Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Philip Gawith on September 11, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
-
I recently played a few course in the States where i was playing about 6,800 yards and my wife was playing 4,900 or up to 5,200. This seemed about the right length for both of us. At my home course in the UK meanwhile - Huntercombe, old and traditional - the men's card is about 6,400 and the women play about 5,500 yards. By my calculation she was playing 70-75% of the length i played in the US but in the UK is playing about 85%. My question to architects/anybody else is whether there are any accepted norms in this regard? Admittedly in the US i was playing the second to back markers which don't really exist at Huntercombe, which affects the ratio, but 5,500 also seems long for ladies.
Anyway, interested to hear perspectives. There is no doubt in my experience that modern courses are much more playable for women. Seems to me that if we are playing a par four and i am hitting a 7 iron second then, all other things being equal, an equivalent woman golfer should be hitting the same approach club. And the tees should be set up to try and create this sort of outcome? Is this how architects think when they are setting courses up for women?
Philip
-
In the US, the traditional accepted norm was that women would play where we tell them and like it!
Some work is being done by Arthur Little, Barney Adams/Play it Forward and a few others based on relative tee shot distances. He recommends the forward tee be more like shown below. I presume most women hit it about 130, but the best female ams are more like 160. Tiger probably has a swing speed of 129 from memory.
Driver Carry Total Suggested Suggested Course Length
Swing Speed(mph) Yardage Yardage Tee Length (Little) (Adams)
55 91 113 3350-3550 3160
65 130 146 4100-4300 3850
75 160 175 4850-5050 4540
85 183 192 5600-5800 5225
95 211 225 6350-6550 5910
105 242 256 6720-6960 6600
115 268 284 7155-7420 7290
125 286 302 7540-7830 7975
As you can see, Barney is more aggressive, based on wanting every tee to have the same approach club in their hands. Little bases his on field research at his own course, with money out of his own pocket and found those yardages attracted the most play.
In my work I have found it hard to make the fw tees below 4000 yard, and sometimes have trouble getting clients to buy off on less than 4400 yards. It all helps, over courses just a few years ago when the forward tee was an altogether too long 5-5200 yards. Even 4800 is too long for 130 yard bangers.
-
Philip,
Go to www.golfwithwomen.com. It is Arthur Little and Jan Lemming's website regarding the placement of forward tees. They consulted on the forward tees for Old Macdonald and Cabot Links. There study has resulted in a rule of thumb that the average women should play a yardage that is approximately 67% of the yardage that the average man plays.
The website has some very good articles and much more in depth analysis.
Cheers, Mike
-
Jeff:
When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about? The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap? That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.
We enjoyed having Mr. and Mrs. Little's input on Old Macdonald, but I don't agree with some of the numbers proposed above. If you are going to play from 3800 yards, you're really just starting from the landing area in the fairway for each hole -- which is exactly what I would have my wife or daughters do. But I don't see the need to build them a "tee" for that.
Your chart would indicate EIGHT tees per hole. Do you really want to start building that many? At some point, you could just eliminate the fairway entirely, and make the back tee guys land their tee shots on one of the other tees! *
The difference between the two professional tours [women's to men's] is more like 75 to 80%, and I believe the USGA handicap system used something along those lines when they set up the Slope system as to how much longer a course had to be to be rated one shot higher for women, as opposed to men. (Can't find the numbers quickly in an internet search, unfortunately.)
* I'm going to declare a copyright on this idea, just to prevent someone else from stealing it and actually trying to implement it somewhere.
-
Won't the ideal length of ladies tees (in relation to mens tees) vary depending on fairway role? On a reasonably firm surface the average woman could almost get as much role as her carry. A man is not going to achieve that.
-
Shhh - Don't let Patrick Mucci hear about this thread - he wants everybody to use the same set of tees :) :) :)
-
Philip G. -
One of the reasons my wife, a 28-handicap, enjoys playing at Castle Stuart so much is that the ladies tees are well forward (I would guess 50-100 yards forward) of the mens tees on most of the par 4's & 5's. If she hits a good drive, she stands a chance of reaching some of those greens in "regulation."
When playing Dornoch and Golspie, there are a number of par 4's & 5's she has absolutely no chance in reaching in regulaton, even if she hits the ball as well as she can.
DT
-
My wife is has an index of 18.0 (take that, Tepper!) and she plays our course at about 5000 yard. We have tees rated for women at about 5300, but she has a lot more fun from the shorter tees. Plus, to be honest, the next set of tees has a forced carry she can't make.
-
Jeff:
When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about? The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap? That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.
I agree the statement is incorrect, but it's not like the players in the Women's Amateur are playing the "red tees."
I played Pine Needles and Tobacco Road with my 52 year old mother today. She hits it a solid 180-200 even now, though she's probably a 28 handicap. Watching her play Pine Needles, I realized that even though she's longer than most players of her ilk, she's still usually stuck laying up on 3+ par 4s each side (she'll usually hit one far enough offline or mishit it badly enough that she'll have a hard time reaching in 2 even if it's only 320 yards or so).
It's a much tougher game for high handicap women than most of our forward tees give it credit for.
