Women's Tees as Afterthought

[Shane Sullivan]

Wayne,

It doesn't have to be the same hazard.  It could be a narrowing of the fairway, trees, a dog leg, a particularly nasty tongue of rough, an undulation of the fairway which leaves you with a difficult approach shot or any one of the features that makes for an interesting golf course.

[Rick Shefchik]

What a great thread. There's some serious wisdom being imparted here; I hope it's being read and digested by most of the DG.

1. Women are not slow players, by definition. My wife is as fast as they come. We play in 3-3 1/2 hours when the course is open and we're not in any particular hurry, and I'm slowing her up. She'd be done in 2:45 if it weren't for me. That is not to say, however, that there aren't slow women players. My wife's biggest gripe about her Tuesday league is being stuck behind some of the slow players. In other words, anybody can be pokey.

2. The stigma I was referring to was all about men being asked to move up to the forward tee when it's best suited for their game. They generally will not, because they don't want to undermine their manhood. But I hadn't thought about it from the women's point of view: they're also being asked (or at least being permitted) to play less of course. As Dan said, I don't know any men who have ever expressed a lack of respect for a woman simply because she's playing from 5,000 yards as opposed to 6,500, but that doesn't mean a woman doesn't feel less respected than the guys who play the longer sets of tees.

This question can be recast as part of our ongoing debate over the meaning and importance of par. If my wife and most of her friends hit only 3 or 4 greens per round, are they not enjoying the game as much? They're playing against each other -- not against men -- so if par (or regulation) were taken out of the equation, I can understand why many would prefer to play a longer golf course.

I wonder, when my GIRs drop to 3 or 4 per round, whether I'll be willing to move up to a set of tees that gives me more chances for shorter approach shots. I don't think there's a right answer here; it all depends on what it takes for you to enjoy your day.  

[TEPaul]

"This question can be recast as part of our ongoing debate over the meaning and importance of par."

Rick:

You're not kidding! The concept of par over time has had some deleterious effects in other areas. There's little question it has spawned a greater awareness and expectation of things like "par", "GIR", "regulation" etc amongst levels of golfers who should not necessarily be expected to think such things.

Even the basic concept and intent of "handicapping" has become both misunderstood and misused to some extent. And that fact is proven in that it has now become too common for scratch players to compete properly against too many handicap golfers.

[Paul Payne]

Rick and TE,

I'll give you some frustrating raw data to back up the GIR point.

I normally shoot in the mid eighties. I have played to a handicap as low as 4.6 but right now it is at 8.7 and I play to about a 12. One of the sad facts of a handicap is you can smile while it plummets but you will pay hell if you cannot sustain it. that is another thread.

When I look at data collected form about 70 rounds I see that my GIR is my weakest stat. My fairways hit runs around 67% but my GIR is only 24%. That means I'm hitting just over 4 in a round. (if I am on the fringe I have counted it as missed)

When I play from the front tees my GIR number soars to about 55%. This means I'm hitting about 10 greens per round. That is 6 more opportunities for par. On top of that you have to figure that many of the misses are not nearly as far off giving more opportunity for an up and down.

In spite of all that it seems my score only improves by about half that difference or roughly 3 to 4 strokes. I know..... putting.

Point is that from the front tees I am probably playing statistcally where I should for GIR but now it is highlighting other flaws in my game. In fact if you really wanted to dig down in this you would probably find that I have weakness from the tee sometimes which is masked by the shorter drive from the front tee. I have weakness with my long irons which is masked by the shortrer approaches. I have weakness in my putting which is constant.

When I think about it this too hard I feel it is time to become a spectator.

 

[Cassandra Burns]

It doesn't have to be the same hazard.  It could be a narrowing of the fairway, trees, a dog leg, a particularly nasty tongue of rough, an undulation of the fairway which leaves you with a difficult approach shot or any one of the features that makes for an interesting golf course.

