[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


The old thinking was to get every level player (by tee shot distance, usually with tees at 290, 260, 230, 200, maybe 170 and 140, approximate) to the same LZ so they all had the same strategy and hazards to negotiate.  However, that left the 140 hitter with two shots to the green, and the 290 driver with a short iron, etc.


New thinking is proportional distance, with tees about 90, 80, 70, and 60% of back tees.  If based strictly on the mid point of varying levels of drives, it would be some odd numbers, like 92%, 84%, etc. with the forward tees at less than 50% (I.e. based on 140 yards vs 290-300 yards)  While perfect in theory, I am not sure we have to get everyone hitting exactly the same club by proportionate distance.


BTW, I establish the mid point based on the few driving distance studies out there, and it is amazing that golfers hit drivers all distance, but there are little clusters at those distances, so they 230 drive centers on a class of player who really hits from 220-240, etc.


However, that does tend to spread the need for strategic hazards down the fairway.  The question is whether it is worth investing in sand bunkers for some of the little used (in theory) portions of the fairway, and on the flip side, if it is desirable to have hazards at distances to challenge the 140 and 170 hitters, who have enough problems to negotiate.


I go back and forth on how many tees.  Again, in theory, you nearly capture everyone at a good playing length with six sets of tees. In practice, the pro shop prefers no more than 5, and many prefer 4.  If a course tops out less than 7K, 4 is probably enough.

[Sean_A]

Thanks all for responding. Some interesting points here.


I have recently seen coloured tee blocks placed at various spots on fairways but way up from the usual formal teeing ground. I have seen this on par-3's, par-4's and par-5. I believe they were placed to be used by very young juniors but would this approach help other players too? You could have several sets positioned to make holes at various different lengths (no formal teeing ground though, just on the fairway).


Any thoughts?


Atb

David


The problem with those forward tees is they are miles forward with tons of walking to get there.  I bet if kids were left to their own devices they wouldn't bother with fairway tees or at the very least hit to the tees then play the hole.


ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Good points about tees positioned on the fairways.


I believe these are the par-yardage figures for women golfers -


Par-3 up to 211 yds
Par-4 211 to 400 yds
Par-5 401 to 575 yds
Par-6 576 yds and above


These seem quite severe in relation to some of the distances mentioned in posts above.


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

Yes, one of the questions I ask is whether they want the par 5 holes reachable (about 380 yards for many women) or to conform to the USGA minimum of 401 yards (odd, but for some reason, I thought it was 405.....)  I have seen clubs and courses opt either way, but I never make my par 5's longer than 405 from the front tees.

One thing to note, is when you are using proportional length, the par 3 holes have the smallest tee splits, and the par 5 holes obviously have the largest.  On a 550 yard hole, the front tees would have to be about 330, but of course, they are only 401 as noted, or 150 yards over 5 tees, or approx. 37 yard splits.  On a 200 yard par 3, tees might be down to only 120, or  20 yard splits.

[MCirba]

The course I played yesterday, Soaring Eagles in Horseheads, NY, had what I think a good setup on their shortest (Red) Tees, at just over 4200 yards.

1) 271 - 4
2) 301 - 5
3) 272 - 4
4) 109 - 3
5) 249 - 4
6) 105 - 3
7) 247 - 4
  202 - 4
9) 283 - 4
10) 324 - 5
11) 204 - 4
12) 242 - 4
13) 365 - 5
14) 263 - 4
15) 95 - 3
16) 251 - 4
17) 141 - 3
18) 281 - 4

The next set of tees, the Gold, play to 5407 yards.   There are separate course ratings for both Men and Women from the Gold and Red tees.

The White tees are 6392, the Blues are 6732, and the newer Black tees are 7067.   Par is 71.

We played the whites and it was very pleasurable at that distance.   I'm looking forward to going back with my wife.

[Ken Moum]

However, that does tend to spread the need for strategic hazards down the fairway.  The question is whether it is worth investing in sand bunkers for some of the little used (in theory) portions of the fairway, and on the flip side, if it is desirable to have hazards at distances to challenge the 140 and 170 hitters, who have enough problems to negotiate.

