What constitutes an "irrelevant shot"?

[Adam Clayman]

Thanks for the replies, but I'm not closer to understanding the term, the use of the term, or it's concept. Perhaps it implies too much formulaic thinking, and not enough adventure. Or is it just a function of the acceptance, and emphasis on another term,"on in regulation"?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
I beg to differ about not trying to cater to the masses.  Even Pine Valley has added formal forward tees (as well as built some crazy back tees) in an attempt to make the course more interesting for a wider variety of golfers.  I have probably consulted on close to a hundred different courses over the last 15 years and can't really think of one that I wasn't thinking about how the majority of golfers would play the course.  I have stated on other threads that it might make sense to have courses designed with just the Pros in mind (so we don't mess up too many other great courses trying to accommodate them).  Outside of that, architects should almost always be trying to satisfy the widest number of golfers possible. 


And I still don't understand what an "irrelevant" shot is?  If you have ever hit a shank or missed a 12" putt, no shot is ever irrelevant    Every one matters and depending on what you do, it can impact the next one in some way.   


Best,
Mark

[Kalen Braley]

In the context of scoring, no shot is ever irrelevant....another reason to play more match play so you can just FIDO when your next shot actually becomes so...

[Brian Ross]

I was at the Symposium last week so hopefully I can help to somewhat frame the discussion. The term “irrelevant shot” was applied to the “in-between” shots that many beginners and high handicappers are forced to play between their tee shot and their approach shot when there isn’t an appropriate tee for their level of play.


Put another way, every shot hit by a good player is a “scoring shot”. Their tee shots matter, their approach shots matter, their chips and putts matter. When high handicappers, beginners, juniors, elderly men and women, etc. are forced to play 300+ yard par 4s and 400+ yard par 5s when they can barely hit the ball 125 yards on a good swing, a good number of their shots are not “relevant”, or not “scoring” shots in the same sense as for the good player.


Some of you may (and do) bemoan the idea that everyone should be presented with the same course or given the opportunity to hit greens in regulation with any type of frequency but I think there’s an increasingly obvious return on investment for clubs and courses who are embracing the idea of a tee box for all. It’s not for every course, but for those trying to stay afloat in an aging and constricting marketplace, it’s not a bad idea to consider whether your course may simply be too long and too difficult to keep the weaker (or aging) golfer coming back.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,


You are right. My take is the "essence" of golf is a scoring shot, generally, a tee shot whose success sets up the approach up for a higher degree of success, and an approach shot which is key to making par or birdie.  Recovery shots in case of failure also add to ability to score.  A long shot with no specific target can only add to the score, and is inherently less interesting.


Joe,  yes most courses try to cater to everyone.  Biz is biz, and anti-discrimination laws are laws in modern age.  For too long, golf has told a significant segment of customers to "settle for whatever we deem we should give you" which in general, isn't good business


Jeff W,


Let's see, on a website that has (generally) a mantra of good players need width for strategy, suddenly we want to narrow it for our least able players.  To what end?  If it helps you overcome your anger on the subject, just think of it as, "if these players are so accurate, the extra width doesn't help them at all."  For that matter, presuming the rest of the hole is traditionally designed, with the green angle and opening perhaps partially covered on one side, wouldn't those players also need the same width to get in position strategically for a good angle?


Lastly, since in a truly proportional tee system, forward tee players should end up about 60 yards further to the green than the normal landing zone, it could be possible to narrow the fw in that area, in effect, making it "no place for old men" if for some crazy reason, you should deem it necessary.  Narrowing the fw there could punish both Dustin Johnson types right along with Grandma Sally, Yay!  But I see no reason, given the overall lack of skill for those players compared to top men amateur or pro players, any reason to make it easier via length and then harder via lack of width.  With all respect due, one of the main points is to make the game easier for the short, 100+ shooter.


Lastly, in response to another question about making in between shots relevant by adding strategic bunkers, yes it is possible but not practical.  If done, it would require hazards marching up both sides of the fw, which could provide a great zig zag look like the days of yore.  However, sand costs too much, so it would likely be some combo of grass mounds, grass bunkers, etc., barring some other reason to employ the spectacular visuals.

[Ken Moum]

Thanks for the replies, but I'm not closer to understanding the term, the use of the term, or it's concept. Perhaps it implies too much formulaic thinking, and not enough adventure. Or is it just a function of the acceptance, and emphasis on another term,"on in regulation"?

I think you have to look at a completely different area of the game to understand why women and short-hitting men think of those shots as a problem.


Look at the pros.  There are a handful of things that make them whine like babies.


1- Par fives they can't reach in two.
2- Par threes that require a wood shot.
3- Par fours that require two very long shots.


What do these have in common?


They all have at least one shot that isn't about making a good score (read that as BIRDIE).  The layup on an unreachable par five, and the approach on the other two are almost completely about avoidance, rather than accomplishment.


And those shots, while not irrelevant, are certainly not all that interesting.


