What constitutes an "irrelevant shot"?

[Adam Clayman]

Apparently the Tartan blues band was playing in Pinehurst and one of their minions tweeted some quotes from one of their speakers.

What is the benefit of additional tees? The “elimination of irrelevant golf shots” says Bill Berlin [/size][size=78%]@ASGCA[/size]Symposium. Tee shot matters, approach shot matters & “scoring shots” matter. [/font][/size][size=78%]@bergingolf[/size]

[JESII]

I think it's actually a good answer.


I've been on the side of preferring fewer tees, primarily for aesthetics and the idea of encountering a course in as natural a state as possible. I don't believe in the "ideal yardage" philosophy and trying to build and play a course to a set number because I expect, and hope, conditions change often enough that 6500 today might be 6250 tomorrow and 6750 the next time I play.


But...this answer, "to avoid irrelevant shots", reveals a lot. Part is very admirable in that no, it's not much fun to hit 3 or 4 woods that don't mean anything before trying to find the correct angle to play into a green. But in reality, the course should aspire to hold interest on each shot, and that interest could ultimately be dictated by an interesting green. Like playing pool well, if there's an advantage to being in a particular place for the final shot, you could reward a path to that place.


Does Bill Bergin build courses, and tees, which enable every golfer to reach the green in regulation? That would be a tough ask...

[Kyle Harris]

Bill Bergin's body of work is strong enough to merit having his named spelled correctly.


As is any other person, really.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,


The trend is to attempt to build a course where even recreational women and super senior men can hit most, if not all, greens in regulation, and ideally, with similar clubs to male players.


As mentioned, why would those groups even consider golf with at least a couple of extra shots per hole that really have no strategy other than to advance the ball?


Until the last ten years or so (I was quoted on the subject in the WSJ ten years ago) forward tees were "under thought."

I agree with you, the math is daunting, but no reason not to try.

If a recreational female hits tee shots about 145 compared to average tour pro at 290, and you want them to use similar clubs on approach, the course would have to be 50% of the length, i.e. a 7200 yard course being 3600.  For senior men and longer females, the ratio is about 60%, and 7200 would have to be about 4300 yards.


And the max length for the 145 and 170 hitters to reach all greens (on a normal day, I agree weather variations come into play) would be 36 shots at 90% of the tee shot distances, or 4700 and 5500 yards.  2 max length shots isn't very good either, so I tend to split the difference, allowing longer clubs but still allowing most holes to be hit in regulation.  My forward and second tees (barring any junior tees that might be added) usually come out at just over 4000 and just over 5000 yards, because there is still some ego from playing "too short" and "too easy."


But my experience is, that after some initial resistance, they are universally accepted, often under the guise of "I don't need them, but some of my "friends" do, LOL.


So yes, a shot with no other goal but distance to complete the hole is to me, irrelevant.


Cheers.

[JESII]

I get it...but you paint yourself into a corner, don't you?


You simply cannot please everyone if the goal is to get them all on the green in regulation with the same club as an expert. It's literally impossible and the attempts to get there would be awfully cumbersome, wouldn't they?


Right in your explanation you rationalize decisions based on not being able to control everything. How often do these ideals get in the way of what could be a better hole?

[Rich Goodale]

I played 18 with my older and very much smaller sister a week ago, and every hole except the 3s (80-120 yards) were unreachable for her.  All the rest for her were driver, wood, mid-iron for the 4s and add another wood or two for the 5s.  Most of her "approach" shots were not "irrelevant," but boring.  I moved up to be friendly, and 6000 made every shot relevant for me.  Playing off the tips I would have been in her "irrelevant" zone, and not as enjoyable as the round we had.


My sister had two holes in one last year in a 50 day period.  I have not had a hole in one since 2007.


I'm all for user relevance in how golf courses are designed.


Rich

[Mark_Fine]

I think the trend (and maybe it is just another trend) is for more tees vs less tees.  I very much agree if they are not built/designed properly they can ruin the aesthetic.  That said, it is actually fun to play from different distances.  The back tee player should play the front tees once in a while.  They will find (especially on a good course) a whole different set of challenges to deal with.  Variety is the spice of golf 

[Peter Flory]

Seems like tee strips would be better than individually spaced tees in many cases.  That allows for more flexibility and variance instead of quantizing the tee spots.  I guess the handicap system breaks down a bit though if the tees are too fluid.

