife and Phil Mickelson love to play must be doing something right.

DT

[Dwight Phelps]

Every time I have opposed tee it forward. You have argued against it with the argument that players should be allowed to reach the green in regulation. What do you want to reach the green in regulation for? To three putt? And you say I'm obsessed with the idea of birdies. 

What do you want to reach the green in regulation for?
Because 1-3 full, well struck shots should be rewarded (the best courses CAN offer this reward, or pleasurable excitement, through various means and other hazards beyond more tees, but courses designed to, as Alister MacKenzie put it, provide pleasurable excitement for all golfers irrespective of tee length/location are the exception, not the rule).  Why didn't Golden Age architects build Par 6s, 7s, 8s, or more?

To three putt?
Or one putt.  Or two putt.  Or four or more putt.  But each putt has the chance of going in, which provides the pleasurable excitement needed.

Just my thoughts in response to your questions...

[jeffwarne]

David,
I may not have been real clear.

My 99% comment was not a rant against multiple tees, but rather on how miserable it is to walk a walking only course where there was absolutely NO REGARD given for the green to tee walks, hence my rebuttal to your "99% of the game is tee to green"

I think we agree completely on how far the average golfer hits it, we just disagree on how best to deal with it when setting up/designing the course. (in my utopian theory, but probably not in reality)

[David_Tepper]

"You have argued against it with the argument that players should be allowed to reach the green in regulation."

Garland -

I was really hoping you would stick to your prior post of not intending to make any further comments on this thread.

Did you read my prior post? I specifically said I did not expect every golfer to be able to reach every green in regulation. I have never said I expect every player to be able to reach every green "in regulation with a short iron or a wedge.

Let me ask you (and all the other "par does not matter" fantasists") a few of questions. When you engage in your beloved matchplay, do you play everyone even or do the better players give stokes on certain holes to the lesser players? How do you decide how many strokes are given/taken? How do you decide on which holes the strokes are given? Do you use handicaps and the hole handicapping designations to decide these matters?

DT    

[jeffwarne]

"You have argued against it with the argument that players should be allowed to reach the green in regulation."

Garland -

I was really hoping you would stick to your prior post of not intending to make any further comments on this thread.

Did you read my prior post? I specifically said I did not expect every golfer to be able to reach every green in regulation. I have never said I expect every player to be able to reach every green "in regulation with a short iron or a wedge.

Let me ask you (and all the other "par does not matter" fantasists") a few of questions. When you engage in your beloved matchplay, do you play everyone even or do the better players give stokes on certain holes to the lesser players? How do you decide on which holes the strokes are given? Do you use handicaps and the hole handicapping designations to decide these matters?

DT    

David,
we use either the habdicaps as presented on the card, or prearranged agreement.
We both play the same tees, unless a handicap adjustment is made for different tees.

More importantly, when you play a 430 yard par 4 against your wife, and she's playing it as a 420 yard par 5, how do you decide who won the hole if you are playing even and you both make the same score?    serious question

[Garland Bayley]

"You have argued against it with the argument that players should be allowed to reach the green in regulation."

Garland -

I was really hoping you would stick to your prior post of not intending to make any further comments on this thread.

Did you read my prior post? I specifically said I did not expect every golfer to be able to reach every green in regulation. I have never said I expect every player to be able to reach every green "in regulation with a short iron or a wedge.

Let me ask you (and all the other "par does not matter" fantasists") a few of questions. When you engage in your beloved matchplay, do you play everyone even or do the better players give stokes on certain holes to the lesser players? How do you decide how many strokes are given/taken? How do you decide on which holes the strokes are given? Do you use handicaps and the hole handicapping designations to decide these matters?

DT    

My apologies David. I knew you had written in opposition to me on my Tee it forward thread. My poor assumption was that you were fully supporting that program, but on checking the thread I find your position was the same as here.

I use the USGA handicapping system for match play and will until something better comes along.
I hate having to post scores that have 8s on par 3s, so maybe I should move across the pond and get at least their minor improvement on that issue.

The course where I play my matches have the holes that are hardest to reach in regulation as the top handicap holes. Those are the holes where strokes are given. When I have to give a stroke, I keep track of whether I have gotten to a position where I have equalized that stroke, and if not strive to get there. When given a stroke, I will take measured shots to keep myself ahead of that stroke, and not necessarily try to play long shots.

