[Frank M]

I was focused mostly on the third paragraph of the highlighted quote.  You presuming to set some minimum standard for new players (or existing ones) was pretty arrogant.  Sort of a "last one into paradise" type of thinking.


And, it doesn't really matter what I think of your broad brushed statements about what women want.....its what women think of them, no?

Can you provide to me just one "broad brushed statement about what women want" that I made?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was focused mostly on the third paragraph of the highlighted quote.  You presuming to set some minimum standard for new players (or existing ones) was pretty arrogant.  Sort of a "last one into paradise" type of thinking.


And, it doesn't really matter what I think of your broad brushed statements about what women want.....its what women think of them, no?

Can you provide to me just one "broad brushed statement about what women want" that I made?

Maybe it's just me, but some of the suggestions on how to get women to play golf seem absolutely crazy. For example, if a person can't carry the ball 150 yards consistently, be it a woman, man, child, or anything, I don't think they should be on a golf course period and building/designing a course for them I think is absurd. A pitch and putt? Sure. Other? Rare instances.

Yes, you tried to expand it to other golfers in your second sentence after directing to women in sentence one, but 1) Even that is pretty arrogant, and 2) we knew who you were talking about despite the belated attempt to cover it.


And while probably a separate thread altogether, I wonder if the most absurd thing we have done in architecture for 100 years is design for those 0.001% of golfers who are championship players, or for tournaments that will never come, and then trying (mostly lamely) to accommodate the other 99.9%, as opposed to starting design for the average golfer and maybe (for some courses) try to accommodate the championship player?

[Frank M]

Yes, you tried to expand it to other golfers in your second sentence after directing to women in sentence one, but 1) Even that is pretty arrogant, and 2) we knew who you were talking about despite the belated attempt to cover it.

Grasp at another straw.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

How about this one.....you are a male chauvinist pig and so much so you can't even begin to know it?


I will tell you that nearly every female of the species I know would tell you that if they read that last post.  I am much better than you....I am a male chauvinist, but smart enough to realize it!

[Frank M]

How about this one.....you are a male chauvinist pig and so much so you can't even begin to know it?


I will tell you that nearly every female of the species I know would tell you that if they read that last post.  I am much better than you....I am a male chauvinist, but smart enough to realize it!

Male chauvinist and smart don't belong together in the same sentence.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank, I rest my case....a truly smart person realizes that in this period of time, perception is reality......


That said, I am sorry for being harsh on you. 

Hey, yesterday Tom Doak told me it was time for me to hang it up.  Maybe I am just taking it out on you, instead!

[Frank M]

Frank, I rest my case....that said, I am sorry for being harsh on you. 


Hey, yesterday Tom Doak told me it was time for me to hang it up.  Maybe I am just taking it out on you, instead!

I don't follow every post on here and don't know many people outside of the forum. But thanks

[Mike Sweeney]

And while probably a separate thread altogether, I wonder if the most absurd thing we have done in architecture for 100 years is design for those 0.001% of golfers who are championship players, or for tournaments that will never come, and then trying (mostly lamely) to accommodate the other 99.9%, as opposed to starting design for the average golfer and maybe (for some courses) try to accommodate the championship player?

This is actually an interesting point.


Frank is worried about lowering standards or cheapening the game but the reality is there are 15,000 golf courses in America and most people will never see 500 courses in their lifetime. Sure we all know a few players who have seen a thousand but the point is - why is there not more variability in golf courses? If a 1000 courses cut out 1000 yards, is it a big deal? Yale is my home course and it is always going to be difficult for anyone to play. But that does not mean that every course should go that route in the New Haven area. Woodbridge CC is in limbo right now...


When I visited Goat Hill Park this summer the range had some women that looked very good - aspiring WPGA Tour types. The course measures 4500 yards but there was not a level lie on the place, so it was probably a good practice course for them.


I had my run of 6500-7000 Top 100 courses, but now I like variety and if I play a second 18 holes in a day, I prefer a Goat Hill or Winter Park CC type of course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,


In reality, I used your post to just sort of express some of the strong feelings I have on the matter of getting more women involved in golf.  Obviously, its something I think helps golf financially, and those young whippersnappers who want to take my place over the next few years.


I have seen women greatly appreciate anyone who designs with them in mind. And I have seen great scorn for those who don't (which is most of us)  So, that influences my opinion, too.


If you ever come to Texas, we should play some golf.  Only problem is, my distance has been dropping from 260 to a paltry 210 or so last week (it was cold, if summer I might hit it 220). Based on the rate of regression, you better get here quick!


And actually, one thing about golf that makes me smile is going to a course and seeing elderly men, with a fraction of their former strength and distance having a really great time playing golf in spite of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And while probably a separate thread altogether, I wonder if the most absurd thing we have done in architecture for 100 years is design for those 0.001% of golfers who are championship players, or for tournaments that will never come, and then trying (mostly lamely) to accommodate the other 99.9%, as opposed to starting design for the average golfer and maybe (for some courses) try to accommodate the championship player?

This is actually an interesting point.


