[Joe_Tucholski]

I currently live on a course 90 degrees left of the one up tee's.  There are 4 sets of tees and most people play from the 6511 one up.  The tips are maybe 30 yards back on the hole we live on (7240 total).  Our house has been hit a couple of times by younger guys playing the tips.  It's always high school/college age guys.  Think ego has a lot to do with it.  Our neighbor has a number of holes in their stucco from the side of their house being drilled.  Absolutely crazy that these guys think they need to play from the tips.  I assume most are left handed because I'm not even sure how a right handed player could hit our house.

[Garland Bayley]

I currently live on a course 90 degrees left of the one up tee's.  There are 4 sets of tees and most people play from the 6511 one up.  The tips are maybe 30 yards back on the hole we live on (7240 total).  Our house has been hit a couple of times by younger guys playing the tips.  It's always high school/college age guys.  Think ego has a lot to do with it.  Our neighbor has a number of holes in their stucco from the side of their house being drilled.  Absolutely crazy that these guys think they need to play from the tips.  I assume most are left handed because I'm not even sure how a right handed player could hit our house.

"Drilled"!

The right hander trying to hit it hard will hit a hard pull left. The left hander will hit a high floating slice left. I would suggest your word "drilled" incriminates the righty.

[Joe_Tucholski]

"Drilled"!

The right hander trying to hit it hard will hit a hard pull left. The left hander will hit a high floating slice left. I would suggest your word "drilled" incriminates the righty.

For our house the right handed player would have to basically hit it between their legs.  Our neighbor it would have to just miss their left leg.  I guess maybe they could fall off the shot really bad and pull it really hard.



I just took a photo and you can see the one up and then just see the front of the back tee box. 




There was an outing today and just noticed for some reason they inverted the tee colors with yellow back, white one back, blue and then black front.  I seriously think it matters to some people what color they play.

[Brad Lawrence]

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.



That’s basically true but missing the point, I think. I would agree, generally speaking, that longer players hit the ball straighter. Clubhead speed/solid contact  is largely a product of skill as is control. If we’re comparing players of similar skill, that’s likely going to not be true, but scratch players that hit it 260 will likely be more accurate than the 12 handicap hitting it 220.

[Garland Bayley]

Attempt to see if I can make the post readable.

"Drilled"!

The right hander trying to hit it hard will hit a hard pull left. The left hander will hit a high floating slice left. I would suggest your word "drilled" incriminates the righty.

For our house the right handed player would have to basically hit it between their legs.  Our neighbor it would have to just miss their left leg.  I guess maybe they could fall off the shot really bad and pull it really hard.



I just took a photo and you can see the one up and then just see the front of the back tee box. 




There was an outing today and just noticed for some reason they inverted the tee colors with yellow back, white one back, blue and then black front.  I seriously think it matters to some people what color they play.

[Garland Bayley]

Joe,

My understanding from your first post was that your house was 30 yards forward of the back tee. Don't know where they would aim to put you house on a line between their legs.

Being accomplished at the hard pull, at one KP, I was advised not to play with spectators as I would kill someone. 

[Sean_A]

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.

I have always thought that the back tees should be at least as much about a tougher angle as added length. I spose differing angles creates off set tees which means forward tees are less likely to mar the visuals from the back tee. Which is partly why I don't like circular tees, they are harder to "hide".

Yes, I dislike loads of tee space in front of me 😎. It's most annoying when the landing zone is well below the tee. I want to see the ball land in the valley, not look at tee space in front of me.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A related aspect.
Does anyone 'lay-up' off the tee anymore?
Once upon a time, a zillion years ago when I hit the ball more than a smidgen further, I and others didn't hit Driver off every tee (par 3's excepted) we'd hit fairway metals/woods and long irons with the objective of positioning our tee shots in such spots as to minimise the chances of getting into trouble and maximise the chances of being in the optimum position for the next shot. Knowing when and how to lay-up was a skill.
Now I rarely lay-up these days. Occasionally however, I'll play with a long hitter who does, someone easily long enough to play from way-back tees but happy to play from tees further forward and use course management and thoughtfulness as a weapon ... and usually score rather well by doing so. It's rare to come across someone like this though, very rare, as it seems like these days laying-up is a lost art, players generally just thump a Driver.
atb

[Sean_A]

A related aspect.
Does anyone 'lay-up' off the tee anymore?
Once upon a time, a zillion years ago when I hit the ball more than a smidgen further, I and others didn't hit Driver off every tee (par 3's excepted) we'd hit fairway metals/woods and long irons with the objective of positioning our tee shots in such spots as to minimise the chances of getting into trouble and maximise the chances of being in the optimum position for the next shot. Knowing when and how to lay-up was a skill.
Now I rarely lay-up these days. Occasionally however, I'll play with a long hitter who does, someone easily long enough to play from way-back tees but happy to play from tees further forward and use course management and thoughtfulness as a weapon ... and usually score rather well by doing so. It's rare to come across someone like this though, very rare, as it seems like these days laying-up is a lost art, players generally just thump a Driver.
atb

I see quite a bit of laying up. Although, sometimes it's more about hitting a comfort club rather than seeking position or a certain yardage for the next shot.