[David_Tepper]

"More importantly, when you play a 430 yard par 4 against your wife, and she's playing it as a 420 yard par 5, how do you decide who won the hole if you are playing even and you both make the same score?    serious question"

Jeff -

Tom Doak asked me a similar question earlier. I will offer a similar answer.

A husband playing a golf match against his wife has nothing to gain either in terms of his pride or fostering their marital state of bliss. I may be crazy, but I am not a fool. (serious answer!)

DT

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

Given your answers, it would appear that "par" (and keeping a medal score at least some of the time) is a concept elemental to your enjoyment of matchplay golf, as strokes could not be given or taken on certain holes unless the par of that hole was known at some point.

Here is another question, have you ever played much golf with Stableford scoring? There are probably 10,000's of thousands of Stableford competitions held across the golf clubs of GB&I each year, with 100,000's of thousands of competitive rounds played.

In my opinion, based on a fair amount of personal experience, it is an excellent competitive format for handicap golfers. The par of each hole is the cornerstone on which the scoring system is based. Stableford could not exist with knowing the par of each hole.

To quote our good friend Ulrich, "case closed."

DT  

[Garland Bayley]

David,

Is not handicapping based on course rating? Par has nothing to do with it.
It does not matter what par is when I play a handicapped match. The holes have been rated for difficulty, and strokes are given or gotten based on that, not on par.

You often hear a player say that when his net score is even par, that he has "played to his handicap". Not true. If his net score is the course rating, then he has played to his handicap.

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

I am not going to waste my time getting into the intricacies of course ratings, slopes and handicap calculations. Suffice it to say that a course could not be rated without a calculation of what the par for the course is, which of course is the sum of the pars for the 18 holes on the course. Neither could handicaps,

The "difficulty" of the holes is assigned on how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be (or likely calculated to be) vs. the designated par for that hole. Is that not the case?

You may not worry what par is on any given hole while engaged in matchplay, but you could not conduct a matchplay handicapped match if the concept of par for each hole did not exist.    

DT

[Tom_Doak]

Garland -

I am not going to waste my time getting into the intricacies of course ratings, slopes and handicap calculations. Suffice it to say that a course could not be rated without a calculation of what the par for the course is, which of course is the sum of the pars for the 18 holes on the course. Neither could handicaps,

The "difficulty" of the holes is assigned on how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be (or likely calculated to be) vs. the designated par for that hole. Is that not the case?

You may not worry what par is on any given hole while engaged in matchplay, but you could not conduct a matchplay handicapped match if the concept of par for each hole did not exist.    

That's just wrong.  They were assigning handicaps at clubs in Britain long before the term "par" was ever used.  And the course rating and slope system do NOT use par in their calculations; each hole's scoring value is based on its length and hazards.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland -

I am not going to waste my time getting into the intricacies of course ratings, slopes and handicap calculations. Suffice it to say that a course could not be rated without a calculation of what the par for the course is, which of course is the sum of the pars for the 18 holes on the course. Neither could handicaps,

The "difficulty" of the holes is assigned on how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be (or likely calculated to be) vs. the designated par for that hole. Is that not the case?

You may not worry what par is on any given hole while engaged in matchplay, but you could not conduct a matchplay handicapped match if the concept of par for each hole did not exist.    

That's just wrong.  They were assigning handicaps at clubs in Britain long before the term "par" was ever used.  And the course rating and slope system do NOT use par in their calculations; each hole's scoring value is based on its length and hazards.

Like I said David, I use the USGA system in lieu of a better system that may come along.

[Ken Moum]

Garland -

I am not going to waste my time getting into the intricacies of course ratings, slopes and handicap calculations. Suffice it to say that a course could not be rated without a calculation of what the par for the course is, which of course is the sum of the pars for the 18 holes on the course. Neither could handicaps,

The "difficulty" of the holes is assigned on how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be (or likely calculated to be) vs. the designated par for that hole. Is that not the case?

You may not worry what par is on any given hole while engaged in matchplay, but you could not conduct a matchplay handicapped match if the concept of par did not exist.    

DT

Actually, that's one of the biggest misconceptions about stroke allocation.  Par and difficulty relative to par are supposed to be almost irrelevant in stroke allocation.

