Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on August 30, 2004, 12:45:00 PM
-
The current magazine rankings have it all wrong.
Most have forgotten that A, if not, THE key component to the game is, to have fun, and not to torture yourself.
Having now established the "proper" criteria, how would you rank golf courses based on both the challenge and FUN of playing them ? The SPORT in them.
For uniformity's sake, all rankings should be from the golf course's back tees. A seperate thread will address play from middle or member's tees.
-
I disagree. Afterall what is fun about beating your head against a wall from playing at 7200 yards on an overwatered ultra green golf course?
How many golfers in the country are qualified to have any fun under those conditions?
-
W H Cosgrove,
Your reading comprehension skills are questionable, go back and re-read the initial post, again and again, until you get it ;D
-
I'll have to sit this one out for a while. Most of the "great" courses I have played have been from the member tees. ;D
-
Can someone estimate how many or these rankings course raters play from the tips? I have played with fellows that were raters, and they didn't play from the tips. I didn't hold that or the fact that they were raters against them either... ;) ::)
I think that for the vast majority of players, tips and fun are not generally compatible on courses that trend over 6800 yards.
-
Pat, I get that we want to have fun! We could build Starbucks on the back tees for all I care. Lets just get right to the ratings from the human tees!
Have you considered an editor? That second sentence/paragraph is really something!
-
Dick Daley:
I agree with your perspective. Even with modern technology, very few golfers (less than ten percent) can handle the back tees. That being the case, course rankings should probably put very little weight on how the course plays from those tees.
The focus should be on the middle tees. That's where most people play from.
Besides that, discounting the importance of back tees would have a beneficial effect: it would dampen the already out of control golf technology arms race.
Another way we could make progress is to limit the number of single digit handicappers serving as course raters. If only a small percentage of golfers play to a single digit, then the number of raters at that handicap should be limited to something representative of the golfing population as a whole.
-
Another way we could make progress is to limit the number of single digit handicappers serving as course raters. If only a small percentage of golfers play to a single digit, then the number of raters at that handicap should be limited to something representative of the golfing population as a whole.
And we would end up with higher ratings for courses more accepting of weak slices and the occasional ground ball.
-
And we would end up with higher ratings for courses more accepting of weak slices and the occasional ground ball.
Is the punishment of a weak slice or the occasional groundball the sign of a good course? I'm just, you know, asking.
-
W H Cosgrove, et. al.,
I'll try to help out.
NGLA from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
Maidstone from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
Hidden Creek from the tips is challenging, yet fun
Friar's Head from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
GCGC from the tips is challenging, yet fun.
Now do you get it ? ;D
-
As I understand it, course rating crews usually include several levels of golfers.
They want a scratch player.
They want a bogey player.
They want people in between.
They also look at what hypothetical players would do, based on statistics for driving, iron shots, and accuracy.
Then, they compare scores and other variables in determining slope and course ratings.
I am not certain what tees the course raters play, but believe they move around. Huckaby would know. He actually is a course rater, as opposed to a course rating critic.
Having said that, Patrick, perhaps we need an additional measurement---A fun/sport rating.
What the heck, let's name it after you...
'The Mucci Rating'
I'm all for that. You're such a fun guy..:)
As for rating actual courses in this thread...forget it.
I'll defer. Let's keep this esoteric, for once.
-
Pat maybe what we need to determine is a graph comparing max possible length as compared to maintenance meld!!
Here is my perfect example....those going to Cuscowilla might get to experience something like this....
I play from the tips with a couple of members while my wife plays from the most forward tees. I have a fabulous time getting my head stove in shooting something like 86 with my then 4 handicap. My wife stills considers this her alltime favorite where she had a great time shooting her personal best.
In retrospect I would probably have scored better playing from a shorter tee, but the course is so well designed players of drastically different capabilities walked off of the 18th green with broad smiles.
Pat is that what you are looking for?
-
Patrick,
How about CC of Fairfield.......probably the most walkable course of high quality I have ever played. I know you also like Fairfield a great deal. And just like NGLA, Fairfield has also taken down many trees and have opened the course up. From the right vantage point you can see nearly every flag on the course. The stretch of holes from 6 - 9 is a personal favorite.
Others for your new list:
Eastward Ho!
Old Town GC
Fishers Island
-
As I understand it, course rating crews usually include several levels of golfers.
They want a scratch player.
They want a bogey player.
They want people in between.
They also look at what hypothetical players would do, based on statistics for driving, iron shots, and accuracy.
Then, they compare scores and other variables in determining slope and course ratings.
I am not certain what tees the course raters play, but believe they move around. Huckaby would know. He actually is a course rater, as opposed to a course rating critic.
Wayne, that's pretty close to how Course Rating gets done (note the initial capitals, which is as it should be for the process of determining course rating and slope, a very honorable process indeed).
The only thing you have wrong is that scores are not factored in at all. Basically 1-10 values are given to several very specific criteria about the golf course (as laid out in the USGA handicap manual), then it's all math after that as to how the course rating and slope comes out.
We do use a hypothetical scratch player and a hypothetical bogey player - but what each does is also very specifically laid out by the USGA. We determine what each does on each hole, rate such using the criteria presented, then voila - scratch player gives us course rating, bogey player gives us bogey rating, slope is determined based on the difference between the two.
That's it in a nutshell. John V. is VERY much more expert than me though, as is Scott Seward - I have only been doing this for 3 years now. But you have it right, the way the NCGA does it anyway: they do want players of all abilities to do this, to give all perspectives. Just remember also that while we do play during the rating process, such serves only to confirm or change ratings we do outside of playing... that is by observation and measurement. The processes happen separately, and we surely don't rate based on our own games. As to what tees we play, well.. we rate all tees that are 25 yards apart. We play what the rating captain tells us to play. Typically the lower cappers play tips, higher play up, just to get the thing done most efficiently. But often times they do want a higher capper to try a shot from the tips, just to confirm what our ratings might have told us, or not.
Maybe this makes sense, maybe not! In any case, we have gone wildly afield from what Pat intends here - so my apologies.
TH
-
This is a tough question since a course like Pine Valley would not be fun for a high handicapper (I have only seen pictures and read about it), but it would be hard to argue against it being great.
One publication requires a low handicap to even be a rater. They also recommend that each course be rated from the back tees.
I would also suggest that the back tees are certainly not appropriate for all handicaps so to suggest that a course should be fun for all skill levels from there is ridiculous. The challenge can be to find the appropriate set of tees for a particular skill level.
-
Pat,
The best example that I could offer of being both EXTREMELY fun and challenging from the back tees is the Kingsley Club.
The course definitely rewards good golf shots and presents you with many options to get those results, however, there is a fine line and a wayward shot can get into big trouble fast.
For example, #2, the short par 3. A wonderful little hole. When the pin is on the front very narrow portion of green, if you are flag hunting you better be precise. The smart play is about 25 feet over the pin the back larger portion of green. The last time that I played, I went at the flag and pulled my approach about 15 feet left. I was in the greenside bunker. This is not the place to be. You pretty much need to take your medicine and play either extreme left to the back of the green or right to the front fringe. I refused to take my medicine and played at the flag, and thought I pulled it off. The ball kept trickling and rolled all the way down the hill off the right side of the green. From here, I basically couldn't go at the flag either or I risked the same result.
Even though I ended up making a big score, I loved it. It was still a fun hole to play. The hole just beat me that time.
It's just the type of thing that you can run into on nearly every hole at Kingsley. There are just certain spots that you must avoid. Once you know where those spots are and then shoot a good score, you really feel like you've accomplished something.
-
I agree that Kingsley is everything you say and the challenge it presents along with most great courses is not the length. But I also believe that not everyone would have fun from the back tees on every hole there - probably a greater percentage could play from there than some other courses, but not everyone.
Somehow, raters need to take into account the course as a whole and assume that people will play the tees most appropriate to their skill level. Playing too far forward or too far back can eliminate some strategy the architect had in mind.
-
Patrick,
I played Macrahanish a few days ago and thought that was about as much fun as you could have playing this game.
The lumpy fairways mean second shots, at least for me, were never 'full' shots, and therefore the course played a little longer than its yardage.
The lumpy greens, and the fall-offs around several of them ensure you need a good short game to hold your score together if and when you miss them.
There is enough rough around to make sure you can't let loose with everything, but it still has enough room to breathe.
Is this the sort of course you mean?
-
"I see a red tee and I want to paint it black.
No colours any more. Ashamed I can't play back.
I see those girls walk by dressed in their golfing clothes.
I hit the ball to where the Super never mows!"
(Variation on a theme by The Rolling Stones)
or
"Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss! ...
Won't get fooled again!" The Who
-
A course like Teugega or Oak Hollow might do very well in these rankings. In the case of both courses, the main challenge and fun is in the greens. Oak Hollow does not have a single fairway bunker allowing the average golfer more fun, but it doesn't give up any strategic interest because of it.
Teugega is a different case. It is quite a few fairway bunkers, many of which are short carry. However, these add interest to the average golfer's game, and there is often an easy way around them. Both courses are short enough to accomodate all play, but still maintain interest.
The dilemma is how to make a course interesting without making it a slog for the high marker. I believe the most effective way to do this is to create vexing greens are the key to fun on a golf course.
The course that most epitomizes these principles is of course TOC.
-
Mark,
Yes,
et. al.,
You're making this more complicated then it really is.
What courses, when played from the back tees provide both challenge and fun ?
The courses I cited are just a few examples, surely you can name others, with the benefit of understanding the context of the question in light of seeing my selections.
What courses, when you walk off the 18th green make you want to head directly to the 1st tee ?
-
I think Lehigh fits the bill. Not beat-you-up long with brutal rough, just a wonderful walk with enough teeth in the greensites to be lots of fun.
-
Tobacco Road.
Cool visuals, cool greens, cool choices, cool holes not seen elsewhere (and cool bunker guarding the 11th green, though I've never had to hit a bunker shot quite that high before!)
-
Kingsley, Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse all leap to mind.
