The average woman golfer

[Tom Birkert]

I have no problem with good women golfers. Indeed I think they are a major asset to any club. When I lived in Paris I played at Chantilly and they had a number of talented female golfers who were a pleasure to accompany on the course.

However, and I am generalising here (dons tin cup helmet!), the majority of women golfers I encounter are not good enough to keep up a decent pace of play, and this tends to back up the course and lead to longer and more frustrating rounds.

[Kalen Braley]

Fair enough,

But I've also seen groups of male high handicappers grind play to almost a halt.  I've also seen club members go out in 3-4 groups right in a row and grind things to a halt, more than likely due to the various bets and such they have with each other.  And the marshall will rarely if ever tell them to keep the pace of play up.

I don't see any reason to single out the females on the golf course at all.  Unless that is if you're lucky enough to have a smoking hot one play in your group.  

[Cliff Hamm]

But I've also seen groups of male high handicappers grind play to almost a halt.  

And I've also seen low handicappers grind play to almost a halt.  Unfortunately, too many times I've been behind single digit handicappers who think they're in the Open and take forever on every shot... Handicap/talent is not the major factor in slow play.  When low handicappers take forever to look at putts etc., I'll take the high handicapper., male or female anyday, who knows how to play ready golf.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree, low handicappers can play slow too.

Perhaps I need to qualify high handicapper.  I'm not talking about 18s, I'm talking about those who fail to break 100 and aren't going to do so anytime soon.  This is especially true if they are playing a course that is full of hazards and OB galore.  Its gets frustrating when it takes them 4 shots to advance the ball 150 yards, and that doesn't include thier practice chops before each shot. I've been stuck behind these types of groups more often that the "US Open" caliber of groups.

[BCrosby]

My wife is now interested in the game. She is not very good. She navigates down fairways to avoid having to carry greenside bunkers. Because they scare the hell out of her. She has this wacked out idea of tacking to the side of the fairway that opens up the green. She didn't ask for my advice about that. She just does it. It's crazy stuff.

One thing is very clear. Though she wouldn't put it this way, she is infinitely more attuned to the design features of our course than I am. Infinitely more.

Bob

P.S. I grew up playing golf with a girl who played on the LPGA Tour for a brief time. She is now a teaching pro somewhere in New York with grown kids. She played the same tees we did and nobody got strokes. She was my introduction to women golfers. Whew, she could play.

[wsmorrison]

My wife is an excellent athlete (she's got some pretty incredible athletic genes) who runs 45 miles a week at the age of 50 and beats women half her age in races.  This year she is finally going to take up golf...she joined our club's nine-holers.  I am very curious to see how she takes to the sport.  Bob, next time you visit, we can play a four ball, Crosbys vs. Morrisons.  I'll expect my usual lesson in humility from you.

I play with my 78 year old mother-in-law, a 30 year veteran of Phila Country Club's A women's team. We have a great time at her course and our West Course.  I play with a good friend of mine, one of only 3 female members of Stonewall, who is avid but learning and we have a blast.  I play annually with a friend who just made the LPGA tour this year (and made the first cut in the opening tournament) after coming in 2nd on the Futures Tour.  I learn a lot playing golf with her.  I find it enjoyable to play with all kinds of golfers: those better than me (there's a good number of them), worse than me, male, female, junior, whatever.  Golf is a great sport in that regard.

[jeffwarne]

Having given hundreds of playing lessons to women I would say women interface with the architecture FAR more than men.

Few have the strength to fly it on a green and stop it so they are almost always playing a ground game.
This requires thought and placement of most shots.
They also take care to avoid bunkers in their strategy because they lack the strength to play out of deeper ones.

Most women don't hit it far enough to hit it off the course so they lower their scores by learning to plan shots and place the ball accordingly.

