Sand Valley - Course #4

[Sean_A]

Woodhall Spa has numerous forced carries from the tee over heather and uneven ground. Not so nice for shorter hitters and physically weaker individuals. At the edges of the fairways however they have additional forward tees like the one shown below. Seems a reasonable compromise.
atb

So...some folks are walking how far every hole to reach their forward tee?  Archies can wax on about all these wonderful tees that people can use  to make courses more playable for all....but there can be little doubt that the game suffers for the disjointed, interrupted golf for every long walk...or...carts get involved.

Ciao   

[Carl Rogers]

Distance wise, this course will be no push over for the golfer whose drives carries ......... let's say 210. 


Is the assumption that the through the green will permit a lot of roll out?  So it might play a bit shorter?

[Brock Lynch]

Tom:


We have played Pacific & Old Mac multiple times and we all enjoyed them very much. There are many examples elsewhere in which back tees have been put in after the fact and yes, it does take away from the experience. We were at St. Andrews and the Strathtyrum & Jubilee Courses had several "back tees" that were put in to lengthen the courses and we did find it a little annoying. Don't get me wrong, we enjoyed all of the courses at St. Andrews, but those back tees did take away from the flow of playing those courses.


I was at Sand Valley this summer and had a great time. I look forward to getting back there in a few years to play your course as well.


Cheers

[Brock Lynch]

Woodhall Spa has numerous forced carries from the tee over heather and uneven ground. Not so nice for shorter hitters and physically weaker individuals. At the edges of the fairways however they have additional forward tees like the one shown below. Seems a reasonable compromise.
atb

So...some folks are walking how far every hole to reach their forward tee?  Archies can wax on about all these wonderful tees that people can use  to make courses more playable for all....but there can be little doubt that the game suffers for the disjointed, interrupted golf for every long walk...or...carts get involved.

Ciao   

Sean:


My wife and I were at Woodhall Spa last year and she played those pink tees. Yes, I agree that the flow of playing is broken up by players playing from different tees and having a considerable walk in between. However, she enjoyed those tees and I believe that the course played as intended for her as it did for me from the regular tees. I think the pluses of playability outweigh minuses of interrupted flow. Woodhall Spa is tough from any tees and it handed me a dose of humility that I haven't experienced in quite a while. I can't wait to get back!


Brock

[Tom_Doak]

the course played as intended for her as it did for me from the regular tees.

Brock:


I forgot to mention it from your earlier post, but this phrase makes me cringe.


You're making lots of assumptions there as to what's intended.  The first, which would be wrong for my courses at least, is the belief that courses are meant to give the same experience to all players if they'd just use different sets of tees.  On a piece of land with undulation and interest, that is functionally impossible, and I just don't think it should ever be the goal.


Indeed, when I design a golf course I do not have an intention of exactly how you should play each hole.  I know that some guys will be hitting wedge to a par-4 green, and others will be hitting long irons or hybrids, and others may not be able to get there in two at all.  And I try to design the hole so that all of those players have a reasonable play from wherever they find themselves. 


What I don't do is design a green for a 6-iron approach, and then put in six sets of tees so everyone can get to where they can hit a 6-iron.  Because even if I did, your wife's 6-iron and your 6-iron and Brooks Koepka's 6-iron are three very different animals.

[Brock Lynch]

the course played as intended for her as it did for me from the regular tees.

Brock:


I forgot to mention it from your earlier post, but this phrase makes me cringe.


You're making lots of assumptions there as to what's intended.  The first, which would be wrong for my courses at least, is the belief that courses are meant to give the same experience to all players if they'd just use different sets of tees.  On a piece of land with undulation and interest, that is functionally impossible, and I just don't think it should ever be the goal.


Indeed, when I design a golf course I do not have an intention of exactly how you should play each hole.  I know that some guys will be hitting wedge to a par-4 green, and others will be hitting long irons or hybrids, and others may not be able to get there in two at all.  And I try to design the hole so that all of those players have a reasonable play from wherever they find themselves. 


