[Tom_Doak]

This was buried in the middle of Ulrich Mayring's thread on multiple tees, but it's a good question that deserves a thread of its own:

Question to raters: a course's position in your "Top X Golf Courses" ranking is determined by:

[ ] the tee I played from when rating
[ ] a mixture of all tees available and we had raters for each
[ ] always the back tee

Ulrich

[Jason Topp]

I try to imagine all tees but it is pretty tough to do.  Spending five days at Bandon Dunes alone and playing with a wide variety of people I was randomly paired with was an eye opening experience from an architectural standpoint because of how differently each level of player interacted with the course and from a psychological standpoint because you could pretty accurately guess who was going to enjoy their round by the time you hit your first tee shot.    

[Joel_Stewart]

I use to play the back tees but have moved up lately.  I try to picture the drive for all players but pay attention from the fairway especially around 150 to 200 yards in.  From here you can gauge the forced carries, use of the ground and overall options for all players.

Maybe Ulrich is putting to much emphasis on teeing off?  

  

[Bart Bradley]

Tom:

I try to take a look from all the teeing grounds...Many times is the same from the back 2 tees just a few yds longer from the tips.  But if I don't see the tips, I always ask where the very back tees are located even if I don't play them so I can get an idea about what is being asked of the very best players. 

Why would this be any different than hole locations?  Don't I, as a rater, look around a green and try to identify the hole options and how they would affect the strategy and playing interest?  I do the same thing for teeing grounds.

Bart

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, when I was younger I always played the back tee.  Now I try to play the tees that would put my drive in a place where I feel the drive was meant to be played by mere mortals.  I will hit second shots or third shots from a variety of places.  I spend some time around the greens looking at various pin placements and chipping or pitching.  It is a great way to play. I tend to do it even on my home course when time and number of people on the course permit. Fortunately my home courses get less than 10,000 rounds a year.

[Joe Leenheer]

Great topic Mr. Doak....I'd like to put a spin on it.
  
When I play golf with my wife (which is less often now that we have two little ones), I pay great attention to her club selection for approach shots compared to mine.  She hits it fairly well for a lassie and can putt the lights out on most days.  

Her best rounds have been at Pebble and Firestone South each of which positioned her at a GREAT yardages to allow her to enjoy each hole all the while not being overwhelmed by yardage.

are there any FEMALE raters?  Should there be a WOMEN'S Top 100?  Do I sound like a raging feminist?  

...where's my glass......  

[Brett Wiesley]

I look around at all tees, and if allowed like to play the course twice - two different tees. Playing with others helps as well, good visuals on how the course treats different shots. If time on the course permits, the extra shots gives a great perspective: safe off the tee vs. challenge. Also approaches to different parts of the green.  If there is a great greenside bunker, in a real round you avoid it, but it is very fun and educational when rating to play from there as well.

[David Davis]

When rating I play the tees my host wants me to play as most often I'll be joined by someone from the club, GM or Super or some other person that has detailed knowledge of the course. I've only had the experience of rating a couple courses alone, then I played the back tees but also took a look from the forward men's tees.

I try to look at the tee shots from various perspectives, what do the landing areas look like, what options are there off the various tees, do you have to really think and come up with a strategy for the hole from the tee etc etc. although I'm certain I don't catch all the nuances in playing once as often is the case. As for tee boxes I mainly focus on the mens tee boxes. I don't really consider myself a good judge of the women's game as the only women I've played much with were far better players than I, all + hcp'ers and they beat me (most of the time) no matter which men's tees I play them from (as frustrating as that is).

[Ulrich Mayring]

Another snippet from the original thread that seems relevant here:

I don't know a single male golfer who finds pleasure in playing a series of unreachable par fives... yet people consistently suggest that changing par makes everything alright for women who hit it barely over half as far as they do.

although it might not have been one of her better days, you've seen my wife play so you know she's good enough to play most courses. But Royal Dornoch makes her crazy.  She's only played it twice, and she very much wants more opportunities...because she thinks she should do better.

Royal Dornoch not even a Scotland Top 100 course from the forward tees? Which ranking reflects that? Are the established rankings all-male?

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

I look around at all tees, and if allowed like to play the course twice - two different tees. Playing with others helps as well, good visuals on how the course treats different shots. If time on the course permits, the extra shots gives a great perspective: safe off the tee vs. challenge. Also approaches to different parts of the green.  If there is a great greenside bunker, in a real round you avoid it, but it is very fun and educational when rating to play from there as well.

John Kavanaugh must be on break somewhere, but he would be a proud papa to hear this rationalization for panelists needing to play a course multiple times! 

