The minimum that designers owe us

[Peter Pallotta]

Another thread caused me to remember being on the driving range and watching a man in his early 70s gracefully hitting one high, softly drawing 6 iron after another, each heading straight for the flag and each flying about 140 yards. He obviously once was a marvellous golfer, and in many ways still was/is.

And if you do the math it's easy to see that, even playing from the "white tees", and even if he hit nothing but 6 irons, this man would rarely encounter a golf hole where he couldn't be on the green with a chance at making his par putt.

Three of his typically fine 6 irons would get him there on any Par 4 of 420 yards or less;  four shots would get him putting for par on any Par 5 of 560 yards or less; and with some run up room, he could be on the green on many Par 3s in regulation and on the green in two on all the rest.

And I thought, that's it - that's the bare minimum that golf architects owe us. They owe us golf courses where a man or woman who still loves the game they've been playing (and playing well) for 50 or 60 years can be putting for par on every hole they play, even if they play with nothing but a "6 iron" (i.e. can't fly the ball more than 140 yards).   

Yes, after providing that bare minimum, I do hope architects give us more: e.g. beauty and variety and options and charm and challenges. But they cannot give us less.   

In an art-craft where apparently there "are no roles", that is the rule. The rule is this: if you can't figure out how to design quality courses that meaningfully engage quality golfers who have been playing the game for longer than you've been alive, then you're not allowed to be an architect. 

Peter
Okay - fine, you are allowed to still be an architect; but know that many of us will be quite upset and will have no compunction about talking behind your back and muttering unkind words. 
 

[Tom_Doak]

I usually do provide your "minimum" ... so I guess I can call myself a minimalist 


I think most other architects do the same, but I have heard one or two who seem to think that really short hitters should give up the game, or be confined to the ladies' tees.


I have learned a lot over the years from watching seniors play.  A few years ago, in St. Andrews, I watched a 50-ish woman golfer playing a club match hit the perfect shot to the 11th ... a low skimming driver that ran up the slope past Hill bunker, took the big slope in the green, and wound up about ten feet from the hole cut close to the Strath.  The hole actually played easier for her than it would have for the Tour pros, because of her low trajectory and a hole that was really designed for a running approach.  We could use a few more holes like that in golf.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Given the diversity of ability, the minimum is a moving target.  Yes, archies will try to satisify all levels and will fail.  We would be much better off if more specified target markets were identified for design.  I know many people talk about growing the game.  Well....to do that women must be targeted and to target women means building far shorter courses.  Guess what?  If that were actually done, I bet I would rather play their courses than the ones for men.


Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Some of us owe the designer the respect of practicing a bit before we disrespect their work by our poor play.

[Peter Pallotta]

An old saying suggests that the surest way to a happy life is to embrace whatever fate brings to you as if it were precisely what you would've chosen for yourself.

What if I chose, right now, to play golf as if I could only hit the ball 160 yards, but nearly always right where I wanted?

I'd be playing some good golf - indeed, some very good golf. And I hope to one day soon have the self-discipline to play for the best score I can over 18 holes not despite taking irons off every tee but because of it.

Then my "choice" and an older/weaker/much younger player's "fate" would align and be as one -- we'd be playing the same golf course, from the same tees, hitting to the same landing zone(s), and putting for par on every hole:

me because I don't trust my driver but do trust my irons (and as John suggests, don't practice); he because age has caught up to a once wonderful golfer; she because she's yet able/learned how to generate enough club head speed to hit it further than 160; the young teen because he's still hasn't hit puberty; someone else because of a suddenly/chronic bad back; and yet another because of his hangover.     

And what does this require, this wonderful confluence of various ages and skill sets playing essentially the same game, and the same course, all of us challenged and engaged?

Simply this: that all architects follow that simple and singular rule, as per my first post.

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

"It’s Christmas and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things — books, games, clothes.

But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas.

If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may prevent you from facing many problems that have hurt people who have never learned it.

The truth is simply this: No one owes you anything.

Significance

How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life.

No one owes you anything.

It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel.

When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be.

It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more.

When people do things for you, it’s because they want to — because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything.

No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you.

No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either.

Living your Life

No one owes you anything.

