Aging Raters, and the Rest of Us

[Peter Pallotta]

Has any top-quality course gone down in your estimation as you've gotten older and your skills deteriorate? Has any gone up?

And, for those who've played a favourite quality course at various times over many years, has anyone ever actually moved up a set of tees to compensate?

[Thomas Dai]

Firstly, for the sake of clarity I am not a rater!
Second, following a few games with a gent named Sean, I have been experimenting myself and with others with playing from different tees.
Particularly moving up a set of tees when playing into the wind, strong wind though, not a breeze, and sometimes moving back, yes moving back, when playing with a strong wind behind.
A challenge can be fun, but an over-challenge, as I shall term it, can be slow and boring and damn cold in wet and wintry weather.
This is for fun golf though. In competitions it’s always play from the events defined tees.
Atb

[Jay Mickle]

Played Pinehurst #2 last summer with Sean. We moved up to the green tees. The course revealed its self to me in a way that it hadn't before as pinch points became relevant, something that never happened when I played back. When drives found fairways I was tempted to go for pins or at least the center of the greens. Previously I was hitting in long irons or hybrids to the green openings. Angles became more relevant and the course moved up in my estimation.

[DFarron]

I'm not a rater but here's my take. When I was younger I was all about the Golf Digest Top 100 list, the "back" tees and massive club houses. Maybe I am gaining wisdom, but now it's the total opposite. I like simple, imaginative courses, the blue/white tees (blasphemy for a PGA Professional), and a simple place to have a sandwich and a beer after. I am much happier now playing golf than ever in my life!


Last fall played the Lake Course at Olympic wfrom blue/white combo. Dreaded that course from the back but rather enjoyed it from further forward.



I also have a simple formula for the tee boxes I play...Only 1 par 3 over 200 yards per round, no par 5's over 550 yards, no par 5's under 475 yards (unless severely uphill), no par 4's over 440 yards. I know it's not exactly USGA specs but I really enjoy it and isn't that really the point of golf?

[Tom_Doak]

I also have a simple formula for the tee boxes I play...Only 1 par 3 over 200 yards per round, no par 5's over 550 yards, no par 5's under 475 yards (unless severely uphill), no par 4's over 440 yards. I know it's not exactly USGA specs but I really enjoy it and isn't that really the point of golf?

I fear this is what every golfer wants now ... a golf course completely tailored to their tastes.


The contrarian in me [and everything I ever learned from Pete Dye] now wants to make sure you face two par-3's over 200 yards, a very long par 5, a very long par 4, and a very short par 5 ... even though I wouldn't normally be inclined to include any of those things, except maybe the one very long par 4.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Your last comment to DFarron is interesting.  What is it that you are trying to accomplish? 


I personally mix up the tees I play from (not necessarily during a particular round but on multiple rounds on the same golf course).  I can still manage from the tips on most courses but I sometimes love to play much shorter yardages as it brings in all kinds of different shots and challenges, especially on a well designed layout.  Just getting to a dogleg off the tee for example vs worrying about hitting through it totally changes course management and shot shapes.  It's all about variety.  But at the end of the day, I don't change my opinions of courses based only on my game.  Never a good idea. 

[J_ Crisham]

I also have a simple formula for the tee boxes I play...Only 1 par 3 over 200 yards per round, no par 5's over 550 yards, no par 5's under 475 yards (unless severely uphill), no par 4's over 440 yards. I know it's not exactly USGA specs but I really enjoy it and isn't that really the point of golf?

I fear this is what every golfer wants now ... a golf course completely tailored to their tastes.


The contrarian in me [and everything I ever learned from Pete Dye] now wants to make sure you face two par-3's over 200 yards, a very long par 5, a very long par 4, and a very short par 5 ... even though I wouldn't normally be inclined to include any of those things, except maybe the one very long par 4.

Isn't the idea for recreational golfers to play golf courses that we enjoy IE: fit our eye/tailored to our tastes? As far as a private club goes- who would join a club who's course isn't tailored to their enjoyment? Having 2 par 3's over 200 yds is concerned, why? Are you just trying to make the course harder for the average golfer? I've greatly enjoyed all of your courses with the exception of High Point but I'm not sure I'd want to get beat up on the course you're describing.

[DFarron]

I also have a simple formula for the tee boxes I play...Only 1 par 3 over 200 yards per round, no par 5's over 550 yards, no par 5's under 475 yards (unless severely uphill), no par 4's over 440 yards. I know it's not exactly USGA specs but I really enjoy it and isn't that really the point of golf?