[Tom_Doak]

Another snippet from the original thread that seems relevant here:

I don't know a single male golfer who finds pleasure in playing a series of unreachable par fives... yet people consistently suggest that changing par makes everything alright for women who hit it barely over half as far as they do.

although it might not have been one of her better days, you've seen my wife play so you know she's good enough to play most courses. But Royal Dornoch makes her crazy.  She's only played it twice, and she very much wants more opportunities...because she thinks she should do better.

Royal Dornoch not even a Scotland Top 100 course from the forward tees? Which ranking reflects that? Are the established rankings all-male?

Ulrich

They are mostly male ... and probably should be.  Otherwise, there is a ridiculous double standard for some courses like Pine Valley and Medinah #3, which have no tees for women at all.  How could you penalize other courses for having poorly-placed forward tees, when some of the best courses don't have them at all?

A related problem is that it's very hard to find women golfers who are well-traveled enough to compare the best courses.  Most of the ones who are, are good players ... an LPGA professional's perspective is closer to a man's than to the average woman's.  We had a few on the GOLF Magazine panel back in the day ... and their votes were SIGNIFICANTLY different than the guys' votes.

[Jud_T]

A list from female raters would be very interesting.  I'd guess they'd prefer courses that aren't overly long or penal, with few forced carries.  Would they like crazy greens running at 12?  I wonder if your average 18 hdcp male would have more fun on those courses or bedpost notching the current top 100...Note to Brad K.- a whole new market for rater's camps!    You might not be able to get a well-travelled panel together, but it'd be a nice feature to do 1 course at a time from a woman's perspective.  Might be tough at Butler and Bob'o'Link though...

[Charlie Gallagher]

Tom,
   I know a number of women Golfweek raters of varying abilities and I value their perspective alot when I get to speak with them about course design as it relates to the ladies game. They notice things that I don't, and they have made me aware that tee placement, and hole length vs. par are  things that need consideration in design.
    When I rate courses I try to keep in mind how the course is going to play from different tee boxes. I try to play at an appropriate length for my age, but include other golfers of varying abilities in my rating thoughts.

[John Percival]

T,
Am a retired GD rater. Left about 3 years ago.
When was rating, garnered as much info before playing a course so that nuances during the round could be better absorbed.

Played tips, but always looked at the other tee positions, lengths, angles and visuals. Imagined play from those tees by my father (the definitive 16) and Laura (who was as low as a 6 and had the game/length of a male senior) and my mother (the definitive lady golfer).

Looked at the varying fwy landing zones for each tee and the respective lie, distance and approach requirements.
Noted bunker positioning and depths, especially on how they affected recoveries.

Payed very close attention to green complexes and would spend some extra time at interesting green portions or recovery positions.

NEVER kept score.
Often played alone. And early, so that any 'loitering' would not bother others. NEVER with a foresome of friends. Sometimes with Laura. Rarely with anyone from the host club.

Made many notes and took many pics.
Wrote out a review that was sent along to the mag, explaining my scores.

IMO, the GD scoring is too perfunctory. BEGGED them to add 'Enjoyment/Fun' as a category. Got nowhere.
Had to retire due to some physical issues. Have since rebounded, but am staying on the sidelines.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I am not sure about other countries, but here in Germany we have 38% female golfers and two thirds of them with a handicap higher than 28. These are hard, scientifically valid numbers.

Therefore, at least for Germany, I am not totally convinced that rankings should be mostly male. There should probably be an extra ranking for the forward tees and, obviously, this ranking should not include courses that have no forward tee.

Ulrich

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I usually play the tees at a course so that it is playing at around  7000-7200 yards if it is a course that has tees extending to and beyond that yardage.
If under that I will most often play the back tees.
I will often mix up on the par thress or if pace of play permits hit several balls on the three pars.
But from whener I play doesnt really have that much of an impact on my final rating, that will be based upon various places I will have walked to away from my ball to gain a perspective of different angles into greens etc..
I am fortunate as a player that I tend to hit alot of fairways as such to judge solely from one set of tees or the middle of the fairway would be a very short sighted view of what an architect has achieved.

[J_ Crisham]

Tom,  I played Old Mac on Sunday with a woman who was a fine player-a US Senior ladies AM committee/player, well traveled, and a rater for Golfweek magazine. Her view on the tee placements was that the blue or forward tees were not a challenge for many woman and offered simplistic angles of approach whereas the orange or next level of tees were significantly more difficult. She felt that numerous holes would present better with tees somewhere between the blue and orange. Specifically on the longer par 4's.  I felt the green tees were perfect for the 10 HNDCP male and greater. The pinplacements dramatically alter the length of the holes as you well know. What looks to be 380 on the card can be 410 if a pin is deep or for instance the Biarritz was 199  Sunday to a back pin versus 155 to a potential front. My guess is due to rotation of placements it all averages out in the end.