What I don't do is design a green for a 6-iron approach, and then put in six sets of tees so everyone can get to where they can hit a 6-iron.  Because even if I did, your wife's 6-iron and your 6-iron and Brooks Koepka's 6-iron are three very different animals.

Tom:


Put yourself in the shoes of someone who hits tee shots of 150 yds and 6-irons of 90-100 yds. It is more enjoyable for my wife to hit a club that would be similar to the one I might hit into the same green. Certainly, you can understand that hitting 3-wood into #1 at Pacific Dunes will be much more difficult than hitting a short iron that most of the rest of us hit into that hole. I can't imagine that #12 at Augusta was considered with 3-wood of the tee as a possibility. In another post, I referenced Woodhall Spa. To date, that was the best example we have experienced of a shorter hitter (my wife) playing the "appropriate" tees and enjoying the experience more because of it. All I am saying is that it is more fun to play driver - 6-iron than driver 3-wood 3-wood. You know Woodhall Spa better than most of us. Those incredible bunkers are very tough. Is wasn't that she avoided all of them, but she had the opportunity to avoid all of them without laying up on her 3rd shot. Challenging & Fun! She loved those pink tees!


Love your work. Thanks for the reply.

[Sean_A]

Woodhall Spa has numerous forced carries from the tee over heather and uneven ground. Not so nice for shorter hitters and physically weaker individuals. At the edges of the fairways however they have additional forward tees like the one shown below. Seems a reasonable compromise.
atb

So...some folks are walking how far every hole to reach their forward tee?  Archies can wax on about all these wonderful tees that people can use  to make courses more playable for all....but there can be little doubt that the game suffers for the disjointed, interrupted golf for every long walk...or...carts get involved.

Ciao   

Sean:

My wife and I were at Woodhall Spa last year and she played those pink tees. Yes, I agree that the flow of playing is broken up by players playing from different tees and having a considerable walk in between. However, she enjoyed those tees and I believe that the course played as intended for her as it did for me from the regular tees. I think the pluses of playability outweigh minuses of interrupted flow. Woodhall Spa is tough from any tees and it handed me a dose of humility that I haven't experienced in quite a while. I can't wait to get back!

Brock

Brock

On balance, I agree, the retro-fitted mega forward tees are the lesser of two (maybe more) evils if we accept that many more short courses (much shorter than Tom's proposal) won't be built.  If ever there was a time for building courses which make sense in terms of recruiting young people, women and retaining senior citizens, now is it.  There seems to be a bit of a wind blowing which is hinting at anything is possible.  That said, I don't really think properly short courses will ever really take off unless more women get involved at the development level. 

Jeepers...I often think as I walk by these mega forward tees that its a wonder anybody would start playing golf if they have to walk past that much dead ground. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

To provide one example, my family and I have played all of the courses at Bandon and each course has 5 sets of tees. My wife plays from Orange and my sons and I played from Green. I did not notice that there was extra walking because of the different sets of tees as they were generally in the same direction as the line of play. There were some set off to one side or the other to create a different angle but nothing that created a noticeably longer walk. Giving people more playing options makes their experience more enjoyable. We have also played courses (mainly overseas) that do not have shorter tee options. The result is that many forced carries are just not possible for my wife. So, she will play from a spot more forward so that she can play the hole as it was intended. It is nice for her to have tees that are appropriate for her skill & strength level so that she doesn't have to make up her own tees to make the course playable. I have always thought that it would be a small investment for the course to provide more people enjoyable playing opportunities.

But I disagree with you about the walk.  In most cases, we need to set up the green-to-tee walks so the shortest walk is to the "back" tee, because if you have to walk back to it, there's a chance someone will duff/yank/toe their tee shot into players on the previous green.  So, you have to walk the full length of the course, plus the green-to-back tee distance, no matter what set of tees you are playing.  But if the back tees are where the white tees would normally be, and the back tees are only 6200 yards, that's 10% less you are going to walk, all else being equal.

