How important is the scorecard yardage?

[Mark_Fine]

Take a design like Sebonack on Long Island, NY or Hoiana Shores in Vietnam.  Both have no formal tees (the markers could be set literally anywhere).  As such the holes can play an infinite number of different yardages.  Angles of play can also change significantly as well on many of the holes.  You might think a par four is great from 430 yards but truly exceptional from 325 yards.  The informal teeing grounds allow for this variety. 


So how do you evaluate courses like these? Does the arbitrary scorecard yardage take precedent and if so why?  How could anyone ever say the par threes are all similar yardages or there were no risk/reward par fives or driveable par fours, …?  Frankly they can’t because the starting locations vary each day and are left to the whims of the grounds crew or golf committee or Head Pro,…


Note:  I have mentioned in previous threads the technology exists to calculate handicaps from any starting location.  This will be become more common over the next few years. 

[Charlie Ray]

I used to evaluate individual holes by comparing them to similar holes, thus categorizing them:  Long Par 4, Short Par3, 3-shot Par 5, etc.  I avoid categorizing holes anymore because its length isn't what differentiates great from good, or fair to poor.  I came to this conclusion after I played 100 rounds at my home course.  It is a Par 71 (5 par 3's, 4 Par 5's) that has a set of tees at 6500 yards and another set at 5800.  I complained to the Pro that we should have a combo set (the course rating is 3.8 strokes between the two) or should be a set of tees that play about 6100 yards.  I no longer think we should have a combo set of tees because the good holes are still the good holes and the poor holes are still the poor ones, the length doesn't determine the quality of the hole.  There are exceptions, shallow par3 greens (#12 ANGC shouldn't be played from 220+ yards).  Ultimately, what is wrong with the starting locations varying each day based on the whims of the grounds crew?  It would seem to me that an architect could prevent this if he would build 'old-fashion' tee boxes instead of the modern 'teeing areas' that stretch for 100 yards. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

For people playing against the course, I think it's probably pretty important as they likely are comparing their scores to previous and future rounds.

For people playing against other people, I don't think the scorecard distances matter much, because they game is only against the opponent.

[Jay Mickle]

I guess it doesn’t really matter much to me since I only write down smiley faces! I used to add sad faces too, but honestly, why would I want to torture myself like that?

[MCirba]

I guess it doesn’t really matter much to me since I only write down smiley faces! I used to add sad faces too, but honestly, why would I want to torture myself like that?

That's become an aspirational goal of mine, Jay.

[Mark_Fine]

I modified the thread subject to be scorecard "yardage".


Holes can play very different from different yardages.  What might be considered a slog from one yardage, might be extremely interesting from a different one.  I could list dozens of examples of holes that are completely different holes from different angles and yardages.  The ultimate target might be static, but how you approach/attack that target might be very different.  Take one example, the 12th at Augusta National.  From 80-100 yards, would most still play away from a right hole location vs from 145-150 yards?  Temptation comes much more into play.  Just one example to think about.  I know many of my home course holes play very differently from different yardages.  And of course a lot depends on the player. 

[Sean_A]

Take a design like Sebonack on Long Island, NY or Hoiana Shores in Vietnam.  Both have no formal tees (the markers could be set literally anywhere).  As such the holes can play an infinite number of different yardages.  Angles of play can also change significantly as well on many of the holes.  You might think a par four is great from 430 yards but truly exceptional from 325 yards.  The informal teeing grounds allow for this variety. 


So how do you evaluate courses like these? Does the arbitrary scorecard yardage take precedent and if so why?  How could anyone ever say the par threes are all similar yardages or there were no risk/reward par fives or driveable par fours, …?  Frankly they can’t because the starting locations vary each day and are left to the whims of the grounds crew or golf committee or Head Pro,…


Note:  I have mentioned in previous threads the technology exists to calculate handicaps from any starting location.  This will be become more common over the next few years.

I recently played a course like this. The card was empty of info. There were nominal tee markers on the course, but only the short holes had the yardage on them…hand written for the day. It wasn’t that difficult to see what was happening for most teeing areas…which was often short grass near the previous green. A few holes required a walk to check out the differences. Honestly, we should be experiencing radically different angle tee shots far more often…especially given the huge amount of acreage used for golf these days. My home club is exceptional in offering angles off the tee and yet it is rarely mentioned by critics, panelist’s etc. I don’t think that many people pay much attention to parts of courses they aren’t playing on.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Scorecard yardage also reflects as measured course yardage.
I may be incorrect but my understanding is that under the WHS, or maybe it’s the U.K. interpretation, there is a limited daily yardage variance that can be applied to a measured course in order for scores achieved that day to qualify for handicapping purposes. This is for competition play and general play. I believe the variance permitted is 100 yards spread over all 18-holes. There is a short dispensation period during the winter when more teeing ground flexibility is allowed due to a suspension in scoring for WHS purposes.
The above is my understanding of how things operate in the U.K. Other countries may well handle matters differently.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

One of the main reasons I raise this question is I have played with golfers/course raters etc who are reviewing/critiquing a course and say, “all the par threes are about the same length, there aren’t enough short or long par fours, or the par fives are all too long or too short, …”. I remember standing on one hole, a par three, and the one guy says, “this hole is the same club as I hit on the last par three.”  I look back and there is a tee option 30 yards behind me and another one 40 yards in front!!  Why should a course (especially one designed with informal teeing areas) ever get dinged for lack of shot variety just because the tee markers are set at similar lengths or the card yardage says what it says?  If a par four has design flexibility for example to play as long 470 to as little as 310 yards is it considered a long hole or a short one?  Why should just what it says on the scorecard dictate the answer considering the architect was clever enough to design that kind of elasticity and variety into the hole!