Men play their best when they learn to keep it on the planet which usually involves hitting something other than a driver.
This isn't really interfacing with the architecture but rather trying to keep the ball in an area where there is some architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob
thanks - good post. If I'm reading it right, it's pretty much exactly the thing I was thinking/asking about, i.e. being in tune with the design features in a very 'personal' way, making personal but smart choices that don't necessarily have a great deal to do with 'par' or with the whole range of architect-prescribed features/strategies (save, in this case, avoiding greenside bunkers).

Peter

Jeff - just saw your post. Thanks; good points. It gets back to my very first post, and that's what I find interesting: that, even with forward tees done right, some are playing a game that is viable and right, but more 'independant' of the design, or perhaps better, of the 'textbook' way to play it.
I think that's a good thing.





 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I find women golfers fun to play with and sleep with both at the golf course and other places. Nothing says goodtimes more than a 30 minute during the round break out on the course. I also agree the average woman golfer is not much different than the average male on architectural issues and strategy. Most of the ladies I play with seem to be more aware if anything of golf behavier, do's and don'ts.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I find women golfers fun to play with and sleep with both at the golf course and other places. Nothing says goodtimes more than a 30 minute during the round break out on the course.

Wow, TMI, Tiger.  You're kidding, right?  Or should we remember to step lightly if you're playing ahead of us with one of your girlfriends?

[Andy Troeger]

I have no problem with good women golfers. Indeed I think they are a major asset to any club. When I lived in Paris I played at Chantilly and they had a number of talented female golfers who were a pleasure to accompany on the course.

However, and I am generalising here (dons tin cup helmet!), the majority of women golfers I encounter are not good enough to keep up a decent pace of play, and this tends to back up the course and lead to longer and more frustrating rounds.

I've run across quite a few circumstances where your statement is true, however, having coached both boys and girls high school golf I can say that from my experience the boys as a whole are slower than the girls. If it comes down to time per shot, the boys are significantly slower!

My girls team plays at a local muni with a very brisk pace of play. As such I had to really push them to play well and thoughtfully, but quickly. Over the past few years I was proud to say that every time we practiced we finished walking in less than 2 hours per nine. When we weren't held up ourselves we averaged 1 hr 45 mins in threesomes, 1 hr 55 in foursomes. About half the girls shot in the 40s with the other half in the 50's or low 60's. On the occasions we had varsity only practice we could play in close to an hour and a half...almost too fast for our purposes.

Unfortunately, we took a lot of heat because many other teams did not follow this same procedure. Matches and tournaments could take quite awhile, but that was the case for either gender. If the golfer can move the ball at all (if you can't you should be on the driving range to learn how), it comes down to their understanding that pace of play is important.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Eric, I would like to think as long as you do not airmail the green or take out a rain hut, we should be fine.

[Jim Nugent]

Here's hoping the women GCAer's give their opinions on this...

[Doug Siebert]

In the past I've had two girlfriends who were golfers, both were certainly better than the 'average' female golfer mainly by virtue of length but weren't really good (probably 15-20 handicap I'd guess)  One was a former college basketball player and one hell of an athlete (5'10", tall but not an amazon and very skinny) who could hit absolute hell out of it - she could easily carry it over 200 yards with her driver, and this was over 10 years ago before the big drivers and Pro V1)  She usually played from the regular men's tees and the reaction from men who'd see her there and wonder what she was doing until they saw her hit the ball was pretty funny.  But her short game was atrocious, probably because she didn't have much time to play let alone practice.

The other had played on her high school team in the past and just played casually now and wasn't quite as long, but she could hit it pretty well and was a definite asset on scrambles that allowed women on the team to play from the women's tees.  She usually played from the senior tees when I played with her on the logic that if I played on the tees behind the men's tees, she'd play on the tees behind the women's tees!  I remember her telling me that she didn't like playing the course from the women's tees because she could easily drive over all the bunkers and it wasn't very challenging.  From the senior tees she could carry them, but only with a well hit drive.

