Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on January 02, 2015, 04:13:07 PM
-
s is to have just one tee.
Why do we have multiple tees ?
Isn't the answer to that question:To allow lesser players to make "par".
That with the emphasis on medal play, "par" took on more significance and became a universal goal ?
Absent medal play, would "par" be meaningful ?
Since golf began, golfers teed their ball up within one club length of the cup on the hole just played.
It took about 100 years to change that rule.
To two club lengths.
By having but one tee, the architect can craft his challenge, "proportionately" or according to one's ability.
I see courses with 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees.
Think of the increase in construction and maintenance costs.
Think of how much simpler handicapping would be with just one tee.
Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?
That's what multiple tees attempt to do.
-
Pat,
If you think you've read this before, that's because you have. ;)
Whilst I kind of endorse the sentiment, I'm certainly not sure that longer hitters should be presented with all the trouble while shorter hitters can just blast away. Furthermore, problem after problem in the DZ for the longer hitter tends to induce a procession of hybrids from the tee.
More and more tees is an unfortunate result of the powers that be failing to address the reality that long hitters are now SO MUCH LONGER than short hitters. In principle, you and I are on exactly the same side. I entirely agree that the situation is nonsensical but until someone has the balls to seriously threaten roll back we are stuck with the status quo of twenty three different sets of tee. It's absurd.
-
Pat,
Is it really about par, or the fact that those middle shots in golf really aren't much fun, compared to the thrilling bomb/long hit of a tee shot (yes, to most that is a bigger thrill than placement) and hitting the green? Why do you think an extra shot or two, that is more boring would be favored by (and more fun for) the many average golfers. Or that more in place of fewer shots with some hazards to negotiate? Just curious. Or lastly, do you think the average golfer wants fun or boring challenge? I think the vote boat has sailed in favor of more fun.
Why doom the majority of players to playing something other than golf intended. Or conversely, why have too short or too long of a course for every class of golfer, save one?
In some ways building extra tees aren't really that expensive. You need a certain amount to spread the wear, and you can build it all together, or for about 10% more tee, you can spread it out over many tees. It would be just as expensive to build bunkers from 200-320 yards in the fairways, no?
Not worried about simpler handicapping, since most of the work is done by computers these days, and they can handle the variations.
As Paul says, if the ball rolls back and the range of tee shot distances narrows a bit, then designers will reconsider.
-
Pat,
If you think you've read this before, that's because you have. ;)
I know.
Whilst I kind of endorse the sentiment, I'm certainly not sure that longer hitters should be presented with all the trouble while shorter hitters can just blast away.
They're not, I don't know why you infered that.
I indicated that the architect could create a "proportional" challenge, one commensurate with their abilities.
Why should a 24-18-12 handicap be presented with the same challenge that a zero handicap faces ?
They have different abilities, hence, the challenge they interface with should be proportional.
Furthermore, problem after problem in the DZ for the longer hitter tends to induce a procession of hybrids from the tee.
Which means that they now have a longer more difficult shot into the green. Architectural mission accomplished.
More and more tees is an unfortunate result of the powers that be failing to address the reality that long hitters are now SO MUCH LONGER than short hitters.
I would agree with you on the "back" tee, but, not on all the others.
Multiple tees are a concession to the lowest common denominator.
An attempt to make lesser players feel better because they made the same par from 310 that the better player made from 450.
In principle, you and I are on exactly the same side. I entirely agree that the situation is nonsensical but until someone has the balls to seriously threaten roll back we are stuck with the status quo of twenty three different sets of tee. It's absurd.
Paul,
Absurd is right.
I recently played a par 3 under 190 with five huge sets of tees.
-
Why have one thread when you can have two. ;)
I went on to say: But all this just sounds like pinch it here, there and everywhere in an attempt to control the long hitter and we both know that just means less width and therein less strategy. We've both seen that misguided strategy at many a course, of that I'm sure, and we both know there's nothing truly strategic, not in the classic sense, in the "leave the driver in the bag" mentality because "it's all a bit narrow." Hopefully we're finally getting away from that nonsense.
Now, this point about proximate hazards: shallow bunker at 180 yards, deeper one at 230 and a cave at 280? Where are you going with this? ;D
Your point about forward tees is absolutely fair enough. In my view, an architect should always try to make a courses as enjoyable as possible for as many golfers as possible but not to such an extent that he or she panders to a players' ego or lack of humility. It always strikes me as one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Golden Age intent when people confuse the desire to enable all levels of player to have an enjoyable game with the notion that the ODGs were keen on everyone finding a way of breaking 70. Look at those old Colt sketches and more often than not a route is considered for the high handicapper but it involves reaching the green in a few shots more than regulation, meaning all such architects were thinking about was a way for such players to break 120.
Since I'm on my high horse, I'll add to the above by pointing out that I grew up at and still play at a classic old Simpson links. There are medal tees, daily men's tees and ladies tees. Try staring at open, barren duneland in a strong wind in February and then tell me Simpson was intent on finding a way for a 12 year old boy (because I actually was 12 years old once) to break par!
-
Pat,
Is it really about par,
Jeff, I believe it is.
or the fact that those middle shots in golf really aren't much fun, compared to the thrilling bomb/long hit of a tee shot (yes, to most that is a bigger thrill than placement) and hitting the green?
Why should a 24 handicap be entitled to hit the green in regulation ?
I don't get it.
Why do we want everyone, irrespective of ability, to play the same game ?
Why do you think an extra shot or two, that is more boring would be favored by (and more fun for) the many average golfers.
You're advocating for dumbing the game down to the lowest common denominator and insuring that that segment of the golfing spectrum will have fun because the game has been made so easy for them, vis a vis altering the field of play down to their level.
Where's the aspiration and striving for improvement in that theory ?
Just curious
Or that more in place of fewer shots with some hazards to negotiate?
Not sure that I understand the above sentence.
Or lastly, do you think the average golfer wants fun or boring challenge?
Who says it has to be boring ?
It would only be boring if the architect lacked imagination.
But, let's go back about 100 years to the creation of GCGC, NGLA, Merion and Pine Valley.
Did those courses provide 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees ?
Or, did they provide but one (1) footpad for each tee ?
And, in those last 100 years did golf not enjoy tremendous popularity and growth ?
Did golfers of lesser ability not enjoy themselves on those courses even though they had to tee it up from the same footpad ?
Was playing any of those courses ..........BORING ?
No, it was exciting and challenging.
I think the vote boat has sailed in favor of more fun.
An enormous component in the "fun" is the nature of the challenge.
Why doom the majority of players to playing something other than golf intended.
You couldn't be more off base.
Was golf intended to be easy ?
Was it intended to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator ?
I think you're confusing "golf" with "putt-putt"
Or conversely, why have too short or too long of a course for every class of golfer, save one?
It' neither too short, nor too long.
Does a football field get altered during a game from 120 yards to 100 or 80 because some of the players are faster/slower than others ?
A pitcher's mound moved forward or backward because a power hitter or dinker comes to the plate ?
A basketball hoop lowered and raised based upon the height of the guy with the ball ?
Once the game starts, they all compete on the same field of play
In some ways building extra tees aren't really that expensive. You need a certain amount to spread the wear, and you can build it all together, or for about 10% more tee, you can spread it out over many tees.
Nonsense, building 4, 5, 6 and 7 tees is exponentially more expensive than building one large tee.
Ditto maintainance
It would be just as expensive to build bunkers from 200-320 yards in the fairways, no?
I don't think you're grasping the concept.
A proportionate challenge doesn't require duplicating the challenge faced by the better player.
Not worried about simpler handicapping, since most of the work is done by computers these days, and they can handle the variations.
Not so fast my friend, try negotiating a match when one guy or team plays from one set of tees and the others play from a different set of tees.
That's not a short discussion.
As Paul says, if the ball rolls back and the range of tee shot distances narrows a bit, then designers will reconsider.
We all agree that a roll back solves numerous problems, and while I was hoping that ANGC would help solve that problem, I don't think it's going to happen.
By the way, ANGC is the epitome of my premise.
Essentially one set of tees for all but the narrowest segment of golfers.
-
is to have just one tee. . . .
Question for Pat: Under this approach what should be the maximum carry from the single tee to the fairway, in your opinion? (For this purpose, let's assume a level fairway that's level with the tee, and that the architect could make appropriate adjustments for uphill and downhill drives.)
As long as the carry is not unreasonable for higher handicappers and real old folks (of which I am both) and women and children, I would have absolutely no problem with a single tee for all. Par is irrelevant to my personal enjoyment of the game, which is based on friendly, competitive handicapped matches.
-
Pat,
Make a note of this....... (;))
.......having just read your response to Jeff, spot on. The points you're making about classic American courses and the growth the game experienced when those courses were the undisputed model are exactly the points which apply to my home course and the likes of. The game grew whilst the game was playable by all but not conquerable by all.
-
s is to have just one tee. . . .
Question for Pat: Under this approach what should be the maximum carry from the one tee to the fairway, in your opinion? (For this purpose, let's assume a level field, and that the architect could make appropriate adjustments for uphill and downhill shots.)
Carl, good question.
I think you have to depart, conceptually, from what's evolved in terms of carries over the last 60+ years and adjust your architectural thinking to
"unigolf".
Obviously, site restrictions would have an enormous influence.
But, I'd look at the carries required at Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC and Merion in the early part of the 20th Century and use them as a reasonable guide.
As long as the carry is not unreasonable for higher handicappers and real old folks (of which I am both) and women and children, I would have absolutely no problem with a single tee for all.
I don't know that you can accomodate everyone, but, if NGLA, GCGC, Merion and PV could accomodate a broad spectrum of golfer, I don't see why we couldn't do that today, especially with modern equipment that has club heads on drivers the size of tennis rackets.
-
Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?
-
Patrick, you say:
Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?
In the above scenario the 24 handicapper would be presented a different question to the 12 handicapper or scratch player by virtue of his or her skill level.
That's what multiple tees attempt to do.
Not necessarily. This assumption suggests that when playing from the DZ the 24, 18 and 12 handicapper are presented with the same shot as the scratch player. However if the 24 hcp is playing a 5 wood, and the scratch player a shorter iron, the challenge is significantly different.
For many higher handicap players varying course yardage presents the potential to remove the tedium of continual wood and hybrid play - the challenge of the game however still needs to be addressed.
Lyne
-
Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?
Joe,
The model presents pace of play issues.
Rhythm of play issues.
Engagement with play issues.
Interest in play issues.
Lyne
-
Hi Pat,
Let's take Pine Valley here. Do you think holes like 6 or 16 could be playable for a player who can only carry the ball 180 yards from the back tee? I don't know exactly what the carries are on those holes, but, from memory they are fairly substantial. If you're only permitting one set of tees, how long would you want the course to be? Do you go with the tips on those holes? Or would you have everyone playing from up tees? The problem with that is that for the stronger player you would lose the strategy provided by a hole like 16 as they could merrily hit it down the right and not worry about the carry.
That said, I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground. I think three sets of tees is a good number. It's what most clubs in the UK have used pretty much forever. You have a medal tee, a members tee and a ladies tee. All seems to fit pretty well to me and allows for a range of levels of player to enjoy the game.
-
Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?
Joe,
The model presents pace of play issues.
Rhythm of play issues.
Engagement with play issues.
Interest in play issues.
Lyne
Let me get you ready for a reply, Lyne.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
-
Lol
;)
-
How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers 😳😁😳! Talk about speed of play problems 😳
-
Patrick, you say:
Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?
In the above scenario the 24 handicapper would be presented a different question to the 12 handicapper or scratch player by virtue of his or her skill level.
Correct, one more commensurate with their ability rather than facing the challenge designed for the zero handicapper.
That's what multiple tees attempt to do.
That is exactly what they do.
Not necessarily. This assumption suggests that when playing from the DZ the 24, 18 and 12 handicapper are presented with the same shot as the scratch player.
The presentation which confronts them is identical, but, it's their skill levels that separate how to go about overcoming what confronts them.
The 24 handicap is INCAPABLE of duplicating the zero handicaps solution to the confrontation.
In addition, the 24 handicap does not have the same expectation for overcoming the presentation
You, like others have fallen into the trap of thinking that a 24 handicap should execute the same shot as a zero handicap.
However if the 24 hcp is playing a 5 wood, and the scratch player a shorter iron, the challenge is significantly different.
It's supposed to be.
You can't provide a situation where the 24 handicap and the zero handicap face the same presentation and challenge on every shot.
That was never the intent of the game.
It's become the intent in an effort to allow the higher handicap to make "par"
Equalization, vis a vis 7 sets of tees is an attempt to replicate challenge from the DZ
For many higher handicap players varying course yardage presents the potential to remove the tedium of continual wood and hybrid play - the challenge of the game however still needs to be addressed.
