[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is a big difference between a walk without hitting shots and a walk between shots.

Unless you hit the ball as you walk past it, all walks are "between shots." Some of them are just between the last putt and your next tee shot.

And, Sean, I play fairly often at a local country club where the population is typically older, and they have a bustling storage room that houses nearly one push cart for every bag inside. They've got custom-build stalls and hangers to hold the 200+ push carts they have, and though the population is older they walk a lot. They also play the third, fourth, and fifth sets of tees forward (black and blue are back, white, gold, and red from there). They don't mind, and in fact, as walkers, many will shove their cart toward the next hole (on the holes that are parallel to each other) and grab their driver, putter, and wedge.

I'd wager a lot of money that very few people take a cart because they have to go forward to play the tees they enjoy playing the most.

[Forrest Richardson]

Garland — Stroke or match play, still does not make a difference if your playing group is not hitting into the green the way the golf architect envisioned. Sure, there will always be a discrepancy among players. But today we have more diversity in skill levels, and that's good for golf. Even in Match play, I'd prefer to be hitting a 6-iron second into a par-4 against my opponent who may be hitting shorter iron for their second.

Tee selection provides is a CHOICE — and choices in golf are nearly always better than PRESCRIPTIONS.

Re: Long "dead" walks...I am not an advocate of forward tees always being a long walk from the previous green. On many new designs we have arrange tees so the "most used" of all will be the shortest walk, and often this places back tees behind or to the side, in many cases just as far as the far forward tees are to access.

It is unfortunate on long par-5s that the far forward tee(s) are often 100s of yards to get to. I'm not sure how to counter that — drone lifts? Carts?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland — Stroke or match play, still does not make a difference if your playing group is not hitting into the green the way the golf architect envisioned.

There you go again, talking about designing for par, which is irrelevant in match play.

Sure, there will always be a discrepancy among players. But today we have more diversity in skill levels, and that's good for golf. Even in Match play, I'd prefer to be hitting a 6-iron second into a par-4 against my opponent who may be hitting shorter iron for their second.

If you opponent has equal handicap, then you need to work on your distance hitting. If you have a handicap indicating you are less skilled, being able to reach the green with your 6 iron while the opponent reaches with a shorter iron may be to your advantage when handicap adjustment is taken into account.

Tee selection provides is a CHOICE — and choices in golf are nearly always better than PRESCRIPTIONS.

If your design incorporates choices for both the tiger and the rabbit as Niall advocates, then where are the prescriptions?

Re: Long "dead" walks...I am not an advocate of forward tees always being a long walk from the previous green. On many new designs we have arrange tees so the "most used" of all will be the shortest walk, and often this places back tees behind or to the side, in many cases just as far as the far forward tees are to access.

I see, you are an equal oppotunity boredom inducer for both the tiger and the mouse.

It is unfortunate on long par-5s that the far forward tee(s) are often 100s of yards to get to. I'm not sure how to counter that — drone lifts? Carts?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Garland — Stroke or match play, still does not make a difference if your playing group is not hitting into the green the way the golf architect envisioned.

There you go again, talking about designing for par, which is irrelevant in match play.

He didn't mention par.

Tee selection provides is a CHOICE — and choices in golf are nearly always better than PRESCRIPTIONS.

If your design incorporates choices for both the tiger and the rabbit as Niall advocates, then where are the prescriptions?

Niall isn't advocating for choice. He's said they should both play from the same tees.

[Niall C]

I do love being quoted when I said no such thing 
 
Sorry gents, I've been posted missing the last few days while I was away enjoying myself but I see that Garland and Sean picked up the cudgels in my absence.
 
I haven't got much time at the moment to get into some of the posts but let me comment on Forest's post #70.
 
Forest
 
There might be 35,000 courses in the world but I don't think you'd get much work in the UK, can't speak about elsewhere. For sure not all the holes over here are brilliant but the vast majority can be enjoyed by players of different abilities playing off the same tee. The key to that is making them playable, and the key to making them playable IMO is to avoid forced carries.


You then go on to say something which I think gets to the nub of the issue;


"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."


I can't recall who it is on this site but someone has the tagline which quotes Donald Ross as saying something along the lines of "there's the golf hole play it as you like". I'm pretty sure what Ross meant was there is the tee and there is the hole, find your own way. I very much doubt he meant that the golfer wander down the fairway until they find a place where they fancy teeing it up. I doubt he worried too much about everyone playing the hole the way “it was intended” since I doubt he imagined that everyone would play it the same way.


