[Cassandra Burns]

Shane is exactly right -- the first thing we need to do is eliminate the concept of "women's tees." I know that "forward tees" does not come easily to the lips of those of us who have been playing the game for 30 years or more, but that's what they are, and that's what they should be called. Or maybe use a simple numbering system -- first tee, second tee, third tee, etc., depending on how many tee boxes a course offers.

And once we eliminate the stigma of the forward tees, we've got to place them in better spots, as Jeff and Dan suggest.

Men stigmatize the forward tees.  Would moving them more forward make them less stigmatizing?  No.  What would make them less stigmatizing is if more men played from them.

[JohnV]

Ann Guiberson, the Northeast Regional Manager for the USGA gave a talk this week at the Regional Conference here in Pittsburgh about life from the forward tees.

Much of what was said already was covered.

A few numbers and comments:

The average woman hits it 75% as far as the average man.  So a 6000 yard course for a woman is like an 8000 yard course for a man.  I'm sure we'd all enjoy playing one of those every day.

Under the course rating system, the scratch woman hits it 210 off the tee and 190 on the second shot while the bogey woman hits it 150 off the tee and 130 on the second shot for a total of 280 yards in two shots.

Many times when tees are added for women, they are put at funny angles to the landing zones.

Many tees are way too narrow.  They don't need to be huge, but a tee that is only 2 yards wide and sloped at the sides is too small.

Women can't handle rough as deep as men, especially around the green so if you want to appeal to them, give them a way to play the course.

As Annie said, these tees should be for everyone, not just women.  Seniors and Juniors should be welcomed up there.  Changing the color can get some Seniors to overcome their inhibitions regarding playing them.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have found it most fun designing a set of tees at 4500 yards.  There can be so many different looks at holes, and they can easily be placed so a bunker or hazard is in play.
Don has been the resatraint keeping me from too many, but I did put one in while he was at the Golf Show for the whole week.  It is very nice.

[Bill_McBride]

The majority of women golfers (the few that there are) do not have nearly the passion for the game that men do.

You need to get out more, Rob. The majority of men with "passion" are out to drive the carts, drink beer, smoke cigars and fart at will than they are to play the great game of golf (as you might revere it), don't kid yourself.

Albeit in smaller numbers, the most passionate of women golfers are every bit as rabid about it as anyone on here.  I know because I know lots of them. They also learn strategy earlier and more effectively to get the most out of their limited power. I've played golf with women passionate about the game ever since playing regularly with the UF women's team members during my stay in Gainesville, FL.

Today?  Just come to Lehigh CC and I'll show you about 20 or so we have like that and they'll likely play faster than you and three of your buddies.

I support everything Redanman says here.  My wife is one of those passionate players, and at 5' tall somehow manages to get around in 90-100 shots with no shots over 150 yards.  Her management of the strategy is outstanding.  She seldom 3-putts and has learned to just make sure she gets out of a bunker rather than trying shots she can't play.  It is tough to win a match from her when I give her 12 shots (she's 24, I'm 12).

But she hates forced carries - didn't like the Palmer course at Barton Creek, which has four of those.  She has no ego and will hit a 50 yard chip up to a hazard rather than try to belt it over from 120 yards.  And she plays in 3-1/2 hours regularly with her friends, pushing her Sun Mountain cart.

She did struggle a bit at Pennard, and at Painswick with the ramparts par 3s!  But she was game about it.  

Anybody who's down on women's golf is missing something valuable about the game, I think.

[Dan Kelly]

And once we eliminate the stigma of the forward tees, we've got to place them in better spots, as Jeff and Dan suggest.

Men stigmatize the forward tees.  Would moving them more forward make them less stigmatizing?  No.  What would make them less stigmatizing is if more men played from them.

Cassandra -- Rick can speak for himself (obviously), but seeing as he's probably out on another whirlwind round of interviews, photo shoots, and talk shows (fame can be, well, murder!), I'll speak for him.

