[Paul Jones]

I am torn on this subject.... I use to play with a big group with 4-5 tee times and they had an ABCD player in each group so every groups handicap added up to the same number.  I stop playing in that group, but it was close to playing alone since everyone used a different set of tees.


I now play in a group that only 1 of us are playing the correct tees.  Two of us are playing to far up, and another is playing too far back.  I do like it more this way as it is more sociable and we do not hold anyone up.

[Tim Martin]

I am torn on this subject.... I use to play with a big group with 4-5 tee times and they had an ABCD player in each group so every groups handicap added up to the same number.  I stop playing in that group, but it was close to playing alone since everyone used a different set of tees.


I now play in a group that only 1 of us are playing the correct tees.  Two of us are playing to far up, and another is playing too far back.  I do like it more this way as it is more sociable and we do not hold anyone up.

Paul-In a four ball game I’m not interested in playing a different set of tees than other players in the group. I would rather have everyone play the same tees even if it means the low markers move up and give more shots. If it’s casual with no gambling it then becomes a non issue.

[Paul Jones]

I am torn on this subject.... I use to play with a big group with 4-5 tee times and they had an ABCD player in each group so every groups handicap added up to the same number.  I stop playing in that group, but it was close to playing alone since everyone used a different set of tees.


I now play in a group that only 1 of us are playing the correct tees.  Two of us are playing to far up, and another is playing too far back.  I do like it more this way as it is more sociable and we do not hold anyone up.

Paul-In a four ball game I’m not interested in playing a different set of tees than other players in the group. I would rather have everyone play the same tees even if it means the low markers move up and give more shots. If it’s casual with no gambling it then becomes a non issue.

Tim,


We do play for money and give strokes, but it is very little - usually $2 a hole and $1 birdies.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, I agree with you, with two qualifications. 

I agree with your qualifications/specific outliers, yes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other twist on this topic is, GCA has a long history of complaining, moaning, whining, etc.  ....that there are too many tee boxes and tee placements on golf courses.  Its usually phrased along the lines of "3 sets of tees ought to be enough for everyone".

So if your tees are set at 5600, 6300, and 6800, do you honestly think anyone playing at 6300 is going to go up and play those forward tees, especially if they're red?     Would it perhaps be better to have 5 sets, adding one at say 4900 and another at 5950 to accommodate/tempt more people to actually move up, both men and women?

Kalen,

No need whatsoever for 5 tee boxes; that's just extra maintenance.  The answer is hybrid tees on the scorecard, so that there is a set that plays about 6000 in between the 5600 set and the 6300 set.  I'm always surprised in this day and age when I see a course that hasn't bothered to do this, since all they have to do is submit the hybrid set to the state golf association to be rated, and then include it on the scorecard the next time they have cards printed.  Zero cost...

More options for golfers with no cost to courses is a HUGE no-brainer.

Well, that is just horse feathers to me.  Any superintendent will tell you they need 1.5-2 SF of tee per 100 rounds, i.e., 6,000-8,000 SF of tee for a 40,000 round course.  Too small probably means more maintenance for most courses.  So, proposing "only" three tees will either cause them to be too small, and/or stretch them out enough where you have a few more logical positions, i.e., move them all the way forward on weekends, being a typical course set up strategy.


I will grant you that 6 tees, given the minimum 6 foot front and back the USGA recommends for tee marker placement does take up more room than 5, and 5 needs more tee space than 4, etc., resulting in some additional space created, without tee markers being placed there.


Also, I realize that designing tees around one's actual golf games rather than the social aspects can cause some problems, but they are solvable - either players willingly play the "wrong" tee for social or competitive reasons, or they agree that each can play the tee they want.  All we can do is give most (and hopefully all) golfers a choice.  No gca or super can think to a level of detail about who might get butt hurt by their group's tee choice that day.


As to your previous post, Broadie and others show that statistically, longer hitters are straighter, with exceptions of course.  If a player can play at XXXX yardage but is wild, that is possible.  For any 4 players to be at that yardage and similarly wild would be a statistical oddity.  And, to be honest, the basic thread here is about combatting those folks who still cling to playing too long a course.

[Jim Hoak]

I am seeing a common theme on this thread--that the course ratings have too big a difference between longer tees and shorter tees, while many of us don't shoot a lot different between the different tees.  This causes our handicaps to go up when we play the shorter tees.
I assume this result is because the primary determinant in course ratings is distance.  In my unscientific opinion, there is too much emphasis on distance in the ratings.  Does anyone on here know enough to refute my conclusion?

