[Sean_A]

Mark

I have a lot of time for efficient, small footprint design.

I am quite surprised you are so dismissive about long walks between holes disengaging golfers from the course.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Mark makes some good point about the realities of the game today.
The disparity between good players and weaker players in distance has never been greater, and therefore, by extension, often more tees(than one,two or three) are needed-especially where terrain, restrictions impede.
Sean also makes a good point about walking between tees-whether backwards for back tees(double steps) or long walks forward for forward tees.Both suck, but are mostly unavoidable if doing the "modern tee" thing, especially on a modern, all things to all people, design.
This can create real pace of play issues when a group is walking back 80 yards(x2) every holes, and a group of better forward tee players(ladies) suddenly appears ready to tee off  pretty darn near the landing area for better players.
Inevitably, having one group walk an extra 160 yards per hole will create flow issues.


The disparity in length amongst players is just another reason why I believe the ball needs to be bifurcated or rolled back, and wonder why in the world anyone(especially if we now are supposed to give them a set of "just right" tees for them anyway) but the elites even care?(who now could walk back just 40, rather than 80 yards(x2) per hole-so you'd think they'd embrace it too).
Egos and perception are a funny thing, and the manufacturers thrive on that.






But given that I am resigned to the real world, where nothing logical ever gets done or on time(see government, USGA etc.) I'd say architects and courses need to address the challenge by simply being creative and not having a designated block or area on EVERY hole for EVERY tee, but pick their spots, and make them count. i.e. rather than having 10-20 yards between the way back(Black) and one set up(Blue) tees every hole, keep them together on some/many holes, and separate them by 50-100 on a few others where it matters(it just doesn't matter on a 390/405 yard hole)


It's a little bit like trying to explain to people/members why a green built for a day-in-day out 13 stimp, is going to be EASIER to putt than a green designed for an 8 stimp.You really get to see the blank stares when you explain the green designed for an 8 can, and usually will, yield FASTER putts.(which seem even faster if they just had an uphill putt a hole ago)


Edit:Just saw Sean's post re: small footprints and regardless of the above, I agree 100%.
Most, if not all are simply products of the scale being different than 100 years ago and more when they were designed, because-the- ball-went-shorter.
BUT, I'd still say too many modern courses try to be "tournament relevant"(but that's not really any different than most Golden age designs), which just doesn't lead to compact with today's length disparity and democratization(or is it socialism;)), of teeing areas.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Believe me I am NOT of fan of most courses that have long walks (or cart drives) to the next hole.  However, I play a fair bit of golf with my wife and/or with golfers of wide ranging abilities.  I still often play back and she plays as short as possible so once we get to the next hole, I have gotten used to see her have to wait for me and then go a ways to get to her tee.  Even if my tee is right off the previous green, she usually has a long walk and she is ok with it (she is walking toward the green which she has to get to anyway).


We all just watched one of the great walks 125+ yard walks between holes in golf - going from the 16th hole to the 17th at TPC Sawgrass.  Pete is probably thrilled with the distance between those two holes.  Some golfers use that time to get even more nervous and think about how many balls they might hit in the water.  Others are doing their best to relax every muscle and think about how they will hit that 125 yard shot stiff and make a memorable 2.  In this case, that long walk is almost part of the diabolical nature of Pete Dye  [size=78%]   [/size]

[Mark_Fine]

I challenge all of you to go play your regular or favorite 18 hole course from 4500 yards (just find any location you like to tee off from on each hole and aim for that total yardage.  It is Fun!  Note:  It is not like I can't hit the ball anymore, so this is not some personal bias because I can't move the ball out of my shadow anymore.  I am still scratch but playing shorter tees once in a while even though I often play the tips is FUN.  Try it and maybe you will have a better appreciation for a wider variety of tees 

[jeffwarne]

I challenge all of you to go play your regular or favorite 18 hole course from 4500 yards (just find any location you like to tee off from on each hole and aim for that total yardage.  It is Fun!  Note:  It is not like I can't hit the ball anymore, so this is not some personal bias because I can't move the ball out of my shadow anymore.  I am still scratch but playing shorter tees once in a while even though I often play the tips is FUN.  Try it and maybe you will have a better appreciation for a wider variety of tees 

yes, but is all that fun we'd have fair to the already forward tee player?
I mean to get this same scale variety in their own game they would need a set at 2500 yards Hey maybe a scaled down 90 yard carry horseshoe driveable par 5


Just messin' with you.
I started a thread here years ago about courses with one or two tees but the players use different length balls-more social, less land use, faster play, smaller scale.Proportional width-ideal for novices and longer hitters(playing short ball) seeking to use angles.
Seemingly a perfect solution.
Thread went over like a lead balloon.....

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
That that kind of my point earlier when I said, go play the absolute tips if you usually don't so you can get a feel for what players that are at 5500 yards feel like that really should be a 4500 or 4800 yards. But seriously, it is fun to play courses at shorter distances like 4500 yards.  Most will never do it because of ego or those "formal" teeing options don't exist.   

