[Peter Pallotta]

I believe you, Tom, and in fact what you say doesn't surprise me. That's one of the reasons why I don't like 'marker-less' tee boxes. Modern golfers (me included) like to eat their cake and have it too -- on here we talk the spirit of the game, out there we tend to choose, if we're given the choice, the easiest shot or the one we hit best or the one that promises the lowest score or a point in the match. We don't so much overcome adversity; we just find ways to ensure that adversity doesn't befall us. It is not an appealing trait/habit. Architects might help us out (improving our characters if not our scores) by taking away that choice with fixed markers and carries that really do test us. I'm as vain and egotistical as the next golfer, but I will never understand the 'fun' of playing/choosing at will a mixed set of tees; it would feel to me like sitting down to a nice game of chess and deciding at the last moment that, today, the pawns can move just like the Queen does. Sure, hilarity might ensue -- but it's no longer the game of chess that you're playing.

[Tom_Doak]

I believe you, Tom, and in fact what you say doesn't surprise me. That's one of the reasons why I don't like 'marker-less' tee boxes. Modern golfers (me included) like to eat their cake and have it too -- on here we talk the spirit of the game, out there we tend to choose, if we're given the choice, the easiest shot or the one we hit best or the one that promises the lowest score or a point in the match. We don't so much overcome adversity; we just find ways to ensure that adversity doesn't befall us. It is not an appealing trait/habit. Architects might help us out (improving our characters if not our scores) by taking away that choice with fixed markers and carries that really do test us. I'm as vain and egotistical as the next golfer, but I will never understand the 'fun' of playing/choosing at will a mixed set of tees; it would feel to me like sitting down to a nice game of chess and deciding at the last moment that, today, the pawns can move just like the Queen does. Sure, hilarity might ensue -- but it's no longer the game of chess that you're playing.

Peter:


I hate to disagree, but I do.  Golf is not chess.  Different people play it [and enjoy it] for different reasons.  It does not exist just to be a test of character.


But, what better test of character than letting people decide where they should start from?  I think you'll quickly sort out the guys who "were born on third base and think they hit a triple".


The interesting part of having no tee markers is doing it in mixed company, so that you have to go along with where the other guy (or gal) wants to play from, some of the time.  It really helps to open people's minds.  On another thread, one of our usually reasonable posters is complaining about not getting to play from the right tees for himself ALL THE TIME, and telling us he can't judge the course from the wrong tee.  What I don't get is, how can any tee the designer built be the "wrong" tee? 


At Ballyneal there are some guys who play from places I'd never even thought of.  And I'm okay with that.  I always say I build holes with the goal that you are never out of the hole no matter where you are, that you've always got a reasonable way to finish.  I don't want to control your shot values.  I want to let you play.


P.S.  Just realized this is the polar opposite of those who want to control the set-up as king, or explain why the players are taking the wrong strategy on a hole.

[George Pazin]

I guess that shows how odd my tastes are. I could not care less what tees I play, I don't even look at a yardage marker unless it's a par 3. I look at the tee shot and my capabilities. It matters little if I play a 6500 yard course or a 7500 yard course. I play the markers my playing partners play, period. I go along, almost to a fault. And it matters little to my score.


I can hit a driver, 3 wood, 3 iron or 5 iron off line with pretty much the same regularity. And I'd guess most golfers are similar. I truly believe the way most people play golf is fundamentally misunderstood.


Now the 7 iron, that's different, that's my club...

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what your handicap is, if you strike down on the ball and have no problem getting it airborne, then you probably can get around quite comfortably. Your score may not be the best, but you can get around, because the carries are mostly not over water. Right now if I hit it in the trees, pitch it out of the trees, hit it in the trees, pitch it out, ... So what's the big deal with a half acre of sand? I've been in 3 acres of sand at Chambers Bay.

The operative word there is "comfortably".  All these defenses of Pine Valley seem to distort the reality that fear and intimidation are a big part of its challenge, and of its appeal.  As Dr. MacKenzie observed, people get a thrill out of carrying a hazard, especially if it is not quite so difficult as it appears:  and, indeed, the carries at Pine Valley are not impossible, and the landing areas are relatively generous.  However, the penalty values at Pine Valley, neutered somewhat since I first saw it, are still enough to frighten the golfer who has dealt with the consequences of a bad shot a couple of times, causing a tighter grip and exponentially increasing trouble from there on out.  Staying comfortable with it is not quite as easy as the posters above have described it, and that is both its appeal, and its potential curse.

