The simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer

[Paul Gray]

Carl,

There are any number of sure fire ways but often those measures make you unpopular. Money talks in every possible sense.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

There are any number of sure fire ways but often those measures make you unpopular. Money talks in every possible sense.

Agreed.  I'm talking about a sure fire method that works within the context of both private and daily fee golf and that does not involve upsetting or offending anyone.  In other words, creating a mindset among golfers so that without prompting by the golf police or anyone else they learn how to move on.  I'll start a separate thread on the subject so I won't mess up this one.  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60242.0.html

[Lyne Morrison]

Patrick,

Unfortunately you have misconstrued my writing.

You have also distorted my message and made false assumptions.

Please do not do this.

Lyne

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lynn,

I didn't misconstrue anything.

My reading comprehension skills remain quite astute.

If you meant something else you should have typed something else.


Patrick,

Unfortunately you have misconstrued my writing.

You have also distorted my message and made false assumptions.

Please do not do this.

Lyne

[Lyne Morrison]

It makes no sense to suggest golf should remain fixed to the model of tee layout presented in the early twentieth century. From a business perspective that notion just doesn't fly.

As Mark and Jeff have noted, in the real world - multiple tees provide a more enjoyable challenge to a greater number of players - they serve the needs of the customer.

As to the correct number, that may be a matter of culture. The only time I have viewed 'five, six or seven sets of tees' is in the United States. I believe four, is about right, although this may vary with circumstance. All should be carefully planned and sited, with as low a profile as possible.

Lyne

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I am generally in your camp, but that would necessitate archies changing how they build courses, seriously reducing the yardage of courses and seriously reconsider some sites used...that sounds good to me.  Even so, there are times when alternate tees should be built to accommodate weaker players when tragic hazards loom and to increase interest for better players (ie using width and angles where available). 


Sean,

I'm not suggesting that existing courses reduce their multiple tee arrangement down to one tee.

What I'm suggesting is that the concept of a single tee would allow the architect to design a course that presents challenges that are commensurate with the abilities of the various levels of golfers without unduly punishing the lesser golfer or rewarding the superior golfer.

Multiple tees present the inferior golfer with the same challenge in the DZ that the superior golfer faces, and that would seem to be excessive.

It would also reduce costs to build and maintain.

There are only a handful of courses that I know of that can present a challenge to the best golfers in the world and the average member or guest on a daily basis without any special set up, and wind tends to be a significant factor.

But, I'd rather confine the discussion to local clubs rather than PGA Tour/USGA Open venues

[Patrick_Mucci]

It makes no sense to suggest golf should remain fixed to the model of tee layout presented in the early twentieth century.
From a business perspective that notion just doesn't fly.

How do you know that if no present day facility exists for comparison ?


As Mark and Jeff have noted, in the real world - multiple tees provide a more enjoyable challenge to a greater number of players - they serve the needs of the customer.

Again,how do you know that absent a comparative model ?

ANGC seems to fare quite well with just one set of Member tees.

If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?

As to the correct number, that may be a matter of culture. The only time I have viewed 'five, six or seven sets of tees' is in the United States. I believe four, is about right, although this may vary with circumstance. All should be carefully planned and sited, with as low a profile as possible.


But that's not reality.
Clubs have typically added tees over the last 60 years based upon the whims of Green Committees and Boards, totally absent a global overview.   And, as the I&B produced greater distances, clubs added more tees in an effort to counter more distance.

It's "PAR" and "EGO" that's produced multiple tees.
And "PAR" presents an interesting internal conflict at clubs.

When it comes to outside/tournament play, clubs want to defend "par" and will go to extremes to do so.

Yet, when it comes to member play, clubs want to make "par" more easily obtainable, ergo more tees.

The question I would ask is:
is there a need for more than one tee on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th or 6th holes at NGLA ?

It's tournament golf and the defense of "par that's responsible for clubs adding or lengthening back tees.

[John Percival]

Pat,
Agree with ur idea. In theory.
The 'devil is in the detail'
What distance?
So many at GCA love 6500 +/-.
OK then, what about the Ladies?
The retirees?

