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

[Garland Bayley]

...
 But the notion that, architects accommodating more with shorter teeing grounds is a shortcoming, is not only wrong. It is  agin the inclusive nature of public golf and should only be considered for private venues, or, people with sticks crammed up their arses.

But yet this website continues to rant about golfers not moving forward.

Adam,

Where is your survey showing that a significant majority of people playing golf want to move up to the shorter tees?

If you want to walk forward and stick a peg in the ground, no one is going to stop you because there is no teeing ground there.

[John Moore II]

Since are on the issue of rating courses, how does the course rating formula work exactly? I played a course today in Alaska, basically as sea level (not more than 100ft elevation) that was 7325 yards. The course rating was 78.0 and the slope was 142. I can understand the slope rating, but I just don't get the course rating. Based on how I played, I just can't see 'par' being 78 for a scratch player. I shot 87 and played like pure garbage, sprayed the ball all over the place. I would have shot not much better on a course 6800 yards with a course rating of 70 or something. I just don't see how the rating for someone who hits the ball straight 95% of the time and aught to be a fair striker with the irons can be 6 shots over par. Yes, the course is very long, but it has quite receptive greens and not much trouble so long as you know distances. Please tell me how courses are rated. Thanks.

Oh, and to make sure this is architecture related, the course was mostly walkable, they only long walks were necessary because of a creek that bisects the course and I felt the course was very well designed. I have played 6900 yard courses that I felt were backbreakers and I played this 7300 yard course today that I felt could be a legitimate cupcake it I played good golf. I just didn't see what made it so tough, but overall it was a very well designed course.

[Adam Clayman]

Garland, I have no study, but I do have a boat load of experiences that contradict your edict.  It was the sensible geriatrics I played with today that allowed me to join them that gave me the opportunity. Plus, I really like playing, or having the option to play, forward. i.e. First time at Dismal River. After hearing about how difficult I wanted to play a 6k course. Couldn't 5600, 6600, or 7600. I don't play composites cause I'm not as smart as Sheila Lang

What's the big deal with how many people want to move forward? Isn't one enough?

Allowing fools to play beyond their means is a not a good thing for all those who follow them.

[Garland Bayley]

...
What's the big deal with how many people want to move forward? Isn't one enough?

Allowing fools to play beyond their means is a not a good thing for all those who follow them.

Nope, one isn't enough. That one person can just walk forward and stick a peg in the ground.

I strongly disagree with you about playing "beyond their means". The exception is courses that require longer and longer forced carries the further back you go. However, I suspect many that otherwise wouldn't, would move up under those conditions. I strongly suggest that slow play has very little to do with playing beyond one means, and has very much to do with individual character. How else can the highest handicap be one of the fastest players at KP, for example?

[George Pazin]

My problem with the multiple tee theory is not that it doesn't help some people. It's that I don't feel it accomplishes it's primary goal; I think shows a very limited understanding of how people of all levels play the game.

I think JKM's post highlights that rather nicely. Thanks, John!

[jonathan_becker]

George,

I've been reading this thread from the start and have to chuckle at my current dilemma.  I am currently recovering from a second surgery to repair a completely detached left labrum.  The surgery was in february, and I am cleared to finally start hitting some short irons at the beginning of next week. 

So, because I just can't start swinging my driver at 120mph and expect my shoulder to feel fine, I am going to have to play sans woods and long irons for a few weeks until I get readjusted to striking a golf ball.  Consequently, it has been suggested by my surgeon that I play from the ladies tees to start.....which at my home course happen to be 5191! Only one yard short of being ludicrous!    It's really the only way I'll be able to hit all the greens in regulation.

Seriously though, I agree with what you are saying, and as a scratch player, I am looking to do some serious damage with my 5 iron down!

[George Pazin]

Consequently, it has been suggested by my surgeon that I play from the ladies tees to start.....which at my home course happen to be 5191! Only one yard short of being ludicrous! 

Sleep easy, that one yard makes all the difference!

Heal quickly.

[Garland Bayley]

Consequently, it has been suggested by my surgeon that I play from the ladies tees to start.....which at my home course happen to be 5191! Only one yard short of being ludicrous! 

Sleep easy, that one yard makes all the difference!

Heal quickly.

AHEM. that one yard is beyond ludicrous!
 

[jonathan_becker]

Consequently, it has been suggested by my surgeon that I play from the ladies tees to start.....which at my home course happen to be 5191! Only one yard short of being ludicrous! 

Sleep easy, that one yard makes all the difference!

Heal quickly.

AHEM. that one yard is beyond ludicrous!

Haha....I stand corrected.    I noticed that too after I posted.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

The course rating formula is HEAVILY weighted towards length, and no longer matches anything like reality because the distances assumed for scratch golfers are woefully out of date.  But I guess the problem is, how do you update them?  If the USGA decided that instead of 250 yards for a tee shot and 220 for a second shot they'd now use 275 yards for the tee shot and 240 yards for the second shot, that would require re-rating every single course.  Kind of a big job.  Dunno how they'd handle the transition while some courses were rated under the old standard and some under the new, maybe we'd keep using the old system until all courses had been rated under the new one.

Everyone's handicap would go up by several strokes.  While it would seriously reduce the ludicrous number of plus handicaps now floating around, it would probably also annoy a lot of the average USGA members who could potentially think twice about renewing their membership if the single digit handicap they were proud of become double digit, or the guys in the mid teens become worse than "bogey" (18+)