News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #50 on: December 25, 2010, 10:21:17 PM »
The point of my post was elusive and hazy to you, it seems.

A.  It is impossible to ensure that the landing area will be the same for the long hitter/back tee, the medium hitter/middle tee and the short hitter/up tee;

B.  A true architecture aficionado should play three sets of tees on three different occasions, if given the opportunity.  Only then will she/he have the chance to assess the course from unique perspectives;

C.  I've found that players equal to me in physical ability but not in mental strength will fail easier from the back tees.  The mental game is most important from the back tees.  Only a strong thinker will handle long approach after long approach;

D.  If I were to play the middle tees on most courses, I would find myself hitting short irons and wedges into nearly every green.  That's not how courses were designed to be played, I don't believe.  The back tees provide variety of approach for many golfers, regardless of distance off the tee.


Tom Doak...the quote is from this thread.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Murray Rose

Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #51 on: December 26, 2010, 05:22:28 PM »
Mark,

    An important factor that has to be taken into consideration is how the hole was designed to be played when it started out. For example, a shortish par four of about 340 yards or so from the blocks has to have an element of defence for it to become a well earned birdie, and likewise a decent par. A hole of this kind often requires the player to either lay up to a yardage that is convenient for the second shot, or to avoid obstacles such as fairway bunkers, croos water or even to slot the ball into the elbow of a dogleg. More often then not with most well designed holes, there is an ideal landing area which to achieve from the tee. Therefore, the aim from the tee is to hit the ball the adequate distance to achieve this, after doing much calculation as to whether or not it is possible. We can conclude from this that most players can reach the area from whichever tee on a hole of this length, and that it is just a matter of choosing the correct club and type of shot.
    However, the back tees do matter when the back tee is set at a different angle to the 'medal' tee, making the hole entirely different. My theory on this is that the players playing from a back tee on any type of hole are being asked a different question. Although the players will usually be able to hit the ball the right length to keep up with the head start of the normal men's tee, they wil have to take into account a hint of shape to achieve the correct destination. The point of this seems that the championship tees are keeping the players on their toes at all times, turning the test of the course up a notch, which seems natural for the standard of player that deserves to play from those tees.
    The average player would be at a disadvantage on a hole much like the 13th at Augusta. A par five only a touch over 500 yards, and not too much of a length problem, although strategically it is certainly food for thought. The shorter hitter will have to deal with not being able to see all the way around the corner from his drive, thus making his decision as to where to lay the ball up guess work in terms of line. On the contrary, the longer player can try to sling the ball round the left hand dogleg to open the shot over the creek. The reasonable fairway here also opens up the possibility of the longer player snatching a stroke on the average hitter, on sheer power and not ability.
    I am much in favour of longer tees when necessary, but not for the sake of length. Sometimes it seems that courses are only lengthened to be able to boast a 7000 yard plus number on the scorecard. The way the longer hole can help as opposed to hindering the golfer's experience, is when the challenge of the hole is concerning strategy over power only.   

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #52 on: December 26, 2010, 07:52:07 PM »
Matt Ward:

Being a politician yourself, I hope you will see where I am going with this analogy.

If three candidates front up on election day and one gets 20% of the vote, one gets 75% and the other gets 5%, whose views and policies will prevail?

If we estimate that 20% of golfers should be using the forward tees, 75% the middle set and 5% the tips, is it not sensible that the course is considered first and foremost from the perspective of three-quarters of golfers?

Matt_Ward

Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2010, 09:56:38 PM »
Tom D:

The quote is not out of context -- you made it earlier on this topic and I simply copied it and highlighted it in bold for emphasis.

Scott:

Interesting question on your part -- here's my response -- course legitmacy has been conveyed -- at least in a number of golf circles that the essence of the golf course is deemed from the back markers -- even if only 5% of the players play from there. Therefore, golf, unlike electoral politics, is not geared towards the theory of 50% +1 as democracry is generally practiced in most circles -- save for the US Senate where one needs to get 60 votes in order close off debate and then vote.

No doubt others -- including Doak himself -- might take strong exception to that past reality that back tees were the measuring stick of a course's greatness. Please do not think that I don't see some value in that approach.

Ron:

Interesting ansser -- but I ask yo this can any course really be all things to all people? Likely only the TOC can do that but frankly there will be very few that can slide into that category.

The shift in ascribing real meaning -- placing it more towards the middle markers and having the back markers serving more as an afterthought is clearly a departure in emphasis in what should count for the most.

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2010, 10:40:00 PM »
Golfers with the skill to play the back tees care more about where championships are played than antiquated paper magazine ratings.  That includes the great amateur events also so don't get all uppity on me.  My friends who play in the Anderson or Crump Cups hardly need the opinions of 14 handicaps for advice where to play.



John,


Point taken, but do the 14 handicaps need your friends' advice on where to play, because given the current ratings system that's overwhelmingly what they're getting...