He's not suggesting that the forward tees should be moved farther forward (as a general rule). He's suggesting that they should be placed where they BELONG -- instead of wherever they might be out of the way of the men's. [Oops. Out of the way of the back tees.] (Cf. Jeff Brauer's post, above, and my first on this thread.)

Sometimes that would be farther forward; sometimes it wouldn't; sometimes it might even be behind the back tees.

And he is CERTAINLY not disagreeing (on the contrary!) with this statement of yours: "What would make them less stigmatizing is if more men played from them."

I guess he just needs an editor!  

[Cassandra Burns]

Dan

I take my wife to a nice resort in Hawaii. The price tag for golf is $275.00 per player. I ask her (25+ handicap) if she wants to play golf or take the $275 and go shopping. There is only one answer....shopping. Why bother?

If she were a 10 handicap, it'd be a more difficult decision.  $275 is a *lot* to pay for a round of golf, compared to all the clothes you can get for the same money!  But put it into a different context.  How many golfers (men or women) would choose a $275 round of golf over a shiny new driver?  Better still, how about putting that money towards lessons?

Me, I'd play the round of golf, unless you weren't fun to play with. One doesn't get many opportunities to play fancy Hawaiian courses!  

[Cassandra Burns]

And once we eliminate the stigma of the forward tees, we've got to place them in better spots, as Jeff and Dan suggest.

Men stigmatize the forward tees.  Would moving them more forward make them less stigmatizing?  No.  What would make them less stigmatizing is if more men played from them.

Cassandra -- Rick can speak for himself (obviously), but seeing as he's probably out on another whirlwind round of interviews, photo shoots, and talk shows (fame can be, well, murder!), I'll speak for him.

He's not suggesting that the forward tees should be moved farther forward (as a general rule). He's suggesting that they should be placed where they BELONG -- instead of wherever they might be out of the way of the men's. [Oops. Out of the way of the back tees.] (Cf. Jeff Brauer's post, above, and my first on this thread.)

Sometimes that would be farther forward; sometimes it wouldn't; sometimes it might even be behind the back tees.

And he is CERTAINLY not disagreeing (on the contrary!) with this statement of yours: "What would make them less stigmatizing is if more men played from them."

I guess he just needs an editor!  

Hi Dan,

This is an oops on my part.  I didn't mean to stigmatize Rick, nor to imply that he doesn't have an appreciation for what we face on the golf course.  I'm sorry, Rick!  

Rather, I was still thinking of another reason why the club women would be opposed to moving up their tee boxes.  They might feel that it would only increase the stigma they feel from the men about playing from the forward tees.  I was trying to bring that thought in to the conversation and Rick's comment seemed like a nice lead in.  In hindsight, I think I should have just added it to my existing post, rather than putting it off on its own.  I guess I'm the one who needs an editor!

[Doug Wright]

To my surprise, I realized that Wellshire is not at all a friendly course to women.  In many instances, they simply placed the women's tee markers 10 yards ahead of the regular men's tees and called the hole a par 5 (or a par 4 instead of a 3).  I think the card for women says it's a par 76.  My mom's a pretty good player, but the length was too much.  I don't blame her--I wouldn't particularly want to play a par 76.  

My question is this:  would Ross or whoever designed or built Wellshire have put in women's tee pads?  Were these taken out or did they never exist?  How did the Golden Age architects handle women's tees?

Tim,

I've seen Ross's plans for Wellshire and he didn't design in forward tees. I agree with BillV/Redanman that to my knowledge Ross was not one to include a lot of forward tees. Also back in the days of Ross he and others designed in "foozle bunkers" 100 yards or so off the tee that made life even more difficult for the weaker player.

Some of Wellshire's par 4s are long for the average male player too...

