[Philip Hensley]

Since par is an arbitrary number, why not raise par for women? If the average woman's score is 106, make par for women 96.


I just cut handicaps for women by 24 strokes and didn't have to move a tee box anywhere.

[K Rafkin]

Since par is an arbitrary number, why not raise par for women? If the average woman's score is 106, make par for women 96.


I just cut handicaps for women by 24 strokes and didn't have to move a tee box anywhere.

Or we lower par for men down from the standard 72 to 52, and cut out a few thousand yards off our courses.  Really it makes far more sense from a space usage and economic standpoint.  I think you're onto something here.


Par and Playability are not the same thing.

[Philip Hensley]

Since par is an arbitrary number, why not raise par for women? If the average woman's score is 106, make par for women 96.


I just cut handicaps for women by 24 strokes and didn't have to move a tee box anywhere.

Or we lower par for men down from the standard 72 to 52, and cut out a few thousand yards off our courses.  Really it makes far more sense from a space usage and economic standpoint.  I think you're onto something here.


Par and Playability are not the same thing.

Cut par for elite men's players down. If equipment and the ball mean disproportionately lower scores for the very best, they should have to match a lower par.


You're right, par and playability aren't the same. My post assumed doing other things discussed earlier such as correcting distances and hazards for women the can only hit so far.


Architecture can only do so much. Providing an "easier" path to the hole for a person that can only hit it 160 with a driver doesn't translate to scoring, getting the ball in the hole. Many men that are bad players can get near the green in regulation on long holes, only to take 4 or more shots to get the last 30 yards and in the hole.

[Mike Bodo]

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...

South Korea, as with many parts of Asia, have some of the most advanced and sophisticated data networks in the world. When not busy working, focusing on their studies or developing skills in sports they are attempting to specialize in people there are no different than most in Western society, as they spend the bulk of their free time with their face glued to a screen. This doesn't detract from the fact that many women and men in Korean society are selected at an early age to specialize in certain individual and team sports, depending on their skill set and interests. Not far removed from U.S. kids that do the same these days. However, unlike the U.S., the Korean government has structures and clubs in place to help cultivate those skills through early adulthood.


Even though there aren't a lot of golf courses in S. Korea, as you mentioned, golf is extremely popular. The amount of infrastructure they have in place for driving ranges and simulators is off the charts. I'm not sure how viable creating something on a similar scale in the U.S. would be, but it's perhaps worth looking into. Then the question becomes who is going to sponsor and have this built, i.e. USGA, PGA of America, PGA/LPGA Tours, U.S Kids Golf a consortium of national and local organizations in conjunction with private funds and if you build it, will they come?


However, if we don't get girls interested in playing  golf at an early age the odds of them taking up the sport later in life dramatically decreases. Our local recreation department has a summer program that teaches golf basics to young boys and girls interested in learning about the sport. However, without support and encouragement from parents and an infrastructure in place that provides children easy and affordable access to courses, practice facilities, driving ranges, simulators, etc. where's the incentive to spend the type of money it takes to progress in the sport given the required investment in equipment? I'd put golf up there with hockey, skiing, cycling, snowboarding, etc. as far as the out of pocket costs required to become proficient at the sport, which only further diminishes the potential pool of kids interested and willing to take it up - especially girls. But this is where things need to start in order to create a solid foundation from which to sustain and hopefully grow the game. We've been saying this for years, but we are poor at executing.


The one thing golf will always have going in its favor is the fact that it can be played and enjoyed for a lifetime. Almost all other sports have an expiry date. Golf does not provided you can swing a club, make contact with a ball and get around a course.

[K Rafkin]

Cut par for elite men's players down. If equipment and the ball mean disproportionately lower scores for the very best, they should have to match a lower par.

If "par is just a number", which it is, then changing it will do absolutely nothing.  On the PGA tour the concept of par exists as a marketing term, and to help spectators and competitors keep score.  While the person who takes the fewest strokes for the event will win 10/10 times simply keeping score by stroke would make the game far more difficult to follow, and less interesting from a spectating stand point.  It doesn't matter whether par is 72, 52, or 137 changing it would do absolutely nothing.

