Modernize Alice Dye's Forward Tee Guidelines?

[Dave Givnish]

It's interesting that we focus on the women players with the forward tees, where I think that tee in the 4500 yd range would be as helpful to make a course enjoyable for the ends of the age spectrum (juniors and seniors). 

We've got an Octogenarian Event at our club.  You need to be 80 to enter and you get a mulligan for every year over.  They play from about 4600 yards and love it. 

My question is how to best mark the tees if we use a spot in the fairway.  In this event, the staff moves the forward tee markers out into the fairway.  That works fine and is easy for older eyes to see. We've talked about just painting an irrigation head so that the markers in the fairway aren't in play.  Any comments or suggestions?

[Tom_Doak]

It's interesting that we focus on the women players with the forward tees, where I think that tee in the 4500 yd range would be as helpful to make a course enjoyable for the ends of the age spectrum (juniors and seniors). 

We've got an Octogenarian Event at our club.  You need to be 80 to enter and you get a mulligan for every year over.  They play from about 4600 yards and love it. 

My question is how to best mark the tees if we use a spot in the fairway.  In this event, the staff moves the forward tee markers out into the fairway.  That works fine and is easy for older eyes to see. We've talked about just painting an irrigation head so that the markers in the fairway aren't in play.  Any comments or suggestions?

Dave:

At Crystal Downs there is a painted marker in the ground on each fairway for the junior tee.  It works fine as long as the players who might use those tees know where they are.  We can't do that at Old Macdonald, and some of those tees are so far forward that I am concerned players from further back might hit the forward tee marker with a mediocre drive.

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks for your efforts Kari – interesting discussion.

My thoughts on this topic have been evolving for some time and continue to do so. There was a time when I thought purpose built tees were necessary – due mainly to what I have read on the subject. When Tom Doak mentioned some time back that the forward tees at Old Mac were just set in the fairway I still couldn’t quite visualise how this would work and the associated press explaining they were just ‘plonked’ down in the fwy (or some such thing) didn’t read as very appealing. It was when I was walking up to the light blue tee on the 11th at Lost Farm that I ‘got it’ – these tees are low profile and broad in area, they appear to be set in the fairway - but they are tees. That moment changed my thinking on this subject all together.

I now feel it is worthwhile being flexible on the whole forward tee issue because every course, every topo and every client is different; there are also cultural differences (club, golfing and social) to be mindful off. Just yesterday I was setting out a new short course with a Women’s Captain - a number of the new tees are sited in the fairway at appropriate spots, a few stand alone and will be slightly elevated, others are off to the side because that is where the preferred angle of play presented. We turned an uphill blind par 4 with a water carry into an engaging par 3 – she was thrilled. We hit a few balls to check our thinking, the fact she was teeing up in the fairway was irrelevant– she was involved with the shot and she would have been putting for birdie… she was smiling, the golfing experience was there.

When we were out on the course I mentioned to her that research from the US (I am in Oz) suggested women in general prefer a purpose built forward tee – she looked surprised - she is simply after a more manageable layout than the current 5986 yards (5474m) to be endured playing the red tees each week. Added to this the superintendent is already busy and does not want an additional 18 tees to maintain – that’s ok, we can meet in the middle. I also believe it is important to respect the overall golfing landscape and in doing so there are times – for me at least - when raising a forward tee would be a negative. Yesterday was a good exercise in recognising the positives of remaining flexible and showing that even small steps can lead to good and improved golfing experiences.

No doubt many women would like the perfect tee but my feeling is that every job is different and that well maintained ground with an appropriate alignment should not be under-estimated if we are to provide short hitters with alternate options and at the same time value the golfing landscape.

All the best with your endeavours.
Cheers, Lyne

[Peter Pallotta]

Lyne - nice to see your name on the board; hope all is well with you. Thanks for chiming in with that first-hand and recent experience. If someone asked me, I would've offered that nothing less than 'purpose built' tees are good enough -- but I would thus have been putting my theoretical IDEA ahead of the actual NEEDS of a whole bunch of REAL GOLFERS.  (What can I say - I'm an idiot sometimes.) I don't know the proper lingo, but yours seems like a very healthy and sane "client-centered" approach.

Best
Peter

[Kari Haug]

Hi Tom,
Is the fairway tee that you suggest a constructed tee or simply a mowed area of the fairway with markers?  I got the impression it was defined by mow lines or minimally noticeable markers, but not constructed and as you implied not "maintained" like the other tees.  I agree it doesn't make sense to maintain 18 completely separate tees, but most courses would not require this number because many could be combined with just a few separately constructed.

