Looking back for a glimpse into future of design

[JMEvensky]

I agree with Jeff W on the Play It Forward situation. It's a great idea--but it's only necessary because the USGA let I&B get away from them. Basically an inelegant solution to a problem they caused.

[Thomas Dai]

Guess as long as there were no forced carries we could be really radical and only have one tee. Set close to the previous green naturally. Why, it could even be a mat.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff -
I don't know whether to thank you for your interest or not
Okay, with no claims made either for rationality or fair-mindedness, why I dislike the use of 5 sets of tees:
1. It is dishonest: it doesn't do what it clearly/ostensibly purports to do, which is to allow stronger and weaker golfers (i.e. longer and shorter hitters) to 'play the same course' and to engage with it in roughly the same way. Obviously (no matter how many 'colour codes' are used to try to disguise the truth): a drive from the back tees and a drive from the front tees may land in the same place, but the person who hit the former will have a 7 iron left while the person who hit the latter will need a 2 hybrid. 
2. It has proven to be in every sense (save as pandering to the 'customer') wholly unnecessary, and thus (unnecessarily) wasteful: today's foremost client's own surveys/stats indicate that 85% of male golfers use the *same* one set of tees, which finding aligns perfectly with my own experiences as a recreational golfer.
3.  It has become ubiquitous and non-course-specific, the very opposite of a targeted/tailored approach to golf course design: from an 80s Nicklaus resort course to the latest gems from Coore & Crenshaw, from a 6300 yard course to one the stretches to over 7500 yards, they all have (at least) 5 sets of tees -- a 'formalized' approach in the context of the only game that has always celebrated its 'varied fields of play'.
4. It 'says' in language subtle enough to be missed that the 200-300 acres of nature (i.e. the golf course) is intended to conform to *our* wishes instead of asking us, for those brief hours that we play it, to accommodate ourselves to *it* -- thus serving only to reinforce our egos and sense of entitlement instead of curtailing them as part of the lessons and joys of the game. 
5. It is rife with unintended consequences: from fitting hand-in-glove with the equipment manufacturers and their constant feeding (and simultaneous creating) of our seemingly insatiable lusts for extra distance...to a fostering of the card and pencil mentality (in the broadest sense of the term) and a dampening of enthusiasm for/validity off the handicap-based-match-play format...to an ever-expanding and ever-more intricate network of cart paths (at all but the most desirable 'walking only' boutique courses) 
6. Hide it as well as you can, it is ugly and busy instead of beautiful and calm     
7. It is, as Tom notes, the value system of commerce. You don't have to be a socialist to wish that, on a golf course at least, the value systems of creativity (and quality design) and the child-like wonder of play might instead come out on top.   
8. It represents a faux-democratization of the game/experience: celebrating not the (shared) freedom that golfers of all skill sets have to each find their own unique way to play the course (and the inherent value of each of those individual approaches) but instead highlighting and actually categorizing the *differences* between us and suggesting that some should play the game 'from here' and others 'from there'...ironically, all in the name/service of 'equality'. 

Well, that's all I can think of right now. I think some of the adjectives/descriptions/rationales I used are pretty clearly at odds with the spirit of the game. To your other question: you'd be surprised how many courses (modest regional ones) I play that still get by with only two sets of tees, i.e. the back and the front. I'm fine with 3 sets, but only because I'm a reasonable fellow
P

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  Another question, who is the, "

foremost client's own surveys/stats indicate that 85% of male golfers use the *same* one set of tees?

" Mike Keiser or someone else?  Of course, my first thought if it is MK is that BD and his other courses are probably the epitome of the golf buddy trip destination, and the 6300 yard tees or close would be the one most of those play. I once had a stat line of tee/length preferences as:


7000+ - <1%
6750+/- 17%
6300+/- - 55%
5750+/- -20%
Forward Tees - +/- 7%


If this has changed on a broad basis, I would be interested in knowing.  In my experience, at local facilities, adding forward tees has been quite popular with senior males and females.  Given the aging population, that 5750 tee could probably be split in two as to play received, but that is another story.


