[Niall C]

The old way of designing holes was to put all tee balls in the same LZ.  Longleaf and other tees place them proportionally, i.e., hole length is based 150/300 yard drives, or forward tees about 50% of back tees, or 400 and 200 from the forward tees.

Jeff


Actually the really "old way" of designing holes was to not have some sort of designated landing area for drives but rather to design holes which allowed for drives landing in different places to allow for different standards of players. In fact they still have quite a lot of those courses over here.


Niall

[Niall C]

Two different subjects/contexts are being discussed here, but in large part implicitly. I'm glad that Forrest and JB are defending the golfing interests of 95 year old women, 5 year old children and 35 handicappers.

Peter


What makes you think that I'm not ? How is advocating having tees that all standards of players can play from and enjoy not standing up for 95 year old women etc. ?


Niall

Yeah, Peter! Where did you come up with the idea that one set of tees that would be suitable and enjoyable for a scratch golfer who can drive it 300+ yards might not be fun for his grandparents AND his young children? Are you crazy?

Absolutely, a hole might be no fun at all for one standard of player compared to another when playing from the same tee. But what does that tell you about the architecture ?


There are plenty of great holes out there that work for all standard of players playing from the same tee.


Niall

[Niall C]

AG -- good post #93. Of course we put the tangible interests of real people who love golf ahead of foggy notions about protecting a construct like the integrity of the game. But in today's American marketplace, with the 6 tee-10 hybrids approach of the most successful modern resorts seemingly becoming normative, do you think there is any risk of your scenarios becoming reality? Conversely, do you not think that on a site devoted to exploring great golf course architecture (much of it from the first great golden age, and the time of 2-3 sets of tees) critical questions about this modern approach are valid?
I was playfully reacting earlier to a post by Forrest where he pulled at our heartstrings both quite shamelessly and quite unnecessarily, ie suggesting that there was a good fight still to be fought in the service of the old and infirm against the callous forces of the golf establishment, when in fact every aspect of that industry -- from clubmakers to course developers -- are working to make the game accessible / playable / fun for as many people as possible, including through the use of a great many sets of tees. It felt like the victors casting themselves as the underdogs -- which kind of annoys me when there are so many actual underdogs out there suffering in so many real body-and-soul crushing ways.

Peter


Tell me, where would you put the multiple tees on the Old Course at St Andrews ? Would you follow Jeff's formula and place them half way down the fairways and everywhere in between ? Would that be a real win for the old and infirm ? Would it cut down on their walking or might it not just cut down on their enjoyment ?


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - I don't understand either of your posts to me. Re: the first, I didn't mention your name simply because I wasn't thinking of you, not because I was making a point one way or another. Re: the second, St Andrews seems to fine to me just the way it is, and I've not written anything here to suggest otherwise. I've played 90% of my golf on courses with 3 tee boxes, which seem quite enough; and as I wrote to Jeff I find the 'new normal' in this regard -- as manifested at some of our top new resorts -- an excessively pandering approach to satisfying the golfing ego.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I do love being quoted when I said no such thing 

Hmmm?

Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee.

So…

Sorry gents, I've been posted missing the last few days while I was away enjoying myself but I see that Garland and Sean picked up the cudgels in my absence.

THAT is definitely who you want picking up after you.
 

There might be 35,000 courses in the world but I don't think you'd get much work in the UK, can't speak about elsewhere. For sure not all the holes over here are brilliant but the vast majority can be enjoyed by players of different abilities playing off the same tee.

Please tell us all how fun it is for the 85-yard-driver player to play from the back tees (or the one-up tees, with 550-yard par fives) with their son (or father), the +3?

That’s why you have the handicap system.

You seem to keep ignoring that the handicap system allows for players to play from different tees, too.

I'm just suggesting that there is a lot of joy to be found in golf while not worrying about reaching greens in regulation.

Yeah, driver-fairway wood all day long is sooooo fun. Never having a birdie putt, sounds fun.