Especially with the maturing of the Baby Boomers, the need for more shorter options will grow with every year.
Or, courses will face the loss of revenue from those two groups.
We have seen so many clubs teetering financially, that any loss of rounds could prove disastrous.

Of course, there are a few examples at private facilities (GCGC, for example) where the practice might work. And, absolutely, the ball roll-back would help (wish it would, but aint gonna happen). So, it looks like we're stuck with the status quo.
 
Unless we look at another option......bring back hickories!

[Bill_McBride]

I always remember sitting in a committee meeting talking about our master plan for the restoration of the club's golf course.  We were discussing adding back an original centerline bunker (it would have been maybe only 160-180 yards off the main tee).  Several people on the committee did not want me to restore it because they felt it would only penalize the higher handicappers.  Finally one gentlemen spoke up (a past multiple time club champion).  He said, “Mark, I used to be a pretty good player when I was younger.  Now I can’t hit it out of my shadow but that doesn’t mean I want all the interest and excitement taken out of the game just so I have an unobstructed path to the green.  Us shorter hitters what some challenge to and that bunker would be perfect for us even though the longer hitters would fly right over it.  They will have to deal with the other bunker on that hole farther up the fairway.  Put that shorter one in.”   

One set of tees doesn’t work anymore and the Golden Age architects figured that out pretty quickly.  Remember, tees (especially low profile tees) are one of the easiest and least expensive design features to add (or take away) from most golf courses. If adding them makes the game more fun and interesting (and faster) for a wider range of golfers - PUT THEM IN!

This happened at the Valley Club when carry bunkers were reinstituted at #12 and 15.   I think they they affect the ladies more than the older gents but they are on the beautiful original Mackenzie plans displayed in the men's grill.  The ladies might be happier if they were allowed in there to see them!

[Michael Moore]

If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?

Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Agree with ur idea. In theory.
The 'devil is in the detail'
What distance?
So many at GCA love 6500 +/-.
OK then, what about the Ladies?
The retirees?

John,

What did the ladies and retirees do 50 75 and 100 years ago ?

Ladies and retirees didn't just start playing golf recently.

I would examine the carries that Ross, MacKenzie, Crump, Wilson, AWT, CBM/SR./CB and others presented.

Especially with the maturing of the Baby Boomers, the need for more shorter options will grow with every year.

That's an easy problem to solve.
CBM and Crump solved it by providing alternate routes to the green.
24 handicaps aren't supposed to play the same game as a zero handicap.
With angled features you can make the carry for the high handicap much shorter than the carry for the zero handicap
NGLA, GCGC and PV provide hole after hole with this configuration

Or, courses will face the loss of revenue from those two groups.

I don't see where NGLA, GCGC and PV have suffered.

We have seen so many clubs teetering financially, that any loss of rounds could prove disastrous.

You're not grasping the concept and how it would be presented.
Are golfer's desires to play ANGC, NGLA, GCGC and PV diminishing ?

Of course, there are a few examples at private facilities (GCGC, for example) where the practice might work. And, absolutely, the ball roll-back would help (wish it would, but aint gonna happen). So, it looks like we're stuck with the status quo.

Only if we limit our thinking
 
Unless we look at another option......bring back hickories!

[Patrick_Mucci]

If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?

Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.

So do NGLA and CPC and it's worked for them for 100 years

[Patrick_Mucci]

If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?

Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.

You may not be aware of it, but women play ANGC, GCGC and PV

[Patrick_Mucci]

The problem some of you morons are having is that you're looking at play by women, seniors and others solely in the context of medal play and "par"

Women's score cards often reflect/ed "par" at a higher number than the men's "par".
Including "par" of 6

You're all caught up in the concept of equality amongst all golfers in the face of, and inspite of, disparaties in ability.

[Paul Gray]

For those that doubt what Pat is saying, I would ask you to consider two key points:

1) Do you honestly not think that the emergence of multiple tees has been a result of trying to satisfy peoples' egos? Nowadays you can either find a set of tees which allow you to pretend to be a good golfer or you can shoot a big number but nurse your ego by telling yourself that you're the sort of guy that plays from all the way back and you are therefore automatically a serious golfer.