PS FYI Wellshire as designed by Ross had some terrific fairway bunkering (eg carved into the hillside on the right of #7) . That's all gone now. Instead it has stupid pine trees 5 yards off the fairways.  

[Dan Kelly]

Cassandra --

"Oops" happily accepted (by proxy).

From my own, decidedly male ( ) point of view: I've never looked down on a woman for her playing from the forward tees. Why would I? Nor have I ever heard any of my decidedly male (so far as I know!  ) playing companions expressing any disregard of any woman for her playing from the forward tees.

Perhaps this "stigma" is a figment of club women's imagination?

Maybe the guys I hang out with are uncommonly elevated in our sensibilities (I know some of us are!) -- but the only complaint I've heard, regularly, about women on the golf course is about their glacial pace of play.

I haven't observed that, myself, any more than I've observed male humans of various ages and types (the clueless cart-driving men, the Nicklaus imitators surveying their 3-foot putts from all angles, the idiots of every age who are NEVER ready to hit when it's their turn [at least till they've waggled from here halfway to eternity], the shuffling teenagers trying to set records for slowest gait) clogging up the course.

The few women I've played with more than once play relatively quickly (though I'm still working on my daughter, to get her to walk more quickly toward her ball).

But slow play is the gripe I hear -- and, I think, the biggest stigma women have to overcome.

[Tom_Doak]

I have had some hilarious conversations over the years about moving women's tees forward at older clubs.  The source of the problem is that the ladies' committee usually consists of the two best players at the club -- the champion and the runner-up -- who are fine with the tees they play, and don't want to be pandered to by a young, male golf architect.

My favorite conversation was about the sixth hole at The Creek, the long downhill par-4 with the punchbowl green.  The women's tee there was set at 400 yards!  I suggested moving it forward about sixty yards to a bit of a flat spot on the hillside, and they objected.  As they talked it through, they came to the conclusion that no woman in the club today had ever been on the green in two shots ... yet they still insisted they liked the hole at 400 yards par 4.

We have built some forward tees which were quite short on some of our new courses, and most women are ecstatic to play from them ... I've had several women tell me they played their best round EVER at Pacific Dunes, which is both short AND firm and fast so they can reach many more greens in regulation.

[Rob_Waldron]

I am glad was able to stir the pot just a little bit!

Dan

Can you say PW???

Let's face facts the number of women golfers is miniscule when compared to men golfers. I am not degrading women golfers but merely stating facts. The point of this post is women's tees as an after thought.

YES they are usually an after thought. Why would an architect design a course from the forward tee markers? At the Golf Digest Summit last year Jack Nicklaus pointed out that only until recently did he design a course from any tees other than the tips!

Take a look at any of the classic older courses and you will see that forward tees were nothing more than after thought. Only recently have architects gone to 5 or 6 sets of tee markers. Most of the new forward tees provide little strategy and merely accomodate short hitters.

Dan

Go Shopping. My shirt size is XL!  

[Bill_McBride]

We have built some forward tees which were quite short on some of our new courses, and most women are ecstatic to play from them ... I've had several women tell me they played their best round EVER at Pacific Dunes, which is both short AND firm and fast so they can reach many more greens in regulation.

The above-mentioned wife of mine, short hitting but very accurate, was pretty nonchalant about parring #15, #16 and #17 during her round at Pacific Dunes last summer!  

Wish I had..........

[Dan Kelly]

I am glad was able to stir the pot just a little bit!

Dan

Can you say PW???

PW, eh? After thinking "Pitching Wedge" and knowing that couldn't be what you meant, I finally figured out your meaning.

I could say it, yes -- but, in the immortal words of Mr. Nixon, it would be wrong. Not only because it's rude, but also because it's nonsense.

Maybe Cassandra doesn't know what you mean by PW. I'll leave it to you to tell her.

Why would an architect design a course from the forward tee markers? At the Golf Digest Summit last year Jack Nicklaus pointed out that only until recently did he design a course from any tees other than the tips!