Do any of you have kids who, within your working memory, took up the game of golf at a younger age? My five-year-old (she now plays for a top-ranked team in college) often played the hole from where my tee shot finished. That meant 170- to 60-yard par fours. Par threes she played from the little bit of "fairway" that was before the green. Par fives were 270- to 220-yards.

It's not just about old people, either. Again, Longleaf == US Kids Golf. But the system can work for 55-year-old women, or 73-year-old men, or disabled people, or players who just don't hit it very far… who still want to enjoy golf. Thrashing away endlessly with your toughest clubs to hit (fairway woods) isn't as much fun as making the ball go up in the air more reliably (short irons).

How is advocating having tees that all standards of players can play from and enjoy not standing up for 95 year old women etc.?

I think the bold part is where you lose people. I asked an older student of mine if he'd "enjoy" playing from the black tees or even the blues (he plays the golds/yellows and is considering moving up a set to the forward-most tees soon), and he said he'd stop playing golf.

Absolutely, a hole might be no fun at all for one standard of player compared to another when playing from the same tee. But what does that tell you about the architecture?

Most often… nothing.

[Garland Bayley]

...
A friend’s wife had her first-ever eagle last week, holing out from the fairway on a par 5.  She was thrilled, of course! ...

Why wouldn't she be thrilled? Even tour pros celebrate holing out from the fairway. Does she really care that someone labeled it an eagle? It is probably the lowest score she ever made on the hole. And, probably will be the lowest score she will ever make on the hole. Now, that is something to get thrilled about!

[Niall C]

Niall - I don't understand either of your posts to me. Re: the first, I didn't mention your name simply because I wasn't thinking of you, not because I was making a point one way or another. Re: the second, St Andrews seems to fine to me just the way it is, and I've not written anything here to suggest otherwise. I've played 90% of my golf on courses with 3 tee boxes, which seem quite enough; and as I wrote to Jeff I find the 'new normal' in this regard -- as manifested at some of our top new resorts -- an excessively pandering approach to satisfying the golfing ego.

Peter


I assume what you don't understand is why the question(s) is/are addressed to you rather than you not understanding the question(s) but correct me if I'm wrong.


In terms of post #101 the question was more aimed towards AG and his comment to you on your post. I copied your part of the post for context but like any question posed on here it is open season for anyone who wants to answer it so please feel free to answer it if you wish.


The question in post #102 was addressed to you and was in response to your earlier post. Maybe I misinterpreted your post but it seemed to me that you were sympathetic to the idea of the aged, infirm and juvenile teeing it up half way down the fairway, hence my question on how you would accomplish that on TOC. As before, feel free to answer or not.


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,


Putting up TOC is a real straw man type of argument against most courses having tee options for all (or at least for the average among the 6-7 distinct groups of tee shot lengths, and shorter hitters in that group will still struggle, longer hitters in that group will have an advantage)  If there are 35,000 courses worldwide, there is certainly room to leave historic courses alone, let alone the most historic of all.  And, Forrest may have a better guess, but I suspect there probably aren't 350 to 700 courses worldwide with a tee set up catering to 180 and 150 hitters that let them reach all greens in regulation with good shots. 


So, if you are worried about new fangled architecture ideas just taking over the golf world, you can relax, probably forever, LOL.


Designing holes with interest for all is a challenge worth discussing.  A few here have thrown it out as a concept as if architects are somehow delinquent or lazy.  My guess again, on behalf of my brethren, is that making something interesting in all LZ's requires some kind of hazard or challenge is placed at various distances.  While I agree that the RTJ/Wilson era got to fixated on the LZ for good players from the back tees, golf is still a tough biz.  Unless those hazards are natural or a bit of grass bunker/mound/slope shaping, they are probably low value and too expensive to be built. 


For that matter, philosophically do we really want to challenge poor players on those 2-4 extra shots between tee and green we create through more length?  I think most owners and architects came to the conclusion long ago that they try to create interesting golf for average and up while creating freeway golf for the D players, and maybe C and D players, in the name of the economic interests of the owner and a perceived notion that the D player really doesn't want much blocking his slow but sure progress to the green.  We could be wrong, of course, but Owners pay the bills and the subset of gca nerds who think everything could somehow be better do not, LOL.


