[Jud_T]

It would be great to get more of a woman's perspective on courses and architecture.
It would be great to get more female raters.
It would be great to get more women to play golf.
It would be great if every GCA outing wasn't a complete sausage-fest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was guessing at 20% of golfers being women, but I just Googled it.  The last numbers I see are from the National Golf Foundation for 2010.  In the US, adult women golfers were 4.7 million of 23.6 million for 19.97%.  When including child golfers, the numbers are 5.3 million of 26.2 million for 20.22%.
Pat, you are right that I have never heard women discuss golf course architecture, but I hang around with a lot of couples where both the man and woman play golf, and I hear a lot of discussion of golf courses, and what they like and don't like, from women.  
Not to beat too hard on the subject, and not to cross over into political correct territory, but as I get older I like to watch the LPGA on television more than I used to.  

Maybe it's the shorter skirts they are wearing now, or the increase in really attractive women on the Tour,


I've also noticed the shorter hem lines along with outfits that accentuate curves.

As much as I might like "The Walrus", when it comes to viewing pleasure, sex sells.

or maybe it's because I am now hitting the ball more like them and less like the PGA Tour players.  

But what that has to do with golf course architecture I don't know.

I don't either, but, I know that my wife likes to watch "chick flicks" and any show revolving around babies and I have no interest in either.
She dislikes "nature" shows where crocs, lions and predatory animals chase/catch their pray.
She doesn't like watching sports as I do.
Women and men are just wired differently and we have different interests.
Even out OCD's are different.

Having sat on green committees for about 50 years, I've noticed two things promoted by women on those committees.
A desire to "beautify" courses vis a vis plantings and a desire to pursue "fairness" by softening what might be considered "harsh" features.

[Lyne Morrison]

'I'd like to understand if women golfers see golf architecture issues different than men.'

Jim Hoak,

I believe the answer to your question has more depth than suggested above.

Aside from the fact that course architecture has a fairly narrow following overall, I suggest that female participation on this forum will remain low due to the ‘experience’ the majority of women golfers have on the courses they play.

I have pondered why so few women in general, are interested or invested in course architecture. I believe a good deal of the answer lies in the setup of the courses and how the female game relates to this. While ever the typical women golfer is not provided a positive, engaging and interesting playing experience she is also denied a 'connection' or 'union' with the true magic of the game - as such it is doubtful she will appreciate the architecture of a course in the manner that longer hitting women and most males do.

I have considered posting a thread on this topic but feel men typically view a course thru different eyes - there is certainly much evidence of this here on golf club atlas. That said, there are a few posters who do provide considered insight into their wives or partners game and I thank these folk for adding this dimension to the gca commentary - as an example, i find it interesting to read what Ms Sheila and Mrs Moum are experiencing or commenting on with regards the courses they  play on their travels.

In general, most women have no choice but to play a different golf course to the men. If a woman is hitting driver or a long wood off every tee she will obviously not be engaged with the game in the same way as those who are provided the opportunity to mix their club choice up through the course of the round.

With an average handicap in the high twenties and an average drive in the order of 140 metres / 150 yards – or perhaps even less, the typical female golfer is most often overlooked when it comes to golf course design. She is simply not provided the opportunity to connect with the course architecture as intended. While inroads may have been made in the US in this regard, from where I sit here in Australia, this situation affects most women from a mid to high teen handicap up - that is the vast majority of women golfers. I suspect this may also be the case in Europe and the UK.

If women cannot reach par 3's from the tee, where is the engagement and the challenge? where is the negotiation? where is the excitement? the reward?  If women will never reach a par 4, there is little need to navigate the course in the same way as a longer hitter who is 'playing the course' - the playing experience for the typical woman is undervalued.  If women are hitting three woods in succession to reach a par 5 - these holes carry no interest - they lack depth; they are not fun - they are a slog. This predictable journey all translates into the female perception of a golf course. Why would they engage with course architecture when they are not provided an interesting playing experience?

I believe this predicament has much influence on the current health card of women’s golf, certainly down here. As architects, decision makers and club leaders I believe we can bring positive change to the game and influence participation levels and the economic health of our clubs by improving the playing experience for these golfers.

Until then, female interest in course architecture will remain moribund, as will female participation in the game.

Cheers to Richard Choi, Thomas Dai and Mark Pearce.

Lyne

[Paul Gray]

Lynn,

Thank you so much for that thoughtful and eloquent response. That, just in case you're wondering, is not sarcasm.