To all of those who have said here and elswhere, "Why should everyone think it's their right to get on every green in regulation?" I say it's not about getting on every green in regulation, or even about getting on one.


It's about the thrill of standing there knowing that if you hit two of your best shots, you could get on in regulation. Where I've played the most golf in recent years, one par four is out of reach even if I hit two perfect shots. And I hate that hole every bit as much as a Tour pro hates knowing that his two best shots have no chance of reaching a par five.


So I'd ask, "Why do they think they should have an eagle putt on every par five?"


The same course I mentioned above was built in 1915 and had two par threes that probably required even really good players to hit a wooden club.  Imagine how popular that would be with low handicappers today.


Finally, I'll use an example of a friend I used to play with. He was giving my some stick about playing the "Senior" tees that were about 600 yards shorter than what he played.  For reference, he was 30-40 yards longer than me off the tee, and about 15 yards longer with every other club.  By any reasonable math he was playing a course that was 800-900 yards shorter than the one I played.


So I asked him how he'd feel if, instead of 6400 yards, he had to play 7200-7300 yards every day.


He said "I'd hate it. I might quit."


To which I replied, "There you are."


I understand why the term "irrelevant shots" sound foreign to you and others, and it's probably not all that meaningful.  But I'll give it one thing, it's gotten us talking about the problem of making golf "fun" for everyone.


FWIW, I think a big part of the problem is that with modern technology we've arrived at a place where people somehow feel as if golf is easier than it used to be.  But it's not, and that disappoints them.


When I learned to play, in the late 50s through the mid 60s, no one had any delusions about how hard it was.  And they simply soldiered on with their persimmon woods and blade irons.


K

[Mark_Fine]

Brian,
Thanks for your explanation.  With all due respect, if I was at that symposium, I would have argued very much against calling those "in-between" shots irrelevant!  However, I understand the point behind the argument which is to offer more appropriate tees for more golfers. 


I happen to be one of the biggest advocates of forward tees and have been recommending them and building them on many courses for years.  However, not "every" hole necessarily has to have a tee where every caliber of player can reach the green in "regulation" but there should be at least some. 


I play a lot of golf with my wife and there are often a lot of holes where she can't reach the green in regulation.  But those "in-between" shots are not irrelevant to her.  If she hits a good drive for example on a par four and then a good "in-between" shot as it is being called, she often then has a chance to hit her next shot on the green and one putt for a par or two putt for a bogie.  When you are getting two strokes on most holes for handicap purposes, a bogie is a net birdie and she is extremely happy.  Those "in-between" shots are some of the most important shots she hits from a scoring perspective.  If she tops her second, she is likely not going to reach the green with her third and a 6 or 7 quickly comes into play. 


Bottomline to me is that more tees (if placed and designed properly) and especially the ones that cater to the majority, are better than less for the game of golf! 
Mark

[JESII]

If someone had said their ideal would be to build a set of tees at 4,000 yards, 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000 yards to cover a wide range of players, I'd say great. When someone says they want every player to have the chance to hit every green in regulation with the same club the experts do I'd say they're nuts.


I bet there are more golfers that can't reach the greens on the 4,000 yard course than there are comfortably handling the 7,000 yard course.


The notion of equality is impossible to achieve because the approach shots, even if hit with the same club, from the expert to the old guy who drives it 150 are so vastly different.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,


I guess in essence, that is what we are saying, perhaps adding a bit more detailed math.  Ken Moun captures the essence of this line of thinking perfectly, i.e., would the club champ like to play at 8500 yards? 


I know Rich Mandell uses the phrase "tee equity" in his approach but its not quite true.  IMHO, its just giving more players a chance to pay the game the way it was meant to be played, tee shot, approach shot (and not driver/3 wood each hole, but a mix of irons on many shots as well) just for their fun.


Perfect, no.  Worth a try? IMHO, why not?  Just because design thought was dominated by accommodating top pros over time doesn't mean it that was the right approach. It was probably wrong in the form follows function line of thought, and the "proper" way to design is look at the players who frequent the course.  It turns out, they happen to need a lot less length than has been traditionally given, basically through not really thinking about how the majority of players actually play the course on a daily basis.  And, like Ken's post, all golfers I know who have tried playing much shorter really like it.  Acid test, no?


Cheers.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for the replies, but I'm not closer to understanding the term, the use of the term, or it's concept. Perhaps it implies too much formulaic thinking, and not enough adventure. Or is it just a function of the acceptance, and emphasis on another term,"on in regulation"?

