Players tees

[Carl Johnson]

Aren't the back tees "player's tees"?

I am of the opinion that courses should have 3 sets of tees.  Ladies that are very short, members tees and tips.  That's probably not popular because it's unfair though.

I have no problem with 3 sets of tees. My point is if the back set is 7200 and the middle set 6600 that's a pretty big difference.  It would be  nice if they came up score card that got you to something in between. Play tips on some holes, members tees on others. Who wants to play five 475 yard par 4's? So you play a few from 430. It's about having fun isn't it?  I wonder why the game us in decline. As for back tees being "players" tees I guess the senior tour members aren't "players".  WTF

Rob, a couple of comments that are sure to be controversial.

First, the idea that certain tees are pro tees (in the very old days that's what my dad's club called the back tees), players' tees, whatever a player is , the members' tees, the senior tees, the ladies' tees, the gnomes' tees, etc. is BS.  Every walk up to a marker and ask, "what tee are you?"  If you have, I'll bet you got no response (but let me know if you have).  Forget that BS.  Most clubs used different colored markers.  The gold, the black, the red, the white, mixed Easter egg, and so on.  That's all they are.

Second, "It's about having fun isn't it?"  Yes, but "players" of golf define fun differently.  Some examples.  For some players of golf fun is just going out and competing against other players, usually in match play two ball or four ball, but certainly other formats.  For others, fun is hitting the crap out of the ball -- how far?  A Linda Ronstadt.  Others get off on their medal score, or their posting score, which are different things.  Still others are interesting in the art of the shot, that is, how does it feel and sound off the clubface, how does it look in the air (is it "beautiful"?).  For some, the latter is what matters.  That's the orgasm.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

I'm coming back later with more controversial comments.

[Jason Thurman]

I get that, Rob. I don't have a problem with the idea. I just think it's totally unnecessary too, and arbitrary at that. I mean, what if the "Players Tees" are too long for a group but the "members' tees" too short? Then we need another combo set. And that set will undoubtedly still be too short for some while the "Players Tees" are still too long and, well, you get the idea.

We're in a post-Ballyneal world. Playing a single set of tees is so passe. The handicap system already gives a clear formula for playing any combination of tees you can imagine, as mentioned above. And on top of all that, golf is a game that thrives on the variety of its playing fields. That's a big part of why this site even exists. In that light, I think it's a positive thing that some courses force us to choose between playing at an awkward yardage and doing extra math to calculate handicaps.

[Rob Marshall]

Aren't the back tees "player's tees"?

I am of the opinion that courses should have 3 sets of tees.  Ladies that are very short, members tees and tips.  That's probably not popular because it's unfair though.

I have no problem with 3 sets of tees. My point is if the back set is 7200 and the middle set 6600 that's a pretty big difference.  It would be  nice if they came up score card that got you to something in between. Play tips on some holes, members tees on others. Who wants to play five 475 yard par 4's? So you play a few from 430. It's about having fun isn't it?  I wonder why the game us in decline. As for back tees being "players" tees I guess the senior tour members aren't "players".  WTF

Rob, a couple of comments that are sure to be controversial.

First, the idea that certain tees are pro tees (in the very old days that's what my dad's club called the back tees), players' tees, whatever a player is , the members' tees, the senior tees, the ladies' tees, the gnomes' tees, etc. is BS.  Every walk up to a marker and ask, "what tee are you?"  If you have, I'll bet you got no response (but let me know if you have).  Forget that BS.  Most clubs used different colored markers.  The gold, the black, the red, the white, mixed Easter egg, and so on.  That's all they are.

Second, "It's about having fun isn't it?"  Yes, but "players" of golf define fun differently.  Some examples.  For some players of golf fun is just going out and competing against other players, usually in match play two ball or four ball, but certainly other formats.  For others, fun is hitting the crap out of the ball -- how far?  A Linda Ronstadt.  Others get off on their medal score, or their posting score, which are different things.  Still others are interesting in the art of the shot, that is, how does it feel and sound off the clubface, how does it look in the air -- is it "beautiful."  For some, the latter is what matters.  That's the orgasm.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

I'm coming back later with more controversial comments.