-
8) Jeff, you and Barney need to get out more.. Ms Sheila says "that's bogus, USGA says woman bogey golfer hits it 150.. whoever said that is a bigot, must be someone that doesn't think ladies should play on saturday mornings!" ... She notes for example that at the WCC and arch rival Kingwood CC, the champ flight ladies who range in age 35-60 hit it regularly 180-220+ yards off the tee. Of course they're also putting 100-140 rounds in the machine each year too!
p.s. 6000 yards is fine for Ms sheila but she also plays from the middle tees, she says most women don't like more than 5400-5700 yards.
p.s.s most womens tees are BORING, especially when in holes
-
Shhh - Don't let Patrick Mucci hear about this thread - he wants everybody to use the same set of tees :) :) :)
My wife plays occasionally, but is not an avid golfer. Recently we we were a twosome on a twilight 9 round before dinner.
I suggested we both play the back tees as she "was going to shoot a million anyway".
" sure, why not" she said.
Much more social to tee off from the same place if you are not in a competition and no one knows what "the landing area" means.
I would have played the reds if she would have asked.
-
Jeff:
When you say "the best female ams hit it more like 160," who the heck are you talking about? The 50-year-old at the club who has a 12-handicap? That's certainly not the players in the U.S. Women's Amateur.
I agree the statement is incorrect, but it's not like the players in the Women's Amateur are playing the "red tees."
I played Pine Needles and Tobacco Road with my 52 year old mother today. She hits it a solid 180-200 even now, though she's probably a 28 handicap. Watching her play Pine Needles, I realized that even though she's longer than most players of her ilk, she's still usually stuck laying up on 3+ par 4s each side (she'll usually hit one far enough offline or mishit it badly enough that she'll have a hard time reaching in 2 even if it's only 320 yards or so).
It's a much tougher game for high handicap women than most of our forward tees give it credit for.
Jason:
I'm glad your mom is enjoying her golf.
What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation. A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.
I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.
-
It's not just length that women struggle with. Many of them struggle getting out of deep greenside bunkers.
I have always thought that if a green had two bunkers on the left hand side, then one should be shallow and one should be deep. Women and high handicap men play from the shallow bunker and low handicap men play from the deep bunker.
-
Steve it would be interesting to know what Sheilas handicap is – I am betting 12 – 13 or less.
There is a general tendency with golf to view the typical game through one’s own game (be it a male or female perspective) and while Sheila and her playing group may hit the distances she states this does not mean it is a representative scenario.
Sheila is right in that the more accomplished /athletic women do have handy distance off the tee – but there are many, many women who do not. There are also many, many women who rarely find a par 3 green off the tee and play five or six woods to reach par 5’s. Not much fun I imagine! - they may as well leave their mid irons at home.
The USGA stats for bogey women golfers are averages - longer hitters fall above the average and shorter below - and while not a perfect system these do appear to be indicative of ‘average distance’ in my experience of having rated some 30 odd courses in our district.
We really need to be mindful of making sweeping generalizations when discussing this topic – there is a very large group of women golfers who are poorly served and frankly marginalized - in playability terms - because their game is misunderstood - and this need not be the case.
While I am not an advocate for numerous tees for a number of reasons I would like to see two tees for women to provide more variety, elasticity and interest in the game. When well sited and of a lower profile where possible, they should not detract from the overall golfiing environment.
Philip – thanks for the thread and thanks for noticing what was happening with your wife's game.
Cheers, Lyne
-
What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation. A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.
I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.
So how about 2 for women and two for men... instead of 3 for men and 1 for women?
FWIW, the flaw in your argument about 28 handicappers is that a male 28 is worse than 95 percent of the men with handicaps, while a female 28 is barely below the mean.
Proof that our courses are a disaster for women is that in order to make it into the top 5% a man has to have an index under 3, while a woman can be in the top 5% with an 11.9 index.
If things were even close to being reasonable, the range of handicaps would be within a stroke or two of each other.
My wife is a 10 and so am I. So i am just barely in the upper third of men.
She's in the top FOUR percent.
And if anything, I think there are more sub-average men with handicaps in those stats than there are women
K
-
Tom, that makes sense. In fairness, she's a pretty good ballstriker with no semblance of a short game or putting stroke. She doesn't practice and only plays 5-10 times a year (last year she played four rounds: two at Lawsonia, one at Pebble Beach, and one at Erin Hills. Not bad).
I joke with her that she hits three different putts: a short putt (rolls 4 feet), a medium putt (rolls 15), and a long putt (rolls 25). If she's "between strokes," she's not getting closer than 10 feet. If she's 75 feet away, she's taking three putts of 25 feet apiece just to reach the hole. My guess is she averages around 45 putts per round, and maybe more. She also almost never gets up and down.
My point is that she's not a 28 handicap because of her ballstriking. She can turn it both ways, she almost never misses a fairway, and she hits it pretty far for a 52 year-old woman. But she still gets stuck with a lot of holes where reaching in regulation is almost impossible. Frankly, that's not even a big issue in my eyes. The bigger issue is that she virtually NEVER gets to hit a short iron approach, and I think that's true for most women who play recreationally.
I'd like to see more forward tees around 42-4500 instead of 5000, and I think female players would really appreciate it. I don't think we need a zillion tees and, if we do, a course could just build three or four sets and use combinations to make the course playable. Honestly, the game would probably benefit if people played from a comfortable tee of their choosing anyway and didn't worry so much about "playing the blues today."
But then, you built Ballyneal, so you already know this.
-
What's changed over the years is the expectation that a 28-handicap player (man OR woman) ought to be able to reach a lot of greens in regulation. A 52-year-old, 28-handicap male golfer would only be able to do that from the third set of tees (out of four or five), and even then, there would probably be 2-3 holes where he'd be better laying up, if he would consider it.