Our 17th hole, a par 5 which double-doglegs left, has the forward tees set up maybe forty yards behind a fluffy scrubbish sort of tree.  The tree is short, and somewhat down a hill, which makes it easily cleared for anyone who can get her drives more than 10 feet up in the air.  I've only seen three of us actually do so, the rest do not like the tree and end going around it with an easy bailout to the right.  Clearing the tree is advantageous, cutting off the first dogleg and catching a downslope to make the hole a great birdie opportunity.  Personally I think the tree looks more intimidating than it actually is!

Contrast this with what the guys face: shooting through a narrow tree-lined ten-yard gap with a sixty-yard forced carry over tall grasses, usually to the same landing area targeted by the women who refuse to clear the scrubby tree.  

The different challenges posed off these teeboxes are apt, I think.  For the player who struggles to get the ball up and out, the scrubby tree makes for a good "hazard", while allowing the timid to easily bail while paying a price in distance.  For the longer player playing the back tees, the test is all about hitting the ball straight, with the better players vying to put a late hook on the shot to have a chance at going for the green in two.

[grandwazo]

During the recent restoration project at my club, the most opposition and difficulty we ran across was trying to create new women's/forward tees.

Even though it was clearly pointed out that the course was extremely long for the women members, they were very opposed to the addition of more proper tees.  

With the equivalent yardages taken into account, we explained that the women are playing a course that would equal about 8000 yards for the average man.

Based on the opposition, apparently the majority of women at our club enjoy hitting drivers into the par 3's and rarely if ever reaching a green in regulation.  I don't get it.

We had EXACTLY the same issue with our renovation project as well....I haven't seen KBM post here in a while, but along with other equally frustrating problems he faced at my club, the first was the opposition the women had to tees that better allowed a greater majority (99.99999% of them) to enjoy a round.  

Keeping in mind that we have TWO women that qualify in the championship flight, and that one of them refuses to play the other because of her slow play and gamesmanship, it was pretty laughable hearing them demand that the course remain at the equivalent of 7800!!! yards for them.  I still remember spending a day on the golf course following four groups of women to watch them play the "old" course and how hard it was for any of them, to reach any green in regulation.  It was painful to watch.  We were sure they would welcome the proposed changes with gratitude.  Nothing could have been further from the truth and the battles that ensued were difficult to be a part of.

I think they and the green comittee did a great disservice to women,children and seniors all of whom would have greatly benefited from a course measuring at the minimum 4750 yards.  Even with explaining to them that with multiple tee boxes they could "build" a course to any yardage they wished, they refused.

This turned out to be just one of a hundred reasons why I walked away from the project and apologize to KBM every time we speak for ever getting him involved.

[Kalen Braley]

I've read a lot of posts and its seems to keep coming across a common theme when it comes to women who want to move the tees forward.

Well it appears the women don't want to move any further forward much like the men don't.  Could it be their egos are just as much as men in not wanting to move forward?  Or are they just being stubborn and set in thier ways like many men as well.  Perhaps women and men don't think too far apart when it comes to ego and proving themselves on the golf course.

That being said, I think it really would be nice to have womens tees play shorter and to have more thought put into where thier tees are situated.

[grandwazo]

Men are stubborn, but many, if not most men know better than to play the "back" tees unless their game can handle it, especially on courses with forced carries off the tee.  There are always exception to the rules I know, but women who don't allow the architect to incorporate a forward tee that allows them to play up if they choose are really taking it too far.  Men generally always have at least two, if not three tees to choose from...women generally only one...KBM took what I thought was a reasonable approach and was hoping to allow them to "build" their own course from the tees he offered...they were just plain stupid to refuse that offer, stubborn had nothing to do with it.

[Eric_Terhorst]

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?

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

I would rather try to get an extra round or two from an avid male golfer who will bring three buddies than try to create a warm and fuzzy atmosphere for a minority who aggrevate my core customers.

You would play so too if you shot 135 and could not reach any holes in regulation. The solution is to put a set of tee patios at 4,700 yards and let the women have at it.

To all: Am I alone here? If you think I'm nuts, say so.