I agree that the old style of putting each tee simply brings every golfer to the same LZ in theory, and that anything over 180 yards left is not reachable by about 80% of golfers, so the experience is unequal.  Which is why Longleaf and other variants recommend tees be placed by the proportional drive distance over the entire hole.  Such as women hit 145 vs. Tour Pro 290, and a 7400 yard course needs to be about 3700 yards from the forward tees, not the old typical of 5,240 yards, or so.


How is allowing most good (but shorter hitting) players the ability to hit greens in regulation not a good thing?


I have a hard time agreeing that designing around real players games (rather than Tour Pros who won't show up) is "pandering."   Yes, it is giving the customer what they want, but why exactly is that a bad thing?  GCA is design to fit the landscape to its intended users, not designing for the land itself (although obviously, using the land is a good thing.)  I have tried hard to put myself in the shoes of other golfer types than the prime of life male golfer in thinking this through, and the complaints here sound a lot like "male privilege" to me, and I am sure others. Of course, sympathizing with senior male golfers gets much easier for me every year.    In fact, after watching my Dad and others men of his generation refuse to play under 6,000 yards as "not manly", I find this generation freely admitting they don't hit it as far and moving up to continue enjoying golf is one of the unsung success stories in golf and human nature I have seen!


My take on the "equipment" problem is that a large portion of our courses could simply eliminate the back tee, given so few play them, not eliminate the mid and forward tees that provide a lot of fun for average golfers who populate the course.


I know I am tilting at windmills on this site with this issue, and all the "intelligentisia" here will shout me down, but I'm interested in the subject, so I ask the questions.

[jeffwarne]

5,6,7 sets of tees gives the architect plausible deniability for lazy, unimaginative, thoughtless design, often for aesthetic "pop" effect. (clever greens running away aren't photogenic like shadowed bunkers)
There are certainly ways to make a course playable and compelling with 2 or at most 3 tee pads on every hole,by simply mixing to get your preferred challenge and elimate any unmanageable carries


If a senior is playing a 350 yard par 4 from the same or similar tees as a scratch player, that hole can be interesting and compelling for both , even with a run up approach in front, and yes even a green and fairway that runs away from the player at the green.
Or even a hole such as the original #7 at ANGC can be a great hole for players of all levels for different reasons.
The current version would still be unplayable for a senior woman even with a tee at 240 yards-she still has to cross and hold the eye candy!

But because of 5 sets of tees logic that hole is 280, 315,350, 380 and 410 with an elevated green and a bunker fronting it-thus making it another boring straightforward driver wedge hole for the scratch and unplayable/unstoppable on the green from all those having the (lack of)speed to choose the forward tees.


Attempting to scale down the challenges with merely different tees simply doesn't work due to the differences in trajectory and spin. and even if it did, the size of the green, hazards and fairway are completely out of scale for a player playing half the course.


In short, the BS maketing mantra that a course is "playable by all" due to 7 sets of tees nearly always isn't true and excuses poor. non versatile architecture.


A true genius, when given the right land and owner, would build a COURSE (as in one course from ONE tee) that is challenging, interesting and fun for all players.
TOC before the equipment explosion?
Goat Hill is this way as are many community 9 holers in the UK (you could trip over the "forward tee" in your follow through) The main reaon is these courses lack the funds to build new longer tees to expand the the challenge to the elite(who aren't coming anyway), but preserve the challenge and fun for the people that actually do play there

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff,
I understand your points (and appreciate them coming from someone who has designed 50+ golf courses) -- but I have a sense that the 5-6 tee world (and the 'choice' it gives a whole range of golfers) is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy. What I mean is: you and I must be roughly about the same age, and you started playing golf long before I did: don't both of us remember when 3 sets of tees was the norm? Didn't almost every course you played growing up limit itself to back middle and front tees? And if so, how was that working back then? how did it work for decades and decades? Were senior golfers leaving the game in droves when we were growing up, because they didn't have the 'correct' set of tees to play from? Were kids not talking up the game? What I'm saying/asking is: isn't it possible that this 'new normal' of 5 and 6 sets of tees is a 'solution' to a problem that doesn't exist? That it's simply another kind of bell and whistle (to make potential customers 'happy'), but one that brings with it unintended (and unnecessary, and, as per Jeff W's post above, even negative) consequences?
Peter

 

[David Harshbarger]

At Battenkill we have 2 1/2 sets of tees: men's, ladies' and senior's.  The senior's play half from about half-way between men's and ladies' and half at the ladies'.