I am all for equality for women, but I'm not for having three sets of tees for men and three more for women.
So how about 2 for women and two for men... instead of 3 for men and 1 for women?
FWIW, the flaw in your argument about 28 handicappers is that a male 28 is worse than 95 percent of the men with handicaps, while a female 28 is barely below the mean.
Proof that our courses are a disaster for women is that in order to make it into the top 5% a man has to have an index under 3, while a woman can be in the top 5% with an 11.9 index.
If things were even close to being reasonable, the range of handicaps would be within a stroke or two of each other.
My wife is a 10 and so am I. So i am just barely in the upper third of men.
She's in the top FOUR percent.
And if anything, I think there are more sub-average men with handicaps in those stats than there are women
K
How about 4 sets of tees MAX and stop labeling them men's or women's.
-
Rather than talking about "2 tees for women, 2 for men" vs. "4 tees for men and 1 for women," I think the discussion needs to shift to "4 sets of tees irrespective of gender." Plenty of men play from too far back, and plenty of women are marginalized by forward tees that don't suit their game.
I think the answer to building fewer sets of tees is to build three or four sets and then create combo tees from those sets that can be used to create 6 or 7 different total yardages. You could even have a separate scorecard for short hitters (women/seniors) and long hitters (anyone who hits over 210).
One thing that sucks for female players is that their tees don't get shorter as they age, unlike senior men who usually get to scoot up a tee or two. Using combo tees could give a lot more flexibility and get us out of this current paradigm where all women are treated as though they have equal abilities.
-
Genderless (is that a word?) tees that are rated for both women and men are the way to go.
Probably unnecessary to rate the very back for women.
Some newer courses have these of course and they appear to create no problems.
Cheers
-
How about 4 sets of tees MAX and stop labeling them men's or women's.
Perfectly reasonable, as long as we remember that 5500-yard courses for average women are about equivalent to 7500-yard courses for average women...
Tees of 5000, 6000, and 7000 would be a great plenty, IMHO. Average women can handle 5,000 and the elite women are more than comfortable at 6,000. Average men are good at 6,000 and the elites should all be playing 7,000 or so.
As a short-hitting senior (age 65) with a 10 handicap, it gripes me no end that I often have displeasure of choosing between almost 6,500 or barely 5,500. I need to get over it and start playing courses that are too short, rather than hitting fairway woods for my approach shots on 14 holes.
BTW, a GREAT step toward your suggestion would be to get our state associations to start rating every set of tees on a course for both men an women. On courses with multiple tees, I don't think i have EVER seen the forwad tees rated for men, and rarely--if ever--have I seen more than two sets rated for women. And often it's only one set.
At my course, for instance, the two forward tees are 5,400 and 5,800 and they are rated for women. The two back sets are 6,300 and 6,600 yards and the college women who play here usually play at 6,300 and don't post scores because they aren't rated..
Regardless, those breaks are silly. We end up having three sets of markers within 15 feet on several holes.
-
Philip
I had a chat with your wife about this while on the course. I proposed an increase in par (beyond the obvious of courses being too long and carries off tees too long for either gender) for ladies. Say a par 80 for a course like Huntercombe. She thought it was a good idea in that she would have opportunities to earn birdies and hit more greens in regulation. To be honest, I would rather see the old Bogey system come back into style for men! The entire concept of par has been so twisted from its original intent that the game has suffered because of it.
I am skeptical that courses can continue to build more and more tees with the idea of presenting an interesting test to all abilities. A well designed course playable and a challenge for practically everybody can easily have three tees.
Ciao
-
the chart doesn't seem to be far off based on swing speed. What might be slightly off indeed is the assumption that most women hit it 130 yds. Or is that just American women? Or British women? I assure you that Dutch women for some reason don't fit into this mold. Perhaps they are just, bigger, meaner, tougher and more aggressive swingers, plus a lot of them are ex hockey players and I'll tell you what, they kill the damn thing.
I'm all for 4 non sex biased tee boxes.
Front ones for seniors, some women and juniors.
Next set for good playing longer hitting women and average playing, short hitting men.
Next set for club medals and perhaps top women
last set for good single hcpers and pros or others wishing to bite off more than they can chew.
-
Most courses don't need a tee for elite players, because there are so few elite players that the tees go unused most of the time. Hell, my club has 1200 members and about ten of those could play 7000 yards. Losing the very back tee saves a lot of space, makes the course more walkable and prettier. That's the way to go for 95% of all courses. Three genderless tees (i. e. rated for men and women) is plenty and allows a reasonable spread.
Those other 5% of courses can add a fourth way back tee.
Ulrich
-
I recently played a few course in the States where i was playing about 6,800 yards and my wife was playing 4,900 or up to 5,200. This seemed about the right length for both of us. At my home course in the UK meanwhile - Huntercombe, old and traditional - the men's card is about 6,400 and the women play about 5,500 yards. By my calculation she was playing 70-75% of the length i played in the US but in the UK is playing about 85%. My question to architects/anybody else is whether there are any accepted norms in this regard? Admittedly in the US i was playing the second to back markers which don't really exist at Huntercombe, which affects the ratio, but 5,500 also seems long for ladies.
