[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Kline,

Your example is flawed

While you indicate that a few golfers with handicaps between 1 and 4 can outdrive you, and that your average drive is 270, the marginal difference of 0 to 20 yards isn't significant in terms of the ability of "collective group" to interface with common architecture/features.

In addition, it's been my limited experience that a +3 handicap isn't outdriven consistently by a 4 handicap.  
That a 4 handicap may occassionally drive the ball 20 yards farther in the fairway does not support the premise that higher handicaps consistently outdrive lower handicaps.  Abberations do not make universals.

If your average drive is 270 and they're 20 yards longer, averaging 290, than none of you are interfacing with the intended architectural features off the tee, unless your club has added about 50 yards to each hole.  And, if your club has added 50 yards to each hole, I"d be amazed if the features in the DZ are limited to less than 10 yards in depth, which leaves a margin of + - 5 yards in the DZ, hence, all of you would be interfacing with the architecture.

You're confusing your ability to improve your scoring through added distance with your group's ability to interface with the architectural features in the DZ, and, you're ignoring the bulk of the residual membership who don't drive the ball on an average of 270 yards.

The general premise that handicap is inversely proportionate to distance is valid.   The higher your handicap, the shorter you are compared to the lower/lowest handicaps.

Understanding the general validity of that concept, architects seek to forge a balanced challenge based on that concept.

Even the ODG's believed that DZ's should narrow as their distance from the tee increased.  And while the narrowing of the fairway may have been gradual, the bunkers/features in the distant drive zone weren't miniscule, allowing only the purely unlucky to find them.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
There were other reasons, but one of the ideas behind developing and employing "multiple tees" was because the skill level of golfers was beginning to widen to a significant degree?  Today, that skill level is wider than ever and the distance a pro hits the ball vs. a beginner is a big part of that.

Not that golf is in anyway like skiing; but would expert skiers have fun on bunny slopes skiing with the novices?  If they were teaching their kids they might, but they would eventually need another level of challenge to keep the sport interesting and exciting.  Golf is the same way.  

Paul,
RTJ's long runway tees were for that same purpose (flexibility) and many were just one really loooooong tee  
Also, alternate angles of play can sometimes be a neat feature of golf holes.  That is tough to do with just one main tee box.  

[TEPaul]

"Not that golf is in anyway like skiing; but would expert skiers have fun on bunny slopes skiing with the novices?"

Mark:

What in the world does that have to do with this subject? Do you think I've recommended that golf courses should be 6,000 yards again for everyone?

Patrick:

Nothing Steve Kline has said is flawed. The only thing flawed is your ability to read and write-----as usual.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"So, how does an architect present an "equitable" challenge for the wide spectrum of golfers?"

An "equitable" challenge Patrick?

It's one of relativity.[/color]

What is that when one 18 handicapper may be capable of hitting a golf ball a hundred yards farther than another 18 handicapper?

Your example is pure fantasy, a one in a million occurance.
It doesn't happen in the practical world.

And, on the one in a million chance that it did, the 18 handicapper who hits the ball 100 yards farther would interface with the bunkers/features at the 240-260 mark, just like the architect intended.[/color]

The way to make this work in architecture in the future is to start fairways or parts of them no farther than about 100 yards from the tee and simply give the very short hitter A WAY to play from there the golf holes on a course.

That's being done today and has been done for the last 100 years or so.  Multiple tees at many older clubs have minor yardage differentials in the tee markers since most of them preserved the old footpad and merely added nicely colored tee markers ON them.

You don't think that the 16th hole at Pine Tree, 670 from the tips, and over 165 yards to the ladies tee should have the forward tees removed and the fairway mowed back to within 100 yards of the 670 mark, do you?

You're not advocating a par 8 for the higher handicapper, are you ?[/color]

If his or her distance limitation does not allow him or her to get to a 450 yard hole in less than four strokes of his or her longest shots, so what?

See my reference to # 16 at Pine Tree above.[/color]

Remember, this was the way golf once was. If they could do it then we can do it now.

