[Thomas Dai]

I recently played a famous course that is much revered herein where the red tees as quoted on the card for daily 18-hole play by ladies and girls was 6,300 yds.


What is, or in general should be, the yardage for daily 18-hole play by ladies and girls - not LPGA players or elite amateurs - just daily play by amateur lady and girl handicappers - and to what extent is this taken into account by architects?


atb

[Adam Lawrence]

Arthur Little and his wife Jann Leeming have done a pile of work in this regard. See their website http://www.golfwithwomen.com.


Basically their research shows that women need courses that are way, way shorter than anything we normally see if they are to have the same sort of golfing experience as men.

They have produced charts that tie swing speed to appropriate length. It is pretty surprising when you first see their numbers.

[Carl Rogers]

I have read or heard somewhere that a golfer's course length should be the distance of your 5 iron (or 5 hybrid), in yards, multiplied by 36.  My own golfing experience confirms it.
This applies to anyone............ examples:
160 yds x 36 = 5760 yds
190 yds x 36 = 6840 yds
140 yds x 36 = 5040 yds
210 yds x 36 = 7560 yds
By the article cited above ... if Dustin Johnson hits 320 yard drives then he should play on a 9600 yard course.
Maybe this is another way of illustrating the already prevalent bifurcation of the game.

[BCrosby]

Interesting, Carl.

I've approached the same issue historically. How long would a course need to be today to play as long as a 6800 yard course did for Bobby Jones in 1930? Assume - generously, I think - that Jones averaged 250 yards off the tee.

Taking the 10th longest driver on the Tour in 2014 (306 yards), you get a modern course at about 8500 yards if you want it to play as long as a 'long' course in Jones' era.

Whether you use my method or yours, you come up with a very long golf course.

Put differently, a modern course at, say, 7400 yards is ridiculously short for a Tour event. How short? It's roughly like Jones playing a championship in 1930 on a course of less than 6,000 yards.

Bob

[Mike Leveille]

I recently played at Royal Dornoch with my 13 year old daughter and found the ladies course set up interesting.  The ladies' tees were generally just a bit in front of the regular men's tees, with the ladies' course measuring approx. 5950 yards and the men's course measuring approx. 6250 yards.  This is much less than the differential I am used to seeing here in the States.  However, when I looked at the scorecard, I noticed that RD is par 76 from the ladies' tees while it is a par 70 from the men's tees.  I'm curious as to whether this is common in the UK to have little yardage differential but a higher par for the ladies.  I cannot say I would fancy playing a par 76 course too often.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,


Here's the actual question, though. I don't know what length course you generally prefer but let's say it's 6,250 Par 70.


Would you rather move up to 5,100 yards and play it at Par 64 or back to 7,400 yards and play it at Par 76? Exact same course, mind you, only the tee box locations are changed.


Royal Dornoch is asking ladies to play their equivalent of what would be a 7,400 yard course for you and just treat six holes as having higher par. So you daughter basically is having that experience.


I would think of those two options most American courses would opt for moving the women up 1,000+ yards and keeping each hole's par the same.


If I try to imagine playing Dornoch at 7,400 I'm not sure there are good opportunities to have interesting layups on some of the Par 4 and Par 5 holes. But if I played Dornoch at 5,100 and the course was reasonably firm and fast I might easily decide I had "not seen all of the course" although I'd certainly have a few drive-and-pitch opportunities on a course that otherwise doesn't offer many.


P.S. Do you recall what holes had different men's/lady's par? Were any of them the Par 3's turned into Par 4's?

[Wayne_Kozun]

I recently played at Royal Dornoch with my 13 year old daughter and found the ladies course set up interesting.

I would think that the differential in length between Men and Women is less significant on Links courses than on the typical American Parkland style course.  Most Women can't hit the ball as high as Men so they rely on lots of roll - which is much more abundant on Links courses.  And there are generally far fewer forced carries on Links courses.

My caddy at Cabot said that the wives often beat the husbands there due to the amount of roll they get on their shots and less need for a high shot that lands softly.

[Niall C]

Bob


That's an interesting approach however I'd question whether comparing Jones to the 10th longest driver today is the best comparison. As exceptional as Jones was I'm not sure that he was considered that long a hitter in his day but could be wrong. Either way that is an increase of c.50/60 yards in nearly 90 years. If you look at the c.30 years before Jones was in his pomp, JH Taylor was driving the old ball on average 180 yards.


