Sand Valley - Course #4

[Brock Lynch]

 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.

Tom:


I think you're getting the wrong idea about what I'm saying. I would never suggest to you what you should do or not do with your designs. I'm only pointing out that golf courses with limited teeing options are not going to appeal to those golfers that don't hit it very far. Our day at Ganton was only an example of how a great course will not appeal to the types of golfers mainly due to a lack of tee options. My wife disliked Tobacco Road because it was too difficult for her. That is a different issue. I liked Tobacco Road because it was different and I'd love to play it again. I understand that there are no sets of tees that are going to make the experience better for my wife. However I think that courses like Tobacco Road are the exception. Many courses could be enjoyable for more golfers if they could play from a tee appropriate for them. Yes, there is no one on this thread that is advocating for 6000 yd. forward tees. Yet many courses have forward tees that are just too long for many golfers.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brock,


I think we can all agree on that last point... As “regular” courses have pushed up towards 7,200 yards, so the forward tees have got ever slightly longer, usually 5,500 to 5,800.


Forward tees are better in the region of 4,800 and there should just be bigger gaps between sets. Even on a 7-2 course, I’d stick with 4 sets with the two others around 6-5 and 5-8 assuming all other things equal.

[Brock Lynch]

Brock,


I think we can all agree on that last point... As “regular” courses have pushed up towards 7,200 yards, so the forward tees have got ever slightly longer, usually 5,500 to 5,800.


Forward tees are better in the region of 4,800 and there should just be bigger gaps between sets. Even on a 7-2 course, I’d stick with 4 sets with the two others around 6-5 and 5-8 assuming all other things equal.

Agree on all points.

[Tom_Doak]

Brock,


I think we can all agree on that last point... As “regular” courses have pushed up towards 7,200 yards, so the forward tees have got ever slightly longer, usually 5,500 to 5,800.


Forward tees are better in the region of 4,800 and there should just be bigger gaps between sets. Even on a 7-2 course, I’d stick with 4 sets with the two others around 6-5 and 5-8 assuming all other things equal.

So what's wrong with throwing out the 7200 yards altogether and just having three sets of tees?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:


I think you're getting the wrong idea about what I'm saying. I would never suggest to you what you should do or not do with your designs. I'm only pointing out that golf courses with limited teeing options are not going to appeal to those golfers that don't hit it very far. Our day at Ganton was only an example of how a great course will not appeal to the types of golfers mainly due to a lack of tee options. My wife disliked Tobacco Road because it was too difficult for her. That is a different issue. I liked Tobacco Road because it was different and I'd love to play it again. I understand that there are no sets of tees that are going to make the experience better for my wife. However I think that courses like Tobacco Road are the exception. Many courses could be enjoyable for more golfers if they could play from a tee appropriate for them. Yes, there is no one on this thread that is advocating for 6000 yd. forward tees. Yet many courses have forward tees that are just too long for many golfers.

Brock:


Apologies if I have been a little testy on this thread.  I've had a long and emotional last few days.  And I've not seen your name here before, so I don't know how to talk to you, or for that matter whether you were just one of my three favorite trolls operating under a new handle.


There are lots of old courses like Ganton who just keep doing what they've always done and see no need to change.  You are right that they aren't going to appeal to many 25-handicap women golfers; they might just not care.  They probably won't see many 25-handicap women visitors in a year, no matter where they put the tees.  But in an ideal world they'd be more accommodating.


The funny thing about your mention of Tobacco Road is, doesn't it have a lot of different tee locations?  I know exactly what you are saying, as my one round there was with two excellent junior players, and their dad really struggled to find a tee for them on each hole where they could play and not have to lay up or face an impossible carry.


But that's been part of my point in this argument all along:  it's not just about the length of the tees, but about the playability of the holes.  A longer course can work well for your wife if it doesn't hold her back, and doesn't require any big carries.  The genesis of so many sets of tees is just the opposite:  too many designers have succumbed to the temptation to build lots of bunkers and hazards, and then they try to keep it playable by building more sets of tees, and declaring that you'd have been fine if you had just played from different markers.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brock,


I think we can all agree on that last point... As “regular” courses have pushed up towards 7,200 yards, so the forward tees have got ever slightly longer, usually 5,500 to 5,800.


Forward tees are better in the region of 4,800 and there should just be bigger gaps between sets. Even on a 7-2 course, I’d stick with 4 sets with the two others around 6-5 and 5-8 assuming all other things equal.

So what's wrong with throwing out the 7200 yards altogether and just having three sets of tees?