The only possible outcome is that it helps golfers manage their expectations a bit better, as long as they don't find it patronizing, but still its no panacea. 

You're right, par and playability aren't the same. My post assumed doing other things discussed earlier such as correcting distances and hazards for women the can only hit so far.

In your initial post you actually mention "not having to move a tee box" which is a counter point to correcting distances to be more accommodating to the average woman golfer.  I'm very much in favor of creating new tee boxes where not only proper distances and hazards are accounted for, but also creating fun high quality holes to play.  For the most part Ladies tees are an afterthought, and in many instances a hole that might be considered "good" by the average male golfer, could very well be a poorly designed hole for the average woman.  If men have the desire to play a hole of architectural merit, its ignorant to assume that women don't want the same.

I've run into several examples in Great Britain & Ireland where the shortest tee box was far too long of a golf hole for the average woman, and the simple solution was to increase the "par" of that hole on the scorecard.  In many instances i had watched women play a hole that was a par 4 for me and a par 5 for them, and in some instances they'd be playing a hole as a par 6.  This was a nice thought but it didn't make the game more enjoyable, more playable, and less time consuming than before.  I doubt these courses thought this was a solution either, they probably just didn't want to build new tee boxes.

Architecture can only do so much. Providing an "easier" path to the hole for a person that can only hit it 160 with a driver doesn't translate to scoring, getting the ball in the hole. Many men that are bad players can get near the green in regulation on long holes, only to take 4 or more shots to get the last 30 yards and in the hole.

I disagree, architectually from a design and build standpoint you can do a lot to help, there just unfortunately aren't too many great examples.  Once again I think you're fusing together the concept of playability with scoring(or par), they are very different.  I've been paired up with with a few very average women golfers at Bandon dunes, and I've found that most of them consider Old Mac to be their favorite course on property.  After talking to them, its clear that they prefer Old Mac because its the most playable course on the property (aside from hole #3).  That being said due to the massive undulations on the greens, in my opinion, Old Mac is the hardest course on the property to score on, although it is without a doubt the most playable.  Old Mac has wide open fairways (although wide fairways tend to matter less for women who don't hit the ball as far), and open approaches to just about every green.  From the ladies tees there are no forced carries except on 3, unless you play from the top of the hill.  Old Mac, more so than any US based course I've played, truly embraces the ground game which for the average woman isn't one of several options of how to play the hole, but rather the only option.  Inversely what I've found the least favorite course for women on the property is Pac Dunes which is clearly the best course on the property.  Although anecdotal, this is just another example about how whats perceived to be best for the average male golfer, can be completely the opposite for women. 


Just because there is a % of male golfers that struggle to get the ball in the hole from 30 yards and in, doesn't mean that you can't design a course to be more accommodating and playable for women.  The problem is, that the overwhelming majority of courses built were designed with very little concern or understanding of the average woman golfer.


Par is just a number and changing it would do nothing.  Par is not playability. 

[MCirba]

Honestly, would any of you men here enjoy a game where under the present tee structure you would need 3, 4, or even 5 full swings to reach a green on most holes?


You could call it a par 150 and that wouldn't make it one smidgeon more enjoyable.

[BCowan]

When I was 8 years old I played the ladies tees at 5800 yards.  A double bogey was a decent score.  Played under 2 hours in the evening with my parents.  I didn't analyze it to death like I do now  , just loved hitting a ball with a stick.  The game was challenging that's what attracted me to it.   Funny that the course i grew up at, had many more women golfers with one set of long women's tees then it does now with 2 sets  .  The argument i make for shortening the course, just to invoke critical thinking is I tell my mother that the lush green fairways make the course play a lot longer then 30-50 years ago  .   My dad shoots 95-105 and plays in 3.3hrs and seems to love the game.  He scores the same from the tips as from the ladies tees.

