Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim Hoak on September 17, 2023, 10:07:10 AM
-
I raised this question on the thread about the Spanish Bay redo, but I'd like to focus on it here specifically.
In the many times I have played Spanish Bay, I have been struck by how much the course changes in playability from the Championship back tees compared to the shorter uptees. It almost feels like the course was designed with the back tees only in mind, and the uptees were added as a later afterthought. From the uptees, the course feels cramped, but not from the back tees; the doglegs especially are too tight and severe from the shorter tees, but the course has more flow from the back tees.
This may be true of many other courses, but I am especially struck with this different feel on a resort course like Spanish Bay, where short tee options are needed. My game has gotten to where I do not do well on longer tees, but I enjoy the quality of those tees on Spanish Bay much more when I have moved back.
Am I just imagining this dichotomy? Are there other courses where the difference in tees has a tremendous difference in the quality of the playability of the course?
-
When I play with young guys that play from the back tees, we generally hit our second shots from the same place. They probably would have felt cramped if they had played from my tees.
-
Jim,
I find plenty of examples of courses that play less well from the front tees when those courses have been designed more on paper with turning points, i.e. post WWII design.
More classic design depended less on 2D, more often with sweeping doglegs than holes that deliberately turn at 275 yards with hazards and pinch-points protecting.
-
Ally, I'm sure you are right that there are many courses that feel this way; I just have not noticed it quite so much at other courses.
But don't you think this is surprising and wrong for a resort course, where players of varying abilities so regularly play?
-
If the actual quality of the course seems to change depending on what tee you choose, my gut reaction says it's probably not a good golf course. For example, I'd bet that if I played Cypress Point from 1800 yards shorter than the shortest tee box, I'd probably still be able to tell it was a great course. But if altering the length makes a course go from good (or adequate) to bad, I'd guess that length was the only thing it ever had going for it.
That doesn't mean that selecting the appropriate tee length won't greatly improve your experience of the course, just that the greatness should be observable from any length. That's my initial impression of it anyway.
-
Charlie,
It all depends on how you are judging the quality of the golf course. Are you judging quality based on your own golfing ability? Are you judging the quality only from the tees you are playing (in the case of this thread, from the forward most tees)? Or are you judging it knowing there are other sets of tees behind you?
To use you example, if you judged the quality of Cypress Point only from the forward most set of tees, you would judge it much differently if no consideration is given to the teeing options behind you.
-
To use you example, if you judged the quality of Cypress Point only from the forward most set of tees, you would judge it much differently if no consideration is given to the teeing options behind you.
I don't think I'd judge CPC that much differently if I was only able to play it from the most forward tees. I'd still know the further back tees exist. Plus, I have a feeling that the course would still be playable from there, seemingly unlike Spanish Bay.
I feel like if changing length feels like it's changing the quality of the course, the course is probably lacking. ANGC would probably be a bit of a slog from the Masters tees (to go the other direction), but everything else would still be great I'm sure. And it would be apparent that it was great. I'd still be experiencing the greens and surrounds in all their glory, I'd just be taking one more shot to get there 80% of the time.
I guess my point is that if the shortened length of a course is making a GCA poster think that there has been a change in kind, rather than degree, there may be a greater failing than just selecting the wrong tee box. Jim's post makes me think the problem must run deeper than they played from the wrong tees. That said, it is just a gut feeling.
-
Charlie,
Isn’t the key statement you just made:
“I’d still know the further back tees exist”?
Why would you care about those tees existing if you think the courses is outstanding in quality from the forward most set?
I can tell you from having played CP dozens of times, the forward tees would be a totally different experience and different quality of golf if viewed from my own games perspective. If viewed from the perspective of someone who should be playing those tees, maybe not so much.
-
Always playing the same course from the same tee markers sounds excruciatingly boring, a yawn fest. Mix them up. Expand the interest and the challenge.
Atb
-
Always playing the same course from the same tee markers sounds excruciatingly boring, a yawn fest. Mix them up. Expand the interest and the challenge.
Atb
I agree with that too. It's why I strongly suspect that if a course (Spanish Bay in this case) is only recognizably good from a single set of tees, it actually really isn't a good course in all likelihood.
-
Charlie,
Isn’t the key statement you just made:
“I’d still know the further back tees exist”?