And, BTW, I think it was MacKenzie who came up with that notion, i.e., minimize bunkers, after the Depression forced him to.  The concept of more forward tees advanced after his career, and it could be argued that RTJ/Wilson actually took his philosophy backwards in their work.  But honestly, the 1930's Mac work is still pretty much the model for "hard for tigers, easy for hacks" philosophy, using no more than 25-50 bunkers, etc.


As always, just MHO.  And, designing holes in consideration of how teeing grounds are laid out is a subject I have been exploring myself.  Up to 1,000,003 things to consider in golf course design, LOL.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

For that matter, philosophically do we really want to challenge poor players on those 2-4 extra shots between tee and green we create through more length?

Spot on. Getting the ball airborne and traveling forward is a "challenge" already. They don't need traditional hazards or things, too. Just playing the game reasonably is a challenge in and of itself.


That doesn't mean they don't need or deserve "interest," only that they don't need to be "challenged" with every shot. Especially as from the longer tees (that they most likely don't want to play), they will have so many extra shots.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


At the risk of Garland going ballistic again, I'll agree.


Your post reminds me of some of the old stats, still valid, that a D player really only hits 6-10 good shots per round.  For  them, that is defined as:


1.  Airborn
2.  Generally the right direction
3.  Most of the way to the green (or in the case of their defacto par 4-6 holes, nearly their max distance)
4.  Avoids hazards, whether they "deserve" to be in them or not.


What do we call golfers who hit less than 6 shots per round?  Ex Golfers.

[Ira Fishman]

In now five pages of posts, there have been only five courses mentioned by name: Longleaf, RD, RCD, Portrush (see my post 40), and inevitably TOC.


I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions. Niall’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point clearly are intuitively strongest for links courses which have few forced carriers and the contours can be fun and interesting for all. However, we have played five links courses where the back tees were more than 6500 yards (Waterville, Ballybunion Old, Lahinch, RD, and Nairn). In all five cases, there are at least four sets of tees, and the forward tees are hundreds if not more yards shorter than the back tees. The aforementioned RCD and Portrush are exceptions which is exactly why we are skipping them (based on friends’ input who are pretty strong women players).


The course in the US that we have played that comes the closest to Naill’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point is CPC. But there the front tees play over 5700 yards which is obviously long for a shorter hitter.


My point is that specifics would help.


Ira

[Ken Moum]

In now five pages of posts, there have been only five courses mentioned by name: Longleaf, RD, RCD, Portrush (see my post 40), and inevitably TOC.


I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions. Niall’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point clearly are intuitively strongest for links courses which have few forced carriers and the contours can be fun and interesting for all. However, we have played five links courses where the back tees were more than 6500 yards (Waterville, Ballybunion Old, Lahinch, RD, and Nairn). In all five cases, there are at least four sets of tees, and the forward tees are hundreds if not more yards shorter than the back tees. The aforementioned RCD and Portrush are exceptions which is exactly why we are skipping them (based on friends’ input who are pretty strong women players).


The course in the US that we have played that comes the closest to Naill’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point is CPC. But there the front tees play over 5700 yards which is obviously long for a shorter hitter.


My point is that specifics would help.


Ira

Royal Dornoch is an interesting case, although I was told in 2017 that there were new, even shorter, tees put in.


The last time my wife and I played she walked off the course completely defeated by the way she played.  That's when I told her that there were FIVE par fives on the inward nine at Dornoch (none of which she could reach in 3). It changed her attitude a little bit.


But I have a question, how many of the "better" players around here would play a course that had TEN unreachable par fives?


As a short hitter myself at age 74 I have thought a lot about this discussion and actually started a couple of posts myself...without finishing them.


I actually think the problem is that there isn't enough difference between the "stock" sets of tees.  How many times have you played somewhere where the forward tees and the "regular" tees are less than 10 yards apart?


A course with tee sets at 5400, 6000, 6600 and 7200 the differences aren't really meaningful.  Even if you spread the 600 yards across all 18 holes it's less than 35 yards per hole.  Is that an actual difference?


