Course Length

[Keith Grande]

...
I would generally take more time to read a putt if I missed the green, and now trying to hole a par put. ...

Perhaps you play a different game than the rest of us. No matter how long you take to make a stroke, it still counts one. No discount for extra time taken, just an insult to those sharing the course with you.

Unless the person holes out the bunker shot, approach/chip, the player not on in regulation is generally going to take more time to finish the hole.  They still haven't reached the green yet, and may not on their next shot as well.  And they would still have to putt, at possibly a greater distance than someone already on the green, ball marked, ready to putt.

[John Percival]

Those that putt first (away), will tend to take more time due to trying to evaluate line AND speed. Shorter putts will allow the 'owners' to observe that first putt and have a significant source of info before their putt. PLUS, they often can take a sneak peak while the longer putt is surveyed and attempted. As a rule, a ball on the green in reg will be farther from the hole than a greenside recovery, thus, the GIR putt usually takes more time than par saves.

GD did an article on 'Play it Fwd', mentioning the course length and scoring. What many fail to understand is that a large majority of scoring is done with the ....wait for it....scoring clubs! The wedges and putter are truly what differentiate the best from the rest. As an example (and a test), if u place a ball (randomly throughout the round) 20' from the hole on every green and designate that as a birdie putt, u will find that 90% of golfers will still NOT be able to even match par, less break it. Thus, using score as a barometer for appropriate tees may not be effective.

Personally, and as a recommendation to everyone else, the standard should be one of the oldest...whatever tees allow you to play the most clubs thru your bag.

[jvisser]

A bit more personal note on the length of courses issue...

If I'd take my 5 iron yardage or driver yardage as a indication which sets of tees I should play off, it would be the yellows
here in Holland. However, as I play off 4, I'm forced for the majority of the competitions to play off the whites.

For the flatter courses that's not really an issue as long as the wind doesn't get up too much, because then I start to struggle..

For my homecourse Noordwijk I recently did the statistics off yellow (5880m) and white (6317m) with a par of 72 over 2012 and 2013.
I included all competion rounds even with seriously windy conditions, which we had more often off the whites:
            FIR    GIR  Gross Score  Nett Score
Yellow    10      5         78.5         73.5
White     10      7         83            76

I get two shots more off white, but I seem to be needing 4 more...
Main issue for me is the fact that there are a number of dunes located such that off yellow I carry them
and of white my drives or second shots are killed in the slope.

Although the fact that I miss few fairways and many greens, I'm usually not the one slowing things down.

As mentioned by others, it's the ones searching for balls and not being ready when it's their turn that
slow things down, not the tees they play-off.





 

[BCowan]

Those that putt first (away), will tend to take more time due to trying to evaluate line AND speed. Shorter putts will allow the 'owners' to observe that first putt and have a significant source of info before their putt. PLUS, they often can take a sneak peak while the longer putt is surveyed and attempted. As a rule, a ball on the green in reg will be farther from the hole than a greenside recovery, thus, the GIR putt usually takes more time than par saves.

GD did an article on 'Play it Fwd', mentioning the course length and scoring. What many fail to understand is that a large majority of scoring is done with the ....wait for it....scoring clubs! The wedges and putter are truly what differentiate the best from the rest. As an example (and a test), if u place a ball (randomly throughout the round) 20' from the hole on every green and designate that as a birdie putt, u will find that 90% of golfers will still NOT be able to even match par, less break it. Thus, using score as a barometer for appropriate tees may not be effective.

Personally, and as a recommendation to everyone else, the standard should be one of the oldest...whatever tees allow you to play the most clubs thru your bag.

+1

side note- Bethpage Black is meant for advanced players.  Many would shoot 90+ from 6000 yds or less!  Lets compare apples to apples!  It is all around the green where slow play happens as John said!  

[Garland Bayley]

...
I would generally take more time to read a putt if I missed the green, and now trying to hole a par put. ...

Perhaps you play a different game than the rest of us. No matter how long you take to make a stroke, it still counts one. No discount for extra time taken, just an insult to those sharing the course with you.

