The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter

[THuckaby2]

Tim Weiman would seemingly like us to believe that neither interest or challenge on tee shots matter.  He claims that the skilled golfer is such a low percentage of all players that the effects on them shouldn't be accounted for, and for the rest of us, just making contact is the challenge, so giving us any more doesn't matter either.  He also allows no difference between challenge and interest off the tee.

I wonder how many real golfers believe this.  If this were all so, why wouldn't we just play par 3 courses?  

We play courses that require full tee shots BECAUSE tee shots matter.  They're the most fun shots to hit, the result of them sets up our success or failure on the rest of the golf hole, and really without them the game is TOO short, too compact. Providing challenge and interest to such shots is fundamental to the game.  Give too much challenge and the golfer gets frustrated, being allowed to achieve no success.  Give too little interest, and the golfer is bored, feeling he might as well just be slugging balls on the driving range.  A great course has a happy medium on this, or if it doesn't, it makes up for such in other areas.

It's such a simple case, this is all that need be said.  Thoughts?

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Let's be careful to properly characterize my point of view.

What got this discussion started was a statement about how much weight should be given to providing "enough challenge" to "skilled" golfers.

Your headline "The Case That Tee Shots Do Matter" goes in a completely different direction.

I never even addressed the subject of how important tee shots are for ALL golfers.

Tom, that was very clearly laid out in the assumptions I made in making the case about the importance of tee shots for "skilled" golfers.

Before going on, would you kindly acknowledge misrepresenting my point of view?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

You misrepresented my point of view, and that of David Wigler, so many times in other threads, I figured it was fair game to just give one's one impression of what people are thinking.

So this ISN'T what you've been pounding us on for a week now?

If not, my apologies.  I for one am honorable enough to apologize if I mischaracterized someone.  Now I would expect the same from you, in the other threads.

But you have expressed a desire also not to make these things personal, so no need really.

Care to take a stab at my thoughts here, or are they just too obvious (as I expect)?  I am after all just discussing golf course architecture.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I don't believe I have misrepresented your views or that of David's on the other threads. Clearly, David referred to "skilled" golfers. That's what got the whole discussion started.

You actually took a different of view. You said something like "Rustic Canyon doesn't provide enough interest for ALL golfers on too many holes".

Tom, surely you recall that I invited you to start a thread to explore your point of view hole by hole. But, you decided not to. That's fine. But, why suggest I've misrepresented your point of when I actually encouraged you to spell it out as clearly as possible?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

This has gone on far enough.  You mispresented my view, and that of David's, countless times in those threads.  I have neither the energy nor the desire to go back and repeat them for you yet again.  Go back and read how we called you on such in those, if you care to.

I'm just following what seems to be your idea of taking this to the general, beyond any specific golf course.  This goes far beyond Rustic Canyon - that's a damn fine golf course and enough has been said on it already.  I'm talking tee shots in general here, as you are on your "Case" thread.  Are you speaking generally, or just about that one golf course?

If you are offended, just say the word and I'll delete this thread.  I thought I was discussing golf course architecture.  It's too bad you are taking it so personally.

TH

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Tee shots do matter, otherwise wouldn't we all be playing par threes?

It is my observation that many newer golf courses have dumbed down the tee shot for reasons of playability and pace of play.  All too often it is a throw away shot.  Whether this is caused by the freeway school of design of the fifties, changes in irrigation, mowing, multiple technologies or simply the search for the almighty dollar, I couldn't say.  

What is clear is that a course like Rustic Canyon (which I have not played) can apparently be considered great from sixty yards in.  It would be much less expensive to build a 1080 yard course.

A tee shot that gets my heart really going is one requiring a shot down one side or another that results in a more advantageous shot to the green.  To make it truly great the tee shot must change depending on pin position.  Add in a shot that could be made with a 2-3 iron or a driver with added risk and I am reveling in ecstacy.  

How often do you see a shot like that on a Florida resort course constructed with mounds on the right and water on the left?  Or a muni anywhere with a bunker off in the rough somewhere so far from the line of play the Super doesn't even maintain it?

Tee shots are fun, they should involve some risk and they must make a player use his brain.  That is when you have us by the ..........