Tom, I know what you’re saying but I’m not sure I agree with you on this one. Given 4 sets of tees with all things being equal, I aim to have the shortest green to tee walk for the 2nd back set for exactly the reason of reducing the dead ground for most golfers... back sets are only about 5-10% of the rounds so I like to reduce the walk for the middle two sets which are 80% of the play. This also reduces the walk to the forward tees... Not always possible... but this is definitely a consideration of mine....


Of course, you mention potential safety by having a walk back. This has to be considered. As does the fact that a tee set back from the previous green is sometimes harder to hide from golfers playing the previous hole. Still, my ideal course has people walking off the green on to the heavily used 2nd back set.

[Thomas Dai]

I’d be interested to know the maintenance implications of one set of very small size, very far forward tees akin to the one in the photo I posted above.
Of course many times, although admittedly not always, it’ll be similar level players who are playing together from such forward tees so the safety aspect maybe isn’t to the level it may sometimes be perceived to be.
Also, isn’t playing from walk-back tees less safe given that both other/all forward tees and any playings who may have walked onto the previous green could be considered as being in a risky position?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who hits tee shots of 150 yds and 6-irons of 90-100 yds. It is more enjoyable for my wife to hit a club that would be similar to the one I might hit into the same green.

I've always considered the needs of women golfers, and think I've done pretty well in accommodating them.


But this idea that you should hit the same club into every green ... that's a problem.  Topography makes that harder.  For you, it's possible to carry over the ridge in the first fairway at Pacific Dunes and see where you're going.  For your wife, a tee that would let her do the same is going to be right in the bottom of that first little valley, so she's hitting blind up over the ridge without much to use as a reference point, and where a slightly better woman player might drive it through the landing area into trouble.  One has to make the call on whether the tee would be better where she can see [but where not everywoman will make the carry], or be blind.


If I err on the side of a too difficult tee shot for one hole, I'll try to make it up with an easier tee shot on another, so there is some balance and so women golfers have a chance to post a good score on my courses.  But you can't make it work out perfectly for every hole, because the two scales [your shots vs. hers] are too different, and the topography is the same.


Plus, what works out perfectly for your wife on a certain hole, might be just wrong for her sister or her mom.

[Tom Bagley]

I'm all for variety, and I generally dislike modern courses due to their large "one size fits all" scale that inevitably takes a lot of land and litters it with tees.

I love this quote - especially the "litters it with tees" part.

[Brock Lynch]

Tom:

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who hits tee shots of 150 yds and 6-irons of 90-100 yds. It is more enjoyable for my wife to hit a club that would be similar to the one I might hit into the same green.

I've always considered the needs of women golfers, and think I've done pretty well in accommodating them.


But this idea that you should hit the same club into every green ... that's a problem.  Topography makes that harder.  For you, it's possible to carry over the ridge in the first fairway at Pacific Dunes and see where you're going.  For your wife, a tee that would let her do the same is going to be right in the bottom of that first little valley, so she's hitting blind up over the ridge without much to use as a reference point, and where a slightly better woman player might drive it through the landing area into trouble.  One has to make the call on whether the tee would be better where she can see [but where not everywoman will make the carry], or be blind.


If I err on the side of a too difficult tee shot for one hole, I'll try to make it up with an easier tee shot on another, so there is some balance and so women golfers have a chance to post a good score on my courses.  But you can't make it work out perfectly for every hole, because the two scales [your shots vs. hers] are too different, and the topography is the same.


Plus, what works out perfectly for your wife on a certain hole, might be just wrong for her sister or her mom.

Tom:


No one is looking for perfection. Just give the short hitting ladies a chance to have a similar experience to what most others will have. Also, why is it that there are almost no examples of the front ladies tees playing shorter for them than the regular tees will play for the men?