I fear this is what every golfer wants now ... a golf course completely tailored to their tastes.


The contrarian in me [and everything I ever learned from Pete Dye] now wants to make sure you face two par-3's over 200 yards, a very long par 5, a very long par 4, and a very short par 5 ... even though I wouldn't normally be inclined to include any of those things, except maybe the one very long par 4.

Ha! Not sure how much of your reply was
sarcasm....never really cared for Dye courses, nice man and a fellow Buckeye,his course not very fun.
The problem is mainly with design....not opposed to +200 yard par 3’s, just not a fan of the 200 yard carry with a pond, creek or multiple bunkers surrounding them. Same
with longer par 4’s and 5’s, just not enjoyable for me.
One of the things I left out of the original post was that one of my “Happy Places” is Aetna Springs.
Just enough challenge to be fun, an easy walk, great green sites and a ton of natural beauty.
And if you want you can run it up on #2 😉

[Sean_A]

Pietro

No, I don't think I have slapped a course because my game has deteriorated.  I have slapped courses because my views have changed somewhat and that is mainly an issue of fairway width/stupid rough.  To be fair, I think I have seen the narrowing effect during my adulthood of some 36 years. 

I don't know about moving up at favourite courses, but I do often move up mainly if the walking is less.  I hate walking backwards past tees and often I can't be bothered climbing to a higher tee.  I don't mind walking for cool angles, but not so much for added yards or views.

As Shades Mickle wrote, playing #2 from the sub 6000 tees was a revelation.  The work C&C did transformed this aspect of the course where previously #2 was a fairly dull course from the tee...especially for one touted so highly (unreasonably so imo).  #2 used to be about the greens, but not now.  If one can't consistently carry a drive 240ish the sub 6000 tees are a very demanding and fun. 

There is a course to look out for...Trevose.  The work there has to a large degree had the same effect as at #2.  The bunkering is extremely well placed.  I am keen to see the completed work. 

At Kington in recent times I have moved back a set of tees...the course is largely better for the added yards with one glaring omission.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

I thought it was "Mercedes Mickle"? Sean, did you guess his occupation?


My plan, at age 52, is to play an 8200-yard course this spring. Of course, because it's there. No other reason.


I understand the need to hit more than hybrids, metals and long irons into greens. I don't expect to do so on the 8200-yard course, but I will play other courses from the up tees on that trip.


"From The Tips" was a column I wrote, in the early days of my website. I thought that people gave a sh!t about playing from the tips. I don't think that they do, at least not a measurable-enough segment of the golfing population.


I find that I'm less of a judgmental pr!ck than I used to be, as I love every course I play, and every opportunity that I get to play. No fool am I, as I still recognize that NGLA is intergalactic, and Delaware Park Meadows, not so much...but I loved both rounds.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I can't think of any courses that have gone down in my estimation. There have been some that have gone up. I have broadened my understanding and softened my outlook. I have decided that not every course has to fit in with what I like. Not every course has to have width. Sometimes I like to be challenged off the tee by narrow fairways. Where I have become more demanding in my preferences is on the greens. I get bored very easily. I have grown to dislike greens that are featureless. I want slope and undulation that require imagination and a variety of shots around the greens. I played a highly touted course last year that I loved tee to green. On the green no matter how far I was from the hole, the caddy never had me play anymore than three balls out.

[Tom_Doak]

I fear this is what every golfer wants now ... a golf course completely tailored to their tastes.

The contrarian in me [and everything I ever learned from Pete Dye] now wants to make sure you face two par-3's over 200 yards, a very long par 5, a very long par 4, and a very short par 5 ... even though I wouldn't normally be inclined to include any of those things, except maybe the one very long par 4.

Ha! Not sure how much of your reply was
sarcasm....never really cared for Dye courses, nice man and a fellow Buckeye,his course not very fun.
The problem is mainly with design....not opposed to +200 yard par 3’s, just not a fan of the 200 yard carry with a pond, creek or multiple bunkers surrounding them. Same
with longer par 4’s and 5’s, just not enjoyable for me.
One of the things I left out of the original post was that one of my “Happy Places” is Aetna Springs.
Just enough challenge to be fun, an easy walk, great green sites and a ton of natural beauty.
And if you want you can run it up on #2 😉

Not that much was sarcasm, actually, if you were talking about the back tees, and not the middle tees.  I hate the trend I'm seeing toward a boring, happy medium with a lot of bells and whistles to make it look good but play easy. 


