What a difference a couple of yards make ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Someone recently posted a schematic of a hole with what looked like five or six sets of tees.  They indicated that the multiple tees provided many options of play (a concept that I don't agree with)

My question is, what golf courses are terrific from one set of tees, but disappointing or inferior from another set of tees.

Many times I've heard that Winged Foot West and Baltusrol are impossible, backbreakers from the Championship tees, void of significant architectural merit.

Recently, I played Winged Foot West with Neil Regan and Tom Nieporte from, approximately the "old" championship tees and the golf course was delightful for all of us.

Is the evaluation of a golf course limited to the skill level of the person making the judgement, and the tees they play ?

Thinking before responding would be appreciated  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Does the description of them as "backbreakers" fit because of length? If so, does this length mean that the hazards faced on the tee shot aren't reachable for mere mortals, thereby becoming insignificant and by extension, without merit, or does it include the greens, where approaching with long irons to well guarded targets might also seem backbreaking?

If the evaluator is objective then skill shouldn't enter his picture but that might not be the case if he was looking at it subjectively. He should play the tees he can handle if he is going to rate the course this way.  

I read an article in which Tom Nieporte said that he thought the East was more of a shotmaker's course than the West. Do you agree?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jim Kennedy,

I'm not sure what courses Tom was referencing, but if it was from the back tees I'd have to agree with him.

On occassion, a higher handicap, playing from the championship tees will not encounter many of the hazards or obstacles that a lower handicap might encounter.

The issue at hand is, can a course be good from one set of tees and not so good from another set of tees ?

And, to view the question in the context of the players skill level.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
You asked:

....Is the evaluation of a golf course limited to the skill level of the person making the judgement, and the tees they play?

......to which I thought I answered that it doesn't necessarily depend on skill but it does matter what tees that person is playing from and if he is objective or subjective in his rating.
I mentioned distance issue because I think this is why someone might say a course lacked merit,i.e. they never had to deal with much of the architecture because they couldn't reach it, something it seems that you and your party had little problem with.

Your first question,  

....what golf courses are terrific from one set of tees, but disappointing or inferior from another set of tees.

was followed closely by an illustration which proposed merit as being tied to length.

I didn't see much air between these questions but if they are distinct then I'd answer "I don't know" to the first question, "No" to the first part of the second question and "Yes" to the second part of the second question.

I hope I've answered your questions, but I could be wrong.  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

On some courses I think it is very important to play from the set of tees which best reflect your ability to hit the ball.  In Sept. I was required to play Kingsbarns from the set tee markers, this took all the fairway bunkers out of play.  I never hit more than a wedge into a par 4 and had irons into all the par 5's  (there was an absence of real wind)  I am certain that the course is great, but I was not challenged and would be somewhat bored if I had to play from forward tees again.  I played Loch Lomand from all the way back and was required to strategically think out a plan of attack on every hole.  At Saint Andrews I don't think the tee position is too important because it is a minefield of potential hazards.  It is a different course from each tee, but an interesting challenge at all times.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

RMD,
For your sake, I hope we are not related by birth, but you sound like you walk my talk!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If and when you see Tom Nieporte again tell him HI for me and tell him I still have that old 4 wood of his that I had fixed--believe it or not he will remember that and it was perhaps 35 years ago. Tom Nieporte has a memory on him you'd not believe! He was a great friend of my Dad's and probably yours too. Back in those days he was the head pro at Piping! Back in those days Tommy Armour was around and I guess he completely reigned at the "FOOT".

[TEPaul]

RMD:

If you don't mind me asking---who are you? What's your name, in other words. I think it was you that some mentioned as a really fine player, perhaps one of the best in the Met district. If you don't want to put your name on here perhaps you'd IM it to me but if you don't want to do that, I understand.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Nieporte, that's a name I haven't heard since my Ohio State days.  See, guys, something good did come out of OSU!

In addressing Mr. Mucci's point in general, it would seem that courses which were designed from the back tees, i.e. in terms of placement of hazards, turning points, angles of approach, etc., are considerably weaker and less interesting if played from the up tees by the better golfers.  Ohio State's Scarlet course and Pebble Beach are two courses that come to mind which play so much easier and lose their character from the "white" tees.

I read somewhere that Jack Nicklaus no longer designs his courses from the standpoint of the expert golfer, often putting in back tees for the "gorillas" more as an afterthought.  I believe that Tom Doak takes a similar approach.  In my limited experience with Doak's work, he seems to provide much of his challenge on and around the greens, so his courses are probably less prone to losing their appeal from the shorter tees (though I did like Pacific Dunes from the back tees much more).

In my backyard, Dallas National is probably more interesting from the second set of tees than all the way back, allowing you to challenge the hazards and difficult pin positions.  The Ram Rock course at Horseshoe Bay Resort, around 6,900 yards from the backs and long considered to be among the hardest courses in Texas, is very playable and more enjoyable from the next set of tees around 6,500 yards.