Cheers

[Daryl David]

We need to stop calling them “Ladies” tees. They are just teeing grounds. Some are back, some are forward and you play the ones you want for fun and the ones designated in competitions.

[Tom_Doak]

No one is looking for perfection. Just give the short hitting ladies a chance to have a similar experience to what most others will have. Also, why is it that there are almost no examples of the front ladies tees playing shorter for them than the regular tees will play for the men?

What handicap is your wife?  And how far does she hit a tee shot normally?


I honestly have trouble believing I've built many courses which she can't get around and enjoy herself.  [I have had one or two clients who didn't want that.]  That's the main goal here.  Arguing about shot values or appropriate tee location is different for EVERY player, man or woman, and I am certain it's impossible to please everyone without an infinite number of tees.

[Ira Fishman]

My wife is a 25 and hits a good drive 150 yards.  I was a bit concerned after I booked our trip this year that she might find Woking (5700 yards), St. George's Hill (5500 yards) and Royal Dornoch (5350) too long.  She loved them all.  In fact, the only courses over the past few years she did not enjoy were Wailea Gold, Lakewood (local DC area course), Nairn, and Old Mac.  For the first three, it was the same objection:  too many forced carries to the greens over very difficult bunkers.  For Old Mac, she thought the greens were too big given that she finds putting the least interesting part of the game. 


Now, my wife is a sample of exactly one, but from talking to her friends, length of the hole generally is not the issue even though they know it is "unfair" relative to men.  Forced carries seem to be the major impediment to enjoying the course.  That is a sentiment which I share.


Ira

[William_G]

We need to stop calling them “Ladies” tees. They are just teeing grounds. Some are back, some are forward and you play the ones you want for fun and the ones designated in competitions.

exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shelly Jones]

Swinley Forest and Rye are both wonderful courses. I think Rye is a bit more difficult, but Swinley Forest has an amazing set of par 3 holes.


And it was not until recently that Swinley Forest even established a par figure for the course. I doubt the members care much what the number might be, nor how long the course might be.


And the course kicked me in the butt the last time I played it.

[Brock Lynch]

We need to stop calling them “Ladies” tees. They are just teeing grounds. Some are back, some are forward and you play the ones you want for fun and the ones designated in competitions.

Daryl:


Forgive me, you are correct.

[Brock Lynch]

No one is looking for perfection. Just give the short hitting ladies a chance to have a similar experience to what most others will have. Also, why is it that there are almost no examples of the front ladies tees playing shorter for them than the regular tees will play for the men?

What handicap is your wife?  And how far does she hit a tee shot normally?


I honestly have trouble believing I've built many courses which she can't get around and enjoy herself.  [I have had one or two clients who didn't want that.]  That's the main goal here.  Arguing about shot values or appropriate tee location is different for EVERY player, man or woman, and I am certain it's impossible to please everyone without an infinite number of tees.

Tom:


My wife is a 25 and hits her tees shots about 150 yds., on average.
I know we can find some common ground here. You can please reasonable people with the appropriate number of tees. That number depends on each hole and each course. Should you try to please everyone? Yes, within reason. I just don't think we've gotten close to trying please those people at the front end. Its been 5+ years since I've been to Bandon, but I do remember that she enjoyed it very much. There are 5 sets of tees on each course there, including a set well within her ability. We will go back there in the future. We played Ganton in 2017. There were some forward tees at about 6,000 yds! Not within her ability. You can understand that she felt like she, and players like her, are not wanted there as there was no reasonable tees from which to play from. Later in the round we discovered some lame green stick markers placed forward of the other tees that we assumed was for those who wish to play Ganton from farther forward. Those tee were not on the scorecard, so were unaware of them until we discovered them. I loved Ganton (tough and as demanding off the tee as any I have played) and wish to go back very soon. My wife doesn't have such fond memories.