That's an excellent point.  I've had that discussion with some members of a green committee I was on.  They were planting trees on the corner of a dogleg-left par five that I thought were irrelevant to begin with because every decent-to-good player aimed left of those trees and cut the corner anyway.


One of them was going to block the second shot of the 170-190 drivers, and it got the shorter hitters, even if they played the most forward tee.


One of the other guys comment... "Well if that's where they hit it, do they deserve and open second shot anyway?"


By the way, I've been thinking about Firekeeper, and realized you are right about the front nine, mostly.  1-6 aren't really all that tough, unless it's windy. Seven, the way it's maintained does force to hit over the marsh.


The first holes that tear people up are 8-, and 10.  I worked as a scorer for the Symmetra Tour even last year, and it was amazing how much trouble they had with 8, I had assumed that they'd handle it better than the folks I've played with.  Even with two forecaddies working it played slow because of all the lost balls and unplayable lies, not to mention that any tee shot left of center almost required a 30- to 40-yard layup.


Nine is hard because it's so much uphill, but 10 absolutely flummoxes people. Only a few can carry the trees on the corner and anyone who slices ends up in the crap to the right a LOT.


Eleven, twelve. fourteen and fifteen play really, really narrow with our normal summer southeast winds, and it DOES blow up there. 


And eighteen is like a lot of other double fairways, no one goes right unless the tee is way up, then everyone does.  Even then, the trees are grown up such that the functional landing area left is awfully small.


I don't want to make too much of this, and it is your design.... but when our City Stroke Play was held out there last year only about half the field finished because of darkness.


The 30-odd best golfers in Topeka took almost 7 hours to get around.


Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

I have been in on some master plans where the question of the trees on the dogleg corner blocking the shorter players comes up. In general, the longer hitters have no sympathy, while the seniors, etc., want them gone.  Until the first time al long hitter for some reason comes up short......sort of reminds me of our curving driveway as kids. Mom hit a tree near the curve a few times and Dad chastised her. One day, he was backing her car out, hit the tree, and the Davey Tree Service was out the next day to take it down, and the pavers were there right after that to straighten the driveway.....

I will put a call into Firekeeper on some of those issues, short tees, etc.  I know the irrigation gets 3-4 rows wide, which translates to 70-80 yards, which should be enough. I know there no such thing as out of play areas on a public course, but with turf limits, budgets, etc., its hard to devote much more than that to width, especially on a $4M budget.  Maybe they have let it grow in a bit......

Yes, 8 is narrow and intended as a layup/accuracy hole. Your stories make me think those just aren't feasible on a public course........

[JBovay]

This has been a very good discussion so far. I'd like to chime in with a few thoughts.


It seems clear that 4200 yards is a good target for the shortest set of tees on a golf course. I'm glad there have been empirical studies to support this number.


Although it may be claimed that par is an arbitrary number and that it might be okay to have multiple par values for a given hole for players of varying strengths, we also must remember that golf holes are designed to be played a certain way.


To give a concrete example of how the poor placement of tee boxes compounds the difficulty of a hole, slows the pace of play, and increases maintenance costs, let me tell you about the first hole at the course where I grew up. The tee pads are located at approximately 425, 400, and 290 (the "senior" tees are grouped with the forward tees, mercifully). From the 200 yard plate to the 100, the fairway falls about 20 or 25 feet, and a pond short of the green requires a layup to 100 yards. (The pond is about 50 yards across, so the approach shot is not all carry.) Players of all abilities thus face a downhill lie on their approach shot. My sister was a strong local high-school player, handicap in the mid-to-high teens. She is athletic but not a big hitter, and the only way she could play this hole was drive, pitch, mid-iron. It was an awkward par 5 for her. Push the tees up 30 or 40 yards, and it becomes a reasonable par 4. If the tees were further back, it would be at least a par 6 for many weak players. In fact, it already is a par 6 for many male players who proudly tee it up from the regular tees: the fairway cut starts at the forward tee box. How much maintenance cost could be shaved if the first hundred yards of the fairway were removed--encouraging everyone to play from the proper tee, in the process?