Not if they have an ounce of sense.  The only advice anyone needs is how to become a rater.  Given that Digest no longer uses raters to formulate the best new courses to play can anyone give a single benefit annual ratings provide beyond cheap entertainment. 

Does People magazine give enough credence to height when determining Sexiest Man Alive?  I think not.
 

I think they do however use shoe size!


Matt, isn't the simple answer for magazines and such to fnally divide the ratings pool data into player classifications, i.e., low h'capper<5, half-bogey golfer, and bogey, and above????  4 ratings, each pool plays no more than 2 sets of tees, gives their ratings, reports their ratings, readers take it for what its worth, 4 opinions versus one generalized pseudo-scientific amalgam
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2010, 04:17:35 AM »
Tom D:

The quote is not out of context -- you made it earlier on this topic and I simply copied it and highlighted it in bold for emphasis.

Scott:

Interesting question on your part -- here's my response -- course legitmacy has been conveyed -- at least in a number of golf circles that the essence of the golf course is deemed from the back markers -- even if only 5% of the players play from there. Therefore, golf, unlike electoral politics, is not geared towards the theory of 50% +1 as democracry is generally practiced in most circles -- save for the US Senate where one needs to get 60 votes in order close off debate and then vote.

No doubt others -- including Doak himself -- might take strong exception to that past reality that back tees were the measuring stick of a course's greatness. Please do not think that I don't see some value in that approach.

Ron:

Interesting ansser -- but I ask yo this can any course really be all things to all people? Likely only the TOC can do that but frankly there will be very few that can slide into that category.

The shift in ascribing real meaning -- placing it more towards the middle markers and having the back markers serving more as an afterthought is clearly a departure in emphasis in what should count for the most.

Matt

Using the back tee as the measuring stick of greatness essentially eliminates an awful lot of courses from consideration because they essentially don't have back tees.  Okay, they have back tees, but they don't have BACK tees.  I would also think, and this is a real eye scratcher, because of this slight, clubs will spend money to add BACK markers when they aren't in the least necessary nor would they improve the course.  To say the least, its a disappointing view of what great golf is and one I could never subscribe to.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2010, 12:09:45 PM »
This whole thread is really a head scratcher for me.  Particularily because there is no prescribed min/max distance to define "Back Tee" and also no constant on how many different tees a course may have.  The Back tees on one course may be akin to the 3rd or 4th tee at another.

If you bring subjective Ratings into the dicussion, one must remember that it originally was the 100 TOUGHEST golf courses but then they changed the title to TOP because many didn't care to play torture tracks.

We have always designed primarily from the Blue or 66-6800 tees because that's where most of the 5-15 handicaps play from.  The Back tees are adjusted to attempt to put out reasonably similar demand.  However, except from Par 3, golfers hit multiple shots and one must apply this to the calculus.  I have stopped worrying about length as 1) it keepd changing and 2) the differences are just too great.

One problem is that players refuse to play the course but insist the course be ammenable to their game.  They bitch and demean a design that takes the Driver out of their hand.

I wonder, for those who "Play from multiple tees, do you change to a 3 wood from the Blues and to a 4/5 iron from the Whites? That's the distance theose players play from.  Or do you use the Big Dog and play Driver/wedge?

Coasting is a downhill process

Matt_Ward

Re: Do Back Tees Matter ?
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2010, 02:54:10 PM »
Tim:

Back tees have no set application because we are talking about a myriad of courses -- the issue is whether the back tees (however they are placed) have meaning -- or whethetr they should have meaning-- when overall assessments are made. I placed Doak's comments in bold to indicate that he does use the middle tee area to start the location of a number of the holes he creates. As he indicated he does this to keep the distance from the preceding green to the next tee to be relatively nearby.

Initially, when GD began its rating -- the "toughest" was used as the defining measuring stick for greatness. That is not the cae now. But when courses are listed the back tee distance is printed. They don't simply cite the mid tee length.

Tim, my point was whether the back tees should be used in providing for the overall assessment of a course. Under Scott Warren's rationale -- the mid-tee markers should be the point of emphasis since that is where most play happens. I also wonder, after reading your post, if players themselves have a desire to play from more playable tee positions because they feel the course, from that distance, simply takes away shot options (i.e. using driver) that they wish to have.

Steve:

Your solution would be a nice one if the mags were to divide up their assessments into such neat and separate categories.

I don't see that happening.

The issue is what is the "point of emphasis" for ratings purposes. Frankly, under Scott W's belief -- the mid tee markers would be the sole primary point of emphasis because that's where the masses actually play.

Sean:

If we eliminate the back tees for the purposes of rating discussion -- that certainly can be an approach taken by the mags. Most don't.

You state that courses without 'back tees' may actually include them because of the pressure to respond. Well, why do they do that? If anything, staying "the course" -- no pun intended -- would be the more appropriate response. A number of fine courses have not seen fit to extend themselves and they are still viewed very positively for the architecture they produce.

Tags:
Tags: