[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


I completely agree with you about Par 3 and Executive Courses. I grew up on a steady diet of them too.


I am not sure I understand your point about dead walks. My wife never has minded them if they lead to a more enjoyable round of golf for her. We have a par 4 that she really disliked because it was uphill with a cant left to right toward a waste bunker that ran a good part of the hole. A few years ago the club added a forward tee that is a bit offset so that she can use the cant on her tee shot plus a good drive gives her a chance of reaching the green in regulation. She now really enjoys the hole and has never complained about the walk.


Ira

[Garland Bayley]

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!

Damn right it's fun! I played my first golf at about that age from the tips. I suppose younger people that started their golfing life in a golf cart might have a different view.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

Ho hum post Jeff, as always.

[Garland Bayley]

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

One of the great pleasures in life is generally spending around five hours or more on Pacific Dunes and listening to Bandon personnel tell us they can't understand why that group in front of us hackers is taking so long, because "they are such good players"! Perhaps they should move up a tee or two so they can keep ahead of us while we play back.

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps I should note that Dai and I have played together, and he is such a good player. And, he is quick! Although I am such a bad player, I hope that Dai has a similar sentiment about me. That I am quick.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I completely agree with you about Par 3 and Executive Courses. I grew up on a steady diet of them too.


I am not sure I understand your point about dead walks. My wife never has minded them if they lead to a more enjoyable round of golf for her. We have a par 4 that she really disliked because it was uphill with a cant left to right toward a waste bunker that ran a good part of the hole. A few years ago the club added a forward tee that is a bit offset so that she can use the cant on her tee shot plus a good drive gives her a chance of reaching the green in regulation. She now really enjoys the hole and has never complained about the walk.


Ira

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

[A.G._Crockett]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Literally, this discussion group is ONLY place I've ever heard this complaint, much less heard it as some sort of a justification for fewer teeing options.  It takes the "grumpy old men" thing to an entirely different level.  Bizarre.

[Garland Bayley]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Literally, this discussion group is ONLY place I've ever heard this complaint, much less heard it as some sort of a justification for fewer teeing options.  It takes the "grumpy old men" thing to an entirely different level.  Bizarre.

Most people will repeat "the company line" when they don't know much else. Guess that makes Jeff Brauer the company CEO espousing the company line.

[Garland Bayley]

... 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.

OMG, the CEO has dropped the company line, and gone rouge!

[Garland Bayley]

...
And if a player has a hcp above scratch remember that the course is already too difficult for them so playing from tees that are further back seems as Mr Spock would say ‘illogical’. But then again ego, vanity and logic don’t seem to be easy bedfellows.

Atb

I believe Mr. Spock may ascribe to a larger universe than you do. And, it may very well be that his logical conclusions may be different than yours.

[Garland Bayley]

...
My objection to this whole notion of move forward is two-fold. Firstly the idea that a player would walk a large proportion of the course without playing it is simply absurd. Particularly if it is so that they can play to "par".


The second issue I have is the notion that the scratch golfer and the hacker can't play off the same tee and both find it fun and challenging. That's not being said but that's what I think's implied. It's like the GCA can't be arsed to design a hole that works with the different standard of player playing from the same tee but instead sticks in numerous tee boxes. I wonder if it isn't just a crutch for shite architecture.


Niall

It may be that Mr. Spock would find you logical.

[Garland Bayley]

F
Niall,

Don't waste you time responding to this guy. Not only is he very narrow minded, he is comprehension impaired.

So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees?

Yes. They absolutely should.

It's simply not fun for someone whose driver goes 70 yards in the air (like my daughter when she first started playing) to tee it up on a par four where it's 180 yards to the fairway.

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.

What's interesting about having 180 yards to the fairway… what's interesting about needing eight shots to get to the green?

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?

He might be laughing (at your post), but he's not having a laugh.

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 suggest it is you who "doesn't get it" on this one.

We have different tees for a valid and good reason, and the handicap system you touted (IIRC) supports play from different tees.

I love how people will (rightfully) bemoan players playing from too far back for their ability level… and then Niall, you come in and basically say "everyone just play one set of tees." One size doesn't fit all.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Troll better, buddy.

[Sean_A]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

Get serious, Sean.  If a hole is 400 yards from the tips to the green, whether I walk by the back tees on my way to the front tees, or play from the tips and then walk the rest of the hole, it’s 400 yards. No more, no less.




“Cart inducing” golf is about the distance from a green to the next tee, not the length of the hole or the available teeing options. And you know that, of course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

What question did I dodge?

And as for the point you failed to make… AG handled it pretty well, with brevity too.

