[Niall C]

If we want more golf participation in mature golf markets, this short hitting crowd is surely the #1 target.

Says who? With what facts to back this up?

I'd think people aged about 20-50 would be the #1 target, because they have potential to play golf for decades to come, unlike 82-year-olds.

Erik


There's a wee bit of a weakness in your reasoning I think. If you target the younger crowd because they can play until they are older but don't cater for them when they are older then it's wasted effort in the first place.


Personally I don't think the yardage is the issue, the issue is the design of the course so as not to give the weaker players impossible carries. Can't recall exactly the MacKenzie quote but something along the lines of letting the rabbits tack their way to the hole but at the loss of shots while the tiger is challenged but gains an advantage if they successfully meet the challenge.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There's a wee bit of a weakness in your reasoning I think. If you target the younger crowd because they can play until they are older but don't cater for them when they are older then it's wasted effort in the first place.

That's not a "weakness in my reasoning." The number of golfers who can hit the ball < 100 yards max is a much, much smaller number than the number of 20-50 year olds. And even if you get five million new 20-50 year olds playing… how many of them will continue to play after they can no longer hit the ball 100 yards? Very few.

I think it's pretty silly from a golf perspective AND a business perspective to do much of anything to cater to a tiny part of the market, particularly since I've seen no real evidence that they see a problem.

[Tim Martin]

There's a wee bit of a weakness in your reasoning I think. If you target the younger crowd because they can play until they are older but don't cater for them when they are older then it's wasted effort in the first place.

That's not a "weakness in my reasoning." The number of golfers who can hit the ball < 100 yards max is a much, much smaller number than the number of 20-50 year olds. And even if you get five million new 20-50 year olds playing… how many of them will continue to play after they can no longer hit the ball 100 yards? Very few.

I think it's pretty silly from a golf perspective AND a business perspective to do much of anything to cater to a tiny part of the market, particularly since I've seen no real evidence that they see a problem.

So I guess when someone comes in for a lesson and you determine that they can’t hit it more than 100 yards you tell them that the game really isn’t intended for them any longer and your not interested in their business. A word to the wise-Some day you too will be old. Can’t say I’m surprised.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So I guess when someone comes in for a lesson and you determine that they can’t hit it more than 100 yards you tell them that the game really isn’t intended for them any longer and your not interested in their business.

I guess I'll have to let you know, as the only people I've ever taught who can't hit the ball 100 yards are children. Even the 82-year-old woman I mentioned earlier could fly it 110, and she certainly wasn't the type to ask for accommodations or changes to the golf course.

They're a really small segment of the market, and people here are tripping over themselves to try to figure out the solution to a problem that may not even be a problem for what I imagine is a very small segment of the golfing population.

A word to the wise-Some day you too will be old.

I don't foresee playing golf if I can't hit the ball 100 yards, just like I don't foresee playing soccer as I do now when I can't run.

[MCirba]

An interesting related recent study.


 https://golf.com/instruction/golf-course-enhancement-producing-happier-golfers/?amp=1

[Jason Topp]

Are we trying to create threads for the sake of creating threads? The notion of change for change's sake?


We all know that there are folks who hit the ball 100 yards max. Has anyone bothered to ask them if they give a fark about architectural integrity? They might simply say, glad to be out here, give me two pegs to hit between.

.

This might be the right answer. 

In five rounds in Palm Springs I have now had 5 playing companions consistently pull out drivers on 100 yard par threes.  They came up short most of the time but also made the most pars on those holes.

They enjoyed themselves and I never heard a complaint so maybe nothing needs to change.

[jeffwarne]

An interesting related recent study.


 https://golf.com/instruction/golf-course-enhancement-producing-happier-golfers/?amp=1

Part of the problem/opportunity for new shorter tees is major golf publications telling people that "having a hybrid or fwy wood into a hole isn't much fun"
Golf was BOOMING in the 1960's when the ball went 15% shorter(for experts-slightly less for average players)and courses were comparatively far longer(as far as where most people layed) due to the fact there weren't 6 sets of tees.i.e. there were plenty of courses with 6500 yard white tees where nearly all males,played regardless of handicap, unless they were pros or scratch.