So you want to move the pitcher's mound back 20 feet when the inferior baseball player comes up to bat, lower the basket when the shorter player has the ball, rather than retain the respective distance and height.
Let the higher handicap players aspire to improve their games.
Where is it written that golfers are entitled to a lower handicap because they are inferior golfers.
You're stuck in the mindset that everyone is entitled and deserves to make par on every hole.
Let's just go back in history, when after hundreds of years, due to traffic/safety, the tee for the next hole was moved beyond the putting surface.
How many of the great, really great courses had the next tee within a few steps of the prior green ?
And, golf exploded in popularity.
The 2nd tee at NGLA juts out from the 1st green.
No one whined and complained that more tees should be added, forward, to make the 2nd hole easier for the lesser player/higher handicap.
WHY ?
Because "par" and medal play were not nearly as significant as they are today.
You teed it up, played, holed it out and either won, tied or lost the hole.
But, the moment you deigned that a score higher than 4 should not be achieved, the element of "fairness" entered the equation and golfers clamored for more sets of tees to diminish the disparities in ability.
For about 100 years courses like NGLA, GCGC, PV had single footpads for their tees.
Even today those single footpads remain.
Have those courses become unpopular over the last century ?
The attempt to cater to every level of golfer is not good for the game and creating 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees isn't good for the game.
And, an out of control ball hasn't been good for the architectural game.
-
How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers ! Talk about speed of play problems
Mark,
It's just the opposite.
Play is slower today than it was 60 years ago and I'd venture to say slower than 100 years ago.
Slow play is far more of a cultural phenomenon than a function of handicap
-
Hi Pat,
Let's take Pine Valley here. Do you think holes like 6 or 16 could be playable for a player who can only carry the ball 180 yards from the back tee?
The 16th tee is a rather recent addition and it was meant for the best amateurs and pros in residence in the region and invited from far and away. (Walker Cup)
But, yes, from the back tee on # 6 to the begining of the left side fairway requires a carry of 150 yards
I don't know exactly what the carries are on those holes, but, from memory they are fairly substantial.
150 and 210 from the back to the begining of the fairway.
If you're only permitting one set of tees, how long would you want the course to be?
When I first played Pine Valley in 1964, I believe almost every hole had but one footpad for a tee.
The first time I played Pine Valley I played with two pros, one of whom would win the NJ State PGA tournament.
I don't recall any of us thinking that the course was too easy or unfair.
Do you go with the tips on those holes?
Or would you have everyone playing from up tees?
Why the need for two extremes.
And, the ONLY reason that Pine Valley added back tees since 1964 was to PROTECT PAR.
The problem with that is that for the stronger player you would lose the strategy provided by a hole like 16 as they could merrily hit it down the right and not worry about the carry.
Michael, at a 255 yard carry from the back of the back tee, slightly down hilll, the stronger player isn't that threatened by carrying the sandy expanse.
That said, I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground. I think three sets of tees is a good number.
It's the "ball" that has caused tees to be placed further back.
Absent an heroic carry, why wouldn't one set of tees suffice ?
EGO ? The need to make "par"
It's what most clubs in the UK have used pretty much forever. You have a medal tee, a members tee and a ladies tee. All seems to fit pretty well to me and allows for a range of levels of player to enjoy the game.
But, isn't the "medal" tee a restricted tee, effectively presenting only two tees for daily play ?
-
Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?
Joe,
The model presents pace of play issues.
Absolutely not.
Slow play is NOT a function of handicap.
Rhythm of play issues.
Just the opposite.
Everyone, after meeting at the previous green, would now meet at the next tee instead of being separated to play different tees.
Engagement with play issues.
Again, just the opposite, the architect would design features commensurate with the golfer's ability in the DZ
Interest in play issues.
Were the folks who played NGLA, GCGC, Pine Valley, Merion, Oakmont and other courses .......... disinterested ?
The resistance to the concept is rooted in ego.
No one wants a higher handicap and changing to a one tee per hole system would inflate most handicaps
-
It's the "ball" that has caused tees to be placed further back.
Maybe, but from my recollection the lengthening of courses was most abundant just after the introduction of Titanium heads and light weight composite shafts that allowed for longer more forgiving drivers. The average golfer didn't even use a 1 wood prior to metal heads. It would be an interesting exercise to see what goes further, a mid 70's suryln ball hit with a 460cc Ti head with a 45" graphite shaft or a ProV1 struck with a timber head with a 43.5" steel shaft.
-
Pat
I am generally in your camp, but that would necessitate archies changing how they build courses, seriously reducing the yardage of courses and seriously reconsider some sites used...that sounds good to me. Even so, there are times when alternate tees should be built to accommodate weaker players when tragic hazards loom and to increase interest for better players (ie using width and angles where available).
Ciao
-
I always remember sitting in a committee meeting talking about our master plan for the restoration of the club's golf course. We were discussing adding back an original centerline bunker (it would have been maybe only 160-180 yards off the main tee). Several people on the committee did not want me to restore it because they felt it would only penalize the higher handicappers. Finally one gentlemen spoke up (a past multiple time club champion). He said, “Mark, I used to be a pretty good player when I was younger. Now I can’t hit it out of my shadow but that doesn’t mean I want all the interest and excitement taken out of the game just so I have an unobstructed path to the green. Us shorter hitters what some challenge to and that bunker would be perfect for us even though the longer hitters would fly right over it. They will have to deal with the other bunker on that hole farther up the fairway. Put that shorter one in.”
One set of tees doesn’t work anymore and the Golden Age architects figured that out pretty quickly. Remember, tees (especially low profile tees) are one of the easiest and least expensive design features to add (or take away) from most golf courses. If adding them makes the game more fun and interesting (and faster) for a wider range of golfers - PUT THEM IN!
-
The simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer.......
......would be to grow a pair and start arguing, on mass, for roll back.
-
How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers ! Talk about speed of play problems
Mark,
It's just the opposite. . . . Slow play is far more of a cultural phenomenon than a function of handicap
Agree with Pat on the "far more . . . ." Of course, all other things being equal, hitting more shots takes longer, but all other things are rarely equal. At my club I play with older men, now higher handicappers. The ones who've played a long time play fast. Mostly it's about getting ready being ready to hit your shot at the appropriate time. There are some older high handicappers, newer golfers, who haven't gotten the picture. We have young guys who play fast, and young guys, low handicappers, who play slow -- which, based on my observations, has mostly to do with spending way too much time on the greens.
If someone could figure out a sure fire way to get the slower players to speed up that person would be a shoo-in for every golf hall of fame in the world.
-
Carl,
There are any number of sure fire ways but often those measures make you unpopular. Money talks in every possible sense.
-
Carl,
There are any number of sure fire ways but often those measures make you unpopular. Money talks in every possible sense.
Agreed. I'm talking about a sure fire method that works within the context of both private and daily fee golf and that does not involve upsetting or offending anyone. In other words, creating a mindset among golfers so that without prompting by the golf police or anyone else they learn how to move on. I'll start a separate thread on the subject so I won't mess up this one.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60242.0.html
-
Patrick,
Unfortunately you have misconstrued my writing.
You have also distorted my message and made false assumptions.
Please do not do this.
Lyne
-
Lynn,
I didn't misconstrue anything.
My reading comprehension skills remain quite astute.
If you meant something else you should have typed something else.
Patrick,
Unfortunately you have misconstrued my writing.
You have also distorted my message and made false assumptions.
Please do not do this.
Lyne
-
It makes no sense to suggest golf should remain fixed to the model of tee layout presented in the early twentieth century. From a business perspective that notion just doesn't fly.
As Mark and Jeff have noted, in the real world - multiple tees provide a more enjoyable challenge to a greater number of players - they serve the needs of the customer.
As to the correct number, that may be a matter of culture. The only time I have viewed 'five, six or seven sets of tees' is in the United States. I believe four, is about right, although this may vary with circumstance. All should be carefully planned and sited, with as low a profile as possible.
Lyne
-
Pat
I am generally in your camp, but that would necessitate archies changing how they build courses, seriously reducing the yardage of courses and seriously reconsider some sites used...that sounds good to me. Even so, there are times when alternate tees should be built to accommodate weaker players when tragic hazards loom and to increase interest for better players (ie using width and angles where available).
Sean,
I'm not suggesting that existing courses reduce their multiple tee arrangement down to one tee.
What I'm suggesting is that the concept of a single tee would allow the architect to design a course that presents challenges that are commensurate with the abilities of the various levels of golfers without unduly punishing the lesser golfer or rewarding the superior golfer.
Multiple tees present the inferior golfer with the same challenge in the DZ that the superior golfer faces, and that would seem to be excessive.
It would also reduce costs to build and maintain.
There are only a handful of courses that I know of that can present a challenge to the best golfers in the world and the average member or guest on a daily basis without any special set up, and wind tends to be a significant factor.
But, I'd rather confine the discussion to local clubs rather than PGA Tour/USGA Open venues
-
It makes no sense to suggest golf should remain fixed to the model of tee layout presented in the early twentieth century.
From a business perspective that notion just doesn't fly.
How do you know that if no present day facility exists for comparison ?
As Mark and Jeff have noted, in the real world - multiple tees provide a more enjoyable challenge to a greater number of players - they serve the needs of the customer.
Again,how do you know that absent a comparative model ?
ANGC seems to fare quite well with just one set of Member tees.
If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?
As to the correct number, that may be a matter of culture. The only time I have viewed 'five, six or seven sets of tees' is in the United States. I believe four, is about right, although this may vary with circumstance. All should be carefully planned and sited, with as low a profile as possible.
But that's not reality.
Clubs have typically added tees over the last 60 years based upon the whims of Green Committees and Boards, totally absent a global overview. And, as the I&B produced greater distances, clubs added more tees in an effort to counter more distance.
It's "PAR" and "EGO" that's produced multiple tees.
And "PAR" presents an interesting internal conflict at clubs.
When it comes to outside/tournament play, clubs want to defend "par" and will go to extremes to do so.
Yet, when it comes to member play, clubs want to make "par" more easily obtainable, ergo more tees.
The question I would ask is:
is there a need for more than one tee on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th or 6th holes at NGLA ?
It's tournament golf and the defense of "par that's responsible for clubs adding or lengthening back tees.
-
Pat,
Agree with ur idea. In theory.
The 'devil is in the detail'
What distance?
So many at GCA love 6500 +/-.
OK then, what about the Ladies?
The retirees?
Especially with the maturing of the Baby Boomers, the need for more shorter options will grow with every year.
Or, courses will face the loss of revenue from those two groups.
We have seen so many clubs teetering financially, that any loss of rounds could prove disastrous.
Of course, there are a few examples at private facilities (GCGC, for example) where the practice might work. And, absolutely, the ball roll-back would help (wish it would, but aint gonna happen). So, it looks like we're stuck with the status quo.
Unless we look at another option......bring back hickories!
-
I always remember sitting in a committee meeting talking about our master plan for the restoration of the club's golf course. We were discussing adding back an original centerline bunker (it would have been maybe only 160-180 yards off the main tee). Several people on the committee did not want me to restore it because they felt it would only penalize the higher handicappers. Finally one gentlemen spoke up (a past multiple time club champion). He said, “Mark, I used to be a pretty good player when I was younger. Now I can’t hit it out of my shadow but that doesn’t mean I want all the interest and excitement taken out of the game just so I have an unobstructed path to the green. Us shorter hitters what some challenge to and that bunker would be perfect for us even though the longer hitters would fly right over it. They will have to deal with the other bunker on that hole farther up the fairway. Put that shorter one in.”
One set of tees doesn’t work anymore and the Golden Age architects figured that out pretty quickly. Remember, tees (especially low profile tees) are one of the easiest and least expensive design features to add (or take away) from most golf courses. If adding them makes the game more fun and interesting (and faster) for a wider range of golfers - PUT THEM IN!
This happened at the Valley Club when carry bunkers were reinstituted at #12 and 15. I think they they affect the ladies more than the older gents but they are on the beautiful original Mackenzie plans displayed in the men's grill. The ladies might be happier if they were allowed in there to see them!
-
If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?
Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.
-
Pat,
Agree with ur idea. In theory.
The 'devil is in the detail'
What distance?
So many at GCA love 6500 +/-.
OK then, what about the Ladies?
The retirees?
John,
What did the ladies and retirees do 50 75 and 100 years ago ?
Ladies and retirees didn't just start playing golf recently.
I would examine the carries that Ross, MacKenzie, Crump, Wilson, AWT, CBM/SR./CB and others presented.
Especially with the maturing of the Baby Boomers, the need for more shorter options will grow with every year.
That's an easy problem to solve.
CBM and Crump solved it by providing alternate routes to the green.
24 handicaps aren't supposed to play the same game as a zero handicap.