I rarely bother to layup even when I know I should, which isn't often.

Played Woking yesterday. As I thought would happen, we played the back tees. Unfortunately this meant for 3 and 4 I was too far back to properly enjoy the bunkering.

Ciao

[JohnVDB]

A related aspect.
Does anyone 'lay-up' off the tee anymore?

I just went through the 4 courses I play the most, I lay up on 18 of the 56 non par 3s. Of those 6-7 are forced, but the rest are by choice.


Many of the good players I’ve seen layup a lot.  When I refereed the finals of the US Mid-am a few years ago, I was surprised by how often the two players hit hybrids on long par 4s and par 5s, but they did it so far, it didn’t make a huge difference in their approach shots.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks John (and Sean),
It’s not so much the higher echelon player I was considering when mentioning laying-up, more longer hitters in general and the tendency amongst same to get the Driver out of the bag when, given their power, they likely don’t really need to and indeed might score better by adopting a different approach.
Just an aside though.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

I don't lay up. I straighten out. With a shorter club off the tee.

[Thomas Dai]

And a very legitimate method that is too Garland. I know a couple of players who only use irons because they struggle to keep shots with woods/metals in play. Not much worse than looking for your golf ball …. well, unless it’s looking for someone else’s!!
Atb


PS - there’s a great line in Tommy Armours modestly titled 1954 book ‘How to play your best golf all the time’ where he states “Play the shot you’ve got the greatest chance of playing well, and play the shot that makes the next shot easy.”

[Brad Lawrence]

A related aspect.
Does anyone 'lay-up' off the tee anymore?
Once upon a time, a zillion years ago when I hit the ball more than a smidgen further, I and others didn't hit Driver off every tee (par 3's excepted) we'd hit fairway metals/woods and long irons with the objective of positioning our tee shots in such spots as to minimise the chances of getting into trouble and maximise the chances of being in the optimum position for the next shot. Knowing when and how to lay-up was a skill.
Now I rarely lay-up these days. Occasionally however, I'll play with a long hitter who does, someone easily long enough to play from way-back tees but happy to play from tees further forward and use course management and thoughtfulness as a weapon ... and usually score rather well by doing so. It's rare to come across someone like this though, very rare, as it seems like these days laying-up is a lost art, players generally just thump a Driver.
atb

My first thought on any hole is, is there any way I can get away with not hitting driver here?  I would say on most courses, I’m hitting 6 to 10 drivers per round.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

The illustration provided by Erik says "Longer hitters tend to be straighter. Driver distance and driver accuracy improve with golfer skill."
The illustration also shows only tour pros hitting it 300 yards. It does not show the 100 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show the 90 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show 80 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It looks somewhat like data tailored to the premise.

Where are the

... I know a couple of players who only use irons because they struggle to keep shots with woods/metals in play. Not much worse than looking for your golf ball …. well, unless it’s looking for someone else’s!!
Atb


PS - there’s a great line in Tommy Armours modestly titled 1954 book ‘How to play your best golf all the time’ where he states “Play the shot you’ve got the greatest chance of playing well, and play the shot that makes the next shot easy.”

We all know Arnold's dad taught him to hit it long, long before he taught him to hit it straight.
Ben Hogan was one of the longest on tour, but couldn't stick on tour until he learned to hit it straighter.

Length is mostly athleticism, accuracy is mostly trained skill.

Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle could hit it farther than most pros, but couldn't hit it straight and score.

Most players graduating from the lower tour to the pga tour learn that they have to restrict their distance if they want to stick to the big tour.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The illustration provided by Erik says "Longer hitters tend to be straighter. Driver distance and driver accuracy improve with golfer skill."
The illustration also shows only tour pros hitting it 300 yards. It does not show the 100 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show the 90 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show 80 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It looks somewhat like data tailored to the premise.

Not sure you understand how averages work… Your 100 shooter hitting it 300 may move the average up, but they're rare. And if you read the rest of the note under the image, it says how the ovals represent 75% of the good drives, and how 1 in 4 drives travel longer?

Length is mostly athleticism, accuracy is mostly trained skill.

Length is a skill as well, and hitting the ball more solidly and controlling launch conditions allows you to hit the ball farther.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I'm certainly not as traveled as you, but in my experience I tend to agree with Erik in that players who can regularly hit it 300 rarely are even 90 shooters, much less 100 shooters.  And I presume this carries over to how long they can hit their wedges, irons, and fairway woods.  Length is everything and hitting an approach shot from the rough at 120 out on a 410 par 4 is a helluva advantage over being faced with 200 in the fairway.

