[Niall C]

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

Ira


If you accept that the challenge for you will be different to the guy who can hit his drives 300 yards, then there are a ton of courses out there. I think it was you that mentioned Elie on another thread. How far down the fairway did you walk there to hit your drives ?


The question is, if the tee is half-way down the fairway and there is nothing by way of an obstacle between the regular tee and the Longleaf tee, why would you want to walk down to that tee without hitting a ball ? Of course if you are in a golf cart.........


Niall


ps. next time you're over here let me know and I'll make some suggestions on courses you might like to play, and if possible, happy to join you

[A.G._Crockett]

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

It is stating the obvious (again!) to point out that 99+% of golf is walking without hitting a shot.  You have simply chosen to draw an arbitrary line in the sand about where one tees up before their next walk without hitting a shot. The issue of how far the back tee of the next hole is from the previous green is an absolute red herring of the first order; not only do we all agree that close proximity of green-to-tee is highly desirable, but regardless of where one tees up, the entire length of the hole has to be walked anyway.  Move on…


As best I can tell, the objection (by you AND others) to multiple tees is simply a “good old days” approach because that’s how YOU started playing the game.  That seems to outweigh everything else.


But the ship has sailed, fortunately, and more yardage options have made the game more attractive to more players.  That trend is only growing with the inclusion of hybrid tees that have no cost involved.

[Niall C]

It is stating the obvious (again!) to point out that 99+% of golf is walking without hitting a shot.  You have simply chosen to draw an arbitrary line in the sand about where one tees up before their next walk without hitting a shot. The issue of how far the back tee of the next hole is from the previous green is an absolute red herring of the first order; not only do we all agree that close proximity of green-to-tee is highly desirable, but regardless of where one tees up, the entire length of the hole has to be walked anyway.  Move on…

Would it also be stating the obvious to say that players who are walking prefer a short walk from the green to the next tee ? And who's talking about the back tees anyway ?


Niall

[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

It is stating the obvious (again!) to point out that 99+% of golf is walking without hitting a shot.  You have simply chosen to draw an arbitrary line in the sand about where one tees up before their next walk without hitting a shot. The issue of how far the back tee of the next hole is from the previous green is an absolute red herring of the first order; not only do we all agree that close proximity of green-to-tee is highly desirable, but regardless of where one tees up, the entire length of the hole has to be walked anyway.  Move on…


As best I can tell, the objection (by you AND others) to multiple tees is simply a “good old days” approach because that’s how YOU started playing the game.  That seems to outweigh everything else.


But the ship has sailed, fortunately, and more yardage options have made the game more attractive to more players.  That trend is only growing with the inclusion of hybrid tees that have no cost involved.

Arbitrary? Its very well defined. I don't know about you, but once I hit the first shot on a hole I am engaged....thinking about my next shot, the lie, the opponent's situation etc. It is far better to have less non-engaged time between shots. That is a clear distinction than just walking dozens if not a hundred, and you are suggesting hundreds of yards to the next tee. But hey, keep asking for cart golf and that is exactly what you will get. It isn't a coincidence that spread out courses lend themselves to carts. Its no wonder the US is a cart heavy golf country with the alternative of a terrible walk. Spreading tees and long distances between greens and tees are part and parcel of the same issue. I would say on average, at most 50 yards should be the dead walk. So 900 yards dead walk overall. Roughly that number should be the target when courses are being designed. They way you guys talk, that number would be covered in about four holes! The short walks are part of what makes classic courses classic. I don't think ship of what makes classic courses so well loved has sailed. Far from it. 


Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Leaning heavily on could there, given that they're reaching the green in five or six after what may be four swings in a row with one of the toughest clubs to hit (fairway wood off the ground).

The question is, if the tee is half-way down the fairway and there is nothing by way of an obstacle between the regular tee and the Longleaf tee, why would you want to walk down to that tee without hitting a ball ? Of course if you are in a golf cart....