It's a 9 hole course so there are men's and ladies' have two setups, front and back.


As I'm sure all of you know, 9-hole courses put a good deal of energy into providing varied tees from front to back, just to keep it interesting. 


One offshoot of that is that our 17th is a 210 yard par-3 into a small green.  For a mid-handicapper, that's a tough shot!  And in my experience not a common ask of a mid-handicapper on par-3 when there are back tees. 

For example, here's a 5-tee score card from our local state course, Saratoga Spa:



On the scorecard at least, the black tees play 218, 180, 212, 227.  The white tees where I would play are 155, 162, 162, 166. 

The lesson here is that with the "single" set of tees at my little 9-hole course I'm asked to make shots I'd never be asked for at the Spa, even though the Spa course supports them.  That's a point in favor of a single set of men's tees.

I do think that having men's/ladies' or forward/back tees makes sense. I'm ambivalent about a middle set of tees.  I don't see the benefit beyond that.

Net: from a design standpoint I think having multiple teeing grounds per hole is interesting and useful.  On an 18 hole course you don't need to vary the tee shots within a round, but there's something to be said for varying distances and angles from day-to-day and week-to-week for the regular player/member. 

[jeffwarne]

At Battenkill we have 2 1/2 sets of tees: men's, ladies' and senior's.  The senior's play half from about half-way between men's and ladies' and half at the ladies'.


It's a 9 hole course so there are men's and ladies' have two setups, front and back.


As I'm sure all of you know, 9-hole courses put a good deal of energy into providing varied tees from front to back, just to keep it interesting. 


One offshoot of that is that our 17th is a 210 yard par-3 into a small green.  For a mid-handicapper, that's a tough shot!  And in my experience not a common ask of a mid-handicapper on par-3 when there are back tees. 

For example, here's a 5-tee score card from our local state course, Saratoga Spa:



On the scorecard at least, the black tees play 218, 180, 212, 227.  The white tees where I would play are 155, 162, 162, 166. 

The lesson here is that with the "single" set of tees at my little 9-hole course I'm asked to make shots I'd never be asked for at the Spa, even though the Spa course supports them.  That's a point in favor of a single set of men's tees.

I do think that having men's/ladies' or forward/back tees makes sense. I'm ambivalent about a middle set of tees.  I don't see the benefit beyond that.

Net: from a design standpoint I think having multiple teeing grounds per hole is interesting and useful.  On an 18 hole course you don't need to vary the tee shots within a round, but there's something to be said for varying distances and angles from day-to-day and week-to-week for the regular player/member.

Bingo!
perhaps you should hold a seminar for architects.
(lack of) budget (or put more simply-spending your own money)is the mother of invention.
all this despite twice as much play (being a nine holer)

[Rob Marshall]

I've played many courses were the yardage from the tees was 6200-6400 and the next was 7000+. Isn't a simple solution to create "players tees" or whatever you want to call them to fill in the gap? Create a 6700 course using a combination of the existing tee boxes? You don't need to have a separate set of tees to accomplish that.

[Tim Martin]

I've played many courses were the yardage from the tees was 6200-6400 and the next was 7000+. Isn't a simple solution to create "players tees" or whatever you want to call them to fill in the gap? Create a 6700 course using a combination of the existing tee boxes? You don't need to have a separate set of tees to accomplish that.

+1

[jeffwarne]

I've played many courses were the yardage from the tees was 6200-6400 and the next was 7000+. Isn't a simple solution to create "players tees" or whatever you want to call them to fill in the gap? Create a 6700 course using a combination of the existing tee boxes? You don't need to have a separate set of tees to accomplish that.

