[Jason Topp]

Really?

What % of yearly revenue do you think those who can't hit the ball over 100 yards contribute? 5%? 1%? 10%?

Nothing's stopping those players who can't hit the ball > 100 yards from playing an illegal super-hot golf ball. It's not like they're playing in competitions. That there isn't a market for it should tell you something.

Erik - my guess is that the percentage of revenue is significantly higher than that and that it varies greatly by venue.  I am sure someone has done a study.

[Thomas Dai]

Worth considering that many older, shorter hitting players have likely been golfers and club members for decades, some maybe for most of their lives.
They deserve some respect.
Without their involvement and £$ over the decades the game we play and our clubs and courses wouldn’t be where they are today and today’s younger players wouldn’t have benefited in the way they have.
One day sometime in the future those of currently younger generations will probably find themselves in the same position in terms of both golf and life.
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - I agree the scale is way off.  From what I am seeing around here, a significant percentage fit my description - maybe 25%.

You forgot the decimal point, and I'm not even sure it goes between the 2 and the 5 and not to the left of both of them…

There's no way 25% of golf's annual revenue comes from "those who can't hit the ball over 100 yards."

[Jason Topp]

Erik - I agree the scale is way off.  From what I am seeing around here, a significant percentage fit my description - maybe 25%.

You forgot the decimal point, and I'm not even sure it goes between the 2 and the 5 and not to the left of both of them…

There's no way 25% of golf's annual revenue comes from "those who can't hit the ball over 100 yards."

The actual number and specific yardage people hit drives is beside the point.  I don't have data on it and apparently neither do you. 

All I can say is that I see many women and some senior men that fit within the category.  I think such a population could potentially be better served by the  design of the golf courses on which they play.  Because of the scale issues described in your earlier post, simply shortening yardages might not be adequate. 

Your point, as I understand it,  is that the population is either too small to have a significant impact on course revenue (I disagree) or that course design should assume a certain baseline of skill and allow those that do not have it cope as they see fit.  On that second point, your viewpoint might be the best viewpoint but I think it is worth exploring.

[Kalen Braley]

If we're going to talk about the relatively low % of golfers (allegedly) who can only hit it 100 yards off the tee.  Shouldn't we also talk about the very low % of golfers who can consistently hit it 275+ off the tee too?  Any why so many courses feel the need to stretch to 7000+ yards, but then basically ignore the 4500 yard crowd.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The actual number and specific yardage people hit drives is beside the point. I don't have data on it and apparently neither do you.

It matters, IMO, because you often can't cater to an incredibly small percentage of your audience. I know they're not contributing 25% of the revenue! Even 65 MPH clubhead speed can get you over 110 yards of carry.

I'd wager a good bit it's not in the double digits let alone 1/4 of the money spent on golf.

Your point, as I understand it,  is that the population is either too small to have a significant impact on course revenue (I disagree) or that course design should assume a certain baseline of skill and allow those that do not have it cope as they see fit. On that second point, your viewpoint might be the best viewpoint but I think it is worth exploring.

Both, yes.

Again, people who hit it that short have "scale" issues. They're also not hitting anything that stops with height or spin. You'd have to make fairways ridiculously narrow to "challenge" them, and greens would be massive as, from the "right" tees, they'd be coming in from, what, 65 yards with a 7I?

I once taught an 82-year-old woman who carried four clubs: a high-lofted driver (even she hit it about 110 in the air), a 6I for every shot in between, a sand wedge, and a putter. It was perfect. She enjoyed the walk and the company. The balls she hit well you could have parked a large SUV over. She raked her ball out of bunkers because she didn't want to hurt herself climbing into or out of them.

If we're going to talk about the relatively low % of golfers (allegedly) who can only hit it 100 yards off the tee.  Shouldn't we also talk about the very low % of golfers who can consistently hit it 275+ off the tee too?  Any why so many courses feel the need to stretch to 7000+ yards, but then basically ignore the 4500 yard crowd.

I've been consistent in saying that 6500 yards is plenty for 90-95% of golfers. Among the other numbers nobody seems to know: just how many courses "feel the need" to "stretch to 7000+ yards"? The ones who want to host some higher level tournaments do, but that doesn't describe the majority of courses the public plays.

Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes top out at 6938 and 6988 (as a par 73)! And almost nobody plays the Black tees.