But Patrick...
Is your basic contention here that Hidden Creek is underrated?
-
After the clarification, here is a short list, some well-known, some little know, one not known at all:
Orchards, Massachusettes
Country Club of Buffalo, NY
Oak Hill West, NY
Teugega, NY
Mark Twain, NY
Brook Lea, NY
Oak Hollow, NC
Canterbury Woods, NH
The Ocean Course, SC
Links at Squam, NH
-
JNC_Lyon,
If I understand the criteria, we're talking about the back tees. Would the Ocean Course fit this description? I love the golf course, but it doesn't have the highest slope in the U.S. for nothing!
-
A. G._Crockett:
I stand corrected. The course would certainly not be fun for me from the tips! I was thinking of the course in the context of where I played it, which is from the 6,100 yard tees.
-
I think I know what Pat is trying to get at, but really isn't this just a request for some courses with high course ratings and relatively low slopes? I've always thought such would make for the perfect golf course. We've bandied this about before here also and there were many good candidates mentioned. There's a not-so-well-known one here in CA called Monarch Bay that fits the bill - I think even for high 'cappers it can be great fun from the tips, and it's also darn fun for the scratches as well because it ain't easy and requires a bit of thought.
Actually my home course Santa Teresa fits this bill.. though I find it more fun from the whites because the par fives are all reachable. From the tips, they all become three-shotters no matter what, which for me isn't quite as fun. But it won't kill anyone from the tips, yet is pretty tough for the scratch to score on.
A laundry list of pretty much every course generally considered "great" would fit here also. Not many are SO tough from the tips as to lose greatness.
TH
-
I think you would have to add Newport to that list. By far one of the funnest places I have ever played!
-
I'd nominate Augusta National into the fun category from the back tees. No forced carries off the tee, wide open spaces, minimal rough, loads of fun playing the wild contours on the greens.
A hacker playing the back tees will certainly want to head over to #1 after putting out on #18.
-
Every golf course can be fun - that's my mantra here.
But at some, the fun comes more easily than at others.
And shivas, your brief diatribe there ;D just illustrates the different ways people have of looking at golf courses. See, I get beat up WAY too much in real life, at my job, by my wife, by my kids, by the soccer parents I have to kow-tow to, etc. such that when it comes to golf, "challenge" is about #8 on the list of things I am looking for these days. Given I have zero time for practice, it's hard enough just making solid contact - I don't need the course to rub it in how much I suck. Oh, a course that's too easy does get boring, but not the first time, that's for sure! But a course that's too hard, well... to me grinding out 2irons and 3woods into greens and never making any pars or birdies seems just too much like work. Of course that CAN be fun also, but that's gonna depend on the people I'm with, scenery, etc. So for me, any course that allows a reasonable chance of success, while still being sporting and making me think, will always be fun. Courses that are "challenges"? OK some times, but a little goes a long way.
Yes, we can look at this differently, can't we?
TH
-
Recently played Sugarloaf - not fun. I'll take Cape Arundel from the tips anyday and always enjoy it.
Cliff
-
I've visited courses knowing I had to write something positive about them (local pr, tourist publicity etc). I have panicked once or twice as dull hole has succeeded dull hole, but in the end I invariably find somthing positive to say. It just depends how you look at things, what you are looking for and whether you want to find it....
-
Pat,
Pinehurst #2 has to be near the top. For even the shortest hitters - fairly decent skills are a must, however - the course is a blast from the back. I consider it a victory when I reach #4 from the middle tees but I still can't wait to play it, even from the back.
Even better - from #18, you only have to walk a few yards to be back on the 1st tee!
-
See, for me, if I'm going to expend valuable marital capital or ditch out of work, its' no fun at all to go play some super easy course that doesn't let me enjoy the fun of conquering a hole that actually requires great shots to get that birdie.
You know what pisses me off? Playing some super easy course and playing bad. I can handle a smooth 90 at Medinah or whatever. What I can't handle is shooting 80 at some course I ought to tear up because my game stinks.
So isn't this odd -- you don't want to shoot 90 on a hard course because it reminds you that you stink. I don't want to shoot 80 on an easy course because it reminds me that I stink. By extrapolation, if you shoot 68 at some cupcake Rancho Piece O' Cakeo , you probably get a kick out of that. I get a kick out of holding it together and breaking 80 at Medinah or Olympia Fields or Butler while my buddies are making doubles all day. I revel in their pain, and that's good enough for me, sick bastard that I am! ;D
I believe we have the same marital capital issues, and similar work issues, such that getting the most out of our golf course time is vitally important.
But it is interesting at how differently we look at this. See, I sure as hell don't revel in the pain of others... oh man, to me there is nothing worse than seeing others beaten down by the course or their games or both, to the extent that I turn away so I don't have to watch. I've been there too many times myself and it's not much fun. Perhaps I have way too much empathy, and that's another reason I've never gotten really good at this game... lack of competitive killer instinct... but I digress.
So no, I don't want to or have to shoot 68 at a podunk executive course to have fun. Remember what I said above - too easy gets boring also. But I would take that over a parade of 2irons and 3woods into greens, a parade of brutally hard chips and putts, such that success by any measure requires FAR too much GRINDING, and I know you know what the term means. I have done way way way too much grinding in my years of competitive golf as it is, and I do way way way too much of that in real life... so grinding on the golf course? As I say, a little goes a long way.
It can be fun - and my little club championship story is a good example of that - but just a few times a year is enough for me there.
Golf fun? Make the course give me, and everyone else, a reasonable chance at success. I am a sick bastard in terms of my addiction to this game, but not in terms of wanting to see myself, or others, suffer.
I want everyone to do well! I mean that, in all sincerity.
But of course, your admission there does illustrate with perfect clarity why you and I are gonna see this issue differently.
You take Medinah, I'll take Shoreacres (never having played either, trying to put it in your terms). Or in my terms, I'll take Cypress and you can have Spyglass.
TH
-
Dave,
That's an admirable perspective. It's pure.
Sometimes, however, I want to score well on an easy course just so I can spend a week deluding myself.
As for the rest of this topic...
let's resume our thinly-veiled exercise in, 'Obscure courses I've played and you haven't, so there'.
-
Wayne - this could get into that type of exercise. I for one am trying to stay away from that, my example to Shivas notwithstanding!
As for delusions, well... no great score or match play success is ever gonna make me think I'm that good. I've seen way too many truly good players to get too deluded. Still, it is fun to have some success... just keeping it relative!
TH
-
Tom,
Yes, which explains why, after work, I will be en-route to the
'Whistling Stick at Old Fork Meadow #2' miniature golf couse in Pointe Pleasant, near Pheasantsville, just off the frontage road to the King's Cairn Memorial Highway, where last week I shot a miraculous, 3-under, 48, on a track rated at 51.4.
It made me feel real good.
Been there?
-
I totally agree that fun should be an important factor, but the best course ratings are achieved when the rater plays from set of tees that enables him to play the course the way the architect intended it to play -- and rarely for us is that the back tees.
How about starting over with a new thread?
-
From scanning the archives, it seems like Fernandina Beach Muni might be a candidate for this list.
-
I recently had the pleasure of playing Bethpage Black from the tips and it convinced me once again of what makes a challenging course fun when playing it that long - those you are playing with!
Ask Slapper about his all world par from the bunkers on 18 after he put his drive in the bunker. It was for all the money!
-
Mark Brown,
Feel free to start a new thread any time you wish.
If a course rater only plays from one set of tees, say the middle tees, how is he qualified to rate the golf course from the championship tees ?
Mike Cirba,
No, my point was that the clubs I named are both challenging and FUN to play, once, or day in and day out, and that the rankings, TV and the preponderance of golfers seem to have gone in the direction of difficulty as being the primary criterion for establishing the relative worth of a golf course.
Donnie Beck,
I had a lapse in memory, certainly Newport belongs on my list of golf courses that present a reasonable challenge, yet are FUN to play.
Gary Nelson,
Have you ever played ANGC from the tips ?
I'd have to disagree with you.
It may be a rare and great experience, but FUN isn't a word that comes to mind, it's a challenging TEST.
Shivas,
Your golf game continues to be a legend in your own mind.
You state that 1000 yards doesn't make a difference to you, that 6,700 or 7,700 is all the same.
What is your current handicap ?
Playing Winged Foot West and Baltusrol lower from the tips isn't exactly a trip to your local comedy club.
Do you consider the courses I listed, including Newport, super easy courses ?
You also state that you don't care what you shoot, which is contrary to most golfers and would seem to indicate that you have no golfing goals on any particular day, or in general.
If you don't care what you shoot, why post your scores ?
Craig Disher,
Pinehurst # 2 from the tips would be a real stretch.
That's a hard golf course.
Et. al.,
I think the rankings contribute to the misdirected path that golf is heading down, equating difficulty with greatness, substituting a resistance to scoring for FUN.
I think this architectural, Lemming like behavior on the part of golf clubs, anxious to host major tournaments, is also part of the problem.
This desire to provide and PERPETUATE a field of play that only PGA Tour players or the best professional and amateur golfers in the country can handle, is patently insane.
Leaving the golf course, as is, for the members, after altering the golf course for the distinct purpose of testing the best golfers in the world for only four days every 10 to 15 years is absurd.
Unfortunately, this has become the Red Badge of Courage for misquided clubs and members.
Geoff Shackelford saw it coming and told us about it, but very few listened or understood his point.
-
I'm not sure this would change anything, and, if it did, it might change it for the worse. Your premise assumes that fun and brutally challenging are mutually exclusive concepts. To you (and to me), that is usually the case, but to others it might not.
Also, this might have the perverse effect of discouraging clubs from placing solitary tees for purposes of championship play, while leaving the interior of the holes untouched, or, at least, not substantially altered (think Merion).
Up until now, I thought we were in general agreement that the most responsible way for clubs to toughen up their course while doing the least damage to the integrity of the design was to add new tees where feasible.