Now, I don't suggest that every player should be able to shoot 68. I suggest, however, that legitimacy should be given to teeing grounds that allow all players to reach greens in regulation. If tee markers are placed in the fairways, beginners in the United States will be especially encouraged to use them if they have a course/slope rating assigned and scores can thereby be recorded for the purpose of a handicap. When I was 8 and 9 years old, I competed in local junior tournaments where we played from the 150-yard plates on all par 4s and 5s. (Before this, I had insisted on joining my father in playing the regular tees. I can only imagine how careful he must have been in choosing our times to play. The tournament series legitimized for me the set of tees that was appropriate at that age.) The memory of making an "eagle" on a downhill "par 4" in one of these tournaments really stuck. More importantly, I got the feeling of the proper flow of a golf game (300-yard walks to the tees notwithstanding) with full shots and short shots in roughly equal proportion. As I moved back to the red tees at age 10, I scored in the 40s for 9 holes. Golf was really fun when it wasn't such a slog.


I do believe the interest and involvement of women is crucial to the business of golf. If my wife were more interested in the game, we'd probably spend 6 or 10 times as much money on greens fees alone, compared with what we spend now. When we play, she really enjoys hitting greens in regulation and having birdie and par putts. I know she's not alone.


JB

[Steve_ Shaffer]

My wife and I recently played at Oakcreek CC(RTJ, 1966) in Sedona, AZ. The first tee, with its RTJ typical runway length, had a black marker at 560y; a blue marker at 535y;a white marker at 520y and a gold marker at 495y. There was a new green forward tee at 404y.


3 Tees were rated for women:


White @5965y 72.7/132
Gold  @5579y 70.1/129
Green@4419y 65.0/114


My wife (24h) and her friend (18h) chose the green tees.  My wife scored around 95 and her friend about 85. I don't thnk they could have handled the gold tees.

[Ken Moum]

Your stories make me think those just aren't feasible on a public course........

I really appreciate you not taking any of this personally.  The course at Firekeeper appears to be a big success for the tribe. They aren't offering any of the discounts most courses in this part of the world do, and it's been in great condition when I've played it so they apparently aren't hurting.


To your comment above, I really think that Jason's thread had it right, we can build difficult courses because most American "public" golfers simply ignore the rules any time they're inconvenient.


It's been a while since I played Firekeeper, as I broke my hip last July, and haven't been in Topeka much since last Nov.  IIRC, the last time I did play they didn't have a tee option close enough to 6,000 yards to suit me.

[Philip Caccamise]

It has been calculated that women hit the ball roughly 80-85% the distance of the equivalent handicap male, and it lines up pretty well on the average across all levels.


20 handicap- Men: ~190-200 yards Women: ~160-170 yards
10 handicap- Men: ~220-230 yards Women: ~190-200 yards
5 handicap- Men: ~240-250 yards Women: ~210-220 yards
0 handicap- Men: ~270-280 yards Women: ~230-240 yards
PGA/LPGA Tour- Men: ~290 yards Women: ~250 yards


Now, going on what Barney Adams suggested a few years ago on what length based on average driving distance a player has, women should be playing from the approximate following yardages:
20 handicap: 4500 yards
10 handicap: 5200 yards
5 handicap: 5700 yards
0 handicap: 6100 yards
LPGA Tour: 6400 yards


Conditions, of course, dictate updates to the above, but these make a lot of sense in my opinion. And golf is a lot more fun when played from an appropriate distance.

[Duncan Cheslett]

It has been calculated that women hit the ball roughly 80-85% the distance of the equivalent handicap male, and it lines up pretty well on the average across all levels.


