[Mike_Trenham]

Here’s my pet peeve:


Too often forward tees are built way way way too large.  They get limited use and take even fewer divot. All tees don’t have to be of equal size.  They also need to be built closer to the ground so as to be easily hidden while being located at the best possible angle for the golfers that use these tees.  Too often the cart paths dictate their placement, when in the end relatively few golfers use them.

[Jeff Schley]

I play a fair amount with a female friend of mine who is a good player (11 handicap), but can fly her driver around 200-210. Also play with my mom who plays the ground game and if it does get high in the air is maybe 100 yards at most in the air. Having 1 forward tee isn't the answer IMO. I have always thought that a course should have 4 tee boxes.

• Back - for low handicap players
• Member tees - for regular men play or low handicap female
• Forward tees - for regular female play or high handicap men
• Junior/Senior tees - for juniors or high handicap females

Now depending on where the forward tees are located maybe you can get away with only three, but the Junior/Senior tees need to have no carry hazard requirements if possible. We all have played with young kids or seniors who play a different game and can't hit the ball in the air. They shouldn't be excluded from playing a course. They are already self conscious and pick their balls up and carry them sometimes, let them play with dignity and eliminate the carry requirements by placing a Junior/Senior with this in mind. You can't change the course, but you can put the tee boxes in places intelligently to allow them at least the first tee shot a path for safety.

We all say we want young kids to play and extend seniors to play and this is central to attracting kids and extending the playing life of seniors.

[Mark_Fine]

What an advantage a course like Sebonack has with no formal tees.  They literally can place the markers wherever they like.  The only challenge is for handicaps.  Many of the low profile tees we build are hardly noticeable and mowers can go right over them for easy maintenance. 

[Thomas Dai]

Some thoughts on a similar subject from posters herein a couple of years ago -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66360.0.html
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
I read through much of that old thread.  Not surprising some of the comments.  Nothing wrong with the idea of play the course as you find it, but also nothing wrong with lots of starting points to begin play from. 


Again I used to think three sets of tees was fine but I was wrong.  We are now even setting up 18 hole regulation length 7000+ yard courses to play as 18 hole par three courses on certain days or times - oh the horror, we must be ruining the golf architecture - NOT!  We are simply adding a new twist and making the game fun and faster for those golfers who want a different experience.


One other thought; it has often been said that many of the greatest classic golf courses “are defended at the green”. Given we are talking about tees and not adding additional greens, what is the big deal?  Regardless of where someone starts to play a hole, everyone is still getting to experience the green site challenges.  With more forward tees, some are just getting there a lot quicker and with a few less swings     It is their choice and it is good for golf and good for them. Why not give them options?  As I said before with three sets of tees no men will ever play the forward tees and few forward tee players will ever play further back.  Older courses with three tees have held up that way because few had the courage to add additional teeing options.  That is finally changing and in this case (if done well) more is better.  If you don’t like them don’t use them 

[Jeff_Brauer]

My apologies to Jeff. I have seen him recommend 4200 yard tees here so often, I assumed that his link would be more of the same. Instead it turns out it was reasoning similar to mine about USGA values for scratch and bogey players, although not explicitly laying at least a portion of their scratch/bogey tables.

Jeff of course added PGA Tour driving of 295 yards to his comments beyond the 250 yard scratch and 200 yard bogey stats and also mentioned the women's stats. He decided to use 60% of PGA Tour yardage for the lower bound on the women's yardage!?!?

Jeff wrote, "The course measures 7,207 yards, 6,772 yards, 6,147 yards and 5,324 yards (!?!?) for forward tees. The first three yardages are popular yardages for the 290-, 255- and 225-yard drivers, which are typical distances by low-, mid- and higher-handicappers." If he were using a true proportional adjustment his tees shorter than 7207 should be 6337, 5592,
and 4722. If you allow his 255 yard drivers to be essentially the same as the USGA scratch golfers, then they should be playing the 6337 yardage, and using the USGA proportion of 60% for bogey women golfers vs scratch men golfers, you get bogey women golfers needing tees at 3802. If you use the true driving distance difference (70%) measured in the USGA study then your bogey women golfers need tees at 3549.

Clearly someone needs to do something about the poorly regulated equipment that has led to the vast differences in how far different types of individual are able to propel the ball.