Everything you have to say makes perfect sense in my eyes, except for one point which always occurs to me whenever the issue of length (gents, no sniggering) raises its head (again, gents)...

Why, quite simply, do kids so readily engage with the game? I mean, see a junior on the course hitting three wood after three wood and you never hear them complaining. I know eleven year old kids whose understanding of the golf course is light years ahead of some of the brain dead hit-it-long-and-hope brigade, not to mention some of the elderly folk who sit on committees and mistakenly believe that experience has provided them with the first idea about the game.

That, by the way, isn't to say for one second that I think women should just put up or shut up. I just wonder what changes between juvenile golf and the adult game. Perhaps, just perhaps, juniors are not so hung up with par, possibly because they realise, at least on a subconscious level, that they have years of GIR golf in front of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lyne,

I think your reply accentuates the dilemma the architect faces in trying to provide a disinterested challenge to suit all level of golfers.

When I reconfigured/redesigned a course, I added two additional sets of tees.

My reasoning was that the men had three sets of tees to accommodate the broad spectrum of men golfers, while the women had but one set of tees to accomodate the broad spectrum of women golfers, and that by adding two additional sets, it would make the course and the game more appealing to the women golfers.

In addition, I color coded them rather than declare them "women's tees.

By doing so, older golfers and older duffers, who couldn't enjoy golf from the three sets of tees previously declared "men's tees" began playing from the new sets of tees.

One elderly gentleman told me that he made his first par in three (3) years.

However, I do take exception to some of the tenure and content of your reply.

Were men at fault when women's basketball took hold and the rim was maintained at 10 feet ?
The foul line at 15 ?

For decades and decades, men, not women played basketball, hence the courts and related components were geared toward men.

Subsequently, as more and more younger women took up basketball, the size of the ball was reduced for their play.
But, the rim, foul line and court dimensions remained the same.

So, one has to ask, to what degree should the challenge on a golf course be diminished ?
To what degree should the architect "dumb down" his efforts and still retain a reasonable challenge for people who are bigger, stronger and more capable of hitting the ball further ?

It's a dilemma

Basketball resisted the idea of altering the field of play, instead choosing to challenge the young women athletes to "meet the challenge" presented.

Women's Basketball ignored the inferior athlete.

Golf has not followed that path.

Golf has altered the field of play, primarily at the tee end.

But, consider...........  should the fairways be wider, (I'm always in favor of that) the rough lower, the greens less sloped ?

In golf, you can't alter the course for one segment while keeping it static for all others.

And, that's the dilemma.

The solution ?

Well, I'm of the opinion, at all level's of golfers, that the golfer should aspire to rise to the challenge vis a vis improving their game.

If you can't reach the 10 foot rim, from the foul line, I'm against lowering the rim and moving the foul line closer.

If that means that elements of the female population shy away from basketball, so be it.

I'm not interested in dumbing down the challenge of a golf course, to accomodate a golfer of lesser ability, irrespective of their gender.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I await your response.

P.S.  Have you ever seen Mark Pearce in his white knee socks ?
       You might not cheer so loud

[JLahrman]

With an average handicap in the high twenties and an average drive in the order of 140 metres / 150 yards – or perhaps even less, the typical female golfer is most often overlooked when it comes to golf course design. She is simply not provided the opportunity to connect with the course architecture as intended. While inroads may have been made in the US in this regard, from where I sit here in Australia, this situation affects most women from a mid to high teen handicap up - that is the vast majority of women golfers. I suspect this may also be the case in Europe and the UK.

If women cannot reach par 3's from the tee, where is the engagement and the challenge? where is the negotiation? where is the excitement? the reward?  If women will never reach a par 4, there is little need to navigate the course in the same way as a longer hitter who is 'playing the course' - the playing experience for the typical woman is undervalued.  If women are hitting three woods in succession to reach a par 5 - these holes carry no interest - they lack depth; they are not fun - they are a slog. This predictable journey all translates into the female perception of a golf course. Why would they engage with course architecture when they are not provided an interesting playing experience?

Lyne, just curious...walkability concerns aside, in your view how far should a course play from the most forward tees? These tees could be for beginners, super-short hitters, whatever, but obviously women generally hit the ball shorter than men so the length of the shorter tees would be of interest to a higher percentage of women than men.

As a teenager when I used to caddy quite a bit, the senior ladies at the club were my absolute favorite. Give them the driver off the tee. Then hand them their five-wood. Four dead-straight shots later, meet them 50 yards short of the green. But it did make me think about how short the tees would need to be for them to have even a remote shot of getting home in two on a hole listed as a par-4 on the card.