Why not 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000?  Then hybrid tees could accommodate anyone who wanted something else.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions.
...

Most every course that I played in my youth over 50 years ago. My recollection, and since it was over 50 years ago, I will admit that my recollection might be flawed. Typical were a set of men's markers and a set of women's markers not more than 20 yards apart. Everyone could have played either set of markers, and enjoyed the game. The women could have moved back little change to their game, and the men could have move forward with little change to their game.

Now I must admit that the courses I played were very low cost, and not exactly architectural gems. Few had sand bunkers, and more than a few had sand greens. Golf has always been enjoyable without so much worry about birdies, etc. A lot of people just love hitting the ball, others love being outdoors and active, others love socializing on the course, others like gambling on the course, etc.

All this talk about birdies and eagles being fun makes me think that golf has gone astray with too many egos determining like or dislike for the game. For those of you that are so focused on birdies, and disdain hitting the ball repeatedly because you can't have a chance at birdie that way, I have to wonder how you got so good that birdies became the be all, end all for you. Did you not get to that level of proficiency by hitting ball after ball on the range? Did you not like that time you spent there? Did you not like the crack of the club on the ball? Did you not like watching the ball trace a beautiful arc through the air?

Now with that preface I will get to the demonstration I wanted to make in response to the example request from Ira. I will do so in the next couple of posts.

[Ira Fishman]

Garland,


I appreciate you taking up the challenge for specifics and look forward to your responses. However, I do want to be clear that my views have Zero to do with Par or Score. They are solely focused on enjoying and appreciating the course.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Most every course that I played in my youth over 50 years ago. My recollection, and since it was over 50 years ago, I will admit that my recollection might be flawed. Typical were a set of men's markers and a set of women's markers not more than 20 yards apart. Everyone could have played either set of markers, and enjoyed the game. The women could have moved back little change to their game, and the men could have move forward with little change to their game.

How is restricting players — from their perspective, not the perspective of having to maintain more teeing areas, etc. — a good thing?

My daughter has played three to four different sets of tees through the years. Some of my friends and/or junior (boy) students have played as many as six: invented forward tees, the family tees, and then the traditional "red, white, blue, black" (colors may vary per the course).

[Garland Bayley]

To demonstrate a golf hole that players of a vast spectrum of abilities could strategize on, be challenged by, and enjoy playing, I chose a specific hole that perhaps demonstrates the qualities that we are advocating. I did not try to do a demonstration for an entire course as Ira asks for, as that would be quite time consuming, and I hope you can extrapolate from my example. I have been meaning to do this since Ira posed the question, but have been busy and away from the computer until I got some time today.

To conceptualize my demonstration I defined five categories of golfers.

Scratch Man 230+20 and 200+20

Bogey Man 180+20 and 150+20

Bogey Woman 130+20 and 110+20

Elder Man 100+15 and 80+15

Elder Woman 70+15 and 50+15

The first three you might notice I stole from the USGA handicapping methodology, and the last two were ones I defined to supplement those. The numbers are (drive carry)+(rollout) and (unteed carry)+(rollout) The USGA always used 20 yard rollout, but I reasoned that the slower swing speed of the added exemplars could lead to less roll. Certainly there is at least another category 300+25 and 280+25 that might characterize the tour pro, but I will leave them to play the tips at courses nearing 8000 yards.

The scratch player playing Pacific Dunes #3.

PacificDunes#3ScratchMan by Garland Bayley, on Flickr

We see here that the scratch player has three options off of the tee. Going right, going left, and a doubtful choice of going up the center. Going left means having some obstacles along the way that he will very likely clear without problem, but only gains him a small advantage in getting into the green. Going right would give up that small advantage for a bit more safety.

[Garland Bayley]

In the Design for the short hitter thread Tom Doak wrote:

...
Good bunkers fit into certain spots in the terrain.  A lot of courses suck because the designer wants to put a bunker a certain distance from the tee for "strategic" purposes, but there is no way to build a good bunker at that distance.
...