As you know, I am a fan of your work and economically prudent golf course construction with the lightest footprint possible, but my experience with teeing areas mowed into fairways (not constructed) is that by mid-summer, they are a burned up dirt spot on the ground because they lack proper grasses for quick regeneration, drainage, area, and irrigation.  A bit of elevation also gives an improved view of the fairway/hazards ahead as is generally experienced from the back tee. Everyone likes visibility and vista and no one wants to hit off a patch of dirt.  And without defining characteristics, how can one ensure that the architect's desired location/distance and angle is maintained over time and that the quality of the teeing ground is equitable to the back tees? This is the part of the golf experience that I am concerned about.   Kari

[Kari Haug]

Hi Lyne –
Thank you for your comments and insight on this topic.  How great that you have improved the playability of the course you describe.  I’m sure your experience with the Women’s Captain was very rewarding work and it definitely emphasizes the need for understanding the culture of each club and the need to be flexible with our options.  Are your forward tees as you describe constructed even though low profile or how did you handle that aspect?   

I would be really happy if a modern concept for forward tees that maintain the elements that make golf enjoyable could arise out of this discussion.  I can see where a low profile tee could help maintain the strategic angle of a hole.  I come from a landscape architecture and environmental psychology background where “place” is celebrated.  Considering that a golf course is a combination of “path” and “place” – the tees and greens being special places and the path being fairways and connections from green to tee, I am wondering if you have any suggestions how to ensure that the teeing place is defined.  Research shows that humans are most comfortable and happy in landscapes that are "legible", that they can read and where they don't feel lost.  What type of markers did you use and how do golfers find their way to a low profile place on the ground?  This is probably more important on public courses than private, but nevertheless, it's an important element.

Nice to make your acquaintance and best regards.  Kari

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Tom,
Is the fairway tee that you suggest a constructed tee or simply a mowed area of the fairway with markers?  I got the impression it was defined by mow lines or minimally noticeable markers, but not constructed and as you implied not "maintained" like the other tees.  I agree it doesn't make sense to maintain 18 completely separate tees, but most courses would not require this number because many could be combined with just a few separately constructed.

As you know, I am a fan of your work and economically prudent golf course construction with the lightest footprint possible, but my experience with teeing areas mowed into fairways (not constructed) is that by mid-summer, they are a burned up dirt spot on the ground because they lack proper grasses for quick regeneration, drainage, area, and irrigation.  A bit of elevation also gives an improved view of the fairway/hazards ahead as is generally experienced from the back tee. Everyone likes visibility and vista and no one wants to hit off a patch of dirt.  And without defining characteristics, how can one ensure that the architect's desired location/distance and angle is maintained over time and that the quality of the teeing ground is equitable to the back tees? This is the part of the golf experience that I am concerned about.   Kari

Kari:

Most of the places we've done this, the entire site was sand and the tees in question were just shaped and leveled with native sand ... as were all the other tees on the course.  Also, these were courses with fescue or bermudagrass fairways, and the tees are being maintained at essentially the same height of cut as the fairways, anyway.  The only difference is that we chose not to "define" the tee with rough to its sides, so that the shape wouldn't stand out from the other tees, but would instead blend into the fairway grass around it.  [Indeed, we have done that with other tees as well ... mowed short grass on the slopes around them, or even from the previous green up to them, so all the shapes go away and you have just one continuous short-grass surface.]

We don't build dirt tees.  By the same token, I think making extra efforts to give the tee a "sense of place" is overkill, and especially if you are going to try and do it for 4-6 tees per hole.

[Bobby Jones]

George Thomas did promote the "fair tee" which is basically just that - an extension of the fw back to the tee and incorporating it.  Maybe its time for a revival, perhaps in connection with Flogton or some other variation of the game where you don't need to start from set markers, even though they may be there as a guide in some form.

The only problem is, with current and likely future emphasis on turf reductions, maybe it wouldn't fly in some areas.  For that matter, Americans are so used to following signs and what not, I think they would feel uncomfortable NOT starting from a defined spot.

Jeff -  interesting you bring that up about GCT.  The recent restoration at LACC incorporated the "fair tee" on many of the holes.  Every single teebox prior to the restoration was rectangular and surrounded by rough on all sides.  I don't think any of the the tees are like that any more.  This has allowed a lot of new fwd tee locations that don't make the setup look awkward.  Even a lot of the walks from green to tee that used to be through rough are now closely mown. 