We are adding a new forward tee on the #16 par three hole at Bethlehem.  For those who don't know the hole, it plays over a large depression and up a hill to a plateau green.  From the current forward tees it is about 145 yards.  The problem is the tee is well below the green elevation and most golfers on these tees drill the ball into the side of the hill and are left with an awkward blind second shot up the hill to the green.  Our solution was to move the tee to the top of the hill on the right side (basically we added an extension to the back of the 13th tee, making a shot of about 85-100 yards.  We were altering the greensite anyway so we shifted the right bunker toward the back right quadrant of the green and wrapped the fairway/approach area around that side and up to the bunker.  This leaves a nice bailout area to the right for play from the other tees (there is a sharp drop-off/OB left of the green) and an open run up approach from the new tee.  No more slamming their ball into the side of the hill and blind second shots.  Yes the walk or ride is farther but it is a much appreciated.  Plus I told the GM, it is late in the round, golfers are tired and with this new tee, instead of double's/triples/X's, there will be more drinks in the restaurant and spending in the pro shop will go up because some will make a par or birdie and it will make their day 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


For many courses, the most important architectural criteria is that they buy more drinks if they finish well/with a birdie, etc. than if they finish badly, unless of course, they finish so badly the other players in the foursome offer to buy the afflicted conciliatory drinks.....but really just to laugh at him.


Jeff Warne, yes a bifurcated ball (or bifurcated courses, as Tom Doak also suggests, i.e., stop designing every course to accommodate tour pros who won't show up) is a nice idea.  Until then, and considering the possibility of those happening often seems to be near zero, architects have to do something, and often, providing an additional shorter tee for "real golf" is the best solution.


Also agree that cart paths and green to tee walks are best aimed at the middle tee, which usually hosts 50%+ of golfers, makes the most sense circulation wise.  If you think about it, there are three adjacency scenarios - the next hole runs the same direction, the  next hole runs about 90 degrees, or the next hole reverses direction in an adjacent corridor.  Of course, there will be longer walks/rides transitions in housing courses and the occasional cross over tee. 


But ignoring those, same direction holes are the hardest to design for.  If the back tee is behind the green, you must go past all other tees.  However, if back tees are pushed back equal to the center of the green, the middle tees can be reasonably close to the back of the green. 90 degree holes are easy to design the circulation routes towards the middle tees, providing the cart path is on the same side as the direction of the next hole (i.e., next hole goes right, path is on right side of previous green) If the path is right, but the next hole goes left, then the circulation path usually goes by all tees. 


Ditto for holes that reverse direction in an adjacent corridor. If next hole and cart path are both right of the current green, the path can stop and turn almost anywhere, i.e. go only as far as the middle tees, letting those 17% of players walk a bit.  If path is left and next hole right, the path probably goes behind the green, but may still come to the next tee somewhere short of the very back.


I have been considering such for a decade now.  That said, it is probably more useful to place the paths on the slice side of most holes, which makes them more convenient for the larger number of golfers who slice, and then let the circulation work itself out as best as possible.


I co-designed a never built course with John Fought.  We had a good laugh once, debating a green design.  I commented that we didn't want any bunkers blocking the side of the green where the path was going to direct walkups, (the right side in this case) and suggested a back left bunker.  He commented that this would block walking circulation to the back tee and he wanted that to be direct.  Frankly, neither of us had considered the other guys' experience and though process.  I think we both consider both transitions now, though. LOL>  Frankly, the result (for me) was to reduce even further the number of back bunkers on green designs, I might use, making sure all typical routes are considered.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,
What do you mean by design the course so that any player can play the course from any tee?

[size=78%]Mark:[/size]


There are lots of modern courses that fall apart if you play them from too far back OR too short.  If you're too far back, you'll have a hybrid in your hands looking at a shallow green target guarded by water in front, that you have no chance of hitting and holding.  If you're too far forward, hitting driver might mean going through the dogleg or into a cross hazard or just a piece of fairway that is not built to accept golf shots very well.


A course like that needs a lot of tees, but even then, if the setup isn't perfect every day, you'll still face these sorts of situations on a couple of holes.


You can avoid by designing better from tee to green.  Minimize cross hazards in the fairway and forced carries to the green.  Be sure to leave someone who has to hit 4-wood home a reasonable play that doesn't inevitably wind up in a bunker or a pond.  If you get that part right, then it's not so impactful what tee you play from.  It's Dr. MacKenzie's 12th rule:


"The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.  In other words the beginner should not be continually harassed by losing strokes from playing out of sand bunkers.  The layout should be so arranged that he loses strokes because he is making wide detours to avoid hazards."


I understand that not everyone wants to pile up a big score, but you don't need five sets of tees to ensure that, unless the rest of the golf course is out of whack.

Interesting, and true enough in some cases.  The design response would have to be, eliminate sharp doglegs, and design almost every green as an open front fw connection.  I typically do both, and your ideas aren't exactly foreign to most gca's. 


I recall Dick Nugent's pithy quote about sharp doglegs - "There are only two places I won't use a sharp dogleg....one is where there are a lot of trees, the other is where there aren't."  And, when there is a dogleg, move forward tees to the outside to reduce the angle, if possible via topo and trees, etc.


As to greens, I try to never exceed a few with mostly blocked fronts, knowing slow swing players will generally need an fw connection to roll their good shots on the green because, unlike longer hitters, who might have 1% rollout on most approach shots, their approaches need about 15% of total distance left for roll.


And, for public courses especially, there is still a design dilemma. Specifically, if you look to size a green based on anticipated approach shot lengths, for all levels of players, and you know that up to 23% of C and D player tee shots are muffed somehow, would it be wise to size most greens assuming that a large percentage of those players will be coming at the green from close to their max second shot distance (presumed to be about 180- 200 yards?  It certainly makes for some great, exhilarating recovery shots for those players, and they deserve some, too. 


We talk about designing for all players, but too many modern courses really are designed around the good player, merely fitting it as best as possible to the guys who pay the bills.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()