I think you have to look at a completely different area of the game to understand why women and short-hitting men think of those shots as a problem.
Look at the pros.  There are a handful of things that make them whine like babies.
1- Par fives they can't reach in two.
2- Par threes that require a wood shot.
3- Par fours that require two very long shots.
What do these have in common?
They all have at least one shot that isn't about making a good score (read that as BIRDIE).  The layup on an unreachable par five, and the approach on the other two are almost completely about avoidance, rather than accomplishment.
And those shots, while not irrelevant, are certainly not all that interesting.
To all of those who have said here and elswhere, "Why should everyone think it's their right to get on every green in regulation?" I say it's not about getting on every green in regulation, or even about getting on one.
It's about the thrill of standing there knowing that if you hit two of your best shots, you could get on in regulation. Where I've played the most golf in recent years, one par four is out of reach even if I hit two perfect shots. And I hate that hole every bit as much as a Tour pro hates knowing that his two best shots have no chance of reaching a par five.
So I'd ask, "Why do they think they should have an eagle putt on every par five?"
The same course I mentioned above was built in 1915 and had two par threes that probably required even really good players to hit a wooden club.  Imagine how popular that would be with low handicappers today.
Finally, I'll use an example of a friend I used to play with. He was giving my some stick about playing the "Senior" tees that were about 600 yards shorter than what he played.  For reference, he was 30-40 yards longer than me off the tee, and about 15 yards longer with every other club.  By any reasonable math he was playing a course that was 800-900 yards shorter than the one I played.
So I asked him how he'd feel if, instead of 6400 yards, he had to play 7200-7300 yards every day.
He said "I'd hate it. I might quit."
To which I replied, "There you are."
I understand why the term "irrelevant shots" sound foreign to you and others, and it's probably not all that meaningful.  But I'll give it one thing, it's gotten us talking about the problem of making golf "fun" for everyone.
FWIW, I think a big part of the problem is that with modern technology we've arrived at a place where people somehow feel as if golf is easier than it used to be.  But it's not, and that disappoints them.
When I learned to play, in the late 50s through the mid 60s, no one had any delusions about how hard it was.  And they simply soldiered on with their persimmon woods and blade irons.
K

There’s a great deal of validity in this post. Well said Ken.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

If someone had said their ideal would be to build a set of tees at 4,000 yards, 5,000, 6,000 and 7,000 yards to cover a wide range of players, I'd say great. When someone says they want every player to have the chance to hit every green in regulation with the same club the experts do I'd say they're nuts.


I bet there are more golfers that can't reach the greens on the 4,000 yard course than there are comfortably handling the 7,000 yard course.


The notion of equality is impossible to achieve because the approach shots, even if hit with the same club, from the expert to the old guy who drives it 150 are so vastly different.

Jim,

It's an old argument here, but I don't think anybody is advocating "the notion of equality" in this most unequal of games being achieved thru teeing options.  Rather, I think that those of us in favor of more teeing options are advocating fun and decision-making.  The handicap system handles equality, not the yardage being played.  You are focusing on equality of outcome; I'm focusing on equality of opportunity, and the two things couldn't be more different.


But more to the point than score, at least for THIS site and at least in MY mind, is how the player who can't drive the ball more than 150 yds is supposed to interact with the golf course the way it was designed.  For example, we've all played great par 4's on which a bunker guards the inside of the dogleg and introduces a great risk-reward element to the hole.  But ONLY if the player is playing a yardage that allows them to face the decision of whether or not to try to carry the bunker from the tee, right?

Same thing with a "driveable" short par 4; driveable for whom?  Same with attempting carry a hazard to reach a par 5 in two, and so on.  If a player never faces any of those decisions because they have to hit "irrelevant" shots just to get to the bunker or the hazard or the corner of the dogleg, then a lot of the magic of the game of golf is just lost for that player, isn't it?

Note that I'm not really talking about beginners, or golfers who top and thin and shank and whiff.  I'm talking about Jack, the 80 yr old that I play with regularly who hits the ball dead square EVERY time, but can only hit his driver 150-160 nowadays.  If Jack plays from somewhere between 5000 and 5500 yards, golf is still the same game for him that it always was; if he plays from even 6000, there are a LOT of "irrelevant" shots.  He can't reach the trouble, and he has few if any risk-reward decisions.  He just keeps whacking away with his 4 hybrid until he has a short iron into the green.  It isn't about his score or his handicap; it's about playing the course and the game the way it is supposed to be played.

When doglegs don't matter, when hazards don't matter, when forced carries don't matter, when pin positions don't matter, you end up hitting a lot of irrelevant shots to just keep advancing your ball.  There isn't much charm in that, and that golfer is more likely to just go away and not come back.

[Mark_Fine]

A.G.,
We are mostly in agreement except for a few things like "irrelevant" shots!  There is no such thing.  That bunker, for example on the inside of the dogleg, that you say might not impact shorter hitters tee shots might present a major obstacle for their second or third shots.  Trust me, those shots are not irrelevant. 


I remain a strong advocate of more tees especially shorter tees but do not believe every single hole needs to have tees to accommodate every ability of player so they can reach every hole in "regulation".  I won't repeat my arguments/examples from above.


One more thought; what is a "carry" bunker for some, might be an "aiming or target" bunker for others to start and then become a "carry" bunker    on their next shot.  This is ok too from time to time.

