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

[Ulrich Mayring]

David (Davis),

I must respectfully blast you to pieces for stating that

a) David Krause is a German golf course architect (he's in fact Canadian) and

b) there are no good German golf course architects. Apparently you have never heard of Bernhard von Limburger? Amongst the living there is also Wolfgang Jersombeck, who did 3 great courses! And a few courses from Christoph Städler's practice are not great, but pretty good.

Ulrich

PS: David Krause has done some good work as well, my favorite is Hardenberg Niedersachsen course, which I think is a German Top 20.

[Michael Felton]

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    

Take a hole - let's say it's a 470 yard par 4. It's probably a pretty tough par. Suppose the committee at the course decide to change it to a par 5. Nothing else changes at all. It's now probably a pretty easy par. Should its index change? In matchplay no I don't think it should.

Having said that, it makes sense to have different stroke indices for matchplay versus stableford. Stableford indices really should be based on difficulty versus par. Matchplay it should be based on how likely the scoring is to be different.

Also, par does affect handicap, by virtue of ESC. For me I can't do worse than a double bogey (for handicap purposes). That is dependent on par and so the number on the card does potentially have an impact on my handicap. The hole from my first paragraph, with that change, my worst possible score for handicap on the hole goes from 6 to 7, with no corresponding change in course or slope rating.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Which essentially means that by making the par 4 a par 5 the (physically unchanged) hole just became more difficult for handicapping purposes, so you are allowed to take one more stroke. Your gross scores can increase that way and your handicap index will deteriorate accordingly.

Whereas your stableford colleague in Europe will attain a better handicap index, when par increases. He will gain an additional stablefored point on that hole (unless he messes it up completely).

Funky!

Ulrich

[Michael Felton]

Which essentially means that by making the par 4 a par 5 the (physically unchanged) hole just became more difficult for handicapping purposes, so you are allowed to take one more stroke. Your gross scores can increase that way and your handicap index will deteriorate accordingly.

Whereas your stableford colleague in Europe will attain a better handicap index, when par increases. He will gain an additional stablefored point on that hole (unless he messes it up completely).

Funky!

Ulrich

Stableford colleague would only attain a better handicap index if the SSS changed too, but it wouldn't. It would just mean that he would need to score 37 points to play to his handicap instead of 36 (if it were 36 beforehand). His handicap could in fact increase for the same reason as mine could. If the index doesn't change, he can now get a higher score than he could before. 0 points is now a net 7, not a net 6.

[Ulrich Mayring]

You're right, the SSS (or Course Rating in the case of the EGA system) are independent of par. So par has no influence on handicaps in the CONGU and EGA systems, because the stableford points are based off a playing handicap and that is based off SSS or Course Rating / Slope.

Ulrich

[Garland Bayley]

To many low handicappers on this site as they think ESC is done by par. It is in the US for the low percentage of single digit handicappers. For the rest of us it is either a fixed 7, 8, or 9.

[David Davis]

David (Davis),

I must respectfully blast you to pieces for stating that

a) David Krause is a German golf course architect (he's in fact Canadian) and

b) there are no good German golf course architects. Apparently you have never heard of Bernhard von Limburger? Amongst the living there is also Wolfgang Jersombeck, who did 3 great courses! And a few courses from Christoph Städler's practice are not great, but pretty good.

Ulrich

PS: David Krause has done some good work as well, my favorite is Hardenberg Niedersachsen course, which I think is a German Top 20.

Ulrich, we can debate this next week over ein grosses bier... or two.

However, I will stand by my point indeed. First of all, if you re-read you will see that I did not say Mr. Kraus was German, I only said the company was and I believe that's correct since I don't see any new courses they have built outside of Germany. So to me it doesn't matter if he's personally from Mars as his company and website are German. Clearly they noticed a gap in the German market and seized this opportunity. I won't comment on what kind of gap it was. You can fill that in yourself.

Onto the second point you refuted. I believe my words were "GREAT" not "AVERAGE" and therefore I certainly will stick to my statement in this respect as well. The Top course in Germany is Hamburger Falkenstein - designed by Colt, Allison and Morrison in about 1928. Nothing else even comes close according to the powers that be, whoever they are. Germany is not a architecture snobs paradise or destination. Something that I really don't understand knowing how crazy the Germans are about golf and how many good to great players they've had.

