Course Length Tokenism in a Renovation

[Bryan Izatt]

I recently saw a Master Plan for the renovation of a south Florida housing development course.  The plan was from a name brand architect who was the designer of the course to be renovated.  He is purportedly a supporter of rolling back the ball.


Despite saying that they needed to shorten the course, he did propose several new back tees that increase the 7000 yard length by about 200 yards total, and the movement of bunkers to keep the course "relevant" to elite players (of which there are likely very few in the membership).


At the same time he has recommended the formalization of a set of far forward tees that are currently 4800 yards and mowed out of rough to the sides of fairways for the most part.  The new set of tees will make the far forward tees 4500 yards which he says is good for ladies and kids.  The recent USGA study suggests that an appropriate length for far forward tees would be closer to 3500 - 4000 yards.


One silly aspect of the formalized forward tees is the plan to put them all to the side nearest the cart paths, seemingly regardless of how that sets the player up to play the hole.  There are three or four holes where the hole legs to the right around a bunker that's on the cart path side.  The bunker is too far away to be carried by the vast majority of the members who will play the tees.  The only play will be to the left and then a 90 degree turn to get back to the the far side of the bunker where the fairway off to the green is.  This tacking around the bunker will make the hole play longer rather than shorter for the intended audience.


Both the lengthening and shortening seem to be ill-considered token approaches to course length.

[Sean Leary]

Often these extra tee boxes tend to seem to be for scorecard length rather than trying to stay relevant for the elite few, IMO.


Question.  How much more does it cost to build maintain an extra tee box as a general rule ?

[John Kavanaugh]

Most superintendents love to play on earth moving equipment. Building a back tee just may keep them from doing something really stupid. Cost...Priceless.

[David Harshbarger]

Often these extra tee boxes tend to seem to be for scorecard length rather than trying to stay relevant for the elite few, IMO.


Question.  How much more does it cost to build maintain an extra tee box as a general rule ?

The Distance report quoted a number of $11,900 to build a new tee.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,


Most good club players I know seem to think 7200 is about the right length for a good, but not overly stern test.  Why not give that to them?  6900-7000 yards seems to be kind of a no man's land now, too long for the 258 average player, too short for the 285 driving A player. 


I have seen courses that are currently back tee 6800 and business consultants have recommended adding tees to "hit 7000 yards for marketing purposes."  No matter how much I try to explain that 7K is outdated, one consultant I know never listens.  And he (and others) will push for that length even if it causes safety problems or diminishes holes, which I argue against.  I don't care for that, but it does happen.


I am also firmly in the sub 4500 forward tee camp, and agree with you that 4000 or even less would be a better target.  The math is simple, the average Tour pro plays 7210 yards (I measured a few years ago, may be more or less now).  At the time the average drive was 292 (now up to 294) so they play about 24X their tee shot length.  Recreational women may hit an average of 145 or so, and to hit equivalent clubs,  they should really be playing closer to 3600, as you mention.  Even allowing that they probably need to hit longer, but not maximum clubs ever hole, which should be less than 30X tee shot, it comes out to 4200.


I have had the same problem of wanting to put the tee on the other side from the cart path.  Options are to let them drive there, if female front tee play is low (like under 10%), adding a path which is a visual distraction, or putting it near the path, because let's face it, very few cart riders are going to walk 50 yards to the tee.  Often a problem without a good solution.


As to the playability and carrying a bunker, I usually design those new forward tees (which have been very enthusiastically accepted wherever I have done them - once with 4500 tees a good female golfer said she could have hit 13 of 18 greens, so why didn't I make them all reachable, which would have required about 4000 yards, but topo sometimes doesn't all.  While I start with math - 145/292 is about 50%, if there is a carry that can make the hole play the same off the tee, I will move the tee up.  If there is a creek crossing that will limit driver from the new 4000+ tees, I will move it back.  The individual hole is more important than any statistical math exercise.


Obviously, I can't and won't judge those holes because I haven't seen them, but in general, but there is not a lot wrong with the conceptual starting point, IMHO.

[Matthew Rose]

Didn't Alice Dye say something to the effect of: "Always put the cart path to the right of the forward tee, so that people in the parked carts aren't looking at my behind?"

Of course that doesn't account for lefties.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, she did.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,


Thanks for the thoughtful reply.