Mark

[JESII]

Jim,

It's an old argument here, but I don't think anybody is advocating "the notion of equality" in this most unequal of games being achieved thru teeing options.  Rather, I think that those of us in favor of more teeing options are advocating fun and decision-making.  The handicap system handles equality, not the yardage being played.  You are focusing on equality of outcome; I'm focusing on equality of opportunity, and the two things couldn't be more different.

Not wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, but Jeff Brauer, Brian Ross and Ken Moum all make strong cases (even though I disagree with the end result) for presenting a course on which everyone can hit some/most greens in regulation if they hit good shots. Not attain an equal score, but have an equal opportunity.


My disagreement with this principal is two-fold, and not at all about equal outcomes. My issue is that to make a course that interacts equally/similarly with all levels of golfer is simply impossible. The course that works for the 150 hitter doesn't work nearly as well for the 125 hitter (that's a 20% difference!!!) or the 200 hitter (that's a 33% difference...) so you would need endless tees and infinite tee markers to accomplish anything remotely like the goal as stated on this thread.


That corner dogleg bunker that's exciting to skirt or carry leaves the scratch golfer a wedge for their approach while the 150 hitter is left with an awkward angle (likely) and a club they cannot get to stop very quickly. If the short hitter is to have the same type of approach as the longer hitter, the bunker on the corner is out of play for one of them. The answer is not in trying to create similar experiences for them from a challenge perspective, but rather it's about creating interest and enjoyment through the general type of features and obstacles the course presents. In this case, random bunkering would be exponentially better than a formula designed to hit everyone the same.


To be clear, I am not opposed to tees that accommodate the 150 hitter...would that be a 4,000 yard course? What I would opposed is the number of tees it would take to accommodate virtually every level of golfer (even excluding Tour players) from 100 yard carries up to me at say 275 in the air.


So give me the 4, 5, 6 and 7K tees and and make it a cool course. When the stated goal is accommodation, then everybody can find a bone to pick.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim,

It's an old argument here, but I don't think anybody is advocating "the notion of equality" in this most unequal of games being achieved thru teeing options.  Rather, I think that those of us in favor of more teeing options are advocating fun and decision-making.  The handicap system handles equality, not the yardage being played.  You are focusing on equality of outcome; I'm focusing on equality of opportunity, and the two things couldn't be more different.

Not wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, but Jeff Brauer, Brian Ross and Ken Moum all make strong cases (even though I disagree with the end result) for presenting a course on which everyone can hit some/most greens in regulation if they hit good shots. Not attain an equal score, but have an equal opportunity.


My disagreement with this principal is two-fold, and not at all about equal outcomes. My issue is that to make a course that interacts equally/similarly with all levels of golfer is simply impossible. The course that works for the 150 hitter doesn't work nearly as well for the 125 hitter (that's a 20% difference!!!) or the 200 hitter (that's a 33% difference...) so you would need endless tees and infinite tee markers to accomplish anything remotely like the goal as stated on this thread.


That corner dogleg bunker that's exciting to skirt or carry leaves the scratch golfer a wedge for their approach while the 150 hitter is left with an awkward angle (likely) and a club they cannot get to stop very quickly. If the short hitter is to have the same type of approach as the longer hitter, the bunker on the corner is out of play for one of them. The answer is not in trying to create similar experiences for them from a challenge perspective, but rather it's about creating interest and enjoyment through the general type of features and obstacles the course presents. In this case, random bunkering would be exponentially better than a formula designed to hit everyone the same.


To be clear, I am not opposed to tees that accommodate the 150 hitter...would that be a 4,000 yard course? What I would opposed is the number of tees it would take to accommodate virtually every level of golfer (even excluding Tour players) from 100 yard carries up to me at say 275 in the air.


So give me the 4, 5, 6 and 7K tees and and make it a cool course. When the stated goal is accommodation, then everybody can find a bone to pick.

Jim,

With all due respect, you are carrying the argument for multiple teeing options to it's illogical extreme.  There is no need for " endless tees and infinite tee markers", and nobody is advocating that that I'm aware of.

Using your example of 4, 5, 6, and 7k tees, let's agree that a 1000 yd difference between tees is a LOT, well over 50 yards per hole!  (I don't think there will typically be much play from either the 4 or 7k tees, but that's another argument.)  Nobody wants to see more tee boxes and more tee markers, though, so we come to hybrid courses of mixed tees.  These can be rated, printed on the scorecard, and scores can be entered in the GHIN system.  No additional tee boxes, no additional tee markers, no additional expense; just additional options.  This is what's being done at most courses, rather than adding more boxes and markers anyway.

And this is NOT about score.  I'll use me as an example; at age 66, I drive the ball at a max about 225, and that now only under the right conditions.  My scores up to about 6500 and down to about 5500 aren't particularly affected by yardage, but the amount of fun I have is.  Realizing in the middle of a 6500 yd. round that I'll probably have to stop and have my 2 hybrid regripped on the way home because I've had to hit it so often isn't much fun regardless of what I shoot.  Likewise, playing too short of a course, and either not being able to hit driver and/or only hitting short irons into greens isn't much fun, either. 


