Best Courses for........

[Garland Bayley]

I’ve observed a good many ladies hit Driver followed by several fairway metal shots (say 2-3-4-5-etc) to reach the green even on holes that to some men might not seem very lengthy par-4’s let alone on par-5’s. And being unable to even reach the greens on par-3’s too.
Now this is not the case for some ladies but for those who are in this situation I can’t imagine how frustrating and boring the game must be. A slog isn’t fun, not sure it provides even an enjoyable walk.
Different spec golf balls might aid matters including a wide spread of ball types with some that go further for shorter, less powerful players and some that don’t go as far for longer, more powerful players with all players playing on a smaller acreage course too.

Atb

Maybe you should befriend some of these ladies. Ones I know absolutely love the game and won't move forward. The so called ladies tees are 95% as long as the so called men's tees, but they won't move forward to the tees created for older women in their situation. It's mostly the new lady members that play those forward tees.

[Niall C]

Neil, IMHO, the problem is
1.-too much distance between shorter and longer hitters now due to athletic skills and hot equipment increasing scale-resulting in courses feeling they have to build 6+ sets of tees and combo cards so that everyone can play their "preferred yadage"
2. Trying to figure out "landing areas" for all these types of players from all these different tees. The tees are often decided by handicap, and some 10's hit it 300 yards and some hit it 170, so the more random and spread out the hazards are the better, so as not to always torture the same player who may be stuck on a set of tees by handicap that push him right into every single tight landing area.
I am NOT for everyone having the same landing area, but rather different landing areas because people hit it different lengths and I'd like to see LESS sets of tees.

As you point point out, Golden Age courses do that better due to smaller scale.

Jeff

The different scale between modern and classic courses is a red herring in my view. Classic courses provided challenge and fun for a wide variety of standard of golfers and they still do now. In my not so humble opinion the real difference between classic design and a lot of modern design is the nature of the challenges provided and specifically the hazards. I'm not referring to whether the bunker is rugged or has a frilly edge but rather how and where it is placed. It seems to me that too much modern design is about hitting the ball over hazards rather than making your way by them. In particular the mandatory lay-up is very irksome.

Niall

[Niall C]

I’ve observed a good many ladies hit Driver followed by several fairway metal shots (say 2-3-4-5-etc) to reach the green even on holes that to some men might not seem very lengthy par-4’s let alone on par-5’s. And being unable to even reach the greens on par-3’s too.
Now this is not the case for some ladies but for those who are in this situation I can’t imagine how frustrating and boring the game must be. A slog isn’t fun, not sure it provides even an enjoyable walk.
Different spec golf balls might aid matters including a wide spread of ball types with some that go further for shorter, less powerful players and some that don’t go as far for longer, more powerful players with all players playing on a smaller acreage course too.

Atb

Maybe you should befriend some of these ladies. Ones I know absolutely love the game and won't move forward. The so called ladies tees are 95% as long as the so called men's tees, but they won't move forward to the tees created for older women in their situation. It's mostly the new lady members that play those forward tees.

David

I agree with Garland on this. A lot of players wonder why you would walk 100 yards plus between tees when you might as well be hitting a ball. The issue is really not the length or how many shots they have to get to the green but how interesting the journey is. I recall a sometime poster on here say to me that he thought the inward half of his "home" course was a slog. Not because he could no longer reach the longer par 4's in two but because without being capable of getting up in two the holes then became very dull because there was no real interest in the shots. And yes I can hear you shout "why doesn't he move up a tee ?", well if he has to do that to make the hole interesting then how good is the hole in the first place ? Multiple tees is just a crutch for poor or uninteresting design IMO.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

...
The issue is really not the length or how many shots they have to get to the green but how interesting the journey is.
...

Exactly!

This is why Low, et al, took the game astray with one, two, and three shot holes.

This is why links courses generally are better and more fun than the rest of the golfing landscape.

This is why Tom has failed us when he rates some of my favorite courses a 3!

Golf started as a match play game, and its true form is match play!

Medal play and par are aberrations!

JMHO

[Mike Hendren]

Holston Hills
Walton Heath Old

[Niall C]

...
The issue is really not the length or how many shots they have to get to the green but how interesting the journey is.
...

Exactly!

This is why Low, et al, took the game astray with one, two, and three shot holes.

Garland


I think you maybe mean Horace Hutchinson. He was the one who advocated that holes should be designed for full shots whereas Low (and Stuart Paton) championed strategic bunkering.


Niall