As for not starting from a defined spot...I loved that aspect when i played Ballyneal.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BJ,

Can't think of a better place to use that concept than on an original Thomas course!

As to fw level tees, with legal requirements for the two forward tees to be wheelchair accessible, I think those will be the wave of the future for non golf reasons.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

One of the priorities I have when designing a new golf course is to please the ladies and their favorite subject are their tees.
Here are some of the ladies comments:

Can there be a ladies tee on a Par 3 where we don’t have to hit a wood but a mid iron?
This can mean reducing the length to less than 100 yards. Just recently I’ve provided the ladies with a 99 yard down hill Par 3, which they adore.

Please can we have some interesting carries to play over?
Often the forward ladies Tees are placed at the front of the open fairway with no visual challenge to overcome. I now provide a grass bunker or hillock quite close to the ladies tees to add a bit of spice to their play.

Can we have large tees?
Often the ladies tees are undersized, resulting in the tee being “worn out” quickly.
So make them big enough.

It goes without saying the tees should be positioned to fit into the natural topography and provide an interesting overview of the fairway and surroundings.

The old SSS System rated the course for the ladies with a factor of 88% of the length from the men’s tees.
The idea being the ladies could play against their husbands or men friends under “relative” balanced lengths.

So comparing the men’s normal tees at 6000 yards would have given the balanced length from the ladies tees of 5280 yard.
Alice Dye recognized this as being too difficult for most ladies and suggested a reduction.
The new USGA Course Rating System now has the ratio of men to ladies at 84%, reducing the equivalent length from the ladies tees for the men’s 6000 yards to 5040 yards.

Now if one wants 4500 yards overall length for the women, the equivalent for the men would be approximately 5360 yards. So it appears if one wants to have “balanced” ratings for men and women on the men's normal tees at 6000 yards and one wants an alternative 4500 yard forward tees, then 5 tees per hole is the answer – and why not?

Although I'm not a supporter of the USGA Rating System as it often constrains rather than being intuitive - one ignores the Course Rating System at one's peril !!!!  

[Sean_A]

If we aren't careful there will be a ton of tees with few golfers using any given set!  I think the goal should be less tees, not more, unless they can be discreetly tucked away and can offer different angles.  I like the idea of increasing par dramatically for the forward tees (something more like a bogey score).  Sometimes a shortened tee makes a lot of sense, but it has to provide interest - sadly this is something I see lacking an awful lot.  In the UK women's tees are often 5000-5300ish, but in season courses tend to be firm and the yardage is not really an issue. 

I am surprised folks wouldn't find these sorts of tees attractive.  This one is slightly raised, but not in the least ugly from the mens tee.


This tee flows to the right with the land.


And another which I find very attractive set off by natural grasses.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

John Chilver-Stainer: 

I thought the USGA rating system used 80% as the comparative distance between men's and women's ratings.  That's what they use for the tee shot, anyway:  200 yards for scratch women golfers vs. 250 for men.  Heck, the 18-handicap man is given 200 yards for his tee shot, so in theory he's the same as a scratch woman player, and I'd bet that 160 yards is above the average for the 18-handicap woman, instead of below it.

You obviously haven't played a lot of courses with five sets of tees per hole.  We had them all over the USA ten years ago, and the visual clutter from all of that is just awful.  Not to mention that superintendents HATE putting out all those different markers and getting abused over where they go.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The five tee set does have some user issues. Most of my clients report that their customers are used to and prefer four tee sets.  Maybe they just want one less tee marker to deal with, I don't know.

However, IMHO, based on the length of different "typical" players, five can be made to correspond more closely than four.  Perhaps the real answer is the fifth one not being the front tee, but the back tee, and well hidden and unmarked.

Five tees over four also drives up the required SF, because there is more edge to middle on a smaller tee.  Not that all tee markers need their own pod on each hole.


As to visual distraction, I have seen Faz separate lines of play on different tees very widely, so to make sure you don't see more than one tee in front of you no matter where you play.  Neat idea visually, at the expense of more land and longer walks (rides) to get where you are going, all in the name of visuals.

[JC Urbina]

Kari,

I thought I would jump in since I just had this discussion with a Golf Magazine writer just a few weeks back.  His story will be coming out shortly. 