The sweet spot for me is right around 6000 now, plus or minus approx. 200 yards.  THAT is the golf course where I hit everything in the bag, where I actually deal with risk/reward decisions, and so on.  At my home course, that means a hybrid set of blue/white tees because the tees go from 5600 to 6300 otherwise, and I don't enjoy either of those very much.

Not equality; enjoyment.
 

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,
We are mostly in agreement except for a few things like "irrelevant" shots!  There is no such thing.  That bunker, for example on the inside of the dogleg, that you say might not impact shorter hitters tee shots might present a major obstacle for their second or third shots.  Trust me, those shots are not irrelevant. 


I remain a strong advocate of more tees especially shorter tees but do not believe every single hole needs to have tees to accommodate every ability of player so they can reach every hole in "regulation".  I won't repeat my arguments/examples from above.


One more thought; what is a "carry" bunker for some, might be an "aiming or target" bunker for others to start and then become a "carry" bunker    on their next shot.  This is ok too from time to time.

Mark

Mark,

Though I think there are probably better terms, there ARE irrelevant shots, and the farther back you go, the more of them there are IF you hit the ball solidly but not especially far.

Back to my octogenarian friend Jack and the 9th hole at our course.  On the 6300 yd blue tees, the bunker guarding the inside of the dogleg isn't reachable for him no matter how well he hits his tee shot, and at 402, neither is the green; it's a three shot hole, and for him, it's really only the third shot that matters very much.  If he hits his tee shot 160 (typical), he's got 242 left.  So he can't possibly get to the green in two anyway, and the bunker, which is still 30-40 yards in front of him, is completely irrelevant.  He hits a hybrid another 130 or so, and then hits an iron for his third shot.  The second shot is irrelevant and the bunker is irrelevant; for the most part, even the greenside bunkers are irrelevant because he isn't hitting the longer club that Fazio designed the hole for.


If Jack moves up to the white tees and subtracts 40 yards from the hole, everything changes.  The fairway bunker is in play off the tee, AND he's hitting a longer club into the green, which brings the fairway bunkers much more in to play.  (And remember, it's a Fazio design, so the bunkers, while beautifully placed, are formulaic in their unreasonable depth and difficulty.)

I'll admit that I see all this stuff differently now than I did 20 years ago, or maybe even 10.  But I still like playing the golf course the way it was intended, and I fully understand the term "irrelevant shot".  It's a shot that has little or nothing to do with your score, and little or nothing to do with the design features of the hole, either before or after you strike the ball.

[Mark_Fine]

A.G.,
How was the first hole or the last hole or any hole for that matter at The Old Course at St. Andrews “intended” to be played?   I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  The best designs are not formulaic and can be played all different ways for an endless number of reasons. 
Mark

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,
How was the first hole or the last hole or any hole for that matter at The Old Course at St. Andrews “intended” to be played?   I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  The best designs are not formulaic and can be played all different ways for an endless number of reasons. 
Mark

Mark,
At least let's agree the TOC is an outlier in GCA, in that nobody GCA'd it anyway!

That aside, I'm ok with agreeing to disagree, especially on the point of whether or not there are "irrelevant" shots.  I think I know what Bill Bergin means by that, and while I agree with him, I think the greater point is that more teeing options are better than fewer, and on that I think you and I agree anyway.

[Thomas Dai]

AGC makes a valid point about enjoyment.
Unless you’re ‘in the business’ then golf is essentially a leisure activity. It should be fun. When it ceases to be fun, to be enjoyable, then, well, what’s the point in playing the game any more?
One day, year, decade sometime ahead even today’s young bucks and long hitters will be old short hitters. And older guys and their female equivalents have time on their hands and money to spend, money to spend on lots of things, so encourage them to spend their money on golf not something else.
It seems totally counter productive to annoy them and risk removing their money from the game by making golf excessively difficult and boring. To remove their enjoyment. To make their fun evaporate.
And then there’s the time factor.
Golf takes too long to play. Longer courses generally means a longer time spent on the course....don’t bother with the buggies and speed of play argument, especially if you’re of a younger fit generation. And time on the course is important if you’re limited physically (ie are maybe more aged and get tired quicker) or have time constraints (like do many younger folks with kids and commitments etc).
We’ve collectively been spending loads of $£€ (over the last few decades in particular) on equipment to make the ball go further and then another load of $£€ on lengthening golf courses. Mr Spock would probably describe such as “illogical”.
Shorter courses with rolled-back equipment please.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Ok, I got off the phone with Bill Bergin, who is both an old and dear friend, about 10 minutes ago after a lengthy discussion of not only "irrelevant shots" (which is a term he has coined and often uses with clients and prospective clients) but about course length and teeing options in general.  As always when I talk to Bill, I feel smarter when I finish than I was before; I've gotten to play several of his courses and/or redesigns with him; those have been some of my favorite golf days of all.  Bill is also highly unusual in the GCA business because he was a Tour player and then taught golf before going into GCA.   But enough name dropping...