Why do you keep trying to tie it to a golf cart? As AG said, you're going to have to walk that distance anyway… whether you've played a shot or not, and you keep acting like the act of hitting a ball while you walk makes that walk enjoyable.

What if most of that walk is through the rough, because they don't need the fairway to start 20 yards in front of the back tee?

What if most of that walk, if you hit a ball, would just frustrate and annoy, as you'd be hitting several fairway woods just to cover the extra distance?The simple act of hitting a golf ball isn't always enjoyable. Hitting meaningful shots often does; hitting shots just to cover a distance doesn't.

There's a disc golf course "architect" named John Houck who calls some types of shots "NAGS." That stands for "Not A Golf Shot." Basically, it's a golf shot where there's no meaningful separation to be had - in disc golf, a 450-foot hole often leaves players 100-150 feet. It's too far to consider making it, and a pretty easy throw to just lay it under the basket, so it's "not a golf shot." It's just a boring "upshot." (Their term for your approach or a layup so that you can make your next shot - "putting" is much easier in disc golf.)

The short hitter who is playing the back tees faces a lot of NAGS throughout their round. That's boring. It's not exciting. It's frustrating.Imagine you standing on the tee of a 950-yard par five. Driver. Fairway wood. Fairway wood. Fairway wood. Long iron/hybrid. SO FUN!

[A.G._Crockett]

Whatever it is that makes classic courses great, it isn’t a lack of teeing options, even if that’s still true of a given course.  Likewise, whatever makes a great modern course great, that isn’t an abundance of teeing options, either. These are silly arguments that have little or nothing to do with GCA.


You guys should run an experiment.  Get a bunch of old guys (65+) that still walk at your club and that are good players to play the first tee they come to on each hole, which is, of course generally going to be the back tee, and record their comments as they play.  Then have them play from farther up, say 6200 yds or less, and record how many times they complain about the walk forward without hitting a shot.  The results will be pretty lopsided, I think, and that’s GOOD players. 


I’ll be 70 in a few weeks, and I walk most rounds with other old guys who are also walking.  I play the 3rd set of tees at our club (6000 yds); some of the guys I play with play one more set forward, and some play a hybrid set. (A few of the old guys play the second set; none of them play the back!)  I promise you that the next time I hear somebody talk negatively about not hitting a shot until they get to their tees, I WILL post it here!


Of course, that won’t happen, because it’s not a real thing; it’s only a weird construct on this site by guys with a weird agenda.

[Sean_A]

Whatever it is that makes classic courses great, it isn’t a lack of teeing options, even if that’s still true of a given course.  Likewise, whatever makes a great modern course great, that isn’t an abundance of teeing options, either. These are silly arguments that have little or nothing to do with GCA.


You guys should run an experiment.  Get a bunch of old guys (65+) that still walk at your club and that are good players to play the first tee they come to on each hole, which is, of course generally going to be the back tee, and record their comments as they play.  Then have them play from farther up, say 6200 yds or less, and record how many times they complain about the walk forward without hitting a shot.  The results will be pretty lopsided, I think, and that’s GOOD players. 


I’ll be 70 in a few weeks, and I walk most rounds with other old guys who are also walking.  I play the 3rd set of tees at our club (6000 yds); some of the guys I play with play one more set forward, and some play a hybrid set. (A few of the old guys play the second set; none of them play the back!)  I promise you that the next time I hear somebody talk negatively about not hitting a shot until they get to their tees, I WILL post it here!


Of course, that won’t happen, because it’s not a real thing; it’s only a weird construct on this site by guys with a weird agenda.

Nope. Almost all back tees on courses I play have walk backs. Cuz you know, I play mostly classic courses.

Ciao

[Niall C]

AG


What Sean said re back tees.


Also, the example you gave of going from 6,200 yards to 6,000 yards is just over 10 yards per hole. You can lose that when they move the tee about on the tee box. The Longleaf tee system on the other hand has tees half way down the hole just about. Not the same thing.