With angled features you can make the carry for the high handicap much shorter than the carry for the zero handicap
NGLA, GCGC and PV provide hole after hole with this configuration
Or, courses will face the loss of revenue from those two groups.
I don't see where NGLA, GCGC and PV have suffered.
We have seen so many clubs teetering financially, that any loss of rounds could prove disastrous.
You're not grasping the concept and how it would be presented.
Are golfer's desires to play ANGC, NGLA, GCGC and PV diminishing ?
Of course, there are a few examples at private facilities (GCGC, for example) where the practice might work. And, absolutely, the ball roll-back would help (wish it would, but aint gonna happen). So, it looks like we're stuck with the status quo.
Only if we limit our thinking ;D
Unless we look at another option......bring back hickories!
-
If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?
Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.
So do NGLA and CPC and it's worked for them for 100 years
-
If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?
Because other clubs have female members who play regularly.
You may not be aware of it, but women play ANGC, GCGC and PV
-
The problem some of you morons are having is that you're looking at play by women, seniors and others solely in the context of medal play and "par"
Women's score cards often reflect/ed "par" at a higher number than the men's "par".
Including "par" of 6
You're all caught up in the concept of equality amongst all golfers in the face of, and inspite of, disparaties in ability.
-
For those that doubt what Pat is saying, I would ask you to consider two key points:
1) Do you honestly not think that the emergence of multiple tees has been a result of trying to satisfy peoples' egos? Nowadays you can either find a set of tees which allow you to pretend to be a good golfer or you can shoot a big number but nurse your ego by telling yourself that you're the sort of guy that plays from all the way back and you are therefore automatically a serious golfer.
2) Why do you doubt a model which worked successfully during a period in which demand for golf grew exponentially? In the UK most clubs still only have three sets of tees. I will happily concede that more tees have emerged as the differentiation between long and short has grown, but, if ego really wasn't/isn't a factor, would the simpler solution not be to increase the distance from one set of tees to another, rather than adding new tee after new tee after new tee?
-
Pat Mucci:
I agree with you that the number of tees has gotten out of hand. My preference is for two maximum.
But, a couple questions:
When it comes to accommodating all levels of players - my words, not yours, I think - it seems odd to mention both Augusta and Pine Valley. Aren't they really quite different designs with Augusta fitting that description far better than Pine Valley?
As for Pine Valley, how playable do you think it was for the high handicap player in the 30s, 40s or 50s? FYI, I once played the course in a group with Ernie Ransome that had a 36+ guy. It was brutal to say the least.
-
Pat,
You did copy and respond to my thoughts, so u did see that GCGC was included w/ the exceptions.
As u listed ANGC, PV and GCGC, it shud be noted that they are all men's clubs.
Do u want to play behind a group w/ two average Ladies playing at 6200 yds?
Most 'regular' private clubs wud have a riot from the chicks if they offed the fwd tees.
Ur point is still very valid, but it seems to be more of an equipment issue that architects have had to adjust to. It wud be interesting to know the existing average tee distance for 'normal' players. Compare that to the avg Tour distance of about what 300?. Am guessing a difference of 70 yds or so. Cant believe it was close to that when AWT, DJR, CBM, etal were sketching up their great tracks. Hell, even the USGA and PGA r forced to jack courses. So, if we took the one tee argument to their 'conclusion', ud have pars of 82ish for average players.
Will say it again...bring back hicks.
Finally, if we had lesser/shorter players using longer tees, what wud that do to pace of play?
-
Pat,
Regarding your post #35: Can you cite a single hole at Pine Valley that accommodates an alternate route to the green for the 24 handicapper (to use your number)?
-
Pat Mucci:
I agree with you that the number of tees has gotten out of hand. My preference is for two maximum.
But, a couple questions:
When it comes to accommodating all levels of players - my words, not yours, I think - it seems odd to mention both Augusta and Pine Valley. Aren't they really quite different designs with Augusta fitting that description far better than Pine Valley?
I would agree that ANGC probably accommodates the higher handicap more favorably, but remember the design intent behind PV.
Years ago I brought some friends there and the highest handicap, a 16, had the best round of his life.
As for Pine Valley, how playable do you think it was for the high handicap player in the 30s, 40s or 50s? FYI, I once played the course in a group with Ernie Ransome that had a 36+ guy. It was brutal to say the least.
I can't speak with certainty about golf at PV in the 30's, 40's or 50's and would have to rely on my dad's accounts of his play with his friends during those times.
I would imagine that tee to green play presented the major challenge during those times.
I can comment about play in the 60's and beyond.
The intimidating carries from the tee that come to mind were #'s 2, 5, 15 and 16.
Some, due to the visual presentation others due to the length of the carry and the visual.
But, my one friend, a high handicap played the best round of his life.
The"key" was staying out of trouble.
The fairways are very generous, so if you hit your ball straight, you tend to avoid telephone numbers.
Remember, 16 handicaps play bogey golf. They don't and aren't expected to hit 14 greens in regulation.
For the high handicap, I think the par 3's are difficult, as is the carry on 15.
Remember, one of PV's primary defenses today is the slope and pace of their greens.
So much so that they softened several greens because those slopes couldn't tolerate today's increased speeds.
I don't think green speed presented the same challenge in the 30's, 40's and 50's
-
Pat,
Regarding your post #35: Can you cite a single hole at Pine Valley that accommodates an alternate route to the green for the 24 handicapper (to use your number)?
Jim,
Let's start with the 1st hole
-
It really is amazing just how the whole concept of playability in golf has changed. Accommodating players once meant finding a route which allowed he or she to complete any given hole. Par had nothing to do with it or, more accurately, par for any given player was tailored by a little thing called the handicap system. Apparently now, rather than adjusting handicaps, we have to adjust the course, dumb it down until it measures 2,000 yards and pat everyone on the back for shooting 70.
I mean, go far enough with this and it can be argued that a hole which measures 360 yards from the back tees is equally a par 4 at 140 yards for many players as the reality is that it involves a miss hit full shot with an iron followed by a pitch, making it a drive and pitch par 4. Ridiculous.
Granted, the differential between long and short has caused a problem, as has a move towards an aerial game which effectively puts roadblocks in front of lesser players when a problem is faced which the lesser player simply doesn't have the ball flight to counter, meaning the only option is to either put a tee in 100 yards further up or have those lesser players picking up and moving to the next whole. Equally of course, an insistence of medal play at ever possible juncture has only compounded that problem.
So taking all the above as a given, the simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer, and remember that by "present a challenge" I don't mean "present a series of pars," is to do what worked for countless years and provide ground game options. It worked for the ODGs and it's working for the current crop of most sought after architects. Where's the confusion?
-
All the architects/contractors that take a percentage of the construction budget for their design fee would freak out!
-
It really is amazing just how the whole concept of playability in golf has changed.
Paul,
I believe that TV has played a part in the "change"
Accommodating players once meant finding a route which allowed he or she to complete any given hole.
One of the great examples of alternate routes is the 1928 schematic of NGLA which clearly depicts alternate routes for two levels of golfers on certain holes.
The ability to "tack" one's way around the golf course in order to produce the best score seems to have become a lost art with the advent of modern equipment.
Par had nothing to do with it or, more accurately, par for any given player was tailored by a little thing called the handicap system.
Apparently now, rather than adjusting handicaps, we have to adjust the course, dumb it down until it measures 2,000 yards and pat everyone on the back for shooting 70.
Agreed.
I mean, go far enough with this and it can be argued that a hole which measures 360 yards from the back tees is equally a par 4 at 140 yards for many players as the reality is that it involves a miss hit full shot with an iron followed by a pitch, making it a drive and pitch par 4. Ridiculous.
Granted, the differential between long and short has caused a problem, as has a move towards an aerial game which effectively puts roadblocks in front of lesser players when a problem is faced which the lesser player simply doesn't have the ball flight to counter, meaning the only option is to either put a tee in 100 yards further up or have those lesser players picking up and moving to the next whole. Equally of course, an insistence of medal play at ever possible juncture has only compounded that problem.
I'd agree, although I don't mind when those roadblocks are at the green.
Although, Ross and others seemed content to insert those roadblocks early in the hole.
So taking all the above as a given, the simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer, and remember that by "present a challenge" I don't mean "present a series of pars," is to do what worked for countless years and provide ground game options.
I'd agree with that as well
It worked for the ODGs and it's working for the current crop of most sought after architects. Where's the confusion?
EGO.
I used to play from the back tees on a 666-670 and 620-640 par 5, often.
I wouldn't have any problem playing them today if that was the only tee in use.
The only result would be that my handicap would go up.
But, Imagine the thrill in parring or birdying the holes
-
Pat,
Good post (because we actually agree ;)).
Those road blocks were indeed often still present, albeit they were an occasional change in what was demanded of the player, rather than what we now have which is high cappers feeling as is they're stuck in mud because shot after shot now requires high ball flight even when a low ball doesn't actually spell disaster. In other words, just let the bloody ball run and high cappers can play from the same tees as you and me. Golf courses, in effect, get disproportionately longer for shorter hitters when an aerial approach is dictated. If they can't get extra yards through the ball rolling along, 6,000 yards when you only carry the thing 150 yards is a very long way. It means nothing however if you fly the thing 300 yards and the ball comes down vertically. I keep telling this story but it's another one which really struck a cord with me:
A while back I (playing alone on a Sunday afternoon) played through two REALLY old ladies. I was struck by the fact that the nature of our course, i.e. a genuine links, afforded them the possibility of still playing the game. The course from the ladies tees is just over 5,800 yards and, whilst they were never going to make par, they were having fun running the ball along the ground. From their tees, which have barely moved in the last 80 years, they experienced those aforementioned occasional because the forced carries for them were still a real factor. It should perhaps be noted however that those carries did not, could not or would not represent insurmountable road blocks. Now, on the same golf course as I was playing, their games were being challenged just as much as my game was. Transport them to almost an course built in the 1980's and they just wouldn't have been able to play.
But aside from the ground game, as I said (or meant to intimate), the odd road block was less of an issue back in the day anyway because medal play wasn't the be all and end all, therefore the push for forward tees wasn't so substantive.
PS: Say something about Trump. ;D
-
Pat,
You did copy and respond to my thoughts, so u did see that GCGC was included w/ the exceptions.
As u listed ANGC, PV and GCGC, it shud be noted that they are all men's clubs.
It should also be noted that women play those courses.
Do u want to play behind a group w/ two average Ladies playing at 6200 yds?
John,
I know a lot of women golfers who play alot faster than men golfers.
And, as I indicated, playing from a single tee would allow the architect to create separate, propotional challenges.
I'm not a golf "snob". I play with the broadest spectrum of golfers.
My two basic rules are, play at pace and know where your ball is at all times.
However, when you're sitting in a waiting room at MSKCC and you know that the person sitting next to you won't be sitting there next week, you gain a heightened sense and appreciation for time.
Playing a round of golf with fellow competitors whose company you enjoy is one of my great pleasures in life.
I don't want to rush through the round, but, I don't want to labor through it either.
I've had some very enjoyable rounds with women who meet all of the criteria previously mentioned.
Slow play has become a cultural issue, systemically, one not confined to gender.
It certainly takes longer to play 7,200 yards than it does 6,200, which takes longer than 5,200.
But, if the culture was changed, you'd make allowances for the time it takes to play a course that's 7,200; 6,200 or 5,200.
Most 'regular' private clubs wud have a riot from the chicks if they offed the fwd tees.
Initially, I agree, because those golfers are in their "comfort zone" when it comes to the tees they play, the scores they shoot and the handicaps they have.
But, I'll ask you this ?
Why all the fuss, why all the focus on women becoming members of ANGC ?
If the "chicks" have to play the Members tees, do their dues come with a surcharge for the riot police ? ;D
I get calls from women who want to play GCGC, knowing full well that there aren't any ladies tees.
Why ?
When Ken Bakst and Dick Youngscap printed their first scorecards, I don't believe that "par" was listed.
So, if you and I had a match at Friars Head and Sand Hills our only concern would be who had the lowest score on each hole.
We wouldn't care what par was, only how we fared at the end of each hole.
One of the greatest matches I ever had, despite the completely unbelievable outcome, due in no small part to a large pebble on the 17th green, was at Sand Hills against Ran.
We both played exceptionally well. We both enjoyed ourselves immensely, although I think Ran enjoyed himself a little more once the match was over.
Yet today, almost 10 years later, I recall that day and the fun we had.
Had I been playing in a medal play event, I doubt that I'd recall much of anything except for the embarrassing GCA.com morons riding around the perimeter of the golf course, in the back of a white pick-up truck, looking at the non-constructed holes in the Constellation routing.
It wouldn't have mattered if Sand Hills played at 5,200, 6,200 or 7,200
Ur point is still very valid, but it seems to be more of an equipment issue that architects have had to adjust to.