    I think that having a shorter 4500 yard course is a good thing.  I don't think it will bring a few million women to the game.  Work leagues and friends do that.  I think the Kirtland golf ball will have more of positive impact on the game 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Honestly, would any of you men here enjoy a game where under the present tee structure you would need 3, 4, or even 5 full swings to reach a green on most holes?


You could call it a par 150 and that wouldnt make it one smidgeon more enjoyable.

Bingo!  Most of us enjoy golf the way it was meant to be played - hit a drive out there somewhere (some somewhere's are better than other somewhere's) and then hit a shorter club into the green.  That is the true fun and challenge of golf, hitting fairways and greens with reasonable length shots.  Not my fault I am getting older and shorter while Tour Pros are getting younger and longer.  Girls (and old dudes) just wanna have fun.

[Mike Bodo]

Bingo!  Most of us enjoy golf the way it was meant to be played - hit a drive out there somewhere (some somewhere's are better than other somewhere's) and then hit a shorter club into the green.  That is the true fun and challenge of golf, hitting fairways and greens with reasonable length shots.  Not my fault I am getting older and shorter while Tour Pros are getting younger and longer.  Girls (and old dudes) just wanna have fun.

LOL!!    I love it! Best response yet. 

[Doug Siebert]

... and archies, don't give the men a view and put the women's tees in a hole, Ms Sheila hates that and will play further back tees if there's not too much carry involved.

Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem? If there's a hill for a view available, the architects are using it to serve the majority of players, who are men. If you have a hill big/long enough to support both men's and women's tees, then the men will have a blind landing area.

If more women played, they'd be taken into account more often

[Jason Topp]

My course is pretty punishing for a beginner, with carries of about 75-100 yards off several forward tees and deep bunkers. 

My daughter plays about once per year.  I played with her one day and encouraged her to take it to the other side and just tee off from there. She refused each time.   On the 5th hole, I made the same suggestion and my daughter said "Dad - when I tee off over these ponds one of two things happens.  One - I hit it over the water and feel awesome.  Two - I lose one of your balls in the pond and I find that funny."   She smoked the next shot over the water and felt awesome. 

I do not pretend to know how to better attract women to the game but my daughter could guide us on that issue far better than the men commenting on this thread.   

[Sean_A]

Cut par for elite men's players down. If equipment and the ball mean disproportionately lower scores for the very best, they should have to match a lower par.

If "par is just a number", which it is, then changing it will do absolutely nothing.  On the PGA tour the concept of par exists as a marketing term, and to help spectators and competitors keep score.  While the person who takes the fewest strokes for the event will win 10/10 times simply keeping score by stroke would make the game far more difficult to follow, and less interesting from a spectating stand point.  It doesn't matter whether par is 72, 52, or 137 changing it would do absolutely nothing.

The only possible outcome is that it helps golfers manage their expectations a bit better, as long as they don't find it patronizing, but still its no panacea. 

You're right, par and playability aren't the same. My post assumed doing other things discussed earlier such as correcting distances and hazards for women the can only hit so far.

In your initial post you actually mention "not having to move a tee box" which is a counter point to correcting distances to be more accommodating to the average woman golfer.  I'm very much in favor of creating new tee boxes where not only proper distances and hazards are accounted for, but also creating fun high quality holes to play.  For the most part Ladies tees are an afterthought, and in many instances a hole that might be considered "good" by the average male golfer, could very well be a poorly designed hole for the average woman.  If men have the desire to play a hole of architectural merit, its ignorant to assume that women don't want the same.

I've run into several examples in Great Britain & Ireland where the shortest tee box was far too long of a golf hole for the average woman, and the simple solution was to increase the "par" of that hole on the scorecard.  In many instances i had watched women play a hole that was a par 4 for me and a par 5 for them, and in some instances they'd be playing a hole as a par 6.  This was a nice thought but it didn't make the game more enjoyable, more playable, and less time consuming than before.  I doubt these courses thought this was a solution either, they probably just didn't want to build new tee boxes.

Architecture can only do so much. Providing an "easier" path to the hole for a person that can only hit it 160 with a driver doesn't translate to scoring, getting the ball in the hole. Many men that are bad players can get near the green in regulation on long holes, only to take 4 or more shots to get the last 30 yards and in the hole.