Anyway, interested to hear perspectives. There is no doubt in my experience that modern courses are much more playable for women. Seems to me that if we are playing a par four and i am hitting a 7 iron second then, all other things being equal, an equivalent woman golfer should be hitting the same approach club. And the tees should be set up to try and create this sort of outcome? Is this how architects think when they are setting courses up for women?
Philip
I play a lot of different courses with my wife. I'm not able to generalize but she surely enjoys the game a lot more when she's able to reach/get close to green-areas at regulation instead of playing 10 three-shot or more holes. I have no clue whether this is a general tendency among female golfers.
Re: Ulrichs post
I think it's annoying to play more than two sets of tee's in a group and just play what the rest of the group wants to, but i always play the backs if i'm alone or if i play with people capable of playing them. Are the back-tees genereally that seldomly used?
-
What we are getting at is that there is a wide range of abilities among women golfers -- probably close to the same wide range there is for men, although there is a smaller percentage of women at the low-handicap end of the scale. [Indeed, the USGA's handicap formula probably needs revising for women. The same women who are scratch in their formula would be +4 handicaps if they were men exhibiting the same dominance. But, that's for another day.]
I am fine with genderless tees, though the only way I want to see more than 3-4 tees per hole is if we can make them disappear in the landscape by looking like fairways. A lot of the problem in these arguments is the assumption that we can't just let people play from wherever they want to, because they need to post a score from a set of tees with a course rating. If we could eliminate that mindset, and return the handicap system to something based on how the player has fared in competition against others, more people could have more fun. [Ironically, the Brits, who do handicap this way, are even more stodgy about choice of tee locations than we Americans are!]
You guys should have seen my set-up proposals for that hypothetical once-every-four-years competition I'm not allowed to discuss. It involved long tees and moving the markers up or back every day, but it also involved having one day where the men played the forward tees and one day where the women played the back tees, just to see how much the scoring differentials really were, and so as to minimize the bias in favor of short or long hitters.
I can vouch for the fact that most women do NOT want to play a par-80 course. Many of the older clubs in the U.S. had forward tees like that for years [well, par 76], and 90-95% of the women hated it.
-
Tom
If par isn't to be stretched, you have a real problem if you don't want more than 3/4 tees or a course which maxes out at less than 6000 yards. The big problem with tees all over the place isn't aesthetic (for me as it sounds to be for Tom), but rather the anti-social aspect of it. I hate it when one person is isolated or the group is split and these days that split could literally mean only seeing a player on the greens. If we believe golf to be a social game then this is a problem. I think it also goes a long way to explaining why men and women play together so seldomly (relatively speaking). Often times its married couples in mixed foursomes or some such thing - rather than mates getting together like we see in the separate genders on a regular basis. Its like a totally different world of golf.
Ciao
-
I recall reading somewhere that women generally hit the ball a lower flight path, and impart less spin on the ball.
1. Is this true?
2. Doesn't this mean that women hitting with short irons are hitting balls that fly more like mid or long irons?
3. If you were to design a course (or select an existing course) specifically for women, what would you do differently re placement of hazards, defending greens, etc.?
4. Are there courses designed specifically for women, and if so, do they work regarding playing qualities and economics?
Dave
-
Won't the ideal length of ladies tees (in relation to mens tees) vary depending on fairway role? On a reasonably firm surface the average woman could almost get as much role as her carry. A man is not going to achieve that.
David,
Do you know of any course that consistently produce that kind of roll ?
This year, even during the drought, I didn't notice much in the way of roll on courses in the NY Met area.
In fact, I started a thread on the subject.
-
TD,
I should have specified that I really don't find too many LPGA tour pros running around the courses I consult at, so didn't mention them. Typically, I find about 40 female golfers, with about 30 at 40 handicaps and 130-145 yard drives and 10 at handicaps <20 and 160-170 yard drives. Obviously, they are all across the spectrum, but they concentrate in those two areas.
Same with men. Distances are all over the board, but seem to cluster at 260, 230, 200 and 170, with a larger smattering between 170 and 200.
Yes 8 or even 6 tees is a lot. I typically use five, based on the 1% 290 hitters (no more than 20 x 20 feet), 260, 220, combine the next tee to 180 or so, and then add the 140-130 tees.
I find total yardages of 7250, 6750, 6250, 5750 and 4250 to be popular among players, based on some golf industry stats I have seen.
-
Lots of interesting replies, thanks to all for the data and the views. Among the points that resonate (admittedly based off a small, but possibly representative, sample):
- the way some courses are set up means my wife will find most par 4's and 5's hard to hit in regulation, even with good shots - which means a long series of fairway woods and few short irons, which can't add to overall enjoyment.
- she has commented on how nice it is to play with someone else (a woman) who hits off the same tee as her - so Mike's point about the sociability of playing off the same tee is a good one, and not something i had considered.
- most elite courses will want a bomber's tee, but I agree with Ulrich that it would generally make more sense if you want to avoid proliferation of tees, to increase the optionality at the short end. Maybe Jeff's 20 by 20 solution for the back tee is a reasonable compromise.
- i think David E makes a good point about roll. That is why links or links style courses are much more friendly to women, at least from the tee. And David T confirms my general point about the difference between the older and more modern designs.
- on the basis of Pinehurst No 2 and Mid-Pines and Southern Pines my wife declared Donald Ross her (golfing) hero! But the Ocean Course and Tobacco Road were not congenial destinations - just too much quirk and difficulty.
