29% of non-golfing women want to play golf....

[Duncan Cheslett]

It depends on the forced carry. 150 yards over a flat expanse of heather is a huge turn off.


A 75 -100 yard carry over a ravine or lake however, has beginners enthralled. They love the challenge of trying make it and the exhilaration when they are successful.


In such situations if possible the very forward tee should involve some of the carry experienced from the back tees. Placing it in front of the carry completely leaves beginners and ladies feeling cheated.

[MCirba]

My wife still hasn't stopped talking about making the carry over the Delaware River on the Binnikill hole at Shawnee a few summers back.


We also have a framed photo in our kitchen of the par-3 3rd hole at Pine Needles where a few winters ago she made a 3 to my double-bogey 5.

[MCirba]

Sorry for the double post but here is the thread I mentioned earlier. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61175.msg1452293.html#msg1452293

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Using the new forward tees at La Costa, my wife has driven a par 4 (the 16th Champions) and birdied, followed up by a birdie on the famous 17th, now playing 89 yards or so from the forward tee.  She still talks about it.


Women are like anyone else....they like to talk about their birdies in the bar after the round, no?  Seems like we ought to give them the chance to make a birdie. 


Who wants to talk about reaching a par 4 in 4, and draining the putt to save bogey?  As one female golfer I know puts it, "That's just putting whipped cream on a turd."


As to forced carries, Alice Dye came up with the formula to never ask for a forced carry of more than 2/3 of expected shot distance, i.e. for 140 yard hitters, no more than 97 yards, etc.  Seems to work.  For 290 hitters, I have seen, depending on wind, them having trouble carrying 200 yards, but they seem to make 180 yards pretty easily in any condition.

[MCirba]

Good points all, Jeff.

I'd like to see all courses have a set of forward tees at about 4,200 yards, which seems ideal for most women and young juniors.

[Bob Montle]

Time and money are not quite the barriers they're made out to be.  The two factors that would help women play more that they relegated to the fine print were "Nine hole green fees" and "My children were able to go with me whenever I play".  Fix those, and you've made a big dent in the money and the time.

At my local public course you can sometimes see women playing nine holes (walking for $8),  pushing strollers (containing their children) and using the stroller as a push cart!

[Sean_A]

Good points all, Jeff.

I'd like to see all courses have a set of forward tees at about 4,200 yards, which seems ideal for most women and young juniors.

Why not simply build more courses which use less land?  The solution calls for a rethink, not simply sticking a shorter set of tees in the ground on every course.  The last thing we need are more courses stretching a ridiculous number of yards in the vain hope of accomodating all.  If we are talking about responsible building, designing for carts ain't the answer.  Pick very carefully which courses can properly sustain tees which are a mile forward or you will create endless walking nightmares. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I'd like to see all courses have a set of forward tees at about 4,200 yards, which seems ideal for most women and young juniors.

Roll-back the ball properly and it would be other categories as well.
Atb

[MCirba]

Why not simply build more courses which use less land?  The solution calls for a rethink, not simply sticking a shorter set of tees in the ground on every course.  The last thing we need are more courses stretching a ridiculous number of yards in the vain hope of accomodating all.  If we are talking about responsible building, designing for carts ain't the answer.  Pick very carefully which courses can properly sustain tees which are a mile forward or you will create endless walking nightmares. 

Ciao

Hi Sean,

I didn't think my answer precluded building shorter courses on less acreage.   For instance, my wife and I played Audubon Park two years back and had a blast and frequently I'll take her to par three courses and other variations of "Executive" courses that have much the same effect in terms of playability for women while maintaining interest and challenge for me.

The problem as I see it is that most "Championship" courses that exist today do precisely what you referred to with a set of tees back over 7,000 yards and on downwards, but the problem comes when the women's or front set of tees is still somewhere around 5,500 yards or more.

This leads to the four shots onto the green and one putt bogey that Jeff Brauer mentioned.    Par fives are often a nightmare; imagine playing the game where you need to take over 5 full swings and still aren't on the green after hitting what to you are solid shots.

I believe it was Alice Dye who also mentioned that for a most women golfer's to play to par in regulation figures the idea length would be about 4,200 yards, which feels right to me based on what I've seen from my wife who hits the ball a decent distance of 150 yards or so on well struck shots, considering carry and roll.

[Tom_Doak]

Good points all, Jeff.

I'd like to see all courses have a set of forward tees at about 4,200 yards, which seems ideal for most women and young juniors.

Curious how many courses you have seen with a set of forward tees that short.  I have only seen a handful below about 4800 yards.