Golf is booming again, not because of shorter tees, but a Covid induced change in lifestyles.
If you're getting two strokes a hole AND are physically capable of reaching most greens in regulation, you don't need another set of tees, you need to practice.

[MCirba]

Jeff,


I generally agree but it's when you have a fairway wood or hybrid on your 2nd or 3rd shot in a row that the fun factor swiftly erodes.   

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


I generally agree but it's when you have a fairway wood or hybrid on your 2nd or 3rd shot in a row that the fun factor swiftly erodes.   

Mainly because we're told that it's less fun by turf and tee salesmen.
Some of the happiest people I see are women gleefully ripping it with no fear of a lost ball and small kids.
The game gets tougher when those kids grow up and have to find their foul balls on the larger scale.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the scale of golf shrinking-I just tremble a bit when every level of player wants a set of tees tailored exactly to THEIR game-at every course they play.
I'd rather see different distance balls being deployed by lower and high speed players than expanding courses on both ends for speeds of golfers.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
The need for longer tees has been the problem and a major cause of added expense.  You can’t lengthen a golf course from 6000 yards to 7000 yards without utilizing more real estate.  But what expense do additional shorter teeing areas add?  In some cases it is as simple as placing two markers in the fairway and let players who want to tee off there do so if they choose.  I am always amazed at anyone who complains about shorter tees.  Go play all the way back if you like but let others have shorter options if they would like.  We have markers out in our fairways at Lehigh and they are used often by more than just the kids.  And low profile formal tees if needed are not all the expensive to build and if done right are not eye sores.  The game is still challenging enough for most even from those shorter markers.  Believe it or not 3500 yards on an average 18 hole course is good yardage for many more players than most think. 


I can still carry my driver a good 260 or more but I actually enjoy playing much shorter tees sometimes as different aspects of the game are challenged. 

[Garland Bayley]

I hit balls yesterday next to a woman who made good contact with the ball but her mightiest wallop could not have gone much past 100 yards.  There are many such people in the Palm Springs area and I imagine the game for her, even from the shortest tees, consists of repeatedly hitting the ball as far as she can. 


Beyond forward tees, is there an opportunity to design courses that provide more interesting challenges for such a player?  Are there courses that do so effectively?


I recall watching my father agonizing over whether to go for it and hit a hybrid over a pond to an elevated green 110 yards away or to bail out right and chip up to the green.  It was an interesting choice for him when it would not have been for a younger player.  I could envision a course that presents those sorts of choices all over the place without asking interesting questions of others.

So what's the problem. Obviously the woman likes hitting the golf ball, otherwise she wouldn't be on the practice tee hitting away. Get rid of forced carries, get rid of multiple tees, get rid of par, and return golf to its roots, match play.

Seems to me that golf in its beginnings didn't have forced carries, multiple tee, and par. Several years ago the USGA declared golf was a walking game, and that if you were riding in a cart you weren't playing golf, you were playing "cart ball".

In the origins of golf, they didn't count the number of strokes players took, they kept track of the difference in strokes taken by the competitors. So there was no idea that par would become this thing that ruled a game that we can call stroke count, but it is not golf. Sure, it uses the same implements as golf, but it is much different than the original game. In the original game, it was not uncommon to take four strokes to reach the putting surface. Whole golf courses did not have one, two, or three shot holes like the current game of stroke count.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70579.0.html

So designing for the short hitter? Make the ground rumpled. Remove forced carries. Have the sheep sleep all over the place, not just near the hole. Make the short hitter have to negotiate around the sheep bedding areas, just like the long hitter does.

Quit bastardizing the game of golf into a game of stroke count!

[Sean_A]

Jeff,

I generally agree but it's when you have a fairway wood or hybrid on your 2nd or 3rd shot in a row that the fun factor swiftly erodes.   