Sometimes I'd explain to her why I would play a certain hole the way I did, and she understood the logic, and started thinking more about the way she'd approach some holes instead of just trying to hit driver down the exact center of every fairway all the time.  So there are some women out there who definitely think about the architecture.  Maybe I helped her along on that, but if no one ever talks to a female golfer about strategy (which is probably true for many of them) then why should we be surprised if they aren't thinking about it when they play?

I'd suggest that you are probably right that the average woman golfer isn't really interested in interfacing with the architecture, but isn't that also true for the average male golfer?  If you toss out all the obvious macho bravado stuff where guys are trying to carry bunkers or dogleg corners they have no hope of carrying with even their career drive, and look at the shots they make when there is real money on the line and the ego takes a backseat, I still see the vast majority of the guys with handicaps over 15 making competely stupid strategic decisions and then getting pissed at the golf gods when their shot fails to have the result they hoped for because they didn't take into account what the architect left out in front of them in such an obvious fashion that it could only be more obvious if he'd put a neon sign and a waterfall next to it!

[Bill_McBride]

The valid commentary in this thread says women definitely pay attention to the architecture - otherwise they'd be over their heads in bunkers all the time.

[Peter Pallotta]

I agree, Bill.

I think that from what I've seen, though, they may approach that architecture in a "freer" way. That's a generalization, I know, but it's not meant as a negative one.  I am trying the learn from that.

Peter

[Cassandra Burns]

Few have the strength to fly it on a green and stop it so they are almost always playing a ground game.
This requires thought and placement of most shots. They also take care to avoid bunkers in their strategy because they lack the strength to play out of deeper ones.

Most women don't hit it far enough to hit it off the course so they lower their scores by learning to plan shots and place the ball accordingly.

Yes Jeff!  This is so close to the mark, insofar as we can make any kind of generalizations about golfers based on gender.  When it comes down to it, what matters isn't gender per se but the skills a golfer has and what she does with them.

Imagine if your best driver goes 150 yards, and your mishits go more like 120.  Depending on the placement of the tees, that can really change the strategic options for your play.   That fairway bunker might be out of reach.  Maybe it has to be tacked around.  Maybe it's shallow enough that you can count on a low-trajectory shot just skipping right through it!  

Now consider how the trajectory of your short irons and wedges affects your play.  If your seven iron is only good for ninety yards and doesn't get much higher than 20 feet, and your wedge shots always roll five to ten yards, that really affects your game around the green.  Lobbing the ball over a 30 yard carry to a tight pin just isn't an option!  Given those kinds of skills, the thoughtful golfer will embrace the ground game and plan her routing accordingly, while her thoughtless competitor will be getting a lot of sand practice - except when she gets lucky blithely skipping her shots through the bunkers.  

I don't know, it's so hard to make generalizations.  I think women are just as likely as men to employ strategy (or not).  What's really interesting is considering what kinds of strategy you would use based on your skills.  The skills you have will pretty much define your strategic options.  In this day and age, most women will hit the ball shorter and lower than most men, which should account for most of the different strategies you see on the course.

Oh, one last thing.  I think using strategy depends on how consistent you are in your play.  Like, if you're 90% to drive the ball straight, but only 140 yards, you can probably employ strategic planning more successfully than if you bomb it 200 yards but only hit the fairway a third of the time.  If you can get that 90-yard 7-iron consistently straight, you'll likely enjoy lower scoring than the player who can hit her wedge high but with a larger dispersion pattern.  

Last season I really got a lesson in this.  I played another woman 20 years my senior, who hit the ball shorter and lower than me, but with much greater accuracy!  She missed only one fairway all day, and reached all but three greens in regulation.  She was almost always in better position than me.  No wonder she shot par and beat me by six strokes!  

It's a lot easier to strategize when you can count on what kind of a shot you're likely to hit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Cassandra (and Jeff) - thanks much for weighing in, and with such good posts.