+1
great minds Tim-crossed posts
.


but there's no money in doing less

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rob,


Yes many courses do that, usually playing the long tees on shorter holes, and the short tees on longer holes.  I have never looked extensively to see how each hole in those scenarios plays out, it seems like an attempt to get to a predetermined yardage.  Still, one goal has to be making more greens reachable.  As an architect, I naturally tend to think in terms of creating logical tees in the first place. Club pros think in terms of retrofitting existing tees to make a course more playable.


Peter,


First, where did you get the 85% stat?  Second, even if 15% of golfers play different tees (I think its higher, but.....) how many businesses could survive telling that chunk of customers they really don't care, take it as it is, etc.?  With the glut of courses, and increasing consumer knowledge, maybe 3 tees worked then and more are needed now, if only to market the course first on the internet.  I think yardage and "purty pictures" are what draws golfers in when researching a course, but that position could also stand a bit more research. 


Again, and while I may be wrong in my assumptions, in design, form follows function, not nostalgia or tradition.   For that matter, there is just so much more data on real shots of average golfers available now that wasn't known that well then.  Seems like it is natural to use it.


At the very least, rethinking how every distance player truly plays the course rather than designing for low handicappers and crapping all over other golfers, is a sincere design attempt to do the right thing by all customers.  Still don't know why trying to get golfers to enjoy golf (by not hitting 10 mindless shots per round until they get near the green) can be dismissed as "pandering?"


But as Jeff W says, even creating playable yardages requires designs that match to be good design.  I sense (and correctly, I think) that female golfers have long been insulted by the men's club attitude in golf (and here.)  Even before the Tee It Forward, thinking critics noticed the lack of care in forward tee placements as we designed for the best players first.  One feminist reporter showed me around a signature course where more than one forward tee was actually blocked by trees.  Others put the tee shot in the pond, unless laying up substantially, etc.  It had a real effect on me. 


So, doing some basic distance math is not an excuse for bad design, I agree. However, its not a bad start, either!

[Mark_Fine]

I think it is interesting, most of the posts here only talk about a single teeing area for women??  But men seem to have multiple options?  Let’s think about who plays the game.  You have the top single digit or less golfers, you have the average player, you have seniors who are starting to make up a bigger part of the golfing public, you have young golfers just learning the game,...  You also have both males and females in all these categories.  So what are ideal teeing locations for a golf hole for these types of golfers???   Maybe Robert Trent Jones got it right; just build a huge runway tee and let them all play from where they want


Tom Doak mentioned about “conventional” wisdom?  Not sure what he means by that?  Maybe he can elaborate? 


I remember when I used to go to play Pine Valley years ago.  What I thought at the time was a really cool aspect about the place (in addition to the absolutely amazing architecture), is that there was only one tee marker and that is where you played from.  There were no options.  My ego at the time said this is great, if you can’t handle the course from that tee, you shouldn’t be playing here!  That is no longer the case at Pine Valley and no longer my thought process.  I played with an older member there a few years ago (many of their members are getting older) and they now have much shorter teeing options for these players/members who can no longer make all those forced carries.  I remember one older member telling me he could no longer play the golf course until they added those new tees.


I have no idea what the “right” number of teeing locations is, but I do know that it is more than one.  As far as the “play it forward” concept; it might be a bandaid but how can anyone argue with that.  Most golfers quit (or don’t even become golfers) because the game is too hard and too expensive and takes too much time to play.  I always try to deter clubs from adding more yardage to their golf courses but I have never deterred one from adding shorter teeing options (formal or not formal). 

[David Harshbarger]

I sense (and correctly, I think) that female golfers have long been insulted by the men's club attitude in golf (and here.)  Even before the Tee It Forward, thinking critics noticed the lack of care in forward tee placements as we designed for the best players first.  One feminist reporter showed me around a signature course where more than one forward tee was actually blocked by trees.  Others put the tee shot in the pond, unless laying up substantially, etc.  It had a real effect on me. 

In my "if I win the lottery" category would be to fund a new golf course at my alma mater (a former women's college) with the instructions to design the course first for the women/forward tees, then back out to the men/back tees.  Ideally a course should work for both, and that school is co-ed and they would want equity, but it seems fitting to design something where first use case supports lower shots, less distance, less spin...the characteristics of the women's game.