Why would you care about those tees existing if you think the courses is outstanding in quality from the forward most set?
I can tell you from having played CP dozens of times, the forward tees would be a totally different experience and different quality of golf if viewed from my own games perspective. If viewed from the perspective of someone who should be playing those tees, maybe not so much.
Mark, I'm saying the quality (at CPC...or ANGC) wouldn't go from good to bad. Yes the courses are different challenges at different lengths, but they (and any other good course) don't go from good to bad when different tees are chosen to play from. This notion of good to bad, as I understood it, is what I think Jim was talking about at Spanish Bay.
-
Are there other courses where the difference in tees has a tremendous difference in the quality of the playability of the course?
I have noticed it in one course (that I can remember). It's a somewhat shorter resort course where I grew up. The problem there was the holes with doglegs and lined by trees on both sides. Additionally there were some just poorly placed forward tee boxes. Essentially I'd have had to basically bunt a ball past the corner from a forward box. That said, I probably only tried the forward boxes on a few occasions because they weren't really for me. That said, the course had no pretensions to quality that a course like Spanish Bay probably has.
-
Charlie,
How do you define quality?
-
I think I'm a bit confused by this thread. I definitely understand Charlie's point designing multiple dynamic/strategic landing zones to handle different tees (and scaled distances they represent) is the highest tier of golf course design. At the same time, I understand Mark's point of the other tees kind of being irrelevant.
I think we conflate whether tees should be crafted to serve players of different distances or whether they should be crafted to serve players of different skill levels. I know there is quite a bit of crossover, but these aren't the same thing. If we find ourselves bunting to a dogleg, it may acting as a precision shot for a highly accurate player who can only reach the green if they are able to move the ball just enough around the corner (playing an 8 iron to get a decent 3 wood into the green, instead of the opposite). Someone choosing to play the shorter tees for variety might not understand the strategy, as they can reach the green from the whole landing area.
Typically, I see most courses I play leave the same angles (or even reduce the challenge of the angle on the shorter tees). I've often wondered if there are designers who have strictly separated their tees to have "expert" tees from all distances, and "novice" tees from all distances. It would be much clearer for me, and I'd be more likely to play from different distances.
-
I don't think this is getting to the point of the original post but I don't like it when you leave a green and then walk back to the back tees and then have to retrace your steps up the hole. It gets pretty old. Luckily I rarely play back tees.
I've never really played a course from various tees and felt it played worse based on anything other than walk backs to back tees. I've played about a half dozen courses from every tee box.
-
Common sense will tell us that a golf course that measures say 4500 yards from the forward tees and 7500 yards from the tips is going to vary dramatically in terms of the playing experience, the risk reward options, the overall interest and challenge/test of golf that it presents, etc. We sometimes play a round where we take turns choosing which tee to start from on each hole. Our one par five changes from a three shotter from the tips to a driver/short iron from the forward tee. Several of the par four’s become driveable and the long par threes become wedges. It is all good fun but probably not what the architect had in mind. Put it this way, I highly doubt architects design their courses for scratch or better golfers playing from the shortest set of tees or for beginners playing from the tips. That said, it can be fun especially for better golfers to move up and have a whole different playing experience. If you have never done it you should try it. If you are a beginner I wouldn’t recommend moving back ;)
I have said on this site several times, I have advocated making 18 hole championship courses that are for example 7000 yards from the tips play as 18 hole par three courses on certain times/days of the week. We set up tees at all different distances along with a score card to make this happen. Golfers love it as it is fun and provides a different experience. For some golfers playing the forward tees vs the tips might feel similar.
-
Let me ask a somewhat different question that may get at my point better. Do architects pay enough attention in their routing, their placement of hazards, etc. to all tees? Or are some course designs focused almost entirely on play from the back tees? I just feel like the design of Spanish Bay almost has the uptees as an afterthought.
The back tees even for a low-double-digit handicapper have a better flow and are better designed to be played than the uptees. This point began because some poster said that play at Spanish Bay was too cramped. I said that was more true from the uptees than the back ones.
-
Jim,
I have played Spanish Bay many times. It is not that different from the stand point of tees and design from most other courses. Not sure what more to add when it comes to tees. Tried to give some examples and perspective. So much is the perspective and the ability of the golfer playing there. We are adding a set of tees on one project that will take the course from 4900 yards long to about 4000. The tees will be thoughtfully placed.