As for the question you pose about why should a 35+HCP senior player be hitting more club/shots than his playing partner, my response would be why shouldn’t he ? What else would you expect if one player is better than the other ? That’s why you have the handicap system.
 
Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder, what is more vain, continuing to play from the same tees as you get older and can't hit the ball as far, or moving to forward tees so you can still get your "regulation par" ?[/size]

I may not be reading Niall and Garland correctly, but it seems if they replaced Forrest and myself (because we are absolutely clueless about architecture) as CEO of whatever board Garland thinks we are on, they would not only mandate how golfers play (i.e., limit tees to 1 or 2 focused on the Tiger and one other subset of golfers) they would also try to shame people for doing what they do most naturally of all......keep getting older?

That's the spirit of the game, guys!  The great game of golf......the game of a lifetime as long as you play to Garland's rules.  Whoo hoo!  Where do we sign the petition?

Again, the above somewhat simplifies their position for sarcasm, and I may be missing the entire point.  If so, I apologize but it is def. clear we have different defs of player satisfaction.

BTW, regarding my comments on match play, those days when we played partial rounds after work we were of similar age and ability.  I agree match play is great, and understand anyone who wants to advocate for more of it, and yes, maybe the average golfer is too focused on par, etc.  But, since the majority disagree, architects have to design for what is in most cases.  I'm not sure how this thread morphed over into that.

Again, I endorse forward tees.  I accept that they aren't perfect, but would never think that perfect should be the enemy of better.


[/color]

[Cliff Hamm]

As the story goes Jack Nicklaus was playing in an outing many years ago.  One of his fellow golfers said, 'I want to play the course like the pros so I'll play the tips'.  Jack responded, 'If you want to play the course the way the pros do you should play the most forward tee'. Wise words...

[Garland Bayley]

Shame players?

The club I belonged to had a group of players in their 70s, 80s, and 90s that showed up every weekday morning to play an informal competition. Few of them could reach greens in regulation. In fact, a large number of them took two shots to reach my drive as a 60 something. I'm just suggesting that there is a lot of joy to be found in golf while not worrying about reaching greens in regulation.

I am asking why architects are designing hole to be played as "intended". Now that you are providing additional forward tees, when are you are you going to start providing additional forward greens so players can avoid being shamed by not being able to play the hole as intended?

[Garland Bayley]

As the story goes Jack Nicklaus was playing in an outing many years ago.  One of his fellow golfers said, 'I want to play the course like the pros so I'll play the tips'.  Jack responded, 'If you want to play the course the way the pros do you should play the most forward tee'. Wise words...

Except of course that when his drive lands where the pros drive lands, the pro hits wedge while he may be hitting 4 iron. And, even if he plays forward enough to also hit the wedge approach, it won't fly as high nor stop as quickly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


The old way of designing holes was to put all tee balls in the same LZ.  Longleaf and other tees place them proportionally, i.e., hole length is based 150/300 yard drives, or forward tees about 50% of back tees, or 400 and 200 from the forward tees.  BTW, I always did that regardless of the fact that the USGA has set minimum length for par 4 holes as 205 (?) for women.  Senior men have been playing shorter than regulation par 5 holes for years and no one got up in arms.  Ask a woman to play a 199 yard hole (that she cannot reach in one) as nothing but a par 3 is ridonkulous.'


As to having less spin, all true, but as I mentioned above, there is no perfect solution nor is anyone trying to make skill equitable.  We who advocate forward tees are just trying to make the game fun for those who play.  And, of course, you are just stretching to make a point with "new forward greens".  Why would you go to the expense of shortening a hole on both ends?


I grant you it was Niall's post that suggest that old people ought to be shamed for their ego of wanting to play golf at reasonable lengths.  Hah. At the time I figured answering both with one post would save me time, but that isn't how it works around here.


I agree there can be joy in longer golf for oldsters.  And, I don't think many are talking about mandating anyone play anywhere.  If I want to go play longer than normal when I visit my son or play in his member-guest, I am free to do so, and due to social conditions would probably enjoy it, including having my handicap adjusted appropriately so I still have a chance to win something (or avoid last, which is my typical tourney goal)  But, I know (as a golfer) that doing that all the time is not as fun as playing at 6000 yards or so and hitting greens in reg.