I was trying to think about what I could learn through the experiences of "average" women golfers, and as the thread progressed, through the experiences of anyone who plays the game, the course, and the architecture in a freer and more personal way, i.e. strategizing, yes, but seeing the course and making choices about it in a different way than an accomplished player might. I know the topic is rife with generalizations, but I thought I'd try.  

Thanks again
Peter

[Pete Lavallee]

Is it possible that the subject Peter is exploring is a conceptual change in golf course architecture? One can hardly open a golf book from the Golden Age without seeing a hole mapped out with 3 or 4 possible routes to the hole; each being played by golfers of differing abilities. The A player challanges the hazard thereby giving him or her self the best angle to attack the pin. There are alternate routes provided for the B, C and D players, each with their own unique puzzle to solve. In fact many of these holes started from a single tee; although not very democratic, the hole remains interesting to each class of player. Of course that hole must be harder to design, as it is really 3 or 4 holes in one.

Today architects seem to strive to provide the same puzzle to every class of player with the varying tee concept. It really doesn't work however because although you can spot the D player a distance advantage on his or her tee shot, you can't give him the skill of the A player to negociate hazards with towering arial shots that stop on a dime; even if you do allow both players to have a 7 iron in to the hole, the way they hit that club is totally different. So in essence the C and D players negociate as best they can over a hole that was laid out to challange the A and B players.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pete -
thank you. You approached the topic in a much better/clearer way than I did.  

I just think it's really interesting that some are finding "3 or 4 holes in one" even in cases when the designer didn't provide or dictate those various options/strategies.

It's a different kind of game being played there; I think it might have some relevance to architecture/design philosophies.  

Peter

[Bruce Katona]

As a matter of course, when looking to acquire or seriously research an existing operating facility, I would bring my wife along at some point to play the course and enjoy the day.  Her perspective on the course, clubhouse facility, pro shop merchandising, etc. is very different than mine.  

She can break 100 on a good day and fly the ball with a driver 125 yards.  If she can play and enjoy the course, we would know it would be a wonderful place for couples/families.  If the course were difficult/no fun, then it would appleal to only the hard core golfer, thus limiting the rounds played or membership sales.

Things that I would overlook are very important to her and would be for the spouse of any male member.  Plus she can really inspect the Woman's Locker Room.

[Bill_McBride]

Is it possible that the subject Peter is exploring is a conceptual change in golf course architecture? One can hardly open a golf book from the Golden Age without seeing a hole mapped out with 3 or 4 possible routes to the hole; each being played by golfers of differing abilities. The A player challanges the hazard thereby giving him or her self the best angle to attack the pin. There are alternate routes provided for the B, C and D players, each with their own unique puzzle to solve. In fact many of these holes started from a single tee; although not very democratic, the hole remains interesting to each class of player. Of course that hole must be harder to design, as it is really 3 or 4 holes in one.

Today architects seem to strive to provide the same puzzle to every class of player with the varying tee concept. It really doesn't work however because although you can spot the D player a distance advantage on his or her tee shot, you can't give him the skill of the A player to negociate hazards with towering arial shots that stop on a dime; even if you do allow both players to have a 7 iron in to the hole, the way they hit that club is totally different. So in essence the C and D players negociate as best they can over a hole that was laid out to challange the A and B players.

I wish I could find - and post - Dr. MacKenzie's diagram of how players A, B, C and D play the 14th Long at St Andrews.  The long straight hitter dares to drive into the Elysian Fields but then must tackle Hell Bunker.  The short player can go left, daring the Beardies but then must play left of Hell.  I forget how C and D play, but it all involves navigating around or over Hell.  Wonderful stuff, and that's how women deal with golf every day.

I agree with Bruce.  My wife is a terrific golfer although she has a 24 handicap and can't drive over 150 yards.  She is so enthusiastic about the game, and has been fun to play with on trips for years.  When her short game is cooking, I'm in deep trouble.  Last weekend she had a 90 with that 24 hcp.  Brutal.