"Play the appropriate tees" aka "5192 is ludicrous!"

[George Pazin]

There is an interesting ongoing debate on here about playability. I'd like to specifically address the notion that many courses become "playable" for the high or even mid handicapper simply by playing the appropriate tees.

I personally believe that this is a very one-dimensional look at a multi-dimensional problem. It seems as though the only concern for people espousing this belief is that by stepping up - or waaaaaaaay up - the "appropriate" tee removes the dreaded forced carry off the tee. In my experience - both playing and observing others - the tee shot is far from the most challenging aspect for HHers and MHers (mid-handicappers), at least in the sense of playability. Length is not an issue for many or even most of us, it is simply consistency from shot to shot. I can follow up a 270 yard dead down the middle drive with a frighteningly bad wedge shot with alarming regularity, and judging from what I've observed from other golfers - even solid 10 handicappers! - I'm not alone in this regard.

In many ways, playing from shorter tees doesn't help me at all. For example, I played Tobacco Road many years ago (it's what drove me to this site, actually), and they had recommended tees for your handicap level. My recommended level was the second set, and my wife was with me - her first and only golf experience was playing TR, if you can believe that - so I decided to start off playing the forward most set of tees with her. The result was I couldn't tee off with more than an 8 iron or I was hitting into hazards. I ended up moving back throughout the round till I was playing the tips by the 18th (though that was really just for fun to try to make the carry on the 18th - took two whacks to do it).

Lastly, while I don't wish to turn this into a mudslinging battle on specific courses, I will simply say that it's hard for me to consider a course great or even enjoyably playable for HHers if you have to recommend they play the course from 5500 yards. As Garland said, "5192 is ludicrous!" (obviously not meaning for those who gender or age precludes hitting the ball more than 75 yards in the air).

My own belief is that the notion of "let's just throw in a few shorter tees for the lesser golfers" is simplistic at best, misguided in practice, and downright misleading and fraudulent at worst!

Have at it...

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I'd say that it's true for you, and likely Garland, that 5192 is indeed ludicrous.

But my experience playing this game for 30+ years (and in fact BEING a high 'capper for many of those first years) is that you two (higher 'cappers who can hit the ball far and thus have relatively not much difficulty with forced carries) are the exception, by a rather large margin.  That is, most truly high cappers DO have trouble getting the ball in the air consistently; and thus would indeed benefit from eliminating forced carries and/or playing shorter tees.

One thing is very true, in any case:  it is very one-dimensional and inaccurate to make this one size fits all... that is ALL higher 'cappers must play from shorter tees lest suffer.  I'd say it helps for most, but certainly not all... guys like George and Garland I suppose would benefit from more width and would find 5192 tees indeed ludicrous.

TH

[JC Jones]

I can tell you that while I used to be a single digit handicapper, I now will shoot between 90-95.  I regularly, however, hit my drives north of 270 yards; just very rarely are they in the right direction.  I also have the touch of a backhoe around the greens.

[Bob_Huntley]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

In my next outing from 6500 yards I shot 91.

The most unfortunate thing is that when playing with 'the boys,' our inflated egos prevent us from using the appropriate tees.


Bob

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

Fantastic Bob... That's one of my favourite chapters in Tom Simpson's book - the one he talks elusively about being able to beat your age.

Only time you've done it or is this a regular occurance?

[Garland Bayley]

George:
...
But my experience playing this game for 30+ years (and in fact BEING a high 'capper for many of those first years) is that you two (higher 'cappers who can hit the ball far and thus have relatively not much difficulty with forced carries) are the exception, by a rather large margin.  That is, most truly high cappers DO have trouble getting the ball in the air consistently; and thus would indeed benefit from eliminating forced carries and/or playing shorter tees.
...
TH

Tom, Tom, Tom! Tisk, Tisk, Tisk!  I don't know what high handicappers you are talking about, but I regularly play with > 20 handicappers like myself, and those that would have consistent trouble with forced carries you might get at 6300 yards are few and far, far, far between.

Perhaps the difference is that I play with people who regularly play golf, and perhaps you play with the once or twice a year types at the local muni.