That's a greater increase (ie. 70 yards) in roughly a third of the time. It's also a significantly greater percentage increase. Did course length in percentage terms over that period (1890's to late 1920's) increase in length similar to that you suggest is required today to allow for the increase in length that (top) players are hitting it since Jones time ? I'm not sure I know the answer off hand.   


But why worry about the top players unless you happen to be one  . Personally I'm not overly concerned about how far Dustin hits a ball. Let them stick a championship tee way back in the long grass if they want. Of more interest is how it plays for ordinary hackers like me, and in that respect arguably the average golfer today is playing the course more like Jones did back then (in terms of shot length per club if not finesse) which to my way of thinking is no bad thing.


Niall

[Matt Bielawa]

I recently played a famous course that is much revered herein where the red tees as quoted on the card for daily 18-hole play by ladies and girls was 6,300 yds.


What is, or in general should be, the yardage for daily 18-hole play by ladies and girls - not LPGA players or elite amateurs - just daily play by amateur lady and girl handicappers - and to what extent is this taken into account by architects?


atb

Sounds like Bethpage Black.  6,223 from the front tees, which is completely ridiculous for most ladies, not to mention probably at least half of the men who play it.  It's probably the tee box that most players at the Black SHOULD play, but good luck convincing the player who wants to "experience" the Black to play it all the way up.


I'd say, for the average club player, a forward tee of 5,200 yards or so would provide a good test and 5,000 would probably be a more fun length.


I've seen courses set up a tee at the edge of fairways for ladies/girls/juniors so that there is no carry required to get into the fairways.  It's a nice idea for players just learning the game, but I think it's way too short for a regular club player. 

[Mike Leveille]

Wayne:


I think you are right about the roll issue on links courses, at least under normal conditions (this year the fairways were slower than usual at Dornoch because of the wet spring/summer).


Brent:


You are correct about the actual question and the counter-balancing arguments for and against playing a much shorter or longer course.  I'll say that my daughter, who has the classic American scoring mentality, was put off by the idea of playing a longer course, as it was going to make it tougher to accomplish her current scoring goal (breaking 100), but she did find it fun to make a few more pars than usual because of the higher par numbers.  Clearly all a mind game.


As to your PS, the additional par amount is made up entirely by converting 4s to 5s, with the hole #s being 4, 7, 11, 14, 16 and 18.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have worked a lot with Arthur Little on this one.  In general, the forward tees for recreational women, who we believe average no more than 140 yards on their tee shots, should be in the 3800-4400 yard range.

For some simple math, take that 140 yard shot and assume 120 yards average for second shots as max.

Average 130 x 36 regulation shots and you come out to 4680, but no one wants to hit full shots on every second shot.  So, assume 100 yard average second shot and multiply 36 x 120 and you get 4320.  And any longer than that, you create a bunch of max seconds and even thirds on most par 4 holes, and we all know how boring long par 5 holes are for us as men.

If you use the second shot as 2/3 the tee shot, at about 92 yards you get 4176.

You get some resistance from traditionalists at first (of course the men who have a bad attitude anyway about women on the golf course) and even from some better women, but after they try them, golf becomes a lot more fun.  One decent player played the poorly named "express tees" at La Costa (about 4300 yards) and said she could have hit 13 of 18 greens, so why didn't we make all 18 reachable in regulation?

Obviously, we would, but natural features and some cross hazards come into play, and mere distance on any individual hole isn't the only factor,  but I believe you should shoot for 18 and accept no less than 14 holes they can play in regular figures.

It is also affected by other lengths by tee, presuming you want all golfers playing to same par and similar shot values. (I see lots of people here write about all sorts on different arrangements, but its not generally acceptable to most golfers)  Lastly, as mentioned, both roll and uphill shots affect the shorter hitters far more than long ones, because they get more roll proportionally.  So if your course has hills or is damp, that has to be factored in.

In general, if you start with the back tees, then the next tee should play about 92% of the max length, then 84%, then 76%, then 68%, and finally maybe 60% for the forward tees. So a 7250 yard course, to play proportionally should be 6670, 6090, 5510, 4930, and 4350 for all players on the correct tees to get the same club value into greens, more or less, on their full shots.  Most really start with the back men's tees (the 92% value, and ADD for championship tees)

The typical tee blocks are separated by 20-30 yards, but this gets everyone to the same landing zone (more or less) but leaves proportionally longer second shots for forward tee players. By that measure, using 20 yard splits, the 7250 course would come out at the typical 6890, 6530, 6170, 5810 and (with a bigger split of 40 yards) 5090.  Most of those distances are too long for those who play them, and of course, 7250 is about the minimum for top players, so using proportional distance is hard, and maybe you have to accept it being too easy by a bit for the longest players.  Or, decide you are really catering to......