-
SPDB,
Can you name just 10 courses in the United States that are BRUTALLY challenging and FUN to play ?
And, would those courses be FUN to play day in and day out, and not just as a one time lark ?
Perhaps, for those, like Shivas, who don't care what they score, you could make a case for your non-mutually exclusive theory, but, for those who do care about score, I think it will be difficult to marry the two, BRUTALITY and FUN.
-
Patrick;
You must be looking at the Golf Digest rankings again. :P
I have a strong sense that if you look at Golf Week's standings again you'll see a strong emphasis on the factors that make the game enjoyable for everyone.
Yes, Geoff Shack is correct but weren't you the one who routinely defended ANGC when they extended holes or narrowed fairway corridors with trees? I'm not trying to be critical but you can't have it both ways. I know you'll argue that ANGC hosts the best players in the world annually, but there was a time, in fact, most of the history of golf, when the gap between the average player and the top professionals wasn't the yawning chasm that is the present reality.
I think what I'm trying to say is that we're in agreement on the failings of the governing bodies to reign in equipment, so now we're left with what is "great"; the fairly challenging, somewhat forgiving, 6500 yard course we both can play or the 7,500 yard, water-laden, narrow monsters that we're told weekly via television is the latest, greatest thing.
-
Tom, honestly, what course is soooo hard that YOU -- a fricking club champ for crying out loud -- have to hit 2 irons, 3 irons and woods into all day? Puh-lease! ;D
As for reveling in pain, well to me, golf is and always has been a relative exercise. I don't give a damn what I shoot, just as long as I get into my human ATM (oops, I mean "buddy's wallet"), and hopefully beat him straight up but that is entirely gravy.
Unless and until I get a game back that's worth talking about, raw numbers mean nothing to me. What matters is the challenge of hitting the shots and getting "enough" satisfaction from my round -- whatever "enough" is.
I'll tell you what -- I'd get way the hell more satisfaction going par, par, par on 16-18 at Medinah than I would birdie, birdie, birdie on 16-18 at Nondescript Oaks. Making birdie by spray-whiffing a driver, slop-fanning a wedge to a defenseless green and somehow miraculously making the putt does nothing for me. Turning a 3/4 driver or full-nuked hybrid 1 iron around the corner at 16 at Medinah, carving a 5 iron into that back right pin and 2 putting for a 4 is way the hell more satisfying to me.
shivas: neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. It is just very plain that we have different standards. I too love to pull off shots - I just set my standards far lower as to the challenge required. I also don't hit the ball nearly as far as you, or most good players, so that also likely explains things. You know darn well there are PLENTY of courses that would require grinding out 2irons and 3woods all day for me, from the tips. Let's start with Olympic Lake. That to me is less fun than facing a variety of shots.
So really that's the key difference. I see my challenges really as just making solid contact and hitting the ball correctly - I am not kidding. Challenges beyond that either come from a good opponent in match play, or not at all. By that I mean I don't need the course to be very hard for golf to be sufficient challenge for me. You do. Thus the difference.
And to each his own.
Just don't make me suffer from the tips unless I ask for it, OK?
-
Shivas,
This is a load of crap. You're just baiting Pat to ask you..."so, how do you measure yourself against other golfers?" ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
You must be looking at the Golf Digest rankings again. :P
No, I haven't[/color]
I have a strong sense that if you look at Golf Week's standings again you'll see a strong emphasis on the factors that make the game enjoyable for everyone.
Yes, Geoff Shack is correct but weren't you the one who routinely defended ANGC when they extended holes or narrowed fairway corridors with trees? I'm not trying to be critical but you can't have it both ways. I know you'll argue that ANGC hosts the best players in the world annually, but there was a time, in fact, most of the history of golf, when the gap between the average player and the top professionals wasn't the yawning chasm that is the present reality.
You're confusing the issues. Fun for the amateur golfer from the back tees was never part of the discussion on the changes at ANGC.
I defended some of the changes at ANGC, specifically lengthening the course on holes like # 13 and others.
The FUN factor from the back tees was never a consideration.
It was strictly about challenging the best players in the world at a Major tournament vis a vis architectural changes.
For the PGA Tour Pros, # 13 is a better hole today then it was 3 years ago. Likewise, I'd rather see medium to long irons hit into # 18, as was originally intended, rather then easy sand wedges.
If you were familiar with ANGC you'd be aware that there is a set of tees called, "The Members" tees, and those tees are unchanged, and play from them remains FUN.
I never stated that playing from the tips was fun.[/color]
I think what I'm trying to say is that we're in agreement on the failings of the governing bodies to reign in equipment, so now we're left with what is "great"; the fairly challenging, somewhat forgiving, 6500 yard course we both can play or the 7,500 yard, water-laden, narrow monsters that we're told weekly via television is the latest, greatest thing.
I think that's the misquided direction golf has gone in, squeezing the FUN out of the game[/color]
-
At the risk of breaking up the lovefest and getting back on topic:
Cuscowilla
Tobacco Road
University of Michigan
Mid Pines
World Woods - Pine Barrons
Baltusrol Upper
Caledonia
The Homestead
-
Caledonia and Tobacco Rd. would be wonderful examples of this concept. Neither is so long from the tips as to make length the major problem to be solved. Though totally different, they are both wonderful fun. In fact, I would go so far as to nominate ALL Strantz courses.
How about Southern Pines?
-
Shivas,
... when I'm calling the shots, we're trucking to the back every time and I don't care if the course is 7700 yards long. I can handle that just fine (at least no less than I can handle 6700 -- 1000 yards makes almost no difference to me).
New courses that I've played that are challenging and fun from the tips (in "stream-of-consciousness" order):
Hmmm.... let's see.....everything except easy courses!! ...[/b][/i]
I don't think I got my facts wrong.
I think you're confused.
Your post to me is in direct conflict with your post to Tom Huckaby.
And, your collection of posts on this thread and many others prudently leads one to conclude that you're in the "length is the sole criteria camp"
Now you state that you don't play in medal competitions, don't post scores and don't have a handicap, yet you engage in matches for money against other golfers.
If you and Ran were to have a match on Pinehurst # 2, how would it be established ?
I seem to recall, on the first tee at GCGC, making an inquiry about the handicaps in the group, and that you volunteered a single digit number, but, perhaps my memory is fading.
You also told us that you prefer to break 80 from the back tees at Medinah, but, if you don't keep score, how would you determine that ?
And, how do you get satisfaction at finishing par, par, par at
#'s 16, 17 and 18 at Medinah, as you stated, if you don't keep score ?
Sounds like something is a fen in Denmark ;D
Again, if you'll reread your post to Tom Huckaby, and your post to me, I think you'll see the conflict and contradictions in your own words. And, those are the facts as you presented them ;D[/color]
-
A. G. Crockett:
I don't know that I'd select every Strantz courses, specifically because True Blue from the tips is a long course that requires length to effectively manage. I felt like I had to hammer the ball all day long just to survive. But I agree with your point that Tobacco Road and Caledonia do not present length as the major problem. At the same time, these two as well as the others certainly yield on a number of holes to effectively and accurately applied length.
-
David,
Upon further review;
You're probably right about True Blue. I've played it twice, neither from the tips, and it was all I wanted. At 6400 and 6800, it was great golf; at 7062, maybe too much to be "fun".
-
Pat Mucci,
You asked if I played ANGC. I have not. I saw it in person last spring for the first time.
However, I would consider this course FUN when played from either set of tees because:
- Lack of penal ("lost ball") hazards off the tee
- Relatively wide landing areas
- Wildly contoured greens
- History, tradition, yada yada yada
I certainly agree with you that the back tees at ANGC would be a big test. My point is that the experience would be FUN, regardless of score. You can swing away with the driver, find your ball, and hit it again. No frustration of forced carries and lost balls. Once around the green, you get to hit chips and putts that are much more interesting (and fun) than I see at No Name Municipal GC.
It's a different story if you define FUN as scoring well. This might eliminate from consideration those courses with overly-long back tees.
Gary
-
With my former employer, I had the opportunity to work at Cherry Valley Country Club in Belle Mead, NJ. The course and club are designed for families. I had many an opportunity to play golf and tee off at 5 PM (or maybe a little earlier) and walk 18 before it got dark. There was nothing more enjoyable than playing early in the evening from either the back or club tees. The course lends itself to more of a ground game than flying it on to the green.
I can picture it now in my mind; coming up #9 (a dogleg par 5 with the 3 shot approach over the corner of a lake) with the setting sun behind the clubhouse to the right of the green.
It doesn't get any better than that.
-
---A fun/sport rating......let's name it after you...'The Mucci Rating'
brother Wayne_Freedman
i couldn't agree more that ratings are a kinda silly form of entertainment - but i have since found out some courses lives can depend on them - so for economic reasons i guess they're required - like tracking the GNP someone must use that data although i've never myself met that person - and most people i ask who follow the daily stock market close really don't know other than it makes them feel informed
in the book "whose your caddie" by reilly - NICKLAUS is quoted as calling all course raters tasks a big ass-kissing excersize so he has never paid ratings any mind - but who knows
however, i would like to know more about certain courses, like that course in somewhere in Georgia that was featured on TV though, the one that had TOPLESS caddies, like exactly where it is and how do i get there !
-
Gary Nelson,
I think you're confusing the THRILL of playing a unique and hallowed golf course with FUN from the back tees.
As to forced carries, I'd say # 5, # 10, # 13 and others require substantial carries to properly position your ball.
Those wildly contoured greens are no fun if you're in the wrong quadrant, or at the wrong recovery position, which will happen when you play the back tees and can't reach the greens in regulation.
Like the allure of a physically attractive woman, you may find the golf courses personality quite different when you get up close and personal.
Shivas,
Tell me that if you were 4 under par coming into the 17th hole at Medinah, and a late for a social engagement, that you'd skip the last two holes in order to be on time. ;D
I'll admit to you that if I was 6 or 8 under par heading into
# 17 at NGLA, whomever or whatever was waiting for me, would have to wait a little longer. Come to think of it, if I was even par or ten over, they'd have to wait.