[jeffwarne]

 but it seems fitting to design something where first use case supports lower shots, less distance, less spin...the characteristics of the women's game.

No issues with this at all-if well designed from lower speed perspectice, I'm sure that it could provide challenge, interest and fun for the higher speed player--maybe moreso because such a course is so rare and such shots so seldom confronted. Depth perception is often heightened with a fronting bunker defining the shot for a better player-and dooming the lower speed player.
I'd just like t see such design incorporporated into more designs that include 2.3.4.5 sets of tees, rather than thinking less yardage is all that matters for playability and interest

[David Harshbarger]

 but it seems fitting to design something where first use case supports lower shots, less distance, less spin...the characteristics of the women's game.

No issues with this at all-if well designed from lower speed perspectice, I'm sure that it could provide challenge, interest and fun for the higher speed player--maybe moreso because such a course is so rare and such shots so seldom confronted. Depth perception is often heightened with a fronting bunker defining the shot for a better player-and dooming the lower speed player.
I'd just like t see such design incorporporated into more designs that include 2.3.4.5 sets of tees, rather than thinking less yardage is all that matters for playability and interest

How comparable would the men's golden age or pre-haskell game be to today's women's game?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


I agree with you on fronting bunkers, but feel that most of us gca types limit a 90%+ frontal covering bunker to one or two examples at most, per round.  And, most of those are when required by pond or environmentally sensitive area we can't change, so it would be rare to introduce a fronting sand bunker on top of that.  (but not unheard of either)  I have told the story of a frontal bunker at a par 3 (probably the best place for them, IMHO) and a good, but shorter hitting, female player lofted a perfect (for her) shot that caught the top lip.  She was pretty unhappy that a "perfect" shot ended up in a triple bogey from the sand.


Statistically, high handicappers hit less than good 10 shots per round.  And good means, airborne, mostly the right direction and at least most of the way to the green.  Under those circumstances, frontal bunkers that ruin the results of their best effort would seem to be pretty discouraging.


David,


Not sure, I assume pretty similar.  But there is more data on the real carry and roll of all swing speeds now.  Shorter hitters total distance comprises of more roll and less carry compared to low handicappers and pros.  That really complicates carry bunkers off the tee (presumably angled and with some way around, but with the carry being ideal.)  Tee placement must allow for the various carry and roll stats to make that bunker work well for everyone, at least if possible.


And someone mentioned the reverse slope or Redan idea again as challenging everyone.  Maybe, but in my research any green that doesn't slope at least 1.3% towards the average golfer won't be held.  Flatter or reverse slope and the ball just keeps running until stopped by mound or rough.  Yes, we can leave fw out front, but then we depend on the maintenance meld for the hole to work, which we can't guarantee.  With modern irrigation and sloped up approaches, it is very typical for short approach shots to just stop right where they hit.


So, sometimes, the neat theories are so difficult to implement, architects shy away, much like football coaches tending to get more conservative over time, I guess.

[jeffwarne]

And someone mentioned the reverse slope or Redan idea again as challenging everyone.  Maybe, but in my research any green that doesn't slope at least 1.3% towards the average golfer won't be held.  Flatter or reverse slope and the ball just keeps running until stopped by mound or rough.  Yes, we can leave fw out front, but then we depend on the maintenance meld for the hole to work, which we can't guarantee.  With modern irrigation and sloped up approaches, it is very typical for short approach shots to just stop right where they hit.


So, sometimes, the neat theories are so difficult to implement, architects shy away, much like football coaches tending to get more conservative over time, I guess.

Jeff,
It was stated earlier by you that high handicappers hit less than 10 "good" shots per round (don't know how we define that but I'll play along) Let's assume that at least half are tee shots due to "tees" or flight inducers. If the average high handicapper is hitting so few good approaches (we're now down to 4-5 or less assuming they are actual approaches to a green which assumes the shot preceeding them was good-(unlikely), why does it matter that they won't "hold" on a green that's sloped less than 1.3% towards them?
nearly all the time on their other approaches they NEED the ball to release because it's short, not HOLD.