Niall

[Niall C]

The question is, if the tee is half-way down the fairway and there is nothing by way of an obstacle between the regular tee and the Longleaf tee, why would you want to walk down to that tee without hitting a ball ? Of course if you are in a golf cart....

Why do you keep trying to tie it to a golf cart? As AG said, you're going to have to walk that distance anyway… whether you've played a shot or not, and you keep acting like the act of hitting a ball while you walk makes that walk enjoyable.

That was my first reference to a golf cart. And yes "playing" 200 yards is much more enjoyable than purely walking 200 yards. It's the same reasoning that most architects will route a hole up a hill rather than have a long uphill walk to the next tee. How dispiriting is it to be faced with a trek to the next tee when instead that distance could be covered by playing golf.

What if most of that walk is through the rough, because they don't need the fairway to start 20 yards in front of the back tee?

Who's talking about the back tee ?

What if most of that walk, if you hit a ball, would just frustrate and annoy, as you'd be hitting several fairway woods just to cover the extra distance?The simple act of hitting a golf ball isn't always enjoyable. Hitting meaningful shots often does; hitting shots just to cover a distance doesn't.

What makes a shot meaningful ? All strokes count the same. And I come back to the point, what is more frustrating, having a trek to the next tee or the opportunity to play some enjoyable and engaging golf ? Of course the onus is on the gca to design the hole so that it can be engaging for all, which brings us full circle to the points I was making at the start about forced carries etc.

There's a disc golf course "architect" named John Houck who calls some types of shots "NAGS." That stands for "Not A Golf Shot." Basically, it's a golf shot where there's no meaningful separation to be had - in disc golf, a 450-foot hole often leaves players 100-150 feet. It's too far to consider making it, and a pretty easy throw to just lay it under the basket, so it's "not a golf shot." It's just a boring "upshot." (Their term for your approach or a layup so that you can make your next shot - "putting" is much easier in disc golf.)

The short hitter who is playing the back tees faces a lot of NAGS throughout their round. That's boring. It's not exciting. It's frustrating.Imagine you standing on the tee of a 950-yard par five. Driver. Fairway wood. Fairway wood. Fairway wood. Long iron/hybrid. SO FUN!

Imagine this, walking down a fairway with some lovely undulations and perhaps a flanking fairway bunker or some other hazard at the side of the fairway, the sort of stuff that makes golf interesting and engaging, and you've walked by all that and then tee'd your ball up half way down the fairway !

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That was my first reference to a golf cart.

Sorry. Must have been someone else mentioning golf carts a few times.

And yes "playing" 200 yards is much more enjoyable than purely walking 200 yards.

No, it isn't. Gee, I like this form of arguing! You just get to assert what you want as a fact even though you have no clue!

Sorry, no, my daughter at age nine would NOT have enjoyed the extra five shots it may have taken her to cover the yardage I let her move up.

It's the same reasoning that most architects will route a hole up a hill rather than have a long uphill walk to the next tee. How dispiriting is it to be faced with a trek to the next tee when instead that distance could be covered by playing golf.

Ummmm, no. And you don't "play golf" in covering that 200 yards. You're still just walking. You play golf in one spot at a time.

Who's talking about the back tee ?

It's been said that the tiger and the rabbit should both play from the same tees. The tiger is likely playing the back tees, no?

What makes a shot meaningful?

Not just "covering ground" for the sake of covering ground.

All strokes count the same. And I come back to the point, what is more frustrating, having a trek to the next tee

You have to cover that ground anyway! And most golfers I know would rather walk forward to play that tee than to have to cover it while hitting a bunch of the hardest to hit clubs in their bag while taking more than the par on the hole just to get near the green.

or the opportunity to play some enjoyable and engaging golf ?

Pray tell what is "engaging" about having to hit four fairway woods in a row to get near the green on a par four?