-
Pat,
Both NGLA and ANGC are long and difficult courses. Both would be hard to score well from the tips. What makes you say NGLA is challenging yet fun from the tips... and ANGC isn't? You've played both these courses and I've played neither.
What am I missing here? How do you define fun?
Gary
-
Gary
NGLA is neither a long nor particularly "difficult" course-even from the "tips." I do not doubt that it can be set up to challenge all but the top 1-2% of golfers through a combination of firm and fast maintenance and a plethora of "Sunday" pin positions, but the charm of the course is due to its fun quotient, not how "hard" it is or can be.
I can't speak for ANGC, having never played there, but I can't imagine how it would not be fun to play, regardless of actual difficulty.
-
Rich,
Perhaps this thread an excercise in finding the best "short" golf courses. Ones that aren't overly long... even from the tips. If that's the case, ANGC would be out.
My definition of "not-fun" courses would include those with too many long, forced carries which translates into a bunch of lost balls.
Fun (IMO) is being able to swing away on the tee while having to think about avoiding the bunkers, having an interesting and complex chip shot around the green, and having an interesting putt that tests my ability to read greens. Of the courses I've seen, I thought that ANGC best fit my definition. Fun, for me, doesn't always mean hitting every green in regulation or even scoring well.
Gary
-
Gary Nelson,
How did you arrive at the conlcusion that both NGLA and ANGC are long and difficult courses ?
From the tips, I think you'd have far more fun at NGLA then you would at ANGC, they're as different as night and day.
If it's not fun for you to hit all 18 greens in regulation, or to score well, what are your goals when you play golf ?
To miss greens and see how well you chip ?
Wouldn't you test your green reading ability better by hitting all 18 greens in regulation, rather then chipping to them and then reading shorter putts ?
-
Pat,
I assumed NGLA was long and difficult since everyone talks about it so much on this forum. I've not played it so I don't know from experience. I admitted this point in an earlier post of mine.
I still would like you to define fun... from the tips. I put in my definition. What's yours?
Gary
-
shivas:
Just to try and close the loop of the discussion between you and me here...
We remain very different. You're lucky to have a group of friends you can play straight up or close thereto or god forbid actually GET shots - I don't have any of that. You also have a much better history than me - you've shot many scores in the 60s in your life and at one time were competitively very tough, right? Well I can count the rounds I've had in the 60's on one hand, and I've never been competitively all that great. You think you suck now, because at one point you truly were very good, and relative to that time, well.. the realities of life don't allow you to be that good at a game which requires so much time to be that sharp, consistently. Me? Pin me down and I will admit that I am playing the best golf of my entire life, at least for stretches at a time when I can focus, these last two years.
So big differences in how we treat things. I have no regular group with which to compete - at least not guys I don't have to give 10+ shots to, and you know how old that gets when money is involved... So I've become anti-competitive, when it comes to friends. It's a lose-lose with them: if I win, it's just because I'm better and they're pissed and I feel weird like I didn't give them enough shots... if they win, I'm pissed because it seems stupid to me to beat them by so much straight up and then have to give over money.
This colors my entire outlook on golf...
Then re difficulty and challenge in golf courses, well... I did way too much of that when I was young. I don't need it any more. I guess in some sense since I really am playing the best golf of my life, I should look for more challenge... But that's not me. I'd like that skill level to translate to some success (score-wise and competitive-wise) before I give up on it and just hit shots for shots sake. See, you have that in your history - I don't. Once I have that, then hell yes, put me at the tips and let's see the fun shots.
TH
-
Gary Nelson,
Not having to grind or seriously struggle on nearly every hole, in an attempt to make par, would be a cornerstone of my definition of fun.
I view fun on a golf course as enjoying the challenge.
Winged Foot West from the tips is not an enjoyable challenge for me. Those who played in the "massacre at Winged Foot", the best players in the world, would probably agree with me.
-
Patrick:
Very interesting. You've just described exactly how I feel about playing from the tips - exactly. I can't imagine WFWest from the tips being "fun" as a steady diet. I have had too much of grinding and struggle in golf, so I do that more when I HAVE TO than when I want to (ie in competitive situations). Outside of that, give me a course where it isn't such a grind or struggle, and I will have the most fun.
That being said, it has to give sufficient challenge to be fun also, right? But too much makes the fun harder to find.
It's interesting also, I do have exceptions to this, at courses that are somehow meant to be brutal. So for the first and only time playing WFWest, I likely would find it fun, to see how bad I get beat up where the pros did, and get some satisfaction from the rare successful holes. The same goes for PGA West-Stadium, and a great course out here called Bayonet. They are all meant to be brutally hard, and it's fun as a change of pace to tackle them and see what's what.
But none would be fun played regularly, from the tips. The fun there is in the change of pace.
For regular golf, give me a fun sporting course like Valley Club, N. Berwick West links, Cruden Bay, Cypress Point, the list goes on and on (in terms of courses people here all know about). All can be very tough given the "right" conditions, and none are ever too easy (at least not for me). And given normal conditions, all do allow for success.
TH
-
Pat,
Your original post on this thread asked which golf course were fun... but you limited the evaluation to the back tees. Now you have refined your definition to a golf experience where you don't have to seriously struggle in your attempt to make par. Does this now limit us to a selection of short courses?
ANGC isn't very long for Hank Kuene... but it is for me. I suppose that "enjoying the challenge" requires selecting the proper tees for your ability. If you are a short hitter who is forced to play the back tees and wants to have fun, you have to select a short golf course. Have I got it now?
-
Your original post on this thread asked which golf course were fun... but you limited the evaluation to the back tees.
Now you have refined your definition to a golf experience where you don't have to seriously struggle in your attempt to make par.
I didn't refine my definition, I merely addressed your question.
[/color]
Does this now limit us to a selection of short courses?
Not at all[/color]
ANGC isn't very long for Hank Kuene... but it is for me. I suppose that "enjoying the challenge" requires selecting the proper tees for your ability. If you are a short hitter who is forced to play the back tees and wants to have fun, you have to select a short golf course. Have I got it now?
NO[/color]
Tom Huckaby,
I think you have to distinquish between the first time you play a golf course and playing it day in and day out.
-
Last Call?!?
But I just got here!!!...
To drag up an old cliche..."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Otherwise we would all marry clones of Elle MacPherson/Claudia Schiffer/Charlize Theron. (Hmmm, Maybe this is not a bad idea..."THIS...COULD...WORK!!! - Dr FRAUNCKenstein in "Young Frankenstein"). In the movie "Demolition Man", Sandra Bullock informs Sylvester Stallone that "In 2012, it was decided that Taco Bell was the best restaurant. Therefore, all restaurants are now Taco Bell's." What a sad state of the world if golf courses had uniform dimensions and surfaces such basketball or Catherine Zeta-Jones was left wanting for attention...
Given the unique nature of the playing surface, the ranking of golf courses, IMHO, is a natural human response. The rating process plays into "What was the most fun, best restaurant, vacation, job, teacher," etc. that you ever had? Obviously, there are a variety of subjective viewpoints on "The Best" based upon the posts above. Current raters determine best golf courses based upon the 10 point scale by judging a variety of factors: Toughness, Length, Hazards, etc. Fun has not been as highly regarded as these other factors for reasons that I will approach from my personal viewpoint below.
Here's my case for the status quo of keeping the current ratings system:
Golf, and all of the inner psychotic in us, has always been a challenge against one's self, as well as against the everchanging elements on the course. Part of the challenge against one's self is the expectation of hitting a great to perfect shot each time, and the failure to do as often as one would like to. Dealing with that disapointment, or exceeding one's abilities often reveals one's character due to the shot's result. Frequently, the mental game clouds the approach to the next shot. The architect has created a maze, a puzzle, and challenge to elicit those emotional responses. Playing within one's abilities can also separate the low score from the trainwreck hole. My principal ability is to hit drives over 300 yards. Therefore, "I didn't fly 3,000 miles to lay up on every hole from the Whites!!!"
Difficulty should be the paramount factor in dictating a challenge and ranking courses. To paraphrase Shivas, "What fun is it to beat up a weakling? At least if I get the crap kicked out of me by a tough course, I can still enjoy the challenge of myself against the course, and the opportunity to beat my opponent(s)." To back up my statement, I revert to the economic scale of supply and demand. Pine Valley will never be lacking for tee times. Easier courses in the area are being evaluated for potential home sites (Blue Heron Pines?). To further emphasize the point, PVGC has broken with their tradition of a single set of tee-markers per day, and gone to three sets of tees. I hope to be able to tackle the "Crump Tees" from the tips one day. People looking for fun can play any set of tees that they would like, and we can even play a match at handicap from our respective handicap tables for those tees.
In today's equalitarian society where even Stanford University rounds up grades to make their undergraduates more attractive for advanced degree opportunities, the "Six year old birthday party mentality" prevails where "Everyone gets a present because they as soooo special." Screw that!!! There is no net division in the United States Open or The Open Championship.
Our handicap mentality plays into this mix. In order to "Sell" tournaments to their membership, some club events have migrated towards one Gross/three Net prizes to encourage particpation from the membership. I say, if you want to get a prize, work hard and improve your game. I still play in these types of events because I enjoy playing with people outside of my "Par or Death" weekend morning foursomes. But hasn't the Handicap allowance to compensate for weaker players to play against the strong "Dumbed Down" the game to the point of winning net prizes for beating one's handicap replaced the goal of shooting the lowest score?
To those who want to rate courses from the member's/white tees, be my guest. NGLA will probably be a top 3 course again on this scale. I love NGLA from as far back as possible. (We've already hashed over the modern ball/equipment issue). I would still drive the 2 1/2 hours to play N.G.L.A. from the forward tees, but it wouldn't be the same challenge. The "Fun" rating will probably reward the "Playing within one's ability" more than other factors (Brains over brawn?).