Proving: Even after all these years, Jack can learn.

Perhaps you can, too.

[Cassandra Burns]

From my own, decidedly male ( ) point of view: I've never looked down on a woman for her playing from the forward tees. Why would I? Nor have I ever heard any of my decidedly male (so far as I know!  ) playing companions expressing any disregard of any woman for her playing from the forward tees.

Perhaps this "stigma" is a figment of club women's imagination?

I'm not so sure, Dan.

First off, I think there will always be a level of stigma that goes with the forward tees, simply because they're associated with a lower level of golfing skill.   Golfers tend to accord more respect to playing a longer course.  I know I get a lot more respect from men when I play back.  So it makes sense to me that if the forward tees are shortened even more, it will mean less respect for the golfers that play from them.  

Aside from that, I think men stigmatize other men when the forward tees come into play.  I've played with enough men to know that if one of them doesn't hit his drive beyond the forward tees, he's teased that he has to drop his pants to "prove his manhood".  

Here's a story to consider.  This fellow named Michael and I schedule a round at a nice course.  It has four sets of teeboxes, and after looking at the scorecard I say I'd like to play from the 2nd set of tees, around 6000 yards.  He's amenable, and we place a wager of lunch on the round.  Well, we get teamed up with a couple of young guns who are playing from the 3rd set of tees.  Michael decides to move back to where these young bucks are playing from, and says it's because his manhood is at stake!  (At least he was gracious enough not to ask for any strokes for handicapping himself in such a manner, and I easily trounced him before he finally gave up on the 16th.)

Anyways, there's more going on here than just *the shame* of being a lousy golfer.  Men are stigmatizing each other and even themselves just for playing from (or simply *being* in) an area of the golf course that they associate with women in particular, not just mediocre golf skill.  While women might not be stigmatized for playing from the forward tees per se, I do think it trickles down into the respect or lack thereof we get from the men, some of which isn't for our lack of golfing expertise but simply because we are women.  Thanfully, I sense this trend on the wane, as sexism in our country continues to diminish and as more males play from the forward tees.

By the way, the stigmatizing does go the other way.  I've been chastized by other women for playing further back, usually along the lines of something like, "What, you think you're too good to play up here with us?"  So we're not exactly angels ourselves.

[Dan Kelly]

Cassandra --

Thanks for a great post.

So what we need is not only better-designed forward tees, but a massive PR campaign, by the golf course operators (and anyone else who'd care to join them; the USGA, maybe ... please!), emphasizing the simple fact that forward tees are there to increase the pleasure of playing golf for all of those who aren't "young guns."

Perhaps the golf course operators could sponsor a National "Play from the Front" Day, where only the front tees would be open ... and the men forced to play the front would come to realize that it's still GOLF, and it's still HARD, no matter which tees you play.

With luck, some of them would figure out that they'd have more fun playing golf from those tees.

Of course, there's nothing you can do (short of measures that would imperil the future of the species) about men giving each other crap. Boys will be boys! You wouldn't want it any other way.

Besides (and here's our big secret): We don't really mean any of it! It's just a way to get through the day, that's all.

Dan

[Paul Payne]

Cassandra,

I think you are absolutely correct.

I have fallen into the same trap many times. One thing that my regular partner and I tried last season sort of opened my eyes a bit. We are always closely matched and play the same courses frequently enough. As a way to mix things up a bit, every other trip or so, we decided to play the forward tees. It was intersting at how it changed the shots and the hazards that come into play considerably.

Most importantly however, our scores improved a bit but not as much as you might think. What we realized is that the change in distance put an emphasis on different shots and the short game was... well... still the short game.

It took two of us to give mutual support when confronted with another twosome who can't get their heads around the idea of two grown men playing the forward tees.