I agree with the first part.
However, your strident belief in the democratic method of governance at clubs would prevent it from ever happening today.  You'd be outvoted 400-1.

I would imagine that early golf was governed by dictators or an oligarchy, and that democratic rule was only a figment of your great, great, great grandfather's mind.

If you played golf, you played by the rules, you didn't try to change them, which is the case at many clubs today.

I suspect, that as golf became more popular, that it was wear and tear that caused the teeing ground to be moved
from one club length to two club lengths, and not a vote of the membership.

Trying to go back to one set of tees is akin to telling young kids today that they have to read and that they can't play video games, watch TV or use the computer.

However, I do think there's a chance that clubs could be convinced to reduce the number of tee sets to three.

Once you get to three sets, you'll have a better chance of selling your one set theory.

From a liability perspective, the one tee system would seem to be the safest.[/color]

In the last year or so you seem to be so much into this idea you call "interfacing" with the architecture.

While the concept may appear "novel" to you, it's an integral part of the foundation of the game.[/color]

And now you seem to suggest the challenge should be "equitable" for all that way.

Let me put this on a level that you'll understand.

When we present a reading comprehension test to second graders we don't provide them with the same test given to sixth graders.  There's an equivalency factored into the tests.
One that's reflects the relative and diverse abilities of the readers in each group, such that we test second graders at a level commensurate with their abilities..  

And, so it is with architecture.
Architects attempt to forge a balanced challenge, one that golfers of all levels can aspire to meet, and once met, they can progress to the next level.

Granted it took you 9 years to go from second to sixth grade, but, I think you understand the analogy.[/color]

Well, how does architecture accomplish that anyway when one scratch golfer is capable of hitting a tee shot 50 yards farther than another scratch handicapper, or if one 18 handicapper is capable of hitting a tee shot 100 yards farther than another 18 handicapper?

That's not the reality in golf.
In general, guys who hit it longer and straighter are better players and lower handicaps.  Are their idiot-savants in golf ?
Abberations ?  Sure, but, the law of large numbers bears out
the general rule.  Hit it longer and straighter and your handicap is lower.

As I pointed out earlier, if an 18 handicap is hitting it 100 yards farther than his peers ........ he's a cheat, a sandbagger.  And, if he was legit, he'd interface with the features commensurate with the abilities of golfers who hit it comparable distances.[/color]

In a sense when everyone played from the same tees it was "real" golf in a comparative sense because distance handicapping had nothing to do with it. The only handicap necessary was in the true "currency" in golf----strokes!

Agreed.
The REAL handicap was ability.
The measuring stick, handicap or strokes.

Difficulty was an inherent component of the game, then.

We've become a softer nation, desiring gratification for mediocrity, in some pursuits, and golf is one of them.

It's a cultural tide that you won't reverse anytime soon.

I can relate to the extreme difficulty of the game in a
current context.  Most people would have given up on the game, I loved it even more because the challenge was heightened.  But, we know that I'm not the norm, nor am I normal.

Most golfers don't want to experience the difficulty I experienced, they want the game made easier, whereas, I'd prefer that the game be difficult and that I get better.

While you MIGHT get my vote, because you don't support dictatorial rule, your motion will never pass. [/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick, it's become almost totally worthless to discuss anything with you. Some of the things you say are laughable.

Your "equitable" challenge for all is "relative" is it?  

Well, the distance various golfers are capable of hitting the ball is very relative too. You seem to suggest the way Macdonald originally designed his course from the back allowed any player to find his way around. That's bascially all I'm talking about here.

The 16th at Pine Valley is 670 yards?

What the hell are you talking about? There's no hole out there that long even with the recent additional length.

First of all, this subject is not for the likes of Pine Valley or about Pine Valley. That golf course was not designed or intended for high handicappers anyway and frankly it may've been the last good golf course in the world to only use a single set of tee markers.

Crump didn't want high handicappers at PV. I'm talking about architecture that's very different than PV that could accommodate all players from the same tee.