BTW I do know of these architects, one I know personally, nice guy but I guess I am one of those just not into German golf, yet at least.

Maybe someday I'll play something here and think, wow, not bad. Although I'm skeptical.

[Ulrich Mayring]

David,

this might take more than two beers, but I shall not let you off the hook that easily

Anyhow, since you played the par 3 I mentioned in the first posting of this thread, perhaps you can give your opinion as to whether there is any design integrity to this hole with all those different yardages.

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

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?  .

Bump


Many good thoughts here-though the ideas work better on a classic UK course-not on the monstrocities being built and renovated to as a reaction to recent modern "ultragains" (due to fitness I'm sure)
Once upon a time we all played the same courses and navigated them different ways

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time we all played the same courses and navigated them different ways

Great line Jeff.
Bring back the days of lots of short grass width, limited (even no) trees and forced carries and, for amateurs, the handicap system should equalise matters thereafter.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Senior males make up 15-20% of the golf population.  They remember hitting greens in regulation and would love to do it again.....
Women make up 6 to 20% of the golf population, depending where you live (WI, MN, etc. are the highest female participation rates) and have always had to put up with 1-3 extra shots per hole, because of resistance to adding forward tees.


Appropriate length tees make a lot of sense, and make golf more fun for many who play, but hey, if 1500 golf architecture enthusiasts are happy with the tees they play, well I guess that's all that matters, no? Screw everyone else who wants to enjoy golf.....now that's a great business model in struggling times for golf.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Women make up 6 to 20% of the golf population, depending where you live (WI, MN, etc. are the highest female participation rates) and have always had to put up with 1-3 extra shots per hole, because of resistance to adding forward tees.
...

So Jeff, if you assign pars 3 through 8 to the holes they can hit greens in regulation and have a great time. What's so special about pars 3 through 5? You are limiting their greens in regulation by restricting par designations.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Appropriate length tees make a lot of sense, and make golf more fun for many who play, but hey, if 1500 golf architecture enthusiasts are happy with the tees they play, well I guess that's all that matters, no? Screw everyone else who wants to enjoy golf.....now that's a great business model in struggling times for golf.

You were probably the first one on this site to tell us about TopGolf and how much fun people were having there. If they are having so much fun without making pars, birdies, greens in regulation, etc., then how is then that you imply that golf architects are screwing everyone else if they don't put in seven sets of tees? Do you think walking half the course without hitting a shot is the ideal way to play? Maybe they just like to swing away and have fun.

If you have ever put in an artificial pond in play then shame on you. Or, do you think adding strokes to you score, because you weren't quite accurate enough, or quite long enough is fun?

[Jeff_Brauer]

...
Women make up 6 to 20% of the golf population, depending where you live (WI, MN, etc. are the highest female participation rates) and have always had to put up with 1-3 extra shots per hole, because of resistance to adding forward tees.
...

So Jeff, if you assign pars 3 through 8 to the holes they can hit greens in regulation and have a great time. What's so special about pars 3 through 5? You are limiting their greens in regulation by restricting par designations.

Because they aren't stupid.  They know golf has been played on par 3, 4 and 5 holes forever.  They want the same experience (as close as possible) to others golfing.


Also, whether you call those extra shots "on in regulation" or not, they still hit 6 shots to get to the green.  The efficient beauty of par 4 holes is the tee shot matters and sets up the next shot.  Its hard to make the middle shot on a par 5 really important strategically, few like them, and your solution still requires shorter hitters to play up to 5 of them per hole.  But, nice try.


Garland,


The appeal of Top Golf is instant information.  In essence, the quality of your shot varies due to which target you aim for, how close to the center you get, etc.  Great strategy and score feedback every thirty seconds or so vs. every 3 minutes.  Different scoring system, and one that appeals to a lot of people. I think it will appeal to Millennials far more than traditional golf, because it strips it down to the quicker essentials.  Hope not, of course, but I can see the US being a lot like Japan was in the 1990's, with a nation full of people enjoying golf more on ranges than on the course.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Women make up 6 to 20% of the golf population, depending where you live (WI, MN, etc. are the highest female participation rates) and have always had to put up with 1-3 extra shots per hole, because of resistance to adding forward tees.
...

