Why "Tee it Forward" is the antithesis of "the Golfe"

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

Suffice it to say your experience and observations are far, far different than mine. If you are basing your observations on playing in a "few" scrambles, your sample size is very, very small.

I would be interesting in the "source please" for the research you refer to regarding whether high-handicaps should work on improving their short or long games. Jim Flick has written that the weakest shot for most high-handicappers is a 40-yard pitch shot. It certainly is for me.

DT

[Kalen Braley]

Just because I've been used as the poster child on this thread, I'll chime in....

I think personal experience can be discounted for the most part.  For example, if all ones "personal experience" is playing with Tour pros, they will have a very warped opinion of actual reality for 99.999% of golfers

That being said, while putting is generally the best part of my game, I've yet to play with any true low capper (actual 4 or below, as opposed to those who claim to be low but obviously aren't), who didn't have a much better short game than me...including putting.  And they had better long game and better game with irons.

The biggest misconception about us higher cappers is that we hit crappy shots all the time....which just isn't true.  Almost every time I go out I play several holes very well and get several pars per round and even the occasional birdie.  The bigger problem is, instead of limiting those "other" holes to bogeys...I rack up 3-4 double bogeys and a triple.  So right there is the difference between shooting a 79 and a 89.  I can hit a nice drive and have a easy 7 iron in, lay sod over the ball, just miss the green with my wedge, and then fail to get it up and down after missing the 5 footer to save bogey...and voila you have a double with only one "awful" shot.

[Garland Bayley]

While looking on Golf Digest site to see if I could come up with the article on research I remembered, I came across making golf fun.

Barney Adams TIF made #11, slightly beating out improve your wardrobe.

Seems I'm not the only one to think medal play may be a bit of a problem.

4. THROW OUT THE SCORECARD
The no. 1 thing I do to make the game more fun is to stop keeping score. I'm so results-obsessed that it's very therapeutic for me to throw away that little pencil and rip up the scorecard on the first tee. It takes a lot of will to do it--and during the round, I constantly have to stop myself from adding strokes over par in my head. But once I get there mentally, it completely liberates my game, which is crazy fun. --Stina Sternberg

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-01/fun-issue-18-ways#ixzz1pJ98xAgJ
9. SAY GOODBYE TO STROKE PLAY
When i joined a golf club last spring, I was ecstatic about taking up the game again after several years away from it. But within just a few weeks, the monotony of stroke play began to wear on me. I wasn't improving as fast as I'd hoped, and the holes became a blur of bogey, double bogey, a par ("whooo!"), triple bogey. Luckily the 18-hole women's group at my new club reached out to me. Their inclusion, encouragement, humor and, most important, their many different formats, put the fun back into golf for me. We played Two-Ball, Four-Ball, Sixes, Team Match Play, Stableford, the Callaway System (who knew?) and countless others. The Pinehurst/Chapman format was my favorite. You and your teammate switch balls after the tee shot, pick the better ball after your second shots, and play alternate shot until that ball is holed.

I love the way you become a team after that first shot, strategizing together, helping recover from your partner's bad shot, or being the hero. The truth is, I enjoyed them all. Each format emphasized a different goal or aspect of the game, introduced me to new and different playing partners, and not least, offered escape from golf's inevitable subtext: The Imperfect Self. --Susan Reed

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-01/fun-issue-18-ways#ixzz1pJ9T1wR5
11. MOVE UP A SET OF TEES
One day after hitting my usual four greens in regulation, two of them with hybrids, I did a little research online. I learned the average tour player hits his driver almost 300 yards, and the average amateur maybe 240. On top of that, the tour player hits his irons 20 yards longer than the amateur. So let's assume your course has 10 par 4s. At 60 yards a drive and 20 yards an iron, the tour player has 800 yards on you. Throw in the par 5s and par 3s, and we easily get to 1,200 yards or more. If you play from 6,700-yard tees, this is the equivalent of the tour pro playing from roughly 8,000 yards. Guess what: He wouldn't, and neither should you. Try the 6,200-yard tees, play faster and have more fun. That unusual score? It's called a birdie. --Barney Adams, founder of Adams Golf