That is assuming the good shot is pulled off.  To me, a few of the biggest problems I see with rating are 1) who is to say which set of tees will give the golfer the entire course 2) the false expectation that all shots are hit well.  Few folks think of a hole as something other then the result of good shots rather than seeing the hole for what it is...for the handicap player.  Hence the reason why I think it is incredibly important that length not be an over-bearing apsect of the test.  Thankfully, this approach paid off handsomely at Pinehurst.  I cannot tell you how much more challenging the 5800 yard tees are for driving compared to the 6300 yard tees...that is if one doesn't routinely carry the ball 240-50ish.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

What tees?
Since reading about Dustin Johnsons 'not hit more than a 6-iron to a par-4 this year' comment I've started to look at some forward tee positions with envy!
Big difference between casual play and formal competition play however.
No relevance playing 'tee it up' or some kind of 'mixed tee' combination when you're playing in a formal competition against the rest of the field. One goalpost it has to be. But is the goalpost in the correct spot? Ah, now that's another question.


Marker-less tees.
Question, when such are in use are most of the scuff marks, divots, broken tees etc to be found at the front of a teeing ground or sprinkled evenly over the whole area? Just curious.


Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for that very good post, Tom.
I'm glad you disagreed - partly because I'm not sharing what I think is objectively "right" (just my own tastes/temperaments), but mostly because, while I didn't learn too much about my own tastes, I did learn more about your philosophy/approach.
Over the years, me and others have used various analogies (from music, books, films etc) to discuss that design approach/work. I know it's a not particularly fruitful way of trying to analyze your work.     
But reading your post, I did think of you as making "modern art".  Unlike a Rembrandt, who with consummate skill used light and colour and shadows to direct the eye to a particular face, or gesture, and emotional exchange, it sounds like you really do want to create a less defined tableau (ie more like a Jackson Pollock) in which different people can happily find many different experiences.
As your PS suggests, that is indeed a different way to engage the golfer/viewer. I think this has relevance as well to what Sam is saying in Ran's recent thread.
Peter
 

[Ira Fishman]

The last several posts bring to remind the legendary story of Hogan's "Nightmare"--his telling of the dream he had of making birdie on the first 17 holes at Augusta and then lipping out at 18 to shoot 55.  Golfers and Architects have and will forever engage in intertwined impossibilities: shooting our perfect round and designing the perfect course.  At the end of the day, it all is about embracing the quests, their fun, and their impossibility.


Ira

[jeffwarne]

But, what better test of character than letting people decide where they should start from?  I think you'll quickly sort out the guys who "were born on third base and think they hit a triple".

 one of our usually reasonable posters is complaining about not getting to play from the right tees for himself ALL THE TIME, and telling us he can't judge the course from the wrong tee.  What I don't get is, how can any tee the designer built be the "wrong" tee? 

"Usually reasonable" high praise indeed


Is there not a contradiction in the above paragraphs?


To take it a step farther, I hate 6 sets of tees or even four, or for that matter three or two.
By your logic, "how could any tee the designer built be the wrong tee?" we would only need one set-and I'm all for that:) Others would disagree.


I never said I can't rate a course from a "wrong tee". I'm not a rater.
Most raters only get to a big overseas gun once in their lives-I'm questioning are their minds open enough to evaluate a course 1000+ yards under their normal preference ON THEIR ONE AND ONLY PLAY-which is very different than demanding the "right" tees for them all the time, ESPECIALLY when they've already downgraded courses such as Cape Arundel, Apawamis,Brora, and Nortwest for being too short.


I don't know if I can can judge a course from the forward tees on one play or not, but I do know many raters who absolutely eliminate a course from consideration if it's the same length as I just played RSG from.


I doubt many play as varied tees as I do between playing lessons, gambling games picking tees, the course I work at and Professional events, and the course I play most often is under 5000 yards, I'm a member of two great courses that top out at 6300 yards and one that tops out at 5300.(which might explain why they're so affordable)

[Sean_A]

Jeff


I hate it when raters talk about a course being too short in general terms.  I will always remember the comment Doak made about Harborne being too short because it doesn't make any sense to me especially in the context of GB&I.  Raters should be able to step out of their shoes and see a course for what it is then try to rate it as such.  There is no gold standard of design...design just is. 