I am consulting for St. Enodoc in England which is seen as a short "holiday" course at 6300 yards par 69.  For the ladies?  It's 5718 yards par 73, and the average score for the ladies in competitions is 106.  They have recently started mowing in some "silver" tees further up, but even those are nowhere near short enough considering the rugged nature of the ground.

[Dave McCollum]

I want to read the entire thread, but don't have time now.  Just wanted to say that in season we have both men's and women's twilight leagues.  The women's has significantly more participation and uses the entire course while the men can get by on 9 holes.  The forward tees are a bit long at 5172 yards, so we compensate by making the par 74 (72 for men).  I credit the women's leadership for this popularity.   

[MCirba]

Curious how many courses you have seen with a set of forward tees that short.  I have only seen a handful below about 4800 yards.


I am consulting for St. Enodoc in England which is seen as a short "holiday" course at 6300 yards par 69.  For the ladies?  It's 5718 yards par 73, and the average score for the ladies in competitions is 106.  They have recently started mowing in some "silver" tees further up, but even those are nowhere near short enough considering the rugged nature of the ground.

Tom,

Admittedly, it's the exception, which is part of the problem I believe.

However, I am seeing more of it and in just the past few months I've played a number of courses that have significantly forward tees.   Just two weeks back I played Country Club of Mobile (AL) and they have 7 sets of tees (called simply enough, "Tees 1-7") on each hole, which may be a bit excessive.   However, it does allow them to have courses varying from 6,842 to 4,152 yards and they have more tees than tee boxes if you know what I mean, so it's not unsightly in the least, particularly with low key markers.

The front, or "Red" tees at Swope Memorial in Kansas City are 4,517 yards on a hilly property which seems about right.

Interestingly, both courses at Cabot have forward tees.   Cabot Links has "Orange" tees playing 4,942 and "Royal Blue" tees playing 3,691, while Cabot Cliffs has Orange tees at 5,059 yards and "Royal Blue" markers at 3,785.

[Ira Fishman]

Although it is a tad over 5000 yards and a Par 70, Old White is a good example of a course that women can enjoy.  The longest Par 4 is around 340 and the longest Par 3 is 145.  Plus if memory serves the front tees are set so that the player can still value the holes without the tee shot being too difficult (Numbers 6 and 16 for example--and 16 is a Cape template).  I hear that the restoration after the tragic floods is coming along very well.

[Joe Zucker]

Making courses under 5,000 yards would be great for women and beginners.  But that is probably going to make for some long walks to get to the appropriate teeing area.  These long walks would be onerous in a lot of spots where the regular tees are set up at 6,500.  I'm not an architect, but it seems like it would be almost impossible to create a course where the walk from a green to tee is short for both 6,500 tees and 4,500 tees.  Short courses are good and we probably need more 5,900 places than 7,200, but that is probably not an attractive course for most men who think they hit it 260 

[Sean_A]

Mike
My point is that tagging on miles forward tees is not a good solution much of the time especially for modern courses. It sends a women are second class message that would be quit accurate. Plus, if we are hoping to eliminate gender tees and simply have tees, the way forward is to build courses whose orientation is aimed at 6000ish yards max tees. I haven't seen a course pulloff the Houdini trick of being a good walk for 7000 yards and 5000 yards.


Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Golf needs a pickle ball....

[jeffwarne]

Good points all, Jeff.

I'd like to see all courses have a set of forward tees at about 4,200 yards, which seems ideal for most women and young juniors.

Why not simply build more courses which use less land?  The solution calls for a rethink, not simply sticking a shorter set of tees in the ground on every course.  The last thing we need are more courses stretching a ridiculous number of yards in the vain hope of accomodating all.  If we are talking about responsible building, designing for carts ain't the answer.  Pick very carefully which courses can properly sustain tees which are a mile forward or you will create endless walking nightmares. 

Ciao

+1

[BCowan]

Golf needs a pickle ball....

+1, spontaneous order.  Thank god we don't have analytics for pickle ball.  It was hard getting beat by an 86 year old last month but much easier then reading a few of these posts 

[jeffwarne]

Golf needs a pickle ball....

+1, spontaneous order.  Thank god we don't have analytics for pickle ball.  It was hard getting beat by an 86 year old last month but much easier then reading a few of these posts 

and I thought it was just your golf that had slipped...

[Duncan Cheslett]

Mike
My point is that tagging on miles forward tees is not a good solution much of the time especially for modern courses. It sends a women are second class message that would be quit accurate. Plus, if we are hoping to eliminate gender tees and simply have tees, the way forward is to build courses whose orientation is aimed at 6000ish yards max tees. I haven't seen a course pulloff the Houdini trick of being a good walk for 7000 yards and 5000 yards.


