What constitutes an "irrelevant shot"?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I didn't advocate for bunkers staggered up the fw in my post, noting it wasn't practical to further hinder lesser skilled golfers. Not sure the point of your first quote.


As to your second quote, while we can all think of great holes that don't require shorter tees, and still play well, they are probably the exception and not the rule, so I wouldn't base any design philosophy on that.  Ditto to original stroke play.  It doesn't happen much any more, players do keep score and matches are stroke play.


To those who say women complain about shorter tees, I have seen similar resistance, but think you have to dig a little deeper.  At the typical course, there may be 40 regular women golfers, and 4-6 of them are on the traveling competitive teams.  They worry about how their presumably lower handicap will work at other locations in tournaments.  And, like men, the best women tend to be consulted more on the master plans, etc.  Digging deeper, they will usually admit their friends would benefit, and of course, there is no rule saying the better players (or any player) have to move up.


On retro fits, the existing forward tees, somewhere between 4700-5200 yards end up being the new white/silver tees, and they can just keep playing the way they always have, if they choose, and then everyone is happy!  Except maybe super senior men, who dislike playing the same tee as women, but can probably handle playing the same tee as a half dozen athletic, competitive, skilled women without too big an ego blow.

[Garland Bayley]

...
To those who say women complain about shorter tees, I have seen similar resistance, but think you have to dig a little deeper.  At the typical course, there may be 40 regular women golfers, and 4-6 of them are on the traveling competitive teams.  They worry about how their presumably lower handicap will work at other locations in tournaments.  And, like men, the best women tend to be consulted more on the master plans, etc.  Digging deeper, they will usually admit their friends would benefit, and of course, there is no rule saying the better players (or any player) have to move up.
...

If they presume their handicap will go lower, they are ignorant of how handicapping works. If they are athletic as you suggest in the rest of the post, logically their handicap would likely go higher.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


Just my experience.  I didn't make any of the women do a boot camp or anything, LOL.  Not all competitive women hit it further than others.  Like men, some have length, some have accuracy, some have short game/putting finesse as game strengths.


I agree their handicaps might be lower, but with the index to course ratings, should go right back up when they go to a tougher course.  But, they do worry about it, that I know.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


I didn't advocate for bunkers staggered up the fw in my post, noting it wasn't practical to further hinder lesser skilled golfers. Not sure the point of your first quote.
...

I know you didn't advocate it. But your statement "If done, it would require hazards marching up both sides of the fw," presumed that's how it would be done. If a course is wide enough for the big boys, then bunkers at the edges of the fairways wouldn't even be reachable by the elderly that don't miss fairways, because their ball travels so short that it doesn't reach the edge of the fairway. if you want a bunker to be relevant for them, then it needs to be in the fairway so they need to think about it.

Forgive me if I presume "at the edges" to be outside the fairway like is normally done, and not what you meant.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


Well, I probably didn't fully form that thought, but I was thinking of bunkers pinching in the fw sort of like some golden age courses, causing the fw to zig zag around them.  A bunker right might be 140 off the tee, left 260, right 380, etc. or some combo like that.

[Garland Bayley]

...think you have to dig a little deeper...
...  And, like men, the best women tend to be consulted more on the master plans, etc.  Digging deeper, they will usually admit their friends would benefit, and of course, there is no rule saying the better players (or any player) have to move up.
...

You suggest I need to dig deeper, but then indicate you have dug shallow by consulting with the "best women" which are few in number and speculating on the rest of the population. Since I have dug into the average golfers and worse, which are large in number, then perhaps I have done the deep dig.

And, Jeff's dig produced similar results. Would you suggest he dig deeper too?

[Garland Bayley]

...
I agree their handicaps might be lower, but with the index to course ratings, should go right back up when they go to a tougher course.  But, they do worry about it, that I know.

From this statement, I am not sure you understand handicapping. The whole system used to set handicaps had the goal of making the handicap stay the same no matter what tees you play, or what course you play.

