[John_Conley]

Mr. Harwood's post about the gentleman complaining about fairness when he couldn't reach two par 5s got me thinking...

Am I open-minded about course setup?  

I remember the club I caddied at had a big increase in play and foot traffic was really taking its toll on the small tee boxes.  The Supe knew he'd have to move the tees up and back from day-to-day (what I call "Flex tees" where the course's total yardage may not change, but holes aren't all played "near the plate") to keep from hearing complaints about course conditions.

One member, a GREAT GUY who was losing distance with age, was LIVID about the change.  He never was a strong player, but was an average golfer.  He could carry to the top of a knoll on #7 and reach the green in two good shots.  (About 340 yards to an elevated green.)  When played from the back (more like 358), his drive would hit into the hill and he'd lose his roll.  As you know, roll is very important to those who don't carry the ball very far and not so much an issue with better players.

"That's a par 4.  I should be able to reach it in two shots."

When it was pointed out that the yardage would be made up for on other holes, like #14 for example - the course's longest par 4 that played 426 from the member tee and may be as short as 400 from down below.  "That's three shots anyway.  I don't care if we tee up further back!"  (Hole maxes out at 440.)

If you had 350 members making the same demands and being as vocal about it there would be a big problem.

Conversely, one of my friends is a VERY strong player and long hitter.  A reinstated Am who has made cuts on the PGA Tour and once had a top finish in the national long drive.  He will remain competitive locally into at least his late 60s.  He has yet to really lose much length and recently said, "Everybody can carry those bunkers," while playing a practice round for the Florida Public Links.

No, they can't.  Not even half the field.  No way, no how.  "You can carry those bunkers, and if you play well the people you are paired with in the final round can too.  But the cutoff is something like a 12 handicap and 90 players entered.  More like the longest third of the field can carry them."

My point is it is easy to think of things only from your perspective.  It begs the question, what it a fair setup anyway?  I don't know the answer, but think it should make it so a player can make up for any weaknesses they have with strengths in another area.  Two holes per round where a player could hit wedges into a par 5 that others may try longer approaches to on the second shot isn't excessive.  Bethpage had a lot of holes where some of the world's best players had to hit their two best shots to reach the green and eventually this catches up to someone.  Byrum's scores are proof, because by all accounts he shot about as low as he ever could.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

We get this all the time at our course.  In particular the Par Threes seem to be a problem.  The great weakness of the course is that it is often possible to hit the same club on all four par threes.  We urged the Super to set up one short, one long and two in between.  At times this means that a hole will be played from the tips and another will be played from the forward (Ladies, for shame) tees.  

My god you'd think that we had declared war on Iraq or called the Pope gay.  People thought that we had committed the greatest of sins.  We had sent the Slope and rating system throughout the nation spinning out of control.  

But the overall length doesn't change.  

In the words of Rosanne Rosanneadanna "never mind".

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I follow one belief -- the course setup is fair when at the MINIMUM the good shot is rewarded and the poor shot is penalized proportionally to the skill in which it was executed.

Clearly, as Cos indicated it helps if you have maximum variety because it entails the greatest range of dexterity with all or most of your clubs.

The adage of "playing the course as you find it" applies in my mind provided the first element I just mentioned is achieved. After that it's up to the player to make the appropriate adjustments.

[John_Conley]

Shiv:  As you can see on this old course, the tee boxes on holes like 7 are very small.

+/- 15 yards is all that is possible, and that is with Cos's plan of using the forward (often viewed as for Ladies) tee.

Perception is huge.  After many years, tees were moved up on 8 and 9 so SOME (a huge minority) ladies could maybe reach the greens in regulation.  Once those new boxes were in place, no one really said a word if the box formerly used by only ladies was used for the men's tee.  Isn't that odd?

[Dennis_Harwood]

Tee colors--We need to get Madison Avenue involved--

A recent discussion at my course went as follows--

The Sr Group approached the greens committee with a request that the "forward" ladies "Red" tees be changed to "BlacK"-- They pointed out that a number of Srs should be playing those tees, but they believed "Red Tees" were ladies tees, but if they were painted black they would play them--

Then the ladies said NO--we can't change the monuments put in by our course rating committee(and the monuments were red) and the better players said NO, the blacks are for scratch players--

The obvious question--why does color make a difference? and if it does how about another color?  Srs said maybe, but Black would be best because thats the only color some would go to the forward tees for--

Its still in committee (and I have a headache)--

[TEPaul]

Wow, headache is right! All you clubs should be like mine--we're extremely to the point--economy of words, so to speak! Our treasurer generally sets the pace--at the annual meeting his annual "Treasurer's Report" went thusly:

"Last year, like most years, was a good year, we took in more than we spent!"

---and he sat down (all in less than 5 seconds total)! He wasn't that happy about it, though, and promised later to see if next year he could shave off a full second somehow!

We're all very open minded about course setup too. Last month the super started everyone off on #13 (about a 350yd walk from #1) for about a week. Nobody seemed to care, matter of fact, I don't think anyone even asked why, we all just did it!