I still think great golf is supposed to challenge you - not unreasonably, but there should be at least a couple of holes that are over your head.  And that includes mental challenge, of the kinds that you are ruling out.


Look at Aetna Springs.  It's barely 3000 yards from the back tees, but that 2nd hole is about 220, and you've got to hit it well just to get over the stream.  I think you need a contrast like that to the little 4th; if you dumb down the 2nd to 165 yards, then it's just another hole, and how many of those can you afford on a nine-hole course?  Likewise, the 8th is a par-5 under 500 yards ... but you almost ruled it out, too.


Or look at The Old Course.  You're telling me the two things wrong with it are the Road hole, and the 14th!


Just don't write down rules for us as architects, and we'll let you go play from anywhere you want.  Except if we are playing competitively, in which case I now know exactly what tees to make you play 

[Thomas Dai]

I still think great golf is supposed to challenge you - not unreasonably, but there should be at least a couple of holes that are over your head.  And that includes mental challenge, of the kinds that you are ruling out.

Ah, mental challenge, now we’re talking!
Atb

[Sean_A]

I fear this is what every golfer wants now ... a golf course completely tailored to their tastes.

The contrarian in me [and everything I ever learned from Pete Dye] now wants to make sure you face two par-3's over 200 yards, a very long par 5, a very long par 4, and a very short par 5 ... even though I wouldn't normally be inclined to include any of those things, except maybe the one very long par 4.

Ha! Not sure how much of your reply was
sarcasm....never really cared for Dye courses, nice man and a fellow Buckeye,his course not very fun.
The problem is mainly with design....not opposed to +200 yard par 3’s, just not a fan of the 200 yard carry with a pond, creek or multiple bunkers surrounding them. Same
with longer par 4’s and 5’s, just not enjoyable for me.
One of the things I left out of the original post was that one of my “Happy Places” is Aetna Springs.
Just enough challenge to be fun, an easy walk, great green sites and a ton of natural beauty.
And if you want you can run it up on #2

Not that much was sarcasm, actually, if you were talking about the back tees, and not the middle tees.  I hate the trend I'm seeing toward a boring, happy medium with a lot of bells and whistles to make it look good but play easy. 

I still think great golf is supposed to challenge you - not unreasonably, but there should be at least a couple of holes that are over your head.  And that includes mental challenge, of the kinds that you are ruling out.

This is an idea I have time for.  Golfers may not realize it, but they need those tough, awkward or difficult holes if only to keep them honest about their game.  It is almost as if the 460 yard par 4 or the 225 par 3 is the perfect time not to play it safe from a design perspective.   That is the time to crank up the creativity or risk designing the dreaded slog hole.  If archies stick to creativity rather than rules, standards and expectations, golf will be better off.  Please, just don't include a high element of lost ball or water hazard in the creativity. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Very nice exchange. Never read it put so succinctly as 'at least a couple of holes that are over your head'; and then Sean's added notion that architects 'crank up their creativity' on those holes in particular.
Yes - because it's only when we're taken out of our comfort zones that true choice and meaningful creativity is possible/comes to the fore. Otherwise 'options' are just a masquerade, or at most a pale imitation of the genuine article -- good for business, but not much good for the soul. 

[Mark_Fine]

The concept Tom is talking about has been practiced for ages by many of the classic designers.  Ross for example loved to have a short par 5 followed by a long par 4 or vice versa.  Sometimes the par 4 would play harder and longer than the par 5.  Flynn almost always had at least one or two long par 3 holes well over 200 yards (some over 250 yards in length).  This is almost 100 years ago with that equipment     Both architects were testing the physical as well as mental toughness/abilities of the players. 

[Thomas Dai]

A different perspective here, just for discussion purposes you understand.
I’ve read that the average male hcp is 14 (or thereabouts).
Straightway that’s 14 holes that are a significant physical and mental challenge, and if we use the position that 2 holes per round should be above the players head, well there’s still 12 more over-the-head-ers remaining.
Off to hide behind the settee!
Ate

[James Brown]

Tom,
Your last comment to DFarron is interesting.  What is it that you are trying to accomplish? 


I personally mix up the tees I play from (not necessarily during a particular round but on multiple rounds on the same golf course).  I can still manage from the tips on most courses but I sometimes love to play much shorter yardages as it brings in all kinds of different shots and challenges, especially on a well designed layout.  Just getting to a dogleg off the tee for example vs worrying about hitting through it totally changes course management and shot shapes.  It's all about variety.  But at the end of the day, I don't change my opinions of courses based only on my game.  Never a good idea.