Achievement is very satisfying and also used as a measure of success. Let's not kid each other that shooting a 75 with an 8 handicap from 6,400 yards on a 70.4/128 is an achievement worthy of an 80 from the tips at Pine Valley or Pacific Dunes.
Feel free to tee off on me...
JWK
-
Oh absolutely - that's what I tried to say. I just did want to make a point that even with OUR attitude (and I write that in caps because I do share this attitude with you, I think), a brutally hard course requiring grinding and struggle can still be fun, as a change of pace.
But not as a steady diet, for sure.
TH
-
Pat,
It seems that your standard for FUN courses has a lot to do with length, or lack of it ... and that you are saying that pretty much any course with tees for today's tournament play is no fun because you [and I] have to grind way too much from those tees.
Again, you are falling into the trap of rating golf courses only from the back tees, although you're doing it precisely the opposite way that Shivas does: he can't like them unless he DOES have to grind from the back tees. To wit, Shoreacres v Medinah [see case file].
This is one of the burdens we face on every course we design ... whether or not to put in back tees for that 0.5% of long hitters. If we don't, then the golf course had better have a lot of oceanfront to make up for it. If we do put in those tees, though, I'm convinced there are a lot more golfers who resent it than who enjoy it. The irony is that if we build the back tees those players resent, they won't go and play from the tees where they were more comfortable ... the ones they would have been happy with, if they were just the back tees!
-
TD:
That is one hell of a dilemma and I don't know how you can solve it. SO many golfers just play the back tees always, or most often, simply out of ego. And what sucks is SO many of those would have more fun - or at least get out of the course what is most relevant to their skill level - if they moved up a set.
I have to believe the shivases of the world are a tiny minority. Not many golfers venture to the back tees simply because they want the most challenge, and can handle it... your 0.5% figure seems correct to me. FAR too many golfers play the tips because their egos tell them to, or peer pressure does. I must admit I succumb to the latter myself from time to time.... I just can't stand people playing tees longer than those I am playing. It is a weakness.
So yep, you have the tough issue of whether to create those back tees or not... and it must be a VERY fair and open-minded developer indeed who would allow you to leave them out. So you create them, intending them for the 0.5% who really get something out of them, and then they go and get used by more like 25%.
I have seen courses put up signs, or mark on the scorecard, intended handicap levels for intended tees... But I think that has the reverse effect than the intent far too often: tell an ego-filled golfer his handicap isn't good enough to play a set of tees and he's gonna do it anyway, out of spite!
BTW, I don't think Patrick is rating courses only from the back tees. He's just asking a question here as to what courses remain fun, even from the tips, for the most golfers. I find that a very worthwhile and interesting question, because it is a rare course indeed that succeeds in this.
TH
-
This topic is well covered, but I'll chime in. Eventually I'll get a third star next to my name.
I have friends that are excellent players, who don't enjoy themselves unless the course setup is easy enough to allow good scoring.
I have friends that are excellent players, who seem to enjoy the most difficult holes. They love the challenge of a backbreaking par 4.
This summer I've preferred playing my home course (Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow) from the back tees. At 7,000 yards, I am required to use a wider variety of clubs to approach greens. With modern equipment, short irons are used to approach on most par fours from the blue tees (6,500 yards). For me, part of the enjoyment of golf is the chance to pull every club out of the bag a couple of times, and try to hit it well.
Pumpkin's main architectural weakness is the lack of fairway undulation. There are very few hilly lies to contend with for approach shots.
For me, the enjoyment in golf is being faced with a wide variety of shots: hilly, flat, long, short. Choosing from the small sample of courses I have played, my favorites are Pasatiempo and Pacific Dunes, both from the back tees. Most rounds I use every club in the bag, and nearly every shot after the tee shot requires more than just a good swing. (I find that Pacific Dunes does not often require a fairway (5 or 7) wood.)
If I were a course rater, I'd play most courses from the championship tees. I think courses look better from the back box. I'm good enough so I don't get killed back there. But it makes sense to me that the course rater with a 10 handicap should try a course from the second tees, and one with a 20 handicap play from the third set, and so on.
Great:
Pacific Dunes
Pasatiempo
Very Good (in order):
Bandon Dunes
San Francisco GC
Pumpkin Ridge - Ghost Creek
Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow
Lancaster GC (PA) is nice too.
Stanford GC
I've played Pebble and Spyglass, but it's been a while, so no opinion of those.
Overrated:
Old Portland clubs, such as Portland GC, Royal Oaks GC, and Waverley GC. Eugene GC is nice, but still claustrophobic.
-
JMK - that is great stuff and methinks you nailed the issues here. I'd asbolutely agree that the key is VARIETY. See, that is one of my complaints to shivas: make the course too long and for me it's an endless parade of 2irons and 3woods, and that gets boring. But you're right, make it too short, with no reasons for layups and the like, and the endless parade of wedges is equally boring. So it's a very fine line, very tough to meet.
I like your list of courses that meet this standard also. I concur with all of them, at least the ones I have played and know about (and that's most on your list).
TH
-
TD/TH -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trom TH's Post:
"TD:
That is one hell of a dilemma and I don't know how you can solve it. SO many golfers just play the back tees always, or most often, simply out of ego. And what sucks is SO many of those would have more fun - or at least get out of the course what is most relevant to their skill level - if they moved up a set.
I have to believe the shivases of the world are a tiny minority. Not many golfers venture to the back tees simply because they want the most challenge, and can handle it... your 0.5% figure seems correct to me. FAR too many golfers play the tips because their egos tell them to, or peer pressure does. I must admit I succumb to the latter myself from time to time.... I just can't stand people playing tees longer than those I am playing. It is a weakness.
So yep, you have the tough issue of whether to create those back tees or not... and it must be a VERY fair and open-minded developer indeed who would allow you to leave them out. So you create them, intending them for the 0.5% who really get something out of them, and then they go and get used by more like 25%"
Question for the board:
How many "open-minded developers" have asked for a course with no "Tiger tees"? "Make it 6,400 yards and low scoring fun for the 18 handicapper?" (Side question - How many top-echelon artists would take such a project?)
I am not trying to be confrontational here, merely trying to get a better understanding of "The Market."
Golf is one of the few sports that enable the average players to compete in the "Cathedrals of their Game." I probably won't get to face Pedro Martinez in Yankee Stadium in my lifetime, but I can go to Winged Foot West and play the course under virtually the same conditions that the best amateurs played in two weeks ago. I get to play some Mondays at PGA TOUR courses that were left in the same set-up as the championship round the day before. It is a better pleasure than the Wed. Pro-Am from the white markers - especially at Harbour Town when the set-up is at 5,900 yards!
I realize that the back tees are an ego trip for most. So are double black diamond and off-piste ski slopes. At least we don't risk too much bodily injury testing or game against the very best on the most challenging in golf.
JWK
p.s. TD - Loved the Uber tee on 18 at PD!!! Needed my caddie to find it - I like the fact that it's not publicized. Thanks for that and all of the other back tees there!!! (FYI/FWIW: 18th hole - Day 1 - Killed a driver, purree'd a 2I, sweeted a 5I to 15 feet in a 10 MPH headwind. Day 2 - Nuked driver, took out a satellite with a 6I, and flipped a wedge from 55 yrds with a 35MPH tailwind. Same contrast on 13: Day 1 - 9I/Day 2 - 3W. Maximum fun from the max tees!!! I have never hit the two-iron better because I have never been forced to use it so much!!!
-
JWK:
Hell of a question. The problem is that for every fair-minded, capable player like you who can handle the back tees and likes to go back there and do the equivalent of face Pedro's fastball, there are 25 who have that want, but don't really belong anywhere near there, because they fare so badly they end up slowing play for one and all, and then even in a situation where no one's around to slow down, well you get the issue of them disliking and not enjoying a course simply because in reality it is too long and hard for them, when they may well enjoy it and love it from a set or two up.
So it must be frustrating for an architect to have to deal with this - that's why I find TD's thoughts so intriguing. I can see him asking in frustration "why build this set of tees that is going to do good for so few and bad for so many, not the least of which being me, if I care what people think of my work."
But I'm not sure that this matters enough to merit NOT building the tees, given how finite and binary that is. It would suck to penalize guys like you and shivas just because there are so many ego-driven dorks.
Thus all the questions and so very few answers!
TH
-
TH -
Let's be truthful here...If I don't put the tee ball in play after waiting 340 yards for the group in front to clear out, I AM most definitely an "Ego-Driven Dork" or worse.
I was waiting for the slow play issue to rear its head here...
One-time play such as, "This is the only time I'll ever get to play Pebble," etc. can take the 8 HCP into the unforgiving land. Multiple rounds at the same venue could mitigate need need for (Clubhead) speed. I once heard that golf and sex have the same thing in common: Most people think that they are better at it than they really are!
I think psychologists did a study where they took a group of 6 year olds and asked them to try to make as many baskets as they could with wads of paper. The most "Well-adjusted" went to a medium distance and fared pretty well in-terms of FG %. The "Others" either went as close to or as far away from the wastebasket and shot from those points with predictable results.
Unfortunately for the long-hitter, there is no three point shot in golf. Birdie is still birdie from no matter where one teed up. It just feels sweeter from the max.
But back to my question, what is the demand for an "Average" vs. a Tiger course? I am working on my essay for the contest, and would have to win the "Two weeks in Cleveland Prize" (The fun that I could have at Canterbury, Kirtland, Firestone, etc.!!!)
JWK
-
;D ;D ;D
I think we're on the same wavelength here. And even if we're not, well I do like your style.
And you make a good point: birdie, or par, does feel sweeter from the max. But that's not relevant to the ego-driven dorks, now is it? They're not gonna get either result.
Now as for your question... hell I want to know the answer also. My feeling is that although the vast majority of golfers would enjoy the game a hell of a lot more on an "average" course, the Tiger course is gonna generate more demand, because we all do like to fool ourselves. But my feelings are wrong all the time. And I am drawn to the example of Rustic Canyon... which is certainly not "average" in any way- it is absolutely great... but is not outrageously long from the tips, and is pretty darn wide, not very penal at all... yet still is damn fun for one and all.