There's no doubt that the I&B have complicated the issue.
It wud be interesting to know the existing average tee distance for 'normal' players. Compare that to the avg Tour distance of about what 300?.
Am guessing a difference of 70 yds or so. Cant believe it was close to that when AWT, DJR, CBM, etal were sketching up their great tracks.
Agreed, the distance disparity was much narrower.
Hell, even the USGA and PGA r forced to jack courses. So, if we took the one tee argument to their 'conclusion', ud have pars of 82ish for average players.
Will say it again...bring back hicks.
Only if you'll vote for reinstituting the "stymie"
Finally, if we had lesser/shorter players using longer tees, what wud that do to pace of play?
It's not the length of someone's shots that determines pace of play.
One only has to compare themselves to Jack Nicklaus in his prime to see the answer that issue.
-
Paul,
I think you bring up a very interesting tangential point.
Isn't the push to "move up" an attempt to:
A. Speed Up play
B. Make "Par" more attainable
What would happen if there was but one tee at NGLA, PV, GCGC, Seminole, CPC or ANGC.
Golfers would adjust, as would their handicaps.
But, this thread isn't so much about altering existing courses as it is about designing new courses.
In terms of conceptualizing, and forgetting about the PGA Tour and Professional golfer would anyone object if the following holes had but one tee ?
1-18 NGLA
1-18 GCGC
1-18 PV
1-18 ANGC
1-18 CPC
1-18 Seminole
1-18 Merion
-
I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long. As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept. If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head. Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings. Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees. Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.
-
I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long.
As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept.
That's just not true, not in the construction phase and the maintainance phase.
If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head.
Nonsense. Daily play dictates square footage and you get more available square footage out of one tee than you do with multiple tees with the same overall square footage. Take four or five separate tees totaling 10,000 Sq/Ft vs one tee of 10,000 sq/ft and do the math.
Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. [
More nonsense, green diameters approximate 30 yards, tees not 10 yards.
If you have to irrigate 10,000 Sq/ft it's cheaper to construct, irrigate and maintain one continuous tee than 4 or 5 separate tees.
Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings.
You must be kidding.
High wear and tear is far more prevalent on smaller multiple tees than it is on a singular larger tee.
No wonder you're over budget
Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees.
That's your opinion, one I don't share, and it's an integral part of the problem I'm alluding to.
Should we create another set of tees for beginners 5 yards short of the fairway ?
Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.
Just the opposite with one tee where all golfers initiate play on every hole versus having to wait until those playing further back, tee off first, and then walk up to the more forward tees.
-
I personally don't need tees by the dozen on each hole.
That said, I see some value in having more sets of tees. I want people to have fun playing the game as they get older and if that means playing from a forward set of tees, that's cool. Likewise, I'd like a new golfer to have fun if that means starting short and moving forward, I'm good with that as well.
-
Serious question (or two):
Does anyone really know any elderly golfers at classic courses who demand a short course? Equally, does anyone know any 12 year olds that demand the same?
I speak only from personal experience but I've just never met these seemingly mythical characters that we have to be pandering to. I have however met an awful lot of middle age men that want to pretend to be good.
I won't repeat the story yet again but I'll summarise by mentioning the two old gents (well into their 80's) that I had the pleasure of playing in a competition with last year. Safe to say that driving the ball 180 yards maximum on a firm and fast course did not have them calling for more tees. Actually, one of my other most memorable rounds last year was a round of exactly one hole played with a boy of 11. We both played from the men's tees, as is just the norm, and he hit driver, three wood, chip straight into the hole for birdie, beating my par. He was ecstatic. He wouldn't have been if he'd played the hole from 100 yards ahead of me.
And that, if I can extrapolate for a minute, is exactly the kind of earned reward Pat has been promoting. You don't get that reward if you play a pitch and putt course and call it par 72.
-
Serious question (or two):
Does anyone really know any elderly golfers at classic courses who demand a short course? Equally, does anyone know any 12 year olds that demand the same?
I speak only from personal experience but I've just never met these seemingly mythical characters that we have to be pandering to. I have however met an awful lot of middle age men that want to pretend to be good.
I won't repeat the story yet again but I'll summarise by mentioning the two old gents (well into their 80's) that I had the pleasure of playing in a competition with last year. Safe to say that driving the ball 180 yards maximum on a firm and fast course did not have them calling for more tees. Actually, one of my other most memorable rounds last year was a round of exactly one hole played with a boy of 11. We both played from the men's tees, as is just the norm, and he hit driver, three wood, chip straight into the hole for birdie, beating my par. He was ecstatic. He wouldn't have been if he'd played the hole from 100 yards ahead of me.
And that, if I can extrapolate for a minute, is exactly the kind of earned reward Pat has been promoting. You don't get that reward if you play a pitch and putt course and call it par 72.
Paul,
I'm with you on this though certain restrictions could make this more difficult on a modern course (Hot equipment, wetlands issues dictating more forced carries)
I see kids who play very short courses competitively and shoot in the 60's very early.
May well help their ability to have a low comfort zone but I have fond memories of the driver, 4 wood wedge days, and look forward to them later in life again-if nothing else to piss people off with my short game ;) ;D
-
This may have already been covered here but Pine Valley ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT WORK with one set of tees. I play there often and most of my hosts are older members. They all play from a special set of shorter tees so they can make the carries to the fairways as well as have some reasonable chance of reaching the par threes in one shot (not that they do). They literally would no longer be able to play the golf course (and have any fun) were it not for that shorter set of tees.
Think of golfers like skiers; if they all had to start from the same spots, there would be A LOT fewer golfers and skiers 😊
-
I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long.
As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept.
That's just not true, not in the construction phase and the maintainance phase.
If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head.
Nonsense. Daily play dictates square footage and you get more available square footage out of one tee than you do with multiple tees with the same overall square footage. Take four or five separate tees totaling 10,000 Sq/Ft vs one tee of 10,000 sq/ft and do the math.
Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. [
More nonsense, green diameters approximate 30 yards, tees not 10 yards.
If you have to irrigate 10,000 Sq/ft it's cheaper to construct, irrigate and maintain one continuous tee than 4 or 5 separate tees.
Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings.
You must be kidding.
High wear and tear is far more prevalent on smaller multiple tees than it is on a singular larger tee.
No wonder you're over budget
Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees.
That's your opinion, one I don't share, and it's an integral part of the problem I'm alluding to.
Should we create another set of tees for beginners 5 yards short of the fairway ?
Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.
Just the opposite with one tee where all golfers initiate play on every hole versus having to wait until those playing further back, tee off first, and then walk up to the more forward tees.
I will try again. One big tee lets say 5,000 sq feet will need irrigation heads that throw somewhere around 80 feet and will require a sprinkler that cost in the vicinity of three hundred dollars. If I créate 5 tees of 33 X 33 feet for a total of 5,000 sq feet I can use a head that throws 35 feet and cost in the vicinity of 40 dollars. Two heads per tee times five tees equal ten heads, $400 vs 4 heads at 300 dollars, 1200 dollars.
The native áreas or grasses I was refering to were in relation to the tee surroundings not the tees themself. I think it a great cost reducer but I am not comfortable asking average golfer of 23 handicapp to have to fly 50 to 100 yards eighteen times in a round but seems to work well with multiple tees and making the carries less and sometimes non existent.
-
I personally don't need tees by the dozen on each hole.
That said, I see some value in having more sets of tees. I want people to have fun playing the game as they get older and if that means playing from a forward set of tees, that's cool. Likewise, I'd like a new golfer to have fun if that means starting short and moving forward, I'm good with that as well.
Jeff,
If there's a value added in additional tees I believe that softening the angles of attack is a more valid reason rather than distance.
-
I will try again.
Me too.
One big tee lets say 5,000 sq feet will need irrigation heads that throw somewhere around 80 feet and will require a sprinkler that cost in the vicinity of three hundred dollars.
That's not true.
See my example and math below
If I créate 5 tees of 33 X 33 feet for a total of 5,000 sq feet I can use a head that throws 35 feet and cost in the vicinity of 40 dollars.
Two heads per tee times five tees equal ten heads, $400 vs 4 heads at 300 dollars, 1200 dollars.
Let's use your 33 X 33 dimension for five tees.
That's 5,445 Sq/ft or 605 Sq/yds.
You would have five tees, each measuring 11 yards X 11 yards, versus my one tee of 11 X 55
From a practical perspective, you only have 10 X 9 usable yards, or 90 sq/yds per tee, = 810 sq/yds per tee, or 4,050 sq/ft in total
Whereas, I have 10 X 53 usable yards, or 530 sq/yrs = 4,770 sq/ft in total
I have an additional 720 sq/ft of usable teeing area.
Ergo, your tees will wear out quicker than mine due to the reduced available teeing area in your configuration.
In addition, it will cost me less to construct my one tee versus your five.
And, you conveniently left out the additional piping and wiring that your five tees will cost.
I don't need an irrigation head with a throw radius of 80 feet, let alone two that would cover a tee with one of the dimensions of 160 feet.
I can use six (6) heads with a throw radius of 35 feet and cover my entire 11 X 55 yard ( 33 X 165 ft) tee, so again, my maintainance cost is far less than yours and, I'm irrigating and have the use of 18 % more teeing area than you have.
Hence, I have a bigger, better tee that costs me less to construction and maintain than yours.
The native áreas or grasses I was refering to were in relation to the tee surroundings not the tees themself. I think it a great cost reducer but I am not comfortable asking average golfer of 23 handicapp to have to fly 50 to 100 yards eighteen times in a round but seems to work well with multiple tees and making the carries less and sometimes non existent.
But you're mower guy has to carry, ride, transport his mower/s five times versus one for me.
And, my configuration will take him alot less time, saving on labor.
Architecturally, at what point do you limit your carry distance for the average golfer with a 23 handicap ?
5 yards, 25 yards ?
If someone can't carry the ball 25 yards, is that the golfer you establish your architectural and maintainance practices for ?
50 yards ?
The lowest common denominator ?
I'm wouldn't design or maintain a course for the golfer that can barely carry 25, 50 or 100 yards.
Might I suggest that the money I've saved with my one tee per hole configuration be used to create an excellent practice and teaching facility so all of those golfers who can barely carry 25 or 50 yards can improve their games.
-
If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?
LOL!
-
Okay, I think I figured what is going on. When I talk about tees, I am talking about the numbero f markers, not teeing space. I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries. I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees. This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as model of design. At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that. If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily tee 5700-6200 yard courses. If the trend is really to grow the game like all the golf business heads claim, it isn't done with length. To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field. People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.
Ciao
-
To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.
Or beginning juniors.
-
To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.
Or beginning juniors.
Lynn,
I grew up playing with a fairly large number of junior golfers and the yardage of each hole wasn't really an issue.
We all just tried to hit the ball farther and beat each other.
And, junior golf flourished from the 50's.
Juniors strive to improve.
Juniors try to pound the ball, so I don't agree with your take on junior golfers wanting to play short courses
As to women prefering to play 5,700 yard courses, I think that's a predisposition that's been cultivated over the last few decades.
One of the things that fascinated me was the early photo of the woman holding a wood on the 2nd tee at PV and the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.
Before I & B took a quantum leap, if you played a 6,700 yard course that was incredibly interesting, but the scorecard didn't indicate par for each hole, would you reject the experience because you made 6's on 570 yard holes ?
I think you're just conditioned to relate your play to "par"
-
Okay, I think I figured what is going on. When I talk about tees, I am talking about the number f marker, not teeing space.
Sean,
I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.
I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries. I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees. This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as model of design. At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that. If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily 5700-6200 yard courses. If the trend is really to grow the game like all this golf business heads aim, it isn't done with length. To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field. People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.
The biggest impediment to the one tee/footpad premise is the I&B.
When golfers, even 60 year old golfers are hitting the ball 300 yards it makes the premise untenable.
Yet, today there are good to great courses that only have two sets of tees.
Ciao
-
I grew up playing with a fairly large number of junior golfers and the yardage of each hole wasn't really an issue.
We all just tried to hit the ball farther and beat each other.
And, junior golf flourished from the 50's.
Juniors strive to improve.
Juniors try to pound the ball, so I don't agree with your take on junior golfers wanting to play short courses
As to women prefering to play 5,700 yard courses, I think that's a predisposition that's been cultivated over the last few decades.
One of the things that fascinated me was the early photo of the woman holding a wood on the 2nd tee at PV and the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.
Before I & B took a quantum leap, if you played a 6,700 yard course that was incredibly interesting, but the scorecard didn't indicate par for each hole, would you reject the experience because you made 6's on 570 yard holes ?