On the adding yardage end of things, the course is closer to 7100 yards today and was long enough to host a senior tour event in recent years where the half the field was over par for 54 holes and winning scores were 15 to 19 under.  Adding 200 yards would make little difference to those guys and the tour is unlikely to be coming back - the members don't want it and it's supposedly expensive. This is a housing development course with few elite amateur players and already plays soft, slow and long in the prime season. The architect is a proponent of the rollback - I just wonder why he needed to propose any lengthening.


I suspect that the placement of the far forward tees near the cart path is to limit wear and tear on the turf in the prime season when it is overseeded.  The current forward tees mowed in the rough do suffer from wear when they are opposite side of the hole from the cart path.  There is an attempt now to use movable entrance and exit posts to manage the cart traffic to reduce wear, but that is in consideration of all traffic, not just the far forward tees.  The club membership is quite active and there is a lot of traffic - not too many walkers. And, there are still those who ignore or don't understand the entrance and exit routing of cart traffic.


I guess my inclination would have been to give up the championship tees and create the formalized forward tees at 4500 yards and add another at 3500 to 4000 yards.  Perhaps that might have encouraged the majority of the members to move up to shorter length tees.  But, then, I'm biased - my significant other loves to play, but maxes her drives out at 100 yards and for who par is closer to the number of shots required to get to the green.


My, probably quixotic, hope would be that architects could create courses that can accommodate golfers of a wide range of abilities and length without placing tees for those who are short hitters off to the side and sometimes the wrong side at that.  And, greens committees that understand and want to accommodate all the members that play the course.


Putting in more forward tees would also have provided a place for the members to go if the ball does get rolled back and as they get older still.  They could have gotten ahead of the (d)evolution.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,


It is oddly ironic if architects today think of length elasticity (think that was a word Ross or Mac used) was to the front end of the tee, and not the back.  That said, I am not sure anyone would spend $12,000 per new tee in hopes that the ball would be rolled back, just like GA guys didn't actually build back tees for when the ball would be longer, even though they may have left room for it.


And, $12K or whatever to build a small tee either forward or back is about the least expensive thing you can do.  I propose it often.  Right now, new holes cost $450-$550K to build new, with green complexes about 25-33% of that, for reference.


Again, every course is different and form follows function.  If it was 7100 for a seniors event that isn't coming back, I would think that was long enough for the <1% of low handicap, long hitters there at the club.   But, I don't know for sure.  As I often say (paraphrasing Churchill.....) "Never has so much golf course been built for so few!"



I can see from a business standpoint how turf wear could be a more important design consideration than the angle of play, even if I don't side with the late Pete Dye in believing that you can't design for average players.  That said, I wonder, unless it's really bad, and sometimes it is, how many of those players know or care about the angle they are playing?  Their goal is to get in the FW somewhere, usually, and not any particular side of the fw, especially if they can't reach the green on their seconds.  (and at 4500 yards, I guess that is 4-6 holes, excluding muffed tee shots, if any.)  Moving the ropes is an indication of poorly thought out circulation, and underappreciated aspect of golf course design.  It is a temporary solution that design can minimize if that is the top priority, and IMHO, it probably should be.  But, as everyone here knows, I'm a bit of a weird duck.


Actually, your title, especially the word "tokenism" probably perfectly describes the design thought that goes into how seniors and women actually play the game, including how they use carts.  I have seen forward tees placed behind trees and in deep holes, or requiring a forced layup or impossible carry. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I wonder if the " name brand architect" who did the work for the FL residential club in question in the original post took a look at the membership handicaps before doing the work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always try to get a player profile.  And, a mission statement from the club.  For instance, if the average membership age is 70, the business plan might be to do something.....anything.....to attract younger members. 


While the typical cross sections are similar, there are variations, older in Florida, more females in WI, MN, etc.  Enough differences to make a design change.  That said, I work much more in the public arena, and we presume we need to design for nearly everyone in those cases. (although always tempted to recommend ignoring the 300 yard hitters, since they are so low in number, and maybe even more rare at muni's.)

[Bryan Izatt]

I wonder if the " name brand architect" who did the work for the FL residential club in question in the original post took a look at the membership handicaps before doing the work.

The changes are only proposed at this stage.  The course was originally built before there was much of a membership. The course was most likely built to trade on both the name brand architect and its "championship" pedigree as a way to sell houses just before the turn of the century.