Mainly because we're told that it's less fun by turf and tee salesmen.
Some of the happiest people I see are women gleefully ripping it with no fear of a lost ball and small kids.
The game gets tougher when those kids grow up and have to find their foul balls on the larger scale.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the scale of golf shrinking-I just tremble a bit when every level of player wants a set of tees tailored exactly to THEIR game-at every course they play.
I'd rather see different distance balls being deployed by lower and high speed players than expanding courses on both ends for speeds of golfers.

So salesmen are that influential they determine what fun is? To me this is simple. How much do I like hitting balls from fairways with greens miles out of reach? It turns out, I like it about as much as I ever did. Which is really just enough to add variety. Otherwise, not so much...not a fan of slog golf. My solution is to usually play forward tees. I am not sure why people think short hitters feel much different than long hitters. If long hitters couldn't reach 15 holes in regulation we would say there is a problem.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Short hitters playing from fairway spots might be ok on an occasional fun/random type basis but short hitters like to play competitions and events too and when competing in events all players have to play from the same tee.
And at members clubs it's the same players playing in such events on a regular basis so a formal tee is preferable even more so now with WHS hcps based on specific lengths/tees etc.
And there are maintenance, irrigation implications to consider as well.
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
You are right about counting strokes (to some extent) but not about the lack of forced carries.  Even in the very beginning they counted how many shots it took to get the ball in the hole. There just wasn’t a set number of holes.  One day they might play three and the next day five or six or what ever number they had time for.  Hazards were not a defined term, there were just hazardous situations like the burns “which had to be carried” at St. Andrews.  Golf was always about the obstacles - playing up, over and around them.  It was once said the direct line to the hole is the line of instinct and to make a great hole you must break up that line to create the line of charm.  The line is broken up with various obstacles and hazards some of which you have to try to carry.


Thomas,
I hear what you are saying which is why “formal” tees often end up getting built.  But we could have a tournament tomorrow (if there wasn’t snow on the ground) at Lehigh and all of us play from the most forward tee markers including the ones placed in the fairways and the pro shop would provide everyone with a printed scorecard with all the yardages and handicaps. They can print that on demand. We play a mixed upper nine holes in the winter when many lower holes are closed and they do the same.  It is not a big deal. 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
 But what expense do additional shorter teeing areas add?  In some cases it is as simple as placing two markers in the fairway and let players who want to tee off there do so if they choose.  I am always amazed at anyone who complains about shorter tees.

I think if you reread my posts you'll find I'm not "complaining about shorter tees"-in fact one of my two posts on this thread advocates for a 4000 yard set(which could really be fun for all with different speed balls/clubs-but I digress).


My devil's advocate thinking is the objection to everyone having their own tees on every single hole, and from experience, having to listen to players cite specific holes as unfair from "shorter but not short enough" from the tees they are on(often existing landforms prevent the exact "proportional" placement of tees)
I'm merely suggesting not 6 sets of tees on EVERY hole, but rather some creative thinking. i.e. a 300 yard hole could have one large tee and not try to strategicall play the same for all players(unless you're going to put a tee at 300,280,250,200,150 and 100) which landforms may not allow.
Then the next hole might have a tee at 590, 480 and 320.
Some holes(super short par 3, short par 4) can be played from similar distances assuming tees large enough for traffic.
Yet on the super long par 3,4, or 5, a huge tee difference can be implemented.
The point is the fair police attempt to make every hole, from every tee employ the same strategy, rather than accomplishing the same balance with holes where the best opportunities exist for alternate tees. And this includes back tees, of which there are also too many.
Tees cost money and while a tee in the fairway may be ok for you and I, try fielding the "second class citizen" comments you get when a certain class of player's tees are placed in the fairway. The most frustrating ones are when following a formula (83% for professional women in PGA Club Pro events) when a landform doesn't allow placement there and they are teeing off from a walk path on a 10 degree slope.


I'm confident all of the above can be done with 1,(usually 2) or 3 sets of tees on certain holes, making the differences substantial and well thought out for traffic routes.
and yes, the occasional/frequent tee in the fairway where it makes sense as you cite, and costs nothing


As Thomas points out, there is a real issue in competitions.
It gets very, very fuzyy when multiple different tees are used, and I am sure someone will point out it can all be handicapped, etc.etc.
..but it gets fuzzy...