So Jeff, if you assign pars 3 through 8 to the holes they can hit greens in regulation and have a great time. What's so special about pars 3 through 5? You are limiting their greens in regulation by restricting par designations.

Because they aren't stupid.  They know golf has been played on par 3, 4 and 5 holes forever.  They want the same experience (as close as possible) to others golfing.

Forever seems like a bit of hyperbole. It appears to me that one shot, two shot, and three shot holes are a result of the demise of the feathery. Before that people  men were playing golf on the equivalent of par 3 to par 8 holes. In my experience it seems that wanting the same experience to others making par is a bit fool hardy. Since by far the majority of players don't hit it straight enough for par to matter much to them, they are just chasing an impossible dream.

However, they can experience what better golfers do by hitting the odd good shot. If they are looking for pars, odds are they would be better off taking up another past time.

Also, whether you call those extra shots "on in regulation" or not, they still hit 6 shots to get to the green.  The efficient beauty of par 4 holes is the tee shot matters and sets up the next shot.  Its hard to make the middle shot on a par 5 really important strategically, few like them, and your solution still requires shorter hitters to play up to 5 of them per hole.  But, nice try.

Once again, a very small percentage of golfers are capable of "setting up the next shot". It seems you don't quite understand why the golden age architects placed hazards for the scratch man, but gave a wide berth for the average player. The vast majority of golfers are not trying to set up the next shot, they are just trying to not screw up the current shot. They are happy not screwing up the current shot multiple times so reaching a green in regulation does not matter to them. They would rather have six goes at not screwing up the next shot than walking forward 200 yards and only have three goes at not screwing up the next shot.

Garland,


The appeal of Top Golf is instant information.  In essence, the quality of your shot varies due to which target you aim for, how close to the center you get, etc.  Great strategy and score feedback every thirty seconds or so vs. every 3 minutes.  Different scoring system, and one that appeals to a lot of people. I think it will appeal to Millennials far more than traditional golf, because it strips it down to the quicker essentials.  Hope not, of course, but I can see the US being a lot like Japan was in the 1990's, with a nation full of people enjoying golf more on ranges than on the course.

I've been to Top Golf, and it doesn't give me instant information. I get instant information by seeing the result of my swing. Top Golf takes forever to figure out my ball is stuck out there in never-neverland and update the result that I've known for some time.

It seems to me that the common lure of both golf and TopGolf is the social experience in a competitive environment.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No doubt Top golf is social and a nice competitive environment where everyone can contribute. Club Corp is adding social areas to their practice areas, believing its a new trend.  That said, I sincerely believe early golf was from an era of difficult times and self punishment (Victorian era, etc., but older than that!)  Current golfers are from the TV generation, and thus we stressed visuals in design.  The next generation will be info based, always looking at some kind of screen to see whats happening, and that is exactly what top golf does.  In a fast paced world, there is that moment of waiting so see how you did, but the Top Golf version of the game just keeps them coming, like a video game.  Kids love video games, no?  I hate that the most successful arena in golf is imitating video games, but it is what it is.  Kids also love a lot less of a challenge than grandpa, that's for sure.  Or dress codes, or ancient stodgy rules.  Holding on to the past?  No future in that! 

Otherwise, you seem pretty argumentative.  In the modern world, the feathery could have been back in biblical times.  No one remembers, no one cares, they know par is about 72.


Its not foolhardy.  When we have implemented shorter senior and forward tees, after a lot of resistance beforehand, after they use them, they love them.  I have had player ecstatic over hitting 13 greens in regulation, or at least having the chance, even if they don't manage that good shot.  You are wrong in your assumptions, everyone loves greens in regulation!  Everyone loves birdie putts.  Making a long putt to save 7 is like putting whip cream on a turd.