So to answer the OP, my answer is basically: nothing. You don't need to do anything to make golf more fun for these really rare "players" who can't even swing at 60+ MPH. They can go to an executive course, or invent their own tees and play from whatever yardage they want. But you can't generally change the golf course enough to "help" them without negatively affecting the play of the large majority who can hit it out of their shadow.

[Sean_A]

Erik - I agree the scale is way off.  From what I am seeing around here, a significant percentage fit my description - maybe 25%.

You forgot the decimal point, and I'm not even sure it goes between the 2 and the 5 and not to the left of both of them…

There's no way 25% of golf's annual revenue comes from "those who can't hit the ball over 100 yards."

The actual number and specific yardage people hit drives is beside the point.  I don't have data on it and apparently neither do you. 

All I can say is that I see many women and some senior men that fit within the category.  I think such a population could potentially be better served by the  design of the golf courses on which they play.  Because of the scale issues described in your earlier post, simply shortening yardages might not be adequate. 

Your point, as I understand it,  is that the population is either too small to have a significant impact on course revenue (I disagree) or that course design should assume a certain baseline of skill and allow those that do not have it cope as they see fit.  On that second point, your viewpoint might be the best viewpoint but I think it is worth exploring.

Ignore the 100 yard specifics and percentage of income from this short hitting crowd. If we want more golf participation in mature golf markets, this short hitting crowd is surely the #1 target. The question isn't if they matter, but how do we make sure they matter.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If we want more golf participation in mature golf markets, this short hitting crowd is surely the #1 target.

Says who? With what facts to back this up?

I'd think people aged about 20-50 would be the #1 target, because they have potential to play golf for decades to come, unlike 82-year-olds.

[Sean_A]

If we want more golf participation in mature golf markets, this short hitting crowd is surely the #1 target.

Says who? With what facts to back this up?

I'd think people aged about 20-50 would be the #1 target, because they have potential to play golf for decades to come, unlike 82-year-olds.

I would think the real target is women...who tend to be short hitters. Although, keeping 82 year olds in the game is no bad thing.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I would think the real target is women...who tend to be short hitters. Although, keeping 82 year olds in the game is no bad thing.

Women are something like 40% of new players. I think the market is younger people, many of whom have time for a TopGolf but not four to six hours to play 18 holes.

And no, it wouldn't necessarily make business sense to keep a 90-yard-hitting person in the game if you end up disrupting stuff for the other 99% of golfers, or spending more to accommodate the 90-yard-hitting person at a loss.

[DFarron]

You bring up a brilliant question. Just returned from 5 days in the desert playing at a club that has courses designed by the greatest players and architects in the game.
[size=78%]Every  time I leave there I wonder why anyone wants to belong/play there? Multiple forced carry’s, overwatered fairways and bunkers so deep you can literally hurt yourself getting out.[/size]


And I’m younger and in great shape !


Couple that with 5 hour rounds and I wonder what the attraction is to anyone.

Yet there you were

I was for a couple of reasons …..
1. It is my best friend’s club and even though I really don’t like the courses I would play almost anywhere with him.


2. It was 19 degrees in Boise and 78 in Palm Springs.


3. Being the guest of a member it didn’t really cost that much to play.


That being said if I would never want to be a member there.

[Daryl David]

You bring up a brilliant question. Just returned from 5 days in the desert playing at a club that has courses designed by the greatest players and architects in the game.
[size=78%]Every  time I leave there I wonder why anyone wants to belong/play there? Multiple forced carry’s, overwatered fairways and bunkers so deep you can literally hurt yourself getting out.[/size]


And I’m younger and in great shape !


Couple that with 5 hour rounds and I wonder what the attraction is to anyone.

Yet there you were

I was for a couple of reasons …..
1. It is my best friend’s club and even though I really don’t like the courses I would play almost anywhere with him.


2. It was 19 degrees in Boise and 78 in Palm Springs.


3. Being the guest of a member it didn’t really cost that much to play.


That being said if I would never want to be a member there.

Boy, you sound like a dream guest. 

[Paul Rudovsky]

I would be very careful with this one...speaking as a guy who: (1) 40-45 years ago could regularly carry a balata ball with a persimmon driver over 250 yards (I knew the carry because it those days, the fairways at my home club, Quaker Ridge, we're so soft 1 yard of roll was typical); and (2) now at the age of 77 and having had triple bypass heart surgery exactly two years ago this day, cannot hit it past my shadow at noon!!! (reality is I now hit my drives about 160-70 unless, the courses is really firm/fast, or very soft).