When I play a new course, I check to see where the most forward tees are. I imagine myself as one of those short-hitting senior ladies and see how much of a slog the course would be even from those most forward tees. The women I caddied for seemed to have fun playing, but not because their games were tested by the architecture.

Cheers to Richard Choi, Thomas Dai and Mark Pearce.

I'll rely on a female's point of view for an assessment of how welcoming the site is to women.

[JLahrman]

To what degree should the architect "dumb down" his efforts and still retain a reasonable challenge for people who are bigger, stronger and more capable of hitting the ball further ?

It's a dilemma

Basketball resisted the idea of altering the field of play, instead choosing to challenge the young women athletes to "meet the challenge" presented.

Women's Basketball ignored the inferior athlete.

Couldn't it be argued that basketball was dumbed down for women by letting women play only against each other?

In golf, the field of play is the main opponent, while the guy you're playing against is much more the indirect opponent. I can't tackle my opponent on the golf course (and please no Bring Back The Stymie pleas).

In basketball, yes one still has to get the ball into the hoop, but the opponents are the five opposing players. By letting women only have other women as opponents instead of men, the game has been "dumbed down" for them.

[Jud_T]

I'll rely on a female's point of view for an assessment of how welcoming the site is to women.

What a novel concept.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Hoak,

I've been thinking about your inquiry.

Do we ask for a participant's ethnicity ?
Do we ask for a participant's religious beliefs ?
Do we ask for a participant's political beliefs ?
Do we ask for a participant's nationality ?

Are we looking for improved quality in the discussions or are we looking to evenly distribute diversity amongst the participants ?

I understand the quest to obtain opinions from 20 % of the golfing population.

But, this site never solicited the opinions of huge segments of the golfing population.

This site was always populated by a very, very narrow segment of the golfing population.

And, this site always welcomed opinions from every segment of the golfing population.
That doesn't mean that the site agreed with those opinions, but, those opinions were NEVER DISMISSED for non-golfing reasons.

Those opinions were accepted or challenged and rejected based upon their merits, NOT THEIR SOURCE.

Hence, I'm not amongst the apologists that populate this site when it comes to the diverity of the participants, or lack of, on this site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To what degree should the architect "dumb down" his efforts and still retain a reasonable challenge for people who are bigger, stronger and more capable of hitting the ball further ?

It's a dilemma

Basketball resisted the idea of altering the field of play, instead choosing to challenge the young women athletes to "meet the challenge" presented.

Women's Basketball ignored the inferior athlete.

Couldn't it be argued that basketball was dumbed down for women by letting women play only against each other?

NO, and that's moronic

That's about as moronic as letting a Heavyweight boxer box against a bantamweight weight boxer.

Are Sugar Ray Robinson and Sugar Ray Leonard not boxers because they didn't go against Heavyweights. ?
Were they dumbed down boxers ?

Please, try to post intelligent replies.
If it's difficult, seek the help of knowledgeable folks

In golf, the field of play is the main opponent, while the guy you're playing against is much more the indirect opponent.
I can't tackle my opponent on the golf course (and please no Bring Back The Stymie pleas).

The "Stymie" and the "Lip Iron' remain the only two defensive measures in golf

In basketball, yes one still has to get the ball into the hoop, but the opponents are the five opposing players.
By letting women only have other women as opponents instead of men, the game has been "dumbed down" for them.

Only if you're a moron with moronic ideas about sports and competition would you suggest that.
By your logic, high school basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against colleges.
That college basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against the NBA..

Try thinking about the inherent nature of the field of play as it applies to those competing and not moronic examples of convoluted logic

[jeffwarne]

Several opinions on this.

One. when playing golf with my son when he was very young, I used to try the same shots he was playing, using the same clubs and the same clubhead speed to achieve the same trajectory. I also had experience from playing a lot of very low clubhead speed (130 yard drives) golf while injured, three times after broken arms, and many times with my cronic back.
I found it a fascinating game, full of strategy, and angles and placement became critical because I no longer had my speed to produce height and spin.
It amazes me when people call this slog golf as ALL hazards inside the confines of the rough are in play, as it's very hard to carry anything.
I always found it very fun, and really enjoyed not worrying about losing my ball, but instead worried more about going around bunkers, which are big problem at low clubhead speeds. As is deep rough!
I'd say they are very much interfacing with the architecture, much more than someone playing a strictly aeriel game.

