[Cliff Hamm]

On the Rank the Pines thread there is mention of Longleaf.  Not having been familiar with it went to their website.  Found the "Longleaf Tee System".  In essence playing tees that fit your length. 


Have seen similar articles before but not in such detail.  Also, have never seen a course advocate so strongly and adopt such a system for their tee placement.  Good luck convincing the male macho golfer to play the appropriate tee but the idea deserves merit and wider adoption.  Thoughts?


http://www.longleafteesystem.com/#our-purpose

[Craig Sweet]

If you are a fairway mower they are a pain in the ass.  Many times I have seen a set of tees on a flat spot in the fairway. Typically, they are used by small kids that couldn't reach the fairway from the regular set of tees.  On and off the mower to move the markers and then to place then back again....

[Andrew Bernstein]

Longleaf is owned by US Kids and caters primarily to children and family golfers. This kind of tee system, while I believe it makes sense for all golfers, is even more applicable to this group. I would guess that more players under the age of 18 play Longleaf than any other course in America.

[Niall C]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.


It does occur to me that if it wasn't for the preponderance of courses with golf carts we wouldn't be having this discussion. After all, who wants to walk 100 to 150 yards down a hole to get to their tee when they could be playing golf ? Come back Melvyn, all is forgiven.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.

[A.G._Crockett]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.


It does occur to me that if it wasn't for the preponderance of courses with golf carts we wouldn't be having this discussion. After all, who wants to walk 100 to 150 yards down a hole to get to their tee when they could be playing golf ? Come back Melvyn, all is forgiven.


Niall

So if you had young kids of your own, and you wanted them to love golf, you'd start them out playing from the tips?  At say, age 6 or so? 

Sounds fun!

[John Foley]

If you look at the card it's really aligned for those learning the game and those that are loosing distance w/ age. Based upon the # of kids I've seen there in my visits, they must be working.


For those of us on here you look at the total yardage # and make the call. Somewhere 5-7 - pretty straight forward .

[Daryl David]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.


It does occur to me that if it wasn't for the preponderance of courses with golf carts we wouldn't be having this discussion. After all, who wants to walk 100 to 150 yards down a hole to get to their tee when they could be playing golf ? Come back Melvyn, all is forgiven.


Niall

So if you had young kids of your own, and you wanted them to love golf, you'd start them out playing from the tips?  At say, age 6 or so? 

Sounds fun!

Sounds like how my dad taught me to ski when I was little. A quick lesson while in line on how to get on the chairlift. A few words on the ride up about how to jump off when we got to the top. Then “follow me and keep up” as he headed right done the face of the mountain. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.

My sentiments exactly Erik!


Niall, I don't really think that is what the Golded Age gca's were all about. 


Many years ago, I was urged by Rees Jones to move up a tee when we played Pinehurst 2. I enjoyed 6300 yards vs 6800 yards and made the move permanent because golf is fun when you can hit the greens in regulation with good shots.  I am more recently moving down to 6000 or even less for the same reasons.


So, as a player and former gca, I have pushed for shorter courses.  Just because architects have always, and increasingly so, focused their designs on the longest 1% of hitters, and for some mythical tournaments that will never show up at the CCFAD they are designing, that is no reason for the average golfer to be paying the price.  What is wrong with aiming a design mostly at average players?


And, at some point......math.  Tour pros play courses approximately 25X their drive length (7500 yards and 300 yard drives.)  To have similar clubs in to greens, that would translate to 6,450 for the average 258 drive for A players, under 6000 for the average 237 yard drive of B players, and 5400 yards for the average 216 yard drive of (male C players).  Senior males and competitive females typically average about 190 yard drives, and could stand to play at 4750 yards.  For recreational women, their 160 yard drives equals 4000 yards.


Of course, they don't need to hit the exact same clubs as pros (although it's fun) so do the math on the maximum course length to possibly hit all greens with good shots, i.e., about 32x drive length (i.e., 18 drivers and 18 3 woods at about 80% of drive distance), with 29-30x drive length being a bit more comfortable as the max, i.e. 4640-4800 yards for the 160 yard driver.  I usually designed holes (where the contours allowed) on a graduating scale, as in 26X for A players, 27X for B players, 28X for C players, and 29X for D players and forward tees.


I doubt anyone in the golf biz shares the fascination around here of making golf tougher for average and shorter players in the name of some sort of whatever idea.  While ASGCA endorses Long Leaf, believe it or not, there are a few somewhat hotly debated theories, all aimed at the same goal of getting the most fun course lengths for golfers.