-
I have advocated making 18 hole championship courses that are for example 7000 yards from the tips play as 18 hole par three courses on certain times/days of the week.
Why and how would that make sense? Can't see how I'd enjoy walking at least 200 yards (probably more) down a fairway on a par 5 multiple times a round to get to a tee.
-
It seems this issue speaks to lack of variety of tee shots at Spanish Bay. Having to dial it back on a few holes is fine, but if you feel constantly throttled at the middle tees, that seems like a design flaw. Sounds like all the tee shots narrow around the same distance from the middle tee.
-
Why just different tees?
Mix things up.
Hit a 9-iron or a 6-iron or something akin to them from the tee and then play the hole from there even if it means hitting a Driver or fairway metal for your next shot.
Be creative, have fun. Might even learn from the experience.
atb
-
Joe,
Some players still walk because they want the exercise but many take a cart so the distance between tees is no issue. The idea is to play the course in a different manner and play is actually much faster (walking or riding). Not sure where you play your golf but haven’t you ever played in a tournament for example where the tees have been moved up and a hole that is normally 410 is now 265 and meant to tempt golfers to try to drive it? Think of this as 18 holes where the tees have all been moved up. Sometimes something different is fun! Again this is done maybe one day a week in the afternoon, …variety is the spice of golf.
-
I agree with Mark here 100%
Of course if a really good player tees it from the up tees at 5000 yards its going to be wedge on the 3s, every par 4 will be drivable, and the 5s will likely be driver/short iron. Its a completely different playing experience and journey around the course. ( I do think it'd be a great idea for a silly season 4-club event instead of the usual stuff.)
P.S. Its a bit like when my buddies and I would play Basketball on the 8.5 foot rims at the elementary school playground. It was alley-oops, dunks off the backboard, driving to the basket almost every time and defensive blocks above the rim....a much different game than we played on regulation 10 foot rims as none of could dunk. ;)
-
I agree with Mark here 100%
Of course if a really good player tees it from the up tees at 5000 yards its going to be wedge on the 3s, every par 4 will be drivable, and the 5s will likely be driver/short iron. Its a completely different playing experience and journey around the course. ( I do think it'd be a great idea for a silly season 4-club event instead of the usual stuff.)
I don't think anyone has contradicted the fact that a course plays different at different lengths. I feel like Jim's original question is based around can a course be so focused on a single set of tees that it goes from good (or adequate or fine or ok) to bad by moving to a different set of tees. It's a very philosophical question. I think the answer is "no". If a course is "bad" for me at the up tees, it probably wasn't very good from the appropriate tees either.
-
I think Charlie's description of the question I am asking is pretty well stated--maybe not that different sets of tees takes the course from good to bad, but rather that the change in tees makes it significantly less good. It's just that features of Spanish Bay after you leave the tees--especially the doglegs--seem designed specifically for the back tees and make the holes feel "cramped" or "crowded" when you play from the non-back tees.
Hopefully, I'm not being "philosophical," but rather responding to the criticism of Spanish Bay holes as feeling "cramped." I'm saying that if you play it from the far-back tees, it feels normal, not "cramped." But is that good?
It was said to me in a message that Google Maps show how tight the doglegs are--and that is made worse by play from the shorter tees.
In summary, play the course back (even if you are a short hitter), and Spanish Bay is a far better course.
-
I agree with Mark here 100%
Of course if a really good player tees it from the up tees at 5000 yards its going to be wedge on the 3s, every par 4 will be drivable, and the 5s will likely be driver/short iron. Its a completely different playing experience and journey around the course. ( I do think it'd be a great idea for a silly season 4-club event instead of the usual stuff.)
I don't think anyone has contradicted the fact that a course plays different at different lengths. I feel like Jim's original question is based around can a course be so focused on a single set of tees that it goes from good (or adequate or fine or ok) to bad by moving to a different set of tees. It's a very philosophical question. I think the answer is "no". If a course is "bad" for me at the up tees, it probably wasn't very good from the appropriate tees either.
