Tees for Women: What Are We Supposed To Conclude?

[JLahrman]

Men aren't going to move forward, except for seniors.  Too much ego.

Most courses do need to have tees that are far more forward than they currently are.  I played in a scramble two weeks ago, two men and two women in the group.  There was no hope of using the womens' drives if I made even halfway decent contact.  Then of course I've got a wedge in while they are hitting 6-irons.

The course I regularly play, which I like very much, has five sets of tees.  One hole is a par 4 with a pond just in front of the tee, probably 80 - 100 yards long.  ALL FIVE sets of tees are behind this pond.  It makes no sense.



The two forward tees are in the tee box below the cart path.  Maybe the shot isn't over the pond exactly, but why is there no tee box built on the side of the pond towards the green?  Not for one out of five sets of tees???

[Michael]

What is interesting about this topic is that most men have no business playing 6800 yard courses and in fact most would probably cope and enjoy the game much better if they played closer to 6000 yard courses.  So long as there are a handful of long holes - say 460 to 530 then most players should be content with breaking out the fairway woods/long irons say 4 or 5 times - not including par 3s of course.  Even guys that can hit the ball a long way should learn to score properly on short courses before promoting themselves.  The truth is, most would never get promoted!  Finally, talking about yardages can largely be meaningless if the terrain and width of corridors aren't mentioned in the next two sentences.

Ciao

Sean,

Why do you think most men would be happier if they played shorter courses?  Do you really believe that they will score lower...I don't.  Do you think they will be happier getting done sooner...I don't.  I don't get this theory often revealed on this site.  What is your reasoning, and if true, why don't they do it?  Please don't tout the GCA party line that we are smart and they are stupid.

John,

 I guess my point was.. is it possible to have sets of shorter tees that would present a challenge to shot making, not concerning distance, for players that may lack the physical ability to hit 200+ drives despite hitting it straight? as one poster said most times the shorter tees look like a afterthought just kind of stuck off the side of the fairway

[Sean_A]

What is interesting about this topic is that most men have no business playing 6800 yard courses and in fact most would probably cope and enjoy the game much better if they played closer to 6000 yard courses.  So long as there are a handful of long holes - say 460 to 530 then most players should be content with breaking out the fairway woods/long irons say 4 or 5 times - not including par 3s of course.  Even guys that can hit the ball a long way should learn to score properly on short courses before promoting themselves.  The truth is, most would never get promoted!  Finally, talking about yardages can largely be meaningless if the terrain and width of corridors aren't mentioned in the next two sentences.

Ciao

Sean,

Why do you think most men would be happier if they played shorter courses?  Do you really believe that they will score lower...I don't.  Do you think they will be happier getting done sooner...I don't.  I don't get this theory often revealed on this site.  What is your reasoning, and if true, why don't they do it?  Please don't tout the GCA party line that we are smart and they are stupid.

JakaB

Why don't they do it?  Because of peer pressure.  When it comes to tee choice, most male golfers are about as mature as 13 year old boys with a crush on a girl.  Besides, I don't care if fat old bastards or skinny CEO wannabees want to hack about in 97 in 4.5 hours of their time.  I do care if they are on my time - think of Fast Times at Ridgemont High when Spicoli orders a pizza to Mr Hand's History class.  There should be special times (before 7:00am and after 4:00pm) for idiots who can't get a grip on reality when it comes to their golf game. 

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Sean,

I thought our resident hacks had sufficiently proven that how many strokes you take has zero to do with how fast you play.

[Ken Moum]

Abe,
Timely topic as today is "Women's Equality Day".


Is it really possible to cut 2000+ yards off a course and still keep it interesting and enough of a challenge?

I would ask you, "is it possible to have an interesting and challeneging game of golf if you play course with  12-14 holes that cannot be reached in two wood shots?"

My wife is a VERY competitive 13 handicapper, who hits it about 170 off the tee. She hits her nine wood roughly 100 yards in the air

So, for a hole to play as a mid-length par four, it has to be about 270 yards long.

Our home course, which she loves, is 5400 yards from the forward tees, and has ONE hole that she can reach in two with a good drive and an iron or nine-wood shot.

If you made me play a course that required three wood shots on the par fives, and driver-three wood on 90 percent of  of the par fours, I think I'd find another sport.

She's in the top 5% of women's handicaps, and a 5400-yard course so limits the variety of shots and challenges, that this summer she's played a few nines with 6 clubs and has played at or better than her index.

When we travel, she's looking for courses with the forward tees at ~4800 yards. At that length she has some short irons into par fours, can occasionally almost reach a par five in two. In all the game is far more interesting there, than it is pounding fairway woods all day.

For the longer-hitting women, moving back a tee or two is a simple answer.