Imagine this, walking down a fairway with some lovely undulations and perhaps a flanking fairway bunker or some other hazard at the side of the fairway

Dude. A 100-yard tee shot player playing a hole with a 200-yard carry to the fairway isn't "walking down a fairway with some lovely undulations and perhaps a flanking fairway bunker."

the sort of stuff that makes golf interesting and engaging, and you've walked by all that and then tee'd your ball up half way down the fairway !

Talk about putting words in people's mouths.

Yes, my daughter, when she could drive the ball about 80 yards, would tee up down the fairway. Because golf is not very fun when you're hitting the ball seven times just to get near the green.

[Garland Bayley]

Whatever it is that makes classic courses great, it isn’t a lack of teeing options, even if that’s still true of a given course.  Likewise, whatever makes a great modern course great, that isn’t an abundance of teeing options, either. These are silly arguments that have little or nothing to do with GCA.


You guys should run an experiment.  Get a bunch of old guys (65+) that still walk at your club and that are good players to play the first tee they come to on each hole, which is, of course generally going to be the back tee, and record their comments as they play.  Then have them play from farther up, say 6200 yds or less, and record how many times they complain about the walk forward without hitting a shot.  The results will be pretty lopsided, I think, and that’s GOOD players. 


I’ll be 70 in a few weeks, and I walk most rounds with other old guys who are also walking.  I play the 3rd set of tees at our club (6000 yds); some of the guys I play with play one more set forward, and some play a hybrid set. (A few of the old guys play the second set; none of them play the back!)  I promise you that the next time I hear somebody talk negatively about not hitting a shot until they get to their tees, I WILL post it here!


Of course, that won’t happen, because it’s not a real thing; it’s only a weird construct on this site by guys with a weird agenda.

A. G., dare I suggest your proposal is somewhat worthless. You are proposing it at time when the primary example of golf for all to see is these professional players making obscene amounts of money playing stroke play. And, the so called guardians of the game are preaching a tee it forward philosophy, because they are at a loss at trying to find a way to get players to play in a timely fashion given that their prime example is pro men taking 5 hours to play a round and pro women taking 6 hours to play a round of golf.

Transport yourself back to the Old Tom Morris time, where everyone played match play. Where Tom's big money matches were played match play, and where medal play was this odd ball thing created to carry out the rare tournament amongst a few "professional" players. And, where golf was played by all by teeing up a ball next to the hole just completed. Now pose the question, would you hear anyone of the players say they would enjoy the game more if they could just go forward 50 yards and hit their tee shot from there so they could better compete with their longer hitting opponent. I would suggest you would not hear such a suggestion in that situation, because the whole golf culture opposes it. And, you seem to suggest you are right, because you would not hear your suggested suggestion given the golf culture that exists today.

I would think you would be more supportive of a match play approach where opponents trade attempts back and forth much like how a basketball game proceeds with opponents trading attempts back and forth. The sterile medal play progress where each person plods along accumulating points (strokes) with no clear timely indication of how the result might come about until near the end of four hours of play would seem to be counter to your previous professional occupation.

Perhaps the advance of the implements, grounds, training, etc. in golf has created so many talented golfers that it has drained all strategy out of match play to the point where the whole strategy in match play for good golfers is now to simply make the lowest score on each hole. This would be opposed to a Bayley/Braley GRUDGE match where there is strategy within each hole depending on how the opponent has screwed up or excelled either leading to safe plays or daring plays on the shots taken along the way.

PUT MORE SPIN BACK INTO THE BALL and LESS FORGIVENESS IN THE CLUBS! Give these highly skilled players a chance to have their ball go spinning of into nether land! 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG


What Sean said re back tees.


Also, the example you gave of going from 6,200 yards to 6,000 yards is just over 10 yards per hole. You can lose that when they move the tee about on the tee box. The Longleaf tee system on the other hand has tees half way down the hole just about. Not the same thing.