Their chances are far higher if they are playing to run the shot up if that's the case, especially if the green isn't elevated. I agree 100% that the maintenance /weather might not cooperate, but with most current designs firmer approaches really don't matter as the people whose opinions get listened to fly the ball on most of the time and accept that it was a bad shot when it lands short and sticks. If suddenly that club champ was approaching a zero slope green or God forbid one that sloped away and was allowing for a bounce on the approach area, he might make it a point to encourage the powers that be to reduce watering and or focus on where water drains off of a green when the course is built (or put presure on the architect to do so) Also, if the greens are expected to "hold", chances are good that more water than might be needed is contributing to the approach problem.
Currently it's just not not often considered because it's down the list of decision makers who are deathly afraid to have a good player be forced to conceive of a shot where some luck(or frankly a higher level of skill and experience) may be involved.


Southampton GC is a great example of a club on a reasonable budget who has changed this equation entirely, but I also see it at Shennecossett, a muni with minimal budget. not on sand.
then there's Goat Hill which does it on a virtual zero budget.
Gotta be willing to see a bit of brown though, which becomes acceptable when a bounce is requested for the shot at hand-not so much if the game plan is to fly it and stop it.


My long winded point is we need to stop thinking everybody can play the same course on the same scale simply by making it different distances-no matter where you start the forward tee player, they are going to run their approach onto or over the green so there might as welll be a chance for the former.

[Tom_Doak]

First, where did you get the 85% stat?  Second, even if 15% of golfers play different tees (I think its higher, but.....) how many businesses could survive telling that chunk of customers they really don't care, take it as it is, etc.? 

He got it from me, earlier in the thread:

We've been discussing how many sets of tees to have on our new course at Sand Valley, and the client favors five sets, because that's what they have on all of their courses, to give visitors a choice.  But their data shows that 85% of the men play from the same tee and 5% play from each of the other tees.

Even so, they want to provide the five tees so nobody feels they didn't have a tee that was catered to them - even if their buddies won't let them play from it

In the thread that preceded this one, I mentioned that "the customer is always right" is the language of commerce and of the golf BUSINESS, rather than the game of golf.  You and Mark Fine are defending the golf business, not the game.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Last I checked, more golf courses are closing vs. opening and less people are playing the game.  I think we all should be focused on making those who play this game as well as those who we would like to have play it, as interested and as happy as possible.  If we are successful at that, we will be helping the golf business and the game of golf   


By the way, not to change subjects, but why didn't you build formal tees at Sebonack? I love that you didn't as it would have totally changed the aesthetic.  I think too many tees (especially if built/designed poorly) can look terrible but most "existing" courses don't have the luxury to be designed like Sebonack where you can place the teeing locations literally wherever you want! 
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D,


Thanks for confirming it came from MK. I thought so, but wanted to make sure.


Thinking about your statement that Mark F and I are defending the golf biz.  Not sure, although I am of the opinion that if the golf biz isn't healthy, then by and large, the game of golf won't be healthy either.


And, I would love your definition of "thinking of the game?"  Off hand (and open to changing my mind) it seems like you define the "game" in old school terms, i.e., the lofty private club, full of low handicap men, where significant golf challenge is the main thing.  TBH, I am not sure that idealized backwards vision of golf, or even tournament history, was ever really representative of the game worldwide. 

If you tend to think of "Golf in America" as the guy who waits in line for a tee time, at such places as Bethpage, but to a lesser degree elsewhere, just to play the game at some semblance of its imagined splendor, then opening up the game to others is a noble pursuit, not a thing to be dismissed, at least IMHO.


I always liked the title of Michael Fay's Ross book, "Golf as it was meant to be played."  To me, yes, its a shame forward tees have to be "put back" because a lot of stuff has happened, with equipment adding distance for already long players with little for the rest of us, and design focusing on those players first and foremost. 


However, trying to place tees for even the 20% of senior male golfers and 7% of females who play so that they can return to golf as it was meant to be played, i.e., hitting greens and tees with good shots, is the way to go.