I get problem with naming tees. Our reds are the ladies tees. Now we have senior tees. Some of the older guys want some new senior tees because they don't want to play from the ladies tees. It's been suggested that we change the red tees to a different color and remove "ladies" tees from the card.

[Rob Marshall]

I get that, Rob. I don't have a problem with the idea. I just think it's totally unnecessary too, and arbitrary at that. I mean, what if the "Players Tees" are too long for a group but the "members' tees" too short? Then we need another combo set. And that set will undoubtedly still be too short for some while the "Players Tees" are still too long and, well, you get the idea.

We're in a post-Ballyneal world. Playing a single set of tees is so passe. The handicap system already gives a clear formula for playing any combination of tees you can imagine, as mentioned above. And on top of all that, golf is a game that thrives on the variety of its playing fields. That's a big part of why this site even exists. In that light, I think it's a positive thing that some courses force us to choose between playing at an awkward yardage and doing extra math to calculate handicaps.

I think my pros head would explode if I asked him to calc the rating and slope after playing a combo of different tees but I hear ya.

[Jason Thurman]

No need to have your pro involved as I incorrectly implied earlier. As others have pointed out, you can do the calculation yourself. I had never seen the table that Jason Topp posted before, but it's much easier than I ever imagined. Every money game I play in has at least one guy who loves doing the math when it comes to stroke allocation and handicap differentials. Just pass the table from 5-2G to that guy and carpe the composite course of your dreams.

[Carl Johnson]

I get that, Rob. I don't have a problem with the idea. I just think it's totally unnecessary too, and arbitrary at that. I mean, what if the "Players Tees" are too long for a group but the "members' tees" too short? Then we need another combo set. And that set will undoubtedly still be too short for some while the "Players Tees" are still too long and, well, you get the idea.

We're in a post-Ballyneal world. Playing a single set of tees is so passe. The handicap system already gives a clear formula for playing any combination of tees you can imagine, as mentioned above. And on top of all that, golf is a game that thrives on the variety of its playing fields. That's a big part of why this site even exists. In that light, I think it's a positive thing that some courses force us to choose between playing at an awkward yardage and doing extra math to calculate handicaps.

I think my pros head would explode if I asked him to calc the rating and slope after playing a combo of different tees but I hear ya.

Would it explode because he can't do the math?  I can understand that.  Or would it explode just because you asked him to do it, in which case I'd say you need to fire his ass and get a new pro.

[Carl Johnson]

Why would I want to hit the same one or two clubs on every approach. That's all you end up doing on "mixed" tees as short holes tend to play as designed and long holes are made short.

Why would long holes end up playing short. Going from 475 to 445 or 425 is short? Isn't a hole that has a tee box that is 475 and another at 425 designed to be played from both tees?  

Because this is a subject I'm interested in, I offer a few more controversial comments.  Rambling around in the back of my mind are words of old dead architects to the effect that, "This land was made by the Almighty for a golf course."  That may be true, but the Almighty left it up to the golf architect to lay out the holes, and to the architect and other humans to decide where to place the tee markers.

What's the "right" number of tee markers?  I don't think the Almighty commented on that, either (with apologies to those who have heard the Almighty speak on the subject).  So some human makes that decision, based on his or her personal judgment as to the "right number" and "right" distance for various tees.  (I'm interested in who makes those decisions, and posed that issue earlier in this tread, but only got one response on point.  So, I'm going to start a separate thread on that.)  That or those person or persons may not have the best judgment, so it's fair game to question their decisions.

Length is important, but not just length per se.  Carries are important, primarily those off the tee and in front of the green.  Carries are length-related of course, but are unrelated to the total length of the hole.  Uphills, downhills, and green frontages, and the location of bunkers all come into play, too, when making tee location decisions.  Thus, I don't think one can say "all you need are three sets of tees."  (I know I'm being controversial here.)  In my opinion, in deciding the number of tees appropriate for a golf club (as distinguished from a course designed solely for PGA Tour players) one needs to go hole by hole and consider all elements of the hole and how they affect play.  On some holes (e.g., a very short par three with nothing to carry in front of the green), only one tee might work.  And so on, hole by hole.  The club's (or course's) target constituencies must be factored in, too, of course.