Current handicaps for the large and active membership are readily available now. Most members I see play three or four tees up from the back.


The current club leadership seems intent on keeping the original name brand architect for vanity purposes although there are few houses left to sell.  I guess people like there premium brands in golf courses the same as they like it in cars and watches and ...........


Jeff, the reno budget is proposed to be around twice your ballpark for building new holes.  Seems a tad high.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,


Went on a site visit and thought of this tread.  They were placing dirt to build one of our recommended new forward tees, and it was near a path, on the inside of a dogleg right, and with a tree in the way, luckily, I think, with branches high enough for them to play under, and the possibility of trimming one more to make sure.  It's a par 5, and the hole is short enough that they can still reach in 3 shots if they have to play wide.  Yes, I guess placing the tee near the path is probably the more important consideration for me.  I did have them move it out a few yards further than they had it from the path.  They had built it closer than the plan, not realizing the effect on play.

[corey miller]

Shouldn't there be a perfect formal teeing area for every skill level of golf?  After a recent renovation at my club we added one set of tees...then of course needed to add another set for those golfers that "should be playing the back" and now have to hear about another set of tees from those that the SR tees (created in the master plan) are too far forward.


I can't keep up with the colors anymore but have suggested the ROYGBIV tees.  The more clueless a person is about architecture the more serious they think I am.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Corey,


I don't know how long the course is from the Senior (I presume that is SR?) tees, but suggest you let them play there a few years before deciding on moving them back.  Sort of like socialism.  Many are against it, but once they start getting the benefits, they hate giving up the program, LOL>  (just a joke, don't mean to send Mike Young into the stratosphere).


If you run the math on the two or three forward sets of tees, they probably cannot be too short in reality.  Senior tees probably ought to be under 5K, but I see many men have the same objection they might have had 20 years earlier to playing a course under 6K.  The max ought to be about 30X their tee shot length (typical average is 170 yards, or even a bit less, so 5100 is max and 5000 is about 29 X.  The shorter the better, and  somewhere like 28X allows them to play reasonable clubs to most greens, and that is about 4760 or so.  And women should be at under 4K, but I have seen them resist the 4K barrier for, I guess, female ego?


I do think every golfer appreciates a formal teeing area and that seems to be the trend, with the exception of the junior tees which are merely placed in the fw.

[Jay Mickle]

[size=78%]  [/size][/size]The max ought to be about 30X their tee shot length (typical average is 170 yards, or even a bit less, so 5100 is max and 5000 is about 29 X. [size=78%][/size][size=78%] [/size]

So the pros should Max Out at around 8,820 yards. I can hear the screams now.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jay,


Don't know anyone saying that, but it illustrates how long we ask amateurs, and especially shorter amateurs to play everyday golf.  8,820 is the equivalent of what we ask them to play, and how many pros want to play that?  As you say, none.

[Tim Gavrich]

Adding new tees seems wasteful in most cases. As I understand it, only about 15% of golfers carry a handicap these days, which means that a small minority even bothers to post scores. That means that 85% of golfers are free to tee off from wherever they want on a given hole.


Wouldn't it be much less expensive for golf courses to simply encourage golfers not to worry about what tees they play from, rather than spend all kinds of money to build tees for golfers for whom, in most cases, they're irrelevant?


What portion of the 15% of golfers currently do not have an appropriate tee to play from at their home course? If there's a clear answer to this question (I don't know if there is, but I suspect it's avid women club players, if anyone), that's where the only attention ought to be focused.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


Every course needs a certain amount of tee space to spread out the wear, about 0.2 SF per round annually, sometimes more, but definitely not as big as the hey day of golf.  So, to a certain extent, its not a waste.


Not sure why course length is related to handicap in most minds.  To me, its related to what is a comfortable length to play, considering hitting many if not most or all greens in regulation figures with good shots.  While many high or no handicappers are wild and unpredictable, designing for good, but shorter golfers should get most tees in a place that works well for them.


There are a lot more stats now on how many hit it how long and wide.  While we have to use averages in design, when applying  a little math, we are finding that we really did a piss poor job of designing the forward most tees around how golfers really play the game.  It seems like, if form follows function, course length and angles, etc. ought to be considered at least for the 85% in the range of what is considered "average golfers".


Just MHO, but carefully thought out designs should help more than you give it credit for.