[Dan Gallaway]

While combo tees can get the course to a total yardage that a person wants to play, how much thought is put into deciding which hole plays as a blue vs white?  Rumor is that Tom picked the tees for Tumble Creek, but not sure of what his qualifier was.  There are several holes at Chambers where I think they got it wrong. 

[Garland Bayley]

... Broadie and others show that statistically, longer hitters are straighter, ...

What a load of BS!

[Kalen Braley]

I am seeing a common theme on this thread--that the course ratings have too big a difference between longer tees and shorter tees, while many of us don't shoot a lot different between the different tees.  This causes our handicaps to go up when we play the shorter tees.
I assume this result is because the primary determinant in course ratings is distance.  In my unscientific opinion, there is too much emphasis on distance in the ratings.  Does anyone on here know enough to refute my conclusion?

I can confirm same in anecdotal/unscientific fashion.

When I lived in Spokane, I played a handful of courses pretty regularly.

- One of them is 6450 yards from the whites, which I played from every time. It has 6 holes with water and 10+ holes with external OB.
- The other is 6255 from the Blues and just under 6000 yards from the white, which I split about equally.  It has zero water hazards and only 1 hole with OB.

Guess which one I consistently played best and posted probably 8 of my 10 best scores (between the two) on?

[A.G._Crockett]

The other twist on this topic is, GCA has a long history of complaining, moaning, whining, etc.  ....that there are too many tee boxes and tee placements on golf courses.  Its usually phrased along the lines of "3 sets of tees ought to be enough for everyone".

So if your tees are set at 5600, 6300, and 6800, do you honestly think anyone playing at 6300 is going to go up and play those forward tees, especially if they're red?     Would it perhaps be better to have 5 sets, adding one at say 4900 and another at 5950 to accommodate/tempt more people to actually move up, both men and women?

Kalen,

No need whatsoever for 5 tee boxes; that's just extra maintenance.  The answer is hybrid tees on the scorecard, so that there is a set that plays about 6000 in between the 5600 set and the 6300 set.  I'm always surprised in this day and age when I see a course that hasn't bothered to do this, since all they have to do is submit the hybrid set to the state golf association to be rated, and then include it on the scorecard the next time they have cards printed.  Zero cost...

More options for golfers with no cost to courses is a HUGE no-brainer.

Well, that is just horse feathers to me.  Any superintendent will tell you they need 1.5-2 SF of tee per 100 rounds, i.e., 6,000-8,000 SF of tee for a 40,000 round course.  Too small probably means more maintenance for most courses.  So, proposing "only" three tees will either cause them to be too small, and/or stretch them out enough where you have a few more logical positions, i.e., move them all the way forward on weekends, being a typical course set up strategy.


I will grant you that 6 tees, given the minimum 6 foot front and back the USGA recommends for tee marker placement does take up more room than 5, and 5 needs more tee space than 4, etc., resulting in some additional space created, without tee markers being placed there.


Also, I realize that designing tees around one's actual golf games rather than the social aspects can cause some problems, but they are solvable - either players willingly play the "wrong" tee for social or competitive reasons, or they agree that each can play the tee they want.  All we can do is give most (and hopefully all) golfers a choice.  No gca or super can think to a level of detail about who might get butt hurt by their group's tee choice that day.


As to your previous post, Broadie and others show that statistically, longer hitters are straighter, with exceptions of course.  If a player can play at XXXX yardage but is wild, that is possible.  For any 4 players to be at that yardage and similarly wild would be a statistical oddity.  And, to be honest, the basic thread here is about combatting those folks who still cling to playing too long a course.

Jeff,

Sorry to have riled you; my son is a superintendent, and the last thing I want to do is come across as knowing more about that business than I do.  I'm a member at a course with a 600 yd. gap between the blue and white tees, and with a similar gap between the gold and the blue, and hybrids on the card have solved a lot of dilemmas.  Both our interclub teams, regular and senior, play from the recommended CGA yardages, which happen to be the two hybrid sets; none of the existing tee boxes would work nearly as well.  That's all I meant; didn't mean to sound like I know how many tee boxes you should build on a new course or one that you are renovating.

We agree on Broadie's stats, too; I am a believer that the same skill set that allows somebody to hit the ball a long way also makes them into a relatively straight hitter.  I think the "long but wild" idea mistakes a ball that went a long way on a particular vector as a lot wilder than a ball that went a shorter distance on that same vector.  But that's not what I was talking about, and if I wrote it poorly, I guess I should have finished my second cup of coffee before I typed.

I hate that I wrote horse feathers!