As to Jeff W's concerns, yes, designing forward tees is based on the distances of good, consistent, but shorter hitters.  If I ever come up with a suitable way to tailor design to the worst avid golfers among us, I will let you know, LOL.  As to the specifics or reverse slope greens, I don't think your argument applies, but agree dry approaches would.  The game is difficult enough for nearly everyone without designing features that challenge the best players (but not that much, really, see below) and torture average ones who are just lucky to hit the green.  I trust that the GIR stats for them mostly include back to front greens.


Played with Steve Elkington once.  He recognized the reverse/side slope of the green from 150 yards out and played accordingly and perfectly to a few feet from the pin.  I have rarely seen an average golfer notice or play for same. It seems they would hit by the yardage book time and time again without every clubbing down to allow for slope, LOL, not.


I will say I had my eyes opened touring the course on an ASGCA applicant two years ago.  I tended to design steeper back to front slope on longer approach shots to help hold.  This gentleman almost reversed that thought, for reasons you mention.  He felt that if an average player faced a long approach shot (and let's face it, on the average course and hole, no matter what length, a fairly large contingent of ams will be aiming at the green from their max distance) they wouldn't appreciate a steep upslope killing their roll completely.  Now, I feel that way, too, LOL.  But, still think they want enough to get a little help. (and see the green from the fw, too)


Others are free to disagree, of course. 

[jeffwarne]

Played with Steve Elkington once.  He recognized the reverse/side slope of the green from 150 yards out and played accordingly and perfectly to a few feet from the pin.  I have rarely seen an average golfer notice or play for same. It seems they would hit by the yardage book time and time again without every clubbing down to allow for slope, LOL, not.


I will say I had my eyes opened touring the course on an ASGCA applicant two years ago.  I tended to design steeper back to front slope on longer approach shots to help hold.  This gentleman almost reversed that thought, for reasons you mention.  He felt that if an average player faced a long approach shot (and let's face it, on the average course and hole, no matter what length, a fairly large contingent of ams will be aiming at the green from their max distance) they wouldn't appreciate a steep upslope killing their roll completely.  Now, I feel that way, too, LOL.  But, still think they want enough to get a little help. (and see the green from the fw, too)

Very interesting thoughts-thanks for that.


I played with Steve Elkington once as well at The Bridge.


Our 6th green was relocated on my suggestion.It was the only green moved in our extensive in house renovation.
The driving force of the change was to eliminate a 150 yard uphill walk back to the 6th tee and then another 100 walk back  from the current 6th green to 7th tee. There was a beautifully shaped and vegetated  bowl behind the 6th green in the bed of the old racetrack which gave us the additional yardage we needed to move the 6th tee up next to 5 green, with the added benefit of new 6 green now being much closer to 7 tee(eliminating 400 yards of needless walking and a cooler hole in a stunning bowl).... BUT it left a semi blind punchbowlish approach with the ground and front of green running away from the fairway.It was my job to enlist Rees' blessing, and I convinced him it would be our tribute to #16 at NGLA, where he was a member.
 I'll cut this short and save the other stories for another time, but needless to say the hole was controversial, in about the %'s you would expect. GCA types loved it,as did many members, but many single digit card and pencilers and Golf Digest Raters didn't. Being a single owner club, that worked for us.


Well Elkington drove it off 6 tee into a stiff sea breeze exactly where I told him to, favoring the right side of the fairway for a peek at the pin-playing the 462 yard back tees (which are actually just BEHIND 5 green). Seeing only the top of the flag he asked about the shape of the land which was falling away and left-to-right from his angle. He then hit the most beautiful 3 Wood fade AROUND the bunker/landform causing the semi blindness in front of him(it's 60 yards short of the center of the green) and ran it to 6 feet.
Exactly the shot I had hoped shorter hitting ams would purposely try for or accidentally hit when they misjudged how far they hit it!


The funny thing is I have ams tell me the hole is unfair because it's semi blind (it's 350 yards from the blue member's tee-meaning they merely have to cover 300 yards in the air IN TWO SHOTS--or go around the bunker using the sloping land or fading flight--- as the ball will roll the last 50-60 yards if hit left of OR over the bunker)


The previous version of this hole was 420(after a 100 yard uphill walk) from the member's tee with an uphill approach into the wind.
Tell me which hole is more unfair for someone who averages 210 off the tee....