Another typical problem is, using the 140 yard tee shot, then 120 for second and third, the max par 5 for the forward tees should be 380 yards, not the 405 recommended by the USGA, so you have to break a few eggs to make this omelet.

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you all for your comments and thougths and the analysis that's been referenced.


A couple of observations -


a) Just as we have men/boys who are variously skilled and who hit the ball very varying distances, so the same applies in the womens/girls game as well. So why do men/boys have numerous sets/colours of tee markers and women/girls usually just have one?


b) Tee shot carry, and forced carries in general for that matter, are significant issues for short hitters - if you can't carry to the fairway you ain't gonna get much roll.


c) Bunker depth and height of rough - it's much harder for a slow swinger or a player with less natural strength to extract a ball from deep bunkers, especially if the sand is of a wet/heavy variety, than it is for a physically stronger person. I'm not sure there's an answer to this one, except stay on the fairway (!), but it is something I've observed over the years and once-upon-a-time experienced myself as a small size junior.


atb

[Sean_A]

In general, if you start with the back tees, then the next tee should play about 92% of the max length, then 84%, then 76%, then 68%, and finally maybe 60% for the forward tees. So a 7250 yard course, to play proportionally should be 6670, 6090, 5510, 4930, and 4350 for all players on the correct tees to get the same club value into greens, more or less, on their full shots.  Most really start with the back men's tees (the 92% value, and ADD for championship tees)

How does an archie create a good and interesting course for all these lengths without going nuts with hazards? 2900 yard spread is a very tall order.  Its probably much better to do a better job of targeting the core market and design around it rather than trying to please all people at all things. 

I was most impressed with Formby Ladies (not far outside my top 100 best GB&I courses).  I think the tees (the only set) were about 5400 yards, but the course would play firm much of the year.  This is just about perfect for ladies, juniors and seniors.

One would think we would have learned by now not to build these monstrous courses which don't really suit anybody's needs in an effort to suit everybody's needs.  For far too long now course design has concentrated on the championship side of things rather than the senior/ladies/kids side of things. What the world really needs is far more women to develop courses for these target areas.  If men can't be trusted to move up on the tee when its obvious they are in over their heads they certainly can't be trusted for the task of designing user friendly courses   Of course this would essentially mean that very few courses over 6300 yards would built in the future...sounds about right.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

this thread needs a sub title ... something like "Why the game cannot grow?" or "Why greens in regulation and par are not irrelevant".
Permit me a rhetorical question, relative to the 150 yard drive; "What would my enthusiasm for the game be if I was only permitted to hit a 7 iron off the tee on every hole?"

[Brent Hutto]

Hitting a ball as far as you can is, for the vast majority of golfers, one of the most enjoyable parts of the game. I have to presume that a 60-year-old lady slugging away to roll her ball out there 150 yards is having a different experience than I would have by deliberately hitting it two thirds of my best distance by hitting an iron.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While many women can hit it 160, according to Jan Beljan, they only do it about half the time, with other shots shorter.

Tom Fazio crew study the old line clubs they work with, and say the average female member there hits the ball about 125 (obviously older, etc.) 

Sean,

As to the question of only one women's tee, most tees are now gender neutral, and certainly women are free to move back one or two tees as their distance dictates.  In fact, I believe many do play off the silver, or 5400-5600 tees traditionally associated with male seniors, and even a few more play at the 6000-6350 tees.

I agree that most courses could easily forget the back tees, but the traditional one size fits all has them afraid to alienate the top end of the market (skill wise) for marketing reasons.  There are still a lot of folks playing at 6300 yards who for some reason, think its a better course if there are a 1000 unused yards behind them (I think its a dwindling number)

I also agree its harder to design for proportional distance, compared to getting everyone to the same FW landing zone so you can use one set of hazards. The obvious solution is to stagger hazards down the fairway further from the tee in the most used locations (which varies by hole length and tee splits) but they can't all be sand, as it would be too expensive, so I use more grass bunkers, fairway slopes, etc.  It also tends to keep fairways a bit wider, rather than the traditional pinch at 290 from the back tees.

[jeffwarne]

this thread needs a sub title ... something like "Why the game cannot grow?" or "Why greens in regulation and par are not irrelevant".
Permit me a rhetorical question, relative to the 150 yard drive; "What would my enthusiasm for the game be if I was only permitted to hit a 7 iron off the tee on every hole?"

Yet it grew rapidly for years when the ball went significantly shorter..... hmmmmm


I'm all for courses that are shorter-saves space,inputs, time, $$.