My mother, who is in her 80s can play with a driver, three wood, chipper, SW and putter. In fact, she pulls out the three wood after her tee shot and doesn't put it away until she's within chipper distance.

Does that sound like interesting golf?

FWIW, until recently she played Mesa CC where the women refused to allow the forward tees to be moved up from 5800 yards.

Ken

[Ken Moum]

What is it exactly about women that makes you guys believe that they need to play tees less than 6000 yds?  I would say it is the hit and giggle mentality that is pushed on women that drive them away from the game more than an occasional failure or two.  I have to say that after two weeks of watching the Olympics that girls kick ass and don't need to be treated like they have near zero talent, strength or athletic ability. 

If the best women in the world compete on courses that are 1,000+ yards shorter than the ones the best men compete on, what's wrong with average women playing a course that's comparatively shorter than the ones average men play?

I am a short-hitting 11 handicap, and I get the most fun out of a course that's ~6,000 yards.

For my 13-handicap wife to have relatively similar challenges and shots into the green, the course needs to be under 5,000 yards.

Ken

[MargaretC]

Abe,

I would concur that most courses have their forward set of tees too far back.  I have copied a link to an article where Alice Dye discusses the issue;

http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2002/nov_dec/move-forward.html

TK

Tyler:

Thank you SO much for this link.  And thank you, Abe, for initiating this thread.

I plan to make lots of copies of the article to circulate among female friends and colleagues who bristle at the thought of moving tees forward.  You'd swear that someone were attempting to take away their right to vote.    No question, women ARE the problem regarding this issue -- it's absurd and this article presents the case for moving the tees forward in a very intelligent manner.  

The average woman will never have the upper body strength and overall strength of an average male.  That's neither good nor bad -- just a basic fact.

For 12 of the last 14 years, I developed a little better than average upper body strength hoisting 6 kids from birth through toddler-hood and now, I'm "over the moon" when I drive 170+ yds.    

Women are definitely their own worst enemies when it comes to any discussion concerning moving the tees forward.    

Meg  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I thought our resident hacks had sufficiently proven that how many strokes you take has zero to do with how fast you play.

JK,

That simply can't be true. If the course length adds a dozen shots a round, at even just 2 minutes per shot its almost a half an hour right there.

You analogy of women olympic athletes to typical female golfers makes about as much sense as us using Tour courses and tee shot length to discuss architecture for our games.  Maybe less.....

[MargaretC]

I thought we were suppose to do away with "Ladies/Woman's" tee in favor of "forward tees"?

Are you Margaret C's better half?

John:

Good to be thought of...    "C" is for Carroll which is my maiden name.  My husband's name is Jack and he'd probably tell you that he's much, much better than a "better half" and, most of the time, I agree!   

[MargaretC]

What is it exactly about women that makes you guys believe that they need to play tees less than 6000 yds?  I would say it is the hit and giggle mentality that is pushed on women that drive them away from the game more than an occasional failure or two.  I have to say that after two weeks of watching the Olympics that girls kick ass and don't need to be treated like they have near zero talent, strength or athletic ability. 

John:

Male or female, the Olympics represent the elite in those sports.  For the most part, those athletes have devoted their lives to creating and fine-tuning a "body machine" targeted for one sport.  But even at that elite level, it would generally be no contest if they were to schedule a co-ed event.   

Men and women are designed differently.  It isn't a character flaw that results in different performance.  It's physiology and chemistry.  It's not a lack of talent or a lack of athletic ability, but the body structure and hormonal differences do impact strength. 

I am regularly having similar discussions with our 12-year-old daughter who worships her 14-year-old brother and his athletic skills.  Bally is athletic and in many ways, more of a natural athlete than her brother, but her focus right now is on the things that she can't do as well.

The bottom line is that women were not designed to match men in upper body and overall strength.  There are certainly exceptions, but on average, women, even highly athletic women will not have the physical strength of their male counterparts.

To me, the article made an intelligent case for where a forward set of tees should be placed.  I have no clue why some women would consider such a placement a personal affront, but some do without having tried it -- go figure?    After reading that article, I'm inclined to think that some women would discover a more strategic game than they are now playing, but old habits die hard.

meg

[John Kavanaugh]

Margaret,

Do you agree with me that young women prefer athletic endeavors to hit and giggles.  I am not saying they should or could play on a level with elite men but I don't understand why the concept of the sport should be different for men than it is for women.  I would rather see a better more responsive ball be developed for women as is done in softball and basketball than a redesign of the field.

[Bill_McBride]

Columbia Edgewater in Portland does something interesting, but I suspect this was initiated by the better lady players.

They have a card that is a mix of red (forward) and yellow (#2) tees with a different course rating and slope.  The better ladies play that course.  The higher handicappers play all red (forward tees).  Sometimes the hybrid tees are red, sometimes yellow.  Somehow they know which to play.

