[Niall C]

....that suggest there is something wrong with the course ?

I've been reading Garlands thread regarding "Teeing it Forward" (from now on referred to as TIF) where almost single handedly he has been trying to prove that TIF is the antithesis of old fashioned golf, or gowf as I think he called it. I can kind of see the logic behind his argument but then the logic that ignoring score to par should make TIF an irrelevance kind of loses weight in that matchplay off any tee works therefore no harm with TIF, no ?

However if as some are suggesting that they now need to TIF because of old age creeping up on them, does that not show a weakness in the course that it becomes less interesting because you can't reach the green in the "recommended" number of shots ? Is it not possible to design a good two-shot hole that doubles as a three-shotter for the shorter hitters (try saying that with a couple of beers in you  ). Surely a well designed course should have a degree of flexibility about it.

Thoughts ?

Niall 

[Garland Bayley]

....that suggest there is something wrong with the course ?

I've been reading Garlands thread regarding "Teeing it Forward" (from now on referred to as TIF) where almost single handedly he has been trying to prove that TIF is the antithesis of old fashioned golf, or gowf as I think he called it. I can kind of see the logic behind his argument but then the logic that ignoring score to par should make TIF an irrelevance kind of loses weight in that matchplay off any tee works therefore no harm with TIF, no ?

However if as some are suggesting that they now need to TIF because of old age creeping up on them, does that not show a weakness in the course that it becomes less interesting because you can't reach the green in the "recommended" number of shots ? Is it not possible to design a good two-shot hole that doubles as a three-shotter for the shorter hitters (try saying that with a couple of beers in you  ). Surely a well designed course should have a degree of flexibility about it.

Thoughts ?

Niall 

Well it certainly means you are not playing The Old Course.

[Rory Connaughton]

Niall,

  I don't think that it is a reflection on the course.  I think it says an awful lot about the mentality of many golfers. I have had any number of conversations with golfers of all ages who cannot reach a green in two on a par four of over 350 yards. For some reason, almost to a man, those players expect two things (1) that they should be able to reach every par 4 in two; and (2) that they should be able to do it from the regular member's tees. Mind you, these expectations have nothing to do with ability, clubhead speed, strength etc.  The course is interesting from any yardage but these players routinely ignore the two sets of forward tees and beat it around as though they are beating their heads against the wall from the regular tees.  The reality is that not only can they not reach the greens in two, they can't reach them in three either because their short games are not strong.  Tee it forward, I think, is a laudable effort to convince these players that they will take more enjoyment from the game by playing a shorter course, that the architecture will actually be more relevant (they cannot reach fairway hazards for instance from the regular tees).  It also makes moving up less of an affront to their egos. From the perspective of the rest of the golfers on the course it is laudable in that it speeds play.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ding, Ding Roll Up, Ladies & Gentlemen, Roll Up

In the Red Corner with have the Terror of the North, that Glaswegian expat, the day ‘Staker’ of non-golfing fields, I give you Niall ‘The Historian’ Carlton

In the Blue Corner we have that White Knight, The Enforcer of Free Speech, that Silver Phantom Golfer, the Colonial Cousin and Defender of the Faith, I give you Garland  ‘TIF’ Bayley

The fight debate to consist of 4 x one post per minute bouts, the winner is the first to refrain from using poor language. The Purse for this bout will be one pint of beer or a small single malt – No kissing, making up or hugs otherwise it will be deemed a draw.

Ding, ding, ‘Teeing it Forward’ is the subject, so please start Gentlemen

[JESII]

And so far it's a draw in the race to be "first to refrain from using poor language"...talk about a thread killer!


Niall,

I haven't read Garland's thread yet, but I think the Tee it Forward initiative is targeted at pace of play as opposed to architecture. I guess there has to be a link between the two, but it should be undeniable that playing the same course from two different sets of tees should prove a quicker round from the shorter set.

Will check back after I get a better view of the straws Garland is grasping for...

[Garland Bayley]

Niall,

If you HAVE to TIF, then the course is lacking. Agreed.