[Garland Bayley]

I am seeing a common theme on this thread--that the course ratings have too big a difference between longer tees and shorter tees, while many of us don't shoot a lot different between the different tees.  This causes our handicaps to go up when we play the shorter tees.
I assume this result is because the primary determinant in course ratings is distance.  In my unscientific opinion, there is too much emphasis on distance in the ratings.  Does anyone on here know enough to refute my conclusion?

Course ratings are not based on a particular golfer idiosyncracies. They are based on averages of all golfers. Dr. Knuth, The Pope of Slope, communicated to me that Wild Willies will be able to obtain lower indexes by playing back. (Wild Willies, long but wild)
The short straight players will be able to obtain lower indexes by playing forward.

[Garland Bayley]

... I am a believer that the same skill set that allows somebody to hit the ball a long way also makes them into a relatively straight hitter.  ...

More BS! Strength automatically translates to skill. Who knew?

Guess that's why long drive competitions allow you 6 attempts to get one in play. 

[Kalen Braley]

... I am a believer that the same skill set that allows somebody to hit the ball a long way also makes them into a relatively straight hitter.  ...

More BS! Strength automatically translates to skill. Who knew?

Guess that's why long drive competitions allow you 6 attempts to get one in play. 

Garland,

I think you miss the point. Unlike weight lifting where raw strength translates to bench pressing 300+ pounds its often not the case when swinging a golf club.  The Tour is littered with guys who wouldn't be strong by anyone's measure, but have learned the technique to get everything in synch to hit the ball a long ways.

Even those long ball competitions have a couple of small guys who can compete with the best of em.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other twist on this topic is, GCA has a long history of complaining, moaning, whining, etc.  ....that there are too many tee boxes and tee placements on golf courses.  Its usually phrased along the lines of "3 sets of tees ought to be enough for everyone".

So if your tees are set at 5600, 6300, and 6800, do you honestly think anyone playing at 6300 is going to go up and play those forward tees, especially if they're red?     Would it perhaps be better to have 5 sets, adding one at say 4900 and another at 5950 to accommodate/tempt more people to actually move up, both men and women?

Kalen,

No need whatsoever for 5 tee boxes; that's just extra maintenance.  The answer is hybrid tees on the scorecard, so that there is a set that plays about 6000 in between the 5600 set and the 6300 set.  I'm always surprised in this day and age when I see a course that hasn't bothered to do this, since all they have to do is submit the hybrid set to the state golf association to be rated, and then include it on the scorecard the next time they have cards printed.  Zero cost...

More options for golfers with no cost to courses is a HUGE no-brainer.

Well, that is just horse feathers to me.  Any superintendent will tell you they need 1.5-2 SF of tee per 100 rounds, i.e., 6,000-8,000 SF of tee for a 40,000 round course.  Too small probably means more maintenance for most courses.  So, proposing "only" three tees will either cause them to be too small, and/or stretch them out enough where you have a few more logical positions, i.e., move them all the way forward on weekends, being a typical course set up strategy.


I will grant you that 6 tees, given the minimum 6 foot front and back the USGA recommends for tee marker placement does take up more room than 5, and 5 needs more tee space than 4, etc., resulting in some additional space created, without tee markers being placed there.


Also, I realize that designing tees around one's actual golf games rather than the social aspects can cause some problems, but they are solvable - either players willingly play the "wrong" tee for social or competitive reasons, or they agree that each can play the tee they want.  All we can do is give most (and hopefully all) golfers a choice.  No gca or super can think to a level of detail about who might get butt hurt by their group's tee choice that day.


As to your previous post, Broadie and others show that statistically, longer hitters are straighter, with exceptions of course.  If a player can play at XXXX yardage but is wild, that is possible.  For any 4 players to be at that yardage and similarly wild would be a statistical oddity.  And, to be honest, the basic thread here is about combatting those folks who still cling to playing too long a course.

Jeff,

Sorry to have riled you; my son is a superintendent, and the last thing I want to do is come across as knowing more about that business than I do.  I'm a member at a course with a 600 yd. gap between the blue and white tees, and with a similar gap between the gold and the blue, and hybrids on the card have solved a lot of dilemmas.  Both our interclub teams, regular and senior, play from the recommended CGA yardages, which happen to be the two hybrid sets; none of the existing tee boxes would work nearly as well.  That's all I meant; didn't mean to sound like I know how many tee boxes you should build on a new course or one that you are renovating.

We agree on Broadie's stats, too; I am a believer that the same skill set that allows somebody to hit the ball a long way also makes them into a relatively straight hitter.  I think the "long but wild" idea mistakes a ball that went a long way on a particular vector as a lot wilder than a ball that went a shorter distance on that same vector.  But that's not what I was talking about, and if I wrote it poorly, I guess I should have finished my second cup of coffee before I typed.