20 handicap- Men: ~190-200 yards Women: ~160-170 yards
10 handicap- Men: ~220-230 yards Women: ~190-200 yards
5 handicap- Men: ~240-250 yards Women: ~210-220 yards
0 handicap- Men: ~270-280 yards Women: ~230-240 yards
PGA/LPGA Tour- Men: ~290 yards Women: ~250 yards


Now, going on what Barney Adams suggested a few years ago on what length based on average driving distance a player has, women should be playing from the approximate following yardages:
20 handicap: 4500 yards
10 handicap: 5200 yards
5 handicap: 5700 yards
0 handicap: 6100 yards
LPGA Tour: 6400 yards


Conditions, of course, dictate updates to the above, but these make a lot of sense in my opinion. And golf is a lot more fun when played from an appropriate distance.

I take your point, and if we're talking about social play that's fine.

But how does a 5 handicapper play against a 20 handicapper on a level playing field under this system? 

[Sean_A]

This thread has really driven home the need for far more purpose built courses.  If the business wants more women it should build more courses suitable for women.  I don't buy that a long term answer is courses with 17 sets of tees spread from 7500 to 4000 yards.  I think the answer is more short courses tailored to women, but where beginners and seniors can enjoy.  Thats more like 5500 to 4000 yards. 


I also think it would be intriguing, in this age of cart courses, to actually think smaller.  Say a ladies course tipped out at 4500-5000 yards all the way down to a par 3 course of 2500 yards.  Keeping the fairway feature interest is far easier for courses this length.  I can easily imagine decent 10 capper men wanting to play a place like this if they can choose their tee (likely sterring toward more par 3s) and it wasn't expensive. 


Ciao 

[Thomas Dai]

Another aspect to consider it the lower hcp lady/girl player, not necessarily one at elite level but say at single hcp level. Once a certain of level of play is reached shorter courses may not be appropriate. In the Uk there seems reluctance for better lady/girl players to use the 'Men's' tees for general and competition play. This attitude needs to change.


One of the best shorter length courses I've played is the Annesley at RCD. Can't be much more than 4,800 yds, firm and fast and bouncy, small, some very small, greens mostly raised with plenty of slope. 6 maybe 7 par-3's, good ones too and some cunning positional short twisty par-4's. Pretty narrow faiways in places and quite a few pot bunkers. Worth playing if your at RCD. There are a couple of Annesley photo tours on GCA.



Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Your stories make me think those just aren't feasible on a public course........

I really appreciate you not taking any of this personally. 

Ken,

Well, I was going to go all Trump on you, saying you had blood coming out of your mouth, and whatever.......but decided against!

I called Firekeeper and talked to an assistant.  They get good reviews, they Futures Tour loves the place, and I found out the forward tees are at 4800, not 4400. For whatever reason, I vaguely recall them pushing back a bit on the real short tees, and so I guess some never got built or set out exactly where I drew them.

They also confirm the narrow holes are most difficult, which is to be expected, but as I said, my theory was to feature a few narrow holes among the wider open ones, for variety.  Personally, I don't care if most don't follow the rules closely.  As far as I can tell, most never have.

We discussed taking out the trees between the two fairways on 18, and maybe expanding the cut a bit on holes like 9 where many balls land.

Sorry to hear about the medical problems. Hope you get better soon and back out on the links!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

For those across the pond, here's how the USGA determines handicaps in competitions from different tees:


http://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=6


So if I want to play a match from some one playing a different tee than me, that's how we do it.

[Philip Caccamise]

It has been calculated that women hit the ball roughly 80-85% the distance of the equivalent handicap male, and it lines up pretty well on the average across all levels.


20 handicap- Men: ~190-200 yards Women: ~160-170 yards
10 handicap- Men: ~220-230 yards Women: ~190-200 yards
5 handicap- Men: ~240-250 yards Women: ~210-220 yards
0 handicap- Men: ~270-280 yards Women: ~230-240 yards
PGA/LPGA Tour- Men: ~290 yards Women: ~250 yards


Now, going on what Barney Adams suggested a few years ago on what length based on average driving distance a player has, women should be playing from the approximate following yardages:
20 handicap: 4500 yards
10 handicap: 5200 yards
5 handicap: 5700 yards
0 handicap: 6100 yards
LPGA Tour: 6400 yards


Conditions, of course, dictate updates to the above, but these make a lot of sense in my opinion. And golf is a lot more fun when played from an appropriate distance.