Again, if it took a player who couldn't hit the ball much more than 100 yards four shots to get to a 450 yard hole, so what? As long as there was a way in the design to do it, so what?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

If you had everyone play from one set of tees, you wouldn't try to balance the shot values for every player.  "Equity" would be redefined as having some holes which favored player A in the positioning of the bunkers, and other holes which favored players B and C.

Paul C:

Jim Urbina takes credit for the "uni-tee" concept at Ballyneal and Sebonack, even though I have seen it before in other places, starting with The Old Course at St. Andrews where the tees are just an extension of the fairway from the previous hole.  Interestingly, Dr. MacKenzie did that on most of the holes at The Valley Club when it was built -- the tees were all a gang-mowed extension of the previous fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That's why I referenced the architect's forging of a "BALANCED" challenge.

It's also why I referenced equivalency and commensurate challenge.

I never advocated making every challenge equal for every level of golfer, that would be an architectural nightmare.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, it's become almost totally worthless to discuss anything with you. Some of the things you say are laughable.

Your "equitable" challenge for all is "relative" is it?  

Well, the distance various golfers are capable of hitting the ball is very relative too.

That's why I advocate no more than three sets of tee markers.[/color]

You seem to suggest the way Macdonald originally designed his course from the back allowed any player to find his way around. That's bascially all I'm talking about here.

Yes, but, that only works with WIDE fairways, and the trend in fairways is heading in the opposite direction.[/color]

The 16th at Pine Valley is 670 yards?

No TE, but the 16th at PINE TREE is.
Now I know why it took you 9 years to go from second grade reading to sixth grade reading  [/color]

What the hell are you talking about? There's no hole out there that long even with the recent additional length.

Now that I think about it, I can't believe it ONLY took you 9 years to go from second grade reading to sixth grade reading.[/color]

First of all, this subject is not for the likes of Pine Valley or about Pine Valley. That golf course was not designed or intended for high handicappers anyway and frankly it may've been the last good golf course in the world to only use a single set of tee markers.

NOONE, NOONE, but you brought up Pine Valley.

GCGC also used one set until fairly recently.[/color]

Crump didn't want high handicappers at PV. I'm talking about architecture that's very different than PV that could accommodate all players from the same tee.

WHY are you bringing up Pine Valley ?[/color]

Again, if it took a player who couldn't hit the ball much more than 100 yards four shots to get to a 450 yard hole, so what? As long as there was a way in the design to do it, so what?

That's tough to do when you have 130 yard carries, don't you think ?[/color]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Again, if it took a player who couldn't hit the ball much more than 100 yards four shots to get to a 450 yard hole, so what?-TE Paul

You wouldn't have to worry about getting a tee time at this 'hypothetical' course.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I said:  "Not that golf is in anyway like skiing; but would expert skiers have fun on bunny slopes skiing with the novices?"

You said:  "What in the world does that have to do with this subject? Do you think I've recommended that golf courses should be 6,000 yards again for everyone?"

Let me phrase the analogy a different way, would novice skiers have fun on double black diamond slopes skiing with experts?  You can figure out the relationship to this subject I'm sure  

By the way, I enjoyed your company the other day playing Fox Chapel from the tips and I probably would have enjoyed it from the forward tees as well (at least for a round or two).  But our playing partners behind us thought is was not so much fun back there and moved up 400 or so yards.  Even there is was more than enough challenge.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I really don't know. Maybe there's a skiing website to ask that question.  

I don't know a thing about skiing. I went up once with these skies this girl gave me with long thongs that were from the 19th century and they forgot to tell me to get off the lift so I just road the thing back down again. So I have no idea if a double black diamond skier would enjoy skiing with novices.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I think the double black diamond skier and the novice would prefer to tackle different "courses".  The novices for example might want to start out a little lower on the mountain before they moved higher up    

[TEPaul]

Tom Paul,
I think the double black diamond skier and the novice would prefer to tackle different "courses".  The novices for example might want to start out a little lower on the mountain before they moved higher up    

Mark Fine:

Well, as you very astutely said, there is probably little to no similarity between skiing and golf.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()