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-01/fun-issue-18-ways#ixzz1pJ9abkyX

[Joe Stansell]

Garland:

I don't think anybody is arguing with you that match play is a preferred alternative to medal play, or for that matter a better solution than TIF for promoting enjoyment of the game. But that doesn't mean that TIF takes the game in the wrong direction. There is room for both TIF and match play. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

I don't think anybody is arguing with you that match play is a preferred alternative to medal play, or for that matter a better solution than TIF for promoting enjoyment of the game. But that doesn't mean that TIF takes the game in the wrong direction. There is room for both TIF and match play. 

Well you see there is only room for both if the player walks forward and sticks a peg in the ground at a suitable location and plays from there. Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
It all falls apart for me because no one will pay the fees at the average course and not play every hole to its conclusion. They may be playing a fourball and let their partner cover for them if they've doused a couple of balls, but that's about it.

The better idea is playing from tees that suit your game, an idea that all women appreciate, along with some men. More players will have more fun if the suggestion of playing it like the pros is taken up by them, plain and simple (you are free to exclude yourself).

They may end up liking the 'new' game so much that they end up taking a season pass at their local muni/public or even join a private, where they'll end up having more chances to play at match, not medal.
  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
It all falls apart for me because no one will pay the fees at the average course and not play every hole to its conclusion. ...
  

I guess you haven't seen Anthony Gray play golf!

[Joe Stansell]

Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

I happen to think Chambers Bay, as one example, is a brilliant course. I wouldn't want to play it if the one and only tee were "teal." Are you saying that Chambers Bay is a "bad course" because it has tee choices other than teal?

[Garland Bayley]

Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

I happen to think Chambers Bay, as one example, is a brilliant course. I wouldn't want to play it if the one and only tee were "teal." Are you saying that Chambers Bay is a "bad course" because it has tee choices other than teal?

I'm saying the PGA didn't develop TIF for tour pros. They developed it to move people from blue to sand, or from sand to white. Do any of the favored architects here typically go out and even create tees equivalent to Teal? That is just not part of the conversation.

The problem is that they seem to have put so little thought into their recommendations that they would be moving people that can play blue decently forward to white.

[Joe Stansell]

This I agree with:

The problem is that they seem to have put so little thought into their recommendations that they would be moving people that can play blue decently forward to white.

This I don't:

Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

I just put down my copy of Tom Doak's The Anatomy of a Golf Course where he acknowledges the need for multiple sets of tees in the modern game (see Chapter 8, page 120) and yet urges course design so that it is challenging for players of all abilities, regardless of tee used (pages 121-122).

I'll just end my participation in this thread by saying that I agree with Tom.

[Carl Nichols]

I don't know what you fully intended, but the way it is written it seems to imply that time is directly proportional to score. I have evidence it is inversely proportional, as I can shoot 100 for 18 and play it in 2 hours walking. I have to wonder why it takes you so long to shoot 72.

Garland,
I am curious to know under what circumstances it took you only 2 hours to walk and shoot what I understand is a pretty average score for you.  I play very fast, and playing a real course in 2 hours (walking) is absolutely flying. It's also, IMHO, not very fun.

[Dan King]

Carl Nichols writes:
I am curious to know under what circumstances it took you only 2 hours to walk and shoot what I understand is a pretty average score for you.  I play very fast, and playing a real course in 2 hours (walking) is absolutely flying. It's also, IMHO, not very fun.

It depends on the course, but an average course is about 5 miles of walking. A casual walking speed is about 3 mph. That leaves 20 minutes for the shots. With 100 shots that would be about 20 seconds per shot. This doesn't take into account lost balls, playing partners, conversation, etc... but that can all be fit into the equation by picking up the walking pace.

A two-hour round is a ton of fun.

A wee bit of a cautionary tale about this thread. Years ago I dumped the card and pencil. Then I started reducing the number of clubs I brought to the golf course. By the time I got down to zero clubs it seemed silly to continue to pay green fees. I now play golf completely in my head -- but the weird thing is I seem to have returned to card & pencil. Stranger still my scores have not improved over the olden days.