Most American golfers think the #1 stroke hole is the "hardest" hole on the course. They also often think that the USGA raters/rating have direct input into stroke allocation.

Neither of those are true. Courses are allowed to do it themselves, and although more than a few do it wrong--using difficulty as the only criteria.

Done correctly it uses differential scoring of low handicappers and bogey golfers, with some guidelines about not having low stroke holes at the beginning or end of either nine.

You can usually tell if a course did it correctly by simply looking at the card. If the par fives are low stroke holes, the probably did it per USGFA guidelines, because the longest holes commonly are where the differential is greatest.

The guidelines are in the handicap manual, which you can find at usga.org. I have a copy at home, and I'd wager that my wife and I are among a VERY small minority of golfers who have read the thing.

K

[David_Tepper]

"That's just wrong.  They were assigning handicaps at clubs in Britain long before the term "par" was ever used.  And the course rating and slope system do NOT use par in their calculations; each hole's scoring value is based on its length and hazards."

Tom D. -

I don't know when the concept of par was introduced. I feel safe in assuming it has been with us for a long, long time. I trust you are not advocating we return to "assigned" handicaps.

I think it is rather disingenuous to say, on the one the hand that par is not used in rating/slope calculations and, other the other hand,"each hole's scoring value is based on its length and hazards."  Isn't length the primary factor regarding how par on each hole gets assigned? The two are inextricably related. I have yet to see a 180 yard par-4 or a 310 yard par-3 (although I regularly play #2 at Royal Dornoch as a par-4 ).      

Garland -

The world of golf awaits your creation of a better handicapping system with baited breath.

DT

[David_Tepper]

Ken M. -

Thanks for the clarification. I should have said "likely demonstrated to be" rather than "likely calculated to be."
 
I don't know if you were aware, but Dornoch changed the stroke allocation on a number of their holes over last winter. Both the 2nd and 18th holes received lower allocations. #18 dropped from 14 to 6.  

On the other hand, I would suggest that using "differential scoring of low handicappers and bogey golfers" is a de facto way of demonstrating "how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be." Don't low-handicappers tend to make pars, while high handicappers have a much tougher time doing so?

DT    

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Don't forget that initially, the golfer teed up for the next hole, within one club length of the cup on the hole just completed.

It took about 100 years for that rule to be changed to two club lengths.

Under that arrangement, I would imagine that handicaps were easy to calculate since everybody played from the same essential teeing ground.

And, I would imagine that handicaps were established prior to the establishment of par under that system........... or close to it.

[Ken Moum]

On the other hand, I would suggest that using "differential scoring of low handicappers and bogey golfers" is a de facto way of demonstrating "how difficult making a par on each hole  is expected to be." Don't low-handicappers tend to make pars, while high handicappers have a much tougher time doing so?

DT    

Not so much.  Par fives are a good example. Single digit players make a lot of birdies, bogey golfers have three--or more--chances to screw up.

Some data was collected at my course several years ago, and "hardest" hole was a 210-yard par three. But the differential was middle of thee pack, because it's hard for good golfers too.

Two holes with high differentials were dog legs of 450 and 465, one a par four and the other a par five. The par five is one of the "easiest" holes on the course. Another "easy" hole with a high differential was a 310-yard par four. It's a very easy birdie for low handicappers but bogey golfers are usually left with difficult uphill shot over a bunker to a green where being long is dead.

K

[Ulrich Mayring]

David,

I did not propose that all courses with multiple tees are necessarily bad courses or have no design integrity. I did mention two very specific configurations and said that a hole posting up numbers like those has IMHO little design integrity.

I retracted on the ugliness claim, when Tom Doak described the system with the tee markers at Old MacDonald.

Ulrich

[David Davis]

I tend to agree with the as few tee boxes as possible. Just change and alter par if that needs to be done. I'm also not for men's or women's tees but just tees. In The Netherlands they've now done away with men's and women's tees, they simply have the slope and cr ratings calculated for everyone no matter which tee they play from. I like that system however, dislike have 5 or 6 sets of tee boxes in most cases. The reason I say most cases is because I have experienced a few courses where I know they had several sets of tees but I never really noticed them. If that can be done great, but most often that's not the case.

I love the Ballyneal, Wolf Point methode of no tee boxes but several areas that could be used for teeing it up.

