[Thomas Dai]

Thomas Dai brought up the practice of having a lower-spec women's course. If we wanted to go back to that, my only change would be not having it be "lower-spec", rather just shorter. I think it should be equally well-designed and maintained.

I certainly did mention lower spec in relation to women’s course, but the reference was historical, ie how things often used to be. I wouldn’t go with such now. I wouldn’t have back then either. Equally well designed and conditioned for sure.
Taking matters further is there grounds (pun not intended) with more and more space and resource limitations yet more wanting to play for converting 18-holes courses, especially ones in more urban areas, into two 9-hole courses?
Both lengths equally well designed and conditioned but one considerably longer than the other, the other the being considerably shorter, ie use the land saved from the shorter to extend the longer.
Okay it would make the game more 9-hole orientated but that might not be a bad thing given how long 18-holes is frequently taking to play these days especially at more congested venues.
Just another thought to add to the great mixture that is the discussion of golf.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


I made it sound like only the new generation wants more amenities, but in reality, 12 year old me immediately knew the difference between the country club I was an occasional guest at and the muni I played more regularly, and even then, I knew I wanted to play the better courses.  Granted, I may have had more interest in architecture than most golfers, but still, we all want nice places that don't just kill our golf game.


I have a bit of an ongoing discussion with a golf biz guy, who says any course with a slope rating over the average of 116 will be a money loser, as golfers eventually gravitate to closer, cheaper, and easier (but not too easy) courses.  I understand the premise but argue the details. My contention is that in a big city with many CCFAD's built in the last 40 years, that the average slope will probably be 120-125.  Golfers basically want to play where they can approximately shoot their normal score, not a lot more and even not a lot a whole lot less, either, at least on a consistent basis.

[Sean_A]

Courses need to be built with a bit tighter demographic in mind. One size fits all stuff is a fantasy.

I'm curious what this would mean. Should someone be building a 4200-yard Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Dismal clone and a 4200-yard Oakland Hills clone etc?

Essentially, yes. I am not sure why we can't build compelling courses for a short hitting demographic. I can see 4500-5500 courses that could appeal to a large percentage of the market. Things seem to be loosening up as to what is proper golf. There must be lots of good properties relatively near urban areas which don't work for 6000-7000, but could work for much shorter courses. Even 9 holers on the same principle, 2300-2800.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Clark, the Lido's brilliant, resident clubmaker (including hickories), recommended we add one stroke to the index of the blue-white players and take one stroke off the handicap of the green-whiters. Interesting to give the longer players an extra stroke. It worked perfectly.

https://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=32757

It's not even much of a "suggestion" as "what you are supposed to do." You can click the "Calc CH" button and put "7.0" in and you'll see probably that largely due to the course rating being 73.2 and 70.8… you're going to see a two-stroke difference between the navy/white and the white/green.

[Peter Flory]

Courses need to be built with a bit tighter demographic in mind. One size fits all stuff is a fantasy.

I'm curious what this would mean. Should someone be building a 4200-yard Ballyneal/Sand Hills/Dismal clone and a 4200-yard Oakland Hills clone etc?

Essentially, yes. I am not sure why we can't build compelling courses for a short hitting demographic. I can see 4500-5500 courses that could appeal to a large percentage of the market. Things seem to be loosening up as to what is proper golf. There must be lots of good properties relatively near urban areas which don't work for 6000-7000, but could work for much shorter courses. Even 9 holers on the same principle, 2300-2800.

Ciao

Kilspindie seems like a really good example of a course that is short, but still has all of the dynamics of a bigger course.  Pinehurst number 3 is the best US example that comes to mind.  I could see something even shorter working well.   I'm sure that there are plenty of examples in the UK that could be studied. 