Hopefully, Tom was fitting the bunkers in such a manner Pacific Dunes #3. If he was building bunkers to be strategic for the scratch golfer then he needed only two not four bunkers.

However, now that he has four bunkers there is strategy for the Elder Man as seen below.

PacificDunes#3ElderMan by Garland Bayley, on Flickr

Left, right or middle off the tee? Gorse left rules that out. The bunker in the distance when going right that could affect the second shot, would probably lead to choosing the center. Left, right or middle for the second shot? Bunker in the middle rules that out. Having to skirt the gorse on the left when going left likely would rule that out even though it would get the golfer on the line to best access the green, so right we go. The third shot is the most obvious strategic choice as middle and left bring the bunkers into play at different degrees. The fourth shot presents the dilemma of playing near the left bunker to obtain an angle that will allow the player to penetrate farther into the green. Or playing safely into the middle for less penetration. If the flag is right, choosing left for the fourth shot might be the better choice. However, if the flag is left, the safer middle option might be better.

Obviously, what I have presented is two dimensional. Better knowledge of the contours of the course would further complicate the decision making. Hopefully, you can see how Tom's design here would make a thinking persons playing of the hole interesting no matter how far or accurately they hit the ball.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How is that "decision making"?

On his third shot, what "decision" is he making? Hmmm, I could hit it in the bunker, I could hit it in the bunker, or I could go around the bunker."

What a thrill! What a momentous decision!

Also, it took him five strokes - probably driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, possibly another fairway wood, all to get near or on the green, and only then if he hits them all roughly his max distance.

[Ira Fishman]

Garland,


Number 3 at PD has six different tee options with a 190 yards difference between the longest and shortest. An odd choice to try to make your point. And that is only one hole and not an entire course.


Ira

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


Number 3 at PD has six different tee options with a 190 yards difference between the longest and shortest. An odd choice to try to make your point. And that is only one hole and not an entire course.


Ira

There are three meaningful teeing options for the hole. 499, 476, and 452 according to the scorecard they publish. The "Royal Blue" markers in my understanding are for kids, and I have never seen a kid at Bandon. In any case, any kid playing with an adult would be just as well served by tossing a ball down where the adult's tee shot finishes and playing from there IMO. But, that is all beside the point.

The point is that the 476 yard tee could be used by almost all golfers there. And, they would have a fun and interesting time playing the hole, especially with a match play opponent.

[Garland Bayley]

... the old stats, still valid, that a D player really only hits 6-10 good shots per round.  For  them, that is defined as:


1.  Airborn
2.  Generally the right direction
3.  Most of the way to the green (or in the case of their defacto par 4-6 holes, nearly their max distance)
4.  Avoids hazards, whether they "deserve" to be in them or not.


What do we call golfers who hit less than 6 shots per round?  Ex Golfers.

This is of course a joke and not a fact at all. I have played with many golfers that don't hit 6-10 good shots per round. And, they keep coming back for more. They are hardly "Ex Golfers". Many of them are in their 80s and 90s and keep coming back every weekday as that is when the course is not crowded. Also, when their like compatriots are there. Others keep coming back every week for the social interaction. Some must think a golf course is a beautiful place to pass the time of day.

[Sean_A]

In now five pages of posts, there have been only five courses mentioned by name: Longleaf, RD, RCD, Portrush (see my post 40), and inevitably TOC.


I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions. Niall’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point clearly are intuitively strongest for links courses which have few forced carriers and the contours can be fun and interesting for all. However, we have played five links courses where the back tees were more than 6500 yards (Waterville, Ballybunion Old, Lahinch, RD, and Nairn). In all five cases, there are at least four sets of tees, and the forward tees are hundreds if not more yards shorter than the back tees. The aforementioned RCD and Portrush are exceptions which is exactly why we are skipping them (based on friends’ input who are pretty strong women players).


The course in the US that we have played that comes the closest to Naill’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point is CPC. But there the front tees play over 5700 yards which is obviously long for a shorter hitter.


My point is that specifics would help.


