Golf course set up for women

[David Harshbarger]

Jeff and Sean,

1. I know it's just math, but what would the effect on course design be if you designed a course where the 100% distance was the stronger woman/older man?  By this I mean, what if you pegged the architecture's baseline so that the course was designed for the 85%, 100%, 115%, 130%, and 150% distances relative to a strong woman/older man, ensuring that the architectural features played to that demographic best?

2. When you design for different strengths, do you step back and score the course for how well it plays for different distance skills from the proper tees?   When you do that, do you ever focus on some holes and make sure they are standouts for women and older men, even if the strategic elements are less pronounced for stronger players?

Thanks, Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

There was a time when most archies designed from the main men's tees, not the championship tees.  The problem was, if you were designing a housing course where the boundary hadn't been set, and used the main tee as the start of your centerline, you tended to lose the area behind it for the back tee.  So, in many cases, designing at least the routing plan from the back tee was a necessity.

As to features, I think raters, reviewers, awarders and even golfers worry too much about what the good player will say about a new design, even though I see lots of evidence that most players eventually pick a course that doesn't beat them up, with design features they can negotiate without losing too many strokes or balls.  Changing the design for the best attitude would help a lot.  When I started in the biz in 1977, my bosses told me that there were already enough tournament and world class courses out there, and we weren't designing for those level players.  But, over the years, I think we all got away from that, all wanting a top 100 or best new course, which you don't get without being bold.

In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether.  It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total.

Sean,

One reason I posted the design goal was to show that adhering to classic principles as a main goal (as opposed to doing it because it makes sense for today's play) just isn't a valid criteria in most cases.  I tend to design for those paying the bills now, and if a couple joins a club with the intent of enjoying golf, then its more a duty to design for the here and now than to design the way they did in the old days, at least regarding tees, since by and large, those poor attempts at forward tees weren't really all that well thought out.

[Sean_A]

"In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether.  It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total."

Doesn't this get at the heart of what I am talking about?  If the goal is to so called design for everybody something(s) has to give.  I think archies, developers and golfers chasing the long ball course is what should be given over, but its clear to me that few if any of the folks in these groups are willing to drop the ego and/or whatever it takes to fully realize this.  I say this because members of this board strike me as fairly hard core about rolling back equipment (which would presumably make it easier to justify building shorter courses), but very few of these same people are willing to give up the very things they complain about.  Instead, they wait for a magic bullet from a higher power when in fact the power rests with golfers.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

"In an offline exchange with Arthur Little and another gca, they agreed that it just might be time to eliminate the notion that a course can be all things to all people, and encourage leaving out those seldom used 7000+ tees altogether.  It is a lot of golf course to build for about 50 players a year out of 30,000 total."

Doesn't this get at the heart of what I am talking about?  If the goal is to so called design for everybody something(s) has to give.  I think archies, developers and golfers chasing the long ball course is what should be given over, but its clear to me that few if any of the folks in these groups are willing to drop the ego and/or whatever it takes to fully realize this.  I say this because members of this board strike me as fairly hard core about rolling back equipment (which would presumably make it easier to justify building shorter courses), but very few of these same people are willing to give up the very things they complain about.  Instead, they wait for a magic bullet from a higher power when in fact the power rests with golfers.

Ciao

Bingo.  Perhaps as us aging boomers pack the 6000 yard tees and the fun older courses while the pricey second tier penal championship tracks go begging it will sort itself out by economic necessity.

[Ken Moum]

Perhaps as us aging boomers pack the 6000 yard tees and the fun older courses while the pricey second tier penal championship tracks go begging it will sort itself out by economic necessity.

One problem is that too few courses actually have 6,000-yard tees.

I believe that something like 5900-6000 is perfect for shortish hitters like me who have a little bit of ego left.  But what I see is courses with 6300-yard "men's" tees, and 5400-yard "ladies"" tees.

Personally, I think 5,000-6,000-6,500 tees make more sense.

But my latest peeve is courses like the one I played today, where all the par fours are the same length...

362-354-352-361-367-360-342-370-338-375

The par threes were almost as bad:

157-158-165-139

And the fives?

506-491-500-490

My home course, which I love has these ranges:

Threes 130-208
Fours 311-450
Fives 465-550

Coore and Crenshaw's Sugarloaf Mountain manage to give you this variety

Threes 91-190
Fours 252-455
Fives 436-544

I know not everyone is as obsessed with this as me, but I have come to believe that variety of length is one of the things an architect can do to make a course payable for all classes of golfers.

Where I played today, a 260 hitter is going to have a wedge to EVERY par four. At a 200-yard hitter, I have NO chance.

But give me a 275 yarder and 450-yarder, I have a fighting chance.

K

[Jud_T]

I know not everyone is as obsessed with this as me, but I have come to believe that variety of length is one of the things an architect can do to make a course payable for all classes of golfers.

Ken,

Agreed.  I just played a well-like course in these parts and came away with the realization that there are 8 par 4's that are all 390-410, seven of them after the 7th hole.  I would think that not only would a bunch of half par holes be more enjoyable for us, but might make incorporating interesting tees for the ladies easier as well.

[Tom ORourke]

I agree with Andrew Lewis on the issue of forced carries on second shots for women. I am at Woodside Plantation in Aiken, SC. We have a Bob Cupp course and a Rees Jones course. Both courses have 3 mens tees ranging from 7,100 to 6,250. The womens tees are at 5,460 and 5,280. Both courses have forward tees at the 4,800 range. Those tees are mostly just markers in the fairway. The issue comes at a few holes where my wife, who is 58, 106 pounds, 30 handicap, will hit a drive of 150-160 yards, but then has a creek 120 yards away. Maybe she can make it some of the time, but often her second shot on a par 5 or a long par 4 is an 8 or 9 iron up to the creek. This can happen 2 or 3 times a round. That drives her crazy, but playing the forward tees is just a little too short. I don't think it is the overall yardage, but the flow of hazards. Our pro was out the other day scouting tee locations that make more sense as our membership is not young and is getting older. I think adjustments on a few holes would make a big difference rather than wholesale tee renovations. The PGA wants us to tee it forward and I think it should be on a hole by hole basis. We also have the "blended" tees for 70+ year old men where half the holes are from the whites and half from the reds. Not a bad idea and I see a lot of guys playing that. It takes the longer par 4s and makes them playable. You can still go back and play from 6,700 or 7,100 but the average everyday golfer needs to have some fun. Not by dumbing down the course so anyone can hit a bunch of greens in reg, but just be able to play a nice game. Some of them should also throw away the scorecard and just play. And some days I do just that as well.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Maybe the course just doesn't suit your wife.  Not all courses can be all things to all people.  Part of the appeal of the cross hazard is knowing what needs to be done to successfully cross it in "regulation".  Granted, it isn't pleasant to be faced with this sort of hole a lot, but it has its place in architecture as a butt clencher hole - nothing wrong with that.  We have to remember that what makes a good course is in how its design accommodates, interests and challenges people.  I don't believe that in the majority of instances that five or six sets of tees is a good substitute for good design.


Ciao