Bill used the example of his days as a teaching pro in between playing on Tour and becoming a GCA.  He was at a very good club, and taught golfers of all levels and both genders, including playing lessons.

During the playing lessons, he noticed that almost none of the women, including the elite women golfers in the club, could reach very many of the par 4s and 5s in regulation, simply because of the distance they could carry the ball EVEN WHEN THEY HIT PERFECT SHOTS. 


Consequently, the women were constantly faced with shots where they not only couldn't reach the green, but on which they couldn't even reach greenside bunkers or hazards.  So when the woman would ask the pro (Bill) "How should I play this shot?" or "What club should I use?"  the HONEST answer was, "It doesn't matter; hit your favorite club."  In other words there was no mental engagement in the shot; no calculation of risk, no chance for reward, nothing.  Just pick a club, any club, and hit the ball.
And THAT is an irrelevant shot!  It doesn't help your score, it won't hurt your score, it doesn't do anything except advance the ball. It requires little if anything of you, and it brings no satisfaction for having executed it properly; you won't remember it that evening as something you should have done better, or that you did great, or anything in between.  And for lots of women and lots of seniors and lots of people with some sort of physical issue, there are a LOT of those shots.  All of which is at least mitigated by teeing options.

Bill was quick to point out that none of the teeing options "movement" has anything to do with guaranteeing anyone that they can make par.  Rather, it's about a golfer having a CHANCE to make par IF they hit good shots.  Effectively, most women and many seniors are playing a par 90 course, and it just isn't much fun.  It would be roughly equivalent to the "average" male player having to play from between 7500 and 8000 yards; we'd all quit, and that's EXACTLY what happens all too often to players who hit the ball well but are discouraged by the length of the course they have to play.

No need to argue with me; I have my mind made up anyway!  I was just trying to clear up any lingering confusion about what Bill meant by "irrelevant".  If you don't like it, that's great.

[Ken Moum]

To be clear, I am not opposed to tees that accommodate the 150 hitter...would that be a 4,000 yard course? What I would opposed is the number of tees it would take to accommodate virtually every level of golfer (even excluding Tour players) from 100 yard carries up to me at say 275 in the air.


So give me the 4, 5, 6 and 7K tees and and make it a cool course. When the stated goal is accommodation, then everybody can find a bone to pick.

That's a completely fair and reasonable position.  In fact, I agree completely.


BUT.


You missed something I intended, perhaps because I wasn't direct enough.


I have never thought these opportunities for short hitters need to be presented on every hole, or even most of them.  As a former 5 handicapper, now at about 18 and in my 70s I ike courses that give me some holes that entice. It's probably why I like Brora so much.


For me, par fours under 350 have plenty of "opportunity"  And par fours over 400 are just three shot holes unless I get a tailwind and firm ground, both of which are eminently possible at Brora.


The killer are holes +/- 375.  The simple reason is that they are almost always two wood shots but not real three shotters.


In a match against a longer hitter, I face a 170-190 yard second on holes between 350 and ~400, while my opponent is looking a a shortish iron on them all.


I can beat a longer player of similar ability on a 300-yard hole, because I have a wedge and he's likely to do something dumb trying to drive the green.


Over 400 we're both playing for five a lot of the time.  And given that he's got a similar handicap despite being longer with every club, there's a decent chance I can beat him around the green.


Brora, from the Gents tees, has exactly ONE hole in the 350-400 range--and it's #15 @ at 399. From the Medal tees there also one, because 15 becomes 430 while #12 goes to 362.


I ADORE the place.


So, one solution is to worry less about the overall yardage and spread the lengths out in such a way that short hitters get their opportunities, and long hitters get enticed and challenged by holes that require some thought on the short end, and a fairly long approach shot on the other end.

[jeffwarne]

Ok, I got off the phone with Bill Bergin, who is both an old and dear friend, about 10 minutes ago after a lengthy discussion of not only "irrelevant shots" (which is a term he has coined and often uses with clients and prospective clients) but about course length and teeing options in general.  As always when I talk to Bill, I feel smarter when I finish than I was before; I've gotten to play several of his courses and/or redesigns with him; those have been some of my favorite golf days of all.  Bill is also highly unusual in the GCA business because he was a Tour player and then taught golf before going into GCA.   But enough name dropping...

Bill used the example of his days as a teaching pro in between playing on Tour and becoming a GCA.  He was at a very good club, and taught golfers of all levels and both genders, including playing lessons.

During the playing lessons, he noticed that almost none of the women, including the elite women golfers in the club, could reach very many of the par 4s and 5s in regulation, simply because of the distance they could carry the ball EVEN WHEN THEY HIT PERFECT SHOTS. 