I do think some courses aren't as good from the forward tees because 1) they can be placed in poor positions, 2) long walk to forward tees and 3) not involve much interaction with features. Its incredible how often I walk by forward tees and think wtf. In all honesty, women need to get more involved in course design, maintenance and top layers of administrations. Its quite evident that the concept of forward tees is often misguided. Its no wonder attracting women to the game is so difficult despite that being the obvious target for growth.
Ciao
-
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but approximately 80% of play on most golf courses is from one main teeing area. Architects (unless instructed otherwise) focus most of their design effort for players using those tees. Back tees and more forward tees are often added to accommodate higher and lower skill levels but most of the design is centered on how people will play the hole from the main teeing area.
Getting back to what is good or bad; a pro or scratch player playing “most any existing course” from say 4500 yards probably won’t think it is very good. They’ll think the course is very different and maybe fun to play from that distance every once in a while, but they will probably coin it an Executive course or a chip and putt course. As such, since it is likely not a great test of golf from that yardage, they probably won’t love it. If for example Augusta National only had a forward set of tees at 5000 yards in length, I doubt it would make anyone’s Top 100 list and I don’t think it would continue to hold The Masters. Does that make it good or bad? You tell me :)
-
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but approximately 80% of play on most golf courses is from one main teeing area. Architects (unless instructed otherwise) focus most of their design effort for players using those tees. Back tees and more forward tees are often added to accommodate higher and lower skill levels but most of the design is centered on how people will play the hole from the main teeing area.
Getting back to what is good or bad; a pro or scratch player playing “most any existing course” from say 4500 yards probably won’t think it is very good. They’ll think the course is very different and maybe fun to play from that distance every once in a while, but they will probably coin it an Executive course or a chip and putt course. As such, since it is likely not a great test of golf from that yardage, they probably won’t love it. If for example Augusta National only had a forward set of tees at 5000 yards in length, I doubt it would make anyone’s Top 100 list and I don’t think it would continue to hold The Masters. Does that make it good or bad? You tell me :)
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that Mark. But the question was about the delta in quality between two or more sets of tees. So my thought is a course that is good or great from the perfect set of tees for a given player will still be pretty good or pretty great from a much nearer or farther set of tees. Or maybe think of it as a linear decrease in greatness. What I thought Jim was saying was that there was a seemingly logarithmic change in quality at Spanish Bay. (I might be using the wrong terms there, I'm not a math person.) But the quality sort of dropped off a cliff. To my mind, this weakness might belie greater weakness even from the "proper" set of tees. Like maybe the greens are not that interesting. Or maybe the course is not enjoyable (or perhaps even dangerous) when the player is out of position.
To take your example, Augusta from 5000 yards might not make any top 100 lists, but maybe it would be the greatest executive course in the world? Hopefully that makes sense.
-
I do think some courses aren't as good from the forward tees because 1) they can be placed in poor positions, 2) long walk to forward tees and 3) not involve much interaction with features. Its incredible how often I walk by forward tees and think wtf. In all honesty, women need to get more involved in course design, maintenance and top layers of administrations. Its quite evident that the concept of forward tees is often misguided. Its no wonder attracting women to the game is so difficult despite that being the obvious target for growth.
That can definitely be the case. In terms of Jim's question, I feel like number 1 is the most relevant. If there is a better position available, at least the option exists to improve the course. If no better location exists because of the way the course is designed, then maybe the course isn't that great no matter which tee is chosen? A place like Spanish Bay may have some serious restrictions on tree clearing and the like that just make it so no good forward options are available. Things like doglegs and trees pinching the course. It may be a weakness that can't be overcome, at least not fully.
I feel like most decent courses, I can walk 100 yards forward, plonk a tee in the ground in a reasonably appropriate place and enjoy myself, if that's what I wanted to do. From the sounds of it, that's not really possible at SB.
-
I do think some courses aren't as good from the forward tees because 1) they can be placed in poor positions, 2) long walk to forward tees and 3) not involve much interaction with features. Its incredible how often I walk by forward tees and think wtf. In all honesty, women need to get more involved in course design, maintenance and top layers of administrations. Its quite evident that the concept of forward tees is often misguided. Its no wonder attracting women to the game is so difficult despite that being the obvious target for growth.