You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them.

Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem.

Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts.

If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them.

My Experience

A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out —physically and emotionally — trying to collect them.

No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do.

That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want.

And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common. It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year.

I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free:

No one owes you anything."


Letter from Harry Browne to his daughter

[Mark Pavy]

Pietro


Given the diversity of ability, the minimum is a moving target.  Yes, archies will try to satisify all levels and will fail.  We would be much better off if more specified target markets were identified for design.  I know many people talk about growing the game.  Well....to do that women must be targeted and to target women means building far shorter courses.  Guess what?  If that were actually done, I bet I would rather play their courses than the ones for men.


Ciao

  You would be correct

[Thomas Dai]

Peter,

Forced carries have an impact in this regard.

There was a thread dedicated to them a while back - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60145.0.html - and this is what I said then and still go along with -


"I played several games many years ago with an elderly gentleman who had been a pretty reasonable player, easy single figure hcp, able to get the ball into the air no problem.

As he got older he lost the ability to hit the ball high. A hole on his home course, a par-5, required a carry of about 75 yds just short of the green. There was no way around, it was a forced carry or bust.Once-upon-time this was no problem for said gentleman, but alas in later years it was not possible for him to carry this distance. Instead he used to play up to the edge of the hazard, pick his ball up, walk to the other side, drop the ball and play on.

He was still playing golf, but he could no longer compete in club competitions and matches etc with his friends and fellow members. An element was now lost from his life. A great shame as he had been a stalwart of the club, competitions and inter-club matches for decades.I am of the school that wants a route to play each hole for all players, young bucks, old guys, juniors of both sexes, ladies, men, seniors etc. Everyone, even if they have to 'tack' their way around hazards.

Perhaps this is an unrealistic goal, but it's something I think should be desired and aimed for. They may not realise it yet, but todays young bucks and bombers will be tomorrows elderly gentlemen."

atb

[Joe Lane]

Hi Peter,


This is a tremendously insightful post—in the first place because it hypothesizes the requirement for a bare minimum at all. I think that’s a tremendously sophisticated thought, and you really ought to be commended on it. Thank you for adding something to how to think about the game.


Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Yes, you can count on me to try to deliver the minimum.  If the typical forward tee player hits it 140 on the drive, vs. 280 for the low handicapper, their course ought to be about 50% of the length of the back tees, which is much shorter than most forward tees today. 

I have taken to designing my tee sets at 90, 80, 70, and 60% of back tee length, which is a little short of the ideal goal, but pretty close.  If you run the math from the forward tees, no par 5 should probably be longer than 380 from there (140-120-120) and white tees about 180-140-140=460 yards.  And even then, who among us wants the 3 Wood to the green on the third shot of a par 5? And, each hole should be studied to make sure there are no, or at least reasonable, forced carries for these players.

I see a few hints on this thread (and in the real world) that somehow, they should take what the designer gives them and be happy about it.   I find that hard to justify.  Designers ought to design most courses for the folks that play them, not for awards for the owner and themselves, tournaments that will never come, or even the 0.1-1% of golfers who are scratch or near.

Nearly everyone here talks about how modern design makes golf no fun, but when specific things are proposed to make it more fun, they often stand in the camp of the traditionalists.  Only one tee? Or Two?  Give me a break.

Short version, nice post.  There are actually a few other things most designers feel or are told that they owe "us" including outside factors like being environmentally aware, a safe course, etc.

[John Kavanaugh]

If people who design airports felt that they "owe us" such minimum standards few could afford to fly, kinda like so few can afford to golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Catchy sound bite, but how so?


The additional tees really don't cost that much....not near as much as adding back tees (and acreage) for those few players who use them.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

How do you make that tee spacing work out when the terrain offers something else? There's a lot of land out there that would have your tee spacing left with tees in the bottoms of swales and such.

Does it only work on flat land, or do you work and rework the routing to a point that your tee program works?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Obviously, you start with the desired yardage, but yes, you always have to fit tees to terrain and vary the supposed ideal yardage.