Consequently, the women were constantly faced with shots where they not only couldn't reach the green, but on which they couldn't even reach greenside bunkers or hazards.  So when the woman would ask the pro (Bill) "How should I play this shot?" or "What club should I use?"  the HONEST answer was, "It doesn't matter; hit your favorite club."  In other words there was no mental engagement in the shot; no calculation of risk, no chance for reward, nothing.  Just pick a club, any club, and hit the ball.
And THAT is an irrelevant shot!  It doesn't help your score, it won't hurt your score, it doesn't do anything except advance the ball. It requires little if anything of you, and it brings no satisfaction for having executed it properly; you won't remember it that evening as something you should have done better, or that you did great, or anything in between.  And for lots of women and lots of seniors and lots of people with some sort of physical issue, there are a LOT of those shots.  All of which is at least mitigated by teeing options.

Bill was quick to point out that none of the teeing options "movement" has anything to do with guaranteeing anyone that they can make par.  Rather, it's about a golfer having a CHANCE to make par IF they hit good shots.  Effectively, most women and many seniors are playing a par 90 course, and it just isn't much fun.  It would be roughly equivalent to the "average" male player having to play from between 7500 and 8000 yards; we'd all quit, and that's EXACTLY what happens all too often to players who hit the ball well but are discouraged by the length of the course they have to play.

No need to argue with me; I have my mind made up anyway!  I was just trying to clear up any lingering confusion about what Bill meant by "irrelevant".  If you don't like it, that's great.

Interesting stuff AG


I would agree with many of Bill's observations having done probably about 10-100x as much teaching as he probably has in my 30 years doing it full time.
I draw a different conclusion though as who are we to deem them irrelevant.


The only complaints we get when we build shorter forward tees are from women.
Of course there is much truth in what you and Bill say and I completely understand the par 90 (or more) analogy.


We have a somewhat uphill par 5 that's probably 410 from the new forward tees. I have a woman who hits it about 4-5 good times before she's in range of the green for an "approach" . Like Bill I have her hit her favorite club-7 wood after the drive.
When we built the new tee we tried to put it 60 yards further up but she and several others who hit it quite short accused us of dumbing it down "like all those other short tees you built",
"Their exact words were "why would we walk to the clubhouse when we can play to it"


I happen to agree with them and if they don't find their shots irrelevant-why should we?


Sometimes the terrain needs to be covered by playing not walking.


I do hear your point and do favor very short tees, just not 6-7 sets but rather matching different sets.There are many holes EVERYBODY can play form a similar area and they are fun and strategic for different reasons.


Many fell in love with golf playing par 90's
My first par I remember was 126, then 108, then 90.
I realize going the other way may seem discouraging....I'm living it but-I'm going to be really discouraged when I walk (or ride) more than I play...

[Garland Bayley]

,,,
Lastly, in response to another question about making in between shots relevant by adding strategic bunkers, yes it is possible but not practical.  If done, it would require hazards marching up both sides of the fw, which could provide a great zig zag look like the days of yore.  However, sand costs too much, so it would likely be some combo of grass mounds, grass bunkers, etc., barring some other reason to employ the spectacular visuals.

Bunkers up each side of the fairway? Really? Some of the people hitting irrelevant shots can't hit it far enough to reach the side of the fairway. Put a bunker in the middle to make it relevant.

... uses the phrase "tee equity" in his approach but its not quite true.  IMHO, its just giving more players a chance to pay the game the way it was meant to be played, tee shot, approach shot (and not driver/3 wood each hole, but a mix of irons on many shots as well) just for their fun.

...

Play the game as it was meant to be played? Really? It seems to me that to few play the game as it was meant to be played anymore. I may be wrong, but the idea of 1, 2, and 3 shot holes was a concept put forth by some intellectuals in the late 1800s (John Low and others, I found a pdf of his Concerning Golf dated 1903). So it is a concept that appeared only 120-140 years ago perhaps. Golf was first documented as being played in Scotland in 1457, so it had been played for over 400 years before that.

During the history of the game, players were not concerned with keeping track of the strokes taken on a hole. They were concerned with the difference in the number of strokes taken on a hole by two competitors engaged in what we now call match play. There was no "reaching a green in regulation." So if you play golf as it was meant to be played, you are not in the least concerned with reaching a green in regulation.

... I'm talking about Jack, the 80 yr old that I play with regularly who hits the ball dead square EVERY time, but can only hit his driver 150-160 nowadays.  If Jack plays from somewhere between 5000 and 5500 yards, golf is still the same game for him that it always was; if he plays from even 6000, there are a LOT of "irrelevant" shots.  He can't reach the trouble, and he has few if any risk-reward decisions.  He just keeps whacking away with his 4 hybrid until he has a short iron into the green.  It isn't about his score or his handicap; it's about playing the course and the game the way it is supposed to be played.

When doglegs don't matter, when hazards don't matter, when forced carries don't matter, when pin positions don't matter, you end up hitting a lot of irrelevant shots to just keep advancing your ball.  There isn't much charm in that, and that golfer is more likely to just go away and not come back.

It seems that Jack isn't playing the game as it was meant to be played, because he is worried about reaching greens in regulation. Why don't you give Jack a stroke a hole and a small wager (or a large one if that is what you two prefer) and see if he really cares whether it takes him one more stroke to reach each green than it takes you.