Ciao

Are we really going to see many new golf courses built at all in the foreseeable future? I think not - the market is already over-supplied and the economics don't add up other than for a top-end destination course such as the one planned at Dornoch or the likes of Castle Stuart, Trump Aberdeen etc. The target market for such ventures is serious male golfers on a buddy trip, and they generally want a "full-length" ball-buster of a course.


I can't see any prospect of anyone putting up the money to build a "ladies course".


7000+ yard course are  the exception, however. Most golf in the UK is played on local club or municipal courses which typically play 5800 - 6500 yards from the back and maybe 200 yards less from the daily tees. The problem for ladies is that their tees are normally only 200-300 yards shorter than that, making all but the shortest par 4s 3 full shots to the green. Logically, they would be 1000 yards or more shorter, and this could be managed in most cases without unduly awkward walks.


The best hole for ladies at Reddish Vale is the 8th. At 400 yards for men it is a tough hole up a rise 100 yards from the tee and then up another to a raised green. It plays stroke index 2.  The ladies' tee however, is at the top of the first rise a full 100 yards ahead of the mens tee rather than the normal 20 yards or so. It takes two bloody good shots, but it at least offers the possibility of getting to the green in regulation. Lady members love the hole.


Perversely however, when I suggest to my wife that maybe other holes on the course would also benefit from the ladies tee being placed further forward she gets angry. She sees such suggestions as an attempt to "dumb down" the course.


 


This is the main problem with attempting to alter courses to attract more lady golfers. Existing lady golfers will fight you tooth and nail.


They are damn funny blokes, women.

[Sean_A]

Duncan


Unfortunately you are right.  But I do think there are opportunities to redevelop some courses into a smaller footprint and perhaps even make money on the deal. I realize sticking in tees 1500 yards forward of forward tees is a cheap fix, but in reality it ain't a fix. How many women are going to fall for that nonsense?


Ciao

[Neil White]

Alice Dye is a champion of 'forward tees' and whilst I understand Sean's reservation about merely shortening the course though not the walk something like the attachment below seems a reasonable way to overcome the issue quickly and with a relatively low cost - in fact one point made creates a saving to offset some or all of the cost.


http://dyedesigns.com/documents/twoteesystem.pdf

[Sean_A]

Speed


I have seen that outline before.  It focuses on cart golf as a given.  To me, this is a terrible place to start talking about women's tees. As some have said previously, one of the ways golf should be sold, especially to women who reputedly like to be more social than men while playing golf, is a focus on health.  That means the cart should be parked, but courses then need to be designed to be sensibly walked. 


I notice too that Alice is talking about a bit longer course than many here...some extra 400 yards.  That could be a big difference in tying in tees to many already existing shorter courses.  This is probably a sensible approach because there are many holes where a green to tee is involved, but a well forward tee could be a walk in a different direction closer to the next green...meaning the walk to either tee is about the same...nothing lost.  Think of Burnham's 9th to 10th transition as an example. 


All that said, Duncan is right.  Women's (or should I say well forward tees) should be about reducing yardage, not thrills or architecture.  If this can be pulled off without too much compromise on the back tees, more men would move forward.  However, I still think it is a pie in the sky dream to think having tees cover from 4500 to over 7000 yards will solve the so-called women's issue.  No, courses need to be designed with the shorter hitter in mind even if it means some men will not step foot on the property.  However, I think for any such thing to happen with any degree of impact, far more women are going to have to invest more time and money in developing and designing courses.


Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Early morning read of the Fall of 2016 Connecticut State Golf Association newsletter and they have appointed their first "Director of Women's Golf". See page 4-5:


https://www.joomag.com/magazine/the-csga-links-volume-4-issue-6-october-2016/0240676001477420424?short

[Richard Choi]

Just wanted to clear some misconceptions on this thread...

Korea has the best Internet infrastructure in the world. To state the Korean kids are not bombarded constantly with social networks and reality shows is incorrect. You can watch practically any TV show and then some while riding subways in Korea. Try that in NY.

I think the advantage that Korean women have is that there are a ton of golf simulators and driving range available within neighborhoods so the access to practice facility is perhaps better than it is in US (though access to real golf courses are severely limited).

I tried to get my daughter (who is 14 now) involved in golf early on, but it was really difficult without joining a private club nearby. There are sports organization for young girls in soccer, tennis, basketball, volleyball, etc. but it was almost impossible to find readily accessible golf equivalent (and I tried). My daughter is now playing mostly tennis just because it was the easiest to get involved in. I would have loved it if she had become serious golf player...