My wife is well aware that she is not as proficient at golf as others and that is due to lack of power and, to some degree, a lack of skill. She still loves the game and only asks for a chance to enjoy it as the rest of us do. I don't believe that having more tees takes away from the greatness of the course. To the contrary! The greatness is that it challenges and appeals to all who play it from wherever they choose to play it. If forced to play from one or two tees, one may choose not to play and that is a shame.


I think we will have to agree to disagree. You are the designer of great golf courses and I am just one player who hopes to see, play, and enjoy as many of those courses as possible in my lifetime. My wife will be along side me and I hope that she enjoys them as well.


Cheers

[Matt MacIver]

Golfers have always hit the ball different distances, but it’s got worse over the past 20 years due to the ball, the clubs, muscles, etc. 


But wasn’t the old school of thought: golfers hit a 7i ~150 yards so that’s approx. from where you should be hitting your second shot (on par 4s).  So fairway bunkers were put there-ish and several tee boxes were built to give golfers a choice of where to play so that you’d then be hitting from 150 out.  Did the RTJ era start/drive this? Tee boxes got longer and longer, fairway bunkers did too, in an attempt to make it “the same experience” for all golfers — all from the sidelines/rough with no centerline trouble. 


I think the design ethos has changed, for the good.

[Tom_Doak]

 We played Ganton in 2017. There were some forward tees at about 6,000 yds! Not within her ability. You can understand that she felt like she, and players like her, are not wanted there as there was no reasonable tees from which to play from.

. . .

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You are the designer of great golf courses and I am just one player who hopes to see, play, and enjoy as many of those courses as possible in my lifetime. My wife will be along side me and I hope that she enjoys them as well.

You keep setting up straw man arguments.  Nowhere has anyone on these threads advocated for forward tees at 6000 yards.  In this thread we are discussing a course that's planned to be 6200 yards from the BACK tees.  If you're going to argue about how you think I should do things, you should use examples relevant to my own work.


I think the longest course I've ever built for women is about 5500 yards -- and that was with fescue fairways where drives roll out 20% farther than on most American courses.  I have nothing against forward tees.  I just don't think we need five sets of them. 

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


Any thought to how much irrigated turf will be on this course? Are you able to reduce the size of the golf course as a result of having a shorter overall length? Or is it more a factor of just not having those one or two small patches of grass at the back of the “normal” tees?

[Kalen Braley]

Brock,


I've played several of Tom's courses and in my experience he's done a fine job in placing the front tees appropriately, unlike most other courses where its an after thought and placed 20 yards in front of the mens/middle tees.


I thought what he did at Stone Eagle was especially interesting as many of the forward tees were not only set at interesting angles, but also well out of play and view from the middle tees.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Any thought to how much irrigated turf will be on this course? Are you able to reduce the size of the golf course as a result of having a shorter overall length? Or is it more a factor of just not having those one or two small patches of grass at the back of the “normal” tees?

I am hopeful it will be a lot less than any of my recent courses, and maybe half of Mammoth Dunes.  The players who can only carry 130 yards from the back tees don't need so much width.  But I have a feeling every hole will be a negotiation with the client, so it's impossible to say how much we will wind up with.

[Mark Fedeli]

My wife is well aware that she is not as proficient at golf as others and that is due to lack of power and, to some degree, a lack of skill. She still loves the game and only asks for a chance to enjoy it as the rest of us do.

I don't think it's realistic to expect all players to enjoy the game equally. People enjoy or get frustrated with golf for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with gender or age or length or ability — or with anything that's solely under the architect's control.


Whatever scenario they are faced with, it's on the player to figure out how to adapt and find enjoyment within their skill-set. But it's a hard game, and that mentality tends to take a lot of time and practice. Trying to engineer every course for every type of player doesn't seem like a formula for interesting courses, but I think Tom certainly does his best to accomplish what you're requesting.