We had that problem at La Costa.  A good female player loved the 4400 yard tees, saying she "Could hit 13 of 18 greens in regulation, but why didn't we do it on all 18?  And, fitting tees to topography was the answer, as some would have been in creeks, whatever.  In other cases, we moved back to keep them short of a cross hazard (or up to make sure the forced carry was doable".

Getting all 18 holes reachable in regulation is the goal, but in reality, if we get most of them, its still such a huge improvement over no thought at all that the players like it.

As mentioned above, I have better luck selling a new tee program by analyzing each hole than setting any particular yardage.  Ask a senior or woman about an individual hole, and they readily tell you that if they could get X yards closer to the hole off the tee, they could reach it, or they want forced carries reduced, etc. (either for themselves or sometimes "a friend who can't make that carry) and when you total it all up, the  white tees are about 5300 yards and the red tees are about 4300 yards.  But if you tell them you are looking to shorten their course, many balk at such a dramatic change, fearing handicaps go down, etc.

[Mark Pearce]

When did it become a golfer's right, regardless of ability, to reach a hole in regulation.  I'm a 12 handicap, I have been as low (but no lower) as 9.  The 13th hole at my home club is 470 yards, par 4.  I reckon I reach it in regulation maybe once a year.  I don't have a problem with that.  If I was a better player, I'd reach it more easily.  That's why better players are better players.

[Jeff_Brauer]

On the flip side, why shouldn't it be?  Once you establish a "regulation figure" it seems at least the distance if you hit two or three good shots ought to be doable by the vast majority of players. 

Makes golf faster, more fun, etc.  Not their fault that pro players hit it so much further than them, and that for a long time, courses were designed more for great players, even if they play 1% of rounds.

Doesn't form follow function?

[Joe Lane]

Hi Mark,


Not to pile on with what Jeff said—as I go ahead and pile on—but why wouldn’t the baseline presumption be that, if you’re playing from the correct tees, you should be able to reach the goal with well-struck—and correctly planned—shots? Does anyone want five or six hour rounds? This sort of thinking is why we have them: all those extra moments add up. 


To Jeff: excellently explained. Thank you so much for your insight about planning. I’d add one thing: at Streamsong Red, #17, Coore has the ladies’ tee in a position that, for a strong woman player, it’s possible to reach the green. Do you ever think about giving the forward tees a possible shot that’s unavailable from the standard tees—a different angle, say? At Medinah, there’s a very old tee on Course Three to the right of the 13th hole, that gives a completely different look at the green. They never mow it, but it’s still there—I only saw it used once, during a ladies’ day many years ago. Your thoughts would be valuable.


Thanks!


Joe
[size=78%]  [/size]

[Mark Pearce]

Joe,

I would expect that a good golfer, playing good shots, would be able to reach a green in regulation.  I would not expect the same for a poor golfer.  Peter's original post described a golfer who, hitting consistently good shots, would get the chance to putt for par on each hole.  That is, carrying the ball 160 yards, he could 2 putt for bogey if he could not reach in regulation.  That sounds fine to me. 

Allowing less skilled golfers to reach every hole in regulation strikes me as appealing to their vanity.  Golf is a sport.  We all know we can't run 100m in 10 seconds.  Why should we try to pretend we are as good as a player who can hit the ball 300 yards.  Are we all so shallow that we cannot see, and enjoy, the challenge of scoring as well as we can on holes we cannot reach?  My father in law is 84 and plays to a 14 handicap.  He has lost a lot of length in the past 20 years but with modern technology can still drive the ball 200 yards.  He is a member of a club with an Open championship course, reckoned by many to be too difficult because of its allegedly knee deep rough.  There are 6 par 4s on that course that he cannot, in average conditions, reach in two.  He doesn't complain, or see that as unfair.  He just gets on with working out how to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.  Isn't that what golf is supposed to be about?  He'd be appalled at the prospect of playing a game with me and playing off forward tees, which would mean he could reach in regulation.  For him, that wouldn't be golf.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

Thanks for the story of your father. I hear that sentiment often when it comes to aging golfers, in that they don't see anything unfair about how their game is affected due to changing physical abilities.

I'd also point out that being a good golfer comes about in many forms; length helps, but a good brain is what makes a good golfer. Playing to your abilities (or inabilities) is an evolving skill. Consistency is a hallmark of aging golfers, and the better golfers can beat you like a drum even if they can't hit every green in "regulation".