2) Why do you doubt a model which worked successfully during a period in which demand for golf grew exponentially? In the UK most clubs still only have three sets of tees. I will happily concede that more tees have emerged as the differentiation between long and short has grown, but, if ego really wasn't/isn't a factor, would the simpler solution not be to increase the distance from one set of tees to another, rather than adding new tee after new tee after new tee?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I agree with you that the number of tees has gotten out of hand. My preference is for two maximum.

But, a couple questions:

When it comes to accommodating all levels of players - my words, not yours, I think - it seems odd to mention both Augusta and Pine Valley. Aren't they really quite different designs with Augusta fitting that description far better than Pine Valley?

As for Pine Valley, how playable do you think it was for the high handicap player in the 30s, 40s or 50s? FYI, I once played the course in a group with Ernie Ransome that had a 36+ guy. It was brutal to say the least.

[John Percival]

Pat,
You did copy and respond to my thoughts, so u did see that GCGC was included w/ the exceptions.
As u listed ANGC, PV and GCGC, it shud be noted that they are all men's clubs.
Do u want to play behind a group w/ two average Ladies playing at 6200 yds?

Most 'regular' private clubs wud have a riot from the chicks if they offed the fwd tees.

Ur point is still very valid, but it seems to be more of an equipment issue that architects have had to adjust to. It wud be interesting to know the existing average tee distance for 'normal' players. Compare that to the avg Tour distance of about what 300?. Am guessing a difference of 70 yds or so. Cant believe it was close to that when AWT, DJR, CBM, etal were sketching up their great tracks.  Hell, even the USGA and PGA r forced to jack courses. So, if we took the one tee argument to their 'conclusion', ud have pars of 82ish for average players.
Will say it again...bring back hicks.

Finally, if we had lesser/shorter players using longer tees, what wud that do to pace of play?

[JESII]

Pat,

Regarding your post #35: Can you cite a single hole at Pine Valley that accommodates an alternate route to the green for the 24 handicapper (to use your number)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci:

I agree with you that the number of tees has gotten out of hand. My preference is for two maximum.

But, a couple questions:

When it comes to accommodating all levels of players - my words, not yours, I think - it seems odd to mention both Augusta and Pine Valley. Aren't they really quite different designs with Augusta fitting that description far better than Pine Valley?

I would agree that ANGC probably accommodates the higher handicap more favorably, but remember the design intent behind PV.
Years ago I brought some friends there and the highest handicap, a 16, had the best round of his life.

As for Pine Valley, how playable do you think it was for the high handicap player in the 30s, 40s or 50s? FYI, I once played the course in a group with Ernie Ransome that had a 36+ guy. It was brutal to say the least.

I can't speak with certainty about golf at PV in the 30's, 40's or 50's and would have to rely on my dad's accounts of his play with his friends during those times.

I would imagine that tee to green play presented the major challenge during those times.
I can comment about play in the 60's and beyond.

The intimidating carries from the tee that come to mind were #'s 2, 5, 15 and 16.
Some, due to the visual presentation others due to the length of the carry and the visual.

But, my one friend, a high handicap played the best round of his life.
The"key" was staying out of trouble.
The fairways are very generous, so if you hit your ball straight, you tend to avoid telephone numbers.
Remember, 16 handicaps play bogey golf.  They don't and aren't expected to hit 14 greens in regulation.

For the high handicap, I think the par 3's are difficult, as is the carry on 15.

Remember, one of PV's primary defenses today is the slope and pace of their greens.
So much so that they softened several greens because those slopes couldn't tolerate today's increased speeds.
I don't think green speed presented the same challenge in the 30's, 40's and 50's

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Regarding your post #35: Can you cite a single hole at Pine Valley that accommodates an alternate route to the green for the 24 handicapper (to use your number)?


Jim,

Let's start with the 1st hole

[Paul Gray]

It really is amazing just how the whole concept of playability in golf has changed. Accommodating players once meant finding a route which allowed he or she to complete any given hole. Par had nothing to do with it or, more accurately, par for any given player was tailored by a little thing called the handicap system. Apparently now, rather than adjusting handicaps, we have to adjust the course, dumb it down until it measures 2,000 yards and pat everyone on the back for shooting 70.

