The Dance Between Design and Setup

[Wade Whitehead]

In the 5x Par Three thread, Tom Doak mentions the relationship between design and setup.  Par threes playing the same distance, as he points out, may simply be the result of a local crew that isn't aware of the importance of variety.

Setup can feature, or ignore, amazing pin locations.  It can push different clubs into players' hands, or it can cause them to hit the same ones over and over.

Do architects provide guidelines or suggestions on setup in some way that survives word of mouth and that might be passed on from one Superintendent to another?  Who controls setup at most courses?  What courses seem to get setup right, and which ones underachieve?

Are an architect's vision and the course constructed only as good as the day-to-day setup decision made on-site?

WW

[Tom_Doak]

Setup can make a mess of a course, obviously, but there's no need to talk about that.


Setup can also make a course much more boring and repetitive than it should be.  That could be the fault of the superintendent or assistant in charge of the setup, but nowadays it's more likely to be the fault of his bosses insisting that the course be set up consistently so that it's within the bounds of the USGA Slope System.


For example, if you have three par-3's that are all around 200 yards from the back, you could alternate and play one of them at 200 and one at 180 and one at 160, so you play all three at all three yardages over three days.  But that's way harder to do if your club has rated four different sets of tees and they want you to keep all four markers within a few yards of the plates, which is what the USGA says you're supposed to do so all their fancy numbers don't go out the window.


And, though you may not be speaking of green speed as a part of setup, giving the superintendent a speed which he's supposed to keep every day of the year severely limits the flexibility of setup and using marginal hole locations that you could otherwise use on slower days in the spring or the heat of the summer.  But, some superintendents INSIST on having a set speed to keep, so that they have a concrete standard and nobody can complain to them if they're meeting it.

[Tommy Williamsen]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the black tees are the longest tees, and the white ones are the shorter of the two. On some holes, why don't supers ever switch that? The black tees could have a 150-yard par three, while the white play at 175 yards. It would add a lot of variety.

[Thomas Dai]

With the amount of technology available these days should there be any reason why a courses set-up should change much at all? What’s on the ground can now be recorded in the smallest detail and with time the level of detail available will likely increase.
Ok there might be a deliberate change in set-up policy or a slight hole or routing re-design for some reason or another but when photos can be snapped and shared on a phone, drones can fly overhead and machines can be gps programmed there should be less scope for tweaks to happen unnoticed here and there or less arduous maintenance practices to gradually evolve.
Indeed I’ve often wondered about having smallish photos of individual holes taken not long after the hole was first opened viewable as part of the other usual signage on tees.
Atb

[Cal Carlisle]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the black tees are the longest tees, and the white ones are the shorter of the two. On some holes, why don't supers ever switch that? The black tees could have a 150-yard par three, while the white play at 175 yards. It would add a lot of variety.

I wouldn't want to be working in the pro shop that day. There'd be anger. There'd be confusion. There'd be outrage. And there'd be variety, too.

[Tommy Williamsen]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the black tees are the longest tees, and the white ones are the shorter of the two. On some holes, why don't supers ever switch that? The black tees could have a 150-yard par three, while the white play at 175 yards. It would add a lot of variety.

I wouldn't want to be working in the pro shop that day. There'd be anger. There'd be confusion. There'd be outrage. And there'd be variety, too.

I think that might be true at a country club. I’m not sure that would be true at golf clubs.

[Joe_Tucholski]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the black tees are the longest tees, and the white ones are the shorter of the two. On some holes, why don't supers ever switch that? The black tees could have a 150-yard par three, while the white play at 175 yards. It would add a lot of variety.

This is the answer right?

they want you to keep all four markers within a few yards of the plates, which is what the USGA says you're supposed to do so all their fancy numbers don't go out the window.

 
I will also add that the same length doesn't bother me as much if the shots play differently.  A downhill 150 yard par 3 is very different than an uphill 150 yard par 3.

[Kyle Harris]

I once heard/read that you get +/- 26 yards from the yardage plate before moving the Course Rating a tenth of a stroke so day-to-day variety on individual holes should rarely be an issue.

However, there is also the idea that the total yardage should play similar each day and that's where the lack of variety can add up.

My setup rule is that the back tees for each segment of the population on one of the Par 3s should be forward of the forward tee for each segment of the population on another. Any other holes can fall where they may.

Don't discount the hole location either as the recommendation is that a tee playing shorter that day should be accompanied by a hole location at the back of the putting green.

That recomendation is pure rubbish yet it exists in black and white in the USGA Handicap Manual.

It's high time to subvert Dean Knuth's attempt at turning all amateur golf into a controlled data set!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,


As an extreme example, I once designed a hole with a 100 yard tee and 60 yard deep green, thinking that the 400 yard hole might play from <300 to >500 yards.  Before it even opened, the then pro told me they would always coordinate the tee and pin placements to make sure the hole played as advertised on the scorecard.


