As far as not responding to your threads and posts if I don't agree with them or not reading them, that's just not the way it goes on here. If someone creates some premise and others don't agree with it, even calling it preposterous that's just the way it is. If you're looking for some place for everyone to agree with everything you say then GOLFCLUBATLAS.com probably isn't the place to be posting and discussing. I'm certainly not trying to insult you, just to tell you I completely disagree with a post you made in response to something I said about the question of this thread to the extent I thought your response was preposterous. In the post above I hope I explained why I think that.

Doug:

Enough of the tears on the poor old 85-year-old who can't carry the H20. I mean -- you have me in tears of laughter!

How bout the folks at Congressional build a tee box about 50 yards away from the green and let it go at that?

Short of that -- how bout giving the gent a couple of free coupons for more balls.

Short of that -- contact the priest / rabbi and ask for divine intervention.

Doug, let me clue you in -- there are people who can't hit the Kansas stateline if you parked them on the Oklahoma side.
 

Doug,  

I generally agree with your viewpoint, and frankly I do not quite get the mindset of the Matt Wards and Adam Claymans who seem to have the desire to simply drive a segment of short hitters right out of the game.   So much for Matt's mantra about considering all levels of golfers when evaluating a course . . .

One point of departure, though . . . you write:

I am a bit ambivalent about forced carries; on one hand, for the better players, they provide a challenge, but for the duffer, they do more harm than good.

my bold added

I just do not understand how most forced carries challenge the better players.    Take Matt, he hits the ball a long ways and rarely mishits it substantially short of his usual carry distance.  So forced carries are pretty irrelevant to his game.    This is why I have a hard time understanding Matt's position . . . why does he so love features which often kill the hack, but almost always leave the better player unscathed?
___________________________
 

David, do you expect that some lady should play the same tees that a Tiger Woods plays? Of course she's playing the same golf course but in some cases from about 1500 yards less, as it should be to hopefully create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players!

Tom, there is no reason that a course couldnt be designed so that Tiger and some lady (I assume you mean a lesser player than Annika) could both play the same tee and both have an enjoyable round of golf.  Sure, one would hit a lot more shots than the other, but what is wrong with that?  

That being said, I never suggested that everyone play off the same tee.  What I said was that multiple tees do not solve the problem of forced carries.  

Instead of addressing my point, you simply hope that multiple tees "create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players"  Unfortunately Tom, when it comes to dealing with forced carries, multiple tees oftentimes do not create commensurate challenges for different levels of players.  

For example,  when a forced carry is completely eliminated from some tees but not others, this surely does not present commensurate challenges.   Take No. 14 at Rustic Canyon . . . from the back two sets of tees the golfer drives over a wash which parallels the fairway, giving the golfer the choice of biting off has much as he wants.  But the minimum carry is well over 200 yds, the the front tees are located on the fairway side of the wash.  Now the hole works very well from either set of tees, but in no way does the golfer face "commensurate challenges" from each of these tees.  

If the tees are too close together then of course they don't provide the duffer with any real relief from the forced carry in question and that's precisely why multiple tees in forced carry situations placed to reflect the commensurate challenge for all levels ARE an EFFECTIVE ANTIDOTE.

Tees close together do not provide real relief, therefore tees further apart will provide real relief??  This is illogical.  Again, you assume the forward tee will present a commensurate challenge even though this is unlikely.  

As far as not responding to your threads and posts if I don't agree with them or not reading them, that's just not the way it goes on here. If someone creates some premise and others don't agree with it, even calling it preposterous that's just the way it is. If you're looking for some place for everyone to agree with everything you say then GOLFCLUBATLAS.com probably isn't the place to be posting and discussing. I'm certainly not trying to insult you, just to tell you I completely disagree with a post you made in response to something I said about the question of this thread to the extent I thought your response was preposterous. In the post above I hope I explained why I think that.

Disagreement?   Tom, I invite and welcome disagreement from anyone interested in discussing the topic.   Nothing bores more than a conversation where everyone agrees.  

But you didnt bother disagreeing.  Rather you haughtily and summarily dismissed my threads as dealing with "small and insignificant little points" which "in reality, [arent] even worth thinking about, much less discussing."

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.  Participate all you want, but if think that participating is a waste of your time, I am not going to argue with you.  

Matt, I'll bet there are multiples more golfers who hit the majority of their drives less than 150 yards, as compared to the numberof golfers who hit the majority of their drives over 300 yds.  You certainly do not ignore the long hitters, so why ignore the very short hitters?  

I havent taken anything anything to absurd heights.  But since you suggest it, let's try it and see where it gets us?

Imagine if Bethpage Black cut all the rough between the tees and fairways to fairway height.   Also imagine that they changed nothing else.  

Would the quality of the course have changed?
How would the new mowing lines alter the challenges the course presents to a golfer of your caliber?  
How about a bogey golfer?
How about an elderly golfer who has played the course regularly since opening day?

