Are there truly similar characteristics of different levels of golfers?

[Adam Clayman]

Two distinct sets of golfers exist. The Game minder and the sportsmen. (Or women).

It's all in how they look at the sport/game and it's fields.

Those who are interested in making their golf easier, or hail the cry of unfair, are likely the game minders. While the sportsman wants to be challenged to the extent of their ability.

George, Sorry if that's not what you intended for an answer, but that's how I read you query.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't know if its me, some sort of new language being invented with a liberal sprinkling of PC or just a load of horseshit, but I can never understand Matt (the man of stock phrases which convey no message), I don't know what the hell Garland is on about with his last post - really - I don't have a clue, and Jim mentions democratic in reference to tees.  Heavy sigh.

Ciao

Perhaps a little confusing. I posted that to the wrong thread. But, it appears Colin enjoyed.

[Jud_T]

The trouble has come from all high handicaps thinking they should reach the greens in regulation and low handicaps thinking they should be challenged to prepare for their state amateur qualifiers...bad mix.

Do you really find many high handicappers who feel they should reach greens in regulation? I sure don't. I find, as a general rule, high handicappers have fewer expectations than all other categories combined. Most of us realize the problem is the Indian, not the arrow!

George,

I disagree somewhat.  I think one of the main issues that keeps high handicappers from scoring better, aside from mechanics and physical ability, is poor course management.  How many times have you seen a 25 hdcp pull a wood when he's got 210 to a green with trouble all around and make a snowman when an 8 iron and a wedge would have taken double out of the equation?

[George Pazin]

How many times have you seen a 25 hdcp pull a wood when he's got 210 to a green with trouble all around and make a snowman when an 8 iron and a wedge would have taken double out of the equation?

Not nearly as many times as I've seen a 25 walk away with double after having a wedge into an unprotected green... (Sean, I think that was the point of Garland's post you said you didn't understand.)

Sure there are folks who don't think. Many of them are high handicappers. But it's more often a choice made simply because they aren't getting out often enough and don't feel like bunting the ball and grinding out the minimum score possible. I myself did this just a month ago while joining a friend for a round at the wonderful Mountain Ridge. We were playing the par 5 6th and I was 220 out in light rough with a massive fairway bunker right in front of me. If I were playing with someone other than a close friend, I probably would have pulled out a 7 iron and bumped it down to wedge range. But I figured, I haven't played in 2 years, I'm going to try a shoot I can pull off, but is unlikely. I didn't pull it off and walked away from the hole with a snowman, but it was not for lack of thinking. I thought about it, just chose otherwise for other reasons. I even mentioned it to my friend before I hit the shot (into the massive fairway bunker...).

Mac -

I agree with your point about short games and putting - and I'd even argue it's the biggest difference between a 5 and a 25. But that's kind of why I bring up the playing characteristics in regards to multiple tees - is that 5th set of tees really helping the 25, even if he plays them? Not in my experience.

[Mac Plumart]

George...you are correct on that.  5 tees are not needed.  I read what was said on this thread about that and have been thinking about it since it was posted.  That is a correct statement.  They are not needed and are a waste.  My club 6 sets of tees...championship golds (7100 yards), mens back (6,800), mens middle (6,500), mens up (6,200), womens back (5,800), and womens up (5,500 I think).  Stupid.  All you need is 3.  Championship (7,100), middle (6,500), and up (5,800). 

[Andy Troeger]

Isn't this really pretty simple?

Scratch and low handicap golfers are fairly consistent in the shots that they hit.

Higher handicap golfers are consistent only in their inconsistency!

Obviously there are still some exceptions to that, but I'd wager that holds true most of the time.

[Kyle Harris]

Isn't this really pretty simple?

Scratch and low handicap golfers are fairly consistent in the shots that they hit.

Higher handicap golfers are consistent only in their inconsistency!

Obviously there are still some exceptions to that, but I'd wager that holds true most of the time.