One thing I realized after doing this is how much we had gotten in the habit of hitting the same shot, same club, etc. from different positions. It was very refreshing to mix it up a bit and I think we will continue to do more of this this comming season.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have had some hilarious conversations over the years about moving women's tees forward at older clubs.  The source of the problem is that the ladies' committee usually consists of the two best players at the club -- the champion and the runner-up -- who are fine with the tees they play, and don't want to be pandered to by a young, male golf architect.

Shouldn't these women be playing from the White tees that would generally be about 6000 yards or so?  The better female players at my club play from this distance, at least when they play with men or with other low handicap women.

[Cassandra Burns]

Dan,

I love the idea of "Play from the Front" day, of closing down all but the forward tees!  But maybe a subtle campaign, rather than a massive one - I think a lot of fellows would resent being "forced" to do anything.  Maybe start by closing down the tips?  

Paul,

Has your improvement in scoring from the forward tees been comparable to the change in the course rating from those tees?  Like, if the course is rated 72 from the middle tees and 68 from the forward tees, has your score improved by something like four strokes?  I know it's hard to say for sure, and this is a big peeve of mine, because usually the forward tees are only rated with women in mind, and the back tees are often only rated with men in mind.  I wish all the teeboxes would be rated for everybody!  Even at the ballyhooed Bandon Dunes, only the Gold tees look like they've been rated for both genders, as far as I can tell from the online scorecards.  Then again, I'm probably not the only one who has issues with the USGA handicap system.

Anyways, try playing from the forward tees with only those clubs that go 150 yards or less.  That might give you a good idea as to how well or poorly those teeboxes have been integrated into the overall course design, given who those teeboxes are supposed to be for.  I'd be interested in hearing what impact, if any, that additional constraint has on your scoring!

Wayne,

I have more fun playing from 6000 than from 5400, and I wish more skilled women would take up the challenge.  It just seems that 6000 yards is close to perfect for someone who can hit the ball 200 yards.  I really think that there's a better correlation between average driving length and course length than handicap and course length.  Is this a safe assumption?  5200 yards (+/- 200) for the 150 driver, 5800-6200 yards for the 200 driver, 6600-7000 yards for the 250 driver?  

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

I love the idea of "Play from the Front" day, of closing down all but the forward tees!  But maybe a subtle campaign, rather than a massive one - I think a lot of fellows would resent being "forced" to do anything.  Maybe start by closing down the tips?  

Nope. That'll just peeve us off. Shutting down the tips just DENIES us something. It doesn't give us anything positive; nothing at all.

We want something positive.

Give us something to work with! Give us a game! Give us a challenge!

The game/challenge from the fronts is: Are you as good as you think you are, Big Boy? Well, then, prove it, pal.

[Matthew Hunt]

was playing the other day when a course had those stupid women tees only 10 yards ahead...

...made me think that if I was a woman - like the one I was playing with - I'd just march down the fairway and stick a peg in the ground in the fairway 50 or 75 or whatever yards ahead

that seems to make so much sense to me, but I've never seen it done

I used to do that when I was young and couldny makethe forced carries.

[Paul Payne]

Dan,

You crack me up. Now go get a hankie and wipe the spittle from your screen.

Cassandra,

I had never thought of that before. I would like to think that our score would drop accordingly but I am not sure. I would guess that we play 3 to 4 strokes better on average.

I just looked up the card online and they list the difference as two strokes so maybe that is pretty good. I just expected more.

I guess it seems like we should do so much better because there are so many opportunities to get within a wedge of the green off the tee. It really becomes a short game test. I guess it also exposes the short game weaknesses.

I had never thought of this but is that the proper way to view a rating?

[Bryan Izatt]

My wife is more like a double bogey golfers and hits it about 60% as far as I do and carries it less than 50% as far.  So when I find a good course around 6500-6700 yards, I'm looking for a course that's ideally under 4,000 yards for her.  How many of those are there around?  Zero.  Even 4800 yard courses are not comparable for her and there are precious few of those around.  5,000 yards seems to be the bottom end of course lengths.