Absolutely zero. I’m all for it.

[Sean_A]

Yes, knock out 7200 and now there are more sensible gaps for four sets of tees.  Still, I gotta believe the most sensible thing is to max out around 6400 TOPS. 

Ciao

[Brock Lynch]

Yes, knock out 7200 and now there are more sensible gaps for four sets of tees.  Still, I gotta believe the most sensible thing is to max out around 6400 TOPS. 

Ciao

Agree 100%. But, that begs another question; What are sensible gaps between tees? I must admit that those courses with 5 or more tees seem to have them too close together. I'm not sure what the proper gaps are. I would be interested to hear from you guys what that would be. I wonder how much thought is put into tee gaps. Is it just to accommodate different level of players or is it to offer same player a different way to play each hole?

[Brock Lynch]

Apologies if I have been a little testy on this thread.  I've had a long and emotional last few days.  And I've not seen your name here before, so I don't know how to talk to you, or for that matter whether you were just one of my three favorite trolls operating under a new handle.


There are lots of old courses like Ganton who just keep doing what they've always done and see no need to change.  You are right that they aren't going to appeal to many 25-handicap women golfers; they might just not care.  They probably won't see many 25-handicap women visitors in a year, no matter where they put the tees.  But in an ideal world they'd be more accommodating.


The funny thing about your mention of Tobacco Road is, doesn't it have a lot of different tee locations?  I know exactly what you are saying, as my one round there was with two excellent junior players, and their dad really struggled to find a tee for them on each hole where they could play and not have to lay up or face an impossible carry.


But that's been part of my point in this argument all along:  it's not just about the length of the tees, but about the playability of the holes.  A longer course can work well for your wife if it doesn't hold her back, and doesn't require any big carries.  The genesis of so many sets of tees is just the opposite:  too many designers have succumbed to the temptation to build lots of bunkers and hazards, and then they try to keep it playable by building more sets of tees, and declaring that you'd have been fine if you had just played from different markers.

Tom:


No worries. I wasn't exactly joyful in some of my responses. Playability is definitely the key to this entire discussion and that doesn't mean easy to play. I'm sure this is a difficult balance that you face with each course you build. Having a great site aside, making each hole playable yet challenging is what keeps people coming back. You have Ganton pegged correctly I believe. Though I still want to go back and play it again. Plus the locker room is one the coolest I've ever been able to walk around in.


Again, no worries on the nature our posts. I am just as guilty for their tone. Hopefully, all is now well with you.


Cheers

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, knock out 7200 and now there are more sensible gaps for four sets of tees.  Still, I gotta believe the most sensible thing is to max out around 6400 TOPS. 

Ciao

I’m ok with knocking out the 7,200 tees on the majority of new courses. Getting that “has to be 7,000 yards” attitude removed from the consciousness is one of the most admirable goals.


But I disagree that you are left with more sensible gaps for four tees. The gaps can be big and if 6,500 is the tops, I’d go with three sets if possible.

[Sean_A]

Yes, knock out 7200 and now there are more sensible gaps for four sets of tees.  Still, I gotta believe the most sensible thing is to max out around 6400 TOPS. 

Ciao

Agree 100%. But, that begs another question; What are sensible gaps between tees? I must admit that those courses with 5 or more tees seem to have them too close together. I'm not sure what the proper gaps are. I would be interested to hear from you guys what that would be. I wonder how much thought is put into tee gaps. Is it just to accommodate different level of players or is it to offer same player a different way to play each hole?

Brock

Each hole is different for gaps...depends on the features.  I can imagine some holes with no gaps at all.  On a cool property it mean that there are 5-6 holes which are considerably longer for the back tees, but not so much for the rest of the course.  What I mainly object to is the idea of forward tees eliminating all thrills.  Often times 150 yard carry is too much, but if there was a tee set at 75-100 yards before the carry then a sense of excitement and achievement can be had rather than asking the player to walk all the around the feature and tee up. If golfers can't get the ball in the air at all, maybe they should be learning how to play a bit more on par 3 or executive courses.  It simply not reasonable to expect all levels of golfers to be catered for on all courses....hence the reason target markets need to be better serviced.  I have no issue with courses which max out at 7000+ and may not have forward tees less than 6500 yards.  I accept that course isn't for me. Building mega tees isn't the best solution for inclusive design. 
It seems to me if the back tees are 6200ish, then the next set can start around 5700-5800ish (which would usually be the main walking tee from the previous green)...making a clear delineation.  There could then be two more sets around the 5300 and 5000 mark.  Like Tom, I see no reason why additional platforms can't be created if there are extra angles to be had. 