When I teach shorter hitting women we talk a lot about strategy
1. because they rarely will lose a ball and have a better chance of placing their ball on one side of the fairway or the other.
2.if they don't place their ball properly hitting and holding a green are impossible unless they use runups provided.
3. we talk a lot about AVOIDING trouble as they just don't have the strength for certain recovery shots.
4. Lots of short game


with men,unless they are very straight, playing lessons are less about strategy, and more about tactics
i.e. what club can we hit off this tee in order to find it for the next shot  

we also spend a lot of time on recovery because
1.they're going to find it more
2.even though they might have the strength, they usually don't have the skills or the know how.

In reworking our course, some of the biggest obstacles have been with the high handicap women who insist we're dumbing down the course despite spending a lot of time and effort polling many/most of these players and watching them play these shots
Their beefs?

1. we moved a tee enough to the right and reduced in size a left bunker to allow a runup angle for a well judged shot(the men simply fly it and stop it from their more elevated tee and higher clubhead speed)
(One of the biggest problems with modern stairstep tees is eventually one tee is really low so the others can see over it-not so great on courses with 6 sets of tees).
2.we shortened the forward tee to 223 on an uphill short par 4 (the men were playing from 265-290).
the complaint was that a few of these women can now reach the green in two! (even though the idea was a driveable par 4 )

I tell them are three more sets of tees behind them and that they are free to use them.

Pat,
 Why would you care if a group of weaker basketball players lowered the rim so they could reach it?
What fun would it be if they never reached it, yet were pure shooters at 8 feet.
They already play with a smaller ball at all levels-so your arguement has no merit
Youth basketball has done it for years smaller ball, lower rim (too high a target encourages bad technique)

[JLahrman]

Only if you're a moron with moronic ideas about sports and competition would you suggest that.
By your logic, high school basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against colleges.
That college basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against the NBA..

Try thinking about the inherent nature of the field of play as it applies to those competing and not moronic examples of convoluted logic

AHHH so they shouldn't have had us shooting foul shots from the bottom of the circle instead of the 15-foot-line when I was in 5th grade? I get it now.

What do you think about the progression of the three point line from 19'9" (HS) to 20'9" (college) to 23'9" (NBA)?

Or the 84' court used for high school games vs. 94' for college and professional? That's an 11% cut in court length, equivalent to dropping a 7,000 yard course to 6,255 yards.

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks Paul.

A few quick thoughts with respect to juniors.

From my observations they connect more readily with the game because:

Their minds are not cluttered with the stresses of the adult world.
They are physically more flexible.
They are absolutely determined to catch up with the better juniors.
They can 'feel' and 'sense' the fun in the journey - in the better program's I’ve observed the kids receive small rewards for achieving goals.
They have the freedom to 'hang out' at the course and to put more time into their game i.e. after school, extended holiday/vacation periods.
They get to travel with their friends to different events.
They may have good mentors and heroes to look up to.

Having watched my two children learn the game - a boy and girl - I can report that par is most definitely important, scores are important - these are a key talking point.

I'd love to be a junior again - to learn the game in the way they have. They have solid short games and will take these skills with them through life.

On the other hand, most women here do not spend time on their game until they are freed up from other responsibilities much later in life - the majority are in their fifties and sixties - this presents an altogether different learning curve.

Cheers, Lyne

[Patrick_Mucci]

Only if you're a moron with moronic ideas about sports and competition would you suggest that.
By your logic, high school basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against colleges.
That college basketball has been dumbed down because they don't play against the NBA..

Try thinking about the inherent nature of the field of play as it applies to those competing and not moronic examples of convoluted logic

AHHH so they shouldn't have had us shooting foul shots from the bottom of the circle instead of the 15-foot-line when I was in 5th grade?
I get it now.

It's obvious that you spent the better part of four (4) years in 5th grade

What do you think about the progression of the three point line from 19'9" (HS) to 20'9" (college) to 23'9" (NBA)?
The same as I do with the forward, member's and championship tees.

Or the 84' court used for high school games vs. 94' for college and professional?
That's an 11% cut in court length, equivalent to dropping a 7,000 yard course to 6,255 yards.

That's what golf did decades ago with different sets of tees for men and women.
Golf recognized the disparity in physical ability amongst the cross section of golfers and accomodated the disparity.
Didn't you bother to read about "tees" ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Why would you care if a group of weaker basketball players lowered the rim so they could reach it?

So, when the weaker player has the ball you lower the net, and when the more athletic player has the ball you return the rim to 10 feet ?

What fun would it be if they never reached it, yet were pure shooters at 8 feet.