Philip
-
Do you know of any course that consistently produce that kind of roll ?
This year, even during the drought, I didn't notice much in the way of roll on courses in the NY Met area.
In fact, I started a thread on the subject.[/b][/size][/color]
Pat,
Here in Melbourne we have a lot of courses with Santa Ana couch grass (fine leaf Bermuda). It can play very fast in the dry summer and during winter dormancy.
The fast courses give the really short hitters a bit of a chance to catch up to the medium length hitters because the ball roles so much further for the shorter hitters with a flat ball flight. The better players usually have a higher ball flight that carries further but roles less. A lady with a flat ball flight could definitely hit drives that carried 100 yards and rolled 70-80 with regularity.
You will get a better sense of it when you come down here to play some golf.
-
My wife sports a 29.5 index. She drives the ball around 150 yards (~130 yard carry) and comfortably plays our club with a goal of breaking 100. Unlike some of the other posters' wives, mine regularly hits short/scoring irons into greens -- albeit more often on third shots on par fours.
Her biggest gripe relates not to length of course/holes impacting her ability to reach greens in regulation (although she does like courses that let her do so), but rather to forced carries anywhere other than off the tee. Such shots oftentimes require awkward layup shots of 50 yards to position her as close to the hazard as possible and thus comfortably execute the carry. Our club is generally free of such shots.
Regarding "tee box proliferation" -- our club has four sets of tees, but five "courses" one can play as a result of a mixed/combination set -- a concept that I think makes a TON of sense, as it provides additional options without any increase in maintenance. The distances, respectively, run around 4900 yards, 5700 yards, 6300 yards, 6600 yards (the combo set) and 7000 yards.
-
Janet Coles played (and won) on the LPGA Tour for a number of years. She now teaches golf in northern California. She has written a book called "3-Shot Golf" that is focused on how women (and us short-hitting seniors ;)) have to play most holes on most golf courses.
The 3-shots are driver, fairway club/hybrid and short iron/wedge. Anyone looking for a nice present for their golfing wife should get them a copy!
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Shot-Golf-Women-Revolutionary-Approach/dp/1580800327/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347490129&sr=1-5&keywords=janet+coles
-
I find total yardages of 7250, 6750, 6250, 5750 and 4250 to be popular among players, based on some golf industry stats I have seen.
Jeff,
Doesn't this spread in total yardage really only give average women one choice of tees? Imparting the 75% rule, the 5750 yds. tee is the equivalent of men playing from 7650 yds., which won't be fun for the vast majority. I certainly understand it is getting increasingly difficult to provide for the widening range of golfers, but I think it is imperative that women should have a choice, with the longest choice overlapping to serve a portion of the male membership as well.
TK
-
Tyler,
Therein lies the rub. I think 5600 on an average course might work better as a combined tee for senior men and competitive, longer hitting women. Most senior men like a course yardage below 6000 (whereas my Dad never would play under 6K) but not tooooo far below.
If you really want to accomodate the major "classes" of players, you probably need six tees, but so many here, and also so many course operators are against it. Even with 6 tees, however, you will always have a lot of holes that are just a bit too long or short for a wide variety of players who hit it just off the "average" of their typical player.
-
Talking about all of this in terms of total length is the wrong approach, in my opinion. It's not the total length of the course that matters but how it is distributed through the 18 holes.
Simply, there need to be some par-4 holes where the women can reach the green in two shots, and some where they are better off playing the holes as "bogey 5's" and taking three shots to reach the green.
The same is true for senior men and anybody with a handicap above 10 or 12.
-
I think there are some broad ranges you start with, and of course, every hole should be examined to make it right. One thing those stats helped me see is that the forward tees really need to be shortened in most cases by a percentage, i.e. par 5's 10% less might be 50 yards shorter, whereas par 4 holes can be 40 yards shorter, for example.
I agree that not all par 4's should be reachable, but when we unveiled La Costa, and a decent female player was glowing that she hit 13 greens from the family tees, her next words were "why didn't you make all 18 reachable in par figures?"
And so, that is the question. Is it chauvanistic to say the women should be happy to play a course where some or most of the holes cannot be reached in par figures? If distance isn't as important as playing the course the way the game is imagined to be played, why not make the holes where different levels of players can play it in regulation, if they are good enough (or their shots are?)
-
If you really want to accomodate the major "classes" of players, you probably need six tees
Jeff,
As an alternative, if you want to accomodate the major classes of players, just design a fricking good golf course.
People give a lot less of a sh-t about what length of course they are playing if they are continuously confronted with interesting, challenging and well designed golf holes.
6 tees is just a crutch of the poor designer who wants to show they are accounting for different types of players without actually doing so in their architecture or design philosophy.
-
David
You bring to mind Tom Byrum and in my mind one of the top rounds of golf I've ever not seen...........his 72 at Bethpage Black in the open when he could hardly make the forced carries on many holes
-
wtf is a par figure???
-
Talking about all of this in terms of total length is the wrong approach, in my opinion. It's not the total length of the course that matters but how it is distributed through the 18 holes.
Simply, there need to be some par-4 holes where the women can reach the green in two shots, and some where they are better off playing the holes as "bogey 5's" and taking three shots to reach the green.
The same is true for senior men and anybody with a handicap above 10 or 12.
You are definitely right about that.
I just played Ron Farris's Red Rocks today and decided to play the gold tees @ 5780. But that's a bit under my preferred length so I played three holes from the whites and one from the blues.