Cheers,
Dan King

Oh golf is for smellin' heather and cut grass and walkin fast across the countryside and feelin' the wind and watchin' the sun go down and seein' yer friends hit good shots and hittin' some yerself. It's love and feelin' the splendor o' the good world.
 --Agatha McNaughton

[Carl Nichols]

Dan-
It would actually be just 12 seconds per shot, but I get that you're estimating. Also, I'm not saying that a 2-hour walking round isn't possible.  I just think that a lot of people who say they've played in 2 hours really haven't, and I also think one has to sacrifice a lot of things I enjoy about the game to play that fast.

[Steve Lang]

  a long time ago I played golf in about 2 hours, muni course outside of minneapolis.. three guys I got paired up with were very animated and a riot..  defeated the govenor with a gatorade bottle wedged in into linkage.. had to watch out for whiplash on starts, literally flew around the coarse..

no about this TIF anti-thesis stuff, shouldn't all golfers really be trying to move back tees?

[Sean_A]

Dan-
It would actually be just 12 seconds per shot, but I get that you're estimating. Also, I'm not saying that a 2-hour walking round isn't possible.  I just think that a lot of people who say they've played in 2 hours really haven't, and I also think one has to sacrifice a lot of things I enjoy about the game to play that fast.

Carl

I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

I happen to think Chambers Bay, as one example, is a brilliant course. I wouldn't want to play it if the one and only tee were "teal." Are you saying that Chambers Bay is a "bad course" because it has tee choices other than teal?

I'm saying the PGA didn't develop TIF for tour pros. They developed it to move people from blue to sand, or from sand to white. Do any of the favored architects here typically go out and even create tees equivalent to Teal? That is just not part of the conversation.

The problem is that they seem to have put so little thought into their recommendations that they would be moving people that can play blue decently forward to white.

I didn't realize that golfers were being "moved".  I thought they were TIF'ing of their own accord.  Knowing that it isn't about enjoying the game more, but is instead mandatory program being imposed on us, changes everything for me.

Garland, I will join you in the resistance.  The very first time I am ordered to play a course from a yardage that I am capable of playing, I will assert my God-given right to move back until I can find a set of tees that render me completely incompetent as a golfer, and I will insist on having zero fun as I do it.

Thank you for making it clear at last.

One other question: Who shot Kennedy?  Castro or the Mob?

[Kalen Braley]

I've played a few rounds at 3 hours when my buddy and I are the 1st ones out on a summer morning...

....and even at 3 hours, you are moving along pretty quickly.  Playing 18 regulation in 2 hours does not sound enjoyable as it'd be a massive rush on each shot.

[Dan King]

Sean Arble writes:
I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

In a two-hour round of golf, you have two hours to think, not 12 seconds. In the past, when people were much more considerate of people trying to play at a reasonable pace behind them, golfers would spend the time walking to their ball thinking. It now has become many golfers don't even start thinking about their shot until they get to their ball. This is a problem.

Carl, thanks for the correction of my math skills.

Nobody is saying that pace is ideal for everyone. But as I said, you only have that amount of time to hit the shot if you walk at a rather leisurely 3 mph pace. If you want to take a bit more time to stand over your shot all you have to do is pick up the pace.

Golfers have accepted 4 ½-5 hour rounds as reasonable and every decade or so the pace of a reasonable round goes up ½ an hour. 

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more fun than walking naked in a strange place, but not much.
 --Buddy Hackett

[A.G._Crockett]

Sean Arble writes:
I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

In a two-hour round of golf, you have two hours to think, not 12 seconds. In the past, when people were much more considerate of people trying to play at a reasonable pace behind them, golfers would spend the time walking to their ball thinking. It now has become many golfers don't even start thinking about their shot until they get to their ball. This is a problem.

Carl, thanks for the correction of my math skills.

Nobody is saying that pace is ideal for everyone. But as I said, you only have that amount of time to hit the shot if you walk at a rather leisurely 3 mph pace. If you want to take a bit more time to stand over your shot all you have to do is pick up the pace.