[Bryan Icenhower]

At Rivermont we have 4 sets of tees – Red, White, Blue, Gold. 

However there are quite a few different combinations that can be played
Red (74.6 rating /139 slope- 7112 yards)
         Basket (74.1/138 - 7005)* plays to a par 70
         Red/White (72.9/134 -6754 )
White (71.6/131 - 6429)
         White/Blue (69.7/127 - 6065)
Blue (68.4/123 - 5775)
          Blue/Gold (66.4/118 - 5387)
Gold (64.7/113 - 5103)

And two sets of plates to play from as part of the PGA Family course program (no tee boxes)
Family Gold (61.0/104 - ?)
Family Blue (57.9/99 - ?)

The combo tees are a popular system and allows for some level of flexibility in the yardage you play while still giving everyone the ability to post a score.

Carl - Perhaps Chris Cupit sees this thread and can answer how he determined when one would be playing the red vs playing the white on the red/white combo.

[James Brown]

Too many players are still obsessed with distance.  For most courses, having tees out beyond 6700 yards is becoming a thing of the past.  Sawgrass is a great example.  Back tees are at 6800 and no more.  In Scotland, nothing is more than 6300 and pretty much every distance obsessed American gets their ass kicked there.   

While the pros hit it 290 on average and top amateurs hit it the same, it makes no sense to make actual amateurs play holes that require 3-woods into the green.  460 and flat with no roll is fun once or twice a round, not more.

Confession:  I am a 2-handicap who hits it 245 total.

[Pete_Pittock]

Why do you need someone else to create the combo for you? If you want to play a mixed set, play a mixed set. Your pro is supposed to be able to help you calculate an appropriate rating and slope if you need to post a score.

It's not always that simple.  I'm an advocate of mixed- or hybrid-tee set-ups, but I can see the other side.  I play mostly with seniors, and we play handicap games following the USGA handicap guidelines, so knowing ahead of time the ratings and slopes of the mixed tees we might play from is important.  (By the way, Jeff Warne is dead wrong, if not downright insulting, if he means to characterize all who like the "mixed-tee" approach as those who are "not playing golf anyway."  Let's keep in mind that at the beginning all you've got out there is grass, and how the regular single-colored tees are set initially involves human decision-making and matters of individual taste and preference.)

My QUESTIONS for those with insider experience are these.  Who is involved at your club in making decisions about where to set the tees and how the hybrid-tee courses should be created?  The pro?  The super?  The GM?  The Golf Committee?  The Green Committee?  One or more, or someone else?  Who takes the lead, and then who approves?

Also, does your golf association -- the body that assigns ratings and slopes -- give the club hole by hole ratings and slope numbers, from each tee pad (or however they do it) -- so the club can use that as a starting point for making up hybrid courses, rather than having to pose a particular hybrid first, and then have the association come back with the slope and rating.

I would appreciate any information, at all, about these processes.

I am a member of the handicap/competition committee at my course. We have two sets of combo tees (blue-white and white-red). At our most recent meeting we started a process to change a couple of holes in the permutation. When we come to a final decision we will contact our state association to get the amended rating/slope numbers. We are doing this now so everything can be done before we order next year's scorecard.

I was responsible for initiating the discussion on the need for combo tees a number of years ago from my visits to other courses.

I am also responsible for us having two different sets of handicap tables depending on the competition being played. After a couple of years
there is enough buy in at the course to finally put both sets on the cards.

BY the way, when I play at Sagebrush I play my own modified combo tees (mostly blues, but move forward on four holes) and post using the formulas in the USGA book, as well as copying the pages for the pro shop so others can do likewise. Dick Zokol suggested this combo course to me.

[Sean_A]

Far too much time is spent worrying about cards and numbers.  Must everything be codified merely because some people want a neat little number on a card in their wallet?  Handicaps are a true blessing for golf, but there is a point at which even a good idea can be taken too far in trying to create perfection where no such notion exists. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

One aspect that needs consideration is the method of handicap calculation. In some parts of the world it's mainly done by competition scoring, when all competitors tee-off from the same spot. In other parts of the world other methods of handicap calculation occur.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Handicaps are a true blessing for golf, but there is a point at which even a good idea can be taken too far in trying to create perfection where no such notion exists. 