Since it has one of.my least-favorite attributes, par threes of 110, 153, 153 and 178, I played one @ 225. I also played one par five far enough back that I could barely reach the fairway.
Those changes made the spread between longest and shortest more than 100 yard.
Which makes the game more fun.
K
-
If you really want to accomodate the major "classes" of players, you probably need six tees
Jeff,
As an alternative, if you want to accomodate the major classes of players, just design a fricking good golf course.
People give a lot less of a sh-t about what length of course they are playing if they are continuously confronted with interesting, challenging and well designed golf holes.
6 tees is just a crutch of the poor designer who wants to show they are accounting for different types of players without actually doing so in their architecture or design philosophy.
On that same note, I keep thinking another way to accommodate women without making every hole reachable in regulation is to just consider how it would play as a "higher par" hole. How would your par 4 play as a par 5 for a really short hitter? Is the layup interesting or miserable? How would the par 3 play as a par 4? Is there somewhere to hit the tee shot or is it just "aim at the green and hope it goes far"?
This is one thing that Pine Needles does really well, and it helps explain why it's one of my mother's favorite courses.
-
David,
Great sound bite. Not really sound advice.
I believe most golfers do check a card (at least before the first playing) and look to see if there is a tee set/overall yardage that suits their game. Now, they may find that a course 100 yards longer or shorter might actually play well, its a matter of forced carries that make it no fun.
Usually, for an interesting shot, you need some kind of hazard or twist. The basic choice in most cases is multiple tees to get all tee shots to the same area with hazard, or fewer tees and more hazards/features. While the latter can be great, and sometimes preferable, since you need adequate tee space anyway, its usually more economical to build the multiple tees.
I recall the Chicago school (esp Larry Packard) typically made the women's course a par 74, which is fine by my count. Why not a 8- 6 -4 arrangement? Somehow, the ideas of equalizing all pars at 72 has taken hold. But then, that second shot should be made interesting, rather than a boring advance the ball type shot. And, really, if those middle par 5 shots are boring most of the time for men, why should we tell women they should take it and like it? Aren't the tee shots and approach shots more interesting?
-
David,
Great sound bite. Not really sound advice.
I believe most golfers do check a card (at least before the first playing) and look to see if there is a tee set/overall yardage that suits their game. Now, they may find that a course 100 yards longer or shorter might actually play well,
I agree, but they don't need to. Just a personal reflection but I find my score has little to do with the course yardage. Anecdotally, so does that of the people I play with.
its a matter of forced carries that make it no fun.
I agree, forced carries are no fun. But forced carries are a design feature that has nothing to do with the length of the hole. If forced carries are an issue for the weaker golfer, the most logical solution is to design less forced carries.
Usually, for an interesting shot, you need some kind of hazard or twist. The basic choice in most cases is multiple tees to get all tee shots to the same area with hazard, or fewer tees and more hazards/features. While the latter can be great, and sometimes preferable, since you need adequate tee space anyway, its usually more economical to build the multiple tees.
Apologies, but this just seems like horrible architeture to me. Requiring a player to interact with a hazard on every single tee shot is a monotonous bore. Put the hazards at different distances on different holes as an alternative. Diagonal hazards will interact with more golfers, as will hazards on a golf course with firm ground. Use big features such as ridges to provide interest instead of hazards. There are so so many alternatives to prescriptive architecture that requires every golfer to try to play the hole in some sort of ideal way imagined by the designer.
-
If you really want to accomodate the major "classes" of players, you probably need six tees
Jeff,
As an alternative, if you want to accomodate the major classes of players, just design a fricking good golf course.
People give a lot less of a sh-t about what length of course they are playing if they are continuously confronted with interesting, challenging and well designed golf holes.
6 tees is just a crutch of the poor designer who wants to show they are accounting for different types of players without actually doing so in their architecture or design philosophy.
I too am amazed by this comment. We have so many great examples where three tees work fine because the design is playable. Yet, what do developers and archies want to do - reinvent the wheel. Is it all part and parcel of justifying their fees?
If there is one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Ciao
-
David,
I would agree with your points. If it was just a sand hazard you saw on every hole, it would be boring. Which is why I said a hazard or a twist of some kind. But, I would also contend that a shorter hitter playing up to 14 shots that simply were advancing the ball would be (based on comments I hear) pretty boring, too. I suspect if I said we will just design boring no strategy shots that you would critique that, too.
Sean,
Again, I see no problem in reinventing the wheel if the wheel wasn't perfect in the first place. Saying three tees works fine sounds like you still design from your perspective and don't really consider others! Its like saying the 50's were the greatest decade if your childhood experience was like Leave it to Beaver, but not asking blacks what their pre civil rights life was like, eh? In short, as time goes on, and we really start considering how the course plays for the real golfers rather than imagine that a pro will show up, we ask questions, try to get answers.
Would you argue that the early ladies tees, set about five yards in front of the men's tees worked for women? Or was it a half hearted accomodation that left them with too long a course, mostly because men in charge just didn't care?
-
At my club, Bearwood Lakes, the mens' white (competition tees) are 6488 yards, par 72 and the ladies tees are 5482, par 72. By my calculation (OK my computer's calculation), that is 84% of the length. The Standard Scratch Score (akin to course rating) is 71 for men and 72 for ladies.