Unless the person holes out the bunker shot, approach/chip, the player not on in regulation is generally going to take more time to finish the hole.  They still haven't reached the green yet, and may not on their next shot as well.  And they would still have to putt, at possibly a greater distance than someone already on the green, ball marked, ready to putt.

You don't make any sense.

[Mike_Young]

I have been told that length is over rated and extra width is more enjoyable   Any of you know or agree?

[BCowan]

Agree, I put my application in for the ''Mike Young Society''!

[Paul Gray]

One of the virtues of the British system, whereby you simply either play from the men's or the women's tees, is that no one has their ego artificially flattered by either a) convincing themselves that they can reasonably play a course at 7,500 yards or b) they can shoot 62 because they played from tees which make a 180 yard hole a par 4. Greens in regulation is not wholly realistic for most golfers and nor should it be, given that GIR is a scratch construct. The handicap system was invented to make allowances for this. Use it.

And as has been said, anyone can play golf in 3.5 hours if you play the game properly. I'll add my dad (a man that rarely limits a round of golf to something undertaken in less than 100 shots) to that fact.

As a three handicapper I'll happily play a course at 7,000+ yards if that's the way the architect really wanted it to be enjoyed but that is rarely the case. And more often than not, when I do play a course that long where multiple tees are available, playing the back tees limits the experience to playing holes of a similar length only i.e. it's unlikely you'll play a short par 3 or a genuinely short par 4. Better to limit the tee options but vary the lengths more.

[Brent Hutto]

Paul G. has it correct and Lou alluded to the same thing.

When you play a golf course a few times you generally get a pretty good sense of the shorter holes, the longer holes, the harder ones, the easier ones, the ones that challenge the tee shot or the ones where position matters more than distance on the approach. Some hazards are in play, others can be virtually ignored by a given player.

All of these tricks from the architects bag are flattened out at best, obviated at worst when you play the course much too short or much too long relative to the shots you're capable of hitting. The highs and lows of the round and the variety from hole to hole can be replaced by tedium (if you're slogging through the round unable reach one green after another even with your best shots) or an ersatz version of "quirk" (when you play too far up and start hitting partial shots, pitches or bump-and-runs into most holes from places not designed as landing areas).

To my mind, the goal is optimizing fun and variety. If the course is worth a darn, that fun and variety is part of its basic routing and design. That design is meant to interface with predominantly certain sequences of shots on the Par 4's and Par 5's and with certain trajectories of tee shots on Par 3's. It's silly to piss away all the subtlety of a course in pursuit of he-man points for playing the Big Boy Tees or vanity scoring by moving up to the point where a 6-handicapper can shoot 65.

P.S. Buy hey, a golf course is just a big playground. If he-man points or vanity scoring is your thing there's plenty of room for it out there!

[Keith Grande]

...
I would generally take more time to read a putt if I missed the green, and now trying to hole a par put. ...

Perhaps you play a different game than the rest of us. No matter how long you take to make a stroke, it still counts one. No discount for extra time taken, just an insult to those sharing the course with you.

Unless the person holes out the bunker shot, approach/chip, the player not on in regulation is generally going to take more time to finish the hole.  They still haven't reached the green yet, and may not on their next shot as well.  And they would still have to putt, at possibly a greater distance than someone already on the green, ball marked, ready to putt.

You don't make any sense.

Didn't you just say that missing gIr would result in faster play?

[Keith Grande]

Paul G. has it correct and Lou alluded to the same thing.

When you play a golf course a few times you generally get a pretty good sense of the shorter holes, the longer holes, the harder ones, the easier ones, the ones that challenge the tee shot or the ones where position matters more than distance on the approach. Some hazards are in play, others can be virtually ignored by a given player.

All of these tricks from the architects bag are flattened out at best, obviated at worst when you play the course much too short or much too long relative to the shots you're capable of hitting. The highs and lows of the round and the variety from hole to hole can be replaced by tedium (if you're slogging through the round unable reach one green after another even with your best shots) or an ersatz version of "quirk" (when you play too far up and start hitting partial shots, pitches or bump-and-runs into most holes from places not designed as landing areas).