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, Cos.  This is the direction I was going with this as well.  Width is one thing, if it leads to the availability of strategic choices... but if width is there just to allow playability and keep things moving, then that's no fun for anyone.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Shivas, great stuff, and obviously I agree.  Tim can rebut you if he cares to, but my "headline" for the thread stands.  Tim did say in other threads exactly what I say in my first post, specifically that

 "the skilled golfer is such a low percentage of all players that the effects on them shouldn't be accounted for, and for the rest of us, just making contact is the challenge, so giving us any more doesn't matter either.  He also allows no difference between challenge and interest off the tee."

Perhaps I am mistaken in attributing that to him, and no, I haven't gone back and read through every thread, but I sure do think this was his viewpoint - not specifically in his "case" thread, but stated in others.

If I am mistaken, then I will at the very least delete the first paragraph of my first post in this thread.

In any case, to me this remains a discussion about all golfers, at any course, not just skilled golfers, and for damn sure not just at one great course in Moorpark, CA.

But if you want to use this as a vehicle to argue against his premise re the skilled, that's fine with me. I believe you make some damn fine points.

TH

[CHrisB]

I think Shivas' argument and analogy are almost irrefutable.  The only counter-argument I can think of would be to contend that excellence at golf is not nearly as essential as excellence in education.  But even there, all sorts of red flags go up.

Do we really want to punish the player who has devoted his time and resources into developing his skills to a high level?

I can see it now: "Boy, I hope I don't ever get so good that this course becomes boring!"

On the great courses, no one can say that.

I am all for courses playable by all, but I'd just rather see courses that become more interesting (or at least retain interest) as your skill level improves, courses that challenge the player to come up with a new shot, a new idea, a new approach.  Not courses where you are never challenged to change your game.  How boring would it be to play the same game all one's life!

(Disclaimer: I'm talking in general terms here, not referring to any particular course.)

[FORTSONATOR]

Tom & Shivas,

My take on this is such.....

Tee shots DO matter.  They matter A LOT.

Where I think I differ from some is that I don't believe that hazards, trees, OB, rough are absolute musts to challenge any golfer.  I do think that the above mentioned challenges can be effective or very strategic when used properly.  I guess what I am trying to say is that if you think that a course HAS to have these challenges off the tee to be interesting or challenging to a "skilled" golfer than I have to disagree.  

If you were to look at it on a numbers basis then you are saying that a drive is MORE important than any other shot.  I think the green complex should pose the toughest challenge to the golfer.  There are about 14 tee shots a round and anywhere from about 25 to 40 putts taken in a round (to be general).  Wouldn't you think that the green should be a heavier focus for the "skilled" golfer in this case?  If you add in approach shots to greens, then you are looking at over 75% of all shots that have to take the green complex into consideration.  The way it looks to me, golf is played mostly with a green complex being apart of the picture when a stroke is made.

Please don't take this as me saying that I don't think that drives matter, THEY DO.  But to say that if a course isn't challenging off the tee from a penal standpoint (i.e. hazards, OB, rough, etc.) then it can't be a great course is something I disagree with wholeheartedly.  In my opinion width and strategic angles are just as challenging as any hazard or rough.  

I would say that courses with great and challenging green complexes, that have little or no challenge off the tee, are much better golf courses than ones that challenge you heavily off the tee and have bland green complexes that put you to sleep after you drive the golf ball.

Jeff F.

[Dan Kelly]

I would say that courses with great and challenging green complexes, that have little or no challenge off the tee, are much better golf courses than ones that challenge you heavily off the tee and have bland green complexes that put you to sleep after you drive the golf ball.

I can't wait to see who'll find a way to disagree with this!

Imagine that: The Fortsonator -- bringing us back together.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

Let me try again. This multi thread discussion began with someone making the following assessments of a golf course:

a) the course was Top Ten sixty yards and in
b) the course didn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee

This gentleman then went on to say that based on "b", he would not consider the course to be Top 100.

Interesting, I thought. Several things went through my mind:

a) how much ground does sixty yards and in cover?
b) how much weight should we give to whether the course provides "enough" challenge to "skilled" golfers?
c) could I or anyone else think of a golf course that was Top Ten sixty yards and in, but not Top 100 overall?

Let me deal with "c" first. It remains striking to me, though not entirely surprising that nobody has come forward with an example. I say not entirely surprising, because I can't think of such a course. But, it isn't just striking, it is illuminating. If the best thing people can do is make reference to executive or par 3 courses, perhaps there's a point here.

That brings us to "a" - if I may proceed out of order.