TIF having no matter since you are playing match play. Now that is another issue. Why do I want to go to a course for the opportunity to walk two holes without playing them? I.e., if I move up to the tees indicated by my lousy handicap, I have walked the equivalent of two golf holes without playing. Why did I have to pay extra (admittedly slight) to have the course spend money to build and maintain those forward tees so I can do all that walking and not playing? For all those TIF advocates, what's wrong with them simply walking forward and sticking a peg in the ground and playing from where ever they want? Why do the rest of us who go to the course to golf, not to stroll aimlessly about which we can do anytime we want off course, have to pay for them to have tees maintained for their particular peccadillo?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I fear it might just be blowing in the wind - thats the straw you mentioned. Although I would like to see more info re the straws  & of course the wind as it must be a links course.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

Does waiting until a course opens and has some play before putting in fairway bunkers give some insight into TIF not being necessary?

I.e., the fairway bunkers get put where the evidence shows the ball ends up. Therefore, the golfer ends up thinking about where to place shots other than the obvious (which just got a bunker). Therefore, the golfer is engaged enough that he does not worry about whether his is reaching a green in "regulation". The golfer is not always choosing his five wood, because often it will cause the ball to end up in the obvious place (which just got a bunker).

[Steve Strasheim]

Well it certainly means you are not playing The Old Course.

Yet, when you play The Old Course they require you to tee it forward.

[Steve Strasheim]

....that suggest there is something wrong with the course ?

I've been reading Garlands thread regarding "Teeing it Forward" (from now on referred to as TIF) where almost single handedly he has been trying to prove that TIF is the antithesis of old fashioned golf, or gowf as I think he called it. I can kind of see the logic behind his argument but then the logic that ignoring score to par should make TIF an irrelevance kind of loses weight in that matchplay off any tee works therefore no harm with TIF, no ?

However if as some are suggesting that they now need to TIF because of old age creeping up on them, does that not show a weakness in the course that it becomes less interesting because you can't reach the green in the "recommended" number of shots ? Is it not possible to design a good two-shot hole that doubles as a three-shotter for the shorter hitters (try saying that with a couple of beers in you  ). Surely a well designed course should have a degree of flexibility about it.

Thoughts ?

Niall 

Niall,

My thoughts are that generally speaking the ability to tee it forward show a strength in architecture. But, I can see your point. Say the rough is so bad that you lose 3-6 balls from the back tees. Moving up you do not lose any. It will speed up your game, improve your score and likely be more fun. As designed. But, you may have enjoyed the back tees more if it didn't cause the course to swallow so many golf balls.

[A.G._Crockett]

There is utterly NO reason to see TIF as an indictment of the GCA.  It may well be the opposite, in fact, if hazards and other GCA features are brought MORE into play by more appropriate length.

On my home course, there is a fairway bunker on the first hole that really tightens the landing area just inside 150 yds.  From the back tees (7000 yds.) that bunker is not in play for me, and I have zero decisions to make; I hit driver as hard as I can (with no real premium for accuracy) and a 5 iron or 4 hybrid approach.  At either 6600 or 6400, the bunker is very much in play, and I have decisions to make on the tee.

I think this is the case more often than most realize.  It takes length to bring GCA fully into play for pros and top YOUNG amateurs.  But for most golfers, a reduction of length is what brings all of the golf course into play.  Viewing it otherwise is simplistic, IMO.

[Garland Bayley]

Well it certainly means you are not playing The Old Course.

Yet, when you play The Old Course they require you to tee it forward.

I hardly think they are going to make Kalen play the ladies tees there as the TIF yardage suggestions indicate. He may not be the most many of men, but I don't think they are going to make that mistake.

[Garland Bayley]

There is utterly NO reason to see TIF as an indictment of the GCA.  It may well be the opposite, in fact, if hazards and other GCA features are brought MORE into play by more appropriate length.

On my home course, there is a fairway bunker on the first hole that really tightens the landing area just inside 150 yds.  From the back tees (7000 yds.) that bunker is not in play for me, and I have zero decisions to make; I hit driver as hard as I can (with no real premium for accuracy) and a 5 iron or 4 hybrid approach.  At either 6600 or 6400, the bunker is very much in play, and I have decisions to make on the tee.

I think this is the case more often than most realize.  It takes length to bring GCA fully into play for pros and top YOUNG amateurs.  But for most golfers, a reduction of length is what brings all of the golf course into play.  Viewing it otherwise is simplistic, IMO.