To my mind, the goal is optimizing fun and variety. If the course is worth a darn, that fun and variety is part of its basic routing and design. That design is meant to interface with predominantly certain sequences of shots on the Par 4's and Par 5's and with certain trajectories of tee shots on Par 3's. It's silly to piss away all the subtlety of a course in pursuit of he-man points for playing the Big Boy Tees or vanity scoring by moving up to the point where a 6-handicapper can shoot 65.

P.S. Buy hey, a golf course is just a big playground. If he-man points or vanity scoring is your thing there's plenty of room for it out there!

Brent, I agree with what you are saying. In the example I had given earlier in the thread, my friend who refuses to move up a set of tees simply doesn't hit a broad range of clubs into the greens. He's constantly behind, hitting woods and long irons into greens, instead of the short irons that others in the group are using.  

[Garland Bayley]

Brent, I agree with what you are saying. In the example I had given earlier in the thread, my friend who refuses to move up a set of tees simply doesn't hit a broad range of clubs into the greens. He's constantly behind, hitting woods and long irons into greens, instead of the short irons that others in the group are using.  

Have you been listening? Being short does not mean being slow! Either he is a slow player and you are not addressing the issue correctly. Or, you are no friend of his asking him to move up, because you can hit the ball farther.

[Keith Grande]

I never said he was slow. I said he would enjoy his round more by using shorter clubs into greens  and hopefully, hitting more greens. He's a pretty good putter

[Ken Moum]

You know, this topic might be be the best example of an overdone topic I see on the various discussion groups I hang out on.

FWIW, I am a total believer in the 36 x five iron to find a rough yardage to have fun on the golf course. It's only a starting place, and by no means is it set in stone. Although I rarely carry a five iron, my equivalent nine wood goes about 165-170 which equates to 5950 - 6150.  And I always enjoy golf more in that range than I do at longer yardages.

What's funny is that most of my fellow short hitters simply don't accept the logic of it.  Because most low handicappers DO get it, even if they don't realize it.

Start with tour pros.... They bitch like hell if they are asked to play a course much of 7200 yards.  Well that equates to a a 200-yard five iron, which might be a little short for a lot of pros.

I have friend in Topeka who was trying to get me to move back a tee several weeks after I had carpal tunnel surgery and had been playing up.  W e typically play around 6300 yards and I don't whine about it. I asked him how he liked playing 7200 yards plus.

He said he HATES it.  Despite being a 2 handicapper who hits it at least 30 yards longer than me off the tee.  He's more than one club longer than me with irons as well.  In all, I figured he's 900 yards longer than me on eighteen holes.

I did that math for him and said, "Well, 6300 yards is EXACTLY the same for me as 7200 is for you."  

He stopped harassing me.

He's one of many low handicappers I have talked to about this, and damned few of them will play a course that requires hitting fairway woods for their approach shots on half the par threes, six or seven par fours and a three wood shots on a couple of par fives.

It's not even about the scores, because several of the higher handicappers at my course who have started playing up a tee aren't scoring that much better. Their short games just aren't good enough to take advantage.

For me, however, moving from 6300 to 6000 usually results in my score dropping more than the difference in course rating.  I almost always play ~6000 yards when I am travelling, but at home I don't simply because I'm not willing to take the handicap hit.

Those who think it's fun to hit 10-12 fairway wood approach shot in a round are welcome to.  I won't even try to convince them otherwise.  But if someone isn't having a lot of fun on the course, moving up to 5 iron x 36 is a reasonable start.

K

[Garland Bayley]

I never said he was slow. I said he would enjoy his round more by using shorter clubs into greens  and hopefully, hitting more greens. He's a pretty good putter

You said "he's constantly behind". How is that not saying he's slow?

How can you possibly know what he would enjoy more?

[Keith Grande]

Behind us on tee shots. Not behind pace.

[Garland Bayley]

Behind us on tee shots. Not behind pace.

Dang! It seems you have proven our point. He plays tees that are "too long for him", but he's on pace.

Now you need to do something about that taking extra time for certain strokes, so you too can be on pace.