I understand some skepticism, as it usually starts that way, giving way to gradual acceptance when golfers realize how much more fun golf is for them.  I also see a lot of older pros who look at the 4000-4500 yard tee sets and call them junior tees, rather than forward tees aimed at 150-160 yard hitters (typically women and super senior men) just because they seem to be locked in what to me seems bad traditions.  Honestly, juniors ought to just tee it up at the 150 yard marker to avoid any more of the mowing hassle that Craig Sweet mentions.


Making golf more fun....now that is a novel idea!


As always, just my opinion.....even if I am pretty sure I am right, and shortening courses is a good thing overall.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ego gets in my way. 6000 yards is a barrier for me. At 75 I don't hit my drive any farther than 210 yards most of the time. Ballyhack has tees from 7300, 6759, 6130, 5630, and 5100. When I first joined, I played the 6759 tees, and it was fine. A lot happens to the body between 63 and 75. A few years ago I moved up to 6130. Ballyhack has many uphill second shots that I find difficult. If I moved up a set of tees it would make a big difference. Think I can? Nope, not yet. Now I often must hit some sort of wood or long hybrid into some par fours and a couple of par threes. I like the challenge, but my scores are higher than I’d like them to be. I don’t think I will ever move up to the most forward (lady’s) tees. My male ego couldn’t handle it.[/font]

[A.G._Crockett]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.

My sentiments exactly Erik!


Niall, I don't really think that is what the Golded Age gca's were all about. 


Many years ago, I was urged by Rees Jones to move up a tee when we played Pinehurst 2. I enjoyed 6300 yards vs 6800 yards and made the move permanent because golf is fun when you can hit the greens in regulation with good shots.  I am more recently moving down to 6000 or even less for the same reasons.


So, as a player and former gca, I have pushed for shorter courses.  Just because architects have always, and increasingly so, focused their designs on the longest 1% of hitters, and for some mythical tournaments that will never show up at the CCFAD they are designing, that is no reason for the average golfer to be paying the price.  What is wrong with aiming a design mostly at average players?


And, at some point......math.  Tour pros play courses approximately 25X their drive length (7500 yards and 300 yard drives.)  To have similar clubs in to greens, that would translate to 6,450 for the average 258 drive for A players, under 6000 for the average 237 yard drive of B players, and 5400 yards for the average 216 yard drive of (male C players).  Senior males and competitive females typically average about 190 yard drives, and could stand to play at 4750 yards.  For recreational women, their 160 yard drives equals 4000 yards.


Of course, they don't need to hit the exact same clubs as pros (although it's fun) so do the math on the maximum course length to possibly hit all greens with good shots, i.e., about 32x drive length (i.e., 18 drivers and 18 3 woods at about 80% of drive distance), with 29-30x drive length being a bit more comfortable as the max, i.e. 4640-4800 yards for the 160 yard driver.  I usually designed holes (where the contours allowed) on a graduating scale, as in 26X for A players, 27X for B players, 28X for C players, and 29X for D players and forward tees.


I doubt anyone in the golf biz shares the fascination around here of making golf tougher for average and shorter players in the name of some sort of whatever idea.  While ASGCA endorses Long Leaf, believe it or not, there are a few somewhat hotly debated theories, all aimed at the same goal of getting the most fun course lengths for golfers.


I understand some skepticism, as it usually starts that way, giving way to gradual acceptance when golfers realize how much more fun golf is for them.  I also see a lot of older pros who look at the 4000-4500 yard tee sets and call them junior tees, rather than forward tees aimed at 150-160 yard hitters (typically women and super senior men) just because they seem to be locked in what to me seems bad traditions.  Honestly, juniors ought to just tee it up at the 150 yard marker to avoid any more of the mowing hassle that Craig Sweet mentions.


Making golf more fun....now that is a novel idea!


As always, just my opinion.....even if I am pretty sure I am right, and shortening courses is a good thing overall.

Great post, Jeff, as always.  Thanks!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ego gets in my way. 6000 yards is a barrier for me. At 75 I don't hit my drive any farther than 210 yards most of the time. Ballyhack has tees from 7300, 6759, 6130, 5630, and 5100. When I first joined, I played the 6759 tees, and it was fine. A lot happens to the body between 63 and 75. A few years ago I moved up to 6130. Ballyhack has many uphill second shots that I find difficult. If I moved up a set of tees it would make a big difference. Think I can? Nope, not yet. Now I often must hit some sort of wood or long hybrid into some par fours and a couple of par threes. I like the challenge, but my scores are higher than I’d like them to be. I don’t think I will ever move up to the most forward (lady’s) tees. My male ego couldn’t handle it.