And players expressed a fondness for coordinating all pins and tees so each hole always played the same distance so they wouldn't have to bother figuring out which clubs to hit.  I'm not sure Dean Knuth is responsible for that line of thinking.

[Jason Topp]

My course has very similar length par 4s and par 3s but with wind and a proper setup plenty of variety can be created.  With thoughtless setup it gets pretty repetitive.  They have done a great job this year.  Other years not so much.


I don't think the USGA ratings should have any impact on a course's ability to create variety through setup.  If one tee is 30 yards up, put another 30 yards back.  Evenly distribute pin positions front, middle and back.  The playing yardage is the same as contemplated by the course rating.

[Sean_A]

Or, we could not be overly concerned about the total yardage simply to satisfy a subjective test measurement criteria. Everytime I read about this kind of thing it makes me wonder why people think handicapping is that important or that accurate. To me its mostly smoke and mirrors. Courses should be set up to create variety, not meet a theoretical test of challenge and handicapping fairness.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think the USGA ratings should have any impact on a course's ability to create variety through setup.

They shouldn’t, but somehow they do.  When I was in Ireland and Scotland this past month, a couple of people mentioned that their clubs were being pressured to build new tees because there wasn’t enough distance between them on some holes as recommended by the Slope System.  They spoke as of the had to do this in order to be rated!  It sounded shady to me.  Has anyone run into this, and what’s it about?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think the USGA ratings should have any impact on a course's ability to create variety through setup.

They shouldn’t, but somehow they do.  When I was in Ireland and Scotland this past month, a couple of people mentioned that their clubs were being pressured to build new tees because there wasn’t enough distance between them on some holes as recommended by the Slope System.  They spoke as of the had to do this in order to be rated!  It sounded shady to me.  Has anyone run into this, and what’s it about?

I haven’t heard of that. I’m in the process of removing one set of tees at Strandhill because there was only 200 yards between the back two sets. But I never heard of pressure to increase that gap if I was to recommend keeping both sets, at least not for slope system reasons.


I do know that the system requires the markers of the day to be within a certain yardage of the marked plates in order for that course to be considered “legal”.

[Carl Johnson]

Regarding setting tees and interface the slope/rating system.  Regardless of what the USGA slope/ratings are for different tees, day in and day out for ordinary (non-tournament play) golfers can choose whatever tees they wish for any hole.  Back tees for #1, middle for #2, and so on.  Vary the par 3s so they're not all from the same tee.  The only trick is that for posting purposes, you post as if you'd played all holes from the longest of the tees you played.  Or, as I understand it, the course should have the ratings for each tee for each hole.  Get those figures from the club and construct a precise rating/slope for the course you make up, and post based on that number.  You should be able to do that.  Please correct me if I'm wrong (or out of date).

[Kyle Harris]

I don't think the USGA ratings should have any impact on a course's ability to create variety through setup.

They shouldn’t, but somehow they do.  When I was in Ireland and Scotland this past month, a couple of people mentioned that their clubs were being pressured to build new tees because there wasn’t enough distance between them on some holes as recommended by the Slope System.  They spoke as of the had to do this in order to be rated!  It sounded shady to me.  Has anyone run into this, and what’s it about?

I suspect this is one faction within the club trying to justify their own dedicated tees for the purpose of not being associated with other users.

At one of my former places of employ there were two sets of tee markers that averaged out to less than two club-length's difference per hole. One group was, you guessed it, senior men. The other group was a group that senior men likely don't want to be seen playing the same tees as...

I usually just placed them right next to each other.

[Ira Fishman]

I don't think the USGA ratings should have any impact on a course's ability to create variety through setup.

They shouldn’t, but somehow they do.  When I was in Ireland and Scotland this past month, a couple of people mentioned that their clubs were being pressured to build new tees because there wasn’t enough distance between them on some holes as recommended by the Slope System.  They spoke as of the had to do this in order to be rated!  It sounded shady to me.  Has anyone run into this, and what’s it about?

I suspect this is one faction within the club trying to justify their own dedicated tees for the purpose of not being associated with other users.

At one of my former places of employ there were two sets of tee markers that averaged out to less than two club-length's difference per hole. One group was, you guessed it, senior men. The other group was a group that senior men likely don't want to be seen playing the same tees as...

I usually just placed them right next to each other.

Kyle,


That is great. I hope that you let the women in on what you were doing.

[Carl Johnson]

From Kyle Harris, above: "At one of my former places of employ there were two sets of tee markers that averaged out to less than two club-length's difference per hole. One group was, you guessed it, senior men. The other group was a group that senior men likely don't want to be seen playing the same tees as . . . ."

Solution: at my club (par 71) we don't have women's tees and senior tees (or men's tees, for that matter).  We four colors, front to back: green (5688), white (6300), blue (6675), black (7068).  My men's "senior" group ranges in age from late 70s to early 80s.  We don't play the women's tees; rather, most of us play the green tees.  So do most women.