Most courses are driver, followed by some number of fairway woods for her.  Except the par 3's, which are mostly just driver.  And it's tough if there's a forced carry over 80 yards.

Worst experience for her was Royal Dornoch, which had women's tees at just under 6,000 yards and a par of 76.  A proportional length for me would have been 9,500 yards.  How would the men like to play a par 76 with 8 par 5's in 18 holes.  But she soldiered on because I wanted to be there.  But I understand her frustration.  Everybody who plays likes to feel a sense of accomplishment sometimes or preferably many times.  That rarely happens if you're bashing fairway woods all day.

Best experiece was last week at an AZ course by Ken Kavanaugh where there was a short par 4 that was actually a short par 4 for her - 210 yards slightly downhill, firm and fast with a crossing desert hazard in front of a small green.  And a tee that was in line with the fairway.  First par four I've ever seen play short for her.  Drove it into the desert crossing and played a SW to the edge of the green.  Just about the way I played the hole from 290 yards.  Why can't that be done more in designing courses?

Regretably the course was 5400 yards in total, including a silly uphill 516 yard closing par 5 for women.  Realistically a par 7 at least for her.  How can an architect get it so right on one hole and so wrong on another?

This course also had rated combination tees to allow a fine tuning of distance and rating between 5400 and 7200 yards.  Another nice idea.

[Shane Sullivan]

It is heartwarming to see so much interest in this topic - I think that awareness is half the battle.

I have some comments.  

Firstly, I am a female golfer who plays at least three times per week.  I take lessons every now and then.  I can not remember a time my husband and I travelled without taking our clubs.  I have been playing for about 6 years and am a 12ish handicap.

- Women may not make up the majority of golfers but in my experience they make up the majority of midweek golfers.  Seniors and women have the run of most courses I play during the week.  Clubs could use those five days a week to get a lot more people playing.  If your weekend tee times are booked up that only leaves midweek to increase income - that is a good reason for giving thought to making the game more enjoyable from the forward tees.

- Women are accused of being slow players.  They aren't.  We do not re-enact the final putt of the Masters every time we have a five footer.  We are much more likely to pick up if we are out of a hole.  Our duck hooks etc don't go as far - making it easier to find the ball.  And, because the courses play long we sometimes don't have to wait for the green to clear to play our approach shots.  My ladies midweek three ball has played through (or been forced to wait behind) a two ball of men more times than I can remember.

- I should be out driving men.  That is, my ball should land in front of yours if we both hit our best drives.  I think that a 10 handicap male and I should be hitting around the same club for our approach shots (if we have both hit decent drives).  That will mean my ball has to be closer to the green.  

- I want to get into trouble.  Standing on the tee box I hear the guys I play with saying things like - can I carry that bunker or should I play short of it?  From the forward tees life becomes a case of hit it as far as you can and then do it again.  The trouble rarely comes into play off the tee.  

Basically, I want to face the same challenges and have the same quality of experience as a male golfer of a similar standard to me.  Hitting driver off every tee and a fairway wood to every green is not fun.  (And having to hear me complain about it is no bargain either!)

There are courses that get it right.  Here in Beijing I can think of two courses that are fun from the front tees.  Guess where the Beijing Ladies Golf group plays the most despite the fact that they are more expensive?  

[Wayne_Kozun]

Can you design a hole where the women have to worry about the same fairway bunkers as men and then are able to hit the same club to the green as the men?  Aren't the two mutually exclusive unless you have 30 yard long bunkers or a whole series of bunkers?

[Dan Kelly]

Can you design a hole where the women have to worry about the same fairway bunkers as men and then are able to hit the same club to the green as the men?  Aren't the two mutually exclusive unless you have 30 yard long bunkers or a whole series of bunkers?

I'm not an architect, so I can't answer your question -- but will observe:

That's a mighty big "unless," don't you think?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()