Or, you can adopt the Olympia Fields model of trying to one up Medinah by building four golf courses instead of three. But, the four golf courses are for 1) 290 yard drivers, 2) 255 yard drivers, 3) 225 yard drivers, and 4) 180-200 yard drivers.
Each course has two sets of tees. One set for the men, and one set for the analogously talented women that suit each course.

If you have followed my writings on this website, then perhaps you are wondering what happened to they guy that has constantly argued against vast numbers of tee boxes on golf courses. Well, that guy has been going through this exercise to demonstrate the futility of trying to satisfy all golfers all the time to enable them all to have chances for birdies and eagles. I.e., the futility of chasing medal play as the model for golf going forward.

The match play model is more robust. No matter how long the hole is you can have a enjoyable match without dwelling on pars, birdies, and eagles. Besides having a course that makes you think strategically about attacking the hole, you have an opponent that is also making you think strategically about how to contend with how they are playing the hole.

Not sure what you are apologizing for, but hey, I'll take it!


BTW, I actually read my link, and it turns out that article was a two parter, with the second part describing some of the steps to implement the theory on a real course.


As to the different math versions, among proponents, it can get quite heated some of the differences. I once hosted a panel on the subject, and thought it might get really hostile....instead of the mildly hostile I was luckily able to hold it to.


And my math is slightly different from others.  I use the 90-80-70-60 model from the Pro tee length, whereas others start from the men's tee, others the mid men's, tee, etc.  I do that because I've learned (in real estate courses) that you need to lay out from the back tee to keep others from poaching your much needed property.  I am also a shameless rounder......As you will see in the second part, when retrofitting and existing course, it doesn't really matter.  You start with your math, but then you adjust to put the other tees on at least minor high points, considering any forced carries on either shot, etc., so they move anyway.  Using the rounding, I just know that if I have to move a tee a bit, it should usually go forward a bit from the mathematical location.  And, it usually moves somehow.


I didn't consider the Slope Guide scratch and bogey differences.  In the 90's the USGA did a driving distance study, from which I derived % of golfers who hit each length (and then, of course, shamelessly rounded to the nearest ten yards, LOL)  I also used Broadie's chart on a and d players from his 2009 opus, and compared all to the more recent USGA/RA distance studies of average golfers.  In essence, I'm not sure handicap applies to the system, just the best guess as to average tee shots of broadly grouped golfers.


Those groups tend to fall in 30 yard chunks (but again, with some rounding) and sometimes the question is which end of the range do you design for?  I tend to consider the lower end on any carry hazards, and the longer end where a hazard might pinch or cross slightly behind the LZ, and average length when considering lateral hazards in the LZ.  That seems to allow the most players to play the tee shot as intended.


I actually find the idea of "play the course as you find it" to be a bit arrogant.  I see the designer's job to fit the design to the expected players (at least of the muni courses I typically design) rather than design some great artwork that may not consider them, and tell them "so what."  Few businesses are successful when ignoring their customers in any field!  So, I have no trouble providing 5 or even 6 tees.  Many clubs do seem to balk at 6, and some at 5, and if so, I go with the flow a bit more, figuring they know more about their player culture over many years than I know after one site visit.....

[Pete Lavallee]

The Military golf courses here in SD have turned their ladies tees, generally in the 5800-5700 yard range to golds to accommodate seniors. These were way too long for ladies in the first place. In actual fact I suspect they were designed to discourage shorter hitting ladies from playing the course!

[Mike Baillie]

Again, thanks all for your advice.  I have notified the committee on the info here thus far to ideally enhance their knowledge.  I wanted open ended advice to start so didn't share full details at the outset.
More Background:
St Andrew's East was the 1st gender neutral club in the GTA and the 3rd true equity one.  Located 15-20 minutes from a few northern suburbs and 45 from Toronto residential areas implied virtually no juniors or family members.  Despite the gender neutral and friendly atmosphere lady members have never approached 15% of the membership or 55.  The course is too hard to walk and the elevated greens require shots that most novice players simply don't have.  A nearby course closed this fall with members pocketing significant cash allowing them to play where ever they wanted.  Our course was not on the short list of most couples and older seniors due to what outlined above despite other factors like no tee times and no food & beverage minimum well aligned to the experience at their former club.

So with that and given that only about 12-15% of rounds are played from the current forward deck - 66% ladies & 33% men, is the notion of forward tees a requirement?  Then if so at what yardage?