So big hitters...be careful what you wish for...your days of advanced years and crawling swing speeds will arrive before you know it



40-45 years ago I always went to the "tips" to play...now my ideal distance is about 5000-5300 yards (again subject to playing conditions, etc).


Frankly I think the answer here is provided by our game already.  And that is provided because there are no "standard" dimensions for golf holes or courses.  Just about every course is different.  So if you are on one of the big boys (or girls) now, there ceratinly are courses out there designed to keep you happy...and if you are an Old FarX like me, there are courses with tees at 5100 yards that work perfectly for you...and in both cases you can find courses that do not require long walks from green to tee.  No standard dimensions means VARIETY in design.  I know what I like and dislike in courses, and assume that is true with most golfers (even though the answers vary from person to person)

[Jeff Schley]

I would be very careful with this one...speaking as a guy who: (1) 40-45 years ago could regularly carry a balata ball with a persimmon driver over 250 yards (I knew the carry because it those days, the fairways at my home club, Quaker Ridge, we're so soft 1 yard of roll was typical); and (2) now at the age of 77 and having had triple bypass heart surgery exactly two years ago this day, cannot hit it past my shadow at noon!!! (reality is I now hit my drives about 160-70 unless, the courses is really firm/fast, or very soft).


So big hitters...be careful what you wish for...your days of advanced years and crawling swing speeds will arrive before you know it



40-45 years ago I always went to the "tips" to play...now my ideal distance is about 5000-5300 yards (again subject to playing conditions, etc).


Frankly I think the answer here is provided by our game already.  And that is provided because there are no "standard" dimensions for golf holes or courses.  Just about every course is different.  So if you are on one of the big boys (or girls) now, there ceratinly are courses out there designed to keep you happy...and if you are an Old FarX like me, there are courses with tees at 5100 yards that work perfectly for you...and in both cases you can find courses that do not require long walks from green to tee.  No standard dimensions means VARIETY in design.  I know what I like and dislike in courses, and assume that is true with most golfers (even though the answers vary from person to person)

Agree Paul, allow players to age gracefully at the very least. Basically we don't want midline hazards and guarded green fronts, outside of that have at it with them outside the fairway.

[Thomas Dai]

Respect the elderly.
And encourage youngsters, including very youngsters.
Multi-generational golf is also special … Grandparents, Parents and youngsters, even Great grandparents. Fun and smiles and wonderful memories that last forever.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I think you may be missing a nuanced point in that having very forward tees is a bit like life, where we're born in diapers and drooling and go out in similar fashion.

If the goal is to establish life long golfers, you need to get them started as early as possible, and those 4000 yard tees, where they can play alongside mom or dad, not on a separate course, is how you build those bonds.

[Padraig Dooley]

Recently I was watching a few ladies play in the group in front of us. They were very similar to the golfer described, as in they didn't hit it much further than 100 yards off the tee. They were also pretty new to the game of golf.

I think they and many others don't realise that you can engage with golf and a golf course any way you wish, in order words you can start the hole from a place or a distance of your own choosing, the golfer doesn't have to start at a formal tee.

Rather than specifically design for that golfer or create a formal course for them, I'd give them guidelines to use. For example the 100 yard hitter could play par 3s up to 100-125 yards, par 4s 125-225 yards and par5s up to 350 yards. As they get better they can go to longer distances.

To me it's madness to have indexes up to 54 so people can play, get them closer to hole to learn the game rather than making it acceptable to have 3 handicap strokes on even 125 yard par 3s.

[Mark_Fine]

I have not read the posts here and sure hope it has already been mentioned but the answer is more forward tees!!

[Ronald Montesano]

That's a peach, hon.


followed closely by


Oh golly, I'm hot today


Are we trying to create threads for the sake of creating threads? The notion of change for change's sake?


We all know that there are folks who hit the ball 100 yards max. Has anyone bothered to ask them if they give a fark about architectural integrity? They might simply say, glad to be out here, give me two pegs to hit between.


Was out at a bar last night, and heard two, spectacular, south Buffalo boys debating, nay, battling, over who was going to pay for drinks. 50-year old guys, and they were still competing for god knows what. Those golfers will always be out there, and if they are going to pay freight and purchase some swag in the shop, let them play from wherever.