Golf is a lot of fun when you hit driver iron. No fun at driver, 3 wood, 3 wood, 5 iron (or whatever)  When we were young, we could hit it "just short" of the pros.  Now, we aren't even close, and we have to give up the idea that putting tees 20 yards in front does much of anything for anyone. 


Form follows function.  I believe golf is a game meant to be enjoyed in 1-3 regulation shots good per hole, no matter how long you hit it.  Why is it foolhardy to design for that? 


What is foolhardy is telling 15-25% of your customer bases "You will take what we give you and LIKE it!"  Why?  Because Garland says so, go ask him?  Hitting the "odd" good shot is good enough?  Can't recall the average number of good shots mid handicappers hit, but it is low.  You know what you call a golfer who hits less than 10 successful shots a round (well struck, good result)?  An ex golfer......

[Garland Bayley]

...  You know what you call a golfer who hits less than 10 successful shots a round (well struck, good result)?  An ex golfer......

Do you even realize how arrogant this sounds?

Do you realize that there is a large contingent of golfers that hit so few good shots that they replay the bad shot in their conversation at the 19th hole?

Maybe people are happy hitting driver, three wood, three wood instead of driver, wedge, putt, putt, putt.

When did the contraction of the golf population begin? Has creating six or seven tees per hole stopped the contraction? Or, has preaching at people there are tees out there for all abilities divided them from their friends, and started a contraction, or continued the current one.

Maybe TopGolf is so successful, because they don't have to putt so often. (not ever) And, your crusade is to raise the percentage of putts people hit, over the number of times they use the rest of their clubs. Why don't you just send them to a putt-putt course? Everyone hits the green in regulation there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


Sorry but the 10 good shots is a fact, or at least a surveyed result from somewhere. Again, based on my experience, when given the option, no one is happy to hit multiple shots that mean mostly nothing.  I believe your statement about people being happy about hitting multiple shots is mostly an unfounded opinion, but would be willing to look at any surveys you have supporting it.


As you can tell, I am pretty jazzed about shorter tees, and my point was really that people who sound like you sound arrogant to women golfers, which I think is a big problem.


I once heard a pro tell a woman that 5200 yards is "good enough" for her, leading to another of my comments.  After hearing that, I started listening for other signs of real bias against female golfers, and heard it all the time.  What business tells 7-20% of its clients that they should settle for "good enough?"


We can argue whether multiple tees alone are enough to save golf, and they probably aren't, but asking seniors and women to play the equivalent of 8500 yard courses for pros is not going to help either.


As to the contraction of golf, well, it seems to me that multiple tees started with RTJ in the 1950's (by that I mean really separating the yardages) and continued until most of the 1990's courses had at least five tees, with the long ones and Pete Dye courses (thanks to Alice) having six.  And, golf flourished until the economic nose dive of 2006.  I don't see a time correlation between multiple tees and declining play.  If anything, it may have helped the increased play rates up until the crash, albeit, offset by somewhat tougher courses overall.


To another point, I agree there is potential for different groups, using different tees might be a little less social, but am not sure I can pinpoint it.  For example, as long as I have been golfing, mixed groups of males and females have played different tees.  When I play with my son, we play two different tees.  I have seen it where three want to play white and one play blues, so one feels forced to move up or back depending on group dynamic.  So, I don't know of any stats on how that happens or breaks up some golf groups, but its not been my personal experience and I am not sure how much weight to give that argument.


If looking at a few forward tees between you and your target is one of your big problems in life, then a charmed life it is.  Like everything else in polite society (granted, not always so polite anymore) you have to give a little for the benefit of others sharing your space, at least IMHO.


In any event, hate to be cross with you, but based on all I have seen (which is certainly not everything) multiple tees along the lines of what Thomas Dai shows, designed around the true distances of golfers (albeit, averaged and rounded) in another thread rather than has more promise for fun golf than minimizing tees in favor of one traditionally dominant golf group.


Maybe I am just a weird duck?

[Thomas Dai]

Maybe I am just a weird duck?