Golfers have accepted 4 ½-5 hour rounds as reasonable and every decade or so the pace of a reasonable round goes up ½ an hour. 

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more fun than walking naked in a strange place, but not much.
 --Buddy Hackett

Dan,
I've been a member at 4 different clubs over the past 30 years, and none of them have accepted 5 hrs. as a reasonable pace of play.  Slightly over 4 hrs. is the highest I've ever seen, and that has been made clear to the membership.

I just got in from playing; second tee time of the morning, 4 of us (all single-digit handicappers) walking a hilly 7000 yd. course with 4 or 5 substantial green-to-tee walks.  The foursome in carts behind us never came close to catching us, and it took us 3:20 to play.  We don't look for lost balls, we pick up when out of the hole, we play ready golf, and we give putts in the leather.  I don't think it is realistic to hope for much faster than that.

I've walked 18 by myself in as little as 2:45, but any faster than that feels silly and isn't much fun.  If you are hoping for golf to be played by groups in under 3 hrs., you will be constantly disappointed, I fear.

[Jim_Kennedy]

While looking on Golf Digest site to see if I could come up with the article on research I remembered, I came across making golf fun.
Seems I'm not the only one to think medal play may be a bit of a problem.

9. SAY GOODBYE TO STROKE PLAY
When i joined a golf club last spring,

There you are. Match play will never be the format of choice at public courses, and there's no sense wasting time trying to re-educate the golfing public to it. Better to move them forward so they'll enjoy themseves more, play more quickly, and perhaps become 'core' golfers in the bargain.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think the whole idea of match play being faster than stroke play is a bit of a fallacy anyway, isn't it?

Granted, a player will pick up when the hole is lost, and putts are conceded.  But many, many stroke play golfers do those very same things, plus many play ready golf stroke play, which would be much less likely to be the case in match play for strategic reasons.

Without doubt, four ball stroke play tournaments have been the slowest rounds that I have ever played.  But I've played a lot of foursomes match play that have been awfully slow as teammates read putts for each other, discuss strategy, etc.  I haven't found that to be especially quicker.

Fast golf, as has been discussed here a million times is primarily about two things:
    1. The individual habits and attitudes of golfers (regardless of the format of play)
    2. Management of the course, such as keeping tee times properly spread and effective marshaling.

I don't think, honestly, that TIF will have a lot of impact on pace of play.  It might well have impact on enjoyment of the game and the possibility that some beginners and infrequent players will have more fun and play more often.  Several here have commented on this, and I'm one of them.  I shot 78 yesterday morning from 6400 yds., and 78 today from 6700, but I had more fun yesterday.

If that's good for the golf business, then TIF is a worthwhile program.  But the pace of play as it relates to the match play vs. stroke play issue seems to me to be a straw man.

[Garland Bayley]

This I agree with:

The problem is that they seem to have put so little thought into their recommendations that they would be moving people that can play blue decently forward to white.

This I don't:

Because, you see, part of my position is that multiple tees are a waste of time, money, and a degradation to "the Golfe".

I just put down my copy of Tom Doak's The Anatomy of a Golf Course where he acknowledges the need for multiple sets of tees in the modern game (see Chapter 8, page 120) and yet urges course design so that it is challenging for players of all abilities, regardless of tee used (pages 121-122).

I'll just end my participation in this thread by saying that I agree with Tom.

Methinks you didn't read the chapter to the end. "it is absurd and unnecessary to attempt to arrange the course so that every single player can get around in par figures, if only they were to play the right set of tees." p. 122

I am also curious how many teeing distances you think he is writing about?

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble writes:
I have absolutely no desire to play 18 holes in 2 hours.  Besides, with what would effectively be less than 12 seconds a shot I don't see much call for thinking man's golf - one wouldn't have time to think.  May as well stay on the range.

In a two-hour round of golf, you have two hours to think, not 12 seconds. In the past, when people were much more considerate of people trying to play at a reasonable pace behind them, golfers would spend the time walking to their ball thinking. It now has become many golfers don't even start thinking about their shot until they get to their ball. This is a problem.