Project to Date as it Relates to Forward Tees:
A low handicap lady a new member in 2018 requested a desire for a 5000 yard course down from the then current 5500.  Given the overall project noted in the original post an architect was engaged and committee formed.  A year ago, a par 5 was shortened 100 yards for the 3rd/4th shortest men's tees and 70 - 90 yards to two newly constructed tee decks.  The back of the shorter one intended to be the ladies tee and the front, the first 'forward' tee.  The ladies refused to play from this front deck at 410 - 420 yards instead opting for the front portion of the shortest men's deck or 430 yards.  Plans for the remainder of the course continued with the plan at this moment a 5380 yard Ladies course and a 5075 'Forward' course.  Over 65% of the yardage reduction to achieve the forward tees planned on the five remaining par 5s.  More than half of the ladies (older & higher handicap) will typically not be able to reach the start of at least 2 of the 6 par five fairways with their tee shot when all holes eventually open for play.

It is not clear to the membership to what extent the plan is advice from the architect or preference of the committee members.

Advice given for experimentation before building the blocks is clearly right on.  Given more specific info here, I'm curious on any final advice.  Thanks again to all.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Advice given for experimentation before building the blocks is clearly right on.  Given more specific info here, I'm curious on any final advice.  Thanks again to all.

I've read that there are "match play clubs" around North America. In match play, one need not worry about such silly things as one shot, two shot, and three shot holes, therefore no worries about par, and hole lengths. Convert your club to a match play club, and free yourself from the tyranny of par.

Think about Muirfield in Scotland. A two ball club. I would suggest that they are not playing medal play in their two ball foursomes. Unfortunately, every few years they sully their reputation by hosting a rumored significant medal play tournament.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike B,
Clearly I would start some temporary markers at shorter teeing locations and see what happens and what feedback you get.  As I said earlier, one of the best things we can do for golf is more forward tees.  Someday when I can only hit it 100 yards, I would still like to have the thrill of making a birdie or having a chance to make a hole in one on a par three I can reach.  Make the game more fun and enjoyable for more golfers (from what you said about the course your architect will figure that out pretty quickly once he gets to know the golf course).  Sounds like a few others tweaks might also be helpful.  Good luck!

[jeffwarne]

Project to Date as it Relates to Forward Tees:
A low handicap lady a new member in 2018 requested a desire for a 5000 yard course down from the then current 5500.  Given the overall project noted in the original post an architect was engaged and committee formed.  A year ago, a par 5 was shortened 100 yards for the 3rd/4th shortest men's tees and 70 - 90 yards to two newly constructed tee decks.  The back of the shorter one intended to be the ladies tee and the front, the first 'forward' tee.  The ladies refused to play from this front deck at 410 - 420 yards instead opting for the front portion of the shortest men's deck or 430 yards.  Plans for the remainder of the course continued with the plan at this moment a 5380 yard Ladies course and a 5075 'Forward' course.  Over 65% of the yardage reduction to achieve the forward tees planned on the five remaining par 5s.  More than half of the ladies (older & higher handicap) will typically not be able to reach the start of at least 2 of the 6 par five fairways with their tee shot when all holes eventually open for play.

It is not clear to the membership to what extent the plan is advice from the architect or preference of the committee members.

Advice given for experimentation before building the blocks is clearly right on.  Given more specific info here, I'm curious on any final advice.  Thanks again to all.

That sounds challenging
It seems to me the troubles begin, when a subset(or in this case 1)of a membership requests a certain target total "yardage".
Then there's the committee issue...
It would seem far more appropriate to target certain holes that are problems for this particular subset. (unmanageable forced carries, forced layups, inability to reach fairway, poor visibility or poor tee/cart access)
I'd target awkward holes/shots such as that, without a specific yardage in mind, and see where you are.
Give low clubhead speed people a way to play those holes, and if the difference is crazy advantageous(due to availability of access/landforms) to them on some holes, even it out by having them share a tee on another(more social)


It seems like to some extent this IS what you've done-yet subset of the subset have already refused to play a new tee....


Having a preconceived yardage may force tees into more awkward spots or cost a lot of $.
But then I don't sell sod, seed, sand, mowers or architectural services.