The case for the Royal Blue tees at Old Macdonald was inspired by a letter to Mike Keiser from Arthur Little. I tried to post a link to a Matty G article  but was unable to.

I will try and send you a message and will give more info.

Ironically I was working for the Dye's when Alice was printing her brochure and was asked to implement the forward tee concept on many of the Dye courses in the late 80's  I will give you my two hundred cents worth if we can talk.    Fast forward to 2008 and we are creating these Royal  Blue tees  locations during construction.  I am constantly reminded by Mike to show him where these teeing grounds will be located.  We work hard to make them an interesting feature of the course not just an after thought.

Much different then the Alice Dye Forward tees of the 80's  I really do appreciate the work Alice was doing when nobody really cared about this part of the equation.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Tom Doak,

Well you must have another version of the USGA Specs than me. I take mine from the EGA (European Golf Association) which is based on the USGA System.

Here’s the EGA version.

Definition of turning point from the Tee:-

Scratch Men    225 carry + 25 roll = 250 yards
Bogey Men     180 carry + 20 roll = 200 yards
Scratch Ladies 190 carry + 20 roll = 210 yards (84% of men)
Bogey Ladies  130 carry + 20 roll = 150 yards  (75% of men)

We should really be talking about overall distance from the Bogey Tees with the  75% difference. So I should readjust my findings from my first post and say the equivalent of ladies bogey tee for the 6000 yard men’s bogey is actually 4500 yards – back to the original suggestions!!!

It’s true in Europe I’ve rarely seen 5 Tees, which only apply on long Par 5’s where the ratios over 500 yards can be significant. I occasionly have put in a 5th tee on long par 5’s to provide the management with some alternatives when the winds blowing hard or there’s a visit from the neighbouring seniors club.

These  5th tees are hardly noticed and are sometimes considered as secret tees, as inevitably the back tee is disregarded except for championships.

Usually I try to combine tees as often as possible, often creating the men’s bogey and women’s scratch as one larger tee with separate markings.

I’m not a fan of the USGA Course Rating System and this example only serves to show the unnecessary complexity the USGA insist upon to satisfy their love of formulars and measurements. They are tying themselves in knots, trying to fulfil the difficult task of matching different golf courses with calculations based on assumed fixed playing lengths, while the “ball” length has been increasing over the years.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

Well you must have another version of the USGA Specs than me. I take mine from the EGA (European Golf Association) which is based on the USGA System.

Here’s the EGA version.

Definition of turning point from the Tee:-

Scratch Men    225 carry + 25 roll = 250 yards
Bogey Men     180 carry + 20 roll = 200 yards
Scratch Ladies 190 carry + 20 roll = 210 yards (84% of men)
Bogey Ladies  130 carry + 20 roll = 150 yards  (75% of men)

We should really be talking about overall distance from the Bogey Tees with the  75% difference. So I should readjust my findings from my first post and say the equivalent of ladies bogey tee for the 6000 yard men’s bogey is actually 4500 yards – back to the original suggestions!!!

It’s true in Europe I’ve rarely seen 5 Tees, which only apply on long Par 5’s where the ratios over 500 yards can be significant. I occasionly have put in a 5th tee on long par 5’s to provide the management with some alternatives when the winds blowing hard or there’s a visit from the neighbouring seniors club.

These  5th tees are hardly noticed and are sometimes considered as secret tees, as inevitably the back tee is disregarded except for championships.

Usually I try to combine tees as often as possible, often creating the men’s bogey and women’s scratch as one larger tee with separate markings.

I’m not a fan of the USGA Course Rating System and this example only serves to show the unnecessary complexity the USGA insist upon to satisfy their love of formulars and measurements. They are tying themselves in knots, trying to fulfil the difficult task of matching different golf courses with calculations based on assumed fixed playing lengths, while the “ball” length has been increasing over the years.

John:

I haven't looked at the USGA rating system details in at least ten years; I just rounded to come up with the 80% figure.  I gave up worrying about the slope system years ago because there were so many things it failed to account for, while it put too much emphasis on length.

I am not against having five tees on a hole every once in a while, to address different conditions or just for variety's sake.  But it was not long ago that the majority of new American courses were providing five or six separate tees for each and every hole [and separate set-ups on the scorecard]!  See Jeff's post for some of the rationale.

Personally, I think Americans' desire to have a tee that fits every player is totally misguided; having a couple of tee shots per 18 holes that make each player a bit uncomfortable ought to be a prerequisite of design.  But most golfers invest so heavily in their new $400 drivers that they want every hole to be designed around them.