There are 27 men with an active handicap of 5.0 or lower. The median handicap for all men is around 13 (eyeballing the centre of the list in handicap order)
The lowest ladies' handicap is 5.7 and the median is around 21.
-
Jeff
I am inclined to believe that men didn't care much about where ladies tees were. Some of that was for good reason as many clubs didn't have many lady members and the men often didn't encourage women to join. These days, in the mad rush to make money women are seen as an untapped market so suddenly there is talk of women's tees. Be that as it may, my point was that despite men not caring about ladies tees back in the day, the courses were and are more playable than many modern courses so there isn't the need to create six sets of tees. Creating a course which is playable for all was actually an M.O. for archies. Now, archies create a false need for extra sets because of marketing decisions rather than architectural decisions. IMO, six sets of tees represents lazy architecture and/or a poor site for golf. If courses were designed with the idea of getting people around them rather than carts there would be little need for that many tees. But then 7000+ yards, six sets of tees, 100 bunkers, signature holes, 5 miles of cart paths and 5 ponds are all marketing points these days - thats how badly things have gone astray. So much of architecture is just an exercise in marketing - so much so that archies make a living going against that mantra. It sure is a big world.
Ciao
-
Sean,
No doubt that the drive for tougher courses, which seems to have been there in most of American golf history. There was CBM's quest for a world class course, RTJ at Oakland Hills and others, the GD rankings focused on hard, and of course, the CCFAD movement that tried to make muni courses into more championship tests. The drive for length also contributes in that shorter length might make up for harder courses.
Maybe that drive has peaked at least for a while. No doubt that three or four sets of tees work better when the back tees are closer to 6800 rather than 7500. (I wonder how many courses are really that long, but thats another issue)
That said, as a designer, form follows function. So, to start, I set a goal of most if not all players being able to play golf the way intended, such as hitting par 4's in two, so that they enjoy the game. No one has answered the question yet of why the 99% of golfers who pay the bills shouldn't enjoy the game that way, and I doubt anyone really can give a good answer.
With that as a design goal, I need multiple tees at 60/70/80 and 90% of the longest hitters, because the math cannot be overcome. A 130 yard driver cannot have par 4's over about 290 yards and reach them in two shots. That said, I do find it impractical to use the Barney Adams method of an 8 iron for Tiger is an 8 iron for Aunt Sally. I think keeping the approach shots to any kind of iron, rather than three full shots on a par 4 is a big step forward.
Of course, I make exceptions for topo, hazards, and other individual hole factors, so I might (grudingly) accept only 14 holes as reachable by those average length hitters for their class, if forced to by natural factors. I might accept par 74, knowing that a few courses with six par fives are generally well accepted. Where I have introduced shorter tees, women have said they really liked them, and it made golf more fun.
To be honest, its not lazy design. I put more thought than ever in it. What's been lazy design is architects never really considering the needs of the average player. Simply slapping a forward tee somewhere up front didn't really cut it.
As to the length equals marketing argument, I can agree, and posted a thread on it recently. That said, most businesses don't want to be the trend setter of ignoring those back tees, which shoud be only a rumor to 99.9% of players, but for whatever reason, they equate them with quality, even if they never set foot on them. I have tried to tell clients to eliminate the back tees used by so few.
-
Jeff
You have lost me on the "intended" remark. It isn't at all clear to me that golfers who hit the ball 275-350 yards in two shots were intended to hit greens in regulation - men or women. To my way of thinking this is a very recent notion and little to do with classic architecture or playability. Some may argue that folks who hit two shots 300 yards should have a course which essentially has 18 reachable greens. I can't say I necessarily disagree, but then I do disagree that we need tees stretching back more than 1000 yards beyond these tees. The problem lies at the top end of the yardage scale, not the bottom end. This inherently means that architecture leans toward men's needs (at least men with handicaps), but that shouldn't be surprising as the vast majority of true golfers are men.
It is interesting that one of the few courses owned and operated by women that I know of is Formby Ladies and their card is 5400 yards. So it would seem even at that end at least some women think hitting the ball a minimal distance is an important aspect of the challenge.
Ciao
-
Jeff and Sean,
1. I know it's just math, but what would the effect on course design be if you designed a course where the 100% distance was the stronger woman/older man? By this I mean, what if you pegged the architecture's baseline so that the course was designed for the 85%, 100%, 115%, 130%, and 150% distances relative to a strong woman/older man, ensuring that the architectural features played to that demographic best?
2. When you design for different strengths, do you step back and score the course for how well it plays for different distance skills from the proper tees? When you do that, do you ever focus on some holes and make sure they are standouts for women and older men, even if the strategic elements are less pronounced for stronger players?
Thanks, Dave
-
David,
There was a time when most archies designed from the main men's tees, not the championship tees. The problem was, if you were designing a housing course where the boundary hadn't been set, and used the main tee as the start of your centerline, you tended to lose the area behind it for the back tee. So, in many cases, designing at least the routing plan from the back tee was a necessity.
As to features, I think raters, reviewers, awarders and even golfers worry too much about what the good player will say about a new design, even though I see lots of evidence that most players eventually pick a course that doesn't beat them up, with design features they can negotiate without losing too many strokes or balls. Changing the design for the best attitude would help a lot. When I started in the biz in 1977, my bosses told me that there were already enough tournament and world class courses out there, and we weren't designing for those level players. But, over the years, I think we all got away from that, all wanting a top 100 or best new course, which you don't get without being bold.