Ciao

[Rees Milikin]

Start from the edge of the green and putt from there, tee boxes & strategy need not apply...low scores & good times guaranteed.

[Steve Lapper]

Let's not forget that great genius of golf architecture, architecual-criticism and rater-eminent-gris, Ron Whitten, once told hundred of his minions "that golf courses must be judged from their back tees."






.

[Thomas Dai]

No home or regular play course is too short (or too easy) unless you play off scratch. Play off a hcp of 1 or more and it's still too long/hard, that's why your a 1 or more! Play off +1 or better and then that's when it becomes too short/easy.
atb

[Jim Franklin]

Let's not forget that great genius of golf architecture, architecual-criticism and rater-eminent-gris, Ron Whitten, once told hundred of his minions "that golf courses must be judged from their back tees."






.

And that is because the ratings were for the scratch player. They have finally moved on from that and allow us to rate from whatever tee we feel comfortable. I have never been a hard is good kind of rater. Fun. Life is too short to not enjoy it. I want to have fun while playing golf and to be challenged at the same time. Golf is a mental exercise as well. Certain places have it, certain architects do it, and when they do it right, you know it.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff


I hate it when raters talk about a course being too short in general terms.  I will always remember the comment Doak made about Harborne being too short because it doesn't make any sense to me especially in the context of GB&I.  Raters should be able to step out of their shoes and see a course for what it is then try to rate it as such.  There is no gold standard of design...design just is. 



Bingo!

[Sean_A]

No home or regular play course is too short (or too easy) unless you play off scratch. Play off a hcp of 1 or more and it's still too long/hard, that's why your a 1 or more! Play off +1 or better and then that's when it becomes too short/easy.
atb

ATB


Practically any length course can be made very difficult for the best players...the last Open at Merion only scratches the surface of this type of approach.  For the average golfer (and I dare say much better than average), length is really only a problem when choosing the wrong course/tees or indifferent to wild play.  Since the average golfer is average for many reasons, it doesn't make much sense to me use length as an additional factor of difficulty when it is inherently already a problem as soon as a shot goes astray...which is most holes.  Most golfers will hang themselves...they don't need yardage to do this.  The once in a while very good round is what keeps courses in business.


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

I think harder than "length" and "carry distances" for a rater to compute (vis a vis how it might play for other/average golfers) are those design/maintenance elements that the typical rater has likely ceased to notice (or at least to worry about): e.g. perched greens (even if slightly perched, and with run-ups possible); turf that's mowed more tightly than usual, both on the fairways and especially around the greens; a preponderance - and variety -- of 'short-side' trouble; visual clutter/busy-ness of presentation, even if the deceptions and mis-directions are fairly obvious (to an experienced golfer); too much width: the proverbial barn door that makes (for the average golfer) picking a spot to aim not easier but more difficult than a narrower fairway; and even a slightly windy site, especially if the prevailing wind tends to 'cut across' fairways instead of from in front or behind.
Anyone who has played enough golf in his life and is a decent enough golfer to nominate himself as a rater doesn't realize how much more the average/beginning golfer is impacted by a bit of wind and tight turf than he is, or how much more prone the average golfer is to mental mistakes and disorientation.
Peter           

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I tend to go for shots when I play as a rater because there is a built in system of mental mistakes and thus the degree of difficulty for recovery..if there are recovery options.  The tight turf issue is often a problem for average golfers because it is more difficult to get the ball airborn.  For many average golfers, the mental mistake is not to use the turf as their friend...which of course means playing the angles.  The better a golfer the less angles matter almost to the point where angles don't matter at all for the very best players. They can make balls stop downwind on a downslope on firm greens...from tight turf.  Its almost as if touring pros should not have tight turf fairways so angles can come back into play.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff


I hate it when raters talk about a course being too short in general terms.  I will always remember the comment Doak made about Harborne being too short because it doesn't make any sense to me especially in the context of GB&I.

Sean:  My review of Harborne was more nuanced than that.  My impression was that Harborne was meant to appeal to guys who wanted a challenging course, but on several holes, low handicappers have to lay up short of a stream off the tee - which is a big turn-off for the kind of players who want a challenge.  I didn't say it was too short for everyone; I said it was more likely to appeal to other players.