I guess that my response is that it depends on the architects's frame of mind on that particular design, course setup, and the magnitude of the difference.  200 yard differences probably do not change the character of a course all that much for most people.  However, I've seen numerous courses setup 400 and 500 yards shorter from the backs to the next set.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jim Kennedy,

it doesn't necessarily depend on skill but it does matter what tees that person is playing from and if he is objective or subjective in his rating.

Do you really feel that people possess that talent, the talent to be able to play one golf course while evaluating another, which they haven't played ?

I think it's a rare individual who can do so, and, I'll probably be set upon for saying this, but, I think the ability to do so resides more in the domain of lower handicap players then it does in the domain of the higher handicap player.

I mentioned distance issue because I think this is why someone might say a course lacked merit,i.e. they never had to deal with much of the architecture because they couldn't reach it, something it seems that you and your party had little problem with.

If a scratch handicap played from the back tees at a given golf course, the presentation may provide for all the strategy and challenge he had hoped for, but, from the middle or forward tees, the course may have been lacking both.

Conversely, a higher handicap player, playing from the same back tees may have found strategy lacking.  The addtional  length would have provided an added challenge.  But from the middle or forward tees, the course may have provided him the strategy lacking from the back tees.

All too often I hear that Winged Foot West or Baltusrol are just long golf courses with little or no strategic interest.

The only context that I can put those remarks in, is that the golfer has played a golf course beyond their abilities.  
Had the golfer played from tees commensurate with his ability he would have found both courses strategic and challenging.

All too often, a higer handicap will play from the appropriate tees, but make the pronouncement that the same golf course, from the back tees, is just long and lacks strategic merit.  How do they know that ?  And, how can they make that judgement when they lack the mental and physical ability to cope with that golf course ?

Baltusrol Lower seems to get this rap the most, but Baltusrol from the appropriate tees is an interesting, strategic and challenging golf course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I don't feel that anyone, low hdcp. or high, should evaluate a course unless they have played it, preferably several times.
 
Evaluations cut both ways. How many times do you hear the low handicap player grousing about the fact that he must play from less than the tips? He'll readily offer the opinion that the course doesn't measure up. Conversely, many people, even high handicappers, view length as a prerequisite to greatness. Length and difficulty were the main factors when course rating was begun.  

I think it follows that the better you are at the game, the better the chance that you've exposed yourself to more architecture and it's relation to the various levels of play but I don't think you necessarily have to be a great player to be a student of architecture.      
   

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jim Kennedy,

When a rater evaluates a golf course, where do they evaluate it from ?

Do raters with divergent handicaps evaluate a golf course from different sets of tees or the same set of tees ?

If a 18 handicap was to evaluate Shinnecock, where would they play from, the US OPEN tees ?  And if they did, how could they possibly evaluate the golf course in light of their ability ?

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat,

It is very logical that ancient (early) courses were continually changing hole locations and, therefore, "tee" locations, or at least the location from which the next hole began.

It is also logical that, before the rules of golf dictated play from within close proximity to the previoiusly holed hole, play began from a variety of locations within walking distance from the last hole dug into the ground.

I find it completely reasonable — and mathematically accurate — that more variety and options are available when there are more options in tee locations. This, of course, requires decent management to use these tees and assign play from different spots and teeing grounds.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I've thought before responding, but probably not enough.

From an evaluation standpoint, I would think it best for anyone to judge the course from the distance that best fits their ability. I would have no business trying to evaluate The Ocean Course from a tournament setup, for example. A couple yards here and there won't matter, but a couple HUNDRED yards would!

On a related matter ( I hope!), the matter of playing a course from different distances brings in new angles of play, for those of us who don't hit our intended line with every shot. The closer one is to the green while being off their intended line, the greater variation the angle of play is into the green. I don't think these changes in angles would matter for a difference of a couple yards though. Move me up a set or two of tees, and I'll be playing stronger angles into the greens with my off line drives.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Joe Hancock,

At a course I'm familiar with they have three sets of tees for the men, and two for the women.  As the tees transition from the longest to the shortest, the angles of attack become more benign to accomodate the playing level or the respective golfers.

But, how does an 18 handicap evaluate a golf course for the various magazines that rank golf courses ?

Do all raters play the same tees ?

If they don't, does each golf course get multiple evaluations, from differing sets of tees ?

And, how can an 18 or 24 handicap evaluate play from the championship tees ?

Conversely, if a zero handicap is playing the Championship tees, how can they evaluate the golf course from the middle or short tees ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I assume very few "professional raters', if you will, are tournament caliber players. I also assume that there is a wide variation in the length of these raters. So, therefore, if all raters were to play courses from a determined set of tees, they would have to overcome their own playing preferences and the effects of distance on their own golf experience with knowledge.

Joe

[Tommy_Naccarato]

An interesting topic.

As a rater, at The Quarry At La Quinta you are told from the outset that you will be playing it from one paticular set of tees--the tips. They actually tell you this, and you have to more or less agree to it with their Director of Golf--George Von Valkenburg.

