[Jason Topp]

Yes, a course could be designed for short hitters.  However, it would reduce the design options that would make it interesting for longer hitters.  I don’t think that a course could be designed to interest and challenge both.  That is the question for you architects.


I also offer the opinion that short hitters (those not able to reach greens in regulation) cannot fully appreciate courses with great architecture.  Older members – do you find that you now have less ability to enjoy playing (not just studying) great architecture than you once did?

I have gotten a lot worse at golf the last ten years and lost length. 


As that has happened I have found good design more crucial to my enjoyment of a course.  A good design presents interesting choices, even on a second shot that cannot reach the green on a par four.  On a poor design, you aim down the middle and endure your fate.   

[Ken Moum]

I have gotten a lot worse at golf the last ten years and lost length. 


As that has happened I have found good design more crucial to my enjoyment of a course.  A good design presents interesting choices, even on a second shot that cannot reach the green on a par four.  On a poor design, you aim down the middle and endure your fate.

At age 74 I rarely see a 200-yard drive anymore.  180 is my "normal good" so any hole over about 260 means I either can't reach in two or I have to bounce it up.


So I completely agree with you.  Holes that ask long hitters to find the correct side of the fairway can ask me the same question one shot later.


In the winter I'm playing 4+ times a week at the "Dye Designed" Red Mountain Ranch Country Club in Mesa and while good players mostly find the place detestable, us hackers are endlessly amused by its quirks.


A short hitter who can hit their approach not on the green but in the "best miss" location can have lots of fun.

[jeffwarne]

I have gotten a lot worse at golf the last ten years and lost length. 


As that has happened I have found good design more crucial to my enjoyment of a course.  A good design presents interesting choices, even on a second shot that cannot reach the green on a par four.  On a poor design, you aim down the middle and endure your fate.

At age 74 I rarely see a 200-yard drive anymore.  180 is my "normal good" so any hole over about 260 means I either can't reach in two or I have to bounce it up.


So I completely agree with you.  Holes that ask long hitters to find the correct side of the fairway can ask me the same question one shot later.


In the winter I'm playing 4+ times a week at the "Dye Designed" Red Mountain Ranch Country Club in Mesa and while good players mostly find the place detestable, us hackers are endlessly amused by its quirks.


A short hitter who can hit their approach not on the green but in the "best miss" location can have lots of fun.

Thanks Ken,
This is what I've attempted to say in the past.
Your game is the reality that many face, and more than care to admit it-and the future(with luck) for all of us.
Rather than have every entity constantly tell us that our game would be more fun by playing continually forward so we can have the same approaces as "pros", you and many others have found joy in setting up strategic approaches occasionally one shot later. The whole idea of "regulation" drives me bonkers, especially when dealing with a player receiving a shot or even two shots on a hole.
My guess is you and others have more enjoyment tacking your way around,making strategic choices others either don't see, don't need, or cannot execute,all the while enjoying the social aspect of teeing off together, rather than constantly going on a solo journey tailor-made for just your specific distance.


Note-I'm not against forward tees, I just would like to see less tees in general and more shared tees(where different players have different strategies), but that doesn't mean when the landform presents a wonderful forward tee at 320 yards on a back tee hole of 580 yards that I have a problem with it-in fact I would embrace this, and tees that make a real difference.
A creatively designed course could allow an enjoyable, mostly shared experience by separating tees less often, and saving the separation for times when landforms and differing strategies allow creative ideas and cool landform/tees to flourish, not some cookie cutter attempt to proportionalize every hole whereby a "similar" approach/strategy for everyone is mythically envisioned, which is simply not possible.
 The 125 yard Gap wedge by a professional is not the equal of the 125 yard 6 iron of a low speed player, nor the is the 70 yard gap wedge due to variances in speed and ability to create height and spin.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The whole idea of "regulation" drives me bonkers, especially when dealing with a player receiving a shot or even two shots on a hole.

Why? "Regulation" is just another word for "standard." And in golf the "standard" (for par) is two putts plus the number of shots most good or "expert" players are expected to take to reach the green. (With "expert" not necessarily being PGA Tour, but about a scratch handicap or so.)

It's just a word. Why is that something that drives you bonkers?

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
How many tees would you propose on a par three that plays say 245 yards from the tips?  Whether we like to keep score or not, most golfers do love the idea of having a chance (as remote as it may be)  to make a birdie or a hole in one. 


The game might be better (but would be harder to handicap and maybe tricker for maintenance) if there were no formal sets of tees and golfers could elect to start a hole from a point of their choosing.  We actually do that at Lehigh (mostly in the late fall/winter months and it is a blast). 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
How many tees would you propose on a par three that plays say 245 yards from the tips?  Whether we like to keep score or not, most golfers do love the idea of having a chance (as remote as it may be)  to make a birdie or a hole in one. 

It depends.
Assuming the hole is so good  or so located it cant be passed up on a routing without compromising the rest. ....


What if there is a valley and every ysrd forward is another step down for 110 yards?
The choices then would be
 1.to put the forward tee in a hole playing straight uphill and play super long.
 2.Having one tee making it a par 3/4,possibly playing the second from a valley as well.Now we have elevated the chance of a birdie or eagle.


3.Finding or creating an area where a reasonable par 3 tee could be played beyond the deepest part of the valley.
4.something else


If we can have par 5/4s,
Why not par 4/3s?


Of course this mythical hole might be situated on terrain or multiple landforms that allow for multiple excellent tees with some cool variety  strategy views and a minimum of hiking.


So to answer your question. It could be one two  three or more tees 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()