Turn points and new tees

[Jason Topp]

My 6600 yard par 70 course master plan is drawn with turn points assuming 250 yard drives from the back tees (750').  On most holes, the turn points do not matter much because doglegs are rather gentle. 

While technology has increased distance off the tee, I think requiring 260 yards to avoid hitting it over trees to approach a par four is unreasonable, especially on a 6600 yard course with plenty of straight holes that can be lengthened without causing such a problem.

Am I too concerned with "fairness?"

Am I too concerned with my own interests as someone who now needs to kill the ball to reach the corner?

Or I am I right?

[Matthew Runde]

If the apex is at the same distance for more than a few holes, the course may begin to favor a particular type of golfer, and could prove boring for all golfers.  I'd say, break it up and require a different length for each hole, or make the holes so amazingly different that the distances of the apices wouldn't matter as much.  Variety is the spice of life.

[Jason Topp]

Here is a countour map of the hole in question.  It is 250 from the present tee to the dot in the fairway and then about 145 from that point to the next dot that is in the middle of the green.  With the new tee add 25 yards to get to the first dot.

[Jeff Shelman]

Jason,

I don't think you're crazy at all. I do think that right now there seems to be a little length envy in the Twin Cities. Minneapolis added a bunch of new tees to get over 7,000 yards. Golden Valley has done the same. My club is just about there.

I just think that there is this fear about being labeled as "short" right now. The rub is that longer doesn't always mean better. An example of that is on my course. There was such a desire by some people to get as close to 7,000 yards that there is one spot where I think we took some variety out of the course. Because there was room behind the 7th tee, that par 3 was lengthened. The hole itself isn't bad, but now it often (about 50 percent of the time) requires the same club as No. 4. While the green shapes are different, they are both holes in which you have to fly the ball almost all of the way to the hole and it's a good idea to be below the hole. The two holes are very rarely more than one club of difference.

Now to No. 6 at your place. I think there is a fairness issue. If they are going to back that tee up another 25 yards, I think they would have to take out some trees on the corner. Otherwise that is going to be a super difficult hole. I think that's even more important considering the membership of your club, where there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming number of low, low handicap players. The other question is what is going to happen to the one up from the back tee? I'm guessing that's where the majority of players hit it from, right?

There aren't that many holes at your place that have sharp doglegs. To make one of them super hard seems a bit extreme.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

To me, sharp doglegs through trees are never really a great hole.  They are always going to force some player to lay up off the tee, and penalize others who can't reach the corner, even if you build eight tees and let the player tee up wherever they want.

Plus, the actual idea of a "turn point" is over-emphasized in design.  The truth is that once the course is open, about 2% of golfers actually hit their approach shots from where the stake at the turn point used to be ... another 2% are past it, and the other 96% are short of it, or in the woods.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

To me, sharp doglegs through trees are never really a great hole.  They are always going to force some player to lay up off the tee, and penalize others who can't reach the corner, even if you build eight tees and let the player tee up wherever they want.

Plus, the actual idea of a "turn point" is over-emphasized in design.  The truth is that once the course is open, about 2% of golfers actually hit their approach shots from where the stake at the turn point used to be ... another 2% are past it, and the other 96% are short of it, or in the woods.

Tom - I agree as a general rule.

Before the change I thought of the hole as a good but not great hole, largely because the angle of the dogleg is a bit too sharp for my taste.  The prior tee works pretty well for tee shots ranging from 230 up to 280 with a variety of advantages and disadvantages of different lines.  It worked even better from the original tee(now the white tee) which was about 360 yards from a slightly less severe angle.  At that distance, long drivers would try and drive it near the green with a following wind.  The rest of us had a chance to carry the bunker at the corner and one could reach the corner with about 200 yards off the tee. 

We are hosting a state championship this year.  Hopefully we will keep the 396 tee and see how the new one works in actual play.

[Sean_A]

Its not my favourite type of hole - this hitting to a certain point to avoid trees.  For sharp leggers that aren't particularly long I much prefer the problem of approach be at the green end.  This leaves the option of going for the green from any angle even if it isn't the smart play.  Plus, on some of these types of holes, its nice to think that in the right conditions, a player may want to have a blast at the green from the tee. 

Ciao

[Dan Kelly]

Or I am I right?

I think you're right -- about this hole, at any rate.

I think I (who drives it 230-250) should be able to play your course from the 6,600 tees, without running into a hole that's nearly unplayable.

From that new back tee, I'd have to hit a long-iron or hybrid over trees to a green with OB right and OB long, and a green that isn't all that receptive
to long-irons and hybrids, and one where it's a mistake to be above the pin.

The smart play for me would probably be a layup to 40 yards out, hoping for a pitch-and-putt par.

We all know how much fun layups are -- no matter how smart they are.

The hole was a lot of fun just as it was.