In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether. It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total.
Sean,
One reason I posted the design goal was to show that adhering to classic principles as a main goal (as opposed to doing it because it makes sense for today's play) just isn't a valid criteria in most cases. I tend to design for those paying the bills now, and if a couple joins a club with the intent of enjoying golf, then its more a duty to design for the here and now than to design the way they did in the old days, at least regarding tees, since by and large, those poor attempts at forward tees weren't really all that well thought out.
-
"In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether. It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total."
Doesn't this get at the heart of what I am talking about? If the goal is to so called design for everybody something(s) has to give. I think archies, developers and golfers chasing the long ball course is what should be given over, but its clear to me that few if any of the folks in these groups are willing to drop the ego and/or whatever it takes to fully realize this. I say this because members of this board strike me as fairly hard core about rolling back equipment (which would presumably make it easier to justify building shorter courses), but very few of these same people are willing to give up the very things they complain about. Instead, they wait for a magic bullet from a higher power when in fact the power rests with golfers.
Ciao
-
"In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether. It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total."
Doesn't this get at the heart of what I am talking about? If the goal is to so called design for everybody something(s) has to give. I think archies, developers and golfers chasing the long ball course is what should be given over, but its clear to me that few if any of the folks in these groups are willing to drop the ego and/or whatever it takes to fully realize this. I say this because members of this board strike me as fairly hard core about rolling back equipment (which would presumably make it easier to justify building shorter courses), but very few of these same people are willing to give up the very things they complain about. Instead, they wait for a magic bullet from a higher power when in fact the power rests with golfers.
Ciao
Bingo. Perhaps as us aging boomers pack the 6000 yard tees and the fun older courses while the pricey second tier penal championship tracks go begging it will sort itself out by economic necessity.
-
Perhaps as us aging boomers pack the 6000 yard tees and the fun older courses while the pricey second tier penal championship tracks go begging it will sort itself out by economic necessity.
One problem is that too few courses actually have 6,000-yard tees.
I believe that something like 5900-6000 is perfect for shortish hitters like me who have a little bit of ego left. But what I see is courses with 6300-yard "men's" tees, and 5400-yard "ladies"" tees.
Personally, I think 5,000-6,000-6,500 tees make more sense.
But my latest peeve is courses like the one I played today, where all the par fours are the same length...
362-354-352-361-367-360-342-370-338-375
The par threes were almost as bad:
157-158-165-139
And the fives?
506-491-500-490
My home course, which I love has these ranges:
Threes 130-208
Fours 311-450
Fives 465-550
Coore and Crenshaw's Sugarloaf Mountain manage to give you this variety
Threes 91-190
Fours 252-455
Fives 436-544
I know not everyone is as obsessed with this as me, but I have come to believe that variety of length is one of the things an architect can do to make a course payable for all classes of golfers.
Where I played today, a 260 hitter is going to have a wedge to EVERY par four. At a 200-yard hitter, I have NO chance.
But give me a 275 yarder and 450-yarder, I have a fighting chance.
K
-
I know not everyone is as obsessed with this as me, but I have come to believe that variety of length is one of the things an architect can do to make a course payable for all classes of golfers.
Ken,
Agreed. I just played a well-like course in these parts and came away with the realization that there are 8 par 4's that are all 390-410, seven of them after the 7th hole. I would think that not only would a bunch of half par holes be more enjoyable for us, but might make incorporating interesting tees for the ladies easier as well.
-
I agree with Andrew Lewis on the issue of forced carries on second shots for women. I am at Woodside Plantation in Aiken, SC. We have a Bob Cupp course and a Rees Jones course. Both courses have 3 mens tees ranging from 7,100 to 6,250. The womens tees are at 5,460 and 5,280. Both courses have forward tees at the 4,800 range. Those tees are mostly just markers in the fairway. The issue comes at a few holes where my wife, who is 58, 106 pounds, 30 handicap, will hit a drive of 150-160 yards, but then has a creek 120 yards away. Maybe she can make it some of the time, but often her second shot on a par 5 or a long par 4 is an 8 or 9 iron up to the creek. This can happen 2 or 3 times a round. That drives her crazy, but playing the forward tees is just a little too short. I don't think it is the overall yardage, but the flow of hazards. Our pro was out the other day scouting tee locations that make more sense as our membership is not young and is getting older. I think adjustments on a few holes would make a big difference rather than wholesale tee renovations. The PGA wants us to tee it forward and I think it should be on a hole by hole basis. We also have the "blended" tees for 70+ year old men where half the holes are from the whites and half from the reds. Not a bad idea and I see a lot of guys playing that. It takes the longer par 4s and makes them playable. You can still go back and play from 6,700 or 7,100 but the average everyday golfer needs to have some fun. Not by dumbing down the course so anyone can hit a bunch of greens in reg, but just be able to play a nice game. Some of them should also throw away the scorecard and just play. And some days I do just that as well.
-
Tom
Maybe the course just doesn't suit your wife. Not all courses can be all things to all people. Part of the appeal of the cross hazard is knowing what needs to be done to successfully cross it in "regulation". Granted, it isn't pleasant to be faced with this sort of hole a lot, but it has its place in architecture as a butt clencher hole - nothing wrong with that. We have to remember that what makes a good course is in how its design accommodates, interests and challenges people. I don't believe that in the majority of instances that five or six sets of tees is a good substitute for good design.
Ciao