Carl, thanks for the correction of my math skills.

Nobody is saying that pace is ideal for everyone. But as I said, you only have that amount of time to hit the shot if you walk at a rather leisurely 3 mph pace. If you want to take a bit more time to stand over your shot all you have to do is pick up the pace.

Golfers have accepted 4 ½-5 hour rounds as reasonable and every decade or so the pace of a reasonable round goes up ½ an hour. 

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more fun than walking naked in a strange place, but not much.
 --Buddy Hackett

Dan,
I've been a member at 4 different clubs over the past 30 years, and none of them have accepted 5 hrs. as a reasonable pace of play.  Slightly over 4 hrs. is the highest I've ever seen, and that has been made clear to the membership.

I just got in from playing; second tee time of the morning, 4 of us (all single-digit handicappers) walking a hilly 7000 yd. course with 4 or 5 substantial green-to-tee walks.  The foursome in carts behind us never came close to catching us, and it took us 3:20 to play.  We don't look for lost balls, we pick up when out of the hole, we play ready golf, and we give putts in the leather.  I don't think it is realistic to hope for much faster than that.

I've walked 18 by myself in as little as 2:45, but any faster than that feels silly and isn't much fun.  If you are hoping for golf to be played by groups in under 3 hrs., you will be constantly disappointed, I fear.

Dan

I have great praise for the man who can size up his putts from 100 yards out.  Let me know where I can find this species of golfer.  Jeepers, for that matter, let me know where I can find the guy who an size up his chip from a 100 yards. 

The fastest club I know of is Huntercombe.  2 balls fly round that place and I would wager you with odds that the average game takes comfortably more than 2 hours there.  I can sympathise for players who have to suffer the routine 4 hour game, but I don't much care if you or anybody else wants to play in 2 hours as I consider that an unreasonable proposition.  I suggest that if your goal is a forced march against the clock - get the opening time and knock yourself out.     

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

I don't know what you fully intended, but the way it is written it seems to imply that time is directly proportional to score. I have evidence it is inversely proportional, as I can shoot 100 for 18 and play it in 2 hours walking. I have to wonder why it takes you so long to shoot 72.

Garland,
I am curious to know under what circumstances it took you only 2 hours to walk and shoot what I understand is a pretty average score for you.  I play very fast, and playing a real course in 2 hours (walking) is absolutely flying. It's also, IMHO, not very fun.

Empty course, of course. A friend of mine and I have played a two ball in two hours. After seeing your message earlier today, I noted that the latest snow flurry had ended and the sun was out bright and warm so headed to the course. Played the front 9, par 34 in 55 minutes shooting 48 with some waiting on 4 for a twosome that proceeded to go the 9 tee and once again open the course in front of me. Unfortunately, on 13 the heavens opened up and let the sleet fly completely turning the green white. Since the sky was dark and there was thunder, I headed in.

Can't understand why it's not fun. It is a sport, or recreation. I've got nothing against exercise. I suppose you thinking distance running is no fun too. On that one I would have to agree with you.

[Garland Bayley]

Dan-
It would actually be just 12 seconds per shot, but I get that you're estimating. Also, I'm not saying that a 2-hour walking round isn't possible.  I just think that a lot of people who say they've played in 2 hours really haven't, and I also think one has to sacrifice a lot of things I enjoy about the game to play that fast.

There are periodic reports of tour pros that end up out first without a playing partner completing their rounds in two hours. Often shooting subpar round as tour pros are wont to do. This has been going on for a long time, as Gene Sarazen did it at the Masters many a year ago.

I guess they did sacrifice the beer drinking to get it done, but I can't imagine what else you would be referring to sacrificing. Reading putts from three angles? Engaging in a tedious pre-shot routine?

The latest article I read (probably in Golf Digest) says he always plays his round in 2 hours when not in a tournament. I believe he does cheat in doing that by using a cart. He also shoots subpar rounds with only a 4 iron. Guess that would save on club selection time.