I take your point, and if we're talking about social play that's fine.

But how does a 5 handicapper play against a 20 handicapper on a level playing field under this system?

See Steve's post. Take the rating/slope, calculate a handicap for each at their assigned tee, and the end result will be the 20 handicapper will get something less than 15 shots if they are playing different tees. Hypothetically speaking, the index should be reflective of ANY tee played and then the strokes given for that specific course/tee will go up or down depending on the rating/slope. Now, I'd argue the increase in rating and slope as the distances get longer is not significant enough, nor a linear function for every handicap level, but that's a discussion for another day.

[Wayne_Kozun]

But how does a 5 handicapper play against a 20 handicapper on a level playing field under this system?

I can figure that out but how do you allocate strokes when a man is playing a woman and the hole stroke allocations are different?

[MCirba]

Ken,

Well, I was going to go all Trump on you, saying you had blood coming out of your mouth, and whatever.......but decided against!

Jeff,

You just keep Ken's nosebleed out of this discussion!   

[Ken Moum]

But how does a 5 handicapper play against a 20 handicapper on a level playing field under this system?

I can figure that out but how do you allocate strokes when a man is playing a woman and the hole stroke allocations are different?

My wife and I have played dozens of matches against each other in the 25 years we've been together and we finally concluded that a good starting point was to give her strokes on holes where her tee was only a few yards ahead of mine.

She also had the option of selecting holes where she thought she needed the stroke.

I've spent far too much time understanding the theory and application of stroke allocation in the US, and have come,to a couple conclusions.

First, almost no one actually understands it. 99 percent of the golfers I know think the no.1 handicap hole is supposed to be the hardest hole on the course... which is not correct.

Second, many, if not most, courses appear to neither do,it correctly nor have any rational system for allocating strokes.

In the end, as long as you avoid 1,9, 10 and 18 as low-numbered handicap holes it doesn't actually make one damned bit of difference where they're given. 

Throwing darts at a scorecard would work as well as most systems.

Where i play, we have a match-play men's league. And our no. 1 handicap hole is a 208-yard par three, which patently stupid. The player getting the stroke wins the hole almost every time. But i cannot say that it has had any real impact on our competitions.

K

[Tom ORourke]

My wife and I (both early 6os) have been playing a number of courses in the Atlanta and the North and South Carolina areas. Our home course (which has two 18s) is around 5,200 from the forward tees and she shoots around 100. We also have a another set of tees way up for either juniors or senior women, built when play it forward came in. Some of the other courses we have played seem to have a number of tees but often go from 5,700 down to 4,400 or 4,700. She either has to go way up or way back. And she is not going way back. One of the holes playing forward at Bear's Best was a par 4 of 190 yards. That seemed a little short as it had no real hazard or challenge to it. The choice at TPC Piper Glen in Charlotte goes from 6,000 to 4,695 with nothing in between. What we have at our place is what we call the blended tees. It is designed mostly for senior men as about half the holes are played from the whites and half from the forward tees, cutting the whites from 6,250 to around 5,700 or 5,800. Rather than add another set of tees I feel like we need blended courses for women where a few holes are played from the whites to get them closer to 5,000 if that is what they want. 4,400 seems really short. We also played River Run in Charlotte which was right at 5,000. But 3 holes on the front nine have the river run (thus the name) right in front of the green. This had my wife hitting her usual 130 yard drive and then having to lay up with a 90 yard 7 iron, followed by a sixty yard 9 iron as the carry was just a bit too much. So total yardage is not the be-all and end-all in playability. I think flexibility is the key as opposed to building a ton of tees. Just rate the course with a blended mix so you don't have to choose between two tees 1,300 yards apart. Setting up postable courses of 4,400 and 4,900 and 5,500 and 6,000 and 6,300 are probably doable for a lot of courses without spending any money building tees. Just defining different combinations. She likes the challenge of near 5,000 but being forced to play 4,400 is not that satisfying.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()