Frank is worried about lowering standards or cheapening the game but the reality is there are 15,000 golf courses in America and most people will never see 500 courses in their lifetime. Sure we all know a few players who have seen a thousand but the point is - why is there not more variability in golf courses? If a 1000 courses cut out 1000 yards, is it a big deal? Yale is my home course and it is always going to be difficult for anyone to play. But that does not mean that every course should go that route in the New Haven area. Woodbridge CC is in limbo right now...


When I visited Goat Hill Park this summer the range had some women that looked very good - aspiring WPGA Tour types. The course measures 4500 yards but there was not a level lie on the place, so it was probably a good practice course for them.


I had my run of 6500-7000 Top 100 courses, but now I like variety and if I play a second 18 holes in a day, I prefer a Goat Hill or Winter Park CC type of course.

Mike,


In addition to distance, I also see a culture shift and the fact that the next gen won't be like us, just like we weren't like our parents.  Another example - Country (or other) music blaring from every cart.  I understand why traditionalists think the game is being cheapened, but I think we have to let players just enjoy the game the way they want to.  Let's face it - we did, being the cart generation, the beer cart generation, etc. (MHM will be chiming in on FB....)


As to variety, I am actually preparing a presentation right now (well, not right now, I'm wasting time on golf club atlas) and have slides showing how we have changed eating habits, from the HoJo broad menu of our parents generation to specialty restaurants. Another shows Homer Simpson in a mumu and asks if "One size fits all ever worked for fashion.....or anything?"


Short version - I do believe courses ought to segregate out to truly cater to a particular group of golfers, but most owners are loathe to shut out even 1% of the market, because it seems as though the top 1% do seem to sway opinions of "good courses" more than others.

[Joe Hancock]

Frank,


My Grandpa was able to enjoy the game of golf until he was 95 years old. I hope you get to do the same, but be prepared to play the game without a 150 carry in your bag.


Strange comment you made, but I suspect you didn't mean it as literally as you typed it.

[Mike Sweeney]

Let's face it - we did, being the cart generation, the beer cart generation, etc.

Just for the record, I walked every round (25 or so) in 2016! Jumped on a cart here and there but there is a REASON I like the shorter courses for the second round!

[Jeff_Brauer]

You are the exception that proves the rule!

[Frank M]

I suspect you didn't mean it as literally as you typed it.

I've played with and witnessed golfers of all ages and abilities enjoy the game and I enjoy playing alongside them. I think the game should be inclusive of everyone who cares to play

[Buck Wolter]

I decided to do a little research --or at least google it.


http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2015-16_Sports_Participation_Survey.pdf


This thing has some interesting #'s - --overall there are 30% less high schools that have girls's golf as boys but the total is ~1/2 in # of individual participants. I can't find another major sport that is anywhere near as comparable in the drop off in individuals between the sexes -- I think we need to get the 125K competitive spirit squads girls golf clubs! P 64 shows an amazing amount of variation state to state in girls golf --Minnesota has more participants than NY/NJ combined and 1/6 the population of those 2 states (NY had almost 7K boys and less than 2K girls).

[Joe Zucker]

I decided to do a little research --or at least google it.


http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2015-16_Sports_Participation_Survey.pdf


This thing has some interesting #'s - --overall there are 30% less high schools that have girls's golf as boys but the total is ~1/2 in # of individual participants. I can't find another major sport that is anywhere near as comparable in the drop off in individuals between the sexes -- I think we need to get the 125K competitive spirit squads girls golf clubs! P 64 shows an amazing amount of variation state to state in girls golf --Minnesota has more participants than NY/NJ combined and 1/6 the population of those 2 states (NY had almost 7K boys and less than 2K girls).

That's really interesting research.  Thanks for calling it out, Buck.  I would speculate that the lower participation in NY/NJ has to be caused by the high population density and crowded cities where it is not easy to get to a golf course.  However, I'm not really sure why this would affect girls differently than boys and lead to the disparity the data shows. 


I think part of this story gets back to a previous debate on why dreaded millenials are not playing as much golf.  Young people like cities and big cities are generally not conducive to easy access courses. 

[Tom_Doak]

And while probably a separate thread altogether, I wonder if the most absurd thing we have done in architecture for 100 years is design for those 0.001% of golfers who are championship players, or for tournaments that will never come, and then trying (mostly lamely) to accommodate the other 99.9%, as opposed to starting design for the average golfer and maybe (for some courses) try to accommodate the championship player?

If you keep thinking like that, I will let you design another few courses instead of stopping at 50!


I've been thinking that way for a very long time, and resisting calls to make every course 7000 yards despite the protests of you and most other people in the game.  The paying customers do not need to be playing from 7000 yards and do not enjoy being dragged back there.


It helped a lot to go straight from working for Mr. Dye [where every single project we worked on was going to host a Tour event ... and most of them HAVE hosted Tour events], to starting on my own for clients who were NEVER EVER going to host a Tour event.  I sort of stopped worrying about the Tour players right there, other than in the back of my mind, thinking that if Ben Crenshaw ever showed up to play one of my courses, I'd want him to feel a bit challenged and have fun, whether he was shooting 62 or 72.