Niall

Once again, you are responding to something that I never wrote.  I play tees that are 6000 yds.  My hypothetical for you suggested tees at 6200 or less, which would include the tees I play.  You just didn’t bother to read carefully.


Fwiw, most hybrid tee sets do NOT take off an equal number of yards per hole. Typically, the more forward set is used for holes that have a very large gap between the sets.  At my club, the 7th hole has a 100 yd difference because of a creek, and the 14th has an 70 yd difference because of a pond. But on many of the holes, the difference is minimal. 


I love match play, especially four ball. I play every inter club match that I can, and every match play club tournament that I can.  But again, just as with the bizarre concept of “dead walks”, match play vs stroke play is just an irrational red herring in a discussion of teeing options.


Teeing options are about giving more golfers of different skill levels and abilities a better chance of enjoying the game.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When arguments against the game being more enjoyable for more people have to be concocted out of imaginary (and silly!) constructs, one wonders what the real agenda is.


I’m done here; this is a silly discussion. Longleaf is an excellent golf course, and the teeing options there, while unique, are meant to make the course “user friendly” for all ages and skill levels.  The course stays VERY busy in one of the toughest public golf markets on the planet, so it would appear that the teeing options “debate” isn’t really a debate there at all.


Or anywhere else, except here…

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And, where golf was played by all by teeing up a ball next to the hole just completed.

Golf was also played by like 12 people back then.

If you want to drastically shrink the game, then yes, I'll tell my (then) seven-year-old daughter to play a 440-yard par four. She'll have quit the game by the time she gets to the first green.

Maybe it's blasphemy, but I tell my beginner players to do things like this:

• Throw the ball out of bunkers if they don't want to play from them.
• Tee the ball up everywhere.
• Pick up whenever they're "done" with the hole, and by "done" I mean holed out OR they've just had enough.

Golf's a game and you're in here arguing that there should be one, maybe two set of tees? For casual, recreational players? It's like the freaking Twilight Zone.

Now pose the question, would you hear anyone of the players say they would enjoy the game more if they could just go forward 50 yards and hit their tee shot from there so they could better compete with their longer hitting opponent.

It's not about "competing." It's about enjoyment. Hitting several fairway woods in a row just to get near a par four in five shots is not fun for players.

Whether they're a beginner who rarely hit it solidly, or they're just young or old or physically disabled or something, staring at a 440-yard par four would make many of them just up and quit. "This isn't fun, it's too hard." And they wouldn't be wrong.

It has nothing to do with "match play" or "stroke play." Beginning golfers aren't often really doing either. They count their strokes maybe so they can see if they beat their all-time score, or so they can say "wow, I made two bogeys today." I have known golfers who keep score by putting a smiley face or a frowny face on each hole depending on whether they felt good or bad about it.

The sterile medal play progress where each person plods along accumulating points (strokes) with no clear timely indication of how the result might come about until near the end of four hours of play would seem to be counter to your previous professional occupation.

This has nothing to do with "medal play."

It has everything to do with a seven-year-old thinking "gee, this stinks" and quitting the game because it took her seven swings to get near the green so she can finally hit something other than a driver or fairway wood because some idiot on a forum thought she should play the "tiger tees" along with everyone else.

Teeing options are about giving more golfers of different skill levels and abilities a better chance of enjoying the game.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When arguments against the game being more enjoyable for more people have to be concocted out of imaginary (and silly!) constructs, one wonders what the real agenda is.

I’m done here; this is a silly discussion. Longleaf is an excellent golf course, and the teeing options there, while unique, are meant to make the course “user friendly” for all ages and skill levels.  The course stays VERY busy in one of the toughest public golf markets on the planet, so it would appear that the teeing options “debate” isn’t really a debate there at all.

Well said.

[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

Ira


If you accept that the challenge for you will be different to the guy who can hit his drives 300 yards, then there are a ton of courses out there. I think it was you that mentioned Elie on another thread. How far down the fairway did you walk there to hit your drives ?