I believe we shouldn’t let defined starting points, especially what the scorecard says e.g “the maroon tees are 6600 yards and the blue tees are 6250,..:” have such a strong influence on our perceptions of and the quality of a design.


Let me put it one more way, you go visit a course like Sebonack or Hoiana Shores and you walk to the first hole and there are no tee makers (actually there are no tee markers anywhere on the golf course).  You might have a scorecard that says total yardage for each hole from the absolute tips but that is it. Your host says, have fun and to tee it up wherever you like.  How would you evaluate such a design? 

[Jim_Coleman]

   How can one get a legitimate handicap on a course that hasn’t been rated from a given set of tees?

[A.G._Crockett]

   How can one get a legitimate handicap on a course that hasn’t been rated from a given set of tees?

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.


I think there are conversion tables/worksheets provided by the USGA that would allow scores from an unrated set of tees to be posted IF there are rating for other tees on that golf course.  A very limited example would be my course hosting the NC Am last summer and playing the par 5 10th hole as a par 4.  That said, I suspect that golfers playing an unrated set of tees, in effect making up their own “hybrid” course, either make up a course rating and slope, or, more likely just don’t post that score.  Just a guess…


I think, though, that if the entire course is unrated, scores cannot be posted.

[Ben Sims]

The overwhelming majority of my rounds are a sort of hybrid scoring where I’m keeping my score but also in some sort match/nassau/skin/wolf/whatever game with my playing group. We concede putts at times for the buddies competition and expediency, but we’re holing most everything. I don’t say this next part lightly; these sorts of rounds are easily 80% or more of the rounds I play.


Which means that for me, the card is important. It helps with scoring the competitions. And it helps me judge if I’m improving as a player.


But more than that, from an architectural perspective, I think a great hole from one yardage isn’t necessarily a great hole from another yardage. One of the truly great short 4’s is Ballyneal #7. In fact I’d argue it’s on the short list of best short par 4’s ever. If that hole were 350-410yds instead of the current 285-350yds, it’s kind of a penal hole. Only a select few would be able to get over the ridge. The angle into the green from further back would be blind, very difficult, and the allure of the green itself is watered down. And don’t even get me started on probably the best par 4 in the world, TOC #17, as a 270-320 yard hole. Ick.


I may have outed myself as uncreative or simply a boring card ‘n pencil golfer. I don’t think I am. Architects can’t help but consider how their work will be played. That includes yardages. They matter more than we care to admit I think.

[Dan_Callahan]

From a pure practicality standpoint, yardage on the scorecard is very important to me when I show up to a course I haven't played before. I am most comfortable playing from a set of tees in the 6,400 - 6,800 yard range. On some courses, that could be the tips, on others, that could be two tees up from the tips. I find it helpful when I walk to the first tee to be able look at my card, see the total course yardage, see what par is over 18 holes, and then I have a really good idea of which tees are right for me.

[Peter Sayegh]

Pretty damn important-especially for players visiting a new course.
The yardage may not be precise but it may dictate which tees they play.

[Mark_Fine]

Good comments from all.  But what I am really getting at is should the quality of a course be dictated (or determined from a particular set of tees) e.g. from the tips or from the middle tees or from the forward tees? 


If most golfers had to play the 16th hole at Cypress Point from the tips they might not think the hole is that great.  Same with the 3rd hole at Mauna Kea and I can go on and on with many examples where the tee location dramatically changes the hole not only from a distance standpoint but many times from an angle of play standpoint. Sometimes holes are much more interesting and thought provoking from starting locations other than those dictated on the scorecard.  This is what I am really getting at.  Putting handicaps and valid scores aside, why not judge the quality of a golf course from those ideal teeing locations vs from the yardages marked on the scorecard?   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Good comments from all.  But what I am really getting at is should the quality of a course be dictated (or determined from a particular set of tees) e.g. from the tips or from the middle tees or from the forward tees? 


If most golfers had to play the 16th hole at Cypress Point from the tips they might not think the hole is that great.  Same with the 3rd hole at Mauna Kea and I can go on and on with many examples where the tee location dramatically changes the hole not only from a distance standpoint but many times from an angle of play standpoint. Sometimes holes are much more interesting and thought provoking from starting locations other than those dictated on the scorecard.  This is what I am really getting at.  Putting handicaps and valid scores aside, why not judge the quality of a golf course from those ideal teeing locations vs from the yardages marked on the scorecard?