I understand that.  I still recall my father would never play under 6000 yards.  It seems to be changing when I did my last few years of business-oriented master plans and studies.  One outside study of internet golf searches actually showed that older men looked for yardages and tee sets under 6000, or they stopped their search on that course.


I often thought in design terms of not dropping below X thousand yards for ego reasons, whether that is 6K, 5K or 4K, even if they really should be that way.  Of course, the other option for facilities is the time honored tradition of fudging the scorecard to make folks feel better!


You make a great observation on how uphill tee shots really affect you more.  Statistically, that is well known.  Sometimes I think those hybrid tee sets pros come up, which are usually based on taking the short holes from the further back tees and the long holes from the shorter tees, should do a better job of taking into account uphill downhill and upwind/downwind shots.  My apologies to any committee or pro out there who actually does that now.  My experiences certainly aren't universal.  But, back on topic, however limited my experience compared to the whole of the golf world, I do see greater and greater acceptance and male ego reduction in this generation of golfers compared to my father and former ownself.

[A.G._Crockett]

Just as an FYI...

I play a lot of Carolinas Golf Association tournaments, mostly four balls, but some individuals as well.  The CGA is a remarkable organization, especially in a continual attempt to keep old guys out on the golf course.  The age divisions, of course, are 55+, 65+, and 70+.

The yardages for each?  55+ plays between 6000-6400.  65+ plays 5600-6000, and 70+ plays 5200-5600. 


It is "empowering" to play in an event filled with really good golfers who intend to remain competitive as long as possible and ALL are playing it forward.  The tournaments are very competitive, the scores are NOT particularly low, and the CGA pays gross and net, with typically more payouts for net, depending on the size of the tournament.  And it makes it a LOT easier to move up at your home club when you've already made the mental adjustment at a higher level of golf.


Just food for thought.

[Peter Pallotta]

Really good posts, Jeff.
The devil is in the details, I think.
For the last 2 years I've played only the same front 9 of my local 18 hole course (a pretty good one).
What were at first the two funnest holes there -- both modest length Par 4s with generous landing areas that call for 3 wood-PW and driver-8 iron -- I now approach with a sigh and a shrug, so relatively dull have they become.
Ironically, the only thing that keeps me engaged with those golf holes are features that are among the most penal on the entire course, ie one of the deepest and steepest faced greenside bunkers I've ever seen on one of the holes, and one of the most contoured, perched, Pinehurst #2-like greens I've ever played on the other.
(But then again, now that the fear/ surprise factor is gone, it's not too hard to avoid that bunker with only a PW in my hand, and not too hard to hit and hold that green with an 8 iron.)
Conversely, the most 'fun ' now -- in an invigorating and challenging  way -- is the longest Par 4 on the course, uphill to a steeply pitched green that I've never yet been able to reach with anything less than a 3 hybrid.
Which is to say: it's not a simple matter to create fun! We all want to feel like tigers and not to be treated like rabbits -- and yet we can't really stomach a steady diet of raw meat, and need plenty of lettuce and fresh carrots throughout the day to keep us going.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter, agreed.  I think one of the things I probably took off unfairly on Archie for on the "When is an architect really good" is because the few examples he gave are sort of icing on the cake issues.  I think an architect is really good when they can create fun for a lot of different level of players, which is more core to gca than bunker edges.


That said, in reading your examples, it reminds me that the most typical way gca way to avoid hard shots for lesser players, etc. ends up being to eliminate forced carries all down the fw, because from different tees, every yardage seems to be a forced carry for someone, and eliminate those deep bunkers, because they must sometimes be negotiated after a muffed tee shot where the average player is still trying to reach the green from their maximum 3 wood distance of 180-200 yards.


Even with the utmost of care and intent by a good gca, sometimes the distance math seems to go against everything you might want to do. That, or the owner knows players like you who like occasional challenges are in their minority of players.  Most just want to shoot somewhere around their average score, not fail at some specific challenge.  I understand that, too, and some of the most fun I had playing golf was after work rounds where we knew we weren't getting in 18 or even 9 holes, so we played match play.  Then, the individual challenges of each hole became the focus, not total score.

[Peter Sayegh]

Good luck convincing the male macho golfer to play the appropriate tee but the idea deserves merit and wider adoption.  Thoughts?


http://www.longleafteesystem.com/#our-purpose

Cliff,
I doubt the "male macho golfer" visits Longleaf given the neighboring options. If he does, I'll bet my life anything but the "tips" is acknowledged.
I've only played Longleaf twice (from different tees) but I applaud their effort. I've yet to play or drive by the course without seeing pre-teens playing. Very family-friendly.