That can definitely be the case. In terms of Jim's question, I feel like number 1 is the most relevant. If there is a better position available, at least the option exists to improve the course. If no better location exists because of the way the course is designed, then maybe the course isn't that great no matter which tee is chosen? A place like Spanish Bay may have some serious restrictions on tree clearing and the like that just make it so no good forward options are available. Things like doglegs and trees pinching the course. It may be a weakness that can't be overcome, at least not fully.
I feel like most decent courses, I can walk 100 yards forward, plonk a tee in the ground in a reasonably appropriate place and enjoy myself, if that's what I wanted to do. From the sounds of it, that's not really possible at SB.
It's a question I can't answer with certainty because everyone has a different idea of good and bad. For my liking, I see too much back and forward tees based too much on yardage rather than angles and interacting with features. I don't know how many times I have heard on this site that there should be little trouble for forward tees. I would think forward tee players want just as many thrilling shots as anyone, but at appropriate yardage.
Ciao
-
Hi,
Interesting discussion; I play quite a bit from different sets of tees (all the way back to quite short) and of course moving forward, I might need to throttle down and hit shorter clubs then driver. Most courses still provide interest and one always needs to hole the putts to score well!
However, I would like to add another view looking at the more forward tees.
My main concern with these forward tees is that regularly, I find that they are not set up for the people who 'should' play from them. Few examples:
* on doglegs have the forward tees hug the inside tree line, while the tees further back are based on the outside and can nearly look around the corner.
* penalty areas crossing the fairway in positions where the better player does not even notice them such as 30 - 60 yards short of a green, with a large bunker in front and the ground sloping downwards to the bunker, creating a significant carry of a down-slope for which short hitting older women pick up their ball and walk around it.
* par 3's with long carry over water for all players and no route to the side for shorter hitters.
I often wonder why architects show so little consideration for the players who are not playing that well, which is the vast majority of players...
Cheers, Jan
-
I'd ask the architects on here--Honestly, how much attention do you pay to the shorter tees in your design? Or is their placement really somewhat of an afterthought? My experience in some redos, is that they are really an afterthought--and are set almost entirely based on distance, not course features.
-
I believe the wrong tee test is a decent indicator of course quality. If I can play a set back and a set forward and find the course engaging, the course is likely quite good.
-
I believe the wrong tee test is a decent indicator of course quality. If I can play a set back and a set forward and find the course engaging, the course is likely quite good.
Yes, nicely put.
-
I'm starting to think that we need a GCA version of the Cayman ball.
Something that would reduce the length of every shot by about 30 percent.
Thanks to age and variety of hand and shoulder problems that's about how much length I've lost in the last 20 years, and it has completely changed the way I look at golf courses. Playing most of my golf with my wife for last 29 years has had an equally big effect.
FWIW, forward tees are rarely positioned in a way that makes the golf course better for short hitters. Even worse, they often make it less playable.
For about four years my wife and I have played at Red Mountain Ranch CC in Mesa, and it is very much the exception. For instance, on all four par threes, the tees are set in echelon that gives the forward tees a different angle to the green. In each case it means that the short hitter has a chance to bounce a ball on the green instead of having to fly it on. (An overlooked problem for short hitters is that they can't produce backspin)
At about 4600 yards from the original forward tees it's still a very interesting course for golfers who hit it under 150 yards off the tee. Of course that might be because there are only two holes with bunkers in play off the tee, even for the longest hitters (presuming they play from appropriate tees.}
-
Thinking through my last half dozen or so projects, I can’t recall any where we didn’t spend a significant amount of time adding forward tees. Furthermore, there is a lot of thought put into where they are placed and how they will be built. One technique I like to use is to work with the head pro to decide on an approximate yardage, place temporary tee markers/tees on every hole, develop a scorecard for those new tees and let golfers play those tees and share their opinions. After a certain amount of time and feedback, final decisions are made and formal tees are built. This process has worked very well and the courses/golfers love it. I literally just went through this process earlier today on a project. A new set of temporary tees will be added to a course taking the forward tee yardage from 5000 yards down to about 4200. We think most forward tee players will love it and the pro thinks it will bring more golfers to the course. I am anxious to get player feedback.