I disagree, architectually from a design and build standpoint you can do a lot to help, there just unfortunately aren't too many great examples.  Once again I think you're fusing together the concept of playability with scoring(or par), they are very different.  I've been paired up with with a few very average women golfers at Bandon dunes, and I've found that most of them consider Old Mac to be their favorite course on property.  After talking to them, its clear that they prefer Old Mac because its the most playable course on the property (aside from hole #3).  That being said due to the massive undulations on the greens, in my opinion, Old Mac is the hardest course on the property to score on, although it is without a doubt the most playable.  Old Mac has wide open fairways (although wide fairways tend to matter less for women who don't hit the ball as far), and open approaches to just about every green.  From the ladies tees there are no forced carries except on 3, unless you play from the top of the hill.  Old Mac, more so than any US based course I've played, truly embraces the ground game which for the average woman isn't one of several options of how to play the hole, but rather the only option.  Inversely what I've found the least favorite course for women on the property is Pac Dunes which is clearly the best course on the property.  Although anecdotal, this is just another example about how whats perceived to be best for the average male golfer, can be completely the opposite for women. 


Just because there is a % of male golfers that struggle to get the ball in the hole from 30 yards and in, doesn't mean that you can't design a course to be more accommodating and playable for women.  The problem is, that the overwhelming majority of courses built were designed with very little concern or understanding of the average woman golfer.


Par is just a number and changing it would do nothing.  Par is not playability.

Yep, par is just a number, but most golfers find some way to measure quality by par and difficulty by par.  Hence, courses get longer because flat bellies hit it longer. Many here will say fix the ball and sticks, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Instead of spending money on courses to have yardage match the par for flat bellies, why not move par to a shorter number and shorter yardage? Makes complete sense to me and we do see it in US Opens with a par 5 or two reduced to long fours.  Bottom line, we need to start seeing medal and champ tees at shorter distances and less par to daily tees.  What is the problem with a 490 yard par 5 daily tee and a 465 yard par 4 medal tee?  If its cheaper to alter the par than it is to lengthen courses it makes sense even if par is just a number.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Why can't women be expected to hit a ball 150 yards? I've seen young children do it.


My own journey through the game has been weird, but I recall when I was relatively early in this journey, I said to a friend (who can really play) that I could hit 6 iron punch shots 150 yards relatively straight. He said, why don't you just do that? You could be on or at least green side on a 450 yard par 4 - a ball buster for many - in 3 shots. That changed my approach to the game.


I still think most people fundamentally misunderstand how virtually everyone plays the game. And most people on this thread would seem to prove my point...

[Garland Bayley]

Honestly, would any of you men here enjoy a game where under the present tee structure you would need 3, 4, or even 5 full swings to reach a green on most holes?

...

Honestly, didn't the game beginning with featheries need 3 or 4 full swings to reach most greens?
Early in the game, putting was of much less value as you spent most of your effort getting to the green.
When putting became more important, the golfers and architects debated reducing 18 hole courses to 12 to reduce the burgeoning importance of putting.

[Garland Bayley]

Yep, par is just a number, but most golfers find some way to measure quality by par and difficulty by par. ...

How in the world do you measure quality by par? I have never seen it in the course ratings systems.
How in the world do you measure difficulty by par? Certainly the USGA doesn't as they measure it by course and slope ratings. A par 72 can have a rating of 66 and slope of 110, and another par 72 can have a rating of 78 and slope of 145.

[jeffwarne]

Why can't women be expected to hit a ball 150 yards? I've seen young children do it.


I still think most people fundamentally misunderstand how virtually everyone plays the game. And most people on this thread would seem to prove my point...

Aren't these two points contradictory?
I've taght a woman for 5 years who plays regularly who has never, and will never hit a ball 150 yards, and certainly can't carry it more than 90 yards.