The quality of a course should be determined by each individual based on the tees that give them the best mix of enjoyment and challenge.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
Totally agree with you but how would you rate a course when you are trying to judge/determine what are the best courses in the world?  I hope you aren’t judging greatness in this case based on your own game. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,
Totally agree with you but how would you rate a course when you are trying to judge/determine what are the best courses in the world?  I hope you aren’t judging greatness in this case based on your own game.

No, but I am judging greatness based on the best choice of tees for my game. I have no other way to judge the course in practical terms. Only in theoretical. And theoretical can only ever be part of the equation.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
Interesting comment but I can’t imagine what a Top 100 list would look like if all the panelists judged courses based on how they play the game! 


If you are a poor putter or have a lousy sand game would you judge a course lower because the greens were too challenging or there were too many bunkers in places where you hit the golf ball?  Not sure courses like Oakmont would fair well in the rankings if golfers judged it based on how they play regardless of what tees they started on. That said, there are some holes there that are or could be very different from different teeing locations. I feel this should be taken into consideration despite where the markers are placed. 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark, I know I’m off-topic when I say that you’re saying the quiet part out loud; to be able to recognize one course’s greatness over another, you have to be able to play to the demands of said great courses.


Here is why I disagree; a course CAN be great to very good golfers who happen to play in a way that isn’t the modern epitome of skill. For example, I have always been a low flight kinda guy. So, when I am at Bandon, am I unqualified to say Old Mac is a *better* course than Pac Dunes? I don’t say that because I may play better on OM, but it is because OM is better at accomadating and rewarding shots that tend to be lower and on the ground more.


Perhaps back on topic, if you’re saying card distance is prioritized too much when raters rate, perhaps there are other factors, like trajectory, imagination, etc. that are ignored too much.


If I have strayed too far, please disregard.

[Tom_Doak]

I modified the thread subject to be scorecard "yardage".

Holes can play very different from different yardages.  What might be considered a slog from one yardage, might be extremely interesting from a different one.  I could list dozens of examples of holes that are completely different holes from different angles and yardages.  The ultimate target might be static, but how you approach/attack that target might be very different.  Take one example, the 12th at Augusta National.  From 80-100 yards, would most still play away from a right hole location vs from 145-150 yards?  Temptation comes much more into play.  Just one example to think about.  I know many of my home course holes play very differently from different yardages.  And of course a lot depends on the player.

Good post Mark!


A lot of people don't like Sebonack because they play it from too far back.  I learned this because the two players I knew who liked it the most were both women -- one a good player, and the other not so good.  But from their yardage it was entirely doable. 


So, I took some friends from Australia and played a set of markers up from where I would normally play, and we all had a good time and they really liked the course.


Last I saw it they still put out tee markers all the time -- I'm surprised if "no markers" is regular policy there.  Ballyneal is the only one of my courses that does this as far as I know.  Childress Hall has talked about putting out a "daily" tee [like the old "boxes" in Scotland] for anyone who wants a setup, and changing that around a lot from one day to the next, but also letting people tee it up wherever they want if they don't want to compete from the daily tee.

[MCirba]

Tom,


When I played Ballyneal I had a fabulous caddie who was there from inception (wish I could remember his name) and he shepherded me on both the 18 hole course and also took me through an 18 hole routing on the par three course where I played to the same green from different spots on a few holes.  It was a glorious day and due to his tutelage I had one of the best scoring days and more importantly, most fun rounds of my life.


To the point of this thread, by the first hole he had already assessed my game and would lead me hole after hole to where he thought the hole would be interesting, challenging, yet attainable based on that assessment.   He was unerring in that regard and part of my total enjoyment was that at no time did I think any hole played either too short or too long for my game. 

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
I am not implying at all that you have to be a great player to appreciate a great golf course.  I am talking more about what Tom and Mike just stated in that different tees outside of what is listed on the scorecard or where the daily markers are can make holes much more interesting or thought provoking.  This might mean starting at shorter distances for some holes and longer for others or different angles if that option exists. 


Some of the courses mentioned have that kind of design flexibility built in and it should be recognized and rewarded.

[Carl Johnson]

Mark, you say: "Note:  I have mentioned in previous threads the technology exists to calculate handicaps from any starting location.  This will be become more common over the next few years."

I had not noticed those threads.  I'm interested to know how that would work, given the nature of the data that goes into ratings and slopes as I experienced doing it about 12 years ago.  (What I did not have and still do not -- it seems to be secret -- is the algorithm for converting that raw data into handicaps.)

[Mark_Fine]

Carl,
If Forrest Richardson sees this thread maybe he will provide more detail to address your question.  In the meantime are you familiar with the Arccos shot tracking system?  It can track all your shots during a round using an app on your phone.  The technology for calculating a course and slope rating for handicap purposes would do the same.  If you playing at Sebonack for example and randomly selecting where you tee off on each hole, it would calculate a slope and course rating for your round that day.  It is GPS based.  Again Forrest or maybe someone else here could shed more light but I didn’t want this to get into a handicap thread. It is more about course evaluation and the idea of not worrying about a defined card yardage from say the yellow tee markers to decide how good the course is.