Of course, that attitude has led some to believe I could never design a course that would challenge tournament players      but I have been underestimated before and hope that someday I'll have a chance to prove them wrong, again.

[Mike_Young]

I don't know the answer for more women playing but IMHO the length of the hole needs to be conidered from two areas and not just the tee.  Most men I know play the tees they play so that they can hit the proper clubs into greens based on their ability.  If I guy can only hit a driver 240 yards and he hits a 110 yard nine iron into a green he is probably ok.  If a lady plays forward tees and hits a 160 yard drive to a spot 140 yards from the same green, she may be hitting a five wood into the green.  Most guys would quit if they knew the best they would ever do is hit a wood into a green.  GOT TO FIGURE A WAY TO ADJUST THE APPROACH SHOT FOR WOMEN ALSO...
A golf buddy of mine who is our club tennis pro and a scratch golfer has been hyping pickle ball to the golfers and he explained it this way.  He said "if you are a golf er who rarely if ever plays tennis, then I can't have a good fun tennis match with you.  But if you come out and play pickle ball we can have a fun match even though the experienced tennis player will probably still prevail. "  He went further to explain to us golfers that it was similar to bringing say a Tiger Woods or a Dustin Johnson to you local course and making them play each hole from 100 yards with the local 10 handicappers and below.  The handicap golfers are going to score much closer to the pro than with the full length course.    We have to figure a way where the women are hitting a simialr club into greens as men of their ability.  A good way to begin would be a set of lady's tees with 175-225 yard par 4's....JMO  let them play the way we do....three wood approaches to greens made for wedge approaches suck....

[Tom_Doak]

A good way to begin would be a set of lady's tees with 175-225 yard par 4's....JMO  let them play the way we do....three wood approaches to greens made for wedge approaches suck....

Just do it!


And also, stop designing "greens made for wedge approaches."  Somebody is going to be hitting 3-wood at them every single day your course is open, even if you move the tees up.

[Mike_Young]

A good way to begin would be a set of lady's tees with 175-225 yard par 4's....JMO  let them play the way we do....three wood approaches to greens made for wedge approaches suck....

And also, stop designing "greens made for wedge approaches."  Somebody is going to be hitting 3-wood at them every single day your course is open, even if you move the tees up.

Maybe I exaggerated the wedge approach....but you got the idea...

[jeffwarne]

Late to the fray but... Frank you do realize how few people actually CARRYthe ball 150 yards a majority of the time.
and that doesn't even incluse the foozles, tops, slkies etc.

150 yard carry would probably equate to a 170-200 yard drive depending upon trajectory and lower clubhead speed would produce less spin.


I can't think of many golden age courses where one HAS to CARRY it 150 yards assuming there are shorter senior and or forward tees available.
Are we going to banish 95 % of all women and seniors BACK to the pitch and putt?


I grew up at Augusta CC-the longest carry there if you played the white tees (before there were senior tees) was about 10 yards,except for par threes-with one carry about 100 yards over water. Next door, at ANGC the longest carry would be number 12-about 130 yards, but one can lay up-like Spieth did
At Southampton and Palmetto, two golden age greats where I'm currently a member,the longest carry of the two courses is about 100 yards (at most) on #3 at Palmetto-though there's now a senior tee with about a 60 yard carry and a forward tee on the other side.


I played a pro-am last year with 4 seniors who were all avid golfers and active members-they had 19-28 handicaps and were all over 70. For some silly reason they had everyone play the back tees (the cousre was  about 6500 yards and a decent Golden age courses) but these guys couldn't carry it or hit it high enough to reach most of the fairways and there solid drives got eaten up in the rough 90-120 yards from the tee-often on an upslope-often right next to the tee they usually play. After a wedge they still were
laying 2 100 yards where there normal bullet from the forward tees would've been.


My point is these were active decent golfers who had their day ruined by 100 yard (uphill carries) and 130 yard level carries.
In this case the answer was simple-play the regular senior tees.


But for someone to assume someone who can't carry it 150 yards is a beginner(man or woman), is incredibly naive.
designing courses for them assuming appropriate tees isn't dumbing things down, it's something that's gone on for years, and is essential to enjoyment of the game-for everyone.

[Frank M]

I love the idea, which some of the local clubs have implemented, of family tees. They place a plaque in the fairway shortening the hole. Why can't we do that?

[Steve Lang]

   everybody needs a challenge... weren't the old guys playing back tees just having fun?

[jeffwarne]

  everybody needs a challenge... weren't the old guys playing back tees just having fun?

No they were miserable-it was a tournament and they were embarrassed/pissed.
too many holes where their drive hit into upslopes or rough so they got nothing out of them and by the time they chopped it out they had used the 1-2 shots per hole they got.
It was BB of 5 -I shot 73-we shot 73


Frank I'm not suggesting dumbing down architetecture-the examples I cited are all close to or more than 100 year old classics

[Thomas Dai]

Forced carries do nothing to 'grow the game' amongst all levels of player. Indeed they do the opposite.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()