Andy,

Which shots are the scratch and low handicap golfers hitting? Therein lay the root of the question, I think.

[Adam Clayman]

Multi tees allow for elasticity in golf course set up. In regions where the wind is a large part of the equation, and the corridors are uber wide, the extra looks and angles of a hole can be a very cool thing.

On forested courses, the use of multi tees can seemed forced and will always require an extra walk for one set or another.

[George Pazin]

Isn't this really pretty simple?

Scratch and low handicap golfers are fairly consistent in the shots that they hit.

Higher handicap golfers are consistent only in their inconsistency!

It is the nature of these inconsistencies and consistencies that I wish to explore...

My contention is that most HHers are inconsistent in such a way as to negate virtually all of the supposed solutions of the multiple tee system. In other words, play the right tees has little or no meaning for these folks, at least not in the way intended.

Interesting point on flexibility of setup, Adam. I guess I'd counter it with "Why would you want the setup to be similar day to day?"

[Richard Choi]

I find it ironic that people who claim that par is just a number is so concerned about what everybody else shoots.

Score is just secondary to me. I care more about whether or not I am having fun. I can shoot 100 and have fun and shoot 82 and be bored. Why are we so hung up on numbers?

[George Pazin]

I find it ironic that people who claim that par is just a number is so concerned about what everybody else shoots.

Score is just secondary to me. I care more about whether or not I am having fun. I can shoot 100 and have fun and shoot 82 and be bored. Why are we so hung up on numbers?

I'm not clear on who you're referring to - I doubt most of us care what others shoot, as long as they keep up! - but the purpose of the thread is my continuing examination of a wide variety of golfers in the context of their interaction with architecture...which is a highly euphemistic way of saying "play the right tees" is not the solution, and many designers, particularly many modern designers, don't seem to recognize this.

[Sean_A]

Multi tees allow for elasticity in golf course set up. In regions where the wind is a large part of the equation, and the corridors are uber wide, the extra looks and angles of a hole can be a very cool thing.

On forested courses, the use of multi tees can seemed forced and will always require an extra walk for one set or another.

Adam

I too would rather extra teeing areas concentrate on differing angles rather than added distance.  Unfortunately, we are not yet at this point in modern architecture where angles are truly respected for what they offer.  When f&f is given more than lip service than perhaps this situation in design will change.      

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Is this discussion geared toward different teeing areas on which tee blocks might be placed or on the amount of tee blocks set up for day to day play?

I'd like to advocate less tee blocks for day to day play with more flexibility on where they are set up on different days.

[Carl Johnson]

How is the issue of "golfer characteristics" relevant to multiple tees?  Don't answer that question.  That's the assumption implicit in George's original question.  But how about multiple tees just so players can play a different course from day to day if they wish?  Some days they want to play their game from the back tees.  Other days they'll move up, or way up.  It changes the course.  Now you don't have just one course.  You have multiple courses to play.  Well, you say, only one of those courses could be "ideal" (a valid position but one that I'm not in complete agreement with) . . . and if you're playing a course at something other than it's "ideal" lengh, then you are somehow not playing golf?  Or, you cannot really enjoy your game?  Is that it?  What I'm getting at is that I don't understand the dislike of four or five (or more) sets of tees (apart from the obvious additional expense in maintenance and land use).  The course itself does not care.  If you have the room and the money, why not have four or five sets of tees to give players different options, for whatever reason?  My different tees would create different courses both in terms of length, and as at least one other has noted above, angles.

[George Pazin]

How is the issue of "golfer characteristics" relevant to multiple tees?  Don't answer that question.  That's the assumption implicit in George's original question.  But how about multiple tees just so players can play a different course from day to day if they wish?  Some days they want to play their game from the back tees.  Other days they'll move up, or way up.  It changes the course.  Now you don't have just one course.  You have multiple courses to play.  Well, you say, only one of those courses could be "ideal" (a valid position but one that I'm not in complete agreement with) . . . and if you're playing a course at something other than it's "ideal" lengh, then you are somehow not playing golf?  Or, you cannot really enjoy your game?  Is that it?  What I'm getting at is that I don't understand the dislike of four or five (or more) sets of tees (apart from the obvious additional expense in maintenance and land use).  The course itself does not care.  If you have the room and the money, why not have four or five sets of tees to give players different options, for whatever reason?  My different tees would create different courses both in terms of length, and as at least one other has noted above, angles.