Sadly, the scale of the modern ball/club has exaggerated the problem, while leaving the average golfer behind, who for some odd reason expects to have similar clubs and strategies to the experts-which is simply not possible on all but a few select holes with perfectly cooperating terrain and design.


I'm not anti-anything, other those who believe every subset of golf skill, age, power and finessse should each have their own constructed starting point that is perfectly proportional in some mathematical sense on every single hole-and that holes should be handicapped stroked differently depending upon the tees one plays(perhaps due to landforms or design).
I do believe it should even out over the course of 9 or 18.


I mean we don't have alternate greens for those who can't read greens or putt-yet.

[Garland Bayley]

...
You are right about counting strokes (to some extent) but not about the lack of forced carries.  Even in the very beginning they counted how many shots it took to get the ball in the hole. ...

What evidence do you have that "Even in the very beginning they counted how many shots it took to get the ball in the hole"?

Please provide a reference.

The link in my post you are responding to cites a reference that says they didn't count how many shots it took to get the ball in the hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Do you really think that golf was played with no keeping of any kind of score?  Even when playing match play, some kind of score is kept.  Almost everyone plays match play when betting and or playing a friendly game.  Some keep their full score for the day and some don’t but there is no way to get a handicap if you don’t keep count of your strokes.  I am traveling but maybe Forrest will chime in if he sees this with some references for you.  Honestly it is just common sense - golf is a game/sport and I can’t think of any that don’t keep score of some kind. 

[MCirba]

Just saw this one...bet he's happy he is still playing. 


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/01/26/florida-man-95-hole-in-one-3-wood/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1bzxDAPF8O9v8TVDgQZpnLWGMHTJ5SyifYUSlM5gRvIeMKX8_2Q-vYS5c

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Nice article.  I also love the “eagle” on the 244 yard “par four”. 

[Garland Bayley]

Mark,

Of course I believe golf was played without keeping a count of strokes taken. I play match play by keeping track of whether I have taken one fewer than my opponent, we are equal in strokes taken, or I have taken one more than my opponent. At the end of the hole, I can count up the strokes, but that is only useful for handicap recording.

And, the historical record says counting strokes was not done in the origins of the game.

It seems to me that those playing the stroke count game lack the imagination to see how it is not necessary when playing true golf.

[Mark_Fine]

But Garland you just said “you count your shots” on each hole to see how you did against your opponent.  That is stroke count.  If you wanted to, after the round you could add them up on all the holes you played.  You don’t have to but you could.  You don’t get a handicap by playing one hole do you?  Without question, golfers tracked from the beginning (counted their strokes) on each hole they played.  What they did with those counts is another matter.  Maybe who ever had the highest had to find the next hole they played.  In the very beginning the route to a hole could be anything (around buildings, through towns,…)

At least you have come around on the idea that in the beginning there were forced carries.  You start with one even on the first hole at St. Andrews. Ask Jean van de Velde about them if you don’t believe me

[Garland Bayley]

But Garland you just said “you count your shots” on each hole to see how you did against your opponent.  ...

Now you are just making things up.
Use the quoting mechanism of the site to show that quote instead of just making up things.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Mark,

But, a year later Jean made a 5 at Carnoustie 18 with only a putter.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
So are you saying you don’t count your strokes on each hole when playing a match?  How do you establish your handicap? 


Just because he made a 5 with a putter doesn’t mean there were no forced carries early on.  You can admit you were wrong. It’s ok.


Did you ever hear of something called a topped shot bunker or a cop mound or cop bunker?  Most times they were in the direct line of play and most had to try to play over them.  Golfers encounter forced carries in golf of some type all the time on almost every course.  Sometimes they can go around the trouble but many times it is silly to try. You could play the #17 hole at TPC Sawgrass with a putter but would you want to? 

[Thomas Dai]

Scene a few hundred years ago.
First Scottish shepherd "Reckon I can hit this small stone into that wee hole using less hits with this stick than you can."*
Second Scottish shepherd "........................"
atb


* accents don't usually related well to the written word.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()