Do you understand that means in general one should expect their handicap to go up by playing a tougher course, nor should one in general expect their handicap to go down by playing shorter tees.

[Garland Bayley]

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.  ...

It is unclear what you mean by this, but once again it seems to suggest a misunderstanding about the handicap system as I don't think you mean the better players are giving the same number of strokes as they did before new tees were installed while playing the from the back tees against weaker players playing from the forward tees.

[Garland Bayley]

...  We find 80-90% of the golfers love them and the balance maybe not so much.  ...

Was this a scientific study with appropriate replication by a second independent scientific study?

I will admit, my studies are not scientific, but here is what I see.
My club has back, standard, and forward tees for men, and standard and forward tees for women. Of course women can go back to men's standard tees and we have at least two that I know regularly play there with their husbands.

The forward women's tees get very little play. I have a 90+ year old lady friend that adopted the forward tees for play, because swinging as often as necessary to play her regular tees was too tiring. She had a difficult time getting her best friend of the same approximate age, but better physical condition, to play forward with her. I plan to ask the club to mine the handicap data to find out how often the various tees are played for the green committee's information. I know of only one other woman that regularly plays the most forward tees.

I play with the codgers, which are a group of retirees that play every weekday. I am one of the youngest as I am still a super senior waiting two years to become legendary (i like how the USGA classifies 70 year olds as legends ). At least 2/3s of the codgers insist on playing the standard tees instead of the forward tees. For the most part, if you can play quickly I don't care what tees you play from. However, I wish some of these guys would move up to take hazards out of play, as it is where they slow things down by not being able to avoid them and the attendant ball search.

Not scientific, but that's part of what I see.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


It appears you are trying to be quite argumentative, but in general, AG and Mark Fine's comments may possibly sum up the general thinking related to forward tees.


Also, I didn't say I didn't consider average women golfers.  I meant to note that they are the one appointed to the green committee, similar to most men.  However, I always ask for a cross section.  On public courses, I usually have to go with my gut, based on past experience.  At clubs, the longer, more competitive women have to be asked to think in terms of the lesser skilled women, and often they do.  I have done tee plans where only 12 or 13 of the tees allow reaching in regulation.  Philosophically, unless prohibited by topography, it seems ridiculous to stop there.


In the case of par 5 holes, many women can't reach over 380 yards in three shots.  I always ask if they mind if distance drops below the minimum 405 set by the USGA.  Some say make all par 5's 405.  Others say that senior tees have played under 470 yards as a par 5 for years, so why be hypocritical.  So, yes, there are still some who disagree with the shorter tees and the degree to pursue them.  And, I can imagine at some clubs they are rejected.  I just haven't seen it yet.


As to Mark's comments about good players losing their advantage, back in my Killian and Nugent days, we had one club who changed a 170 yard par three (red tees) several times.  The husband of the longest hitting woman golfer got on the committee solely to restore the length of that hole, since his wife was the only one who could reach it, winning her many matches.  The next year, the husband of a shorter hitting wife got on and moved the tee back up, only until the next year when...….probably the most stark example I have.


At La Costa some in the women's league went so far as to tell us their forward tees (at 6000 yards even) were mandated by the So Cal Golf Association for their tournaments.  We checked, they lied or were wrong.  And again, tees were still left in that location for those who wanted to play there, but after the fact, more and more women played up at 4400 yards.


Again, agree there are varying opinions, just relaying my experience on the subject, sine I have been doing it ten years.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


It appears you are trying to be quite argumentative,

Or, perhaps engage in "frank discussion." Or, perhaps try to achieve clarity.

but in general, AG and Mark Fine's comments may possibly sum up the general thinking related to forward tees.

Sum up the general thinking of whom? The golfing public in total? Or, perhaps the plaid coated few? I hope you are not claiming the golfing public in total.

Also, I didn't say I didn't consider average women golfers. 

I know you didn't say that. However, you didn't indicate you had engaged them specifically. I indicated you had engaged better women golfers, and got their estimation of what would be good for average women golfers. Now if you want to clarify that you have engaged with average women golfers, then I have to take your word for it.