Ira

Ira

I am not overly fussed with length of courses so long as the courses are designed with tees fairly close to greens. This type of design is conducive to uninterrupted, fast play on foot. It's fine to have a few other tees, but I would prefer the tees to be based primarily on angles. There are countless examples, but they may not be the sort folks travel to see. For the most part, there usually is a tee close to most greens for walking courses. It may involve playing different colour tees throughout the round, but that's fine by me. On old courses it's probably the case these were daily tees which are now forward tees. For generations kids and old folks played these tees. Now we have a solution to make courses not really designed for old folks and kids a ok for all. It's round peg in square hole design.

Ciao

[Ben Voelker]

In now five pages of posts, there have been only five courses mentioned by name: Longleaf, RD, RCD, Portrush (see my post 40), and inevitably TOC.


I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions. Niall’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point clearly are intuitively strongest for links courses which have few forced carriers and the contours can be fun and interesting for all. However, we have played five links courses where the back tees were more than 6500 yards (Waterville, Ballybunion Old, Lahinch, RD, and Nairn). In all five cases, there are at least four sets of tees, and the forward tees are hundreds if not more yards shorter than the back tees. The aforementioned RCD and Portrush are exceptions which is exactly why we are skipping them (based on friends’ input who are pretty strong women players).


The course in the US that we have played that comes the closest to Naill’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point is CPC. But there the front tees play over 5700 yards which is obviously long for a shorter hitter.


My point is that specifics would help.


Ira

Ira

I am not overly fussed with length of courses so long as the courses are designed with tees fairly close to greens. This type of design is conducive to uninterrupted, fast play on foot. It's fine to have a few other tees, but I would prefer the tees to be based primarily on angles. There are countless examples, but they may not be the sort folks travel to see. For the most part, there usually is a tee close to most greens for walking courses. It may involve playing different colour tees throughout the round, but that's fine by me. On old courses it's probably the case these were daily tees which are now forward tees. For generations kids and old folks played these tees. Now we have a solution to make courses not really designed for old folks and kids a ok for all. It's round peg in square hole design.

Ciao

Totally agree with Sean on the above. There's nothing more joyous (okay maybe a stretch!) than being able to walk directly off the green on the tee.


HOWEVER, this who debate is missing the point a little bit.  At the end of the day, tee markers on only really relevant for those who are playing in a comp or want to diligently take their score for handicapping purposes or whatever else.  If folks are out for a a walk and to knock a ball around, as long as there is a place to drop a tee, does any of this really matter (and I say this as a chronic scorecard populator who is always pushing myself for a lower score)?


For example, my 7 year old got golf obsessed last year playing the relief course at Montrose (Broomfield course), which frankly is probably a much better course to discuss how a beginner would play than RCD, Portrush or Pac Dunes. It's not a good course, super flat and very few hazards, inland from the main course.  It has two normal sets of tees that are only offset by a few yards on every hole.  HOWEVER, the front 9 has a set of kids tees halfway up the fairway on every hole that's perfect for his skill level.  For a bit of variety, I have him play a combination of the kids tees, regular tees and sometimes (gasp!) he just tees it up in a flat spot that's sensible for his skill level (small carry over a burn or something else interesting).  He loves to keep score but couldn't care less that he's not playing an "official" round; he's just thrilled when he can hole out a 100 yard hole in 3 shots (or in 6 on a 300 yard hole) and we tailor our approach to his skill; for example I don't make his hit it out of the high rough because he just doesn't have the strength to do it.


I suppose what I have learned is that there's nothing like playing this game with a beginner for a bit of perspective.  What I am suggesting is probably slightly blasphemous, but he has fun and if nothing else, isn't that the point?

[Sean_A]

In now five pages of posts, there have been only five courses mentioned by name: Longleaf, RD, RCD, Portrush (see my post 40), and inevitably TOC.