Don't think so Jeff.
I've been chatting to a few folk recently about yardages and holes and difficulty and a few, although in fairness not all, have indicated that too long is just no fun, to the extent that giving up the game is on the cards for some.
Some wish for a second much shorter course that is of a more appropriate length to suit the aging/infirm golfers game so they can still keep playing, meet-up with their mates, have some fun, some exercise and some fresh air and generally enjoy the related social aspects that golf has rather than give the game up. And obviously such courses can be of great benefits for youngster taking up the game.
Some clubs are fortunate to have such a facility, mostly 9-holers...sometimes they are referred to as 'Relief' courses.....shorter, possibly less well conditioned but not necessarily easier but still proving some challenge and excitement and fun.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


Sorry but the 10 good shots is a fact, or at least a surveyed result from somewhere. Again, based on my experience, when given the option, no one is happy to hit multiple shots that mean mostly nothing.  I believe your statement about people being happy about hitting multiple shots is mostly an unfounded opinion, but would be willing to look at any surveys you have supporting it.

Can you verify that survey had any scientific basis? There are lots of surveys that are pretty meaningless.

As you can tell, I am pretty jazzed about shorter tees, and my point was really that people who sound like you sound arrogant to women golfers, which I think is a big problem.


I once heard a pro tell a woman that 5200 yards is "good enough" for her, leading to another of my comments.  After hearing that, I started listening for other signs of real bias against female golfers, and heard it all the time. 

My point is that putting in seven sets of tees as we recently saw on the golf card posted for the Kidd Course at Sand Valley is undesirable from at least a cost perspective along with others. Just because there are golfers that enjoy the game so much that they don't mind hitting driver, three wood, three wood, etc., and I am trying to express their viewpoint doesn't mean that I don't support short tees (we have 4200 yard tees at my club). However, it seems to me that extremely short tees cater to a less hard core client base than one can build a sustainable business from. The golfers you want are the ones that will come out and compete over and over no matter the length of course. The more addicts you create like this the better your business will be. The guys that want to play it from the tips whether or not their handicap indicates they should are the basis for a sustainable business in my opinion. The amount of flack that the golf organizations put out in opposition to these people is a detriment to the business in my opinion. If you can play quickly I don't care if you play form 8500 yards or 3500 yards. The inability of golf organizations to get players to play reasonably quickly appears to me to have them copping out and selling tee it forward.

What business tells 7-20% of its clients that they should settle for "good enough?"

Almost all tell at least 7-20% that they should settle for "good enough" as far as I can see. Otherwise everyone would be driving a Lexus or whatever car is deemed to be the highest quality. Or playing Miura's. Or, you get the idea.

We can argue whether multiple tees alone are enough to save golf, and they probably aren't, but asking seniors and women to play the equivalent of 8500 yard courses for pros is not going to help either.

I sometimes play with a group we call the codgers at my club. The problem they have is not with length, because they will go after the ball and hit it again and again until they get the job done. Many of these guys in their 80's have more problem with forced carries. If playing forward means laying up to the same hazard that they have to lay up to from the regular tees, then they will choose specifically not to play the "senior" tees.

As to the contraction of golf, well, it seems to me that multiple tees started with RTJ in the 1950's (by that I mean really separating the yardages) and continued until most of the 1990's courses had at least five tees, with the long ones and Pete Dye courses (thanks to Alice) having six.  And, golf flourished until the economic nose dive of 2006.  I don't see a time correlation between multiple tees and declining play.  If anything, it may have helped the increased play rates up until the crash, albeit, offset by somewhat tougher courses overall.


To another point, I agree there is potential for different groups, using different tees might be a little less social, but am not sure I can pinpoint it.  For example, as long as I have been golfing, mixed groups of males and females have played different tees.  When I play with my son, we play two different tees.  I have seen it where three want to play white and one play blues, so one feels forced to move up or back depending on group dynamic.  So, I don't know of any stats on how that happens or breaks up some golf groups, but its not been my personal experience and I am not sure how much weight to give that argument.

If looking at a few forward tees between you and your target is one of your big problems in life, then a charmed life it is.  Like everything else in polite society (granted, not always so polite anymore) you have to give a little for the benefit of others sharing your space, at least IMHO.