I meant to note that they are the one appointed to the green committee, similar to most men.  However, I always ask for a cross section.  On public courses, I usually have to go with my gut, based on past experience.  At clubs, the longer, more competitive women have to be asked to think in terms of the lesser skilled women, and often they do. 

Here again you are using better golfers to determine what lesser golfers want or need. Yet, Jeff W finds that lesser women golfers object to walking that extra real estate instead of golfing it. Jeff claims to have talked to lesser golfers. Have you?

I have done tee plans where only 12 or 13 of the tees allow reaching in regulation.  Philosophically, unless prohibited by topography, it seems ridiculous to stop there.

In terms of golf as it was meant to be, one may say it seems ridiculous to consider reaching a green in regulation a criteria at all. In terms of John Low's golf principles it make more sense. I don't think either one of us knows definitively what is the prevalent paradigm. I would suggest that those preferring match play don't care near as much about greens in regulation as those preferring medal play.


In the case of par 5 holes, many women can't reach over 380 yards in three shots.  I always ask if they mind if distance drops below the minimum 405 set by the USGA.  Some say make all par 5's 405.  Others say that senior tees have played under 470 yards as a par 5 for years, so why be hypocritical.  So, yes, there are still some who disagree with the shorter tees and the degree to pursue them.  And, I can imagine at some clubs they are rejected.  I just haven't seen it yet.


As to Mark's comments about good players losing their advantage, back in my Killian and Nugent days, we had one club who changed a 170 yard par three (red tees) several times.  The husband of the longest hitting woman golfer got on the committee solely to restore the length of that hole, since his wife was the only one who could reach it, winning her many matches.  The next year, the husband of a shorter hitting wife got on and moved the tee back up, only until the next year when...….probably the most stark example I have.

Certainly not relevant to what I am talking about, i.e., competing by handicap. And, not relevant to what Mark was talking about IMO.


At La Costa some in the women's league went so far as to tell us their forward tees (at 6000 yards even) were mandated by the So Cal Golf Association for their tournaments.  We checked, they lied or were wrong.  And again, tees were still left in that location for those who wanted to play there, but after the fact, more and more women played up at 4400 yards.

6000 and 4400 were their only options?

Again, agree there are varying opinions, just relaying my experience on the subject, sine I have been doing it ten years.

If there weren't varying opinions, we wouldn't be having this "frank discussion."

[Bob Montle]

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.

+1

My dad, when he was in his 80's hit the ball 160 yds maximum.
Take a 320 yd "drivable" par 4 with a lake from 20-75 yds from the green.
A pro might go for the green, requiring only a 300 yd carry.
An average player with a 210 yd drive is left with 110 yds to the green.
My dad's 150 yd drive leaves him with 100 yds to the water but 170 yds to the green.
So he is FORCED to hit a 50-90 yd lay-up.  THAT is an irrelevant shot.

If his tee is moved up to about 250 yards he now is able to reach the green in two and isn't penalized with a wasted stroke.

The other option would be to use one tee, but change the "par" depending on the golfer.  But that opens up another huge can of worms!

[jeffwarne]

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.

+1

My dad, when he was in his 80's hit the ball 160 yds maximum.
Take a 320 yd "drivable" par 4 with a lake from 20-75 yds from the green.
A pro might go for the green, requiring only a 300 yd carry.
An average player with a 210 yd drive is left with 110 yds to the green.
My dad's 150 yd drive leaves him with 100 yds to the water but 170 yds to the green.
So he is FORCED to hit a 50-90 yd lay-up.  THAT is an irrelevant shot.

If his tee is moved up to about 250 yards he now is able to reach the green in two and isn't penalized with a wasted stroke.

The other option would be to use one tee, but change the "par" depending on the golfer.  But that opens up another huge can of worms!

I hear what you're saying on such a hole and agree after witnessing just that on a longer par 4 with a cross hazard  in Hayling with a 72 year senior player recovering from a stroke.So in the case of such holes, or the one you mentioned, I'm all for an alternate tee, just on certain holes where terrain dictates it.