[JESII]

Agree on variety Mark, but I think the rub on this topic is more how to deal with the vast number of people like Rich's sister as opposed to the back tee guy and opening their eyes to a little variety. I also agree that despite my objections in here, more tees is certainly a stronger trend than fewer.


That said, how do we handle the people that hit it half as far as Rich's sister?

[Tom_Doak]

One of the fun things about The Loop is that it's almost all short grass from one green to the next, so you could pretty much tee it up from any distance you wanted.


However, in practice, they don't use nearly as much of that variety as they could, because it's more complicated for the maintenance crew and because the visitors are more comfortable playing from where the yardage book shows.

[Mark_Fine]

The “how do you adjust handicaps” from multiple and varied teeing locations is the most difficult question?  We play a game at Lehigh especially this time of year where a different player in the foursome gets to choose where to tee off on each hole.  It can be from any tee or even from a “non formal tee”.  It is a blast but who knows how you put in a score for handicap purposes?  The point I am making is tees are simply starting points for a hole.  As much as Architects design holes and set hazards and lines of sight and..., based on set teeing locations, it is fun to mix it up a bit.  I have never played The Loop but I have played courses like Sebonack that have no formal teeing grounds and those holes would all be interesting to play from almost any distance. 

[Jason Topp]

Another alternative is to make the extra shot interesting.  My course has some bunkers 50 yards short of the green on some longer par 4's.  I originally thought they were poor additions because they only affected higher handicap players who were not around the green.  I do find however that they pose some interesting decisions when you are out of position off the tee. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,


Hear what you are saying.  Bunkers 40 yards short of the green have always been a favorite feature for me.  That got beat out of me as they are out of play but for high handicappers and on most projects you need a lot of reasons to justify the cost of a bunker, so they go, except on par 5 holes where they look great and affect the second shot (or third)


Jim,


I haven't found it to be impossible or awkward.  The complaints I hear about too many tees in view come on this site, and rarely anywhere else.    I agree, BTW that for nearly any tee, long and skinny beats short and wide for usefulness in most cases.


As to not being able to please everyone, no harm trying, and one of the things that got me going on tees for everyone was a pro who poo pooed shorter tees with "That ought to be good enough for the women."  How many businesses would ever adopt THAT attitude and get away with it? So yeah, golf courses are businesses and do try to please as many customers as possible, especially with the game needing female participation to grow.  It is also an aging demographic, and allowing senior men to enjoy golf s much as they did when younger is also good business.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I'd imagine that architects see/hear the same things I do in being paired with 'average golfers' of all kinds, ie

All most golfers want is an honest chance, a fair shake. And for most golfers, that means much shorter yardages, with 900 yard gaps in totals between sets:

If we stayed with 3 tees, my guesstimates would be:
4400 yards
5300 yards
6200 yards

[Peter Pallotta]

J -
I forgot to add:
and if runway tees were back in fashion, those yardages could 'on occasion' be stretched (wink wink, nudge nudge - ie actually 'never') to 4700, 5600, and 6500 yards!
P

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of the first times I was at 4400 yards on a design a good(but 140 yard tee shot) female player said she could have hit 13 greens, by far a personal record and wondered why we didn't make all 18 reachable.  So yeah, they like the chance.

So, I agree on the fair chance, but why guess.  Tee shots fall in clusters, like 130-150 (i.e. average 140), 160-180 (i.e. average 170) etc.  Do we want the shortest hitters in the group to be able to reach in regulation, even if with max clubs?

Then 14 shots x 130 (1820 yards) and 22 at a max of 90% (about 117 yards) = 2574.  Average and long hitters will have less than 3 metal in to all greens, which is fine/great.  Traditional red tees should be no more than 4394 yards (excluding specific course conditions) so your math is right on.

If we want the low end of average player to hit the same club as club champ, it would be more like 14 shots x 130 (1820 yards) and 22 at a max of 70% (about 117 yards) = 2002 for a total of 3822 yards.

I tend to stay around that 4400 yards, but 4100-4200 yards is the best golf overall golf experience for the "so called typical" player.  They do vary.  I hear reports in South Florida that some older women really only hit tee balls about 125 yards.  So, it's worth double checking any so called standard figure before starting design.

I agree on the flexibility.  If I played a course everyday (my old club is now warehouses) I would want variety, but I am always surprised at how many golfers want tee back/pin up to assure the course plays the same everyday, for either their handicap or to relieve them of any sort of thought on club selection.