-
Thinking through my last half dozen or so projects, I can’t recall any where we didn’t spend a significant amount of time adding forward tees. Furthermore, there is a lot of thought put into where they are placed and how they will be built. One technique I like to use is to work with the head pro to decide on an approximate yardage, place temporary tee markers/tees on every hole, develop a scorecard for those new tees and let golfers play those tees and share their opinions. After a certain amount of time and feedback, final decisions are made and formal tees are built. This process has worked very well and the courses/golfers love it. I literally just went through this process earlier today on a project. A new set of temporary tees will be added to a course taking the forward tee yardage from 5000 yards down to about 4200. We think most forward tee players will love it and the pro thinks it will bring more golfers to the course. I am anxious to get player feedback.
If only that sort of thoughtfulness were the norm.
The number of forward tees that are behind trees, or similarly odd locations sometimes amazes me. Other times, the placement is so random that you just shake your head.
I've been playing in Scotland since Aug. 1, and I have come to realize why some of the people on GCA who live in the UK are resistant to more sets of tees.
One thing is that the Scots I've played with, and hung out in the bar afterward with, just don't have a problem with holes that are impossibly difficult. They never question it. I've brought it up several times and the common response is essentially, "Aye, that's tough hole, innit?"
The other is, IMHO, that you see over and over three sets of tee markers that are within two to five yards of each other.
Then there's a place that tried to do something, and it ends up being just weird. We've played Tain a couple of times since we've been here, and my wife was happy to see that she didn't have to play 5,645 yards, they have new forward tees at 4,302.
And some of the new tees make perfect sense. They are positioned so that the carry over tall rough or water are a more reasonable length. Eight and sixteen being excellent examples. But then they turned two ~480-yard par fives into ~305-yard...par fives. So there's a 200-yard walk to play a hole that now barely resembles its former self. And eleven, which was a 370-yard par five is now a 282-yard par five.
Even the pro told her not to play the new tees.
If more courses used a thoughtful approach like you describe instead of, "Let's put out some more forward tees," without much thought about angles, carries and architectural interest, shorter courses would be much better received.
-
I agree that Mark's approach is the proper one--get the yardage right, but also consider course features, not just yardage.
But I also agree with Ken that I doubt this is done often or well at most courses.
-
I agree that Mark's approach is the proper one--get the yardage right, but also consider course features, not just yardage.
But I also agree with Ken that I doubt this is done often or well at most courses.
One thing I wonder about is the effect of Alice on Pete.
I've barely played any of his courses except ]Red Mountain, which wasn't his design, but the Dye organization says it's Perry AND Pete, and it just has the best forward tees I've seen. Several of the women in my family, including my mother who will be 100 in a couple of weeks, love the place.
I actually talked to Pete about Alice and as usual he said her influence on his work was massive.
Has anyone here played a lot of Dye courses with someone who played off the forward tees? If you have, are the as well situated as those at RMRCC?
-
Ken,
I have played a lot of Dye courses, almost any of note expect Teeth of the Dog. Alice definitely had forward tee players in mind and location of those tees is key but still much of the difference comes down to yardage.
I honestly believe that alternative tees are what saved golf and made it as popular as it is today. If every every male and female and senior and junior from Professional to beginner had to start from the same location, the game would have very limited appeal. I used to be more of a purest when it came to the number of tees, but if done right and built/placed thoughtfully, they can be extremely valuable to a golf course and add to the playing enjoyment of a wider range of golfers.
And by the way, anyone care to guess what the average handicap is for golfers playing the shortest set of tees?
-
Ken,
I have played a lot of Dye courses, almost any of note expect Teeth of the Dog. Alice definitely had forward tee players in mind and location of those tees is key but still much of the difference comes down to yardage.
I honestly believe that alternative tees are what saved golf and made it as popular as it is today. If every every male and female and senior and junior from Professional to beginner had to start from the same location, the game would have very limited appeal. I used to be more of a purest when it came to the number of tees, but if done right and built/placed thoughtfully, they can be extremely valuable to a golf course and add to the playing enjoyment of a wider range of golfers.
And by the way, anyone care to guess what the average handicap is for golfers playing the shortest set of tees?
Of course yardage is the big thing and I'd like to think you're right about the impact on the game. I'd be even happier if we could prove it and get more places to buy in.
Re. handicaps, it's gotta be close to 30.
-
Ken,
I don’t know if anything can be proven but just think if you were behind a foursome of beginners (by the way your 30 handicap guess is low) playing the tips at your favorite golf course. After six plus hours who is having more fun, them or you ;)