In fact, Rustic might be the answer for Pat's initial question, and I'm surprised no one mentioned it so far. It's fantastically fun from any set of tees.
AND is sure as hell is in great demand... well received... sucessful... whatever positives you want to say, Rustic is it...
Interesting.
OK, I'll quit the stream of consciousness typing now.
;)
-
JWK:
At Pacific Dunes we didn't put in the 7000 yard tees ... from the "tips" it is 6700 and change, although there are three tees which aren't on the card at all, which add another 100 yards or so. This was a tough sell even to Mike Keiser, who most people here revere as a highly knowledgeable developer. I mainly got away with it because I kept telling him that if they ever had a US Amateur-caliber event in Bandon, they would play it at Bandon Dunes, which already had tees at 7000+.
But I am absolutely convinced that Pacific Dunes is more popular with more players because it doesn't have those tees. [By the way, they never put the back markers out on Bandon Dunes anymore, either.]
Mike still gets plenty of input from people who want to see tees on Pacific Dunes at 7000+. The USGA people he knows all believe he should do it. Fortunately, I've been too busy with other things to look at it seriously; but knowing the land as I do, I think you'd have to build a couple of pretty stupid tees to get up to that figure. And anyway, there are lots of days at Pacific where the eighth hole, at 405 yards, is all anyone can handle.
I have never had a client ask us just to make a course 6400 yards. I've had a few who relented when I told them not to worry about the yardage ... one of the great things about doing the second course at Stonewall was that everyone trusted me that it would be hard enough to keep them interested, even if it was only 6600 par 70. Coore and Crenshaw frequently come in well under 7000 yards and no one ever says a thing about it; Friars Head doesn't have yardages on the scorecard partly so they don't have to argue about why it isn't longer.
-
TD:
With the success of Pacific Dunes and several others, I'd have to guess that if there is any architect working today that the client would trust to put in tees "only" stretching to 6600 or whatever, it would be you. Anyone who's played PD knows what a bear that course can be with any sort of wind. 7000 yard tees there seem silly to me.
C&C likely merit this trust as well.
But man, you really have to hit some home runs with courses this "short" before you earn this type of trust, don't you?
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts and inside knowledge. This type of thing is fascinating.
By the way, great thought about PD being more popular because it doesn't have the official 7000+ tees... there are likely many reasons for this, but isn't one of them just because of the "coolness" factor that a course that "short" can play that tough, and that fun? Isn't that one of the same reasons Pasatiempo is so adored?
Just wild thoughts....
-
One of the most bizarre consequences of the battle between techology and the long players is that the very thing meant to combat said players (length) is very much a non-issue for them. A steady diet of 470 yard par 4s is still driver-7 iron for these guys.
And yet the "answer", as delivered by tournament prep people, architects, green committees, whomever, is to simply add more length.
Makes me think of the definition of insanity, for some reason.
-
Good point, George.
But then consider the other side: someone tries to make a course tough on the best players using what really does bother them - firm and fast conditions, wildly tough greens - and most of the world screams bloody murder. Think Shinnecock.
There really is no perfect, universally acceptable answer here. Even dialing back the ball has its detractors.
TH
-
Tom -
All wonderful insights. Some conversational thoughts...
At the max, BD was great in the 10 MPH wind and even better in the 35+ stuff, even though my score ballooned 10 shots. One of my better holes was your aforementioned #8 into the 35+ fan with a skimmed drive and an all-world 2I. A prideful moment in a Bogey-filled afternoon that was match-play fun! (I had played very well the day before, and now have the maturity to realize that Par is not always what it says it is on the card that day...I only have to beat that guy who was playing from the Whites).
Question: Does success/failure on #10 at BD set up more of the same on #11? Most people wouldn't think that 2 Par 3's in a row is good routing (I understand otherwise with what you were able to create there). In fact the wait at #11 tee reinforced the success that I had on #10 on both days. The routing allows for plenty of thinking, photography and "Glad that we have opposable thumbs" moments!!!
To address the yardage on the card issue at FH, it is great that it is entirely possible to have a challenge at under 7,000 yards, especially when visiting Corporal Punishment on every missed swing. Shinnecock Hills (With a proper set-up) is another good example of distance not being a key statistic. I hope to see Stonewall one day. I sometimes wish that we could put more shot-making back into the game by removing all of the distance references from cards, sprinkler heads, etc. However, this approach is probably only feasible at a private club as opposed to a resort with transient players, with the need to amortize costs with yardage book sales & GPS Carts. (I appreciate them when I am a first-timer to be sure as the zoo animal who has been weened away from hunting appreciates feeding time)
Again, I wanted you to know how much I enjoyed teeing up where I was FORCED to hit driver well, and bring the fairway design hazards into play at BD.
I also enjoyed #7, #8 and #17 at Charlotte Golf Links as well. Was there a little of HCEG #13 at CGL #7?
Jim
-
shivas:
Great stuff. Just two things:
1. You are so right on about the inequities of this game. But didn't someone once say youth is wasted on the young? Golf just manifests this, painfully so.
2. Oh yes, one of the great allures of the game is that for short bursts, any of us can be as good as Bobby Jones or Jack or Tiger or whomever you want to idolize. But that greatness sure as hell doesn't have to happen on a completed golf hole - it can happen on one drive, one approach shot, one putt... and is damn more likely that way also! Thus the tees from which one starts only matter if you are taking entire holes as your comparison. Weren't you the one who said awhile back it's pulling off shots that jazzes you, and that numbers don't matter? I sense an inconsistency here, my friend. ; Oh, playing the tips does make for the proper comparison because that's what the pros play - I get that. So OK, I'll let the inconsistency slide... and just say this also: as for that being enough to get one to play the tips all the time, or want the absolute maximum challenge any course offers, well... that gets back to what drives one in this great game.
TH
-
Does #16 at Cypress have a set of tees where you don't have carry the Pacific Ocean?
-
Does #16 at Cypress have a set of tees where you don't have carry the Pacific Ocean?
Huh. I don't recall. But something tells me you're right and the reds are over there to the left.
But of course the day one tees off from there, as a male of less than super-super-super senior status, well... one would have only himself to answer to.
;D
There are SOME holes where one simply must play the tips. Some courses, too. But that's not the issue here, which is the wisdom of playing such ALL THE TIME.
TH
-
JWK:
At Pacific Dunes we didn't put in the 7000 yard tees ... from the "tips" it is 6700 and change, although there are three tees which aren't on the card at all, which add another 100 yards or so. This was a tough sell even to Mike Keiser, who most people here revere as a highly knowledgeable developer. I mainly got away with it because I kept telling him that if they ever had a US Amateur-caliber event in Bandon, they would play it at Bandon Dunes, which already had tees at 7000+.
But I am absolutely convinced that Pacific Dunes is more popular with more players because it doesn't have those tees. [By the way, they never put the back markers out on Bandon Dunes anymore, either.]
Mike still gets plenty of input from people who want to see tees on Pacific Dunes at 7000+. The USGA people he knows all believe he should do it. Fortunately, I've been too busy with other things to look at it seriously; but knowing the land as I do, I think you'd have to build a couple of pretty stupid tees to get up to that figure. And anyway, there are lots of days at Pacific where the eighth hole, at 405 yards, is all anyone can handle.
I have never had a client ask us just to make a course 6400 yards. I've had a few who relented when I told them not to worry about the yardage ... one of the great things about doing the second course at Stonewall was that everyone trusted me that it would be hard enough to keep them interested, even if it was only 6600 par 70. Coore and Crenshaw frequently come in well under 7000 yards and no one ever says a thing about it; Friars Head doesn't have yardages on the scorecard partly so they don't have to argue about why it isn't longer.
Tom, the way I see it, you've spent the better half of your life teaching/writing/proving to everyone that yardage doesn't matter--why make it such a priority now!" Now lets get off the internet, get out there and build a -6000 yard course that will knock their socks off! Make it a par 69 or something!
-
You tipsters are hilarius. When was the last time you played the forward tees?, Ever? So, how do you know it's less fun?
-
Tommy: I have yet to meet the client who will let me build a par-69 or a course less than 6000 yards. We'll probably have to buy land ourselves for that one ... which will be fine 'cause that's all the land we will be able to afford.
[If we build in California it will be the first-ever par-2.]
-
Tom Doak,
It seems that your standard for FUN courses has a lot to do with length, or lack of it ... and that you are saying that pretty much any course with tees for today's tournament play is no fun because you [and I] have to grind way too much from those tees.
In a general, global sense you're correct.
I think the recent trend has been to lengthen courses beyond the point upon which amateur golfers can enjoy themselves.
[/color]
Again, you are falling into the trap of rating golf courses only from the back tees, although you're doing it precisely the opposite way that Shivas does: he can't like them unless he DOES have to grind from the back tees. To wit, Shoreacres v Medinah [see case file].
No, I'm not falling into that trap. Earlier, I stated, that on this thread, for simplification purposes, that we should just include courses from the back tees, that I/we would deal with the middle and forward tees in another thread/exercise.
I felt that including the other sets of tees would complicate the exercise and discussion, hence I limited the discussion to the back tees.[/color]
This is one of the burdens we face on every course we design ... whether or not to put in back tees for that 0.5% of long hitters. If we don't, then the golf course had better have a lot of oceanfront to make up for it. If we do put in those tees, though, I'm convinced there are a lot more golfers who resent it than who enjoy it. The irony is that if we build the back tees those players resent, they won't go and play from the tees where they were more comfortable ... the ones they would have been happy with, if they were just the back tees!
As a designer I think you do have a dilema because your task is to both appeal to and challenge every level of golfer.
You cite, in another post, the desire for a golf course to host a US Amateur. Now you know, that the moment that becomes a consideration that the golf course almost has to play in excess of 7,000 yards at par 72 or lower. Hence, you're obligated to provide that excessively long golf course.