[Cliff Hamm]

An amateur once said to Nicklaus he wanted to play a course like the pros do.  So he went to walk back to the tips.  Nicklaus informed him that if he wanted to play the course like the pros, he should move up to the most forward tees.  Enough said.  I am in favor of multiple/hybrid tees. 


BTW  Jeff you are correct in south Florida many ladies hit the ball 125 or less.

[Garland Bayley]

If you take a flat field and mow it and place greens and tees at historical lengths (those that don't bend over backwards to make greens reachable in regulation for everyone from at least some tee), then you will have irrelevant shots. If you incorporate hazards, terrain, vegetation, etc. to provide interest, you have fewer irrelevant shots.

For example, Pacific Dunes #12 has more irrelevant shots than Pacific Dunes #15.

If you can't create a course that minimizes irrelevant shots, then I suppose you compensate by building multiple sets of tees. Unfortunately, the lower cost courses by nature will have more irrelevant shots, and need more sets of tees.

Perhaps if we were to determine a measure to count irrelevant shots, we would find that the courses considered best in the world, would have the fewest irrelevant shots. However, many links courses that haven't reached the higher echelons of the golfing world would score well on this measure.

[Mark_Fine]

I guess I am not grasping what is meant by an “irrelevant” shot?  I have hit what I would call "easy shots" but never an “irrelevant" shot.  Don’t they all count as one stroke.  Sometimes the easy shots (just trying to advance the ball or layup) are the most difficult because there is less focus.  Furthermore, also any design feature/hazard,... could be irrelevant one day and then be very relevant the next as in Jason’s example of a bunker 40 or 50 yards short of a green.  The relevancy of most any hole is all relative to how the hole is played by the golfer playing it.  For example, how relevant is the water surrounding the island green on #17 at The TPC at Sawgrass for a perfectly played golf shot?  I would say not relevant at all.  A good shot doesn’t even know it is there!

[Garland Bayley]

...  For example, how relevant is the water surrounding the island green on #17 at The TPC at Sawgrass for a perfectly played golf shot?  I would say not relevant at all.  A good shot doesn’t even know it is there!

When standing on the tee, it is very relevant. Even the best in the world often hit it in the water.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Believe me I understand the psychological aspect of the water, but I am still not clear on what constitutes an "irrelevant" shot or an "irrelevant" design feature?  Is an "irrelevant" shot just a shot that is considered easy?  To most golfers there is no such thing as an easy shot especially under different circumstances.

[Garland Bayley]

Irrelevant because there is nothing to worry about and no chance of lowering your score with an exceptional shot when you hit your shot.

[jeffwarne]

Jim,


The trend is to attempt to build a course where even recreational women and super senior men can hit most, if not all, greens in regulation, and ideally, with similar clubs to male players.

Really?
and contend with ZERO chance of hitting the ball out of play due to playing corridors being 1/2 as wide as the total distance the ball travels.
Scale matters-if you really want a similar challenge as that suggests, you probably need a separately scaled course-including  less elevated greens and need for quickly stopping shots

[A.G._Crockett]

I believe that Bill was speaking at a symposium on the subject of forward tees as it relates to finding ways to increase play.

The reason Bill would have been a speaker doubtless has to do with the work that he did at Longleaf in Pinehurst, which is the headquarters of US Kids.  (I believe that Longleaf is a Dan Maples design.)  In addition to a pretty unique set of teeing options, Bill also reworked the practice facility to help golfers identify what yardage they should be playing, and built a par three course on the interior of the property.  To my knowledge, whether you like the concept or not, what Bill did at Longleaf is unique. It's worth noting, btw, that play at Longleaf is up 20% since Bill did that work, and I think that speaks for itself.

I realize that there are any number of members of this site who object to multiple tees, who object to hybrid tees, who object to "tee it forward" initiatives, and so on.  I think that most, if not all, of those individuals also have in common that they don't have to pay the bills for an actual golf course operation and figure out how to get more customers.  They don't have to try to keep senior golfers on their course, they don't have to figure out how to get more women to play, and they don't have to figure out how to get more kids to take up the game.

[Joe Hancock]

I don’t get it. It seems there is a lot of folks who think that every golf course should cater to everyone. If there’s a market for shorter, more “relevant” (to weaker players) golf course, then build that. If the market in any given area, on any given land is better suited for a more traditionl length of course, then build that. But let’s quit trying to appease everyone. Next thing you know, no one will be happy with the course.


Hey, wait....this has all been said before!