At my home club we recently added tee boxes for what we call the Dad's Army folks. These are most often the 9'holer older guys. I was against this too with all do respect as I know I'll be there one day. Since on most holes they could play from the ladies tees, however on a few holes the carry from the ladies tee was too much for the rollers in the group so we had to put these extras in. As a result our 17th hole and best par 3 can now be played from 85 meters up to 185 meters. Ridiculous! We could of saved a lot of work by simply taking a couple of orange tee markers where necessary and putting them in the fairway for Dad's Army and some juniors that may play them. No shame in that and aesthetically more pleasing.

I have also played Golf Valley in the last month, the course near Munich, Germany that was Germany's bid for hosting the Ryder Cup. The course was designed by the German company Kraus Golf Design. They say it's made for the championship golfer and plays up to 7,160 meters (7,830 yds) and if that's not enough golf they have the space to easily stretch out most holes. I think there are like 6 sets of tees. It's the kind of golf experience I detest. It's industrial, it's boring and it's ugly with exception for the amazing view of the alps off in the distance. However, for German standards it's probably not half bad so I understand the enthusiasm over it. The owner tried to tell me it was the best course in the world. Some things you just don't argue, I simply added "my" to that statement right before world and I managed to walk away unscathed. If we put this course on the Doak scale I just can't imagine it getting anything above a 3-4 at best. Not to pick on Germans (sorry Ulrich) but this is a perfect example of why there are no great German architects, well with the exception of Berhhard Langer perhaps. (sarcastic laugh)

[Tom_Doak]

I have also played Golf Valley in the last month, the course near Munich, Germany that was Germany's bid for hosting the Ryder Cup. The course was designed by the German company Kraus Golf Design. They say it's made for the championship golfer and plays up to 7,160 meters (7,830 yds) and if that's not enough golf they have the space to easily stretch out most holes. I think there are like 6 sets of tees. It's the kind of golf experience I detest. It's industrial, it's boring and it's ugly with exception for the amazing view of the alps off in the distance. However, for German standards it's probably not half bad so I understand the enthusiasm over it. The owner tried to tell me it was the best course in the world. Some things you just don't argue, I simply added "my" to that statement right before world and I managed to walk away unscathed. If we put this course on the Doak scale I just can't imagine it getting anything above a 3-4 at best. Not to pick on Germans (sorry Ulrich) but this is a perfect example of why there are no great German architects, well with the exception of Berhhard Langer perhaps. (sarcastic laugh)

D'oh!  I was just in Munich a week ago on vacation and I missed seeing the best course in the world??

[David Davis]

D'oh!  I was just in Munich a week ago on vacation and I missed seeing the best course in the world??
[/quote]


Tom, thanks for proving my point. I imagine you are around golf all the time so when it comes time that you finally get a vacation, you go to the only place on earth you can think of where golf course architecture is a serious non-factor and doesn't even tempt you in the slightest bit. Germany! Not to mention Munich which is according to the Germans the golf capital of Germany.

Actually I was here, you should of let me know, I would of happily bought you a beer!

I think one of your associates is from this area, she told me originally to leave my golf clubs in Amsterdam ha ha. If that's not a vote of confidence from one of their own I'm not sure what is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't chimed in on this one, but am a big advocate of Tee It Forward, and don't really see any arguments here that change my mind.

I am not sure of the exact percentage, but presume most recreational golfers are out there primarily for fun.  Its more fun to hit greens with 9-4 irons than hit a lot of longer shots, or meaningless shots that don't hit the green.

So, to me, playing a fun yardage is about the only criteria to use.  And as a theoretical advocate, I put into practice what I preach, moving up to anywhere from 6000-6300 yards from my usual 6800 and have the time of my life on the golf course.  Sure, maybe its just me, but I doubt it.

As I like to tell it, I played with Tom Watson in the Vegas Pro Am in 1983 and nearly matched his distance, albeit from one tee up.  If I played with Bubba Watson today, it would take me two or three tees up to match his distance.  However, we have kept backing up yardage for pros that will never come to a newly minted golf course, stretching it longer for a generally aging golf population, thus reducing the fun of golf.

The math for Tee It forward is compelling.  It should be done.  Maybe it should be labeled something else, like "return to sanity/normalcy".