Dan, I for one don't think it's you that needs therapy!

[Kalen Braley]

Men are stubborn, but many, if not most men know better than to play the "back" tees unless their game can handle it, especially on courses with forced carries off the tee.  There are always exception to the rules I know, but women who don't allow the architect to incorporate a forward tee that allows them to play up if they choose are really taking it too far.  Men generally always have at least two, if not three tees to choose from...women generally only one...KBM took what I thought was a reasonable approach and was hoping to allow them to "build" their own course from the tees he offered...they were just plain stupid to refuse that offer, stubborn had nothing to do with it.

jsiskind,

My comment was not directed at you and your specific situation, just more of an overall observation.

That being said I've seen more than my fair share of men who let thier ego dictate that they play from the back tees when they had no business doing such and it was a disaster.  This is especially so if all the other members of the group are playing back there.  

Switching gears, I think women would have a similar ego problem with moving to even closer tees because they would percieve that as playing from the "kids" tees, much the same way a man would not want to play from the "womens" tees. Personally I've always tried to improve my game to move back to a longer set of tees, not aspire to play the forward tees.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but women can be just as hard-nosed and competitive on the course as the men.

[Bill_McBride]

Kalen, the difference in my opinion is that women just don't suffer from the ego problems that men do.  They just play the course as they find it.  If that means the course is too long, so be it.  If it's too short (when does that happen?), so be it.

[Doug Siebert]

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?  

Cassandra,

I've been fighting this battle of "tee choice and handicap have little to do with each other" for years, but even though it makes sense to most people I tell it to, the only time I ever see signs recommending what tees to play on courses, it will list it by handicap.  Maybe they know that listing it by driving distance would invite all those idiots who think because they once hit one 295 that they average that and play off the back tees.  But who I am kidding, those guys will play from the back tees regardless!

Really the way I look at it, it just comes down to what clubs you are hitting into the green.  If you are hitting mostly wedges into par 4s, move back.  If you are hitting mostly fairway woods (or definitely if you are not reaching at all) into most par 4s, move up.  Simple as that, works for men, women, children, seniors, even beginners.

But so long as courses call them "women's tees" they'll never get many older men, beginners or boys to play those tees.  Calling them "front tees" but rating them only for women isn't fooling anyone!

From your comments, it would seem some women likewise have a hard time moving back from the front tees most women as playing.  Congratulations to you for being confident enough to do so yourself.  I know how hard that must be, I had a girlfriend about 12 years ago who wasn't a terrific golfer due to a complete lack of a short game but was a real jock who typically drove it 200-240 and played the men's tees just about everywhere, and you could always see it in the eyes of the men watching or the whispering they'd do that they didn't think she belonged on the men's tees.  I like to think that after they saw her hit, they realized she belonged there more than most of them did!

[Cassandra Burns]

I haven't seen KBM post here in a while, but along with other equally frustrating problems he faced at my club, the first was the opposition the women had to tees that better allowed a greater majority (99.99999% of them) to enjoy a round.  

Keeping in mind that we have TWO women that qualify in the championship flight, and that one of them refuses to play the other because of her slow play and gamesmanship, it was pretty laughable hearing them demand that the course remain at the equivalent of 7800!!! yards for them.  I still remember spending a day on the golf course following four groups of women to watch them play the "old" course and how hard it was for any of them, to reach any green in regulation.  It was painful to watch.  We were sure they would welcome the proposed changes with gratitude.  Nothing could have been further from the truth and the battles that ensued were difficult to be a part of.

Did anyone ask them why they opposed the change?

[grandwazo]

Cassandra,

I think the primary reason stated at the time was that it would make the course "too easy", if you can believe it.  I know that many women not involved in the process and their husbands came up to me during the early stages of the development of the plan to compliment the architect on what he was proposing to do and were looking forward to being able to enjoy the game more, anticipating being able to walk off the course after a round with some sense of accomplishment as opposed to frustration.  