The question is, if the tee is half-way down the fairway and there is nothing by way of an obstacle between the regular tee and the Longleaf tee, why would you want to walk down to that tee without hitting a ball ? Of course if you are in a golf cart.........


Niall


ps. next time you're over here let me know and I'll make some suggestions on courses you might like to play, and if possible, happy to join you

Niall,


First, many thanks for the invitation. I hope to be able to take you up on it.


Second, Elie is an illustrative case. I played it from around 6000 yards, and the forward tees for my wife were around just 250 yards shorter. As a then 62 year old with an average 200 yard drive, it was a great length for enjoyment especially because it was firm. I emphasize enjoyment because I don't keep score. My wife enjoyed the day because of the setting and the contours, but would have enjoyed it more if the yardage was less, particularly on the longer par 4s. She does keep score, but I don't think it was an especially good or bad day for her on the scorecard. Her evaluation of a course is based on enjoyment, not score.


Third, so I agree with A.G. and Erik that the crucial issue is players of all abilities enjoying a course. I think it is an unreasonable expectation to ask architects to meet the enjoyment criterion without having varying tee lengths.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Architecturally speaking, did Dr Mac's creative process and countless design decisions and opening day golf course at Augusta National, where he knew beforehand that there'd be only 2 sets of tees, Championship and Regular, differ at all from C&C's experience when they were working on Sand Valley, knowing from the start that they'd have at least 6 sets of tees there? It's hard for me to imagine that modern day architects don't think differently about their craft and about what a golf course can and should be than their golden age predecessors did, when striving to make their designs playable and enjoyable and challenging for tigers and rabbits both despite the 'limitation' of so few sets of tees.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I love match play, especially four ball. I play every inter club match that I can, and every match play club tournament that I can.  But again, just as with the bizarre concept of “dead walks”, match play vs stroke play is just an irrational red herring in a discussion of teeing options.
...

Hardly a red herring! Stroke play brings in the concept of reaching greens in regulation, which is a primary justification for multiple tees. Match play for the average golfer is concerned with how one stands against against the opponent after each stroke. If you reduce the number of strokes to play a hole, you take away part of the back and forth between the opponents.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hardly a red herring! Stroke play brings in the concept of reaching greens in regulation, which is a primary justification for multiple tees. Match play for the average golfer is concerned with how one stands against against the opponent after each stroke. If you reduce the number of strokes to play a hole, you take away part of the back and forth between the opponents.

All competitions are red herrings. It's not about competitions. It's about enjoyment. It's not all that enjoyable to take seven shots to reach the green, six of which are with driver or fairway woods.

[Ken Moum]

...
I love match play, especially four ball. I play every inter club match that I can, and every match play club tournament that I can.  But again, just as with the bizarre concept of “dead walks”, match play vs stroke play is just an irrational red herring in a discussion of teeing options.
...

Hardly a red herring! Stroke play brings in the concept of reaching greens in regulation, which is a primary justification for multiple tees. Match play for the average golfer is concerned with how one stands against against the opponent after each stroke. If you reduce the number of strokes to play a hole, you take away part of the back and forth between the opponents.

Garland,  par has no more relevance in stroke play than in match play...speaking of red herrings.


Calling a 510-yard hole a par four in the US Open doesn't affect the competition one bit. The player with the lowest score still wins.


Erik is right. I play courses ~5400 because an endless procession of fairway wood shots is not only boring but physically exhausting.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I love match play, especially four ball. I play every inter club match that I can, and every match play club tournament that I can.  But again, just as with the bizarre concept of “dead walks”, match play vs stroke play is just an irrational red herring in a discussion of teeing options.
...

Hardly a red herring! Stroke play brings in the concept of reaching greens in regulation, which is a primary justification for multiple tees. Match play for the average golfer is concerned with how one stands against against the opponent after each stroke. If you reduce the number of strokes to play a hole, you take away part of the back and forth between the opponents.