Ciao

Sean is spot on with this . I know I will probably get blasted for this but it is the over complication of the game with slope/rating of courses for handicap and always returning a card that takes the fun out of the game for many. One thing that I believe would keep more people interested would be a return to matchplay as the default format.


Jon

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,

For a lot of USA golfers match play is the default format. The Nassau or something close to it what millions of golfers who play in regular weekend foursomes think of when they think of playing golf.

As long as the USGA Handicap System requires a pseudo-stroke play score be entered in the computer EVERY STINKING TIME YOU SET FOOT ON A GOLF COURSE then it matters not at all what format is actually being played. In fact it's the worst of both worlds. Golfers play match play with gimme putts, conceded holes and the like and then they treat their "score" under such conditions as a pseudo-medal one even though in fact it's often nowhere close.

Hence, the situation we have where the typical double digital handicapper's index is at least a couple of strokes better than what he plays to. It all works out fine in his usual group of four guys who keep their handicaps based on that same Nassau every Saturday and Sunday. But when they take that index with them into an actual stroke-play event they don't have 1 chance in 100 in actually playing the ball down, putting it out and scoring net under par.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

your point about always having to return a card was part of what I was getting. I would go further and say that through requiring this even when playing matchplay the USGA are bringing the game into disrepute. There is good reason why the two formats of the game (strokeplay and matchplay) have some separate rules. They are not really compatible whilst trying to stay within the rules for both at the same time.

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

Totally agree, Jon. The game as it is played by most golfers of my acquaintance is a bastardized form more loosely dangling from the Rules of Golf than anyone seems to realize.

Some of the longstanding group games end up keeping their own informal handicaps based only in how the regulars perform in the particular format the group plays in daily. 

[Carl Johnson]

Jon,

For a lot of USA golfers match play is the default format. The Nassau or something close to it what millions of golfers who play in regular weekend foursomes think of when they think of playing golf.

Match play.  What little records there are indicate that this is the original form of golf, and therefore, I would argue, the purest.  What I have no idea about, which now seems strange given all the golf history I've read, is the history of handicap play.  Did the Scots' fathers of golf develop early handicap systems, as they did the rules of the game itself?  This is something I need to look into, and here appears to be a good starting point.  http://www.popeofslope.com/history/

As long as the USGA Handicap System requires a pseudo-stroke play score be entered in the computer EVERY STINKING TIME YOU SET FOOT ON A GOLF COURSE then it matters not at all what format is actually being played. In fact it's the worst of both worlds. Golfers play match play with gimme putts, conceded holes and the like and then they treat their "score" under such conditions as a pseudo-medal one even though in fact it's often nowhere close.

I never play actual medal play -- way too difficult and discouraging for me.  When asked after a match play round, "What'd ya shoot?", I either just say how much money I won or lost, how many points I accumulated, the match play result (e.g., lost 3 & 2), or if I feel like saying anything about a medal-type score, I'll say that I didn't have a medal score or that I didn't shoot anything, but that I "posted" a 93.

Hence, the situation we have where the typical double digital handicapper's index is at least a couple of strokes better than what he plays to. It all works out fine in his usual group of four guys who keep their handicaps based on that same Nassau every Saturday and Sunday. But when they take that index with them into an actual stroke-play event they don't have 1 chance in 100 in actually playing the ball down, putting it out and scoring net under par.

Although the USGA handicap manual has "rules" for using handicaps in medal play competitions, my personal opinion is that they are not at all suited for that purpose, nor are they primarily designed for that purpose.  This is most evident if one considers the affect of the equitable stroke control rules for determining handicaps.  Thus, after a match play round in which I "post" a 93 off a 24 handicap, someone might remark, "You were net 2 under [par 71 course]."  O.K. if you want to say so, but not true.  On the other hand I do think the USGA handicap system is a very good, useful system.  Finally, although the handicap system requires a score to be posted after each round, no one makes golfers use the system.  Players can go out and play all matches at scratch, make up their own handicap systems, or whatever.  They will, however, take themselves out of competitions that use the USGA system, which shouldn't bother them at all if they think the USGA system is a stupid, crappy system and don't want to take the time and effort to try to work with the USGA to improve it.