-that said, he mishit the shot and had to lay up again, so it wasn't "irrelevant"
Of courses we all were playing the BACK tees and that was the only shot hampered by such a glaring layup, so good design has a lot to do with it.


of course.Asking someone who hits it 150 to hit a 90 yard "forced layup" is no crazier than asking someone who hits it 300 to hit a 180 yard layup (which happens all the time) on a par 5 for them.
personal par seems not to be a thing anymore as everyone wants the same par to be realistic to them (and a tee built just for them to achieve it)


I say build a new tee for every player and eliminates handicaps entirely. Rounds would go faster if we started some on the fringe!

[Adam Clayman]

Brian Ross, Thanks for that explanation. It's much clearer what was meant. Unfortunate use of the word, but it is a good discussion starter.


AG, Thanks for the deep dive. I'm not in agreement on the irrelevancy of any lay up. But I can see how people can arrive to that conclusion. I feel that on a varied thoughtful canvas, where one lays up is option filled depending on conditions and hole location.


This discussion would be remiss to not include the mention of the big world theory and the inclusion of the shot not heard around the world.


It was pre- '04 Shinnythingy when Tom Paul predicted that if one of the contenders had to aim away from the hole, the courses genius would shine.   Well, Goosen did it, late on Sunday, but, almost nobody appreciated it. One of golf's saddest moments. Point being, even at the most elite level, the proper shot, should always be a spectrum of fluid options, depending on the exact situation and imagination of the player.


Then there are the cases were playing a longer course makes it easier for the shorter hitter to score better, because their interfacing with the hazards, is mitigated.


Trust me when I tell you that Im well aware of the need to educate the masses on the core principles of the sport. I just don't see how manipulating the canvas, to appease the feelings of the golfer, is how you do it. 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, Thanks for the deep dive. I'm not in agreement on the irrelevancy of any lay up. But I can see how people can arrive to that conclusion. I feel that on a varied thoughtful canvas, where one lays up is option filled depending on conditions and hole location.

Adam, you're welcome, but I've got to try to clarify Bill's term once more; an irrelevant shot is NOT a layup of ANY sort!  Playing short or a bunker or hazard or even rough because you can't carry it far enough and then choosing the correct club to do so is NOT irrelevant at all.

An irrelevant shot is one where the player not only can't reach the green, but can't even reach the trouble, no matter what club they hit; there is PHYSICAL engagement to execute the shot, but no MENTAL engagement to plan the shot or choose between options.  Women are faced with such shots all the time, and senior men are only slightly behind.  This was where Bill, during playing lessons with even relatively accomplished players would answer the question, "What club should I use?" with either "Hit your favorite club." or, too honestly, "It doesn't matter; hit anything you want."

Taking this one step farther, remember also that the term has nothing to do with attempting to guarantee par on any hole, nor does it have anything to do with a short hitter using course management to navigate their way around a golf course.  Irrelevant isn't any of those things.


I think it is sometimes hard for men who can hit the ball a decent distance to understand that there are lots of golfers that face shots like this multiple times a round, and I think it at least partially explains why women each year constitute the largest group of new golfers and also the largest group of golfers who stop playing.  That was the context of Bill's comments and use of the term at the symposium in a discussion of building more forward tees and/or using hybrid tees.

[Edward Glidewell]

I've played a course with a 700+ yard par 6 (it's not a good course). On that hole, I have to hit at least one shot that serves no purpose other than attempting to advance the ball as far as possible down the fairway. There's nothing to think about. It's not fun.


Luckily, that's not a type of shot I face very often because I'm not a short hitter. But there are numerous players who face that type of shot on every hole unless they can tee off from a reasonable distance. Golf is a game; at the most fundamental level it exists to have fun. That type of shot isn't fun, so I can't imagine how you could have fun playing golf if you are hitting them 15+ times a round. That's the main issue here.