When I played in college the coach would make the golf team play from the ladies tees every so often to point out how much work we needed to score well even if we hit it 50-100 yards further than we did.  Very instructive.  Not a lot of high scores from way up, but not a lot of 64s either.  And much more attention paid to the green complexes. 

[Mark_Fine]

James,
AMEN!  You can learn a lot about a course (and about your game) playing different sets of tees - not just "the right set", which I never was sure what that meant anyway 
Mark

[jeffwarne]

Top courses go down all the time-in the eyes of both raters and nonraters.
IMHO it's not because of a rater/nonrater age or ability, but rather his increased wisdom and maturity.
i.e. he begins to see the courses he's been told to play for what they actually are, in the context of what he's previously seen-(which is ever expanding).
f

[archie_struthers]

 
My preference is more difficulty without a ton of water .  Stroke and distance takes away from imaginative escapes and course management to a great extent .


Perhaps we who are use to scrambling for pars are less upset by the difficulty or length . Being used to missing greens its just another chance to show off our short games.

[Sean_A]

Very nice exchange. Never read it put so succinctly as 'at least a couple of holes that are over your head'; and then Sean's added notion that architects 'crank up their creativity' on those holes in particular.
Yes - because it's only when we're taken out of our comfort zones that true choice and meaningful creativity is possible/comes to the fore. Otherwise 'options' are just a masquerade, or at most a pale imitation of the genuine article -- good for business, but not much good for the soul.

My thought is these difficult holes are already nasty to score well, adding a touch of class helps make these holes special without really cranking up the difficulty level.  It is the same thing with adding yards to courses. First look to the long 4s and long 3s to see if that solves the mysterious (to me anyway) more yardage issue.  For heavens sake, don't tack yards onto short 3s, 4s and 5s.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

My thought is these difficult holes are already nasty to score well, adding a touch of class helps make these holes special without really cranking up the difficulty level.  It is the same thing with adding yards to courses. First look to the long 4s and long 3s to see if that solves the mysterious (to me anyway) more yardage issue. For heavens sake, don't tack yards onto short 3s, 4s and 5s.
Ciao

Long par-3's, total pain in the neck as you get older, especially if a forced carry is involved. And unless your hcp is 15 and above you're unlikely to get a shot on any of them due to the SI.
Watch out for courses that play short in overall yardage but have long par-3's. The short overall yardage may get you thinking there's a good gross score around the corner but the long par-3's will most likely sort you out good and proper.
atb

[jeffwarne]

Very nice exchange. Never read it put so succinctly as 'at least a couple of holes that are over your head'; and then Sean's added notion that architects 'crank up their creativity' on those holes in particular.
Yes - because it's only when we're taken out of our comfort zones that true choice and meaningful creativity is possible/comes to the fore. Otherwise 'options' are just a masquerade, or at most a pale imitation of the genuine article -- good for business, but not much good for the soul.

My thought is these difficult holes are already nasty to score well, adding a touch of class helps make these holes special without really cranking up the difficulty level.  It is the same thing with adding yards to courses. First look to the long 4s and long 3s to see if that solves the mysterious (to me anyway) more yardage issue.  For heavens sake, don't tack yards onto short 3s, 4s and 5s.

Ciao

+1
That's my whole problem with 5-6 sets of tees.An absolute recipe for homogonization.
Whatever happened to a really long, hard or interesting hole?
That's what handicap shots are for.
I've got 75 year old 25 handicappers who think they should have a tee on every hole that allows them to reach in regulation with a short iron.


Palmetto did this really well with 4-5 tees that really lengthen a few holes-tees that most will never know about or even see.

[Thomas Dai]

That's my whole problem with 5-6 sets of tees.An absolute recipe for homogonization.
Whatever happened to a really long, hard or interesting hole?
That's what handicap shots are for.
I've got 75 year old 25 handicappers who think they should have a tee on every hole that allows them to reach in regulation with a short iron.
Palmetto did this really well with 4-5 tees that really lengthen a few holes-tees that most will never know about or even see.

In practice handicaps allow for various aspects including lack of distance.
Sure folks get a shot or so because they can't hit the ball as far as others but there's also a link to ability. Probably every player can hit the ball 50 yds but I would imagine that if all players were asked to play 18 x 50 yd flat, hazardless holes not all of them will shoot 18 x 3. There'd most likely be numerous 4's and 5's etc as well, probably more than 2's and 1's.
atb