Very interesting post, Carl. You bring up a facet of multiple tees I hadn't really considered; I wonder how many avail themselves of the opportunity to play a different course?

As for your question I highlighted in red, my main dislike is that I believe less interesting architecture often results when the architect can simply say, he didn't play the right tees. It's almost like someone designing a ridiculously hard course and expecting it to play easy if someone plays the 6000 yard tees, or even the flip side, where someone designs a relatively boring course, but says, well, you didn't play it at 7500 yards, so of course you didn't find it interesting.

I think there are some architects out there that understand what it takes to build a challenging, interesting and fun course for almost all levels of golfers, but I suspect too many use multiple tees and think that this is sufficient.

[Sean_A]

Kyel

I was under the assumption that we were talking about tees set out on a dialy basis rather than multiple teeing areas which are designed into the course, but some (maybe most) are not used on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.  I have no issue with more sets of tees if focused on width, but am not terribly keen to see tees built at 7500 or even 7200 yards which is merely a length issue and doesn't really speak to the quality of the design. 

Ciao

[Tim Pitner]

George...you are correct on that.  5 tees are not needed.  I read what was said on this thread about that and have been thinking about it since it was posted.  That is a correct statement.  They are not needed and are a waste.  My club 6 sets of tees...championship golds (7100 yards), mens back (6,800), mens middle (6,500), mens up (6,200), womens back (5,800), and womens up (5,500 I think).  Stupid.  All you need is 3.  Championship (7,100), middle (6,500), and up (5,800). 

Mac,

I like the simplicity of three tees, but why do away with women's up?  Not many women will play at 6500 yards so you're essentially giving men 3 choices and women only one choice. 

[Mac Plumart]

The women have 3 choices as well.   

Tim...I don't know exactly what should be done, but I like three tees only idea for some random and non-scientific reason.  And I am sure I am wrong or at least could be proven wrong or made to look like a fool.

But Tom Doak said something on some thread, I can't recall right now which one (maybe this one), that I thought it was cool.  One tee box per course.  Frankly, this idea would cause a specific type of golfer to congregate at specific courses.  I thought it was unique and true.  BUT of course this has financial ramifications and would never be widely accepted by profit seeking club owners.  But how about no tee boxes at all?  Winner of the hole chooses the teeing area.  I like it!

Back to original idea of 3 tee boxes only.  Maybe some courses would have 7,000, 6,500, and 5,800 while others could have 6,800, 6,000, and 5,500.  This would define who would congregate there to play. 

Just a thought.

[David Camponi]

The men are always thinking about length and how long; rarely do they care about width and angles.

The women on the other hand are concerned about girth and movement and don't care as much about trying different tees; they are more satisfied with a specific set and it can last them forever, although if someone comes along with the perfect width and girth they may reconsider.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But Tom Doak said something on some thread, I can't recall right now which one (maybe this one), that I thought it was cool.  One tee box per course.  Frankly, this idea would cause a specific type of golfer to congregate at specific courses.  I thought it was unique and true.  BUT of course this has financial ramifications and would never be widely accepted by profit seeking club owners.  But how about no tee boxes at all?  Winner of the hole chooses the teeing area.  I like it!
...

I think Tom believes he can provide some interest for all playing from the same box. Why do you think the 2nd ranked modern course tips out at 6633?


Also, he knows you cannot make the hole have the same interest, or "shot values" for everyone by using multiple tee boxes.

I believe the tradition at many UK courses is men's tee, women's tee, and championship tee which is only played in tournaments so it will be in pristine condition. Sounds like a winner to me.