And, so many players do play match play, i.e., them against par or them against their personal best.  So, even in a stroke play format one day, mentally, even multiple golf games are going on in some heads (and for real, as in side bets)  Either restricting tees to 2, or expanding them to 7, really doesn't affect the basic joy of golf for everyone, every day, etc., but it does give a subset of them the option to enjoy reaching greens in regulation.  You keep saying there is a lot of joy in hitting shot after shot down the fw, but to most, hitting the fw from the tee and hitting (or nearly so) the green have a lot more intrinsic value than advancing one down the fw 130 yards or whatever.  I think it is hard to deny that statement, no matter how hard you try.

[Edward Glidewell]

This is akin to suggesting that everyone should be required to play with hickory clubs because you think it's more fun to play with them. I don't understand why anyone wants to require other people to play golf exactly like they do.


Anyways, the reversible Bobby Jones course in Atlanta uses the Longleaf system. It's kind of hard to use there because they don't have any tee markers; they only have plates in the ground. I wasted some time wandering around looking for the plates since you can't see them until you're right on top of them.

[Peter Pallotta]

Two different subjects/contexts are being discussed here, but in large part implicitly. I'm glad that Forrest and JB are defending the golfing interests of 95 year old women, 5 year old children and 35 handicappers. But I just looked up the scorecard from a hugely popular midwest resort course owned by the most successful and respected development team in the country, one that primarily caters not to grandmothers, toddlers and absolute beginners but instead to well-heeled retail golfers willing to travel far and wide to play the game 'as it was meant to be played' -- and I find that this golf course proudly features not 3 or 4 sets of tees, but 6 of them, and that in factoring in 'hybrids' can actually list the course ratings/slope from 10 (!) different sets of tees. And so I'm thinking that maybe it's *this* modern architectural development/trend and now-nearly-ubiquitous excess and pandering that ogres like Garland are complaining about, and not in fact the idea that small children and the aged should have fun too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


I guess I'm not the smartest guy, because I don't follow.  It reads like now you want to also call Mike Keiser (or maybe Herb Kohler?) as dumb as a stump as well?


You throw in a value statement like "excess" which again basically takes your opinion and tries to establish it as a fact that 6 tees, or the ability to use combos to allow every golfer to play holes the way they want.  If a smart golf entrepreneur like MK thinks those multiple tees are a great idea at one of his signature facilities, then I guess I have no reason to not like them.


And, I would love to see the study you rely on that says well heeled golfers universally have low handicaps, are male, want to play as far back as possible, and never travel with anyone who might be of lesser skill........MK seems to know better.

[Steve Lang]

   Maybe Garland is an OGRE,  https://youtu.be/XSV9xxLaBqQ, maybe we'll meet one day and I can report from play


but all he was saying was "just suggesting that there is a lot of joy to be found in golf while not worrying about reaching greens in regulation."

I like scoring well, but most like making shots that I can, and when they get strung together well, its a lower number than otherwise and that's the challenge and joy for me.  BTW, never saw a sucker pin I didn't want to try for...

REGARDS,
HI 8.4

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff- Where did I say that well-heeled golfers tend to have low handicaps? I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. And in that context: as dumb as a stump? Of course not. Smart and savvy and an industry leader in developing wonderful golf courses that at the same time have 'normalized' what until recently had been unheard of in well over 100 years of golf and golf course architecture -- a period in which were designed hundreds of great golf courses that have consistently/continually served the needs of literally millions of golfers of all skill levels without featuring even 4 sets of tees, let alone 6 or 10 sets! I call the latter 'excessive' and you don't -- and that's fine, we can differ there. I think the 'smart golf entrepreneur' has figured out there is great money to be made by stroking and assuaging the golfer's fragile ego at every possible turn, especially the male ego willing to pay quite a lot of money not to be made to look ridiculous, and I think that this approach has become the dominant one today -- which you seem okay with and me not so much; and that's fine too.
But I was just pointing out that not all of the promotion-defence of multiple tees is about serving the interests of new/poor/very young/very old golfers; and that in fact, as in the example I offer, much of it is about serving the interests of long-time/dedicated golfers who are still in their primes, but who have come to expect that such allowances be made for them and for their very average skill set.
(And, Steve -- yes, I think that's what Garland is saying, and for me that doesn't make him an ogre but merely, as per my last two posts, a traditionalist.)
And to ask a question that Joe H did a while back, but in a different way -- are we happy now with 6 sets of tees (10, including hybrids)? Is that enough sets of tees, or should we maybe go to 8 sets (and 12 with hybrids)?  I think we should go to 8 sets, no?