Doug:

Please don't get me wrong---I do think this is a real problem that needs to be considered on some courses but probably not all. A course such as PVGC could never possibly have become all that it is if the original designer concerned himself with issues such as this. All this is nothing more, in my opinion, than a real endorsement for my "Big World" theory that there should be something out there for various levels of golfers---and historically speaking that does mean that some levels are not considered or designed for or even accomodated in many ways. In a certain sense that's the beauty, the richness and the uniqueness of golf course architecture.

Adam,

I've characterized you as an "ogre, who doesn't respect peoples freedoms?"   Well that is terrible.  I wonder where I could have come up with my "preposterous assumptions?""    

Hmmm . . . . perhaps it was when you stated . . .  

If it were my course, less consideration in the design process for the golfer who can't carry-it 100 yards, would make me happy. Forward tees not withstanding. I want golfers on my course, not those who haven't spent time learning the game or the ettiquette of the sport. And those who have, and still miss it, they deserve their fate . . . .

Or or maybe it was when you suggested that the non-golfers (read, those who dont golf up to your standards) should "play hay," whatever that means.  

No matter, you've clarified now.  You agree with my characterization, but note that it only applies at certain courses.  Yours, for instance.   Your a NIMBY.  Or should I say a NAMHaC, for "Not at My Home Course."

Given your NIMBY position, my query still remains.  How does making the game more accessible for the duffer hurt your playing experience?   Before you take offense, please note I am only referring to your playing experience at the courses you think should drive away the duffers.

David, Face facts, the balance shifts, depending on the design. A successful vector (be business or personal) will adapt to the change. Isn't this all about the obsolesence thang? Why shouldn't factors, that resemble market forces, continue to push the envelope's of the design world? Why should archies be handcuffed because the Havershams can't carry it 100 yards? Why should the cost be exponentially increased to accommodate the Havershams, when there are plenty of existing designs geared for their abilities?


My experiences?

I haven't been to Germany, but I like their no nonsense appraoch to exactly WHO gets on their precious few 18 hole courses.

Or, do you prefer 3 and half hour nines?

David, I honestly believe that the mixing of player abilities, in a foursome or team competition, is an important factor in the sport. But certainly there is a level, on both ends of the spectrum, where that model just doesn't work. But, ya know what ? Thats Golf. Not all models work for all situations.

Sounds like you're married to some pre-existing condition or, the position that all great golf courses should be playable for all levels of ability. Poopykook

Doug,

But consider, in the case of my example, Congressional's 18th holes--either one of them.  Both require, from all teeboxes, a forced carry over water.

At some point there has to be a minimum standard of performance, beyond which you can't design and make allowances for.[/color]

I read somewhere a quote from Bobby Jones which related to a water hazard being like a car accident--final, and a bunker giving the player a chance for recovery.  

Now, what do you think is an effective solution for the 85 year old player who hits driver about 50 yards?
With all due respect, that fellow doesn't belong on the golf course.

Now I know many will choose to differ, but, I suspect you're viewing the issue in the context of who the golfer is, and not what his abilities are.  

If you substituted the 85 year old, for a 5 year old with the identical golfing abilities, I suspect that you'd agree with me, as do the majority of clubs in America, and I would suspect that you can throw Congressional into that mix. [/color]

I like to think about all levels of player being challenged effectively, but I just don't think having the same 85 year old hit 4,5 balls into a pond fronting the green because they can't make the carry is fun--to watch or be "that guy".
It is impossible to accomodate ALL LEVELS of players with an effective challenge.  Your ideal falls upon the sword of reality and practicality.  Again, that 85 year old doesn't belong on the golf course, he doesn't possess the ability to meet the architectural challenge presented.[/color]

What would you do?  

You do what most clubs do, you have guidelines on play.
And, many of those guidelines consider minimum standards of play before allowing a golfer on the golf course at his discretion.

Does your club permit four 5 years olds who hit their driver's 50 yards on their best drive to play in a foursome at any hour they wish ?[/color]

David M:

Dumbed down golf + dumbed down design = nothing I'd want to play. If that floats others boats then knock yourself out and play'em until you drop.

Look guys, I realize that many golfers love forced carries.  I also realize that some great courses sometimes rely on them.  I also realize that utilizing them may save the course money in building and maintenance costs.  But none of these things really undercut my premise, do they?

Aren't most forced carries usually easily avoided by quality golfers?  

If so, then how would their (selective) elimination damage the golfing experience of the quality golfer?  

Patrick:

Funny, great minds must think alike. I woke up this morning thinking about Maidstone in this way-- always considered to be a wonderful "members" course for all levels---and counted up at least 13 forced carries of either water, total gunch or high fescue at the very least. This is a very good example of why I feel David Moriarty's premise is a very poor one, and a preposterous one if he's suggesting all architecture should begin to do away with forced carries to accomodate the duffer better.

Patrick:

I agree. This quaint little notion that to be ideal a course should be such that a real duffer can putt the ball all the way around it is just that---a quaint little notion! It'd obviously require a whole lot more mowing too.