In any event, hate to be cross with you, but based on all I have seen (which is certainly not everything) multiple tees along the lines of what Thomas Dai shows, designed around the true distances of golfers (albeit, averaged and rounded) in another thread rather than has more promise for fun golf than minimizing tees in favor of one traditionally dominant golf group.


Maybe I am just a weird duck?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I have seen the survey, probably have it in my files, but can't look for it now.  It is perhaps from NGF or one of the similar biz consultants, and you may or may not find NGF data convincing.  And, I agree, having tried a few surveys myself, really creating a statistically good one can be a problem.  That said, I trust them asking thousands of golfers over anecdotal evidence from your or any other perspective of how you (or I) have played the game.  But, there are problems.


As to who to cater to, I think golf thinks it has maxed out most of its hard core and believes expansion will come from the ranks of the "tried it and gave it up due to time or money" crowd.  Maybe we are wrong.  I do know some of my courses in MN fill up with perhaps four groups of 30 guys in a day.  Those customers are gold, even if for a resort course, its once a year.


To a certain extent, more tees don't cost that much, because you need to build 6-7,000 SF of tee anyway.  You are likely to be at least partially irrigating between tee and fairway, cart path runs by there, etc.  Splitting that 7K into 6 or 7 tees probably raises tee size 1000 SF or 15%, but tees aren't as expensive as greens.


As to playing quickly, it is frustrating it never gets better.  Not sure why when I can fly to Australia or Scotland and play good courses in under 3 hours. I once followed a ladies league at Royal Melbourne and finished in 2 hr 45 min.  Go figure.  But you can't play 8500 yards as fast as 4500 or 5500.  You just have to hit too many shots, plus walk or ride to get there.  All that takes about 3 minute per shot for average golfers, and at 10 extra shots per round, there is a half hour right there, plus or minus.  Granted, to some degree you walk/ride by where you would have played, so its not a 1:1 ratio.


You mentioned old codgers.  When I propose shorter tees, holes with forced carries always come up first and there is no objection to shortening them.  Never for the person I am speaking with on the green committee, of course, but they are speaking for a "friend" who would appreciate a shorter carry......    Agree in placing forward tees that allow full driver to lay up short of cross hazards in the LZ is more important than some magic distance reducing formula.  Good individual holes for how people are likely to play them trump any sort of "ideal" yardage.  A good design will take that into consideration, rather than design for the back tees and let the rest suffer.


Not sure there is direct correlation between luxury and economy cars.  Golf has both of those, too.  But all the cars have the essentials, engines, seats, seat belts, etc.


Cheers.

[Garland Bayley]

...

To a certain extent, more tees don't cost that much, because you need to build 6-7,000 SF of tee anyway.  You are likely to be at least partially irrigating between tee and fairway, cart path runs by there, etc.  Splitting that 7K into 6 or 7 tees probably raises tee size 1000 SF or 15%, but tees aren't as expensive as greens.

I was talking about continual maintenance of the tees, not initial cost.

As to playing quickly, it is frustrating it never gets better.  Not sure why when I can fly to Australia or Scotland and play good courses in under 3 hours. I once followed a ladies league at Royal Melbourne and finished in 2 hr 45 min.  Go figure.  But you can't play 8500 yards as fast as 4500 or 5500.  You just have to hit too many shots, plus walk or ride to get there.  All that takes about 3 minute per shot for average golfers, and at 10 extra shots per round, there is a half hour right there, plus or minus.  Granted, to some degree you walk/ride by where you would have played, so its not a 1:1 ratio.

3 minutes per shot would be why you can play faster overseas than here. Especially since it can be done in 10 seconds. At 10 seconds you are getting close to the 1:1 ratio.

...
Not sure there is direct correlation between luxury and economy cars.  Golf has both of those, too.  But all the cars have the essentials, engines, seats, seat belts, etc.


Cheers.

And all golf courses have the essentials, tees, fairways, greens, etc.
However, if half the cars have manual transmissions then they are eliminating a huge segment of the market.
The fraction of cars that don't have air conditioning are also eliminating a large segment of the market.

My point is that most industries produce a large quantity of product that don't meet all needs of the customer.
Sand Valley can try to meet all needs of the customer with seven tees, because it is only going for a segment of the market that is willing to pay $200 for a round of golf.