This probably doesn't make every body happy, but it's a good try.

[Daryl David]

That is one thing I have always liked about Tom Doak's courses.  The forward tees offer an interesting shot sometimes with equal strategy to the longer tees. (and yes, I admit sometimes play them ) 

Daryl,

Playing Barnbougle Dunes, I was struck by the location of the forward tee at No. 16. Quite arguably, the best vantage point to be had on the entire course. The glaring anomaly made me more cognizant as to locating forward tees to capture specific views not enjoyed by those playing the back sets.

TK

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Tom D. spent a lot of his early golf playing with him mom.  That might have shaped his attention to this detail.   Perhaps he will chime in on his thoughts about forward tees.

Whatever the reason for the solid forward tee options Doak courses provide, my wife thinks he is the best.  We played a course the other day and when we got to her tee, I heard her grumble: what was the guy that designed this thinking?  The tee was right behind a tree.  All she needed was a quick snap hook an she would be in golden shape.

[MargaretC]

Margaret,

Do you agree with me that young women prefer athletic endeavors to hit and giggles.  I am not saying they should or could play on a level with elite men but I don't understand why the concept of the sport should be different for men than it is for women.  I would rather see a better more responsive ball be developed for women as is done in softball and basketball than a redesign of the field.

John:

To tell you the truth, I never gave a thought to the placement of the forward tees until I read the article that Tyler posted.  I had heard some women I know get upset when the clubs they belong to discussed moving the forward tees. 

Would a re-designed ball for women make-up THAT much difference?

I think the reason many girls and younger women approach athletics differently than some older women is that school systems offer many more competitive sports for girls than in generations past.  IMO, there are some problems with the way Title IX has been implemented, but there is no question that, in general, it has had a very favorable impact on the development of athletics in girls.  For many, this interest has carried-over into adulthood.

That said, I think there will always be a portion of the population (hopefully smaller) for whom golf or another sport will be "hit and giggle" as you describe it.  There's a "hit and giggle" segment of men -- what should I call them?  "hit and scratch?" or "hit and burp"? -- whatever, I played behind a couple of groups this past Saturday.  They took forever and after 4 holes, finally allowed us to play through.  We were sitting on the patio for 30+ minutes before they finished their round and they did not let another group play through. 

Meg

[John Kavanaugh]

To tell you the truth, I never gave a thought to the placement of the forward tees until I read the article that Tyler posted. 

Meg,

Considering you are a thinking woman with an obvious interest in architecture, does the fact that you never gave a thought to the placement of forward tees indicate that for players of the lowest skill levels angles really do not matter.  Isn't the real key to placement of a forward tee where the cart path is at that point?

[Jed Peters]

Kyle Phillips didn't do a very good job with women's tees at my club (Morgan Creek Golf Club) so we had to put another set in the fairways so that ladies can have more fun.

Now, take a Tom Doak, who actually THOUGHT about forward tees at Pac Dunes--I thought some of those forward tees were better/more interesting/fun than the back tees! In fact, one sunny day, with the course to ourselves (December 26th two years ago) we played about 10 holes from the all-the-way-forward tees...and it was still fun!

[Ian_L]

I don't understand why the concept of the sport should be different for men than it is for women.

That's why I'd be in favor of more forward tees.  The average woman's game is very different from ours.  We usually have one or maybe two shots a hole where the general goal is to hit the ball as far as possible in the best possible position.  People who drive the ball 140 yards, on the other hand, may have three or four of these shots on a hole.  Distance control is much less important on a higher proportion of their shots, since they're just hitting it down the fairway.  If the holes were shorter, women would have to put more thought into positioning, leading to a more strategic game.  I have a male friend who's only played about 7 rounds in his life and is shooting around 110-115.  Is this fair to the woman who has played for years and has developed consistency, but is still in this range simply because she cannot get the strength to hit the ball farther?

I remember when I was 12 our opening hole in Chile was a 560-yard par 5. A 9 was a good score for me.  It certainly wasn't the most fun way to start a round...

A longer ball would be nice, but it's unlikely to happen, and even if it did I doubt it would increase distance by 30-40 yards (I could be wrong).

[Jason Topp]

We built a bunch of forward tees at my course pursuant to a master plan.  Three of them are never used because of a vocal set of women do not like them.  They feel driver is taken out of their hands.

A bunch of green committee members think the women are unreasonable.  I'm thinking, its their tees. Why should other, mostly male committees decide whether new forward tees should be built?  Why not let the women decide? 

[MargaretC]

John,

I have been to a few ladies tournaments and they are no where near the athletic ability of men.  Watching ladies play other sports men play and I have come to the same conclusion.  That does not diminish their ability relative to other women, but the men at the higher levels of these sports just simply far exceed the women, and to make statements that seem to elevate them close to men is pandering.  