[Lyne Morrison]

Kari – you raise some interesting points - apologies for the delay in responding, I had a couple of out of town pennant matches last week (inter-club match play), it is a treat to be busy ‘playing’ golf   : )

We are not into construction just yet; we set the positions of the tees last week to meet the course rating schedule - all Australian courses are currently being re-rated in line with the usga system. So for the moment we only have plates in the ground indicating the permanent yardage. These are circular concrete disks, set into the ground just below grade; they are painted green to reference the ‘Green Course’.

For the tees in the fairway we will move on to levelling areas as necessary; some long transitions will be required to maintain the flow of the ground. The tees on most of the par 3’s will be new; in general these will be of an appropriate elevation while sitting lightly on the ground, I don’t believe they need to be formal in shape. We have restrictions with tapping into water on two of the 3’s and will extend the existing more formal/traditional tees to accommodate this situation.

With regards the tee providing a sense of place I can see your thinking. From my perspective it is the course environment as a whole that provides the experience and sense of place. Again views differ as do courses and site needs but personally I feel tees sit most easily with naturalised surrounds and with the contrast provided by the maintained ground on the tee itself. To my mind this is sufficient in terms of marking and legibility. In this particular case the tees in the fairway will be maintained at fairway height, some will be bordered by higher grass at some point - I don’t think this is dismissive – it is a golf course and it is what works best on the ground.

As far as furnishings go there are 18 holes out there and the golfer will walk by a ball washer at some point, in any case a cloth in one’s bag is a good thing - and a bench or two will probably be provided where they fit in. As for markers, a requirement yes, but again quite signage will suffice – once the golfers know where the tees are, all will be good – and we can provide a sketch or place one on the card if necessary.

A final note – the club originally identified this project as a short course for women, I suggested they consider removing the gender reference. The plates have been in just a few days and the senior men have announced they are teeing up this Friday for their regular comp – they don’t mind that things are not formalised as yet, I’m sure they just want to have some manageable and fun golf. I will have a hit with them in a few weeks and listen to their feedback.

At my end there are a number of challenges to be acknowledged and worked through in introducing forward tees – particularly at established clubs. I have a sense that if we reduce the visual clutter, maintenance requirements and some other perceived minor needs or wants, we will ‘move forward’ and support more players, more successfully. Also, in dealing with a range of society and their perceptions we are never going to please everyone - but if we are too focused on political correctness we risk missing new and alternate opportunities.

Regards, Lyne


ps: could you clarify what Title IX might be ?

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks Peter  - I would like to have joined in with the Art in Architecture thread and I can see a few others are calling but alas time is against me – one day.


Sean – it’s a good thing you are a pretty relaxed character because it makes it much easier for me to tell you that ‘dramatically increasing par’ -  is a daft notion   : )  : )

Increasing par does not address the essence of the issue – providing a manageable and enjoyable golfing experience that does not take all day and will support continued participation in the game by shorter hitters.

I ask - would you like to play Par 7’s and 8’s week in, week out? Would such an approach improve participation in the game?  A good many women and seniors really struggle with length – should we shut them out of the game because of this? It is surprising how little distance some have – even as accomplished golfers - and playing a game of driver, 5 wood all day gets old - quickly.

We don’t need tees all over the place – but we do need to get the placement right. With just four well-sited and appropriately designed tees we could initiate positive change in this game.

Cheers, Lyne

[Sean_A]

Lynn

I would disagree only because I think it is incredibly difficult to design a course which is reasonably priced and fairly easy to maintain when a course is tyring to spread from 7000 to 4500 yards.  If the spread is kept from 6300ish to 4800ish the odds of getting a good design are far higher.  On a well designed course for all (or as many as is reasonablly possible), altering par goes a long way to resolving problems.  Its my belief that on a great many courses where dramatic tee differences (2000-2500 yards) are necessary it is either down to the land not being what we might like for golf or a design which excludes shorter hitters from enjoying the game as much as they might.  Somehow, interest needs to be created over all those extra yards and I am doubtful that it can be pulled off very well very often.  I play course after course week after week where women's par is raised 73/74ish and it should go higher) because that is all that is necessary.  If we looked at flatish 400ish yard holes as par 5 and flat 215ish as par 4 for ladies I reckon par on many courses par would be more like an old fashioned bogey score - say 77-79 with a total yardage of ~5000 or less.  Nothing wrong with that so long as the course is well designed. 