Sixty yards and in covers a lot of ground. How much? It includes any shot that lands in, comes to rest in or is played from this area. In other words, it involves about 80 percent of all golf shots played.

Now, we return to "b". The fact remains that tee shots by "skilled" golfers are about 1 percent of all shots played.

Now, since you raised the subject of 4th grade, I'll take the risk of suggesting that most 4th grade students understand that 80 percent is much bigger than 1 percent.

But, we may not.

Anyway, until I hear steady reports about golfers at Rustic Canyon shooting rounds in the mid sixties, I'm not inclined to worry whether the project team didn't put enough time into thinking about how the course would play for an elite class of golfers.

To the contrary, I'll remain convinced that the project team understood the big picture better than many folks here.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff F.

I see you made reference to green complexes effecting over 75 percent of all shots played. I think the number is right around 80 percent. Close enough in my book.

[THuckaby2]

The problem here remains, Mr. Weiman, that you took a statement that a fine gentleman made in an attempt at nice, constructive criticism of a golf course we all hold dear, but friends of ours hold VERY dear - trying to state the very great positives about the course while also noting that negatives do exist - and made him back it up as if this were a court of law.

His statement was an exaggeration, made for effect, which even he would be the first to admit.

Thus this whole thing remains insulting, demeaning, and frankly ought to be beneath you.  I am struggling for what axe you have to grind here - is making this point THAT important?

Jeff Fortson nailed the issue anyway.  His words should really end this entire discussion.  Notice how he did it while keeping things general, offending no one?  And no offense to Jeff - I enjoyed meeting him at the King's Putter and he sure seems like a great guy to me - but peacemaking was not his forte here previously.  To me this was a very cool post, very informative with no rancor whatsoever.

I suggest you read his post several times.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Are you guys still discussing this?!?!  

I've yet to see anyone do a hole-by-hole discussion of the driving scenarios at Rustic Canyon, and how they might play differently for the average versus the skilled golfer.

I'm tempted to do so, but I have to work this week.  

Any other volunteers?  

[THuckaby2]

Sure Mike, send the rest of us to the gallows...

No thanks - if you want to do that, go right ahead.  I'm sure those who love Rustic Canyon have your email address just as they certainly have mine.  

The point here isn't Rustic Canyon, anyway.  Some holes the drives matter, some holes they don't, and taking the course as a whole this doesn't matter anyway because the greens are so great that even if there are deficiencies off the tee they are more than made up for at the greens, so Jeff Fortson's test holds true.  That's it, end of story, we can move on.  I see little worth in dissecting it hole by hole.  The course stands proud and doesn't need this.

Keeping it general, well... as I say Jeff nailed it, and I'd have to guess Tim will agree with what he says... I sure as hell agree with what he says... Maybe that will finally put an end to all this bullshit.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Are you guys still discussing this?!?!  

If we could get Rees Jones involved in this somehow, and maybe Merion's bunkers, this would have a chance of (if you'll pardon the term) surviving the Cigar Aficionado thread!

No, wait! Here's your trifecta: Rees, Merion's bunkers, and whether Colt had a blue pencil or a red pencil!

[Mike_Cirba]

Did someone mention the Merion bunkers?  

Is Rees Jones going to "restore" them?  

[Dan Kelly]

Hello, all. I was just wondering if anybody out there has played a course called the Bridge, and what your thoughts are?  I'll logout and listen to your answer....

I haven't played it, but I've heard there isn't enough challenge off the tee.

Or maybe it was: not enough interest at the tee.

Of course, the containment mounds at the 9th green are good enough to make up for almost anything.

[THuckaby2]

I gotta say this is classic.  Well jousted, gentlemen.

 

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

You remain way too hung up on personal stuff. Mike Cirba is right. Why not simply provide a detailed analysis of the tee shots at Rustic Canyon from the perspective of different classes of players? Wouldn't that be better?

If you find it insulting or demeaning to be asked to explain your view that too many holes at Rustic Canyon lack interest for all golfers off the tee, then I don't know why you bother to participate in a golf architecture discussion group.

Nobody is questioning whether you or David are fine gentleman. Hell, I've even been called a "bigot" in the course of this discussion, but so what? That's all a side show. We're here to discuss golf architecture, aren't we?

Shivas:

Sorry for the none answer. I'll be more direct. I don't think your analogy applies. When a 4th grade teacher teaches math and reading, it is reasonable to assume that most students will find both subjects to be important. How easy would it be for most citizens to function in society if they couldn't at least read or do math at the 4th grade proficiency level. In other words, what would it be like if 99 percent of the people couldn't read or do math at the 4th grade level?