They must be passing out moron juice at the supermarket for the holidays.

So when the kid who can't hit the shot when the rim is at 10 feet, has the ball, the rim should be lowered to 8 feet, and then, when the kid who can hit from 10 feet has the ball, the rim should be raised to 10 feet ?

What about the foul line, should some basketball players shoot from 10 feet while the better athletes have to shoot from 15 feet.

You can't adjust the components of the field of play when players of different abilities are vying on the same court

They already play with a smaller ball at all levels-so your arguement has no merit

Jeff, I overestimated your intelligence, you're a moron  

Youth basketball has done it for years smaller ball, lower rim (too high a target encourages bad technique)

Why don't we use toddlers as examples, you know, kids between 4 months and two years.

Stop gulping the moron juice.

We're not talking about infants and young kids, we're talking about adults

[Lyne Morrison]

Patrick – appreciate the black ink ;

You may recall we corresponded on this topic a few years ago – at the time I checked the Florida golfscape on google earth and I have to say that I was shocked!  – I am not a fan of these manufactured courses, nor so many tees. To me this is an example of things going too far, over-servicing.

In general terms I typically favour four tees, with as low a profile as workable for site lines and drainage needs. If a particular situation warrants special attention it should be given due consideration; the 9th at Kingsley has always stuck in my mind as an example of this – it must be a lot of fun to work around those angles. I would love to see that hole in person.

We also need to keep context and culture in mind in this discussion. I am not in the US - we have a different approach to golf here, I think it is fair to say a more traditional approach. I don’t seek to please everyone, however I maintain we can find a reasonable middle ground that retains the challenge for the accomplished and provides a comfortable ride for the majority.

Women in Australia typically play courses in the 5300-5600 metre range – that’s 5800-6100+ yards. Few women reach most par 3’s, we have single figure golfers who will never reach par 4’s in regulation. Women tee up on courses with slopes in the 130’s and 140’s week in and week out. This doesn’t make any sense in terms of enjoyable golf and ongoing participation – it is also a poor business model. The men are provided two tees, they play the longer course for medal rounds once a month; the women play from one tee - not designed around the female game, 365 days a year.

White socks are the norm here – something to keep in mind if you ever make it down this way

Lyne

[jeffwarne]

Pat,

Why would you care if a group of weaker basketball players lowered the rim so they could reach it?

So, when the weaker player has the ball you lower the net, and when the more athletic player has the ball you return the rim to 10 feet ?

What fun would it be if they never reached it, yet were pure shooters at 8 feet.


They must be passing out moron juice at the supermarket for the holidays.

So when the kid who can't hit the shot when the rim is at 10 feet, has the ball, the rim should be lowered to 8 feet, and then, when the kid who can hit from 10 feet has the ball, the rim should be raised to 10 feet ?

What about the foul line, should some basketball players shoot from 10 feet while the better athletes have to shoot from 15 feet.

You can't adjust the components of the field of play when players of different abilities are vying on the same court

They already play with a smaller ball at all levels-so your arguement has no merit

Jeff, I overestimated your intelligence, you're a moron  

Youth basketball has done it for years smaller ball, lower rim (too high a target encourages bad technique)

Why don't we use toddlers as examples, you know, kids between 4 months and two years.

Stop gulping the moron juice.

We're not talking about infants and young kids, we're talking about adults

Now THAT was entertaining
Happy Holidays

[Lyne Morrison]

JLarham - good to hear you are thinking about this and yes some of the senior ladies are very adept with a five wood – they use it for most shots.

Research suggests the low 4000 yards is most comfortable for many women.

Given the overly long courses Australian women currently play and their unfamiliarity with the concept, application and benefit of forward tees, I have a sense that an additional tee in the mid 4000 metres, (high 4000 yards) would be a significant step forward here.

As an aside - we have very recently adopted the usga slope system here and I was on the rating team for our district - we were asked to rate 'new short courses' for some clubs that were only 20 to 50 metres shorter than the red tees/regular women's course.

While no doubt the above adjustments were proposed with good intent this is a telling example of how the topic and benefits of forward tees is readily misunderstood.

Cheers, Lyne

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Your basketball analogy fails to support your argument, because women are truly playing basketball, men are not.

Phog Allen make specific uses of Wilt's talents to try to get the game to remain the same by having the goal raised. Although he succeeded in causing some rule changes like the size of the "key", he failed in his ultimate goal, and basketball was on a path to what we perhaps can now call dunkball.

The beautiful game has been lost to all but the women.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your basketball analogy fails to support your argument, because women are truly playing basketball, men are not.