Garland,  par has no more relevance in stroke play than in match play...speaking of red herrings.

Would you not agree that par and "reaching greens in regulation" has an effect on whether multiple tees are added or not? When playing match play, it is what your opponent is doing that matters, and reaching the green in a prescribed number of strokes has no bearing.

Calling a 510-yard hole a par four in the US Open doesn't affect the competition one bit. The player with the lowest score still wins.


Erik is right. I play courses ~5400 because an endless procession of fairway wood shots is not only boring but physically exhausting.

I can understand the exhausting bit. After her husband passed away, I partnered with the 90 year old wife of the couple that sponsored my membership at the club in a weekly alternate shot competition colloquially known as "hit and giggle". She had moved up to the most forward tees when playing on her own ball, because so many swings were exhausting. Her conteporaries resisted moving forward.

When it comes to whether it is boring to hit repeated fairway woods, that is a matter of personal opinion. I have played a group named the "codgers" at the club that come out every week day to hit repeated fairway woods throughout the round, and undoubtedly play faster than Erik.

[Jeff_Brauer]

... 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.

Garland,


No, it is not a joke.  Unfortunately, I can't come up with where I got that, so I won't argue too hard, but it was an industry study from folks who had a financial stake in keeping golf popular.  I don't recall the breadth of the survey, but I bet their sample size exceeds those few players you use in your anecdotes.  Yes, players as you describe are out there, but I doubt your sample is representative.  And, for any anecdote you can come up with, I and others can come up with a reverse.  Checking my golf bag yesterday at the airport, the counter guy said he tried golf, but was so terrible he gave it up.  And I can recall dozens or more of similar conversations over the years.


Lastly, I have seen new research that is not published just yet that shows that golfers really prefer multiple tee options, and I know that sample size beats either of our personal grab bags of stories and anecdotes.


Besides, even in match play, while I agree there can be fun to be had regardless of score, anyone designing or buying/building/renovating a course must ask what is the optimal design for fun.  The par 4 is the most used hole in golf because every shot is interesting.  The tee shot sets up the possibility of success (in degrees, which is perfect set up) and the approach shot sets up possible putting success.  The first putt is either successful for birdie, a guarantee of par because it is so close, or a failure that loses the hole.  There is no way around the fact that a middle shot that doesn't set up the approach is not as much fun as a shot that "counts more" towards a score, whether that is the true three shot par 5, or the par 6+ most courses set up for average players.

[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. 

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

Not totally sure what you are getting at.  My strawman argument was that out of 35K courses worldwide, perhaps the top 350 to even 3500 probably should be left alone for historic reasons, including minimizing the number of forward tees.  There are plenty of golfers who will play a historic course despite it being too tough for them.  And, TOC, with a lot of random hazards might be one of the easier ones to actually just add tees and have something of interest in most locations.  On more modern built courses, finances usually dictate fewer hazards targeted to zones that will see the most play.  That said, I do recall (and I think Tom Doak has told a similar story) talking with the TOC super who admitted that over the centuries plenty of bunkers (no, not a very scientific term) were removed, although that is getting a bit off subject.


And even if Mac and others speak of its strategic concepts being among the best, I don't recall the writings of that age, or even many modern architects' websites, talking about strategy for others than top players, with most designs merely accommodating the rest.  You can read my previous response regarding challenging the course rather than par, i.e., no matter how you cut it, the tee shot to the fw, the approach shot to the green, and the first putt are the most interesting shots on a hole, with recovery shots being equally interesting when one of the first two goes awry.  Making forward progress with in between shots is just inherently boring, so it is not that illogical to try to minimize them for players if you can, and the least expensive and easiest way to do that is build forward tees.  Hazards are more expensive and really don't affect a wide spectrum of players, no matter where they are placed, making additional hazards a low value feature in most modern designs.