[Sean_A]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

Get serious, Sean.  If a hole is 400 yards from the tips to the green, whether I walk by the back tees on my way to the front tees, or play from the tips and then walk the rest of the hole, it’s 400 yards. No more, no less.

“Cart inducing” golf is about the distance from a green to the next tee, not the length of the hole or the available teeing options. And you know that, of course.

There is a big difference between a walk without hitting shots and a walk between shots. Not a hard concept to grasp. Who wants to constantly walk long distances between greens and their appropriate tee? Especially kids! Designed extended periods between shots is not clever. It's wasting time dressed up as good idea by archies. Why not when down time is solved by carts? 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


Agreed kids don't want to walk to the next tee.  Based on my grandkids, they want to run, LOL.


Garland, I am guessing I teed you off by agreeing with Erik on something again.  As to who is right here, all I can say is I base my statements on what I have seen, not what I think I want to see.  And, I agree, most players prefer a tee somewhere within their range, although I have seen the upcoming USGA distance study, and agree many still seem to favor playing courses longer than they "technically" should.  That poses an interesting design question of do we locate tees for where we think they will be happy with or where we think they should be happy, LOL.


We can argue all day, I suppose, but industry stats show 83% like to play at 6300 yards or shorter.  If you can counter those stats in your arguments, rather than just offer what you would make golfers do if you were the king of golf, I will listen gladly.


As to design, after the advent of multiple tees I recognized that placing the green closest to the next middle tee and arranging the primary exit points on the shortest possible distance was a good idea.  There is no reason for the 83% of players who don't play the back two tees to have to walk by them, if it can be avoided in routing and design.  It is even more important when there may be 6-7 tees now.  Now, gca's have 1,000,002 things to consider well before they have their picture taken while adjusting the green mix 1/16th of an inch on a sand pro, all of which constitute good and thoughtful design that make golf enjoyabler.

[Edward Glidewell]

I know dozens of golfers in their 70s and I don't think any of them would keep playing golf if they were required to play from, say, 6500 yards.


And no, it has nothing to do with feeling like they are supposed to make pars -- it's that golf isn't especially fun when you're hitting shots of no real consequence. Isn't that the regular complaint about par 5s here? That the second shot is often uncompelling? Imagine having those uncompelling shots on almost every single hole, and sometimes multiple times per hole. I occasionally play with someone who can't hit his driver more than about 150 yards, so you can obviously extrapolate from there.


It's a bit bizarre that the same people who are generally aware that having fun is the point of golf are also opposed to letting people have fun while playing golf over something as inconsequential as multiple tee options. It's a very strange sort of gatekeeping and I don't really understand how it significantly affects someone's enjoyment of the game for someone else to play from a different set of tees. It's not like every course should have seven sets, but having four seems completely reasonable.

[Forrest Richardson]

Niall — Re-design 35,000 courses worldwide so the "holes are interesting for all hitting lengths...?" That's 1/2 million golf holes. OK...I'll take the assignment. Let's see, how many new hires will I need......

The point of Longleaf is to encourage playing the golf hole the way IT WAS INTENDED. Why should a 35+ HCP senior be hitting Driver, hybrid, six iron when his playing buddy is hitting Driver, 8-iron? Par-5s become tricky-er, but still better than the alternative of having one player hit 2.5 shots and another hitting 5 shots to reach the green.

Bottomline — and you'll be hearing a lot about this from the R&A and USGA in the coming months  — if we truly believe that a course should be playable and ENJOYABLE* for young beginners, women, stroke victims, 95 year old women and disabled veterans who may swing with only one arm...well, then you need a MUCH SHORTER set of tees to accommodate that individual and make them feel successful on a golf course that is trying to attract and retain such a player. It's as simple as that.

What we once thought (and promoted) as "appropriate" yardage — 4,800 yards at sea level — is likely much, much shorter if we want ALL PLAYERS to have fun and achieve scoring success. I'm not going to divulge the yardage that the science is suggesting, but I can tell you based on extensive study, swing speeds and testing that it is far shorter than 4,800 yards.

*Look up the USGA study on "Satisfaction" among golfers and the golf course "industry"...golf ranked right at the same level as the U.S. Post Office, and slightly behind airlines and banks when it came to customer service, overall enjoyment. One reason: Courses are inherently set up and designed to NOT appeal to the widest range of users. Tee options are the one variable that helps overcome this.

[Garland Bayley]

...
*Look up the USGA study on "Satisfaction" among golfers and the golf course "industry"...golf ranked right at the same level as the U.S. Post Office, and slightly behind airlines and banks when it came to customer service, overall enjoyment. One reason: Courses are inherently set up and designed to NOT appeal to the widest range of users. Tee options are the one variable that helps overcome this.