The parade of morons is endless !

High school and college basketball remains a better form of basketball, the NBA is entertainment, and should not be confused with a purer form of the game that existed years ago.

Phog Allen make specific uses of Wilt's talents to try to get the game to remain the same by having the goal raised. Although he succeeded in causing some rule changes like the size of the "key", he failed in his ultimate goal, and basketball was on a path to what we perhaps can now call dunkball.

The beautiful game has been lost to all but the women.

Then you're not watching it carefully enough.

The game, as we knew it, in it's purer form has been diluted at every level, primarily because the game filters down from the top, instead of growing from its roots

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,

Your basketball analogy fails to support your argument, because women are truly playing basketball, men are not.

Phog Allen make specific uses of Wilt's talents to try to get the game to remain the same by having the goal raised. Although he succeeded in causing some rule changes like the size of the "key", he failed in his ultimate goal, and basketball was on a path to what we perhaps can now call dunkball.

The beautiful game has been lost to all but the women.

It only got bad when it became "walkball"
who in God's name decided that  a jump step after 2+ steps was OK.
i'm not sure there'll be any dribbling in 20 years

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

So, I'm playing Winged Foot West and I'm paired with an NBA ref who was also a great college player.

As the round progresses, we get friendlier and friendlier, he's a terrific guy, loves golf and plays well.

About mid-way through the round, I can't contain myself, no surprise there, and start to criticize the calls or lack of calls in the NBA.

I tell him, you guys never call walking, palming or carrying, allow charges routinely, haven't heard of three seconds and that the super-stars are given latitude in almost every way.  I further tell him that walking has turned into running, with guys taking 3, 4 and 5 steps to the basket.

First he says, "no, it just looks that way because they're such great athletes"
So, then I say, "so, when I put my TV on slo-mo replay, the TV is defective ?
He laughs.
Then he admits that the super-stars are given "their move" irrespective of the rules.

The fact is that the game has transitioned to entertainment.
The athletes are incredibly talented, but, the game no where near as pure as in the past.

Basketball changed before you were born.

It went from the smooth Eastern Finess style to a more physical game vis a vis the Big 10 in the 50's and 60's.

And, once the "dunk" became a seperate entertainment event on it's own, the slide from purity accelerated at warp speed.

I used to play full court, 3 times a week, tuesday and thursday nights and Sunday mornings, into my 50's until some doctors sidelined me for good.
I went through withdrawal for three years.
I still miss playing.
I just can't watch the NBA, the "Not Basketball Anymore" league.

[Jim Nugent]

In general, most women have no choice but to play a different golf course to the men. If a woman is hitting driver or a long wood off every tee she will obviously not be engaged with the game in the same way as those who are provided the opportunity to mix their club choice up through the course of the round.

If women cannot reach par 3's from the tee, where is the engagement and the challenge? where is the negotiation? where is the excitement? the reward?  If women will never reach a par 4, there is little need to navigate the course in the same way as a longer hitter who is 'playing the course' - the playing experience for the typical woman is undervalued.  If women are hitting three woods in succession to reach a par 5 - these holes carry no interest - they lack depth; they are not fun - they are a slog. This predictable journey all translates into the female perception of a golf course. Why would they engage with course architecture when they are not provided an interesting playing experience?

Lyne

Is your answer to scale down courses from their current size, so more women can experience them the way men do now? 

[Paul Gray]

Lynn,

Thanks once again for responding.

The issue I have with concerns over par is perhaps not for this thread. As you said, kids do worry about score but do they worry about real par or nett par? My point really is that is all golfers remembered that the handicap system exists for a reason (or rather a multitude of reasons) a lot more might find greater pleasure in the game.  If in effect a senior man plays a golf course which, for him, effectively has eight par 5's, is that necessarily a disaster?

Perhaps, just perhaps, variety is an issue for shorter hitters as much as overall length. As a 36 years old man I certainly don't object to playing a 240 yard par 3 but I also want to play the odd one at 120 yards.

Anyway, just a few rambling ideas and, as I said before, it's really an issue for another thread.

[archie_struthers]

 

 Think this thread is getting a little off line.  Just because someone can't play the shots the "experts" can doesn't disqualify them from understanding the game, or it's architecture. If this was the case many of the best architects in the world would be disqualified from working due to their lack of talent at playing the game .

I appreciate Lynn's imput but don't see her lack of length precluding her from participating in the group or understanding the strategy for all types of player, male , female , senior , professional et al .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()