I think you're just conditioned to relate your play to "par" [/color]
Well said, and I agree with everything except the GCA notion that ''par doesn't matter.'' ''how do you measure yourself against other golfers? By height''. Making a 6 on a 570 yard par 5 is like a D+. It could be a great experience if a 7 or 8 was made the last time one played the hole ;) ;)
-
To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.
60 years ago one tee/footpad could probably accomodate every golfer.
Today, with the enormous disparity in distance two tees could accomodate every level of golfer.
Or beginning juniors.
-
Pat,I'm sympathetic to your argument. IMO,the single tee approach would be net/net/net good. But as you know,few clubs are willing to do something this "radical" when there's the risk of a membership revolt.The inmates have been running the asylum for the last 25 years and large percentages like having their own bespoke set of tee markers.
There's zero chance of today's clubs doing anything perceived as making the game harder. And rightly or wrongly,most will perceive a single set of tee markers as making the game harder.
-
One of the things that fascinated me was . . . the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.
You told us you didn't believe that story.
-
Sean,
I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.
Today, with the enormous disparity in distance two tees could accomodate every level of golfer.
If we go a few more pages we may get to three tees.
:D
-
My home courses were built a few years ago as "players" courses with 5 sets of tees on each. The business model failed as there just weren't enough "players" for the location and price. The owner leased it out to the local golf conglomerate who now operate it as a combined member and public play course. The forward tees are still too long for most of the women and consequently they set up tees on the fairway on some of the more difficult holes. Par is not a consideration - none of them come close.
The men play about half and half the 6000 yard and 6500 yard tees. There is very little crossover between the two groups. Prizing is even done by the tees played.
We have a 7000 yard set of tees and a 7400 yard set as well. The 7000 tees rarely get used and the tips almost never. Once a year we have a black and blue night, back tees and back pins - almost 7600 yards. About half the people don't even bother showing up.
For the one tee advocates, what one tee should we impose on the membership? How many, from our declining membership, would transfer elsewhere? If it's the 7400 or 7000 yard ones I'm gone. I could play them but it's no fun shooting in the 90's. If it's the 6500 yard ones half the mebership is likely gone. At 6000 the other half is likely gone.
I rhink most golfers want to have fun and have some success. Successfully tacking around a golf course in a 100 shots probably doesn't interest many players of lesser ability, just as overwhelming a 6000 yard course in 65 shots doesn't appeal to most more skilled golfers.
Is the logical extension of one tee that courses would be stratified by length with players migrating to a course that gives them pleasure playing at whatever score they're comfortable shooting?
-
Okay, I think I figured what is going on. When I talk about tees, I am talking about the number f marker, not teeing space.
Sean,
I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.
I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries. I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees. This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as model of design. At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that. If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily 5700-6200 yard courses. If the trend is really to grow the game like all this golf business heads aim, it isn't done with length. To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field. People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.
The biggest impediment to the one tee/footpad premise is the I&B.
When golfers, even 60 year old golfers are hitting the ball 300 yards it makes the premise untenable.
Yet, today there are good to great courses that only have two sets of tees.
Ciao
Pat
This is where I disagree. The biggest impediment to less tee pads is ego. It is very easy to build courses primarily for flat bellies and others primarily for hackers. I think the mistake is trying to placate the two on one design. I don't think that model of design makes much sense in terms of resources, but golfer ego requires a level of difficulty in design which very few golfers will use...yet how many hackers go on about course difficulty?
Lynn - I don't care if courses have five tee pads so long as width and use of angles is the primary reason for them. What I don't like to see are loads of tee pads to create crazy length differences on most holes. IMO it is very dfficult to get the best out of a design trying to cater to 5000 and 7000 yards. So what tends to happen is (if there are 5000 yard markers!) courses get designed for tees back in the high 6000s or above. Thus creating a demand for more hazards, more features, more money maintenance and more walking between greens and tees. Its really a case of more for less to placate a very small percentage of golfers at the expense of the potential market of women and most current golfers. Given that egos won't be checked any time soon nor will the ball be rolled back, I think its time for archies to focus on a particular market rather than trying to please everybody at once...and ultimately failing.
Ciao
-
Pat,
Unless I missed it you didn't address my post that Pine Valley is unplayable for all golfers from one set of tees? I know you have always liked to toss out topics just for the sake of a debate, but this one has little to no merit on most existing golf courses. Furthermore, you are out of touch with reality if you think most women want to play golf courses over 6000 yards! 5500 is a better target. I know as I have sat in dozens of golf committee meetings at clubs across the country talking about building shorter sets of tees for this group of golfers. There is also this program called "Play It Forward"! If you were following the latest trends in golf lately, you would know it is about speeding up play and making the game more enjoyable for more golfers.
I just played Nanea in Hawaii a few weeks ago. If I would have made my wife play the back tees with me, she would have picked up after three holes and headed back to the beach without me.
My analogy between skiers and golfers is a good one. Think about it!
-
This thread is about argument rather than truth.
For the vast majority of golf clubs, provision of one tee is far removed from the game and business of the day. It is short sighted to infer otherwise.
As was the case in the recent forced-carries thread (among others), a portion of the discussion ridicules and dismisses those golfers who are not as strong or able as the very accomplished. Yet these players form the majority and keep clubs in business.
Golf needs to work harder to become a game that includes - rather than a game that excludes.
Course elasticity assists inclusion.
-
Course elasticity assists inclusion.
How do we then explain the drop in participants just when the idea of stretching tees over a 1000 yards is in vogue this past fe decades? Elasticity can usually only work if many elements come together for the course to really make it work (#1 being the archie is firmly in control of the design)...this often isn't the case...which often means women and walkers are meant to eat hard cheese.
Ciao
-
This thread is about argument rather than truth.
What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title.
If you don't understand the premise ...........
For the vast majority of golf clubs, provision of one tee is far removed from the game and business of the day. It is short sighted to infer otherwise.
Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise
As was the case in the recent forced-carries thread (among others), a portion of the discussion ridicules and dismisses those golfers who are not as strong or able as the very accomplished. Yet these players form the majority and keep clubs in business.
You just don't get it.
Nor do you understand architectural proportionality
Golf needs to work harder to become a game that includes - rather than a game that excludes.
As I stated, you don't get it.
You don't understand the premise and therefore want to argue for inclusiveness.
Have someone who understands it, explain the premise to you.
Course elasticity assists inclusion.
That statement is proof positive that you don't understand the premise.
One could reasonably conclude that you favor a dozen tees per hole and the absence of a proportional architectural challenge.
Go back and REREAD the first sentence.
-
What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title...
Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise
The second sentence suggests maybe your brain isn't as sharp as you think it is.
What is an ideal total distance for the single set of tees?
-
Sean,
Harry Colt spoke of elasticity in the early 1900's, the concept is not so new.
Re the drop in participants; The game varies in different parts of the world but in general terms shifts in society have influenced participation in golf. Research released by the Australian Sports Commission states that the sports we play, as well as how, and why we play them, has shifted over the past few decades.
Participation in individualised sports and fitness has risen sharply while organised sports such as golf are in decline. The ASC reports "a decreased willingness of time constrained people to commit to structured sporting activities."
"People are increasingly opting to go for a run with headphones and a music player when the opportunity arises rather than commit to an organised sporting event." Cycling is the fastest growing sport in the country.
With respect to women; difficulty, intimidation, time and access are identified as major deterrents to participation.
Down here, increasing participation among juniors, women and seniors is a key goal of Golf Australia. Providing shorter formats of the game and embracing multiple tees has been identified as key to this end. The ASC also states that to retain strong participation rates sports of the future will need to cater for senior citizens.
Australian courses typically have three tees, similar to the UK I expect. As noted previously I believe four would assist participation. In essence a medal and regular tee for each gender (although with the slope system this could vary). The world is not perfect but with good planning and construction, forward tees can be low profile and unobtrusive and bring more enjoyment to more players.
Cheers
Ref:
http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/523450/The_Future_of_Australian_Sport_-_Full_Report.pdf
http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00017555-source.pdf
http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00017556-source.pdf
-
One tee worked up until the pro v1. Even accepting the premise that having senior, ladies tees etc. is only an ego thing to help them make par (personally I don't support this it is simply to help overcome some very long forced carries in most cases to get to the fairway) the biggest problem is tees moving back to maintain the challenge for top amateurs and professionals so that classic courses don't turn into pitch and putt.
The average golfer has not had the big increase in distance that the top have so why should they have to follow the bombers back? Most tees are about protecting par not making par possible for lesser golfers. A better way to make things a challenge for all is to have options, the 16th hole at Yowani (ACT) is a great example, it is a 165m par three with water from the tee box to the front of the green, all carry if you want to go at a pin anywhere on the centre and right of the green but an option to get on the left of the green if you can thread the needle between water and trees - for mine this is a good way of posing different challenges on the one shot that is proportionate with skill level. Good bunkering can achieve this also.
-
Harry Colt spoke of elasticity in the early 1900's, the concept is not so new.
Somehow, I don't believe Colt envisioned 1000+ worth of tees. Again, how come participation is going down while teeing space is going up? Your solution has been tried and it hasn't worked. The only result has been in the main the production of mediocre golf courses. If you want women to play you must design courses for women. Trying to include women with teeing space of up 2000 yards is I think an unsustainable model of design.
Ciao
-
An interesting article on the topic
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-05/golf-barney-adams-forward-tees
in the end I think it makes more economic sense to make the game fun and attract more people than to create a more masochistic pursuit that fewer and fewer want to play
-
Lyne,
I would suggest that you and I are not that far apart. In fact, despite his well known contrarian persona, I suspect you and Pat are not so far apart.
I appreciate your suggesting that women need shorter courses. I'd agree with that. I'm not convinced however that that means an extra set of tees. I'm equally not sure I've ever met a junior golfer that hampered for a shorter golf course. I made reference to that earlier in the thread. Kids have a habit of wanting to rise to a challenge and I'm not convinced that making the game easier for them will do them any favours.
You mentioned Colt and his making reference to the need for elasticity. Like Sean, I'm not sure umpteen different sets of tees was what he had in mind, merely that space between tees might need to increase as technology caused the differential between long and short to grow. I wonder if people would really mind if a course had tees at 5,400 yards, 6,300 yards and 7,200 yards, assuming the room existed for the latter. As a low capper I'm always somewhat bemused when a high handicap man tells me that the 6,300 yard course is to easy for him, usually said with a straight face and a card saying 95 in his hand. I'm not sure how it's too easy (and implied in that is that it's too short for him, apparently) when my 78 says it was anything but easy for me. And it's ridiculous anyway to suggest that we all have our optimum length of course, given that the changing seasons provide more than enough variables to blow that notion out of the water.
I have to say that I disagree a little with Sean about this kind of differential not being practical. I actually think the problem arises because some courses have too many tees in between the ones I've suggested. Put fourball after fourball on the conveyor belt, each group with four different players playing from four different tees and, big surprise, play is slow. In my opinion, although as mentioned earlier I think the dominance of the aerial game has played its part, those extra tees have come about because everyone now thinks they need a route to 72 which has been tailor made for them. That isn't want the challenge of golf is supposed to be all about. The idea should be to play the course as you find it and try to improve from there, rather than to adjust the course until you find your magic 72 and then progressively turn your experience in to more and more of a slog as you move further back each time you improve substantially. It's golf after all, not target practice.
-
I've played quite a few rounds lately with a local friend who not only hits the ball miles farther than I do but is also a substantially better player. He's fun to play with and we generally play a good, tight match that comes down to the last hole or two. But we do that by playing *very* different tees.
It might be possible for him to give me something like 10, 12, 14 strokes and then we meet in the middle to play a set of tees that are a bit too long for comfort for me while being so short he leaves his driver in the car trunk. And heck, it may even as Paul claims improve our pace of play by 5-10 minutes if we played the same tees although honestly we seem to always be waiting on slower players ahead anyway. But by playing a course that's typically just over 1,000 yards different in length we can play straight up under what I think is called Sunningdale Rules (either player who is 2-down or worse gets a stroke) and somewhat match shot-for-shot.
There are two observations I'd like to share about our arrangement. First off, playing from something like 5,600 vs. 6,700 yards is not ideal since we really can't pay attention to the honor off the tee. Usually he just hits first regardless of the honor since I'm still walking forward. But on the other hand me consistently hitting three full shots to his two on every hole just destroys the back-and-forth rhythm of match play golf. And it means even though we would be together on 18 tees before hitting our shots, we would almost never be hitting from anywhere near the same spots in the fairway. So that aspect almost balances out.
My second observation is that courses vary in how perfectly a 1,000 yard difference works to lets us play the "same game" in terms of shots required. At his home course, it is amazing how often a hole that's driver/5-iron for him from 440 yards also happens to be driver/5-iron for me from a set of tees 70 yards forward. Or he'll hit an 8-iron from the 165 back tee on a Par 3 where I'm hitting 8-iron from 130, two tees forward. When many holes work out like that, the game is more fun than otherwise. For us at least.