[BCowan]

I never said he was slow. I said he would enjoy his round more by using shorter clubs into greens  and hopefully, hitting more greens. He's a pretty good putter

   I personally hit my long irons better than my short irons.  You are making blanket statements.  He prob keeps it short of fairway bunkers and wants to challenge himself.  As long as he isn't complaining why do you feel the need to advise where someone plays???  Maybe he enjoys that one hole where he hits two great shots to a par 4 with a long iron and makes it in regulation!  

[Matthew Petersen]

With most of the guys I play with, distance is not really the issue. I have a couple buddies who hit the ball far enough to play from 6800 yards ... when they hit it straight. The problem is that they rarely hit it straight. This is true whether they play from 6800, 6300, or 6000. It's not really an issue of having shorter clubs into the greens, it's an issue of even being in play after the drive. If you keep hitting it in the desert/trees/gunch/etc, whether your next shot is a 6 iron or an 8 is not the real issue.

I have certain;y met players who play too far back for macho reasons and their quickness suffers for it, but they are the exception in my experience. Moreover, that tends to be the vain guy playing the tips more than an issue of anyone playing white tees when they should really move up even further.

[Jason Thurman]

The sheer number of misconceptions and totally ridiculous statements on this thread, by a group of almost exclusively ardent golfers who study the game and its playing fields, are all you need to see to explain why people play from tees unsuited to their games. It's too bad we can't wager on some of this nonsense. I'd have cash to buy a new set of irons in about 4 1/2 hours.

The 36 x 5 iron yardage is a nice starting point. But the bottom line is that you should play from whatever tee is the most satisfying while still allowing you to keep pace.

[Keith Grande]

You know, this topic might be be the best example of an overdone topic I see on the various discussion groups I hang out on.

FWIW, I am a total believer in the 36 x five iron to find a rough yardage to have fun on the golf course. It's only a starting place, and by no means is it set in stone. Although I rarely carry a five iron, my equivalent nine wood goes about 165-170 which equates to 5950 - 6150.  And I always enjoy golf more in that range than I do at longer yardages.

What's funny is that most of my fellow short hitters simply don't accept the logic of it.  Because most low handicappers DO get it, even if they don't realize it.

Start with tour pros.... They bitch like hell if they are asked to play a course much of 7200 yards.  Well that equates to a a 200-yard five iron, which might be a little short for a lot of pros.

I have friend in Topeka who was trying to get me to move back a tee several weeks after I had carpal tunnel surgery and had been playing up.  W e typically play around 6300 yards and I don't whine about it. I asked him how he liked playing 7200 yards plus.

He said he HATES it.  Despite being a 2 handicapper who hits it at least 30 yards longer than me off the tee.  He's more than one club longer than me with irons as well.  In all, I figured he's 900 yards longer than me on eighteen holes.

I did that math for him and said, "Well, 6300 yards is EXACTLY the same for me as 7200 is for you."  

He stopped harassing me.

He's one of many low handicappers I have talked to about this, and damned few of them will play a course that requires hitting fairway woods for their approach shots on half the par threes, six or seven par fours and a three wood shots on a couple of par fives.

It's not even about the scores, because several of the higher handicappers at my course who have started playing up a tee aren't scoring that much better. Their short games just aren't good enough to take advantage.

For me, however, moving from 6300 to 6000 usually results in my score dropping more than the difference in course rating.  I almost always play ~6000 yards when I am travelling, but at home I don't simply because I'm not willing to take the handicap hit.

Those who think it's fun to hit 10-12 fairway wood approach shot in a round are welcome to.  I won't even try to convince them otherwise.  But if someone isn't having a lot of fun on the course, moving up to 5 iron x 36 is a reasonable start.

K

Amen!

[John Kavanaugh]

 by a group of almost exclusively ardent golfers who study the game and its playing fields

The above is simply not true.

[Jason Thurman]

 by a group of almost exclusively self-proclaimed ardent golfers who imply that they study the game and its playing fields

The above is simply not true.

How's that?

[Garland Bayley]

 by a group of almost exclusively self-proclaimed ardent golfers who imply that they study the game and its playing fields

The above is simply not true.

How's that?

John is neither ardent nor studious.

[Brent Hutto]

Jesus.