[Mark_Fine]

My home club just hosted a tournament for “nine-holers” that brought in ladies who play nine holes from surrounding golf clubs.  The winning score was 108    Hard for some of us to empathize with that.  Maybe we tell those players - sorry you just need to get better   


But honestly how would most of us feel if we played a round where we didn’t reach more than one or two if any holes in regulation?  We might think we just had a really bad day.  The reality is maybe we played from the wrong set of tees.  Most of us would have the option next time to move up.  Now think about having to play that course again and again and not having that option?  That is what we do to many many golfers. My club like many needs tees that are far shorter than what is currently offered. Most people leave the game because it is either too hard or takes too long to play. Forcing players to play from longer tees adds to both.

[Thomas Dai]

But honestly how would most of us feel if we played a round where we didn’t reach more than one or two if any holes in regulation?  We might think we just had a really bad day.  The reality is maybe we played from the wrong set of tees.  Most of us would have the option next time to move up.  Now think about having to play that course again and again and not having that option?  That is what we do to many many golfers. My club like many needs tees that are far shorter than what is currently offered. Most people leave the game because it is either too hard or takes too long to play. Forcing players to play from longer tees adds to both.

This is a very valid point. I wonder how many better players or those who reckon they are better players would carry on playing the game if par-4’s and par-5’s were Driver, fairway metal, maybe more fairway metals followed by an iron and then maybe pitch/chip? And if par-3’s were Driver followed by a full second shot with a longer club.? Not many I suspect. This aspect of the game does not help pace of play either and slow pace of play ain’t any fun.
The games a long slog on this basis and a long slog isn’t usually much fun and if it ain’t fun why bother?
It’s also worth pointing out that lessor players and short hitters like to play in competitions too and in competitions, unlike in general social golf, all players must tee-off from the same place, so formal tee-markers and measurements are required.
For numerous reasons it is important to encourage players to stay involved in the game for as long as possible age etc wise. Young bombers and better players need to appreciate that one day they too will be short hitters and that tees located nearer greens are beneficial to the game overall.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Even among this illustrious group, 80 replies contain 20 different opinions on how many tees there should be and where they should go.


Sedge Valley will be far easier in this regard.  There won't be everyday tee markers for them, but it's about 6150 from all the way back.  The everyday back tees will be rotated around multiple tee pads but average ~5700 yards, and the everyday forward tee ~4700, both of which play significantly harder at par 68 than they do at par 72.  There will also be "royal blue" tees under 4000 yards for those who want them.


The best part of this is that it's set up with the idea of everyone playing together, and no one having to walk 7000+.  It's also going to be pretty challenging for the average player, but it should allow them to play a really good round when they are on top of their games.

[Ira Fishman]

From a very small sample size—one—but a most important one—my wife. She would prefer an overall length that best suits her game (120 carry with a good drive), but she has no complaints about a course that is disproportionate except for two factors. First, carries off the tee that risk ending up in the gunk. Second, having to hit a driver on every Par 3. With respect to the first, it is disheartening AND she hates the idea of slowing up play. That seems largely a solvable maintenance issue although I am sure that there is an associated budget issue. With respect to the second, it does not seem a particularly difficult design problem on most Par 3s.


My guess is that there are plenty of men and women who would agree with her.


Ira

[Charlie Goerges]

Even among this illustrious group, 80 replies contain 20 different opinions on how many tees there should be and where they should go.

This is where I'm having trouble with this debate, because it feels like the goalposts keep moving, but in reality maybe it's just there are so many different opinions that there is nothing like a consensus. Maybe it would be worthwhile for people to put their 80% rule of thumb idea out there? (knowing there are always special cases, what would work 80% of the time in your opinion).


I think most of the time 4 sets are good, but 5 if you need well over 7000 yards from the back. I'd rather scrimp on the way backs than on the way fronts.


I'd love it if people clarified their views on this. If you really think there should be only 1 box on each hole, speak up, I'm not sure at this point how many there are. If you think there should only be 3, say so. Again, we're talking for 80% of cases here.




The Sedgefield course sounds like fun and similar to what Peter and Sean are advocating with a smaller course.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'd love it if people clarified their views on this. If you really think there should be only 1 box on each hole, speak up, I'm not sure at this point how many there are. If you think there should only be 3, say so. Again, we're talking for 80% of cases here.