[Ira Fishman]

One thing that seems to have worked well at our club is that the new forward tees were placed to the left or right where possible. That helped create the impression that it was a new hole with different angles and not just a shorter version of the hole.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
That works too!  You really don't want your forward tees running right up the middle of the hole corridor anyway.  Your architect will know where best to locate them for aesthetic and playability reasons. 

[Mike Baillie]

Thank you all for your thoughts and advice.  Did not expect 60 well thought replies from 25 of you.  Also know that a few on the committee and senior club management appreciated the ideas as well.

It is readily apparent at least for our course several tactics make sense to enable more playability cost effectively.
1. Pay attention to the general yardage guidelines from Alice Dye, Jeff B & certainly others.  Specifically hole to hole, understand how the novice plans the first few shots from pot'l tees.  Finally position the tee, both distance and line of play, such that they can place a tee shot in a reasonable place then advance the next shot to an acceptable area.
2. Before building add'l tee blocks test out temporarily.  Observe and get feedback.
3. Tees can be on decks and also on fairways.  The seemless transition of Sebonack in pictures was interesting.  Both Cabot and The Loop have a very natural look too.
4. Perhaps not in 18 cases but many we may be better served overall with 3 tee decks (of decent size) and 5 tees.  Some at our club have been championing 4 decks & 7 tees as the standard.  A friend belongs to Mississaugua on the other side of the GTA that has 11 tees on 5 to 7 decks!   That seems crazy on an otherwise fine course.
5. Perhaps most importantly managing the resistance to change, peer pressure and other factors with both men and ladies that limit a better result immediately.  A few more pars & birdies, fewer lost balls and slightly quicker rounds are all good outcomes to me.  Figuring out how to get most of the membership to accept and experience that really requires thought.

Hopefully, the input here will contribute to a better result as we implement.  Three holes are on tap for this fall.  The main thing I learned is be open to other ideas.  I'm sure when the snow melts I will see other reasonable options that I did not think of previously.  Thanks again to all.

[mike_malone]

Does eliminating par aid in the tee discussion?  Then it just becomes golf.


I have heard women complain at my club that reaching the fairway with a drive is the issue for them.


  I also agree it’s hopeless to try to have everyone have the same shot to the green.

[Mark Mammel]

This entire obsession with so many tees is all about stroke play....two 85 year old dudes can play the golf course from the same tees for their entire life and enjoy it...if they are playing each other...

There you go. I am only 69, but I still like to play the whites (OK, the second tee in from the back tees, the old blues) even though I now hit driver-3 wood-pitch to most par 4s of over 375 yards. I also enjoy playing the more forward tees- it's a new course! But here's the deal: first, I don't need to hit the same club in as a scratch player. Second, the score is just a number. Enjoy the shots. There will probably be more of them. It's great. And I can play my old friends or those that are younger- most everyone these days- I have a handicap.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
If you have forward tee players complaining that they can’t reach the fairway with their drives, does par have anything to do with that?  Isn’t the problem that either the tee is too far back or the fairway is too far forward or maybe both? 


I think many players are aware of what par is but are not focused on it (for many because it is out of reach).  But they know what it is and also what a hole in one is and what a birdie is, etc and are thrilled if and when they make such a score. 


I believe ALL golf courses are designed around the concept of how each hole will be played by a variety of golfers with different abilities.  The shots golfers will play and the score they will make all factor into how the course is designed and set up.  This includes the starting points for each hole.  What I also find interesting is that very few golf courses would be fun and interesting for ALL golfing abilities from the back tees but ALL golf courses for ALL abilities would still be fun and interesting from the forward most tees.  Even a Pro can have fun and enjoy some kind of challenge from a course set up at 3800 yards long. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark, (and Mike)


I have probably told this one before as well, but I have better success selling the program going hole by hole over touting a certain yardage we want to get to, i.e., if we ask where a tee would have to be to hit a green in two, clear a dogleg or hazard, etc. most will consider that kind of thing.


And, I also have better success if I ask the seniors and women if "any of their friends" would have trouble playing the hole as is.  Most people will volunteer when speaking for a friend, LOL.


At the end, we get most tees placed where they can have fun playing the hole, and if we get back to the clubhouse and figure up the scorecard, then 3900 or 4200 or whatever doesn't seem to phase them as much.

[Mike Baillie]

The last few comments, agree 100%.

Go hole by hole with what makes sense given the lay of land.  The scorecard length will look after itself.