Because the course is short, the SSS can be played with considerably.  A tough course at 5800 yards might be 1 shot higher than par.  An easy course from the same distance might be 2 shots less than par.  These easy courses are the ones which screw with the good players because they will have to score better on a few extra holes than normal...meaning they will need to find a few more birdies so the pressure is on before they even tee off.  Often times, for the better players, distance isn't an issue.  The majority of these guys would be happy to step back to 6800 yards with the SSS two shots higher than par because the difficulty lies with length...which they have no problem with.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


I’m not really with you on some of your above points. The bottom line is you don’t need close gaps (because 5 or 6 sets is unnecessary - always) yet you should try and make every course as playable and walkable as possible for the weaker golfers. Therefore almost every course should try and have a set at or under 5,000 yards because sometimes weaker golfers don’t have other good options elsewhere. 100 yard carries are too much for this golfer.


Let’s take Carne as an example. If short hitters aren’t given the option to play it then they won’t play: There are no other golf courses near enough for the commute. Hence the Kilmore has forward tees at 2,450 yards. Even with that, the downhill par-3 second has a fairly daunting 80 yard carry.


Generally though, we’re pretty close on our opinions. I definitely don’t think expert golfers need to be catered for at every golf course. They already have the pick of the great courses. Therefore the more courses topping out at 6,500, the better.

[jeffwarne]

Brock,


I think we can all agree on that last point... As “regular” courses have pushed up towards 7,200 yards, so the forward tees have got ever slightly longer, usually 5,500 to 5,800.

I can't think of a single new course with 7200 yard tees that didn't have forward tees much shorter than most all older courses.
and when new tees are added I've never seen any course LENGTHEN their forward tees.
I'm all for the 4800 yard set, and I'm all for 5-6 super way back tees, and then a set of tees that most play at 6200-6400 yards(whatever the terrain allows).
That way with some creativity or imagination one could play the course from 4800-6800 with multiple combos in between, while still retaining a core course which most people play.
Just dont make me put all that on a scorecard-

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I’m not really with you on some of your above points. The bottom line is you don’t need close gaps (because 5 or 6 sets is unnecessary - always) yet you should try and make every course as playable and walkable as possible for the weaker golfers. Therefore almost every course should try and have a set at or under 5,000 yards because sometimes weaker golfers don’t have other good options elsewhere. 100 yard carries are too much for this golfer.

Let’s take Carne as an example. If short hitters aren’t given the option to play it then they won’t play: There are no other golf courses near enough for the commute. Hence the Kilmore has forward tees at 2,450 yards. Even with that, the downhill par-3 second has a fairly daunting 80 yard carry.

Generally though, we’re pretty close on our opinions. I definitely don’t think expert golfers need to be catered for at every golf course. They already have the pick of the great courses. Therefore the more courses topping out at 6,500, the better.

Isn't Carne Kilmore on metres?  I think the forward yardage is 2700 compared to 3250 for the backs...so not a particularly short course at all.  The gaps are essentially what I outlined...except I advocate for a more forward set at 2500ish...no? 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

I’m not really with you on some of your above points. The bottom line is you don’t need close gaps (because 5 or 6 sets is unnecessary - always) yet you should try and make every course as playable and walkable as possible for the weaker golfers. Therefore almost every course should try and have a set at or under 5,000 yards because sometimes weaker golfers don’t have other good options elsewhere. 100 yard carries are too much for this golfer.

Let’s take Carne as an example. If short hitters aren’t given the option to play it then they won’t play: There are no other golf courses near enough for the commute. Hence the Kilmore has forward tees at 2,450 yards. Even with that, the downhill par-3 second has a fairly daunting 80 yard carry.

Generally though, we’re pretty close on our opinions. I definitely don’t think expert golfers need to be catered for at every golf course. They already have the pick of the great courses. Therefore the more courses topping out at 6,500, the better.

Isn't Carne Kilmore on metres?  I think the forward yardage is 2700 compared to 3250 for the backs...so not a particularly short course at all.  The gaps are essentially what I outlined...except I advocate for a more forward set at 2500ish...no? 

Ciao

Sean,


Even questioning this?


Forward tees are 2,256m on the card and a new front tee (unfortunately poorly built in the wrong place in-house) has just shortened the first by a further 100m.... So 2,150m / 2,360 yards.


Four sets of tees at 3,250 / 3,000 / 2,700 / 2,360


Generally speaking I’d be happy to go down to three sets with bigger gaps.