Shortly after the US Open I played Bethpage Black from the tips. I played very well. I had fun. But, if I had to play it every day from the tips, in all kinds of conditions, it would wear me out and I wouldn't enjoy the unrelenting challenge.
As a lark it was great, as a steady diet, I wouldn't have the same fun I have at NGLA, GCGC, Hidden Creek, Pine Tree (7,200), Boca Rio (7,200) and others.
I used to love Shinnecock from the back tees, but with the additional yardage they added and the wind, as a steady diet I can't see it being much fun from the back tees.
In general, Bandon Dunes seemed to have fairly generous
fairways, so perhaps that golf course can be fun from the back tees, if the wind is just right.
The thought behind this thread is that golf is moving in the wrong direction, the direction of more length.
And, that I rarely see the fun, or strategy in playing a 470-500 yard par 4, or a 250 yard par 3. I still like a 600+ yard
par 5, but when they hit 700, I can't see the fun in playing them.
Again, I used the back tees to qualify the golf courses in the discussion and to simplify the exercise.
Golf needs to be more fun, with more variety then just hitting it as far as you can, and then hitting it again as far as you can. [/color]
-
Great post, Shivas! Sums things up pretty well for me as well, though I was never close to the player you once were (-4 on Medinah....I've never been -4 anywhere at any time, probably not even a putt putt course!)
Good point about some courses being fun from even the chick tees, it just depends on the course. Some could be fun for the big hitter from any tees -- sometimes those same courses could be fun for a short hitting woman or senior from the tips, so long as they played the par 4s as 5s, etc. Its a rare course (and architect) where everything works so that any player of any length or ability could play from any tees, but there are some examples out there.
As far as Tom Doak's comments about players experiences from the tips that they shouldn't be playing making them negative about a course....that's something I'd never considered before, but now that he points it out, it makes perfect sense. I don't see a good way around that dilemma. If you provide the tees to allow the good player to play with his full set of clubs, you risk alienating the shorter hitters who think they have to play the tips and have a miserable experience hitting too many fairway woods into greens designed to receive a middle iron.
-
Shivas & TH -
You nailed it with "The One Shining Moment" portion of your threads. The day the dreams die, the soul passes on as well.
TD -
I would love to see a 6,000 yard/Par 2 course.
"I have yet to meet the client who will let me build a par-69 or a course less than 6000 yards. We'll probably have to buy land ourselves for that one ... which will be fine 'cause that's all the land we will be able to afford.
[If we build in California it will be the first-ever par-2.] "
We can probably get an old abandoned Air Force base runway at distressed prices!!! Think about the possibilities...
1). The routing is an easy blueprint with the trees already cleared from the centerline.
2). Always firm and fast conditions with virtually no maintainance. What fun watching the ball bounce and roll! Great shots would be rewarded with extra distance. Bad shots would eventually find the small grade and roll off of the runway to find the native grass rough that hasn't been cut in years.
3). Minimal construction costs. The grading's done. Irrigation for only the four tee boxes and the green. Walking would be encouraged, but the cart path is already right there!!!
4). More design time and energy can be devoted to creating the ideal green complex. An you only have to do just one!
5). Club selection could call for any club in the bag, and the course would be equally fun from any tee.
6). Major tournament-ready with access roads and plenty of on-site parking, Corporate Tent Village Space, and TV compound areas. We could use the Air traffic Control Tower for the 18th Announce booth.
7). The developer/owner gets a lot of starting times to sell.
I know I would have a lot of fun on "Runway Bomber"!
Let's contact the GAO and see if they have a surplus sale going on!!!
For those who don't know me, I'm Kidding!!!
;>D
JWK
p.s. Adam, once a year in April, I play my home course from the forward tees. It does add a different perspective for me. I go through this exercise on the 4's and 5's to get extra work on placing my irons.
-
Why not rate the courses from:
7,100 yards and up
6,750 to 7,099
6,400 to 6,749
6,399 and under
FWIW, my course, built in 1916 for the equipment of its time, would be a great challenge for the LPGA or even a Women's Open from the current white/members tees at 6,400.
JWK
-
One shining moment. James, that's exactly it. That's why we play. At least, that's why I play.
Me too. Only it doesn't have to begin at the tips, not for me.
And I'd absolutely dig the course shivas just described. I just don't believe HE would. ;)
-
Much better description - allows for lots of drivers.
So yes, I believe you would dig that, blast-boy. ;D
-
Shivas,
As your real estate agent, I suggest you look at land in Painswick, England. One could certainly think of some "better" holes on a dream 18, but it's probably the closest I've seen to your description of being able to shoot ANY number.
Just ask Rich!
-
Shivas,
Have you considered "driving ranges" as the venue for your "one shining moments" ? ;D
Golf isn't a sprint or a single event/shot, it's a collection of them over 18 holes, and therein lies the beauty and challenge of the game, and the very need for variety in architecture.
James W Keever,
In an earlier thread I asked if course ratings should be from standard yardages in order to equalize the process, but the concept wasn't well received.
This thread is about the FUN one encounters when challenging the golf course from the back tees of a particular golf course, and, the diminishing number of golf courses that can present that FUN-CHALLENGE to a good number of the golfing population, because the game has become misdirected.
-
Pat -
I am not trying to hijack your thread, I am merely trying to refocus some attention to it:
From "Rating Courses, A different way:
My point in starting this thread was to help see Mr. Mucci's point of view. In the endless comparisions/rankings/ratings culture that we live in (Instant Polling anyone?), I was trying to lob some credence towards his theory that fun and sporty should count in rating courses along with length/hazards, etc.
When comparing SHGC and NGLA, invariably someone will chime in that "The Men enjoy National, and the Women prefer Shinnecock." Even at 185.9 YPS from the tips, NGLA's Alps, Redan, #13, Cape and other holes do involve a measure of forced carry. SHGC from the forwards have less of these obstacles. SHGC's fescue is probably visited less often by the straighter hitting women.
Go ahead board. Is NGLA a Top 3 Course from 6,500 yards with CPC and Merion East?
Have some fun...
In regards to your post above to Shivas (And I am buttinskiing here because "The One Shining Moment" line was mine,
Driving Ranges can be fun if you're playing "Home Run Derby". Riviera's 10th, TPC River Highlands #15 are fun because the actually have a cup cut into a real green.
We may not make many perfect swings, but we usually have a heroic hole or shot that keeps us coming back. Those moments are enough to sustain us through the rest of the round that reminds us why we aren't playing ANGC on the first weekend in April...
With best regards/intentions...
Jim
-
Dave, there remains one big problem with your logic, as it pertains to the vast majority of golfers: these successes you reference are just so bloody-less likely to happen, one has to be very skilled, with a long history of success, for these to be the only shots that make him smile on the golf course.
I think you have Mucci there, btw. From all I hear he is very-skilled and does have a long history of success. But I do eagerly await his reply....
You just don't make a valid point to the rest of us, who aren't as skilled and don't have the history. We want a realistic chance at success, and it's just not gonna happen often enough from the back tees. Then on top of that, the game is hard enough as is, so we don't require the maximum challenge.
So again, I don't doubt that this is a fine and sincere way for YOU and those like you to approach the game.
Just don't expect yourself to be in anything other than a tiny minority. I'd bet you understand and accept that - just want to make sure.
TH
-
Shivas -
I have a shrine to Seve.
If you look VERY carefully in the video footage from the 1979 Open Championship, there is an 18 year old kid in the car park adjacent to the 15th hole at Lytham eyeing Seve doing what he does best. Followed him 36 that weekend, and he won the Open hitting something like 4 fairways.
Fairways are highly over-rated for me. In a similar vein as your post about 4 Woods to 10 feet, it is so much more fun to hoist a hooked 7 iron 190 yards with a 60 yard left turn over some 40 foot tall trees when your opponent has cashed your $ already!
JWK
-
Shivas:
If you read carefully, you'll notice that I say several times that I understand that the approach you suggest is right FOR YOU. It's just not right for very many other people, and that's what I want you to confirm that you understand.
I don't hit the ball 280 hards unless I get help with downhill or wind or very firm conditions.
So I don't belong at the back tees. And my current index is 3.9.
Case closed?
TH
-
No kidding. It's also rare. Which makes it fun. I don't want to Seve it around. I often just have no choice. And when I see a Seve shot, I'm fricking taking it. None of this punch out sideways nonsense for me, unless it's the ONLY shot. I'll take my triple like a man and go to the next -- because total medal score doesn't matter. I want the great shot. That's why I play. What's so hard for people to understand about that?
Again, I absolutely understand why you play and what motivates you - it is really not that difficult to comprehend -and I think it is a very cool and very fun attitude. You just can't possibly think that your way is the only way, do you?
TH
-
Dave, I think you're really missing something here. I'm gonna type this really slowly, because I've now said it at least ten times:
N O
O N E
S A I D
A N Y
P A R T
O F
T H I S
W A S
W R O N G
F O R
Y O U.
Will it sink in this time?
I really don't think anyone - even Patrick - said you should do anything but play the tips.
I also never said medal score was any determinant of what tees one should play.
It's strange to me you are missing so much of this, and putting words where they don't exist. That ain't usually your style. But that's ok, we all have bad days.
;D
So here's one more try:
It's ok that you want to play the tips, Dave. You hit the ball a ton and it's silly for you not to. But not all of us hit the ball a ton, not all of us have your history, and some of us want a little better chance at success. Neither way is right nor wrong nor the only way to approach the great game.
Hey, you set the threshold at 280 yards. I can honestly say I have never hit a golf ball that far without some sort of help. So again, I don't belong at the back tees, unless I'm there for masochism - which I actually like some times, but not often.
Can we close this NOW?
TH
-
This reminds me of one of the old SNL skits ... "Jane you ignorant slut ..."[/i]
-
Based on my reading and discussions with several architects, in the past, most courses were designed from the back tees. The variance in distance between the expert golfer and the average player has widened so much in the past few years that we are now playing two vastly different games. So, some architects like Nicklaus are now saying that they're building courses more from the users' standpoint, then adding as an afterthought the Tiger tees for the small minority that should be playing them.