At my (former) club it doesn't work out quite the same. Something about the arrangement of the tees and the terrain of each hole routing often means we play a given hole very differently. I might hit pitching wedge on a Par 3 hole where he needs a 7-iron or he may have a dogleg hole that lets him hit driver from the back tees where my driver shot from the front tees would run through the fairway. It's still fun of course but not every course works out so that a "1,100 yard difference" means the same thing to a given pair of golfers.
My theory is, his home course is a good bit more hilly than mine. I think playing across ridges or with more uphill or downhill shots gives the course designer more leeway for choosing how to position various tees on the same hole. My course is older and tends to have lined up tee boxes using the same angle, just from different distances. His is a few decades newer and seems to position quite a few of my tees at a meaningfully different angle to his. Anyway, just a few random thoughts on wildly different hole lengths by way of separate tees.
P.S. I agree with Sean that it must be very, very difficult to pull off these kinds of things when you talk about 2,000 yards or more difference from women's tees to the flat belly ones.
-
Brent,
Nice post.
I'm a little confused though that you mention the notion of him giving you shots and then you both playing the same tees as if that's an after thought. It's the handicap system and that what it was designed for. Surely that would be your default, rather than to separate yourselves by 60 yards at the beginning of each hole.
And as I said, everyone now seems to think they are supposed to face the same challenge, i.e. a five iron for you and a five iron for him. But none of the ODGs had that in mind. As I've equally said already, the like of Colt planned holes so that shorter hitters could compete playing a different way.
Would I be right to think that your friends' course is a bit more dependant on aerial ability? Leaving firm and fast aside just for one second, the hilly nature of his course could dictate an aerial route more often than at your course. Just a thought. I only wonder as I'm guessing you don't struggle playing the same tees as us lower cappers when you're over here in the UK?
-
When it's snowing who doesn't enjoy a good game of Gladiator Pat ::)
I haven't waded through all the green but personally I like multiple tees. I like variety and I think playing the course the exact same way every time would be a detriment rather than an attribute. But that's probably just a selfish viewpoint. Of course the Ballyneal infinite tee concept is probably my mostest favorite.
Pat's in favor of a one tee concept- as long as it's his tee.
-
Chris,
I will just reiterate that seasonal changes means that any course is in a state of continual change.
-
Paul,
I think for a lot of players the default is to stick together and let handicap strokes make up the difference. I've played that way (usually with people who really, really prefer staying together on the same tee like friend Sean) but once you get up around a 60-80 yard difference in driving distance and three to four club difference in iron shots I find it more fun to split tees.
Of course what I described is pretty specific to the case where the longer player is also the better player. If you had a 70-year-old, short hitting 3-handicapper playing a match against a long-hitting 15-cap then a difference in tees just exacerbates the number of strokes required. I guess in that case if they played 1,000 yard different tees the big-hitting 15 would need to get a stroke a hole or more which to me always makes a match rather awkward.
Regarding aerial vs. ground game my friend actually hits the ball a lot lower than some other longer hitters in my experience. But at his home course there are a lot more downhill tee shots than at my (former) club. In fact, that may be why the different tees don't work as well for equalizing our games. At his course, if you move me up say 40 yards on a Par 4 but my ball will land on a downslope that really helps. But if his ball lands on that downslope it may actually run into trouble because he hits it so hard. Not sure how to exactly analyze that part of it, I'll ponder on it next few times we play.
When I'm in the UK it depends somewhat on the particular course but typically it has not been all that much of a problem. First off, I prefer to come over in September when the weather is often dry and the turf generally at its firmest. That sort of thing really extends my comfort zone in terms of length of the course. There are 6,300 yard courses I've played in the UK where I did not feel I was too far back at all whereas back home anything over 6,000 yards (Par 72) feels like I'm slugging for distance shot after shot all day long without ever really getting much variety. Also, a lot of visitor tees are in the 6,000 to 6,400 yard range even if the medal or championship tees would be intimidatingly long.
I'm thinking back to a couple years ago when James Boon invited me to an Invitation Day round at Notts. So he and I were playing of course the same tees as were the two other fellows in our fourball for the day. While I loved the course and had a great time, that was mostly dependent on my host carrying me for probably 13-14 of the 18 holes. I don't think we used my ball except for a couple holes where he was out of play and maybe two or three others where I actually scored better. If we'd have been playing a head to head match instead of as a better-ball team I'd imagine I'd have been wishing I were playing the course at least a few hundred yards shorter.
But anyway, to your core question
And as I said, everyone now seems to think they are supposed to face the same challenge, i.e. a five iron for you and a five iron for him. But none of the ODGs had that in mind. As I've equally said already, the like of Colt planned holes so that shorter hitters could compete playing a different way.
I don't doubt that's what Harry Colt was thinking. And I know that's what many people prefer. Lord knows Sean and I have discussed it more than once over the years. I'm just saying I've tried it both ways and I prefer the arrangement my friend and I have arrived at. I've said in many other threads here that there's a reason golf has evolved with the "Par 4" or "two-shotter" being the majority type of holes on most courses. That's the rhythm that generations of golfers have gravitated toward. Hit it off a tee, hit it off the ground, chip and/or putt a couple times. The more often I can do that in a round, the more fun I have. Especially when my opponent and I are going about the same hole in much the same way.
Not saying my way is better or that it ought to be more fun for anyone other than myself. But I suspect it is preferred by an awful lot of golfers or else why would the vast majority of courses built in the past 75 years feature three, four or more sets of tees? What's the old saying about golf being about trying to turn three strokes into two? You can also save a stroke by turning five strokes into four but it just isn't the same thing.
Take what one guy I know calls "advancement shots". This is different from a "layup" which implicitly is a shot where you choose to play two shorter shots rather than attempting one long one. An "advancement shot" is where you simply hit the ball from fairway or rough with the longest club you hit and try to get it as far as possible with the knowledge that it's the *next* shot which will be a layup vs. go-for-it decision. My long-hitting friend may only face one or two (or none) of these shots in a typical round, after totally mishitting his tee shot. If I play from his tees there may be a few holes that are not only unreachable in regulation, they require a mid to long iron to reach in one more than regulation. I find that the more "advancement shots" required in a round, the less fun I have. Tee shots, approach shots, recovery shots, any kind of shot with a requirement other than "hit it as far you can but it won't be far enough" are preferable.
-
Chris, I'm with you. Of course, this isn't a good game of GP. It's more like the Thunder last night - lots of shooting, but nothing is hitting the mark.
In his own "short sided" way, Pat's premise is correct. The best way for an architect to challenge every level of golfer is to make them all play from 7600+ yards. If you thought the US Open at Torrey Pines was tough for pros, wait until you see beginners try it! If we ignore ramifications to inclusion, enjoyment, affordability, and the general spirit of sport, and focus only on the "challenge to all levels of golfer," a single set of tees at the longest distance possible for a given property will inevitably be the best way to fulfill the objective.
-
I'll suggest that Pat's initial premise is correct, not only in that one tee (or certainly a lot less than apparently exist at American courses these days) can provide a suitable challenge for all levels of golfer but also that that challenge can be enjoyable for all. However, there is one significant factor here which has already been mentioned and, I personally think, needs to be referred back to:
Firm and fast conditions. It is, after all, such conditions which provide the best alternative to all out added length for the big boys, hence British links courses have not faced quite the same pressures to push the tees back as has been the case on many lusher American affairs. Those same firm and fast conditions of course, much as Brent has suggested, allow him to play the same course at maybe 6,300 or 6,400 yards. Brent (apologies if you've been over here in the depth of winter before) might be more than a bit surprised to see how different our links and heathland courses are in January or February, particularly the links courses. Obviously they're still dry, but 6,300 feels like 9,300 yards sometimes on green turf in a strong wind. I guess if it's what you're used to you just learn to embrace that kind of seasonal variance and don't hanker to play from forward tees. You might stand there on a par 4 thinking "dear god, not another hybrid to the green," but you don't think of it as anything other than nature's way of reminding you that you're not really a proper player. And if you happen to actually score (dirty word, I know) something which would have even made you happy in the summer, the joy is all the more for that. Conversely, put me on a mud bath of a course and I'd equally be wanting to play from any tee which left me with a short iron in my hand as often as possible. Long iron after long iron is no fun on a bog.
Pat plays golf courses which the average golfer just never gets to experience. Pat is far more familiar then with sandy, firm and fast conditions than most golfers, even most golfers over here in Britain. When Pat isn't on such a course, he's playing from 6,000 yards at Augusta, where 6,000 yards works perfectly well. It seems perfectly reasonable then that he should come to the conclusion he has. So maybe, just maybe, his is an excellent ideal somewhat spoilt by 60 years of architecture moving in the wrong direction. Again, just a thought.
-
What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title...
Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise
The second sentence suggests maybe your brain isn't as sharp as you think it is.
What is an ideal total distance for the single set of tees?
Absent par, it's irrelevant.
-
One of the things that fascinated me was . . . the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.
You told us you didn't believe that story.
Which story are you referring to ?
There are many.
If you're referring to the 16th hole story, I never believed the story of her particular feat.
That disbelief was reconfirmed when I played CPC recently.
However, there are other stories regarding Marion Hollins and CPC.
Perhaps you should research them.
-
When it's snowing who doesn't enjoy a good game of Gladiator Pat ::)
I haven't waded through all the green but personally I like multiple tees. I like variety and I think playing the course the exact same way every time would be a detriment rather than an attribute. But that's probably just a selfish viewpoint. Of course the Ballyneal infinite tee concept is probably my mostest favorite.
Pat's in favor of a one tee concept- as long as it's his tee.
Chris,
I see that you're as brain dead as some of the others.
Maybe winter does that to golfers.
Please go back and reread the very first sentence that opened up this thread.
This thread is about "architecture". It's NOT about favoring or disfavoring the play of golfers based upon the distance selected.
It's about the architect creating proportional challenges............. and............ those proportional challenges would give ample consideration to the lesser golfer.
Perhaps I should refrain from initiating threads that require thinking and thinking outside of the box.
-
I'll suggest that Pat's initial premise is correct, not only in that one tee (or certainly a lot less than apparently exist at American courses these days) can provide a suitable challenge for all levels of golfer but also that that challenge can be enjoyable for all. However, there is one significant factor here which has already been mentioned and, I personally think, needs to be referred back to:
Paul,
That's an oversight on my part.
Firm and fast conditions. It is, after all, such conditions which provide the best alternative to all out added length for the big boys, hence British links courses have not faced quite the same pressures to push the tees back as has been the case on many lusher American affairs. Those same firm and fast conditions of course, much as Brent has suggested, allow him to play the same course at maybe 6,300 or 6,400 yards. Brent (apologies if you've been over here in the depth of winter before) might be more than a bit surprised to see how different our links and heathland courses are in January or February, particularly the links courses. Obviously they're still dry, but 6,300 feels like 9,300 yards sometimes on green turf in a strong wind. I guess if it's what you're used to you just learn to embrace that kind of seasonal variance and don't hanker to play from forward tees. You might stand there on a par 4 thinking "dear god, not another hybrid to the green," but you don't think of it as anything other than nature's way of reminding you that you're not really a proper player. And if you happen to actually score (dirty word, I know) something which would have even made you happy in the summer, the joy is all the more for that. Conversely, put me on a mud bath of a course and I'd equally be wanting to play from any tee which left me with a short iron in my hand as often as possible. Long iron after long iron is no fun on a bog.
Pat plays golf courses which the average golfer just never gets to experience. Pat is far more familiar then with sandy, firm and fast conditions than most golfers, even most golfers over here in Britain. When Pat isn't on such a course, he's playing from 6,000 yards at Augusta, where 6,000 yards works perfectly well. It seems perfectly reasonable then that he should come to the conclusion he has. So maybe, just maybe, his is an excellent ideal somewhat spoilt by 60 years of architecture moving in the wrong direction. Again, just a thought.
Paul, what seems to have been lost amongst the myriad of morons is the concept of "architectural proportionality" that is possible vis a vis the one tee arrangement.
There's not a doubt in my mind that architecture/set-up/maintainance has been moving in the wrong direction.
You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.
-
You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.
Agreed somewhat, but what I come across is, low handicapp boards that want there course set up this way, it´s not always the supers and the architects are almost never even consulted.
So, I think narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough has resulted in golf not moving in the right direction but has little to do with architecture or the architect and more to with boards filled with low handicappers that don´t understand and don´t want to understand that Golf is like Sex, you don´t have to be really good at it to enjoy it!
-
Pat,
You still never addressed my post?
Let me ask you, would Pine Valley be a better golf course for all with one set of tees?