[Carl Johnson]

Why do you need someone else to create the combo for you? If you want to play a mixed set, play a mixed set. Your pro is supposed to be able to help you calculate an appropriate rating and slope if you need to post a score.

It's not always that simple.  I'm an advocate of mixed- or hybrid-tee set-ups, but I can see the other side.  I play mostly with seniors, and we play handicap games following the USGA handicap guidelines, so knowing ahead of time the ratings and slopes of the mixed tees we might play from is important.  (By the way, Jeff Warne is dead wrong, if not downright insulting, if he means to characterize all who like the "mixed-tee" approach as those who are "not playing golf anyway."  Let's keep in mind that at the beginning all you've got out there is grass, and how the regular single-colored tees are set initially involves human decision-making and matters of individual taste and preference.)

My QUESTIONS for those with insider experience are these.  Who is involved at your club in making decisions about where to set the tees and how the hybrid-tee courses should be created?  The pro?  The super?  The GM?  The Golf Committee?  The Green Committee?  One or more, or someone else?  Who takes the lead, and then who approves?

Also, does your golf association -- the body that assigns ratings and slopes -- give the club hole by hole ratings and slope numbers, from each tee pad (or however they do it) -- so the club can use that as a starting point for making up hybrid courses, rather than having to pose a particular hybrid first, and then have the association come back with the slope and rating.

I would appreciate any information, at all, about these processes.

Pete's reply:

I am a member of the handicap/competition committee at my course. We have two sets of combo tees (blue-white and white-red). At our most recent meeting we started a process to change a couple of holes in the permutation. When we come to a final decision we will contact our state association to get the amended rating/slope numbers. We are doing this now so everything can be done before we order next year's scorecard.

I was responsible for initiating the discussion on the need for combo tees a number of years ago from my visits to other courses.

I am also responsible for us having two different sets of handicap tables depending on the competition being played. After a couple of years
there is enough buy in at the course to finally put both sets on the cards.

BY the way, when I play at Sagebrush I play my own modified combo tees (mostly blues, but move forward on four holes) and post using the formulas in the USGA book, as well as copying the pages for the pro shop so others can do likewise. Dick Zokol suggested this combo course to me.

Thanks, Pete.  So at at your club the handicap/competition committee has the clear responsibility for initiating and finalizing the combo tees.  Does this committee also have responsibility for determining the normal locations for the regular colored tees?  I'm not talking about day to day adjustments the superintendent would make to spread wear, but the fundamental decisions about the yardages for each different colored course.  If not the handicap/competiton committee, then who makes those decisions?

[Jon Wiggett]

Finally, although the handicap system requires a score to be posted after each round, no one makes golfers use the system.  Players can go out and play all matches at scratch, make up their own handicap systems, or whatever.  They will, however, take themselves out of competitions that use the USGA system, which shouldn't bother them at all if they think the USGA system is a stupid, crappy system and don't want to take the time and effort to try to work with the USGA to improve it

Carl,

if I understand you correctly you are saying that a player can decide not to post a score every round by opting out but if this is done then they can have no official handicap nor play in comps. Here in the UK the vast majority of players want to play a social game most of the time but still want to enter official competitions sometimes. However, this would not be possible in the US so players are left to either not getting what they want or having to bend the rules.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Carl

One of the biggest problems with the US handicapping system is that a very low percentage of golfers actually have an official handicap.  So the issue with USGA events for most is a non-issue.  Regardless, I am very confused as to why a "handicapping body" is interested in all scores...to the point that it claims it is necessary for accuracy. 

I never posted all my scores when living in the US as I didn't believe many of my rounds were a fair reflection of playing by the proper rules.  I much prefer only posting competitive scores as is the case in the UK.  However, one big drawback in the UK is the system isn't dynamic enough to reflect trends of 1, 3 or however many months.  I could be playing terribly for whatever reason and my cap will take ages to reflect this...sometimes years!   