[Bob_Huntley]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

Fantastic Bob... That's one of my favourite chapters in Tom Simpson's book - the one he talks elusively about being able to beat your age.

Only time you've done it or is this a regular occurance?

Ally,

The first time was in 1971, again in 1976 with the help of a hole in one, and the last was the one mentioned above.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

I have played with all types over many years of play, at all different places.  I have also been a high handicapper myself.

My response stands.

You must play with guys that win a lot of money playing net.

 

[PCCraig]

It's an interesting idea, and alot of it has to do with how long someone hits the ball and the amount of loft the golfer can use in hitting towards greens.

My fiance is a pretty good golfer, hits her drives +/- 200 yards, but dead straight. Her problem comes when playing holes that require a forced carry to the green being either bunkers, water, or rough and having to hit a longer club into the green. If a shorter tee allows her to get closer and use a shorter iron, she can do it then.

I think a lot of higher handicap men are the same way.

[Charlie Goerges]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

Fantastic Bob... That's one of my favourite chapters in Tom Simpson's book - the one he talks elusively about being able to beat your age.

Only time you've done it or is this a regular occurance?

Ally,

The first time was in 1971, again in 1976 with the help of a hole in one, and the last was the one mentioned above.

Bob

We'll have to start calling you "Mr. 41"!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

Fantastic Bob... That's one of my favourite chapters in Tom Simpson's book - the one he talks elusively about being able to beat your age.

Only time you've done it or is this a regular occurance?

Ally,

The first time was in 1971, again in 1976 with the help of a hole in one, and the last was the one mentioned above.

Bob

Excuse me Bob... You were 41 years old in 1971!... Do you mean 2001 and 2006?... Either way, excellent stuff

[John Moore II]

I agree, I don't think length is the key issue for all golfers. I played this past Friday (3rd time this year, mind you) and played from the 'mens' tee. It was 6700 yards roughly. I shot 81, and was very pleased, hit a fair number of top quality shots. But the fellow I played with hit it fairly good off the tee (big banana slice, but good distance and fair control) and hit it decent with the irons, and wound up taking 2 chips and 2 or 3 putts on every green. He could have played decent golf from the back tees and would not have played much better from the next tees up from where we played.

However, I hit some loose shots and would have played 5 or 6 shots better from the next up tees and likely 5 or 6 shots worse from the back tees.

For some people, tee selection can make a difference while for others it amounts to nearly nothing.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob H - I know that, as my mother used to say, "we all have to eat our own bread" -- but I hope you take some pride in carding a 91 on a 6,500 yard course. I'd guess that, on the vast majority of days, that would beat the vast majority of golfers who've ever lived (especially if they were counting their shots honestly, and according to the rules).  

George - I think the "golfing IQ" idea from the other thread ties in nicely here. Only at 5100 yards would my talent, such as it is, off-set my fence-post-like golfing IQ.

Peter

[Bob_Huntley]

I am afraid I must disagree.

Due to a rich history of orthopaedic injuries and creaky joints I had, for some months, a hard time breaking 90. I was 79 on January 8, 2009. On January 9th, I hosted a lady guest on the Shore Course. To be companionable, I suggested that I join her on the forward tees. Being able to reach par fours with a medium or short iron did wonders for my game, I shot 78, beating my age by a shot. 

Fantastic Bob... That's one of my favourite chapters in Tom Simpson's book - the one he talks elusively about being able to beat your age.

Only time you've done it or is this a regular occurance?

Ally,

The first time was in 1971, again in 1976 with the help of a hole in one, and the last was the one mentioned above.

Bob

Ally,

I forgot onein 2005. Playing the forward tees at Sand Hills in the afternoon with Christian Greco,Tom Huckaby and Neil Regan. As I was surrounded
at dinner by some big hitters, I didn't make too much fuss about it as I am sure they would have smirked at some dud claiming kudos for playing off the 5800 yard tees.