I hate that I wrote horse feathers!

Not really riled, and I understand your points. 


For the last 15 years or so, I design courses with more "proportional tee lengths" i.e., about 90, 80, 70, and 60 percent of the 7,200 back tee length.  That does open up 500-600 yard gaps at (theoretically) 6,480, 5630, etc.  On public courses, I think the customers follow whatever tee markers are set out more than at private clubs.  And, management is all too happy with the shorter overall yardages for its effect on the pace of play among other things.


A lot of the members at one course just preferred the more traditional 62-6300 yards they were used to playing.  So, they did some hybrid tees to get to that yardage, so I'm not against those by any means. 


It's actually fun to see how pros and members tweak the course design to their liking, and who am I to complain?  I am trying to get them to have fun, but there are just so many golfers and probably just as many favorite playing scenarios, I just can't predict them all.  While I don't study how hybrid tees are created in any depth, the ones I have looked at tend to use the white tee on long holes and the blue on short ones, which does tend to bunch holes together in length.  I think a few examples of really long and really short would be more fun day to day, even if it played havoc with handicaps.


I think my bigger issue is with good players who demand that they never see a shorter tee in front of them.  I get that, as well, but in general, feel like it's one of those "greater good vs. individual rights" type of things, and players just need to grin and bear it as courses try to design for all levels of play.  While a neat idea, and I have seen it done, the compromises made otherwise usually outweigh the desire to present a better look for back tee players. 


Fazio has done it by widely separating front tees side to side and building them behind a small rise.  It works to hide them, but I think that those tees might play at worse angles, with worse views, etc., and those comprise the bulk of the players at most places.   If in a wooded area, or for a housing developer trying NOT to give all the land to the golf course, is it really worth clearing trees or using land to scatter those tees more, just so the 1-3% of those who play the back tees won't complain?  In most cases, usually not.  The saying from the other thread, i.e., "The ability to see things from others point of view" seems relevant.

[Garland Bayley]

... I am a believer that the same skill set that allows somebody to hit the ball a long way also makes them into a relatively straight hitter.  ...

More BS! Strength automatically translates to skill. Who knew?

Guess that's why long drive competitions allow you 6 attempts to get one in play. 

Garland,

I think you miss the point. Unlike weight lifting where raw strength translates to bench pressing 300+ pounds its often not the case when swinging a golf club.  The Tour is littered with guys who wouldn't be strong by anyone's measure, but have learned the technique to get everything in synch to hit the ball a long ways.

Even those long ball competitions have a couple of small guys who can compete with the best of em.

Kalen,

You miss the point. I don't see any of the longest drivers on tour in the most accurate drivers on tour.

1   1   Bryson DeChambeau   63   321.9   38,631   120
2   2   Rory McIlroy   57   318.7   34,422   108
3   3   Cameron Champ   59   318.0   34,984   110
4   4   Wyndham Clark   76   315.5   45,438   144
5   5   Will Gordon   80   314.6   49,077   156
6   7   Dustin Johnson   55   313.8   32,632   104
7   8   Luke List   73   313.2   44,477   142
8   6   Matthew Wolff   48   312.8   26,905   86
9   9   Joaquin Niemann   85   311.6   51,097   164
10   10   Gary Woodland   58   311.0   36,072   116

1   1   Brendon Todd   83   75.19   800   1,064
2   3   Ryan Armour   66   72.72   669   920
3   2   Brian Stuard   88   72.62   870   1,198
4   4   Chez Reavie   68   72.02   664   922
5   5   Ryan Moore   38   71.40   377   528
6   6   Abraham Ancer   81   71.32   776   1,088
7   7   Brice Garnett   80   70.47   747   1,060
T8   8   David Hearn   56   70.44   510   724
T8   10   Josh Teater   40   70.44   355   504
10   12   Satoshi Kodaira   66   69.91   639   914

[Garland Bayley]

...
Guess which one I consistently played best and posted probably 8 of my 10 best scores (between the two) on?

How is this in the least bit pertinent?

[Kalen Braley]

Garland the key is "relatively" straight.


Yes they may not be as straight as the best players in the world, but I'm guessing they are far straighter, aka hitting it in the fairway,  than the weekend warrior whose hitting it 100 yards shorter.

[Kalen Braley]

...
Guess which one I consistently played best and posted probably 8 of my 10 best scores (between the two) on?

How is this in the least bit pertinent?

Because according to its Rating and Slope, the shorter one should have been the "Easier" course, but in fact was not.