[Peter Pallotta]

Terrific post there, Jeff W. (More Rees Jones stories and Steve Elkington shots, please).
GCA Rule #1: design a course for everyone *except* single digit card and pencilers and Golf Digest raters. (They should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves, respectively.)

[JMEvensky]

Jeff B./ Jeff W.--how many shots did SE mishit? I caddied for a friend in an Open Sectional who was paired with him. We figured he mishit 5 shots in 36 holes. It was something to see.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff B./ Jeff W.--how many shots did SE mishit? I caddied for a friend in an Open Sectional who was paired with him. We figured he mishit 5 shots in 36 holes. It was something to see.

None in the 9 I played with him-chatting all the way.
seriously
On 7, we have a pot bunker about 290 out that you can go left of or fly(I'm usually playing one tee up where it's about 250-60 over) to get to a speed slot, but the ground is sloping left to right, and the wind is left to right helping.
I picked a spot left of the bunker and told him that was the line to catch speed slot(I had hit it right of bunker with 3 wood to play to safer wider area) He hit it exactly where I told him but it bounced right on the slope and wind and went in the bunker-He hit dead on but it was just the wrong line as I didn't factor in the break at 290 out!


I also walked around with Dennis and Carl Paulson while they played The Bridge during The US Open week.
Shocking how good they hit it-period- especially for 2 guys who don't practice and haven't played competively in years.

[Tom_Doak]

Thinking about your statement that Mark F and I are defending the golf biz.  Not sure, although I am of the opinion that if the golf biz isn't healthy, then by and large, the game of golf won't be healthy either.


And, I would love your definition of "thinking of the game?"  Off hand (and open to changing my mind) it seems like you define the "game" in old school terms, i.e., the lofty private club, full of low handicap men, where significant golf challenge is the main thing.  TBH, I am not sure that idealized backwards vision of golf, or even tournament history, was ever really representative of the game worldwide. 

Well, that's generally the view of people in the golf business, that what's good for them will also be good for golf.  But to flip what Mark said on its head, the golf business and all of its brilliant solutions have been losing golfers for the past 15-20 years, and I would put most of that down to driving the costs up to unsustainable levels with ever-better standards for design, construction, turf management, equipment, yada yada.


As to your second paragraph, I can't believe you would ascribe any of that bullshit to me.  You've seen enough of my courses to know that they're not all about "the lofty private club, low handicap men, and significant golf challenge".  My courses are mostly really playable and enjoyable for women and for seniors; it's the low handicap men who complain they are too easy and/or too tricked up, often at the same time.  [Mr. Dye would be proud of me for accomplishing that.]




When I think of the game of golf, as opposed to the business, I think about the year I spent in the UK, where people like my recently-departed friend Archie Baird - a retired veterinarian - could belong to multiple clubs, and play golf seven days a week with his friends and his dog in tow.  Golf in the UK was not shaped by business interests.


Archie was a member of Gullane, Kilspindie, and the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers, which he could afford because they got by with a maintenance staff of four [Muirfield, of course, had the luxury of six].  They didn't have the desire [or the manpower] to go out and move six sets of tee markers on every hole every day.  Golfers from 18 to 80 played off the medal tees for club competitions, and off the "daily boxes" otherwise, no matter how short or long it was set up to spread out the wear and tear.  Archie would be 100 yards short of the 18th hole at Muirfield in two, and hit a little 7-iron up there to ten feet, and wait with his stroke in hand to see if he even needed to make his putt in order to beat you.


Golf is about taking the course as you find it, doing your best, and enjoying the day.  [I see my own job as taking the land as I find it, and doing my best to ensure that others will enjoy their day.] 


The people who think everything should be re-tailored to their satisfaction are not true golfers.  An overseas friend of mine said to me years ago, "Americans are going to ruin golf," but there are a lot of Americans who would love golf as it exists in the UK, if the golf business were not dead set on pretending that culture of the game doesn't exist.