Daryl is right on, but distance is still a major factor, you can't simply place the tee in a "great position" and still have the majority of women not reach the fairway on the tee shot.

KBM:

Unfortunately, there are some women who can't handle any conversation that identifies the gender-based differences in athletic performance.  As I have said previously, the "difference" isn't that women aren't good at something, physically there are different performance limits for the average female.  That fact should not be viewed as an insult, but some women take it that way.

Meg

[Ian_L]

Why not let the women decide? 

It seems that it's only a small, powerful fraction of women who decide they don't want those tees.  The ones who don't have as much of a say are the ones who would benefit from them.  I've never heard of low-handicap men complaining about senior tees, so I'm not quite sure why women would feel forced to play from more forward tees.

[MargaretC]

Meg,

Considering you are a thinking woman with an obvious interest in architecture, does the fact that you never gave a thought to the placement of forward tees indicate that for players of the lowest skill levels angles really do not matter.  Isn't the real key to placement of a forward tee where the cart path is at that point?

John:

The primary reason I never gave it a thought is that Jack's grandfather introduced me to the game and I played with him at least once every week for 3+ years using the regular tees and senior tees (I didn't know there were red tees).  For more than 2 of those 3 years, I really didn't keep score because he emphasized that it was more important for me to become comfortable on a course; appreciate the layout of different courses and learn the capabilities of the different clubs.  I viewed the strategic aspects of the game through his game.  

Needless to say, I played a different game from the red tees than I did from the white or blue tees.

After reading that article, I think the placement of forward tees may be a significant reason why some female golfers do not develop an appreciation for GCA.  I developed an appreciation for CGA through Grandpa's eyes.  I saw the risk/reward opportunities that an architect designed through his game long before I saw risk/reward in my game.  But because I had seen risk/reward, I was already primed to look for it.  

I honestly don't know how long it would have taken me to develop the same appreciation, if ever, if I started-out without his guidance just struggling to get from tee to green.  Especially for new junior and female golfers, it can be an endurance contest JUST to get to the green and some of the par-3 courses have been dumbed-down so much that there is so little architecture that they might as well add windmills and call it miniature golf.

I think the article raises some very interesting points.  The key, of course, is not just to shorten the course, but to move the tees to a place where it makes strategic sense given the course design.

Meg

[Cory Brown]

Sean makes a great point about most men needing to move up a little.  I'm relatively long off the tee, but I usually have more fun in the 6200-6500 range than I do in the 7000 yard range.  You show me a course where I need to hit fourteen drivers then I'll show you a course that I didn't really enjoy. 

I think this hits on the point Jason makes about the driver being taken out of the ladies hands.  Isn't that a good thing?  For the first time they have the opportunity to stand on a tee and ask themselves what club should I hit here.  I think the best golf holes are ones where you stand on the tee not sure what the best play is, and then once you've hit you think another option would have been better.

[Ken Moum]

We built a bunch of forward tees at my course pursuant to a master plan.  Three of them are never used because of a vocal set of women do not like them.  They feel driver is taken out of their hands.

A bunch of green committee members think the women are unreasonable.  I'm thinking, its their tees. Why should other, mostly male committees decide whether new forward tees should be built?  Why not let the women decide? 

As much as my wife hates over-long golf courses, stupid forward tees that make her lay up short of a hazard with an iron or lofted wood, only to leave an unachievable shot to the green make her even less happy.

The dilemma is that on a lot of courses, you'll see things like ditches, creeks or ponds out there past the landing area. If that's more than 120-130 yards from the green, most average women are straining to get ball to the green from there.

Moving the tee up only means a lot of them will have to lay up of the tee, but they still can't get on in regulation.

Even worse is a hole that plays driver, wedge, three wood, wedge.  This happens when a cross hazard is too far out to cross in two, but not close enough to reach the green in three.

There's a hole just like that at a local public course, and my detests it.

Ken

[W.H. Cosgrove]

My wife is about to give the game up.  Why?  She hits the ball pretty well before she grabs her three wood on EVERY par 4 and goes for the green, after which she grabs her wedge and the fun really begins.

How many of us would still find enjoyment in the game if this were the case?

Interestingly, the Green committee is now attempting to identify some shorter tees to help out on some holes.  There has been resistance to this change.  From whom you ask?  The very women it would help are thinking this is some kind of unfair advantage. 

Sometimes you just scratch your head.

[Kalen Braley]

For the women who hit it relativly long and complain about driver being taken out of thier hand, why not just play back 1 set of tees on those holes?

I've played with a few women over the years who played from the same set of whites as us and they kept up pretty well.