Most every Golden Age architect understood that over time their designs would likely need to expand. Building elasticity into their courses was an important factor and many incorporated this where they could into their routings and teeing locations, etc.
-
You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.
Agreed somewhat, but what I come across is, low handicapp boards that want there course set up this way, it´s not always the supers and the architects are almost never even consulted.
Randy,
Agreed.
For whatever reason, club members want to engage in diabolical setups, especially when outside events are held.
There seems to be a misconception that producing high scores is an indication or architectural merit.
That a harder golf course is a better golf course.
I don't believe that the thinking is confined to low handicap golfers, rather, I think it's universal, through out the entire membership.
So, I think narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough has resulted in golf not moving in the right direction but has little to do with architecture or the architect and more to with boards filled with low handicappers that don´t understand and don´t want to understand that Golf is like Sex, you don´t have to be really good at it to enjoy it!
Randy, I've rarely encountered boards filled with low handicaps.
And, at many of these clubs, they've retained a consulting architect, but, when a club gives their consulting architect a mandate or marching orders, as I've stated many times, "when you take the King's schilling, you have to do the King's bidding" Ditto the Superintendent.
Unfortunately, most Board members and Green Committees members watch golf on TV every week and what do they see.
Lush, narrow fairways with unique mowing patterns, and high, thick rough.
Monkey see, Monkey do.
What I've also noticed as a repeated phrase and objection to tree removal is this:
"If we remove the trees, the course will become too easy"
And, it's not just the low handicappers who make this statement.
One of the best recent examples I've seen of a club reversing the trend is at Somerset Hills.
That club has taken a quantum leap toward making play more enjoyable vis a vis going away from the lush, green, narrow trend.
-
It's a pretty big jump to suggest a relationship between the presence of multiple sets of tees and the practice of maintaining courses with lush green fairways and six inch rough.
As for "architectural proportionality," the term refers to a concept first written of in the 19th century that has become a central principle of architectural theory. It specifically refers to the relationship between various objects and space built into an architect's design, typically placed at standard distance intervals to visually stimulate onlookers. In other words, for purposes of this thread, it's a made-up term that Pat reappropriated to try to obscure the fact that he's really just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.
Of course, he's using the term to refer to the idea that, if everyone tees off from the same place, an architect can place hazards in locations where they are more likely to be in play for better players while being out of reach for weaker players. While this is true on the tee shot, it fails to account for what happens on subsequent shots. After all, the landing zone for a low marker's 300 yard tee shot is the same as the landing zone for the 140 yard 3-wood advancement shot of the weaker player who drives it 160 yards. There's no doubt that a weaker player playing a course with a single set of tees will find more challenge than he would on a course with multiple sets, some of which are shorter and more proportional to his skillset. Unfortunately, this magical arrangement of features where punishment is only in play for the stronger player simply doesn't exist, regardless of how tees are laid out.
I play a few rounds a year with 30+ handicap women. The forward tees don't exist to help them make pars, and they don't think about making pars when they play. They just try to enjoy themselves. To a woman, the ones I've talked to all hate par 5s. It's not because they can't par them - they can't do that on par 3s either generally. It's because they turn into five or six shot slogs with little purpose on a given shot. The forward tees simply exist to make the game more enjoyable for them. I have a feeling Lyne has seen the same, and she likely knows more about this topic than any of us. The simplest determinant of a course's difficulty is it's yardage. If you really want an "architecturally proportional" challenge and, more significantly, an enjoyable one as opposed to just a difficult one, then the simplest way to ensure it is to offer multiple tees that allow some flexibility in how much challenge a player takes on.
-
Jason,
When you look at the practical experience, that leap you refer to isn't much of a leap at all.
I've copied below what I said early about conditioning being central to a limited tee set up.
A while back I (playing alone on a Sunday afternoon) played through two REALLY old ladies. I was struck by the fact that the nature of our course, i.e. a genuine links, afforded them the possibility of still playing the game. The course from the ladies tees is just over 5,800 yards and, whilst they were never going to make par, they were having fun running the ball along the ground. From their tees, which have barely moved in the last 80 years, they experienced those aforementioned occasional because the forced carries for them were still a real factor. It should perhaps be noted however that those carries did not, could not or would not represent insurmountable road blocks. Now, on the same golf course as I was playing, their games were being challenged just as much as my game was. Transport them to almost an course built in the 1980's and they just wouldn't have been able to play.
-
Paul, I still don't see the connection. Are you saying that if there were more sets of tees, the club would begin overwatering and encouraging the growth of the rough as well? I'm failing to see the cause and effect at play. Please explain the correlation for me.
Your tale is a lovely anecdote. Did you suggest to those two ladies that the course should remove the 5800 yard tees and have everyone play from the "members" set? If so, what was their reaction?
-
Hang tough Pat. I am with you 100%. If architects were skillful enough an interesting course would be played by all from one set of tees. I would take it a step further and just mow flat spots at fairway height and let the superintendent or pro decide where to place the tees each day. I am a member of a club that when opened, the founder preferred not to use tee markers. The teeing location was to be determined by the members. I think this would have added some fun, like a game of horse in basketball. Naturally over time this creativity was overcome with discomfort from the members concerned about the course rating and the validity of their handicaps.
As I type this I am looking at a picture on my wall of a woman teeing off on the 18th at Riviera in 1929. It is from presumably the one and only tee at 430 yards. Can she make the hill? No, but she can make the green in 3.
Your premise really comes down to the question have multiple tees improved the experience or not.
"The quality of a hole is also determined by if it makes you want to become a better player." Alister Mackenzie
-
Jason,
Much as Lyne has been suggesting, I don't think those ladies would have moaned if the ladies tees moved up to something like 5,400 yards.
The cause and effect, I believe, is the other way around. In other words, lush turf is the cause and multiple tees the result. Let me just give another example: Let's take the 410 yard 4th hole at my home course. In the summer I might hit driver and leave myself with as little as a wedge in. Doing so however means hitting a draw as anything else means an accurate angle on approach from the right hand side of the fairway with a well placed ftont right bunker to negotiation and a green like concrete. Now, on such a hole the short hitter can fire away with impunity, run the ball down the centre of the fairway and maybe have a five iron for the second shot. Add in the wind and suddenly my aerial wedge approach, coupled with the extra risk I've had to take from the tee, doesn't look so special. One thing however that I need not really worry about is the fairway bunker at 320 yards, save for on a day when the wind is right at my tail. That bunker though is a big issue for the short hitter when looking at the second shot. One course, one set of tees, questions asked of every level of player. Water the fairways however, meaning that shorter hitter can't roll the ball along and I can fire away without any concerns about the ball rolling to the right of the fairway, and the hole is considerably weaker. Better then maybe for the short hitter to have a forward tee. At least then we can both blast a long iron as far as we can before the ball lands and abruptly stops.
-
Pat,
You still never addressed my post?
I thought that I answered it when responding to another poster.
But, I'll address the question with a caveat.
As you know, Pine Valley has added tees, solely for the best amateurs in the country, if not the world, as well as for local and regional pros, and those tees can only be reasonably played by those exceptional golfers.
Holes such as # 4, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 18 have had significant yardage added to them.
Secondly, Pine Valley was created solely for one type of golfer, "The Championship Golfer"
It was not conceived, designed and built for the broad spectrum of golfer.
It was never meant for the beginner or women golfer.
I believe, at one time, if your handicap exceeded a certain number, membership was beyond your reach.
Hence, understanding that Pine Valley was never meant to cater to the broad spectrum of golfers, I'll address your question with the caveat that excludes the recently added tees created for a single purpose.
Yes, Pine Valley could be played from the existing foot pad/s other than the ones where significant length was added for a singular purpose that extends beyond the membership.
Let me ask you, would Pine Valley be a better golf course for all with one set of tees?
It wouldn't suffer at all.
It would remain a great golf course and a great test.
It's the defense of par in tournaments that's fueled the added length along with the desire to keep the defensive architectural features relevant in the face of quantum leaps in distance.
Most every Golden Age architect understood that over time their designs would likely need to expand.
That's not really the case at Pine Valley where many tees are land locked.
In addition, some of the holes could only be lengthened by altering the angle of attack into the fairway.
Holes 18, 4, 7, 12, 13 and 16 are good examples of that.
Building elasticity into their courses was an important factor and many incorporated this where they could into their routings and teeing locations, etc.
The problem you and others have is that you're confusing elasticity with "static" design principles.
Let's take the 1st, 2nd and especially the 8th hole at NGLA as perfect examples.
Just because you lengthened those holes, vis a vis elasticity, it doesn't undermine nor refute the one tee principle.
Those holes still have but one footpad, and as a result, the markers are moved back because the back of those tees were lengthened, SOLELY to counter the additional length brought on by hi-tech and improvements in I&B which resulted in quantum leaps in distance.
Does it really matter where I play those holes from ?
290, 300, 320 ?
What difference does it make if I'm playing a match against another golfer ?
-
It's a pretty big jump to suggest a relationship between the presence of multiple sets of tees and the practice of maintaining courses with lush green fairways and six inch rough.
As for "architectural proportionality," the term refers to a concept first written of in the 19th century that has become a central principle of architectural theory. It specifically refers to the relationship between various objects and space built into an architect's design, typically placed at standard distance intervals to visually stimulate onlookers. In other words, for purposes of this thread, it's a made-up term that Pat reappropriated to try to obscure the fact that he's really just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.
Jason,
Just say that you don't understand "proportionality" rather than condemn it and my use of the term.
Of course, he's using the term to refer to the idea that, if everyone tees off from the same place, an architect can place hazards in locations where they are more likely to be in play for better players while being out of reach for weaker players. While this is true on the tee shot, it fails to account for what happens on subsequent shots. After all, the landing zone for a low marker's 300 yard tee shot is the same as the landing zone for the 140 yard 3-wood advancement shot of the weaker player who drives it 160 yards. There's no doubt that a weaker player playing a course with a single set of tees will find more challenge than he would on a course with multiple sets, some of which are shorter and more proportional to his skillset. Unfortunately, this magical arrangement of features where punishment is only in play for the stronger player simply doesn't exist, regardless of how tees are laid out.
I thought you were doing great until you got toward the end.
"Proportionality" exists, you're just not aware of it.
I play a few rounds a year with 30+ handicap women. The forward tees don't exist to help them make pars, and they don't think about making pars when they play. They just try to enjoy themselves.
That's pure nonsense and if you're serious, refutes your own position.
For, if they're not out there to make pars, what difference does length make ?
More length equals more fun.
To a woman, the ones I've talked to all hate par 5s. It's not because they can't par them - they can't do that on par 3s either generally. It's because they turn into five or six shot slogs with little purpose on a given shot.
And, could that be because the architect hasn't crafted proportional challenges along their journey ?
You still don't get the concept.
An interesting thing happened to me.
When I went from driving the ball 250+ to my biggest blast at 170 including lots of roll, when my trajectory on all shots was very low, I enjoyed the game even more because I had to tack my way around the golf course. Objects and hazards took on heightened significance and I had to figure out how to deal with them, given the status of my new game.
So, maybe if you play with whiners or people who feel entitled to making par or on courses void of challenges to the shorter hitter, I understand your advocacy.
The forward tees simply exist to make the game more enjoyable for them. I have a feeling Lyne has seen the same, and she likely knows more about this topic than any of us.
No, she doesn't.
And, enjoyment tends to be a function of success in achieving your goal, and when your goal is par, which it is universally, despite your claim to the contrary, therein lies the problem
The simplest determinant of a course's difficulty is it's yardage. If you really want an "architecturally proportional" challenge and, more significantly, an enjoyable one as opposed to just a difficult one, then the simplest way to ensure it is to offer multiple tees that allow some flexibility in how much challenge a player takes on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Quite simply, you don't get it.
-
Thanks Pat.
Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy. A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun). The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death. Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different! Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole ;)
-
Thanks Pat.
Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy. A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun). The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death. Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different! Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole ;)
But the beginner skier would be happy to start at the top of the slope if more gentle routes could be taken to get down the mountain, therein providing proportional challenge along said route. No?
-
Paul, Jason et al.
The assumption that shorter hitters are keen to accept the challenge of a steady diet of driver, fairway wood, fairway wood ... is flawed.
As a game golf does best when the player is delivered a desirable feeling - be it pleasure, happiness, joy, success, etc.
For this group, repeat wood play does not adequately deliver the positive feedback that translates into fun, enjoyment and return play. Throw in bunker challenges along the way and enthusiasm drops very quickly.
One wise woman at our club who fronts up to this very situation each week describes her ritual 'as torture alleviated by good company and a walk.'
Meantime we question why women don't stay with the game.