[BCowan]

To simplify things even easier there should be 4 sets of tees and woman should have 2 of them IMO.

That 65% info sounds interesting.  I don't like the overuse of the word discriminating in this website.  Words will lose their meaning. 
   
   What better woman players do not like is dumbing down the shorter tees.  Taking the character out of a hole.  Throwing them just anywhere/out of the way. 

[Wade Whitehead]

If most men had to play under the conditions (and hitting the approach clubs) that most women do, they would take two weeks off then quit.

WW

[jeffwarne]

To simplify things even easier there should be 4 sets of tees and woman should have 2 of them IMO.

 

Women should have 2 of them?
How about all tees being nongender specific?


A junior or an older senior a newer player can and should play the most forward tees, and a longer hitting woman may enjoy the second or third set back or even the fourth if she's Lexi Thompson.


We now have 5 sets of tee markers and I have men saying they won't use any senior tees if they are on the same pad as the most forward(woman's) tees.
 A very varied course can be set up with 5 different markers by sharing pads on some holes. To have 5 sets of markers one does not need to build 5 separate tee pads on every hole.
I hate the thought that every single hole should be proportionately shorter and the hazards exactly placed for some nonexistent mythical "typical" player who plays a given set of tees.
Nothing worse than littering the landscape with that many tee boxes, many of which don't fit into the topography or landscape at exactly the yardage that creates the mythical undesireable proportionality.

[BCowan]

Wade,

   I have about 500 rounds of experience caddying for woman of all abilities.  Some just don't like lowering of standards.  Every kid gets an A or a B now.  Forced carries are the biggest impediment into woman losing interest imo.  RTJ or Rees track vs Ross is night and day.  A woman is going to enjoy a Ross track. 

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    I agree, but most have tees labeled.  4 sets of tees is just right imo. 

[Tom_Doak]

While I appreciate that most women would be happier playing from even shorter distances than they do today, I am turned off by the idea that we will solve all our problems by building even more tees. 


Architects have been adding more sets of tees for thirty years now, and it has not helped the game at all.  In fact, it has probably hurt:  if we hadn't kept building longer and longer sets of back tees, maybe the governing bodies would have had more incentive to do something to regulate the equipment.


Bottom line:  quit building tees over 7000 yards, and start building tees under 5000 yards.

[jeffwarne]

If most men had to play under the conditions (and hitting the approach clubs) that most women do, they would take two weeks off then quit.

WW

Totally disagree.
Some of my favorite days in golf were as a junior hitting a wood to every hole and having an additional approach.
Furthermore, having played quite a bit with a cayman ball on a conventional course, it's a very liberating feeling you are very unlikely to lose a ball due to inability to reach any trouble.
Eventually, we all will face such conditions again as we age if we are lucky.


If you truly want a(short hitting) woman to have a "similar experience" you would have to shrink the fairways and corridors as well as the greens, and the depths of the hazards. i.e. hitting a 40x40 green from 75 yards with a 7 iron isn't the same challenge as hitting it from 160 yards by a stronger man.
to think the "same challenge" is even possible or desireable is folly in my opinion as even if the distances are seemingly equalized by shorter tees, the clubhead speed requirements of spin, high trajectory, rough, bunkers, render such equalization moot.


So interesting to me that the ball gets longer every year and the courses get shorter from the tees most actually play from.
Example: I grew up in the 70's at a course that was 6750 yards with one foot in the rough-which we and nearly every low handicapper always played. blues(6750), whites (6500) and reds (5800)
They've since added Tiger tees on maybe 7-8 holes to reach 6950ish yards and have added a set of golds.
ironically, the blues, played by most, are SHORTER than they used to be occupying the former back tee pads on the holes where there are now golds, but on the 10-11 holes they did not lengthen, the golds sit where the blues used to be, and the blues(which most low handicaps still play) are where the old whites were.
So the only tees that are longer are new golds, while everything else is shorter.

[Thomas Dai]

In some places if men play from the women's/girls tees all hell will break loose. Similarly if a woman/girl were to play from the men's tee's. One of the less attractive aspects of the game.

Perhaps it's time for one handicapping system for all to include both genders and ages?

The higher handicappers, irrespective of gender, play from the furtherest forward tees, the lowest handicappers play from tees that are proportionally further back, which exact tee the individual plays from to depend on the individuals personal handicap? As your game improves and your handicap lowers you move to a further back tee. If your game worsens or age catches up with your game and your handicap rises you move to a more forward tee.


atb


PS - I know there are some women who post herein. It would be nice to hear their thoughts on this thread.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()