I know at the time we presented yardage data on "sister" clubs in the area and the proposed yardage would have put us at the bottom length wise, and we pointed out that none of these clubs had made any effort to address this issue when they had done their renovations in recent times.  I think the women involved felt this would diminish the "stature" of the course relative to others.

The most compelling argument for the changes was made in an article written by Alice Dye for the USGA that KBM provided to us for dissemination to the membership and quite honestly it went right over the heads of the parties involved.

Long story short, there was no intelligent reason given.  The design KBM hoped to implement would have made the course totally different than any other in the area and the tee options would have been a part of that.  Unfortunately, at this point in time, it would appear that due to mismanagement and poor oversight that the plan is now "on hold" after work was completed on only four holes and the men involved in the process were just as guilty as the women as to why that happened.  

It's an "old" story for a completly new thread, but for me, the next club I hope to join will be run by a "benevolent" dictatorship, one where the only reason for the clubs existence is the golf course, nurturing it, protecting it and sustaining it, under the direction of one individual at a time whose sole job is protecting the rights of the architect's vision and the golf superintendent's ability to do his job.

Here's a link to KBM's website and the page on the work he did at my club...

http://www.kellyblakemoran.com/muttontown%20blog.html

Regards

Jeff

[Doug Siebert]

Perhaps in order to do that you need to keep the existing women's tees and just add the new ones as well.  The existing women's tees could be seen as the "championship tees" for women used in the matches between lower handicap women, and the higher handicap and casual players can enjoy their round more.

I would think that it would harder for anyone to complain (other than the greenskeeper) if you just added new tees without taking any away.

Yes, I know on some courses I just advocated a sixth set of tees...

Maybe we should just accept that the game is played differently by most men and women.  Even at the pro level -- are there EVER any driveable par 4s on the LPGA, for instance?  If average women golfers are hitting driver to longer par 3s, and need two really damn good shots to reach a longer par 4 in regulation, aren't those holes playing pretty much like a driveable par 4 and reachable par 5 do for longer hitting men?  Plus they get the reachable par 6 we never see as a bonus!

The same strategy, go/no go, layup safe or risk disaster, still applies.  Just because the numbers they are working with are less attractive when related to the assigned par for the hole doesn't mean the skill and strategy are diminished.  Maybe what they've got is better and us stupid men just aren't smart enough to see it

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps in order to do that you need to keep the existing women's tees and just add the new ones as well.  The existing women's tees could be seen as the "championship tees" for women used in the matches between lower handicap women, and the higher handicap and casual players can enjoy their round more.

I would think that it would harder for anyone to complain (other than the greenskeeper) if you just added new tees without taking any away."

Doug:

That's what we did and I still got seriously accosted one time by a couple of women who claimed we'd ruined the course for them by making it too easy. I remember it well--it happened at the second green. It really surprised me and at first I just didn't know what to say. After about five minutes I did ask them why they didn't just play their old tees if they felt that way. They both just stared at me for about ten seconds and turned and walked away.  

Actually, there's a word I've been trying to find for a number of years that means an attitude that is simply resistant to any change at all---apparently even if that also means leaving what once was and adding something else. That might be the problem we see here.

Frankly, I'll go even one better. I think golfers just like to complain about things that happen on the course. I guess the trick is to just let them complain at first because the truth is once you've done that they seem to get over it.  

Look at this website----there are so many people who just like to complain about things. If you offer a decent solution they don't even bother to answer. That's how I know I've gotten to Pat and taught him something----he would never think of actually responding and admitting he learned something---when he learns something from me he just doesn't respond at all---he merely starts another thread complaining about something else.  

[Chris Cupit]

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 saw it once, at ANGC.  Not a real "lady friendly course" and I don't think that will change!  The caddies were very helpful and pointed out to the lady in our group where a good spot would be to play from in the fairways.  

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Now here’s a thought - especially aimed at the USGA Course Raters out there.

The USGA has a formular that defines the Course Rating as a function of the length and difficulty.
This Formular has a Factor in it which considers the difference between Men and Women or if you prefer Ladies and Gentlemen.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that all things being equal, as far as the difficulty of the course goes, then the difference in the total length will directly define the Course Rating of a particular golf course.