[Bob Montle]

My experience is the opposite.  I used to give my girlfriend (52 yrs of age) a shot per hole and still win most matches.
She loves golf and plays 36 to 45 holes every Saturday and Sunday and several 18's during the week.
Between lessons and new equipment and balls she now drives 200 yds and thrashes me. (I play senior tees).
The ladies tees are 50-60 yds ahead of mine so she is outdriving me every hole.
And gloating.  And mocking me.  And then sinks every putt under 10 ft.   Grrrrr.

I say eliminate women's tees.  Make them play the senior tees.  Rename the short tees the junior or duffer tees.




Just kidding.   Sort of.   

[George Pazin]

Why can't women be expected to hit a ball 150 yards? I've seen young children do it.


I still think most people fundamentally misunderstand how virtually everyone plays the game. And most people on this thread would seem to prove my point...

Aren't these two points contradictory?
I've taght a woman for 5 years who plays regularly who has never, and will never hit a ball 150 yards, and certainly can't carry it more than 90 yards.

Perhaps. I certainly wouldn't exempt myself from any of my generalizations.


Can't say anything about your student without having met her. Does she have a disability of some sort? My 12 year old son, who is not even remotely an athlete, can hit a ball over 100 yards. My wife, who is not at all an athlete, has hit balls over 100 yards. And if you want to quibble about 100 versus 150, I'll add that either, with minimal coaching, could hit one 150.


Maybe it's just me, Jeff. As bad as I am, I can't imagine not hitting a ball 100 yards. The effort and strength required is virtually nothing. I'm reasonably certain I can take a half swing with one hand and hit it 100 yards (I'll try it next time at the range).

[George Pazin]

Allow me to illustrate people's misunderstanding of golf with the PGA Tour. One wouldn't normally think of the PGA Tour when thinking about how golf is played by normal people, but I think this comparison has merit. Feel free to rip me if you disagree, just be prepared to offer evidence, as opposed to simple shouts of "You're an idiot". I can get that at home...


By all counts, Tiger is likely to miss the cut this week. At last check before posting this, he is +4 with only 2 holes to go, far from the likely cut line of E. He might finish eagle, eagle, but I'm guessing no. Call me crazy.


So, having seen this, many people are going to say, Tiger's done, he's washed up, he can't play anymore, etc etc.


But they won't bother to look at who is shooting similar or worse scores: Andrew Johnston (BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEF!); Chad Campbell (he played pretty well last week, didn't he?); Danny Lee (he can play, no?); Bryson Dechambeau (wasn't he on the cover of a major mag last month?). Luke List and Jimmy Walker are a scant one shot better. JASON DAY IS PLUS 3!!!!!!!!!!!! DUSTIN JOHNSON IS PLUS 2!!!!!!!!!!!!


People confuse the nature of golf - we all hit bad shots and good shots, granted to varying degrees of each - with other sports. The penalty for lack of consistency in golf is simply brutal. For pros, it means being in contention one week and missing a cut the next. For low handicappers, it means shooting 75 one day and 88 the next. For average or lesser golfers, it means shooting 90, 100, or 110 in consecutive rounds (that's 20 shot spread) or shooting an 8 on one hole and a 1 on the next (I did that! Also followed up a 13 with a 2!).


When I hear someone can't hit the ball 100 yards, I understand what is meant: I can't hit it 100 yards straight enough on a consistent enough basis to shoot a reasonable score on most golf courses.


I still don't think most golfers and most architects truly understand that last sentence.


And I may well be among those people, Jeff.


 

[Garland Bayley]

Why can't women be expected to hit a ball 150 yards? I've seen young children do it.
...

We have a Korean woman at our club that stands about 5 feet tall, and undoubtedly weighs under 100 lbs that must be near 60 years old who swings with such a slow smooth tempo you wonder is she has any significant club speed at all. However, when I have played with her (and beaten by her) I find she is driving it about 180 yards.


I believe that the key is that she plays so much golf that she gets near perfect contact every time.
This says to me that almost any woman that were to play/practice enough they could be expected to hit the ball 150 yards when they made square contact with the ball on the sweet spot. They have to have the strength potential since almost any woman is going to be naturally more physically strong than my example.