[Adam Clayman]

There aren't too many courses with enough elasticity to have significantly different angles or looks, on many holes.

Streamsong Blue was a course where I felt the teeing ground matter most for the whole course and therefore how one might rate the whole.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,  I played Old Mac on Sunday with a woman who was a fine player-a US Senior ladies AM committee/player, well traveled, and a rater for Golfweek magazine. Her view on the tee placements was that the blue or forward tees were not a challenge for many woman and offered simplistic angles of approach whereas the orange or next level of tees were significantly more difficult. She felt that numerous holes would present better with tees somewhere between the blue and orange. Specifically on the longer par 4's.  I felt the green tees were perfect for the 10 HNDCP male and greater. The pinplacements dramatically alter the length of the holes as you well know. What looks to be 380 on the card can be 410 if a pin is deep or for instance the Biarritz was 199  Sunday to a back pin versus 155 to a potential front. My guess is due to rotation of placements it all averages out in the end.

I couldn't have dreamed of a better example of why Jeff Warne and I are ready to go to battle over this.  There are five or six sets of tees at Old Mac, and here's a woman who thinks we need a combo tee between the light blues and the orange!

I'm sorry to pick on this as I am sure she has some valid points ... some of the forward tees were set up very late in the process.  [We did not start out to build "light blue" tees at the start of the project, only once it was underway.]  Also, I think it's fair to point out that her criticism of the longer holes at Old Mac is not just true for women -- the long par-4's at Old Mac are very tough for everyone, and lots of people complain about them, especially when the north wind isn't blowing.  But between the wind and the run of the ball at Old Mac, the expectation that the setup should be "just right" on every hole on an everyday basis is absurd.  That's not how the game is played in the UK:  their attitude is, if the hole is playing into the wind, the golfer just needs to suck it up.

This is why I love the courses like Ballyneal that have given up on tee markers altogether.  If you aren't playing from the right tee there, it's your own fault, not mine  

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I agree why peopel think they have to play the entire round from the same clour tee box baffles me.
I will often mix and match to suit what I think is the challenge that suits me.
An I going to play 4 par threes over 220 on the same day just because that is where the back tees are sitting...hell no
Am I prepared to play a course at 7500 tiiped out because that is where the balck markers are..again hell no

It is all about playing a course you want to play, either to challenege yourself or on another day play it simple.
That is what all the tees are there ofr.
Perhaps Tom is right, do away with all tee markers and just play from where you want.

[Jud_T]

MWP-  That's all well and good, and I agree with you personally, but you'd have to scrap the USGA handicap system to get any real traction with more than us knuckleheads...

[Tom_Doak]

MWP-  That's all well and good, and I agree with you personally, but you'd have to scrap the USGA handicap system to get any real traction with more than us knuckleheads...

Not really.  You'd just have to record the yardage you played from, and the Slope System could easily be modified to handle it.

[Ulrich Mayring]

How do they do that at Ballyneal? The members simply don't keep a handicap? Or do they have occasional medal competitions with fixed, USGA rated tees? Or is Ballyneal a "second course" for most members, so they will keep their handicap at their first course?

BTW, I suspect that modifying the slope value is not so easy, because hazard placement and other factors besides length are taken into account.

Ulrich

[Ed Homsey]

Length of a course constitutes at least 85% of slope and course rating.

[Tom_Doak]

How do they do that at Ballyneal? The members simply don't keep a handicap? Or do they have occasional medal competitions with fixed, USGA rated tees? Or is Ballyneal a "second course" for most members, so they will keep their handicap at their first course?

BTW, I suspect that modifying the slope value is not so easy, because hazard placement and other factors besides length are taken into account.

Ulrich

I don't think they post scores from Ballyneal, Ulrich.

Modifying the slope value is probably much easier than you think.  The USGA tried to make it really complicated so that it would be their property, and not easily ripped off ... but most of us who have seen a lot of courses can estimate the rating and slope of a course within a handful of points.  

If the rating/slope are 71.6/131 from the back tees and 70.2/126 from the white tees, 71.0/128 is a pretty fair guess at the combo tees.  All that mumbo-jumbo about the length of the bogey players' drive is ridiculous  ... as if bogey players all hit driver 200 yards.  And, as Ed says, most of the rating and slope are about the length of the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()