[Adam Lawrence]

There are pros and cons on both side of this argument. To be sure, hitting three wooden clubs to every par four isn't everyone's idea of fun, but it simply isn't possible to offer an equivalent challenge to every standard of golfer, even less these days when the variance of length between elite male and senior female is so huge. To do so would require massive numbers of different tees over an enormous range of distances -- a long par four might vary between 200 and 500 yards.


I have mentioned this on here before but I think an interesting intellectual exercise is to hypothesise that the rules suddenly changed so that everyone has to tee off from the same point on every hole -- i.e. just one set of tees. How would you design a course and make it interesting for everyone, so far as you can, if this were the case?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark, Joe - yes, and thanks.

As Mark notes, my original post doesn't mention reaching the green "in regulation" - and that was intentional. I had no intention of having that fine older golfer playing from any tees but the blues, right along side me and you and a teenager.  And while this thread has developed nicely, it is interesting how quickly it became a discussion about various tees/various yardages etc. That's not a criticism, just an indication of how powerful the concepts of par/in regulations are to just about everyone in golf.

Peter
Adam - just saw your post. Again, it never even occurred to me that there should be an "equivalent challenge". The bare minimum I'm talking about is having a course where Mark's father in law and the older gent I saw on the range can get to the green (from the same tees that you and I play) even if it takes them 3 fine shots while the rest of us take two.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hi Mark,


Not to pile on with what Jeff said—as I go ahead and pile on—but why wouldn’t the baseline presumption be that, if you’re playing from the correct tees, you should be able to reach the goal with well-struck—and correctly planned—shots? Does anyone want five or six hour rounds? This sort of thinking is why we have them: all those extra moments add up. 


To Jeff: excellently explained. Thank you so much for your insight about planning. I’d add one thing: at Streamsong Red, #17, Coore has the ladies’ tee in a position that, for a strong woman player, it’s possible to reach the green. Do you ever think about giving the forward tees a possible shot that’s unavailable from the standard tees—a different angle, say? At Medinah, there’s a very old tee on Course Three to the right of the 13th hole, that gives a completely different look at the green. They never mow it, but it’s still there—I only saw it used once, during a ladies’ day many years ago. Your thoughts would be valuable.


Thanks!


Joe
[size=78%]  [/size]

Joe,

Well, to pile on what a few other have said, more and more, I am coming to the conclusion that yes, two good shots should reach a par 4 green for most, since that is the essence of the game, making pars.  One of my inspirations was designing a 7600 yard course at Colbert Hills, and Jim Colbert Sr playing from forward tees to still enjoy golf, a la Mark's father.  While he may not complain, few of that generation do compared to our generation, the only question is if offered the option, would he enjoy golf more with shorter tees? 

We should truly consider how everyone plays and what makes it fun for them.  If you can honestly say bunting it down the fairway 3-5 times before having a chance to score with a pitch and putt would be fun for you, then I will try to find you an 8900 yard course to play!

In Peter's original post, please note he is not talking about a poor golfer....he is talking about a really good golfer who only hits it 160 max due to his age, so please stop talking about what "poor" players ought to accept.

Serious Question, but In reality, what could be more satisfying to an aging golfer than realizing you can beat longer players by using your long years of experience, accuracy and guile?  Try thinking about this issue as the future you!

As to the different look from the forward tee, yes, occasionally I have put a tee way up on a par 5 so that for the forward tee, it actually plays as a par 4, then created a forward tee par 5 from a long par 4 to balance.  Going back to La Costa, we placed a par 4 tee at 176 yards, so a female could really "bust one" and reach a par 4 green (giving an entirely new golf meaning to the phrase "big female bust".....)  There was some debate about why that should be, but my wife did it, and boy was she thrilled to reach the green and birdie. Then, she birdied the next hole, a 90 yard par 3.  These were holes 15 and 16, right in front of the hotel.  I looked at her and said we should quit, lest she ruin the impression all those up on the patio must have of her.

Again, the question is why shouldn't forward tee players have those kind of thrills on a golf course?  Why just low handicappers?