You may think that would be an acceptable state affairs, but not me.

But, the design of a golf course is something different. If an architect fails to provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee, so what? The overwhelming majority would still have great fun.

Dave, I don't like quoting people in the business, but I remember one day Tom Doak expressing to me his view about people who complained that Pacific Dunes didn't have enough length to conduct a professional tournament. Tom wisely dismissed this view pointing out that if anyone wants to hold a professional tournament in Bandon, they can do it right next door on the Bandon Dunes course.

My sense is that the Rustic Canyon project team also had their priorities right and understood that providing "enough" challenge or interest to "skilled" golfers just isn't that important. The critics just need to catch up, that's all.

[Mike Benham]

Hello, all. I was just wondering if anybody out there has played a course called the Bridge, and what your thoughts are?  I'll logout and listen to your answer....

Please clarify ...

the Bridge over troubled waters ...
the Bridge over the river Kwai (everyone whistle now) ...
the Bridge at Remegen ...
a Bridge too far ... (what a cast ...)
the Bridges Concert (...Neil Young connection ...)
Lloyd Bridges ...
Jeff Bridges ...
Nash Bridges ...
The Bridges at Gale Ranch ...

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Asked and answered (we're going on I believe 55 times now) as to why I don't want to do that, and as the mood has definitely lightened here, then so shall I.

See Tim, there are these things called "jokes".  They're meant to make people laugh.  Ever heard of them?  Mike Cirba most definitely has.  

TH

[CHrisB]

So Tim,
Have you had time to think about the answer to my previous question:

"In your opinion, if a course was top 10 material from 60 yards and in, what deficiencies would it have to have to take it out of the overall top 100?  Or is it a lock, so that all a course really needs is to be world-class from 60 and in?"

Not trying to hound you or anything, but you said you'd think about it.  I have some thoughts myself and I'd be interested in hearing yours (and others').

You said off the top of your head that it would probably take multiple deficiencies to take a course out of the top 100; what would those deficiencies be?

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

I appreciate your response. Isn't it funny how frequently people say they are through with this and then come back!

Personally, I think it is an excellent topic, so I'm not going away. Instead, I'll try again......and again.

To state the obvious, a golf architect does need to think about every kind of shot that will be played and what they will be like for all classes of players. Our debate here has been about how much weight should be given to one type of shot by one class of golfer - do we at least agree on that point?

Now assuming that we do, I'm still hard pressed to follow your analogy about either teaching 4th grade or buying a car. Why not just talk about golf shots?

Then, assuming we could possibly get to that point, I take the bold position that all shots, including tee shots, approach shots, second shots on par five, recovery shots and putts are all equal. Each may be played well or not. There is a reward for playing each well and often a penalty for failing to do so.

So, I'm hard pressed to understand why we shouldn't simply try to figure out how many there are of that one type of shot - tee shots by skilled golfers - and give them value on a weighted average basis.

If tee shots by skilled golfers are no more than one percent of the game, why would any rating system give them any more weight than that?

ChrisB:

No need to think you are hounding me. For the record I would say that if a golf architecture project team did create a course that was Top Ten sixty yards and in, it probably would be a lock for Top 100.

Note that I believe sixty yards and in covers about 80 percent of all golf shots (and that Jeff F also put the figure at more than 75 percent).

So, to try and disprove my theory you have to find a lot wrong with the other 20 ish percent. Now, if you want to do that, restricting any criticsm to skilled golfers won't work - as we have been through already many times. You would have to deal with the shots that don't fit into the sixty yards and in category. In other words, you would have to address tee shots and second shots on par fives for all golfers.

It's worth noting that Tom Huckaby has said several times that what I'm missing about tee shots at Rustic Canyon is that they fail to interest ALL golfers on too many holes. Tom's comment is, I believe, an admission that my original position probably is correct. Skilled golfers just aren't that much of the universe. You have to address how the course plays - specifically how tee shots play - for all golfers.

It is really a shame that Tom thinks adressing this subject is too emotional or that friendships would be lost. I'm of the opposite opinion. My hunch is that it might be quite interesting as this site includes several regulars that are very familiar with the course - far more so than Tom.

Anyway, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for treating it as a golf architecture discussion.