Ciao

[Lyne Morrison]

Sean - thanks for that you raise some fair points.

Where we most differ is with your assumption that a higher Par takes care of things. The majority of women’s courses around here range from 73-76 in the main, with a few either side. Most women struggle as is evidenced by the handicaps and the time it takes to complete rounds particularly in the growing season when the rough is longer. In my scratch pennant comp this season there are only four teams out of a possible 14, we have a very large district but the lower h’cap players are just not there. A further two clubs dropped out this year following the introduction of the usga h’cap system.  No doubt there are a few reasons for this but the fact that the women’s tees were originally sited without due regard for their game - and the associated challenge this presents them in terms of overcoming course length, is impacting club golf at many levels.

Providing a shorter course within a traditional layout is based on an identified need. Clubs that do so demonstrate a respect for those in our community who are perhaps not so able or accomplished or those who simply no longer have the strength of youth. They also provide the option of a quicker game for the time poor and for the long hitter a practice session with a focus on approach shots. With regards aesthetics it is entirely possible to construct forward tees with sound design integrity.

Golf is a game that supports a large industry from which our communities can gain considerable benefit. How we take care of our players is reflected in the health of our clubs, our communities and the broader golf industry - I believe it is worth taking the time to expand our thinking on this particular issue.
 
Cheers

[Mike Nuzzo]

Sean
I agree that minimizing the back yardage improves the probability of a better course, but how does increasing the forward tees hamper?

Did you look at our forward tees?
They are outstanding.
When playing the course you would never see those tees either.

cheers

[Kari Haug]

Sean – it’s a good thing you are a pretty relaxed character because it makes it much easier for me to tell you that ‘dramatically increasing par’ -  is a daft notion   : )  : )

Increasing par does not address the essence of the issue – providing a manageable and enjoyable golfing experience that does not take all day and will support continued participation in the game by shorter hitters.

I ask - would you like to play Par 7’s and 8’s week in, week out? Would such an approach improve participation in the game?  A good many women and seniors really struggle with length – should we shut them out of the game because of this? It is surprising how little distance some have – even as accomplished golfers - and playing a game of driver, 5 wood all day gets old - quickly.

Sean:
I have to agree with Lyne on this and I can't say it any better than she already has:  Increasing par is not the answer, see above.

Lyne:  Very nicely put.
Thank you,
Kari

[Kari Haug]

At my end there are a number of challenges to be acknowledged and worked through in introducing forward tees – particularly at established clubs. I have a sense that if we reduce the visual clutter, maintenance requirements and some other perceived minor needs or wants, we will ‘move forward’ and support more players, more successfully. Also, in dealing with a range of society and their perceptions we are never going to please everyone - but if we are too focused on political correctness we risk missing new and alternate opportunities.

Regards, Lyne


ps: could you clarify what Title IX might be ?

Lyne:
Some more really good points you make above.  Thank you for your input. 
PS - Title IX was a law passed in the United States in 1972 that required gender equity in public education including equity in the number of sports offered for boys and girls.  It provided the foundation for the growth of women's sports in the US, including the founding of the high school golf team that I eventually was able to join and captain. 
Kari

[Sean_A]

Lynn

I think increasing par would take care of a lot problems for women on well designed courses.  We are likely differing on what a "good design" means. I am coming from the angle of the average classic English course which has little in the way of length or hazards.  Often times its the lay of the land which creates the interest and will do for most any level of golfer.  I can't see spending time and money to build many forward of forward tees unless that brings into play some already existing interesting hazard, ground feature or obviously eliminates a near impossible carry for a good percentage of golfers of any gender.   In other words, there has to be an architectural purpose concerning the quality of the holes.  The more the spread of tee length the more difficult it is for an archie to build a course playable for all (which is what I think of as the ultimate goal for nearly all courses).  

Speed of play?  I have rarely had an issue with speed of play with women.  In my experience nearly always it is men who are slower and if not, often times high rough (which imo is poor maintenance) is to blame - not length of the course.  

We shall have to agree to disagree especially if its my money that is being spent for forward of forward tees.  I don't think its a good investment for the clubs I am/were involved with.  On new builds I would like nothing more than to see the spread from 4500ish to 6000ish, but that ain't gonna fly and I know it even though in all honesty 80% of golfers hould be playing from that range.  

Ciao