I don't think there's anyone here that would advocate building numerous 700 yard par 6s because they wouldn't enjoy playing them (among other reasons). So why do some of those same people want to force other, significantly shorter hitters to play equivalent holes (pursuant to their short distance) regularly?

[Mark_Fine]

A.G.,
You need to watch how most of those golfers who hit those "irrelevant" shots play!  Most can't hit even their "favorite club" really well twice in a row and if they do, that in itself is very rewarding.  That "irrelevant" shot is challenging enough for most of those golfers let alone seek to put all kinds of extra hazards in their way.  Advancing the ball up a fairway is part of the game for many many many golfers!  As I said earlier, if you are getting one or two shots on every hole (which the majority of golfers get, both men and women), most don't expect to reach most greens in "regulation".  They are just trying to get into position to get a net par or better.  Again, I am a very strong advocate of more tees and shorter tees but you and your buddy Bill are far under estimating the importance and challenge of those "irrelevant" shots. 
Mark

[jeffwarne]

I played a 700 yard par 6 once in my life-I was 14
In Asheville NC Black Mountain


I remember EVERY single shot I played on the hole-perhaps because you don't get to play a par 6 six every day.
I found every shot relevant, and to this day I still remember semi-topping my second shot-to this day I think I might've had a chance to reach in three.


Evidently that "irrelevant" shot (to simply hit it as far as possible though I'm not sure what that means either as you still have to hit it in play) was relevant to me.

[JESII]

Yes, we’re talking about the shots that are not the tee shot, the approach shot or the shot that sets up the approach shot...


Build shorter tees, make that specific hole, for the person that plays it, INTERESTING.

[Edward Glidewell]

I didn't call it irrelevant (although considering that's what the thread is about, I understand why you went there), precisely because of what you said -- you still have to keep the ball in play, if nothing else. That's basically the only thing separating it from a driving range shot.


But would you really enjoy a steady diet of those shots? What if every course you played had four 750 yard par 6s, so that you were regularly hitting a shot that had no real engagement beyond ensuring it wasn't a total mishit? Maybe you would still enjoy that! I wouldn't, though, and feel pretty confident that a significant number of other golfers wouldn't either.

[Garland Bayley]

Would haphazard be better term than irrelevant for this?

[Greg Chambers]

No, the term should be “inconsequential”.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,
You need to watch how most of those golfers who hit those "irrelevant" shots play!  Most can't hit even their "favorite club" really well twice in a row and if they do, that in itself is very rewarding.  That "irrelevant" shot is challenging enough for most of those golfers let alone seek to put all kinds of extra hazards in their way.  Advancing the ball up a fairway is part of the game for many many many golfers!  As I said earlier, if you are getting one or two shots on every hole (which the majority of golfers get, both men and women), most don't expect to reach most greens in "regulation".  They are just trying to get into position to get a net par or better.  Again, I am a very strong advocate of more tees and shorter tees but you and your buddy Bill are far under estimating the importance and challenge of those "irrelevant" shots. 
Mark

Mark,

You are taking this far, far out of the context in which Bill was speaking.  He wasn't talking about bad golfers who can't consistently strike the ball cleanly, which I've tried to make clear.  I understand that you like multiple and shorter teeing options, and I understand that you don't like this term.  But we are NOT talking about flubbed shots or layups or anything else of the sort.

In fact, let's agree that a golfer who struggles with solid contact or with getting the ball airborne or with a wicked slice or whatever is MENTALLY engaged on EVERY shot, regardless of length; NO shot is irrelevant to them!  And let's further agree that a layup, whether forced or strategic, also MENTALLY engages a player, ANY player, as they try to determine an appropriate distance for both the shot they are facing as well as the next shot. 


The term meant to be very specific, and was used in a very particular context concerning golfers who hit the ball well but not very far and find themselves on courses where teeing options are very limited and then faced with shots where there is no strategy other than just advancing the ball.  And the term was used in a discussion of HOW to adapt existing courses to women and seniors who find themselves in exactly this situation; it wasn't a generic term for any shot that wasn't going to reach the green or was likely to be mishit or whatever.