[Edward Glidewell]

but all he was saying was "just suggesting that there is a lot of joy to be found in golf while not worrying about reaching greens in regulation."

I like scoring well, but most like making shots that I can, and when they get strung together well, its a lower number than otherwise and that's the challenge and joy for me.  BTW, never saw a sucker pin I didn't want to try for.

I don't think reaching greens in regulation is the only issue -- it's certainly a factor, but it's more that it's just not very fun to hit one or more shots on most holes (if not every single one) where little is at stake. If on every single par 4 you're in the fairway, then have to hit a 3 wood to get it further down the fairway  (without anything to think about beyond "hit it as far as possible") before you even have a chance to get to the green, that's generally not a compelling shot.

If there are few holes per round where that's required, so be it, but if it's every single par 4 and par 5, and potentially some par 3s too, well... that's just not very fun for a large percentage of players.

[Tim Martin]

Players have been using hybrid tees long before anyone decided to rate and put them on the scorecard. I knew guys thirty plus years ago when they got older who would play the par fives and threes back and move up to the white(member) tees for all the par fours. They weren’t trying to end run the integrity of the design or shoot par but rather just enjoy the game. It seems that some of the posters on this thread are actually aggrieved by the practice of multiple tees. What is wrong with back, member, senior and ladies tees and any combination thereof for casual play?

[Joe Hancock]

Funny thing about the resorts with lots of guests and lots of tees; they almost always have the caddies take the majority of the guests to the same tee box, all day and every day, because they figured out where the perfect guest satisfaction to speed of play ratio is. Very few complain or lack enjoyment.

[A.G._Crockett]

Forget GIR and par.  Focus on the features built ito a course that make for exciting shot; bunkers guarding the inside of a dogleg, risk-reward second shots on par 5’s, short and perhaps drivable par 4’s, and so on.


How dull to miss all of that because you are simply too short off the tee to bring those features into play the way the architect intended. That’s not about whether or not you’re “entitled” to hit the green in regulation, or make pars, or shoot any particular score, or whether you play stroke vs match play, or any of the rest of that.


It is fun and exciting, and even thrilling, to pull off a risk-reward shot, or to feel relief because you missed a penalty area with a well-played shot, or to hit a green with a long club instead of yet another wedge.  Multiple teeing options make all of that possible, and I’m thankful for it.


A friend’s wife had her first-ever eagle last week, holing out from the fairway on a par 5.  She was thrilled, of course!  I hated to be the one to tell her that because she was playing the red tees from 366 instead of the tips at 579, it wasn’t REALLY an eagle. 


Our member-member was this past weekend, our 3rd match was against an 85 yr old who wanted to play the course from the green-red hybrids at 4639 yds. I felt bad about it, but I had to insist that he move back to the golds at 7068; I explained to him that it would still be “fun” and that the handicap system would take care of it, but he didn’t seem to enjoy it much.  Some of that MAY have been due to his not being able to even reach the fairway on a couple of holes, not being able to even get to the corner of the dogleg on a couple of others, and hitting well-struck shots in the water on both par threes, but I did try to explain to him that George Cobb built very good golf courses that were playable by all. Hes been a golfer all his life and a member for 40,years, but after the match said he was going to quit golf.  I’m pretty sure he’ll be back, but if he isn’t, I will have protected the integrity of the game, which is what really matters. 


Right?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Funny thing about the resorts with lots of guests and lots of tees; they almost always have the caddies take the majority of the guests to the same tee box, all day and every day, because they figured out where the perfect guest satisfaction to speed of play ratio is. Very few complain or lack enjoyment.

Joe,


I agree one issue is that so few have a forward tee selection that we don't know for sure where we would have more fun playing, esp at a once a year or once in a lifetime resort.  We can presume those clubs have it figured out for them based on years of experience (although, in the case of Sand Valley, the presumed resort in another post, how could they since it is almost brand new?) 


I actually hope you are right!  I fear that in many cases, I think we can presume that the old white guy pro assumes everyone wants to play there because that is where everyone always played (i.e., no choice) There is no doubt some are arguing mostly for the tradition of the way things have been, and tradition is certainly a part of golf.  And it could be that the existing forward tee movement will be seen as a colossal failure some day, although my bet is that emerging golf course architects will take it to a better level over time.  Sort of like electric cars....there are flaws today, but they are the model T of electric cars and should get better.  Maybe our current golf work is sort of lile the, ah...model Tee.