There comes a point at which an architect throws hand in the air and says I cannot build for every, yet-to-be-conceived accommodation. If you've dropped from 300 yard drives to 100 yard drives, you are fortunate to still be playing. If you never hit it farther than 100 yards, you should know your game by now.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If the goal is to establish life long golfers, you need to get them started as early as possible, and those 4000 yard tees, where they can play alongside mom or dad, not on a separate course, is how you build those bonds.

You don't need tee markers for that.

My daughter "teed off" on par fours and fives when she was younger from where my tee shot finished. It created 155-yard par fours, 245-yard par fives, etc. for her.

[Tommy Williamsen]

If the goal is to establish life long golfers, you need to get them started as early as possible, and those 4000 yard tees, where they can play alongside mom or dad, not on a separate course, is how you build those bonds.

You don't need tee markers for that.

My daughter "teed off" on par fours and fives when she was younger from where my tee shot finished. It created 155-yard par fours, 245-yard par fives, etc. for her.

I did the same thing with my kids. It was great fun for them because they could make a par once in a while.

[Jay Mickle]

Devil's advocate of a sort: golf is a sport, and you have to be able to play it at some minimum level. If 250 yard tee shots equate to a 7000 yard course, 100 yard tee shots would be only 2800 yards (for 18 holes)… and the scale of everything is off: fairway width, hazards and green sizes, etc.

Erik, You likely have the stats to shed light on the statement that to equalize the club for the approach shot, a course should play about 30x the drive (ie. 200 yd drive = 6000 yd course). With the guys I play with this would seem to be about right. Perhaps would also work for 100 yard hitters. When you take into account the guys who drive the ball 300 yards obvious that there can be no course designed to accommodate all levels of play.

[John Kavanaugh]

https://www.nhra.com/news/2016/fast-eddie-schartman


I play a bunch with this hall of fame drag racer who is now 83. He gets 22 shots and figures it out. Don’t treat us like babies just cause we get old.

[James Reader]

The Strathtyrum at St Andrews seems to me to be a good example of a course that works even for a golfer that can’t hit it further than 100 yards, particularly in a setting where there are plenty of other options for the better player. With tees at 5,600, 5,000 and 4,700 yards, there aren’t any forced carries on the course, but there’s enough going on at and around the greens to keep it interesting. I suspect the green to tee walks overall are roughly the same for the ‘back’ and ‘forward’ tees as well.

It certainly seems to be popular with golfers at both ends of the spectrum - from beginners to those whose days on the ‘bigger’ courses are behind them.  In the St Andrews GC ‘optional’ course competitions, there are as many members choosing to play it as any of the other courses; certainly in the winter.


I don’t play it very often when I’m there but actually quite enjoy it when I do. As a 7 handicapper who used to be lower, it’s nice to just once in a while play a course where I still stand a chance of breaking 70!

[MCirba]

This might be an appropriate juncture to share an inappropriate story from my youth spent caddying.   This story may or may not have taken place at Glen Oak Country Club in Waverly, PA, where we used to hitch-hike to on nice days hoping to get a loop or two.

Well, one day I'm looping for Mrs. Lervy who is playing in a foursome with three other ladies.   Each woman in the group insisted on their own caddy for their usual Thursday morning nine-hole round so I'm already double-screwed and a bit irritated as it's only a nine-hole loop and I miss the chance to catch a double-bag, as well.

At the time, it was one of those courses where the ladies tees were an afterthought, often just set a few paces ahead of the men's.   Hole after hole the same routine commences... A driver of about 100 yards, followed by 3-wood, 3-wood, 3-wood, wedge and scores of 7s, 8s, 9s, and others.   


We get to the 8th hole, which  is a difficult gem of 390 yards, perhaps 370 for the ladies, rolling steadily downhill to a creek, and then back up perhaps 20 yards to a crested sloped green set behind two bunkers.   After two shots Mrs. Lervy is perhaps 220 yards away, with a downhill lie to an elevated green over double-trouble and she finally pauses, turns to me for the first time that day, and asks "what club do you think I should hit?"

Fully knowing that my paltry wages were likely at stake, I considered my response.   Still, the devil got the better of me and I blurted out, "Do you have a bazooka in your bag?"   Her offended retort, "That's not funny!", instantly let me know that a tip would be out of the question that day.

From the Bausch Collection on MyPhillyGolf.com, here's the scene of the crime showing the shot that Mrs. Lervy may or may not have faced that day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()