[AStaples]

Another topic that hits home for me... multiple sets of tees, and the idea that pace will quicken. It's a topic that has almost everyone I speak with is in total agreement: we just plain need to learn how to hit a golf ball in less time. Sadly, when someone is called on being a slow player these days, their first reaction is defensive, and then usually they show some form of anger.  It's a complicated social quandary.


I do support multiple tees. And, I support trying to give options for all golfers of most abilities the chance to experience the same course. I also agree placing 7 tees is difficult and goes against my own traditional values of front-middle-back simplicity. But, adding tees will not cure the pace issue, imo. Golfers playing faster will.


Adding tees does give someone of lesser ability, or more common, those that are aging, the chance to enjoy the game like they did in years past. This, like Jeff, is based on my own experience. I try to limit the number of tees by thinking of combo tees, where different tees are exchanged to make a variety of overall yardages. The bummer, however, is the resistance to using these tees by some still holding on to their own pride and not moving outside their box. Admittedly, I struggle the same way.


Also, for what it's worth, I enjoy Top Golf, and so do many of my non-golfing friends. I take it for what it is, and think the technology within the concept, i.e. ball tracking chips that communicate with a device, is in its infancy.


Andy

[Peter Pallotta]

Andy - one person's experience: I play a lot of public courses with a lot of average golfers just like me, and see/experience a fair share of slow play. (I haven't played a private course in over 6 years -- and the one I did play remains my only one.) In only the rarest of cases would I blame the wrong set/not enough sets of tees for that pace of play. Instead, I see:
1 - new or not so new golfers who are so inconsistent that they'd have as much trouble and take as many swings from the whites tees (or the reds) as they do from the blues tees they've inexplicably chosen to play
2 - experienced golfers who genuinely believe they value a good pace of play, and so don't question for a second their practice swings before every shot, their unwillingness to embrace ready golf, or their plumb bobbing and grinding over putts for bogey/double,
3 - both new and experienced golfers, usually but not always in carts, who seem to feel that they have paid good money *not* to rush, ie that seem almost proudly to move in the most measured way possible from their cart to their ball, and then back to the cart when they realize they need a different club, and then back to their ball - where they take two practice swings, then hit it fat all of about 20 yards, and then walk back to the cart for the club they *now* need.
I don't like slow play, of course, but I also don't want to rush anyone, especially beginning golfers or those who are struggling -- I remember too well the glares and pressure I saw and felt from supposedly 'better' golfers when I first took up the game later in life. (I have less patience for the 'entitled' golfers who clearly could do better but simply don't care to even try.) But, again, in my experience at least, the least likely 'fix' of all to the slow play problem is extra sets of tees.
Yes, the *total time* it takes to walk 5800 yards (and engage in all of the above) is less than the total time it takes to walk 6500 yards -- but the *pace* at which that time seems to unfurl is equally slow.
In other words, in my experience more sets of tees don't make the difference between a fast round and a slow round; the difference is between a slow 4 hour round and an equally slow 5 hour round.   
Peter

[Sean_A]

Senior males make up 15-20% of the golf population.  They remember hitting greens in regulation and would love to do it again.....
Women make up 6 to 20% of the golf population, depending where you live (WI, MN, etc. are the highest female participation rates) and have always had to put up with 1-3 extra shots per hole, because of resistance to adding forward tees.


Appropriate length tees make a lot of sense, and make golf more fun for many who play, but hey, if 1500 golf architecture enthusiasts are happy with the tees they play, well I guess that's all that matters, no? Screw everyone else who wants to enjoy golf.....now that's a great business model in struggling times for golf.

I think appropriate length courses make much more sense until archies can figure out a way to make courses with a yardage spread between 4500 and 7200 yards a good walk for all.  Its time we stop trying to fit square pegs in round holes and just admit that the the more we spread tees the more we dilute the experience and enjoyment of the day...unless people are happy to play cartball.  I want the cartball era to come to an end and instead see courses built for targeted customers.  We have enough courses of the mega tee model out there.  Lets get back to downsizing courses.

Ciao