So you may be the exception here, even if you aren't a 300 guy, more like 260-270. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

The illustration provided by Erik says "Longer hitters tend to be straighter. Driver distance and driver accuracy improve with golfer skill."
The illustration also shows only tour pros hitting it 300 yards. It does not show the 100 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show the 90 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It does not show 80 shooters that can drive it 300 yards. It looks somewhat like data tailored to the premise.

Where are the

... I know a couple of players who only use irons because they struggle to keep shots with woods/metals in play. Not much worse than looking for your golf ball …. well, unless it’s looking for someone else’s!!
Atb


PS - there’s a great line in Tommy Armours modestly titled 1954 book ‘How to play your best golf all the time’ where he states “Play the shot you’ve got the greatest chance of playing well, and play the shot that makes the next shot easy.”

We all know Arnold's dad taught him to hit it long, long before he taught him to hit it straight.
Ben Hogan was one of the longest on tour, but couldn't stick on tour until he learned to hit it straighter.

Length is mostly athleticism, accuracy is mostly trained skill.

Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle could hit it farther than most pros, but couldn't hit it straight and score.

Most players graduating from the lower tour to the pga tour learn that they have to restrict their distance if they want to stick to the big tour.

Garland, I am 99% certain your two highlighted assertions are off base.


Broadie and others didn't tailor make their stats.  Length is all about clubhead speed and contact.  It's physics, and it all makes perfect sense, really.  Your ball leaves the club head with X amount of energy.  With that energy, and given the right launch angle and spin, it can go maybe 300 yards straight, or 280 yards and 20 yards off line (example only, not running the math) for a 300 yard tee shot to go 30 yards off line, it means that player could have hit it 340 or whatever, and those players are rare.


Obviously there are variants in any distance group, with a few being wilder and a few being straighter for their length, etc. but within a range.  I will say that chart (from his book) confused me a bit too, in that I would think there was a near scratch group shorter than the 297 average of the Tour Pros and above the 258 of the A and B players.  Many gca's put their dogleg points at about 285, which according to his stats, may serve nobody very well.

[Garland Bayley]

... for a 300 yard tee shot to go 30 yards off line, it means that player could have hit it 340 or whatever...

a² + b² = c²
a² + 30² = 300²

a = 298 and change
The person who hits it 300 yards and ends up 30 yards off line is level with the person who hits it 298 yards and change to the middle of the fairway.

Where do you get the 30 yards? Hitting it two fairways over is clearly more than 30 yards off line.

[Garland Bayley]

Length is a skill as well, and hitting the ball more solidly and controlling launch conditions allows you to hit the ball farther.

Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle couldn't care less about controlling launch conditions. On random instances they hit the sweet spot and sent the ball off the planet.

Your propoganda has warped your brain.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I'm certainly not as traveled as you, but in my experience I tend to agree with Erik in that players who can regularly hit it 300 rarely are even 90 shooters, much less 100 shooters.  And I presume this carries over to how long they can hit their wedges, irons, and fairway woods.  Length is everything and hitting an approach shot from the rough at 120 out on a 410 par 4 is a helluva advantage over being faced with 200 in the fairway.

So you may be the exception here, even if you aren't a 300 guy, more like 260-270. 

Kalen,

Shooting 90 is simply hitting every green in regulation, and three putting all of them. Start missing greens in regulation, and hitting it OB, or losing the ball, and you quickly get to 100.

It takes both a long game and a short game and some consistency to score. Strokes add up quickly.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

a² + b² = c²
a² + 30² = 300²

a = 298 and change

Energy transfer in golf doesn't work like that.

Your propoganda has warped your brain.

Length — SPEED — is a skill. Hell, it's the one skill that almost defines what is a "sport" versus a game. "Speed kills".

Shooting 90 is simply hitting every green in regulation, and three putting all of them. Start missing greens in regulation, and hitting it OB, or losing the ball, and you quickly get to 100.

At this point I have to assume you're doing a bit or something.

[Joe Zucker]

... 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.

But apparently it doesn't for several people here?  A few stated they score the same from tees several hundred yards back.  So if they get a wedge in their hand compared to a short or mid iron, they aren't scoring any better.  Either they are mistaken in their judgement of their game or their wedges are not helping them score better.

[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.

But apparently it doesn't for several people here?  A few stated they score the same from tees several hundred yards back.  So if they get a wedge in their hand compared to a short or mid iron, they aren't scoring any better.  Either they are mistaken in their judgement of their game or their wedges are not helping them score better.

The pros play all the way back, and often have a wedge in their hands for the approach. So from all the way back, the long wild hitter will have wedge in his hand, and be able to score better than the person hitting 7 iron in, which is what the averages used in figuring ratings more likely reflects. Since he is likely to be hitting approaches from the rough when he moves forwards, as he was from the back tees, he will not be able to control the ball real well, and will not be gaining much in scoring by moving forward.

[Garland Bayley]

a² + b² = c²
a² + 30² = 300²

a = 298 and change

Energy transfer in golf doesn't work like that.

...

I breathlessly await your detailed explanation of that Mr. Physics Major.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()