Eliminating par would help a great deal.  The par 5 we shortened last year.  Usually, I play the 2nd longest yardage at 540 but one day played with two 75 year old men at the new 440 one.  They remarked that the hole was too short for a par 5 and the white tee should be back where it was.  I asked if they liked hitting driver, 3 wood, 5 wood coming up short into the north westerly wind we almost always have?  Instead driver, 4 hybrid, 9 iron (what they both hit on to the green) more in line with a reasonable par 5.  The ladies chose to not play the new short tee most likely because the better players believed it too short for a par 5.  Use USGA par as guide not an absolute.

Other comments on this thread about match play solve the 'par' problem more fully.

What this is about is managing change.

[Mark_Fine]

Par of some kind will always be a constant in the game of golf so we need to deal with it.  People talk about match play solving the problem and that no par is necessary??  How do you have match play with two players of different abilities?  How do you determine equitable handicaps for match play or tournaments in general if you don't have some kind of par, etc to establish different playing abilities?  Next time I play a round with my wife I will tell her we will both play from the back tees (same course) even up (no handicaps) and see how the match goes   

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,
...
I think many players are aware of what par is but are not focused on it (for many because it is out of reach).  But they know what it is and also what a hole in one is and what a birdie is, etc and are thrilled if and when they make such a score. 
...

No one needs to know what par is to get excited about a hole in one. For that matter, you don't need to know what par is to get excited about a 2, especially if you can't reach the green in one, and still make 2. Same idea carries carries over to making 3, 4, 5, 6, ... Par is irrelevant for people who have an idea of what their game usually allows them to accomplish, and they exceed that. They get excited!

Par is only relevant to people who like to stroke their egos.

[Garland Bayley]

Par of some kind will always be a constant in the game of golf so we need to deal with it.  People talk about match play solving the problem and that no par is necessary??  How do you have match play with two players of different abilities?  How do you determine equitable handicaps for match play or tournaments in general if you don't have some kind of par, etc to establish different playing abilities?  Next time I play a round with my wife I will tell her we will both play from the back tees (same course) even up (no handicaps) and see how the match goes 

You need to be able to think outside the box! Try it!

People have been negotiating handicaps long before there was some formal handicap system.

[Jeff Schley]

Without a handicap how can two people of different ability compete anywhere near equitably? We aren't talking the thrill of a good shot, we are talking having a match either head to head or in a group or whatever. Handicaps are a great aspect of golf IMO, just like bowling, where me and you can compete regardless of where we play, when we play.

To look at the downside of how some manipulate their handicap is taking a dark view of the benefit. The worldwide handicap system is a good step towards standardization, although I understand their criticisms of it. While not perfect, it is a great aspect of golf, and one other sports wished they had. Can you play Michael Jordan in basketball? Mike Trout in baseball? But you can play Tiger Woods or Larry Nelson (Love the guy).

Should we not even factor up our taxes each year and pass around a hat saying pay what you think you owe, just because some manipulate their taxes too? Handicapping system operates well when the overwhelming majority participate in good faith, which I think people do. Those who shoot their round of the year each month ruin their reputation or should be confronted with peer review.

[Mark_Fine]

I agree Jeff.  And to establish equitable handicaps you need some kind of par designation for each hole (unless I am not thinking out side the box) 


I remember working at Oyster Harbors in MA years ago and I believe it was the second hole where there was debate at the club about whether the hole should be a tough par four or a shortish par five. The one gentlemen looked at me and said, "you are the architect helping us, what do you think par should be?"  My answer was that I was really not hung up on a particular par designation and was more focused on helping them to make the hole as fun and as interesting as it could be.  They would have to decide what par to give it and what they felt worked best for their membership.   

[Garland Bayley]

I agree Jeff.  And to establish equitable handicaps you need some kind of par designation for each hole (unless I am not thinking out side the box) 
...

A handicap makes up for the difference between how well one person plays vs how well another person plays. Par has no roll in that.

Until the WHS, par had no roll in the USGA handicap system. If you want to say "some kind of par designation for each hole" is in the course and slope rating system, then you must realize that system is only necessary to move the handicap between courses. Your example of you playing your wife, if on your home course, would not need a par designation, nor a course and slope rating system to figure a handicap.

I am certainly glad that Dean Knuth was better able to think outside the box than you, and than any such ability you have demonstrated here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()