...
My disagreement with this principal is two-fold, and not at all about equal outcomes. My issue is that to make a course that interacts equally/similarly with all levels of golfer is simply impossible. ...

BINGO

And, it is not golf as it was meant to be played.

A.G.,
How was the first hole or the last hole or any hole for that matter at The Old Course at St. Andrews “intended” to be played?   I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  The best designs are not formulaic and can be played all different ways for an endless number of reasons. 

Mark

Since the same first hole at St. Andrews used to be a three shotter, but now its a two shotter, Mark poses a very good question.

...
The only complaints we get when we build shorter woman's tees are from women.
Of course here is much truth in what you and Bill say and I completely understand the par 90 (or more) analogy.


We have a somewhat uphill par 5 that's probably 410 from the new forward tees. I have a woman who hits it about 4-5 good times before she's in range of . Like Bill I have her hit her favorite club-7 wood after the drive.
When we built the new tee we tried to put it 60 yards further up but she and several others who hit it quite short accused us of dumbing it down "like all those other short tees you built",
"Their exact words were "why would we walk to the clubhouse when we can play to it"
...

 

I should note that the ladies at my club have similarly rejected the short tees.

[Garland Bayley]

...  And, like Ken's post, all golfers I know who have tried playing much shorter really like it.  Acid test, no?


Cheers.

Fails being an acid test, because Jeff W and I find an opposite reaction from many players.

Of the people I play with regularly, 5 aren't much interested in playing shorter length. The one who is is the only one who used to be a single digit. Even though he is the second youngest, he is losing length and being forced to play longer clubs. So who is your market? People with illusions (delusions?) That they can play (a small percentage of golfers) and have or have had low handicaps? Or, those middle to high handicappers (a high percent) with no illusions they can play really well, but love the game?

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
I have built A LOT of forward tees and generally the only ones who complain are the best golfers who think the shorter tees are making it easier for the weaker golfers which puts them at less of an advantage.  We find 80-90% of the golfers love them and the balance maybe not so much.  We have suggested mixing up the teeing locations so you always aren't playing the same ones every day.  Most clubs do this anyway.


I still have to laugh about the irrelevant shot definition.  The golfer who you can tell to, "hit any club it doesn't matter" probably has enough of a challenge on their hands to just make solid contact let alone throw all kinds of hazards, challenges, etc in front of them.  Every shot counts and is important and sets up the next.  Also, par can be made lots of ways besides two putting for it. 


Mark

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
I have built A LOT of forward tees and generally the only ones who complain are the best golfers who think the shorter tees are making it easier for the weaker golfers which puts them at less of an advantage.  We find 80-90% of the golfers love them and the balance maybe not so much.  We have suggested mixing up the teeing locations so you always aren't playing the same ones every day.  Most clubs do this anyway.


I still have to laugh about the irrelevant shot definition.  The golfer who you can tell to, "hit any club it doesn't matter" probably has enough of a challenge on their hands to just make solid contact let alone throw all kinds of hazards, challenges, etc in front of them.  Every shot counts and is important and sets up the next.  Also, par can be made lots of ways besides two putting for it. 


Mark

Mark,
To be clear, Bill was NOT talking about golfers who had a "challenge on their hands just to make solid contact"; quite the opposite.  He was talking about players who were accomplished enough to hit the ball solidly, but lacked, for one reason or another, length.  And he was talking about shots where there were no hazards or challenges at all, and no real strategy in terms of setting up the next shot.  He uses the term to describe shots where the player is simply faced with advancing the ball, with no hope of reaching the green and no fear of hitting the ball into a hazard or any other "challenge".  Clearly, those shots do not occur on every hole, but they are quite common for women and seniors especially, even accomplished ones.

Also, to be even more clear, Bill said at least twice during our conversation about irrelevant shots that he was NOT talking about making par, and that he didn't mean to imply that par for all on every hole was a goal in which he was interested.  And, of course, we all know that there lots of ways to make par, and that every shot counts, at least to one's score.

But the key point here is that there are NOT lots of ways to make par if you are playing a course that is too long because of a lack of teeing options.  Bill's point, and I'm pretty sure you agree with this based on what you are saying having built forward tees, is that if a player takes three well-struck shots to reach a par four or four well-struck shots to reach a par five, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, effectively par is around 90 for them. 


Really, that's probably the best I can do with the term "irrelevant shots", and quibbling over it anymore is likely pointless.  I happen to like and agree with the term, and not just because Bill is a respected and currently VERY busy GCA and a good friend.  I think I already agreed with it because I'm 66 now and only hit a driver around 225 at best, and if I play a course that is even as much as 6500 yards, I have a number of those shots during the round.  When faced with one of them, I either hit my 4 hybrid, the long club I'm most comfortable with, or whichever club I want to work on if it's a casual round.  But the key point is IT DOESN'T MATTER; I'm physically engaged in the shot, but there is zero mental engagement because there is nothing to be gained or lost on the shot.