[allysmith]

Guys what the real question here is: Who is the course to be set up for? The only person who can answer that question is Mr Course designer.

Taking weather out of the equation surely a course can be multi teed so that the length you hit your average drive allows you to choose the tee which best allows you to play the course as it was designed.

You pitch up and the card for the course has a tee colour code with a range of distances. i.e. Mr 300 - 350 yds plays of the white tees alowing him to experience the full design delights. Mr 175 - 225 yards plays off the green tees allowing him to do the same. In otherwords they both play the same course wrt their individual abilities

Any comments?

[John_Conley]

Ally:

Multiple tees is one school of thought, but a good design where OVER THE COURSE OF A ROUND a number of obstacles will be encountered can be had for all with a nice design of 6400-6700 yards.

Imagine some 475 yard holes.  D-5i or less for some, Two woods and a pitch for others.  The shorter hitter may get D-5i on a 350 yard hole and the strong player may get his pitch on that short/medium par 4.

Many of our best courses have stood the test of time because of this phenomenon.  I don't think multiple tees are a cure for everything.

[allysmith]

john,

I thoroughly agree with you. I would not consider for one minute that multi-tees are a panacea.

The thread of my argument was that if the designer designed a hole as a two or three shotter individuals could chose a certain tee to allow them to play it as such.

It beggars the question 'Is it realistic to have a 'design philosophy' printed on the scorecard to allow visitors to play he course as it was intended by the architect?

[CHrisB]

People don't like it when a course setup exposes their weaknesses. Those who desire "fairness" are usually not the better players in the field. Golf is not about fairness or a level playing field, it is about finding a solution to an 18-hole puzzle with your talent and skills. Most of the complaints I've heard about course setup can be translated into "It's not fair that a better player has an advantage over me."

I stopped complaining about course setup when (1) I realized it did absolutely nothing for my game, and (2) it would give me an edge over anyone in the field who did complain (especially in match play). When I coached in college, much of the mental work I did with the guys centered around this issue. Like I touched on in the other thread, players lacking confidence or lesser-skilled players are usually the complainers, and it is a mental barrier that they have to break through to get to the next level.

In some of the USGA events I played in in the 90's, a few of us suspected that on several holes the USGA would overwater the front of the green and leave the back dry (I haven't seen this in more recent USGA events, however). So that when a pin was in the back of the green, a ball landing short would stick and a ball landing farther back would bounce over the green. I didn't think that was fair, although I never mentioned it to any tournament official. I just kept it inside and let it eat at me. And thinking about it only served to distract me from what I needed to do, and that was to come up with a different solution to the problem. But I kept on hitting my standard shot and not getting it close, and kept on complaining to myself, and shot myself right out of the tournament. What I should have done is hit a low skipper to get it close, but I wasn't confident enough in that shot at the time to play it.

What I'm saying is that the golfers who don't want adversity are the ones who usually complain. They want the course to be set up well for them, and they don't want to have to add shots to their bag to turn in a good score.

Look at Trevino at Augusta; he got it in his head early that the course didn't suit his game, then piled on the other off-the-course stuff with ANGC (he skipped the Masters at least once), and he basically gave himself almost no chance to win there. Nicklaus talked to him several times to try to change his attitude about it, but it didn't work. I guess it goes to show that even great players can fall into the complaining mode, and when they do they too can take themselves out of the tournament.

[Rick_Noyes]

The course design should be for everyone.  The design should be such that the set-up can be flexible in order for more challenging (tournament) set-ups or something a little less for daily play.  I dispute the theory that tee palcement (re- length) is the basis for ability.  I can't stand courses that state unless you are such and such a handicap you must play from the regular or forward tees.  This makes the assumption that you are say a 15 handicap because you can't hit it far and/or straight.  I for one am a double digit handicapper, not because I can't drive the ball, but because I can't get inot the hole.  When I here "course set-up" I'm thinking tee placement as well as rough height, fairway width, green speed, and  pin placement all of which can be taken into account in the design process.

[Evan Fleisher]

Doesn't this discussion get back to the age old discussion of defining PAR and what that means for a given golf hole, or even an entire course set-up?

If I play the 4th hole at my home club, a 442 yard semi-blind tee shot to a green that does not allow for a run-up shot approach...what PAR should it be assigned?  Is it a long Par4 or a short Par5?  The card says it is a long Par4, but I rarely play it that way, and a 5 is as good as a PAR in my mind. Unless playing downwind with a very solid drive, very few guys get it home in two...but it is the same hole for everyone, no matter what you call it.

I never seem to understand the fascination with "fair" and "unfair".  Aren't we all playing the same course?  I understand that differnent players have different levels of ability, and even players of similar ability levels could play differently, i.e., one guy is a long hitter, hits greens in reg to make his pars while the other guy is a shorter hitter and relies on his wedge, short game, and flat stick to score.

I agree with many of the above comments...courses should most likely be set up to reflect the original design intentions of the architect, and let the chips fall as they may.  The "average" golfer of today hits it no better (generally speaking) and scores no better than his predecessors.  Just leave well enough alone.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()