Don't know if it's the tee system or the culture, but Longleaf seems intent on "growing the game."

[Andrew Bernstein]

Good luck convincing the male macho golfer to play the appropriate tee but the idea deserves merit and wider adoption.  Thoughts?


http://www.longleafteesystem.com/#our-purpose

Cliff,
I doubt the "male macho golfer" visits Longleaf given the neighboring options. If he does, I'll bet my life anything but the "tips" is acknowledged.
I've only played Longleaf twice (from different tees) but I applaud their effort. I've yet to play or drive by the course without seeing pre-teens playing. Very family-friendly.

Don't know if it's the tee system or the culture, but Longleaf seems intent on "growing the game."

It is owned by US Kids, so it is very much intentional.
Longleaf Golf & Family Club | U.S. Kids Golf (uskidsgolf.com)

[Thomas Dai]

One of the great pleasures in life is waiting on the tee or on the fairway while the players in front who are teeing-off from tees that are inappropriate for the standard of their game play (sic).
Some other great pleasures in life include hitting drivers and fairway metals on par-3’s and endless fairway metals for second and third etc shots on par-4’s and par-5’s (sic).

Atb

[Peter Sayegh]

Andrew, I didn't know US Kids was "a thing." It makes sense when you play there.

Thomas, I don't mind hackers off the tee. Seeing a player ahead of me mark and read his/her THIRD putt is much more vexing.

[A.G._Crockett]

Longleaf, btw, is a very good golf course, regardless of which tees you choose.  Plenty of course for anybody.

A shameless plug: The interior par three course (Bottlebrush), the practice facility, and the tee system were done by Bill Bergin, a good friend and a VERY underrated GCA.  I think he may have also reworked the bunkers and regrassed the greens, though I suspect he wanted to do a bit more.  Bill does great work everywhere he goes, and he's one of the guys who managed to stay very busy throughout the downturn in golf course building because he does terrific renovation work; brings it in on time and at or under budget.

[Niall C]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.

My sentiments exactly Erik!


Niall, I don't really think that is what the Golded Age gca's were all about. 

Jeff


You're surely having a laugh ? You can't get your head round players of different abilities being able to play from the same tee and still have fun and find the golf interesting ? Seriously ?


I can fully understand that Erik and AG aren't able to get it but you're a GCA ffs. What kind of holes have you been designing all your career ? 


Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees ? Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee. That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.

My sentiments exactly Erik!


Niall, I don't really think that is what the Golded Age gca's were all about. 

Jeff


You're surely having a laugh ? You can't get your head round players of different abilities being able to play from the same tee and still have fun and find the golf interesting ? Seriously ?


I can fully understand that Erik and AG aren't able to get it but you're a GCA ffs. What kind of holes have you been designing all your career ? 


Niall

I’ll answer the last question on Jeff’s behalf, having played a couple of his courses:  Very good ones, ffs.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You're surely having a laugh ? You can't get your head round players of different abilities being able to play from the same tee and still have fun and find the golf interesting ? Seriously ?

I can fully understand that Erik and AG aren't able to get it but you're a GCA ffs. What kind of holes have you been designing all your career ? 

Stop digging, Niall.

[Niall C]

One of the great pleasures in life is waiting on the tee or on the fairway while the players in front who are teeing-off from tees that are inappropriate for the standard of their game play (sic).
Some other great pleasures in life include hitting drivers and fairway metals on par-3’s and endless fairway metals for second and third etc shots on par-4’s and par-5’s (sic).

Atb

David


If you're standing waiting on players in front do you not think it more likely that the main reasons is because they are basically slow ? As in don't know the etiquette such as be ready to play when it's your turn; leaving bags on the wrong sides of greens; having an elaborate pre-shot routine etc.


And how does a tee become inappropriate for a certain standard of player ? Maybe when the player is presented with a forced carry that they cannot make. But how often do you and I get that on the courses that we play ? Sure you might end up with a higher score playing from tees further back but that is why they have the handicap system.


Niall   

[Ira Fishman]

As for many aspects of golf, Hogan illuminates the path. Walk the course backwards and see from where you will be playing the shot. If you do not mind hitting a lot of three woods and hybrids into greens, that is up to you and your playing partners. But do not wait to play from the fairway or tee because you think you can hit a shot that you really cannot.


As it regards tees that encourage new players of any age to take up the game because they are playing from a distance that does not frustrate them, those tees just build the robustness of the game and its future. We have family tees that are built flush to the ground to avoid the maintenance challenge. It is one of several reasons that we have many new players, particularly juniors, but also adult newcomers.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()