Being a person of some moderate length, you would have thought I would have found some problem with this. I didn't. Because it is obvious they want you playing from the tips so you can see some of their features which can't be seen from other tees and enhance some of the experience as well as tell you what kind of a golf course the QOLQ really is.

You see, the QOLQ isn't really a Quarry, or it wasn't much of a Quarry as they have built it up to be. Truth evident in the use of faux rocks and the fishing pond they like to make so much noise about.

The tee up there for the par 3, 17th, well, yes it is an experience to walk so close to the edge, and I felt myself wanting to hum the Yes tunes, "Close to the Edge" while negotiating stepping stones in this babbling brook of bullshit which seemingly has you walking a mere 3 feet from the edge of its falling waters. It makes a fat man sweat I tell you!

It would be a long drop if one slipped there, at least 80 feet or more and I would surmize the QOLQ would simply NOT notify the authorities if one did. Hoping that the dead-rotting carcass of just another panelist, stay deep in that lake, and something for their fish to knaw on.

What a fitting end for someone who didn't agree with the course or its standing in the rankings!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Joe Hancock,

Then how do you get a consistent evaluation ?

And, where is it from ?

And by who's evaluation ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Those three questions may explain why the rating business will always be subjective. I think you and I would play a different level of golf, and therefore would have to rely on something else to arrive at similar conclusions pertaining to a courses merit. What that something else is, I don't know. I have a feeling it is something mental, and not physical.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Joe Hancock,

Pretend if you will, to the following situation.

You and I go to evaluate/rate a golf course.

I play it from the Championship tees and you play it from the middle tees, then we each evaluate the golf course.

Rewind.

You play it from the Championship tees and I play it from the middle tees, then we each evaluate the golf course.

Do you think that our own opinions would vary a good deal depending upon the tees we played ?

If we're inconsistent in our evaluations, how do you draw a consensus from raters of different abilities, playing from different tees, under different conditions

Tough to do, and very subjective.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
If I were a rater and the management was forcing me to play the course from an ill-suited set of tees I would explain to them that they were already influencing my report in the negative, but....

I didn't think we were discussing magazine ratings here and anyway, those ratings aren't strictly a measure of a course's merits. I thought the evaluations you were addressing in your initial post were some you heard, player's personal observations in the negative due to their playing from tees not suited to their abilities. We all hear those.
 
I still don't think length and a low handicap are prerequisites to understanding how a course will play from different tees. You might find that a greater percentage from that group will understand but I think anyone who cares enough can learn to understand the differences, hey, Seth Raynor did.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jim Kennedy,

Initially, it wasn't about ratings, but I think it's a tangetial issue, one that the thread would eventually address.

Adios is a golf course that has many dog legs.
From the forward tees, it's either gamble with a driver or 3-wood over the trees or lay up with a long or medium iron, something I don't like to do repetitively.  Hence for me, from the forward tees, Adios isn't a good fit.  However, the course gets better as I move back to the gold and black tees.

The Medalist, from the Norman Championship tees is a bit overpowering, requiring accuracy and extra-length.
Drives that miss the fairway are in the woods, swamp or water.  But, as I move up to the next set of tees, the challenge isn't so one dimensional, and for me, I think it's a better golf course.

If you put a 15 or 20 handicap on those golf courses they may have entirely different opinions, some borne by the need for carry over water at Adios, which occurs approximately 13 times.

Pine Tree and Boca Rio were better courses for me from the back tees since most of the fairway hazards were designed to confront tee shots hit approximately 250 yards.
From the middle tees, many, if not most of those hazards are no longer in play for me, hence the strategic needs and challenges or the golf courses are diminished as I move forward.

So how does a 10-15-20 handicapper rate Pine Tree and Boca Rio's championship course if they play the middle tees ?
And, how can they effectively rate those two courses if they play from the championship tees.

I doubt modern day Seth Raynor's are evaluationg and rating golf courses.  But, I do wonder what the architectural IQ of the average rater is.   Are they TEPaul's and Tommy Naccarato's

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Back in 2001 GD did an article about some of their raters. The featured group included Bob Ford, David Eger, Bill Dickey, Judy Rankin, Lynn Cowan, John Percival Jr,and a couple of others.
They didn't write about the 790 remaining panelists.

I don't argue with the idea that courses should be rated by knowledgeable players from the tee box that best suits their length. If two players of similar handicap, one a 250 hitter, the other 290, play from the same tee they could easily have opposite opinions of the same course. As you said, your opinion of Boca Rio changes depending on which tee you use but your overall opinion of the course hasn't, you still feel that it's an excellent course for many players, if they play from the tee box that suits there length.

I really think you are talking about two different animals, playability and architectural quality and no course could ever achieve "matching" numbers in both categories unless it's being played from a length that suits the ability of the rater.

I think that statistics would show that there are more lower handicap players who have a better understanding of "Shot values", Resistance to scoring" and "Design variety" but this group doesn't hold the monopoly on it.