Or as we are doing at Strandhill and as Jeff advocates, 3 sets with about 5 or 6 holes having an added back set (i.e. 5 or 6 holes with 4 tees, the rest with 3)

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I’m not really with you on some of your above points. The bottom line is you don’t need close gaps (because 5 or 6 sets is unnecessary - always) yet you should try and make every course as playable and walkable as possible for the weaker golfers. Therefore almost every course should try and have a set at or under 5,000 yards because sometimes weaker golfers don’t have other good options elsewhere. 100 yard carries are too much for this golfer.

Let’s take Carne as an example. If short hitters aren’t given the option to play it then they won’t play: There are no other golf courses near enough for the commute. Hence the Kilmore has forward tees at 2,450 yards. Even with that, the downhill par-3 second has a fairly daunting 80 yard carry.

Generally though, we’re pretty close on our opinions. I definitely don’t think expert golfers need to be catered for at every golf course. They already have the pick of the great courses. Therefore the more courses topping out at 6,500, the better.

Isn't Carne Kilmore on metres?  I think the forward yardage is 2700 compared to 3250 for the backs...so not a particularly short course at all.  The gaps are essentially what I outlined...except I advocate for a more forward set at 2500ish...no? 

Ciao

Sean,

Even questioning this?

Forward tees are 2,256m on the card and a new front tee (unfortunately poorly built in the wrong place in-house) has just shortened the first by a further 100m.... So 2,150m / 2,360 yards.

Four sets of tees at 3,250 / 3,000 / 2,700 / 2,360

Generally speaking I’d be happy to go down to three sets with bigger gaps.

Or as we are doing at Strandhill and as Jeff advocates, 3 sets with about 5 or 6 holes having an added back set (i.e. 5 or 6 holes with 4 tees, the rest with 3)

Ally


Sorry, just going by the published card on the website.  After all that, you have four sets of tees?  Very funny.


Yes, I said a while back, its likely that the vast majority of back tee yardage would come in a handful of holes to include cool features that may be too much for shorter hitters. 


Anyway, I think we essentially agree.  Building more targeted courses rather one fits all courses with mega tees is a good way to create playable courses on a more sustainable scale. 


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeez Sean - you really should start designing and building some golf courses yourself.


Yes - 4 sets of tees to marry in with the existing Hackett course. As it happens, all but two of the holes (6 & 9) have only three teeing grounds or less so if the club ever decided, the course could easily be reduced to three sets of markers.

[Joe Hancock]

So, does every course have to be everything to everyone? Seems like a lot of banter going on here without considering the fact that there are different styles of golf courses for varied purposes.

[Tom_Doak]

So, does every course have to be everything to everyone?


there are different styles of golf courses for varied purposes.

Indeed.  I threw out Pine Valley and Garden City as counter examples earlier in this thread; no one remarked on the fact that they need fewer tees because women golfers aren't welcome there (with exceptions at PV).


Much of the problem of modern golf design is developers trying to be all things to all people.  Not every movie or book has to include a romantic angle and a car chase, but all of the bad ones do.


i have always said my problem with course raters is that many judge a course not on what it is, but on what they wanted it to be.  Here, everyone is doing it before there is even a course to judge.


What if golf architects just built a course that interested them, and let the chips fall where they may?

[Ally Mcintosh]

So, does every course have to be everything to everyone?


there are different styles of golf courses for varied purposes.

What if golf architects just built a course that interested them, and let the chips fall where they may?

Then you could still rely on everyone on GCA overanalysing the pro’s and con’s of every decision.


Personally, I think it’s more important on the majority of courses (not all) to provide the really short tees and less important to provide the really long tees: Even the elite enjoy playing a shorter course now and then. But the beginners and over-70’s and many ladies aren’t physically able to play a longer course. And they make up both the populace that holds a club together and the populace that we should be encouraging more to enter the game.


For right or wrong, public courses / pay and plays can decide what they want - the developer is looking for his ROI, even if trying to appeal to all may be exactly the wrong decision. I’m talking members courses.

[Thomas Dai]

......beginners and over-70’s and many ladies aren’t physically able to play a longer course. And they make up both the populace that holds a club together and the populace that we should be encouraging more to enter the game.

+1
Atb

[Brock Lynch]

What I mainly object to is the idea of forward tees eliminating all thrills.

Sean:


I would certainly agree with this. I'm advocating for the forward tees to bring the thrill to the short hitter.


Cheers

[Peter Flory]

Go to the back tees on any hole, no matter how long, and there will inevitably be a divot pointing 45 degrees left of target.  There is a market for masochists.