I mean, go far enough with this and it can be argued that a hole which measures 360 yards from the back tees is equally a par 4 at 140 yards for many players as the reality is that it involves a miss hit full shot with an iron followed by a pitch, making it a drive and pitch par 4. Ridiculous.

Granted, the differential between long and short has caused a problem, as has a move towards an aerial game which effectively puts roadblocks in front of lesser players when a problem is faced which the lesser player simply doesn't have the ball flight to counter, meaning the only option is to either put a tee in 100 yards further up or have those lesser players picking up and moving to the next whole. Equally of course, an insistence of medal play at ever possible juncture has only compounded that problem.

So taking all the above as a given, the simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer, and remember that by "present a challenge" I don't mean "present a series of pars," is to do what worked for countless years and provide ground game options. It worked for the ODGs and it's working for the current crop of most sought after architects. Where's the confusion?   

[Jaeger Kovich]

All the architects/contractors that take a percentage of the construction budget for their design fee would freak out!

[Patrick_Mucci]

It really is amazing just how the whole concept of playability in golf has changed.

Paul,

I believe that TV has played a part in the "change"

Accommodating players once meant finding a route which allowed he or she to complete any given hole.

One of the great examples of alternate routes is the 1928 schematic of NGLA which clearly depicts alternate routes for two levels of golfers on certain holes.

The ability to "tack" one's way around the golf course in order to produce the best score seems to have become a lost art with the advent of modern equipment.

Par had nothing to do with it or, more accurately, par for any given player was tailored by a little thing called the handicap system.

Apparently now, rather than adjusting handicaps, we have to adjust the course, dumb it down until it measures 2,000 yards and pat everyone on the back for shooting 70.

Agreed.

I mean, go far enough with this and it can be argued that a hole which measures 360 yards from the back tees is equally a par 4 at 140 yards for many players as the reality is that it involves a miss hit full shot with an iron followed by a pitch, making it a drive and pitch par 4. Ridiculous.

Granted, the differential between long and short has caused a problem, as has a move towards an aerial game which effectively puts roadblocks in front of lesser players when a problem is faced which the lesser player simply doesn't have the ball flight to counter, meaning the only option is to either put a tee in 100 yards further up or have those lesser players picking up and moving to the next whole. Equally of course, an insistence of medal play at ever possible juncture has only compounded that problem.

I'd agree, although I don't mind when those roadblocks are at the green.
Although, Ross and others seemed content to insert those roadblocks early in the hole.

So taking all the above as a given, the simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer, and remember that by "present a challenge" I don't mean "present a series of pars," is to do what worked for countless years and provide ground game options.

I'd agree with that as well

It worked for the ODGs and it's working for the current crop of most sought after architects. Where's the confusion?   

EGO.

I used to play from the back tees on a 666-670 and 620-640 par 5, often.

I wouldn't have any problem playing them today if that was the only tee in use.

The only result would be that my handicap would go up.

But, Imagine the thrill in parring or birdying the holes 

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

Good post (because we actually agree  ).

Those road blocks were indeed often still present, albeit they were an occasional change in what was demanded of the player, rather than what we now have which is high cappers feeling as is they're stuck in mud because shot after shot now requires high ball flight even when a low ball doesn't actually spell disaster. In other words, just let the bloody ball run and high cappers can play from the same tees as you and me. Golf courses, in effect, get disproportionately longer for shorter hitters when an aerial approach is dictated. If they can't get extra yards through the ball rolling along, 6,000 yards when you only carry the thing 150 yards is a very long way. It means nothing however if you fly the thing 300 yards and the ball comes down vertically. I keep telling this story but it's another one which really struck a cord with me:

A while back I (playing alone on a Sunday afternoon) played through two REALLY old ladies. I was struck by the fact that the nature of our course, i.e. a genuine links, afforded them the possibility of still playing the game. The course from the ladies tees is just over 5,800 yards and, whilst they were never going to make par, they were having fun running the ball along the ground. From their tees, which have barely moved in the last 80 years, they experienced those aforementioned occasional because the forced carries for them were still a real factor. It should perhaps be noted however that those carries did not, could not or would not represent insurmountable road blocks. Now, on the same golf course as I was playing, their games were being challenged just as much as my game was. Transport them to almost an course built in the 1980's and they just wouldn't have been able to play. 