Bob

[Sean_A]

The telling thing about all of this is that the problem seems to exist on newish courses.  I can name uncountable numbers of classic courses where this issue isn't an issue and where relatively few tees exist - and I am not talking about run of the mill courses either!  IMO, this is a design problem of modern golf.  How to make a course 7000+ yards AND a challenge plus playable for older folks etc?  Archies are trying to be all things to all golfers and in the process they are creating a lot of BLAH.  I know its not an easy task and I posit that very, very, very few courses pull this off successfully.  If we went back to well designed courses of 6500 yards tops (probably more like 6300 yards) and reduced par, things would be one heck of a lot easier, cheaper and more fun. I have no idea why guys want to go back further when they don't have the skills to break 80 consistently from forward tees.  I spose the idea of length is so ingrained that even normally reasonable people will do stupid stuff in their leisure time. 

Ciao

[Bob_Huntley]

Oops,

2001 and 2006.

Whoever said it was the legs that are the first to go was wrong.... it's the little grey cells.

Bob

[Dale_McCallon]

George,

Interesting that you bring up TR in your post.  I played there last week with a high handicapper who felt that we would be "cheating" if we moved up too much.  So we play the first 6 holes from the 6300 yard tees and he is about 10 or 11 over.  We hook up with a single who was playing from the 6000 yard tees and start playing from there.  Suddenly the visual intimidation didn't bother my buddy as much; and obviously the course was more playable with short irons in his hand instead of long irons.  

[Lou_Duran]

George,

Most high handicappers I've played with not affected by age or injury seldom hit the ball on the center of the club with a relatively squared face.  There are some that can hit the ball a long ways on the occasions when they do find the sweet spot, but typically that's not the case because the same swing mechanics that causes the face to come in at varying angles also result in suboptimal clubhead speed.

I too don't like really short tees, say 6,200 yards and under at sea level.  I can hit my drives consistently 230 -240 yards with some variation in direction, and occasionally can get them out to 270+.  I can play most courses in the 6,700 to 7,000 range comfortably, particularly if the fairways are wide or the rough is not too penal.  I prefer playing the back tees at most courses even though I may shoot higher scores simply because I always have and I am a bit stubborn (I like the sometimes cited reason of playing the whole course and not a dumbdowned version of it).

I regret that many golfers are unwilling to play different tees within the same group, and instead acquiesce to hit from a set that does not suit their ability or preference.  Playing with better players has always helped my game, and though golf is played at our level primarily for social reasons, I think that for most of us, one of the endearing qualities of golf is the hope for improvement.

We often hear of the ideal course as one which should test and be pleasurable for the expert as well as the indifferent player.  While I think that this is generally impossible, a variety of tees set at varying distances and angles provide the best opportunity of accomplishing this objective.  Choosing the correct tees- not necessarily as a set as course setup is often an afterthought at many courses- is the key.  Differences in the short game skills of high and low handicap players are also substantial, but next to impossible to allow for in gca or setup.

[Garland Bayley]

George actually doesn't understand why I think 5192 is ludicrous. And, Tom will dismiss me with are you going to bring that old war up again?

I think 5192 is ludicrous, because golf is a walking game. 5192 is the bright invention of the Golf Course Architects of America to "accomdate" weaker players. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be bright enough to understand that they are undermining the game. The people that rejoice at 5192 yard tees are riding around in carts destroying golf courses, and not paying the penalty of having to spend greater than 1/4 of their time walking for no purpose other than to transition from green to tee.

Like him or not Melvyn Morrow has put forth very good arguments about how golf is a battle between oneself and nature and its weather elements. Well guess what, the GCAA recommends you skip 1/4 of the battle. I posted a essay be Andrew Grieg about how riding a cart on a golf course is only playing at golf. The out crys by Tom and others were amazing! You would have thought I had insulted their mothers!

Another, shortcoming of the multiple tee advocates is that you can't build holes that hold up stategically with multiple tees, so building the tees and creating a separate maintenace regimen is just needlessly adding to the cost of the course. Or putting in extra bunkers to try (probably in vain) to make the strategy applicable to more tees is adding to the cost of the course.

I understand what Sir Bob is saying. However, 95% of all golfers have no prayer of ever shooting their age. Not even from the forward tees. So again more expense for limited gain. There are executive golf courses measuring in the range of 5192 that can be played without facilitating the cart culture on great golf courses.