I suggest that specific examples of courses without forward tees that even short hitters could enjoy would be helpful versus repeating general assertions. Niall’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point clearly are intuitively strongest for links courses which have few forced carriers and the contours can be fun and interesting for all. However, we have played five links courses where the back tees were more than 6500 yards (Waterville, Ballybunion Old, Lahinch, RD, and Nairn). In all five cases, there are at least four sets of tees, and the forward tees are hundreds if not more yards shorter than the back tees. The aforementioned RCD and Portrush are exceptions which is exactly why we are skipping them (based on friends’ input who are pretty strong women players).


The course in the US that we have played that comes the closest to Naill’s, Sean’s, and Garland’s point is CPC. But there the front tees play over 5700 yards which is obviously long for a shorter hitter.


My point is that specifics would help.


Ira

Ira

I am not overly fussed with length of courses so long as the courses are designed with tees fairly close to greens. This type of design is conducive to uninterrupted, fast play on foot. It's fine to have a few other tees, but I would prefer the tees to be based primarily on angles. There are countless examples, but they may not be the sort folks travel to see. For the most part, there usually is a tee close to most greens for walking courses. It may involve playing different colour tees throughout the round, but that's fine by me. On old courses it's probably the case these were daily tees which are now forward tees. For generations kids and old folks played these tees. Now we have a solution to make courses not really designed for old folks and kids a ok for all. It's round peg in square hole design.

Ciao

Totally agree with Sean on the above. There's nothing more joyous (okay maybe a stretch!) than being able to walk directly off the green on the tee.


HOWEVER, this who debate is missing the point a little bit.  At the end of the day, tee markers on only really relevant for those who are playing in a comp or want to diligently take their score for handicapping purposes or whatever else.  If folks are out for a a walk and to knock a ball around, as long as there is a place to drop a tee, does any of this really matter (and I say this as a chronic scorecard populator who is always pushing myself for a lower score)?


For example, my 7 year old got golf obsessed last year playing the relief course at Montrose (Broomfield course), which frankly is probably a much better course to discuss how a beginner would play than RCD, Portrush or Pac Dunes. It's not a good course, super flat and very few hazards, inland from the main course.  It has two normal sets of tees that are only offset by a few yards on every hole.  HOWEVER, the front 9 has a set of kids tees halfway up the fairway on every hole that's perfect for his skill level.  For a bit of variety, I have him play a combination of the kids tees, regular tees and sometimes (gasp!) he just tees it up in a flat spot that's sensible for his skill level (small carry over a burn or something else interesting).  He loves to keep score but couldn't care less that he's not playing an "official" round; he's just thrilled when he can hole out a 100 yard hole in 3 shots (or in 6 on a 300 yard hole) and we tailor our approach to his skill; for example I don't make his hit it out of the high rough because he just doesn't have the strength to do it.


I suppose what I have learned is that there's nothing like playing this game with a beginner for a bit of perspective.  What I am suggesting is probably slightly blasphemous, but he has fun and if nothing else, isn't that the point?

Thats how I learned. Except once on a bigger course I played from the tee to a spot, an imaginary par 3. Then I would play from where my elders were for their seconds. I don't see the point in walking up a fairway without hitting a shot.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Niall,


Putting up TOC is a real straw man type of argument against most courses having tee options for all (or at least for the average among the 6-7 distinct groups of tee shot lengths, and shorter hitters in that group will still struggle, longer hitters in that group will have an advantage)  If there are 35,000 courses worldwide, there is certainly room to leave historic courses alone, let alone the most historic of all.  And, Forrest may have a better guess, but I suspect there probably aren't 350 to 700 courses worldwide with a tee set up catering to 180 and 150 hitters that let them reach all greens in regulation with good shots. 

Jeff


I'm surprised that you are suggesting TOC as a strawman. Especially as it has been highlighted as an exemplar and inspiration for good design for everyone from JL Low, Dr MacKenzie to probably any golf course architect with a website. But setting aside the historical significance of TOC, how would you propose to lay out the tees there so everyone can "reach all greens in regulation" ?


Is the issue really that rather than letting the player measure themselves against the course that instead you are trying to let them foreshorten the course to give them the opportunity to play to a notional par ? Or alternatively is it because the original design of a lot of courses precludes the weaker player from playing from the regular tees ?


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()