Course 1:
6255 - 69.8/124
5950 - 68.3/121

Course 2:
6429  - 69.7/125

And this is not just based on my rounds there, it was also true for 3 others I regularly played with.  The 4 of us consistently posted better scores on the one with the higher Rating and Slope and in the aggregate we played hundreds of rounds between the two courses.

[Lou_Duran]

I am seeing a common theme on this thread--that the course ratings have too big a difference between longer tees and shorter tees, while many of us don't shoot a lot different between the different tees.  This causes our handicaps to go up when we play the shorter tees.
I assume this result is because the primary determinant in course ratings is distance.  In my unscientific opinion, there is too much emphasis on distance in the ratings.  Does anyone on here know enough to refute my conclusion?

That has been my experience, though I don't know enough about the course rating process to have an opinion on the reason (s).


There appears to be another common theme that runs through many of discussions on this site.  And that is that if golfers do things that are contrary to what we personally prefer, it is either wrong, not smart, selfish/too self-absorbed, irresponsible, etc. Might we consider that some golfers prefer playing longer tees because they enjoy the game more for a variety of reasons?


I am probably an anomaly: I am old, carry my clubs the vast majority of my rounds, and 75% of my scores are 85 and under, posted from tees at 6700 on average.  The vast majority of my rounds at my home club where we are usually off by 8:00 a.m. are played in under three hours (2-4 balls).


No one forces me to play the second set of tees, nor do I require any one to comply with my preferences.  During the summer, one of our regulars who has skin cancer issues plays the 6200 yard tees in 2:30 or less, walking.  I will occasionally play with him and he slows down to 2:40 and moves back to the hybrids at around 6500.  He hits the ball 50 yards longer than I do and seemingly enjoys hitting wedges into the longer par 4s and irons into the 5s.  I don't see the point, but c'est la vie.


My scores are nearly the same from 6800 yards as they are from 6500, and only marginally higher than at 6200.  The course rating differential from 6800 to 6200 is 2.7 strokes.  Perhaps my scores would go down with more play at 6200, but I enjoy hitting a variety of clubs and being stretched to hit the driver a bit further when required.  My remembrances of golf through my first 10-20 years were that I hit quite a few long irons into 3s and 4s, and I seldom had a mid-iron for a second shot on a 5.  One set of tees up, I am hitting a lot of the same shots today.  To each his own?     

[Joe Zucker]

This is an interesting discussion.  My main takeaway is that most people here are lousy wedge players.  If you're moving up 600 yards and hitting many more wedges into greens than before, I would hope scores would go down.  If not, this means we are equally competent with a 7 iron as we are with a wedge.  Is this true for the group?  If so, that's a talent/practice problem 


If it's not true, then is there an issue with the course? I find that sometimes when I play very short courses I can't hit driver in a place where I can score, so I'm left hitting iron off the tee.  Therefore, the advantage of distance disappears.  I suspect the lack of lower scores at shorter tees is a combination of both factors, but likely more an indication of where our games are weak.  Perhaps we should look inward before looking out.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland the key is "relatively" straight.


Yes they may not be as straight as the best players in the world, but I'm guessing they are far straighter, aka hitting it in the fairway,  than the weekend warrior whose hitting it 100 yards shorter.

How about the weekend warrior that is hitting it farther, but landing it two fairways over?
 

[Kalen Braley]

Garland the key is "relatively" straight.


Yes they may not be as straight as the best players in the world, but I'm guessing they are far straighter, aka hitting it in the fairway,  than the weekend warrior whose hitting it 100 yards shorter.

How about the weekend warrior that is hitting it farther, but landing it two fairways over?
 

Garland,

There are always going to be some outliers to every measurement.  And you're the worst long-hitting player I've every played with, so you got that going for you! You're the walking exception to Strokes gained off the tee! 


Kalen

[Garland Bayley]

... you're the worst long-hitting player I've every played with ...

Guess you haven't played with many people!

I would be interested in seeing the actual quote from Broadie that people are trying to promote here. I can't help but think they are leaving something out. After all, we all saw Bryson win the open from the rough.

Faster club head speed results in longer shots. If you believe the faster the club head speed results in better club head alignment at impact, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Garland Bayley]

... My main takeaway is that most people here are lousy wedge players. ...

Perhaps not the best take away. Perhaps a better take away is that bomb and gouge works. I.e., hitting more wedge approaches even from the rough allows you to score better than the person hitting 7 iron from the fairway when playing the same tees.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As to your previous post, Broadie and others show that statistically, longer hitters are straighter, with exceptions of course.

Yep. Faster players tend to be better players, so they also tend to be more skilled and thus hit it straighter.

https://share.getcloudapp.com/kpuDvbYK - There's the image from ESC.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()