But aside from the ground game, as I said (or meant to intimate), the odd road block was less of an issue back in the day anyway because medal play wasn't the be all and end all, therefore the push for forward tees wasn't so substantive.

PS: Say something about Trump. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
You did copy and respond to my thoughts, so u did see that GCGC was included w/ the exceptions.
As u listed ANGC, PV and GCGC, it shud be noted that they are all men's clubs.

It should also be noted that women play those courses.

Do u want to play behind a group w/ two average Ladies playing at 6200 yds?

John,

I know a lot of women golfers who play alot faster than men golfers.

And, as I indicated, playing from a single tee would allow the architect to create separate, propotional challenges.

I'm not a golf "snob".  I play with the broadest spectrum of golfers.
My two basic rules are, play at pace and know where your ball is at all times.
However, when you're sitting in a waiting room at MSKCC and you know that the person sitting next to you won't be sitting there next week, you gain a heightened sense and appreciation for time.

Playing a round of golf with fellow competitors whose company you enjoy is one of my great pleasures in life.
I don't want to rush through the round, but, I don't want to labor through it either.

I've had some very enjoyable rounds with women who meet all of the criteria previously mentioned.

Slow play has become a cultural issue, systemically, one not confined to gender.

It certainly takes longer to play 7,200 yards than it does 6,200, which takes longer than 5,200.
But, if the culture was changed, you'd make allowances for the time it takes to play a course that's 7,200; 6,200 or 5,200.

Most 'regular' private clubs wud have a riot from the chicks if they offed the fwd tees.

Initially, I agree, because those golfers are in their "comfort zone" when it comes to the tees they play, the scores they shoot and the handicaps they have.

But, I'll ask you this ?

Why all the fuss, why all the focus on women becoming members of ANGC ?
If the "chicks" have to play the Members tees, do their dues come with a surcharge for the riot police ?
I get calls from women who want to play GCGC, knowing full well that there aren't any ladies tees.
Why ?

When Ken Bakst and Dick Youngscap printed their first scorecards, I don't believe that "par" was listed.
So, if you and I had a match at Friars Head and Sand Hills our only concern would be who had the lowest score on each hole.
We wouldn't care what par was, only how we fared at the end of each hole.

One of the greatest matches I ever had, despite the completely unbelievable outcome, due in no small part to a large pebble on the 17th green, was at Sand Hills against Ran.
We both played exceptionally well.  We both enjoyed ourselves immensely, although I think Ran enjoyed himself a little more once the match was over.
Yet today, almost 10 years later, I recall that day and the fun we had.
Had I been playing in a medal play event, I doubt that I'd recall much of anything except for the embarrassing GCA.com morons riding around the perimeter of the golf course, in the back of a white pick-up truck, looking at the non-constructed holes in the Constellation routing.

It wouldn't have mattered if Sand Hills played at 5,200, 6,200 or 7,200
 

Ur point is still very valid, but it seems to be more of an equipment issue that architects have had to adjust to.

There's no doubt that the I&B have complicated the issue.

It wud be interesting to know the existing average tee distance for 'normal' players. Compare that to the avg Tour distance of about what 300?.
Am guessing a difference of 70 yds or so. Cant believe it was close to that when AWT, DJR, CBM, etal were sketching up their great tracks. 

Agreed, the distance disparity was much narrower.

Hell, even the USGA and PGA r forced to jack courses. So, if we took the one tee argument to their 'conclusion', ud have pars of 82ish for average players.
Will say it again...bring back hicks.

Only if you'll vote for reinstituting the "stymie"

Finally, if we had lesser/shorter players using longer tees, what wud that do to pace of play?

It's not the length of someone's shots that determines pace of play.
One only has to compare themselves to Jack Nicklaus in his prime to see the answer that issue.