[jeffwarne]

Wondering how our resident average(14-25 handicap) golfers might feel if they were forced to play from the front edge of the fairways at say 3800 yards at Merion on their ONE and only play.
or conversely asked to play off the back markers at Erin Hills at 7900.
I mean if "the designer built them how could they be the wrong tees?" to paraphrase Tom


I'm sure they would be equally objective in their rating as they expect the plus handicapper rater to be in ONE TIME similar circumstances.


Edit
Just saw Tom's reply below.
I played with a really good player who hit a 3,4, or 5 iron,followed by a short iron approach off 10-12 of 14 driving holes at RSG.
He wasn't turned off(very happy to be there) but that's what made me wonder how the place would fare on his ONLY play if he was a rater.


and to clarify, I always play the tee of the day when visiting overseas-and never ask otherwise.
I'm often invited to play other tees and if so occasionally take them up, but not if members aren't being offered the same priviledge.
The tees of the day are rarely very different anyway on most lesser knowns, except at an overtrafficed Big Gun that understandably feels a need to move the tourists along.




Put another way,
if a +2 tournament level rater from England came out to play The Bridge,
would it be a good idea for me to tell him he HAS to play the White tees at 5625?
I'm thinking it might influence his opinion.
But kudos to him if it didn't-the same as I admire those who can merely walk a course without playing and rate it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I think you're smarter and more insightful than most; that common man, keeping it real bit you do around here is just a ruse. Yes, I believe you do honour the 'to each his own' ethos -- and do care about value for money -- but in your reviews I think you often bury the lede, as it were. As you know, I enjoy your reviews very much; but I'd also like to see you more often make explicit  those insights (as a 'rater') that you tend to keep implicit. I think it would serve as usefully educational function.
Peter

[Eric LeFante]

It's amazing that Fishers Island and Chicago Golf are 11 and 12 in the US, ahead of LA North, Seminole, Winged Foot West, Riviera, Friar's Head, and The Country Club.
 
 
 I haven't played any of these courses unfortunately. For those who have played most of the above, what makes Fishers and Chicago that good?

[PCCraig]

It's amazing that Fishers Island and Chicago Golf are 11 and 12 in the US, ahead of LA North, Seminole, Winged Foot West, Riviera, Friar's Head, and The Country Club.
 
 
 I haven't played any of these courses unfortunately. For those who have played most of the above, what makes Fishers and Chicago that good?

I haven't played all of the above courses but frankly they are all good (well, great, really). Just the preferrence of the Golf Magazine Panel. You're kind of splitting hairs between Fishers, The Country Club, and Seminole.

[Josh Tarble]

It's amazing that Fishers Island and Chicago Golf are 11 and 12 in the US, ahead of LA North, Seminole, Winged Foot West, Riviera, Friar's Head, and The Country Club.
 
 
 I haven't played any of these courses unfortunately. For those who have played most of the above, what makes Fishers and Chicago that good?

I would honestly be fine with any of the top 22 courses being in the top 10.  I think those 22 are all probably incredible courses and seem like they would be very unique experiences.  From there it would be purely personal preference.  I do think MacRaynor courses are very unique though, and I'm guessing people score better at Fishers and Chicago than they do Seminole or Winged Foot. 

[Tom_Doak]

It's amazing that Fishers Island and Chicago Golf are 11 and 12 in the US, ahead of LA North, Seminole, Winged Foot West, Riviera, Friar's Head, and The Country Club.
 
 
 I haven't played any of these courses unfortunately. For those who have played most of the above, what makes Fishers and Chicago that good?

Eric:


I have played all of those courses, anywhere from two times to maybe twenty [in the case of Chicago Golf Club].  Why do you not ask what makes the other courses so good?


Personally, I think there are a couple too many people on the GOLF Magazine panel that think a bit too highly of the templates and everything Seth Raynor built.  Nearly all of his courses are relatively short, and that detracts less from their ranking in GOLF Magazine than GOLF DIGEST because of the handicaps of the people on the two panels.  I love Raynor's work, but I love lots of other architects' work, too. 

[Joel_Stewart]

There are and always have been 25-30 courses that stand out from the crowd.  If you get by #30 you are just picking nits.  31+ is just marketing, not quality.

I agree on the Golf Digest list but the Golf Magazine list brings a much larger pool. The Top 10 are always set then Ill guess you have another 40 that make up the cream of the crop.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()