[Bob_Huntley]

I regret that many golfers are unwilling to play different tees within the same group, and instead acquiesce to hit from a set that does not suit their ability or preference.  

Lou,

We have started to do that here.

I play regularly with a couple of chaps who are very long, sometime as much as a hundred yards in front of me.Tiring of trying to bust a gut with a fairway wood to a par four, I moved up a tee. We have a reasonably competitive game, they are happy in their machoism and I am happy in my wimpism and the money flows in the same direction.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
No offense, but this is another of those topics that's more overwrought than Bethpage Black's bunkers. 

I know a lot of high handicap players and they are smart enough to find the set of tees that suits their length, short or long, and they're also smart enough to avoid courses that put too much pressure on their games, good or bad.



 

[Tom Huckaby]

Methinks you take this a bit too far, Garland.  Regarding the "playing golf with carts sucks" battle again, I doubt I ever out cried as if you were insulting my mother.. My take there is, has been, always shall be live and let live.  That is those who say it's not golf, carts should never be allowed, etc. are just a bit too extreme for my tastes.

So yes, I am afraid a dismissal of that is all you're gonna get from me.  You must really enjoy beating dead horses.

 

Regarding what George is talking about, however, I believe John K. Moore summed it up perfectly, as such:

"For some people, tee selection can make a difference while for others it amounts to nearly nothing."

As for how many fall on each side, we can agree to disagree.. it really doesn't matter.  The point that I take from George's topic here is that it's silly to say ALL HIGH HANDICAPPERS MUST MOVE UP.  That is indeed silly.  This will help some get more enjoyment, but will do nothing for others.

TH


ps - that fateful day I briefly met you, you may have noticed that I walked... in that heat and 5:40 round.  Be careful how you pigeonhole... 

[Bill_McBride]

Garland, if you think 5192 yards is ludicrous, get thee to England's Cotswolds and play Painswick at 4818 yards par 67.  It's positively Painswickian in its quirkiness.

Green sites that are protected by bunkering, contours, size, whatever, can definitely make up for raw length in a golf course.  Nothing is less appetizing to me than a series of long par 4s I can't reach, that's why short par 4s are so much fun and interesting.

[Bill_McBride]

I regret that many golfers are unwilling to play different tees within the same group, and instead acquiesce to hit from a set that does not suit their ability or preference.  

Lou,

We have started to do that here.

I play regularly with a couple of chaps who are very long, sometime as much as a hundred yards in front of me.Tiring of trying to bust a gut with a fairway wood to a par four, I moved up a tee. We have a reasonably competitive game, they are happy in their machoism and I am happy in my wimpism and the money flows in the same direction.

Bob

".,...the money flows in the same direction."

From what I've heard, that is mostly toward Mr. Huntley's pockets.   

[George Pazin]

Regarding what George is talking about, however, I believe John K. Moore summed it up perfectly, as such:

"For some people, tee selection can make a difference while for others it amounts to nearly nothing."

As for how many fall on each side, we can agree to disagree.. it really doesn't matter.  The point that I take from George's topic here is that it's silly to say ALL HIGH HANDICAPPERS MUST MOVE UP.  That is indeed silly.  This will help some get more enjoyment, but will do nothing for others.

This is indeed the main thrust of my point. For that reason, I think it is silly to simply say "Play the appropriate tees" when one questions a course's suitability for HHers.

One pet peeve: Most posters seem to conflate HHers with beginners. There are plenty of us who can hit the ball airborne damn near all the time, we simply lack the consistency that comes with frequent play to score well. Shooting 100 rarely means you are struggling to get the ball airborne. Shooting in the 90s means one extra shot per hole - maybe a chip and 2 putt instead of 1 putt, maybe 3 putting instead of 2, etc. One of my biggest eye-opening rounds was when I got placed with a threesome of guys, one of whom shot in the 70s, the other two in the 80s. I was much longer than all three, and the gentleman who shot in the 70s was the shortest hitting by quite a bit (also the straightest and best chipper/putter, no surprise he could score well). It just amplified to me the shortcomings of the multiple tee theory.

Apologies, Jim K, if you feel this is rehashing tired material. I will continue to rehash this as long as folks respond to course criticism with "Play the appropriate tees".