However, hitting it with a club face square to the target and on the sweet spot is a very rare occurrence for scoring challenged golfers.

[Jon Wiggett]

There are lots of players who regularly fail to carry the ball more than 50-60 yards in the air. This is not a problem unless they WILL lose a ball because of it. It is easy to produce stories of about some old lady or young child who despite their frailty or youth still manage to hit the ball X yards but the reality for many is different. Maybe the attitude which dismisses their ability as not been worth dealing with is part of the problem because it sure ain't any part of the solution.



Jon

[Sean_A]

Yep, par is just a number, but most golfers find some way to measure quality by par and difficulty by par. ...

How in the world do you measure quality by par? I have never seen it in the course ratings systems.
How in the world do you measure difficulty by par? Certainly the USGA doesn't as they measure it by course and slope ratings. A par 72 can have a rating of 66 and slope of 110, and another par 72 can have a rating of 78 and slope of 145.

Garland

Its about perception, just as is length of the course.  Many folks don't want to play a sub 71 par course or a course under whatever their length cutoff is. Its stupid, but real.  Why else do you think we keep seeing long courses being built to a par of 71-72? And this is despite the existence of some excellent courses which break these rules.  Go figure.

George

To a certain extent I am in your camp because I don't believe the concept of one course fits all exists or ever existed...its a myth. That said, I don't see why most holes need to be ball breakers for most golfers unless dictated by terrain.  Its much easier to design fewer course which suit the best and many courses which suit the rest. There will be plenty of people who shouldn't be playing the best course sign up to be members just as we have plenty of people playing 6800 yard tees who have no business doing so no matter how far they hit the ball. 


If folks think more women should play and want to play there is only one real solution..courses built for women...much of the rest of talk is smoke and mirrors. I think this means that more women will need to become designers, developers and investors.

Ciao

[Gary_Nelson]

My wife is enthusiastic about playing golf, but is among those who hits it 150 yards off the tee. 

The frustrating part for her is the multiple 80-100 yard shots from the fairway with the trusty 5-wood, or 6 hybrid, or 7 iron or whatever.  She hits most second (and third and fourth and fifth) shots nowhere near as far as her driver.

Facing a long (over 300 yards) hole is tiring because she feels that she keeps hitting it over and over and over.  From her perspective, shorter holes are the solution...until her game improves to the point where she wants a bigger challenge and moves back to the next set of tees.   Right now her best days come when her tees measure around 5,000 yards. 


http://www.salemhillsgolfclub.com/29.html


Getting near the green with three (or four) reasonably stuck shots on a Par 4 makes her happy and keeps her coming back for more.

Forced carries on the tee shot aren't usually a problem for her, although she doesn't like the pressure.   More difficult for her are the 10-20 yard carries somewhere in the middle of the hole or near the green that give her the biggest frustration.  She is still a novice and often "tops" the ball when she's nervous.   She likes to see holes with a "safe" route to the green that avoids the water.

[Carl Johnson]

"When I hear someone can't hit the ball 100 yards, I understand what is meant: I can't hit it 100 yards straight enough on a consistent enough basis to shoot a reasonable score on most golf courses."

This sentence illustrates what I believe to be a serious problem for golf (not the only one, of course) -- the focus on medal scores.  My senior golfing friends don't play medal competitions.  It's always one variety or other of match play, most often on a team basis.  So let's say I come in a big winner, $4.00 to the good.  The first thing I'm liable to be asked is "So what did you shoot?"  Of course I didn't shoot any thing.  I'll post a score under the HC rules, but that's not the score I shot.  What with conceded putts, pick-ups, and ESC numbers, I didn't shoot anything legit.  Just play the game and focus on the game, and the game result.

Now, I've expressed this sentiment here before and have been ridiculed for it, so why post it again?  Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jan Bel Jan (ASGCA) has measured a lot of women's drives.  According to her, the 140-150 yardstick is a bit high, and at many clubs, the women average about 121 per drive.  It's pretty common for women to drive less than 150.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()