Assuming the owner of the golf course would like the Mens championship tees and the Ladies champioship tees to be harmonised, for example both to have a Course Rating of 72, then the length from the Ladies Tees has to correspond with the “factored” length of the Mens Tees.

Who are aware of the differences - it will be interesting to find out if anyone else knows them - any takers?

[Chris Cupit]

Interesting.

We just re-did our course and easily the biggest concern was from our ladies who liked the fact that the old course at 5694 was "hard".

We now have five rated tees at: 5103, 5412, 5775, 6077 and 6429!

After playing the course, 95% of the ladies love the new forward tees (gold not red tees by the way).

It is unbelievable to me that having taken 4 different groups of ladies on the course with the architect that the ladies seem to think a par 4 at 240 or a par three at 85 yards is somehow "insulting" (I swear that's what one woman said) when in fact it simply gives them a chance to hit a short iron to a hole like the men routinely do.

I am certain that if men had no chance of ever reaching a green in regulation as almost all women face on 5600 yard courses, they would quit the game.  The ladies were the hardest group to try and "help" with a shorter set of tees.  I am glad I "ignored" them for the most part

[Gary Slatter]

Very good topic!
1.My wife is a good 12 handicap and her biggest gripe is often on better courses the strategy is gone by the time we get to the forward tees.  From "my" tees I might have a bunker or hazard to negotiate, from her tee nothing to worry about. On par threes this is often worse, from her tee it's a clear shot to the middle of the green, and usually too short.  I think the TPC at Sawgrass was the worst course she ever tried to play, every tee was too far forward.  Her second least favourite was The Medalist, she had to lay up and then could not clear the hazards on many holes.  Maidstone and Shinnecock were great for her.
2. We played Prestwick with a member, in 2001.  When she asked how much her fee was he said free, they don't charge for women here because if they did they'd want their own tees".  It is a perfect length for all golfers.
3.At Turnberry the tough par 3 on the front is a par 4 for women. Her tee was behind mine, perfect!  Three times she made  birdie 3 on the hole while I made bogey 4.
4. Women play faster than men on most courses. I've found mixed groups (2 men 2 women) play the slowest, is it because of abilities or pandering or coaching?
5.  The first Mad River men's club championship we set it up for 4 rounds, using all four sets of tees. Many of the better players loved the challenges of the forward tees. I think many private clubs should try a forward tee open over a long weekend to let their men enjoy the course.
6. Honor. I think even when a woman has the honor, people should tee off as they come to their tees.  I've seen two cases of women being hit after they went forward, hit their tee shot, then "hid" unsuccessfully behind trees while the men played.  Both were proven unintentional.

[Wayne_Kozun]

4. Women play faster than men on most courses. I've found mixed groups (2 men 2 women) play the slowest, is it because of abilities or pandering or coaching?

I would think that whenever you have a group playing from two sets of tees it is generally going to be a bit slower so that probably accounts for part of it.

[Peter Zarlengo]

The best designed forward tee I have seen is #14 at Colorado Golf Club, where I worked last summer. This probably wont be the first time I mention #14, my favorite hole on the course. One of the reasons for this favoritism is the forward tee which uses placement, distance, and terrain to create a good design.

Placement- As it has been established, womens tees are sometimes just slapped a certain yardage ahead of the other tee, #14 is deiiferent. Offset to the player's right of the back tee, the placement is that the tee allows play for the left-to-right slope of the fairway.

Distance- As the hole is a driveable par 4, 329 from the tips, it was important for the hole to play similarly from the front. It plays 187 yards.

Terrain- To achieve this variability in distance, the forward tee was placed into the right side of the fairway. Not too much of a problem, given the nature and strategy of the hole, but most likely problematic on others. But hiding it behind a subtle mound in the fairway makes the fairway look continuous from the back tees, while not making the player feel like they have been stuck in the middle of the fairway while they play the forward tee.