Ciao   

[Carl Johnson]

Finally, although the handicap system requires a score to be posted after each round, no one makes golfers use the system.  Players can go out and play all matches at scratch, make up their own handicap systems, or whatever.  They will, however, take themselves out of competitions that use the USGA system, which shouldn't bother them at all if they think the USGA system is a stupid, crappy system and don't want to take the time and effort to try to work with the USGA to improve it

Carl,

if I understand you correctly you are saying that a player can decide not to post a score every round by opting out but if this is done then they can have no official handicap nor play in comps. Here in the UK the vast majority of players want to play a social game most of the time but still want to enter official competitions sometimes. However, this would not be possible in the US so players are left to either not getting what they want or having to bend the rules.

Jon

I think you've got it, Jon!  Assuming that by "comps" you mean club handicapped competitions.  I don't know why a player who disdains the handicap system couldn't still play in the club's scratch medal play championship, for example, but I've never actually explored that (of no personal relevance to me).  Good question.

[Thomas Dai]

Are individual stableford competitions* ever played at clubs in the US or are all club comps medal play only?
atb

* I mean formal comps orgainised within clubs, not knock-abouts for a few $ against a few mates.

[Pete_Pittock]

Thanks, Pete.  So at at your club the handicap/competition committee has the clear responsibility for initiating and finalizing the combo tees.  Does this committee also have responsibility for determining the normal locations for the regular colored tees?  I'm not talking about day to day adjustments the superintendent would make to spread wear, but the fundamental decisions about the yardages for each different colored course.  If not the handicap/competiton committee, then who makes those decisions?

Carl,
The original tees were set by the architects and owner. At the time there was no committee. Unlikely to be taken up now.

[Jon Wiggett]

Finally, although the handicap system requires a score to be posted after each round, no one makes golfers use the system.  Players can go out and play all matches at scratch, make up their own handicap systems, or whatever.  They will, however, take themselves out of competitions that use the USGA system, which shouldn't bother them at all if they think the USGA system is a stupid, crappy system and don't want to take the time and effort to try to work with the USGA to improve it

Carl,

if I understand you correctly you are saying that a player can decide not to post a score every round by opting out but if this is done then they can have no official handicap nor play in comps. Here in the UK the vast majority of players want to play a social game most of the time but still want to enter official competitions sometimes. However, this would not be possible in the US so players are left to either not getting what they want or having to bend the rules.

Jon

I think you've got it, Jon!  Assuming that by "comps" you mean club handicapped competitions.  I don't know why a player who disdains the handicap system couldn't still play in the club's scratch medal play championship, for example, but I've never actually explored that (of no personal relevance to me).  Good question.

Carl,

as an amateur player I used to love going out with a couple of friends playing a few holes or even a round. We often used to have chipping competitions, leave certain holes and play multiple loops of others. I also liked playing in club comps (yes, competitions). As I understand it in the US I would have to chose between playing comps or playing my social golf as I like to. That really would put me off the game and I am sure would have made me say no to carrying on playing the game. I am not surprised that golf is losing players if that is the system.

Jon

[Carl Johnson]

Are individual stableford competitions* ever played at clubs in the US or are all club comps medal play only?
atb

* I mean formal comps orgainised within clubs, not knock-abouts for a few $ against a few mates.

Each club has its own formal competitions and I have no way of knowing the most usual in the U.S.  At my U.S. club in North Carolina there are four major "competitions" as I think you would call them or "championships" as we call them at our club.  These are certainly not atypical.  At the top of the heap is the Club Championship, which is three rounds of pure medal play, low scratch score wins (there are also "flights" or groupings for the less skilled players try their competitive skills at their own skill levels), and separate related Senior Club Championship for players 55 and older only.  Second there is an individual match play championship, knockout, at scratch.  I think that's called the Players' Cup.  Next is an individual match play championship, knockout, at handicaps.  That's called the President's Cup, I believe, and is second only to the Club Championship in tenure.  Lastly is a four-ball match play championship, knockout, that is handicapped -- the Members' Cup.  (There are also one or two Ladies Championships, but I'm not going to try to guess how they work.)  None of these Championships are Staplefords.  There is second tier of competitions organized by our club, some involving Stapleford competitions, foursomes, scrambles and other games, and mixtures thereof, but all are team play of some sort and in my experience their principal purpose seems to be an organized excuse for drinking, eating, gamb**ng and otherwise socializing.  These events are much enjoyed by our club's members.  Hope this helps some.  Personally, I'm only in the "knock-abouts for a few $ against a few mates" category.