My view is that 3 or 4 are plenty - 5 max in the case of very long courses, I guess - but, probably more importantly, the perceived need to expand the number of sets of tees is out of proportion with the reality of the issue, partly because a relatively small percentage of golfers actually needs to obey them when they play, anyway.


If you aren't entering a score or playing a match (which covers the majority of rounds of golf, at least in the US), the Rules have no say over where you start a particular hole from, so you should avail yourself of your inherent radical freedom to enjoy the game however you'd like to.


All the hand-wringing over the lengths courses should be obligated to go to (pun intended) in order to accommodate golfers who hit the ball different distances off the tee feels like a corollary to the hysterical pearl-clutching of anti-rollback folks, who want to convince people that losing 10 yards off the tee is the end of the world. It amounts to an over-expenditure of energy and worry on one of the less important parts of the game.


It's a great reminder that we all need to spend more time practicing our chipping and putting.

[Ben Sims]

Even among this illustrious group, 80 replies contain 20 different opinions on how many tees there should be and where they should go.


Sedge Valley will be far easier in this regard.  There won't be everyday tee markers for them, but it's about 6150 from all the way back.  The everyday back tees will be rotated around multiple tee pads but average ~5700 yards, and the everyday forward tee ~4700, both of which play significantly harder at par 68 than they do at par 72.  There will also be "royal blue" tees under 4000 yards for those who want them.


The best part of this is that it's set up with the idea of everyone playing together, and no one having to walk 7000+.  It's also going to be pretty challenging for the average player, but it should allow them to play a really good round when they are on top of their games.

Tom,


Point blank, do you think lower par “short” courses are the answer to distance inflation?


I have my own opinions on teeing grounds, distance, and catching the widest swath of golfers as it applies to strategy and interest. But I’m sure those thoughts are wholly inadequate and haven’t been fleshed out.

[Tom_Doak]

Even among this illustrious group, 80 replies contain 20 different opinions on how many tees there should be and where they should go.

Maybe it would be worthwhile for people to put their 80% rule of thumb idea out there? (knowing there are always special cases, what would work 80% of the time in your opinion).

Charlie:


For the Dream Golf properties [Bandon and Sand Valley], it's a 70% rule.  65-70% of their play is from the green tees -- the middle of five sets, around 6000 or 6200 yards.  Each of the other tees gets about 7% of golfers.


You could argue that they attract a very particular set of golfers and this wouldn't work as well for a public course or a private club, but I'm guessing it's probably not far off.


The thing is, while 70% choose the one set of tees and certainly another 10% would play those tees if there wasn't something closer to their liking, the mentality is that "the customer is always right" so they still need to have five sets of tees!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Point blank, do you think lower par “short” courses are the answer to distance inflation?

I have my own opinions on teeing grounds, distance, and catching the widest swath of golfers as it applies to strategy and interest. But I’m sure those thoughts are wholly inadequate and haven’t been fleshed out.

Ben:


I don't know what the public wants.  I just know what I like, and fortunately some segment of the market seems to agree with me.


Sedge Valley is very much an experiment, and I'm curious to see how it is accepted by the public.  Lido, honestly, was an experiment, too, on the part of the Keisers -- it's way harder than their usual fare, and it will appeal most to a subset of better golfers.


Frankly, I think that's a very good thing for Sand Valley, to have different courses that appeal to different people, instead of trying to make every course be the favorite of every player.  They have kind of fallen backwards into it now, and I'm curious to see how it works.  Their next little project is a 5000-ish-yard course!

[Thomas Dai]

Frankly, I think that's a very good thing for Sand Valley, to have different courses that appeal to different people, instead of trying to make every course be the favorite of every player.  They have kind of fallen backwards into it now, and I'm curious to see how it works.  Their next little project is a 5000-ish-yard course!

Sounds interesting. Painswick's only approx 4,800 yrds. Imagine somewhere as much fun as it built on sandy terrain but without the narrowness and walkers (safety concerns). Yippee!
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()