-
Paul,
Your point is feasible but leads to what Lyne is saying, a long arduous path to get to the bottom/hole. Forget about par, even high handicappers don't like knowing the best they will do on a hole is double digits. The bottomline is that golf needs to accommodate all levels (at least most levels) of ability. One set of tees is not the answer!
Next idea?
Mark
-
Pat,
More length equals more fun.
Do you believe this for yourself?
Do you always play the longest set of tees when you're playing for fun (assuming you play for fun sometimes)?
Do you believe it is true for a wide spectrum of other golfers?
It's not true for me.
-
Paul, Jason et al.
The assumption that shorter hitters are keen to accept the challenge of a steady diet of driver, fairway wood, fairway wood ... is flawed.
As a game golf does best when the player is delivered a desirable feeling - be it pleasure, happiness, joy, success, etc.
For this group, repeat wood play does not adequately deliver the positive feedback that translates into fun, enjoyment and return play. Throw in bunker challenges along the way and enthusiasm drops very quickly.
One wise woman at our club who fronts up to this very situation each week describes her ritual 'as torture alleviated by good company and a walk.'
Meantime we question why women don't stay with the game.
Lynn
What yardage do we need for more women to particpate?
Ciao
-
It's not just women. I have three sons. Each is a good sportsman. The eldest played representative cricket at a level below junior county, his twin brothers both played junior county cricket and one played 1st XI school cricket at the age of 15. All play good level adult club cricket as juniors. The eldest was 1st XV rugby player at a strong rugby school, his twin brothers represent their county at age group county field hockey and play adult club hockey at the (current) age of 16.
All three play golf. Our home club is a regional Open Qualifying venue and is 6800 from the medal tees. As younger golfers all three hated playing there. If Cameron, the eldest, hadn't been a member at Elie (6200 yards, par 70), where even at 12 and 13 he could make par on some holes, I suspect all three would have given golf up. Even last year Gregor, one of the twins, talked seriously about giving up his membership. The Northumberland was, simply, too hard. It was a slog, every hole bar the par 3s was driver, wood, long approach, even when played well. The fairways are narrow and the rough difficult. At various points in the past few years, however, each has reached a stage where they can hit the ball a good distance. Now, all three enjoy golf.
The Northumberland only has three sets of tees. Medal (whites), Men's (yellow) and Ladies (Red). I'm sure as younger golfers the boys would have enjoyed the game more from the Red tees but boys are boys and they wouldn't hear of playing from the Ladies' tees.
I am all for playing competitions off one set of tees and handicaps should allow for that. Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.
-
Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.
I am not advocating this.
Ciao
-
Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.
I am not advocating this.
Ciao
And nor am I.
Lyne,
I didn't ever suggest women play from the same tees as men. I specifically said that I agreed with you about women needing shorter courses.
I have merely said that, as has (or had) always been a very successful model here in Britain, less tees are needed, not more. I actually suggested that we increase the distance from one tee to another so as to replicate the scenario prior to the huge difference in distances various standards of player could hit the ball. That was once just how it worked. Essentially, you had medal tees which were only ever used for competitions and a round played by the the Club Pro. All other play was either from the men's or ladies tees. But over time, because of technology, the medal tees became pretty much blended with the daily tees with the 15 yards between the two being relatively insignificant in an age of hot balls and big drivers. We might as well just officially blend the two now and be done with it.
So, I'll go back to what I said before which is to increase the elasticity, if you like, without increasing the number of tees. Skip the 'one tee every 10 yards' mentality and you remove the temptation for people to play a set which is too far back for him or her. I can't quote the figures off the top of my head but something like 75% of golfers in America plays from tees which are too far back for them. Leap from 6,300 yards to 7,200 yards and you surely removing that and, in the process, cause golfers of all levels to experience proportional challenges, returning us to a position, a philosophy, whereby a golfer plays the golf course as it stands, not as he or she feels it should be in order to placate his or her ego. I mentioned in my last post a good example of that proportional challenge at my home club. Of course, if the shorter male hitter becomes so short that he really wants to move up to tee at something like 5,400 yards, no problem. But to try to endlessly move the goal posts by 10 or 15 yards defeats the whole notion of proportional challenge.
-
Remind me again what problem is solved by having just one tee instead of multiple ones?
Patrick says multiple tees make handicapping more complicated. OK, that's a disadvantage I suppose albeit a trivial one.
And at some point in history there were not multiple tees. That's not a problem at all, simply a historical bit of trival.
But I don't see any actual problem caused by a second or third tee choice.
-
Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.
I am not advocating this.
Ciao
I know. But Pat is, isn't he?
-
Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.
I am not advocating this.
Ciao
I know. But Pat is, isn't he?
I don't have a clue...way too much green to read...I rarely read Pat's posts...far too hard on the eyes.
Ciao
-
Brent,
Much as you said to me earlier in the thread, I'm certainly not saying that I'm write and you're wrong.
Much as I said before, a second or third tee is fine by me. Essentially, as it always was over here: ladies, men's and pros. It's the philosophy of 'a five iron for all' which I don't agree with, meaning I don't agree with the notion that you fit the course to your game rather than fitting your game to the course.
Slight tangent but I think multiple tees is often wrongly promoted as being some sort of freedom of choice issue. Reality though is, hence so many people playing courses at length which are too long for them, people feel that they need to go back just a bit further than they really should. Peer pressure can be a terrible thing. So by increasing the difference from one set to another, i.e. removing the in-between tees, you set a clearer message as to where you should be playing from. Condescending as it may sound, and I don't include you in this for a minute, people need guidance because, despite the average golfer seemingly thinking the opposite, he or she is not an expert on architecture and needs a little help from the architect/club in terms of where the course should be played from.
Of course, and this is what Pat alluded to when he mentioned Augusta, if you're out there having a game with your long hitting friend and the difference is such that he plays from 7,000 yards whilst you play the next set up at 6,000 yards, all well and good. It's the micro manipulation of a course in an attempt to promote some sort of false equality which I really don't think is good for golf. I guess really that's less about pragmatism and more about a genuine believe as t what the trials, tribulations and corresponding triumphs should all be about. It's ultimately an issue about the soul of the game as populism doesn't really interest me.
But again, it's just my opinion and I'm not saying your wrong.
-
I'm afraid invocations of golf as having a "soul" or any sort of meaning other than a pleasant pastime are completely lost on me. So we're probably just concerned about different sets of issues, which is alright with me.
-
So, to summarize, everyone except the OP agrees that a single set of tees is not the answer, and we're back to our weekly discussion about reducing total number of tees to any arbitrary number between 2 and 5.
-
I'm afraid invocations of golf as having a "soul" or any sort of meaning other than a pleasant pastime are completely lost on me. So we're probably just concerned about different sets of issues, which is alright with me.
Admittedly it's not without contradiction (my position, that is), given that I'm a devout atheist and reductionist. ;D
Jason,
Well, sort of. And no. Since Pat's covered the whole 'proportionate challenge' thing, I won't do over old ground.
-
Jason,
What you say is true, except for the threads where we all waxed poetical about courses at Bandon or wherever it is with no tee boxes at all!
-
Thanks Pat.
Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy. A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun). The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death. Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different! Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole ;)
Mark, that is a brilliant post, couldn't stop laughing. I think some on here would advocating regrading the mountain so it could be feasible and then proclaim it was cost effective ;D ;D ;D. I'm sure that they are for minimalism golf courses as well. ;D ;D ;D
-
Count me in as someone who believes that Pat's original premise is fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, I suspect there are really only a small percentage of existing golf courses that could have their teeing grounds reduced to a single footpad where the result would be a better experience across all levels of playing ability. As mentioned by others, a steady diet of fairway woods on virtually every hole might indeed be “challenging" to the lesser player, but also monotonous and off-putting, irrespective of the quality of design features such as bunkers, landforms, etc. Also, the existing strategies of a given hole that was constructed with multiple tees in mind might become obsolete for all but a small cross-section of players.
Secondly, Pat's argument has not even come close to demonstrating how the incorporation of a single teeing ground makes the practice and/or craft of a golf course architect "simpler" in the case of new designs. Instead, he makes sweeping assumptions about the wishes and expectations of a wide range of golfers, and then rationalizes it by way of personal experiences at some of the most well-funded and meticulously designed golf courses in the world. But isn’t one of the primary reasons that these courses (NGLA, Augusta, et al.) are considered great because of the extreme pains taken in their design? Such courses were not “simpler” to design because a single teeing ground is used to accommodate a diverse assortment of playing abilities. I would suspect they were much more difficult to conceive and construct given that so many variables had to be accounted for to still make it interesting for such a wide range of potential users. Golf course design is an exceptionally complex exercise that utilizes the full kit of tools available to those who practice the profession in concert with the exhaustive intellectual resources of a talented designer or team of designers. Designing a golf course is difficult; designing a GREAT one is exponentially more so. The idea that a push towards a single teeing ground would make such efforts "simpler" is laughable.
-
There are some lessons to be taken on this topic from this Feb. 1902 Golf Magazine piece written by Devereux Emmet, proving once again that everything under the sun has been discussed before:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/EmmetSkill-GolfMagazineFeb19021_zps28cfdf70.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/EmmetSkill-GolfMagazineFeb19022_zpsf38f558a.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/EmmetSkill-GolfMagazineFeb19023_zps16151f50.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/EmmetSkill-GolfMagazineFeb19024_zps6e954b59.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/EmmetSkill-GolfMagazineFeb19025_zpsfa04b445.png)
-
Sven,
Great article.
Thanks.
-
Sven,
Great article.
Thanks.
Paul:
Its amazing what you can learn when you read more and type less.
Sven
-
Sven, great find. By and large, I think Emmet is right on.
The funny thing is that he doesn't really allude to a "proportional challenge." Weak players, he contends, aren't looking for a course where they can make a ton of pars and shoot scores equal to the strong players. Instead, they want to play the same tough courses that the good players enjoy and improve by tackling the challenge. This is consistent with the huge majority of players that I have played with. Whether it's because they want to improve or because they just find a testing course more enjoyable, most players seem to prefer a generally difficult course over a generally easy one, at least up to a certain point.
However, he also draws an important distinction. While anyone can learn to hit the ball straight and solid, not everyone can learn to hit it long. Thus, even at a men's only club in 1902 he advocated that two sets of tees be available as the most practical way to ensure that daily players could enjoy the game despite their physical limitations while still enabling the course to challenge competitive players in events and higher matches:
It seems a good idea to have two sets of tees, as we have at Garden City, one set placed forward for ordinary play and the other further back for first-class matches and competitions.
After 112 subsequent years of technological advancements widening the gap between the weaker player and the stronger player, the case for multiple tees has certainly not weakened.
The takeaway of the essay, to me, is that the advent of multiple tees was never about allowing everyone to make "par," proving the flaw in the whole premise of the original post. Par wouldn't have been all that important a notion to the golfers of 1902, and thus there would have been no reason to have more than one set of tees on its account. Instead, Emmet refers to the importance that nothing "be done which will make it impossible for shorter players and beginners to enjoy the game." For the vast majority of those players, I would suggest that an endless barrage of "advancement shots" with 3 woods hampers their enjoyment, even if they have hazards to tack their way around.
I am fully in agreement with the idea that:
it would be most unreasonable for the short player to complain because his expert opponent can reach a green 400 yards away in two strokes, and maybe have a reasonable putt for a three, and to demand that in deference to his limited powers the hole be reduced to a distance of 350 yards so that he too can reach the green in two shots. Such a demand seems to me contemptible and unsportsmanlike, and, above all, most un-American.”
Some courses today seem to strive for such an ideal, which I would agree is misguided. Courses don't need tees at every distance interval such that every player can reach greens in regulation and hit the same clubs on approaches and so forth. They simply need a common-sense number of tees that allow everyone a chance to enjoy the game while still feeling challenged. Interestingly, that feeling of being challenged seems to have little to do with score, as Paul misguidedly suggested earlier when he said this:
As a low capper I'm always somewhat bemused when a high handicap man tells me that the 6,300 yard course is to easy for him, usually said with a straight face and a card saying 95 in his hand. I'm not sure how it's too easy (and implied in that is that it's too short for him, apparently) when my 78 says it was anything but easy for me.
This anecdote simply reinforces what I've believed all along - people don't decide that courses are too hard because they can't make pars, and they don't decide that they're too easy because they shoot low scores. Courses are too hard when playing them becomes a monotonous chore (such as an endless barrage of 3 wood advancement shots), and they're too easy when playing them is boringly uneventful. It's ironic that we can bemoan the average golfer's preoccupation with par in one breath, and then suggest that he's a fool for thinking that a course is easy despite his inability to break par on it in the next breath.
-
Sven,
Great article.
Thanks.
Paul:
Its amazing what you can learn when you read more and type less.
Sven
Thanks for the unprovoked insult. Usually of late I've been accused of reading and regurgitating too much so to be accused of the opposite is quite refreshing.