[Ken Moum]

One of the things unmentioned in this thread is the "problem" of elevated tees. IMHO at some point, teeing grounds on flat courses began getting higher, apparently to "help" players get their ball airborne.


Now, if you place forward markers out in the fairway the people they're intended for feel slighted.


And of course, there's also the problem of additional mower obstacles in the fairway.


FWIW,  R&R makes markers for fairway that can be mowed over. They'd need some without the yards marked on them, however.

[A.G._Crockett]

Hardly a red herring! Stroke play brings in the concept of reaching greens in regulation, which is a primary justification for multiple tees. Match play for the average golfer is concerned with how one stands against against the opponent after each stroke. If you reduce the number of strokes to play a hole, you take away part of the back and forth between the opponents.

All competitions are red herrings. It's not about competitions. It's about enjoyment. It's not all that enjoyable to take seven shots to reach the green, six of which are with driver or fairway woods.

Correct, and I suspect that two things are true about this. 


First, the VAST majority of rounds aren’t competitions of ANY kind; it’s just people out looking for fresh air and enjoyment.


But to whatever extent there ARE “competitions”, other than formal tournament play, it’s more than two people, and often more than one group, with the club points/skins game being the most common.


Yesterday at my club, we had 19 guys in one of the old men’s regular games.  The ages ranged from around 50 to 86 years young, the course handicaps ranged from 4 to 14, and there were 4 different sets of tees in play.  We counted two net and one gross score from each group, with a front/back/overall $6 bet; my group only had three, so we drew a mystery player at random for our 4th score.


The 86 year old plays the front tees, and his group won $4 each; I didn’t hear a single person complain about him playing from 4200 yds; hell, we all hope to be like him someday!  About half the guys walk; no complaints about “dead walks” again yesterday (not surprising, since that’s not a real thing anyway). The 86 year old rifles and has a handicapped flag for his cart; again, no complaints.


After the last group came in, we sat around for nearly an hour, settling up, having cold beers, and just BSing like old guys do.  It was great fun in every respect, and it’s a scene repeated at every club I know of.  Just a bunch of guys trying to have fun, compete a bit, and enjoy each other’s company.  If you don’t have something similar as part of your golf life, I’m sorry for you; it’s THE best part IMO.


And, of course, the whole thing is based around stroke play from whatever set of tees each player chooses; we have 5 sets with 4 hybrid options on a 1966 George Cobb course that John Lafoy renovated in 1999, and that’s good enough to have just hosted the CGA Senior Championship last month.  The course was built to be walked; Lafoy put in the 5 tees, and the club has added the hybrid sets because it’s just smart business at no cost. The club GM is the son of course owners, played professionally, and has been a head professional as well; he knows the realities of the business as well as anyone I’ve ever met. 


Match play, as much as I love the format, would be impossible with even two foursomes, much less five, which is why most “competitions” at clubs  are points/skins games. Always have been, always will be.


None of this has squat to do with GCA, and insisting that it does doesn’t make it so. It does, however, reflect real life and the way the game is played.

[Garland Bayley]

...
First, the VAST majority of rounds aren’t competitions of ANY kind; it’s just people out looking for fresh air and enjoyment.
...

I suspect you are using a different definition of competition than I am. My observation is that the VAST majority of rounds are competitions. When I play with friends, there is always a nassau or skins game. When I find a time to get out on my own outside our regular game, I get slotted in with another group who usually have some kind of gambling game going on, and invite me to join in. These are competitions, and they are usually based on match play results.
I would be surprised if the same didn't go in in GA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I just saw an article in the USGA Green Section Record on the new USGA Distance Insights initiative, which they are revealing slowly this summer.  In light of the exchange between Garland and someone else regarding whether there is competition on a typical daily round, their survey identified that only 2% of golfers play for fun, not keeping score and not competing with others.  Most others do compete informally and cordially (I assume.....)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()