And I'm not a terrible example of this, fwiw.  I'm still a single digit index, and I played over 30 local and state senior tournaments in 2018.  Still work with a teaching pro, still get fitted for optimal equipment, still practice diligently, and still hit the ball well most of the time.  But on most par 5's now, it just doesn't matter what I hit for the second shot.  I can't get to the green, or even to trouble around the green, and the third shot is going to be manageable anyway, so in tournament rounds I hit the club I'm most comfortable with at that moment (usually one of the hybrids) and in casual rounds I hit the club I want to work on at that moment (three wood right now, for instance).  It just doesn't matter! 


I still have options left for moving up and playing less distance, and the senior tournaments I play are typically about 500 yds shorter than the course I play regularly.  But the front/red/women's tees at my home course are 5000 yds, and there aren't anymore options there.  And so women get to hit a LOT of irrelevant shots; no strategy, no trouble, not a layup, no mental engagement; just advance the ball with whatever club you want to hit.


I'll be happy to discuss the term as Bill intended it to be used and in the context of finding ways for existing golf courses to attract and keep more customers. 

[Mike_Young]

To me an example of an irrelevant shot would be a medal play event where you are in second place by yourself and you have a 10 ft putt for birdie on the last hole and first place is three shots ahead of you and third is three shots behind you.  That shot is irrelevant.
And I see what AG is saying after speaking to Bill.  Don't have any problem with any of that.
My problem is that we even have to discuss it.  When golf was rolling we just played.  Keep the fronts of the greens where they can be approached by the weaker players and play the same course from when one is 5 to 95 years of age.  I've seen 90 year old guys that play at our club just start somewhere out in the fairway.  Been happening for years but today we have allowed marketing and hype to push so much in the game when we really just need people to play. 

Last night the Atlanta Soccer team won the MLS championship and the Atlanta Hawks basketball had to almost give away tickets because of people going to soccer.  Soccer is reaching critical mass in places where it used to not be considered.  Kids will be lost to soccer that at one time played football or basketball or baseball.   Football fields are not going to change to bring more kids to the game.  Nor will baseball or basketball.  You just play and realize your limits based on age or ability. 

We are out of things to talk about when it comes to golf architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

[font=]"Trust me when I tell you that Im well aware of the need to educate the masses on the core principles of the sport. I just don't see how manipulating the canvas, to appease the feelings of the golfer, is how you do it."[/font]

[font=]This sort of sums up the "nay" vote - inability to see things from a different perspective than your own. Mike Y is a guilty of it, too, discussing relatively high level competitive matches, which make up a very small percentage of play.[/font]

[font=]Besides, basketball has added the 3 point shot, probably to get more viewers.  Hockey has shrunk goalie pads to get more goals, NFL has made changes to get more scoring, etc. The biggest future change for football (and maybe hockey) appears to be its elimination due to injuries, as times and attitudes change (i.e., our enjoyment of watching football isn't worth rate of major injuries to participants) It will be viewed as sort of a Roman and lions thing.[/font]

[font=]In any event, it is human nature to change, agreed, usually forced to by some negative forces.  But keeping things the way they were is usually futile, as this site has bemoaned re: Golden Age Architecture for years.  "We've always done it that way" is not a good answer against trying something new if it shows promise to make things better for the majority of people.  [/font]

[font=]Specifically, you can view seniors starting play from the fw as an easier way to solve a problem, or you can view it as confirmation of a need, assuming you believe starting on a tee is integral to golf.  Yeah, many junior tees just level out a flat spot on the fw, but then, they aren't paying dues.  Some of the senior men doing it are and have been paying dues a long time, and probably deserve some thought as to how they play.  Just MHO, of course.[/font]

[font=]And, I understand that time may prove forward tees to be more of a 2010's fad than long term trend, but I guess I am willing to take that chance, based on my experience.  Yes, cynics will say I have no problem, because I can profit when a new design trend (including removal) comes along. Doubtful, since I am nearly at retirement, but some will say it anyway. [/font]