Well that seems quite an indictment of the architecture. To enjoy the course you have to TIF. Sounds like your course was built during the formulaic dark ages of golf architecture.

[A.G._Crockett]

Ah, Irony!  She never sleeps, never takes a day off!

I took a break to eat dinner, and while I ate, I read the 3/9 issue of Golfweek, which happens to the Best Courses edition.  On the back page, Brad Klein (a 9.4 index and considered by some to have expertise in matters of GCA) explains why he prefers courses at 6200 yds, and explains it from a GCA perspective.  While he never uses the term TIF, it is clearly the message of his article.

I'd recommend it to all of you.

[Garland Bayley]

Ah, Irony!  She never sleeps, never takes a day off!

I took a break to eat dinner, and while I ate, I read the 3/9 issue of Golfweek, which happens to the Best Courses edition.  On the back page, Brad Klein (a 9.4 index and considered by some to have expertise in matters of GCA) explains why he prefers courses at 6200 yds, and explains it from a GCA perspective.  While he never uses the term TIF, it is clearly the message of his article.

I'd recommend it to all of you.

Sorry, but Brad is a Ph. D. in Political Science. The only correct answers for him are those that come out of SAS. Not a source to be trusted.

[A.G._Crockett]

Ah, Irony!  She never sleeps, never takes a day off!

I took a break to eat dinner, and while I ate, I read the 3/9 issue of Golfweek, which happens to the Best Courses edition.  On the back page, Brad Klein (a 9.4 index and considered by some to have expertise in matters of GCA) explains why he prefers courses at 6200 yds, and explains it from a GCA perspective.  While he never uses the term TIF, it is clearly the message of his article.

I'd recommend it to all of you.

Sorry, but Brad is a Ph. D. in Political Science. The only correct answers for him are those that come out of SAS. Not a source to be trusted.

True, but he's in Golfweek and you're in your pajamas.  I think I'll go with his take on it.

[Garland Bayley]

Ah, Irony!  She never sleeps, never takes a day off!

I took a break to eat dinner, and while I ate, I read the 3/9 issue of Golfweek, which happens to the Best Courses edition.  On the back page, Brad Klein (a 9.4 index and considered by some to have expertise in matters of GCA) explains why he prefers courses at 6200 yds, and explains it from a GCA perspective.  While he never uses the term TIF, it is clearly the message of his article.

I'd recommend it to all of you.

Sorry, but Brad is a Ph. D. in Political Science. The only correct answers for him are those that come out of SAS. Not a source to be trusted.

True, but he's in Golfweek and you're in your pajamas.  I think I'll go with his take on it.

Clearly he won't like The Old Course, because they won't give him an option to play 6200 yards unless he wants to play with the ladies.
But, then again maybe that is what he wants to do. You know you can only take so much SAS until you start looking for sassy.

[Mark Johnson]

some of my thoughts.

I think the driving reason behind TIF in a lot of places is not the classic courses which we like to discuss here, but rather modern courses (or in some cases classic courses which we retrofitted with new back tees) which were built to accomodate the top notch golfer.

When I think about slow play and the real value from TIF,  it is not from the older short hitter who should be playing 5700 yards instead of 6100 yards.   Rather it is a young, wilder, 20 handicap who would be playing 6100 instead of 6800.

In Minnesota for instance, if you look at the top 5 private and top 5 public courses,   only 2 of the top 5 privates have a teeing ground 6900 yards or more, but all 5 of the newer public ones do.   in many ways, TIF is a modern solution to a modern problem.

[William_G]

Ah, Irony!  She never sleeps, never takes a day off!

I took a break to eat dinner, and while I ate, I read the 3/9 issue of Golfweek, which happens to the Best Courses edition.  On the back page, Brad Klein (a 9.4 index and considered by some to have expertise in matters of GCA) explains why he prefers courses at 6200 yds, and explains it from a GCA perspective.  While he never uses the term TIF, it is clearly the message of his article.

I'd recommend it to all of you.

+1

QED

although golf and the love of golf is subjective

love it

if you aren't happy try doing something else!

[Dan Herrmann]

On my bucket-list trip to Sand Hills, I played the middle set of tees.  I don't know if I could have had more fun.

Our caddie said that most visitors play all the way back and most 10+ h'dcpers have a bad time from back there. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()