[Niall C]

Two different subjects/contexts are being discussed here, but in large part implicitly. I'm glad that Forrest and JB are defending the golfing interests of 95 year old women, 5 year old children and 35 handicappers.

Peter


What makes you think that I'm not ? How is advocating having tees that all standards of players can play from and enjoy not standing up for 95 year old women etc. ?


Niall

[Niall C]

I grant you it was Niall's post that suggest that old people ought to be shamed for their ego of wanting to play golf at reasonable lengths.

Jeff


Actually I was challenging the narrative from some on here that players should move up a tee because they couldn't score as well as others and that it was the players ego that stopped them from doing so. I guess I equated ego with vanity.


I suggest you re-read what I said in that light and you will see it wasn't me who was attempting the shaming.


Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

Two different subjects/contexts are being discussed here, but in large part implicitly. I'm glad that Forrest and JB are defending the golfing interests of 95 year old women, 5 year old children and 35 handicappers.

Peter


What makes you think that I'm not ? How is advocating having tees that all standards of players can play from and enjoy not standing up for 95 year old women etc. ?


Niall

Yeah, Peter! Where did you come up with the idea that one set of tees that would be suitable and enjoyable for a scratch golfer who can drive it 300+ yards might not be fun for his grandparents AND his young children? Are you crazy?

[Peter Pallotta]

AG -- good post #93. Of course we put the tangible interests of real people who love golf ahead of foggy notions about protecting a construct like the integrity of the game. But in today's American marketplace, with the 6 tee-10 hybrids approach of the most successful modern resorts seemingly becoming normative, do you think there is any risk of your scenarios becoming reality? Conversely, do you not think that on a site devoted to exploring great golf course architecture (much of it from the first great golden age, and the time of 2-3 sets of tees) critical questions about this modern approach are valid?
I was playfully reacting earlier to a post by Forrest where he pulled at our heartstrings both quite shamelessly and quite unnecessarily, ie suggesting that there was a good fight still to be fought in the service of the old and infirm against the callous forces of the golf establishment, when in fact every aspect of that industry -- from clubmakers to course developers -- are working to make the game accessible / playable / fun for as many people as possible, including through the use of a great many sets of tees. It felt like the victors casting themselves as the underdogs -- which kind of annoys me when there are so many actual underdogs out there suffering in so many real body-and-soul crushing ways.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG -- good post #93. Of course we put the tangible interests of real people who love golf ahead of foggy notions about protecting a construct like the integrity of the game. But in today's American marketplace, with the 6 tee-10 hybrids approach of the most successful modern resorts seemingly becoming normative, do you think there is any risk of your scenarios becoming reality? Conversely, do you not think that on a site devoted to exploring great golf course architecture (much of it from the first great golden age, and the time of 2-3 sets of tees) critical questions about this modern approach are valid?
I was playfully reacting earlier to a post by Forrest where he pulled at our heartstrings both quite shamelessly and quite unnecessarily, ie suggesting that there was a good fight still to be fought in the service of the old and infirm against the callous forces of the golf establishment, when in fact every aspect of that industry -- from clubmakers to course developers -- are working to make the game accessible / playable / fun for as many people as possible, including through the use of a great many sets of tees. It felt like the victors casting themselves as the underdogs -- which kind of annoys me when there are so many actual underdogs out there suffering in so many real body-and-soul crushing ways.

In order:


1. I do NOT think there is any risk of this happening. I was making fun of people who are advocating it.


2. I do NOT think questions about too many tees are valid; I see absolutely no downside other than mowing to having multiple tees, and NONE to hybrid sets, which are just items on the scorecard. I see huge advantages to the game in attempts to involve all ages, skill levels, and both genders involved, much of which was of n
Little or no interest in the so-called Golden Age.


3. I agree with you that the golf industry, at all levels, is aiming at being inclusive.  I’m actually looking forward to my 70th birthday next month because I will move up an age group in Carolinas Golf Association tournament play. I’m grateful that the guys here that advocate for a return to the “good old days” probably aren’t in charge of much of anything, and that guys like Jeff Brauer and Forrest Richardson and my friend Bill Bergin, who did the work at Longleaf, are building golf courses.


4. Golf “problems” of ANY sort pale in comparison to what the 99.99% face; on that we are in complete agreement. After a lifetime working in public education, I never ever forget that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()