Well if Jeff is the CEO then I guess Forrest is Chaiman of the Board. Perhaps he needs to recruit board members that will advocate for something else than the corruption of golf that has occurred with everything being about score. If you tell them the object of golf is to obtain a score, then you get dissatisfaction with customers not being able to score! So, you start advocating for bastardizations of golf to allow everyone to score.

As an applicant for membership on the board, I would submit that golf started as a match play game; that medal play is just a convenience that allows large tournaments; and that the organizations such as the USGA, ASGCA, and especially the PGA should be pushing for much more match play.

To quote Jeff Brauer

... 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.

There you have it. The "most fun" golf is match play, and "the individual challenges of each hole became the focus".

How is that different than

... 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. ...

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I.e., each hole needs some "individual challenges" for the tiger, and the rabbit. If you have heaving links land, the "individual challenges" are built in, just find the green sites and tees.

[A.G._Crockett]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

Get serious, Sean.  If a hole is 400 yards from the tips to the green, whether I walk by the back tees on my way to the front tees, or play from the tips and then walk the rest of the hole, it’s 400 yards. No more, no less.

“Cart inducing” golf is about the distance from a green to the next tee, not the length of the hole or the available teeing options. And you know that, of course.

There is a big difference between a walk without hitting shots and a walk between shots. Not a hard concept to grasp. Who wants to constantly walk long distances between greens and their appropriate tee? Especially kids! Designed extended periods between shots is not clever. It's wasting time dressed up as good idea by archies. Why not when down time is solved by carts? 

Ciao

This is a silly argument.  The walk between the back tees and the front is typically a lot shorter than the walk between a tee shot and a second shot, even for lesser players.  There are a LOT of reasons riders choose to ride, but the walk between the back tees and forward tees?  I have never heard that said by anybody but you. Ever.

[Sean_A]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

Get serious, Sean.  If a hole is 400 yards from the tips to the green, whether I walk by the back tees on my way to the front tees, or play from the tips and then walk the rest of the hole, it’s 400 yards. No more, no less.

“Cart inducing” golf is about the distance from a green to the next tee, not the length of the hole or the available teeing options. And you know that, of course.

There is a big difference between a walk without hitting shots and a walk between shots. Not a hard concept to grasp. Who wants to constantly walk long distances between greens and their appropriate tee? Especially kids! Designed extended periods between shots is not clever. It's wasting time dressed up as good idea by archies. Why not when down time is solved by carts? 

Ciao

This is a silly argument.  The walk between the back tees and the front is typically a lot shorter than the walk between a tee shot and a second shot, even for lesser players.  There are a LOT of reasons riders choose to ride, but the walk between the back tees and forward tees?  I have never heard that said by anybody but you. Ever.

Heavy sigh. Read what I wrote.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Lets put it this wsy. Would you or wife prefer a well  designed course which flows tees near previous or a course which requires disruptions in the game for long walks to tees?

I think most people would rank having a set of tees that makes the game fun and interesting for them much higher than having to walk forward or back a little to get to those tees.

Thats an evasion of the question and an excuse to carry on with cart inducing golf.

Ciao

Get serious, Sean.  If a hole is 400 yards from the tips to the green, whether I walk by the back tees on my way to the front tees, or play from the tips and then walk the rest of the hole, it’s 400 yards. No more, no less.

“Cart inducing” golf is about the distance from a green to the next tee, not the length of the hole or the available teeing options. And you know that, of course.

There is a big difference between a walk without hitting shots and a walk between shots. Not a hard concept to grasp. Who wants to constantly walk long distances between greens and their appropriate tee? Especially kids! Designed extended periods between shots is not clever. It's wasting time dressed up as good idea by archies. Why not when down time is solved by carts? 

Ciao

This is a silly argument.  The walk between the back tees and the front is typically a lot shorter than the walk between a tee shot and a second shot, even for lesser players.  There are a LOT of reasons riders choose to ride, but the walk between the back tees and forward tees?  I have never heard that said by anybody but you. Ever.

Heavy sigh. Read what I wrote.

Ciao

I DID read it; that’s the problem!  I understand what you mean by “dead walks”; I’ve just never heard anybody but you talk about it AT ALL, much less complain about it, much less ride because of it.




I’ve been a walker at 5 different clubs, all with either 4 or 5 sets of tees (not counting hybrid sets) over the past 45 years, and my current club has a LOT of old guys and women who walk.  I’m trying imagine some of them going to the office of the GM and complaining about having too many long “dead walks”.  I’m not sure they could even get him to understand what them were asking for, since they COULD play farther back…




It’s just a device, and not a very good one, to advocate for fewer teeing options, just like the argument that one tee box is magically beautiful, but more than that suddenly becomes hideous.




You want fewer tee boxes. I get it. Just call it what it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()