[Tom_Doak]

I have mentioned this on here before but I think an interesting intellectual exercise is to hypothesise that the rules suddenly changed so that everyone has to tee off from the same point on every hole -- i.e. just one set of tees. How would you design a course and make it interesting for everyone, so far as you can, if this were the case?

Adam:


Well, that would be The Old Course at St. Andrews, from about its original length.  [+/- 6000 yards]  You would rely on some of the short par-4's to provide "half-par" holes to hold the scratch golfer's interest, and not worry that the course rating might only be 67.  The expected score might be 75 or 80 for the seniors and ladies, but there would be lots of holes where they could still be competitive, especially if they were getting their strokes.  They would just have to be careful to avoid the bunkering, which is something most of them could do.


I do think that the pandering to weaker players by adding ever-more-forward tees is starting to go overboard.  It wouldn't be necessary if architects weren't also pandering to scratch players by building courses that were too long to start with.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Agreed. As I noted above, there are a lot more benefits to removing the back tee over removing the front tee.....

I always ask my clients who uses what tees after a few years.  One said 50, and I asked "A day, a week, a month?"  He said they had 50 groups play the back tees by the 10th anniversary of the course......most pros will estimate 5% without really knowing, but if you really keep count, its less than 1% at most places.  For that matter, if you plot the tee shot distances of most players, I believe almost all should be playing up a tee from where they play now, to make reaching  greens with mid irons (which I think was the intent of the ODG in their designs for the most part) but that is a whole other story.

I tell clients that we have enough championship courses and don't need more.  But, I know a business consultant who insists that the average middle tee player won't consider a course unless the back tees are over 7K.  He never seems to be able to come up with real data for that, its just an old perception.

I could be wrong, but I see it as a necessary course correction in design, thinking ahead to the Millennials, lack of time, lack of practice, and moreover, designing golf for their fun rather than making every course a championship course.  Time has shown those to be no fun for most....play is declining.....maybe its time to see if a different design paradigm can help bring them back.

[Mark Pearce]

more and more, I am coming to the conclusion that yes, two good shots should reach a par 4 green for most, since that is the essence of the game, making pars. 

No, it's not.  The essence of the game is getting the ball in the hole from the tee in the fewest shots possible.

If you can honestly say bunting it down the fairway 3-5 times before having a chance to score with a pitch and putt would be fun for you,

Neither Peter's golfer, nor my father in law, would be doing that on a 470 yard par 4.

In Peter's original post, please note he is not talking about a poor golfer....he is talking about a really good golfer who only hits it 160 max due to his age, so please stop talking about what "poor" players ought to accept.

Exactly.  But there's no reason that Peter's golfer should not need to hit three good shots to reach a long par 4.  There are Category 1 golfers (handicap less than 6) at my club who require three shots to reach our 13th hole.

Serious Question, but In reality, what could be more satisfying to an aging golfer than realizing you can beat longer players by using your long years of experience, accuracy and guile?  Try thinking about this issue as the future you!

To my father in law (and, I suspect, Peter's golfer) doing that by playing from a different tee to your opponent would be far from satisfying and certainly not as satisfying as hitting three really good shots and holing a single putt for par.

we placed a par 4 tee at 176 yards, so a female could really "bust one" and reach a par 4 green (giving an entirely new golf meaning to the phrase "big female bust".....)  There was some debate about why that should be, but my wife did it, and boy was she thrilled to reach the green and birdie. Then, she birdied the next hole, a 90 yard par 3.  These were holes 15 and 16, right in front of the hotel.  I looked at her and said we should quit, lest she ruin the impression all those up on the patio must have of her.

I don't want to burst your wife's bubble but if someone puts a tee at 210 yards and calls a hole a par 4, it's still a par 3 in my book.  The birdie on the 90 yard hole is the better birdie, because it's real.  Again, Peter's golfer and my father in law know that to be true.

Again, the question is why shouldn't forward tee players have those kind of thrills on a golf course?  Why just low handicappers?

Are they really so shallow that they cannot get those thrills by hitting, say, driver, 3 wood, 8 iron and making par on a 450 yard par 4?