Courses like Kiawah-Ocean and many on the RTJ Trail are hardly playable from the far back tees. In my opinion, these courses are better rated from a shorter set of tees, but not on all holes.
Due to differences in topography, climate, altitude, and other conditions, it is not useful to have distance parameters for rankings. For example, Olympic-Lake at 6,800 yards +/- plays much longer than Paa-ko Ridge at over 7,500.
I like to play the back tees for many of the reasons shivas states. There are but a few holes that I can't reach in "regulation" under normal conditions if I hit the ball well. Moving up one set of tees often changes the character of the hole completely (like hitting wedge, SW at Pebble Beach on holes 9 and 10, respectively, from the tees set for play on that day).
Just as important for me, I like to know the state of my game over my playing life. If I moved up a set of tees, I could probably save a few strokes, but lowering the standard would not give me a greater sense of satisfaction. Shooting a 75 from the whites is just not any more rewarding than 80 from the blacks. Perhaps my attitude about this would be different if I had played the shorter tees most of my life.
When I reach the age that I can no longer reach most of the holes in regulation, I'll move up. What a pity to play a classic golf course just once from the up tees. Certainly, MacKenzie did not want me to hit par 5s with a driver and mid-iron, or the tough par 4s with a driver-wedge.
And when I can no longer walk much of the time, I'll start rereading all my golf books for the upteenth time and just piddle around the practice area. That day may not be far in the future.
-
I have read through all this, and one thing is abundantly clear...Shivas should be playing from the up tees ;)
-
Mike and Andy, you guys are evil. Damn funny, but still evil.
;D ;D ;D
And Lou, you make very perfect sense. Of course you also realize that this is not the ONLY approach to the game, right? And some of us don't hit the ball that far, so don't have issues of reaching par fives with irons or having too many wedges into par fours, right?
I guess my bottom line is I tend to play the tees that promote the most fun. You guys do to. The fact that we define that differently should be no surprise.
TH
-
Andy -
Reading this entire thread is playing from GCA.com's back tees...
;D
-
You all do know the funniest part of this, right? If and when Dave and I do play together again - and play again we will, I can't allow that NOT to happen - there is absolutely no doubt what tees we'll play. He'll want to go to the tippiest of tips, as well he should... and for all my blather my ego absolutely will not allow me to play up from him.
;D ;D ;D
-
Can I come along with the armband and the walking cane seat to officiate???
-
James, you are welcome. Just remember also that Dave and I are successful former partners at GCA-related events and golf wise his long-hitting ying melds quite will with my short and straigh-hitting yang. The adversarial nature of this thread is most definitely NOT our usual thing - outside of his fixation on calling a long-ago Northwestern football victory over Notre Dame an "upset", which is so obviously untrue when the clearly better team just did what they should have done that fateful day.
I have a feeling I am gonna love Dave's response to all this.
;D ;D
-
TomH,
As a libertarian, I absolutely have no problem with you or anyone else doing your thing. We play golf for a variety of reasons and I am uncomfortable saying that mine as opposed to yours are the right ones.
BTW, this ego thing should be laid by the wayside. In the big money games at my home club (to which I don't get within shouting distance from), I've seen gamblers in the same fivesome play from three different sets of tees. I guess that when it comes to $$$$, one's wallet is more important than his manhood.
BTW2, you are longer than most, so moving up a set of tees is not a necessity. However, I suspect that with your game, you gain a much larger advantage from playing a shorter course than shivas would (e.g. O-Lake from the second set of tees vs. the backs). Maybe for you shooting 75 at 6,300 yards is more fun than 80 at 6800. Different strokes for different folks.
But when you rate the course, which set of tees do you think reveals the "true" sense of the course? A number of difficult courses are kittens in comparison from the next set up. Resistance to scoring has to matter a little in the rating. Don't you think? How highly would Spyglass be rated from 6,500 yards?
-
Lou:
Great stuff. Great points. Great questions. Let me address a few things:
1. When money's involved, hell yes egos get put by the wayside. I also just don't play for money all that often (another huge difference between me and my former partner, btw).
2. I am longer than most golfers, true. But I am absolutely shorter than most 3-4 handicappers. But you're right - the shorter the course is, the better off I am, as it means I get to hit some wedges or shorter irons - which he does anyway regardless of the tees at a lot of courses. But as for how I feel about stroke-play success, well... it depends on the course, and remember that's not what drives me that much in general. Using that measure though, I am ecstatic with anything under 80 at Pasa, which is about 6400 from the tips. Same would go for Cypress Point. But the same also goes for Spyglass, which is 500+ yards longer. But just like my friend Dave, stroke play doesn't drive me all that much... I am much like him in that single shots tend to make my day much more than 18-hole scores. At this point in my life, having played so much golf in so many forms, it takes something extreme in an 18-hole score to get me to care much either way. That is, absurdly good or absurdly bad. Anything in between doesn't matter that much.
3. I rate a course about one time for every 50 rounds I play, so that's not very relevant. But when that occurs, what I do - since a required criterion is resistance to scoring - is play the longest set of tees that seem reasonable, that is, that anyone ever really plays. That might be the tips, but might be one set up, at courses that have "ceremonial" monster back tees. Then resistance to scoring is determined based on that. For all the rest, it doesn't matter much what tees I play, as it's not that tough to extrapolate and use one's imagination, as well as observational skills.
But good lord, how did this turn into another ratings discussion?
TH
-
I do agree with Dave S. and Matt W. to an extent ... that every course ought to have a couple of holes which are really long two-shotters, to offer the potential thrill they seek.
But, Dave, I think there should only be a couple of those holes, so to get your thrill there is some pressure on you not to drive it into the trees THAT time. I can be really cruel that way.
I was convinced of this line of thinking by working for Pete Dye, who twenty years ago, was building all his long par-4's at 470 yards and thinking about 485. He kept talking about how Ben Hogan had to hit a 1-iron into the 18th at Merion, and Tour pros never hit a 1-iron into a green anymore.
Then, Pete would complain when people played his golf courses from too far back. He said somebody like me should be on the white tees, where all the par-4's were 400, and they played for me like they played for Greg Norman from the back. So I asked him why he wanted that ... if he wanted Greg to hit a 1-iron into a green but couldn't make it happen, why should he deprive me from the chance to hit a 1-iron into a green?
So, Shivas, I do understand your reasoning. I just don't want 18 holes of it.
-
Tom, you'll get a chance to watch some NUfootball tonight on ESPN against TCU. If you can't stomach watching Andrea Mitchell's [insert adjective here] countenance anymore, I suggest you tune in.
And I suggest you tune in to what I'm saying. Play the up tees. Be my guest. And Pat's the one who challenged my "6700 vs. 7700 makes no difference" comment (which, BTW, included only a smallish amount of hyperbole).
Pat's the one who said that I consider length the sole determinant of difficulty. He even suckered Doak into agreeing.
What I'm hearing here is that most people would have more fun if they just moved up a set. I just don't buy that. I think people are smart enough to be playing where they want to as it is. It's not as if these damn newfangled regular tees are a new phenomenon or anything. They've been there forever. And over time, some golfers have decided that they prefer the tips. The system has already worked itself out. whoever wants up plays up and whoever wants back plays back. What I don't like is us sitting here pretending like we know better than people where they should be playing from.
David:
I was going to remind you of tonight's TV viewing. Hell yes I shall be tuning in. Go purple.
As for the rest, fair enough, your arguments continue to be with Patrick, not with me.
Of course I never suggested anywhere that anyone but the golfer himself knows what tees are the most fun for him. To me that's basic logic, eminently acceptable. I just did read into this you telling ME (several times, I might add) how I should be playing the tips, whereas I have said time and time again that's great for you, but not for me... So who's telling who what's best for whom?
But perhaps I read this wrong.
And perhaps I should stay the hell out of arguments between you and Patrick. ;D
But the bottom line is also that variety does remain the spice of life, and golf. I think by our choice of tees we are each seeking this. I'm trying to avoid too many shots that I find too long, you're trying to avoid too many shots that you find to short, but both of us don't want all 18 holes one way or the other, like Tom D. just said.
Fair enough?
TH
-
TH/DS -
Everytime N.D. loses, somebody's upset!
A few more posts here, and we will be at International (Mass.) or The Monster at Kiamesha Lake back tees of posts.
A little incendiary bomb lobbed in to fan the flames...
If we are rating courses (Highly subjective), and a component of that rating is Resistance to Scoring vs. Par (4's used to be anything between 251 and 470 yards), and Par is judged to be the score that is "The number of shots taken by an expert/scratch player plus two putts on any hole," WHY WOULDN'T we rate the dang thang from way back thar?
Course Rating is (Mostly) a factor of distance, while Slope takes the bogeyy golfer into account. If we were to grade in the "Fun Factor", (And Why Not) we could use smiley faces or stars or whatever as the third element in the scorecard mix (Idea: Let's lightheartly call them "Mucci's")
e.g. NGLA -
For the 0-6 Handicapper from the Tips, 4 Mucci's
7-24 Handicapper from the Whites, 5 Mucci's
25+ Handicapper, 0 Mucci's (Come back and see us when you can appreciate the shot values)
A final thought: WHY NOT PUT SUGGESTED TEES FOR HANDICAP RATINGS ON THE SCORECARD? (Not shouting, just want everyone to see my answer to the "Why won't golfers play the tees that were meant for them) During my only trip to Scotland, most of the clubs that I played at requested to see my handicap card/letter of introduction from my club before they would let me play the S.S.S. tees.
Got to go get ready for my Club Championship...
JWK
-
James:
Whew. That's a lot packed into one post. Just taking these systematically....
1. At least the way the magazine for whom I do rating it, Resistance to Scoring does not mention par as part of the equation. Subtle distinction? Maybe yes, maybe no. The deal is how difficult is the course for the scratch player from the back tees. So hell yes one should rate playing the back tees. I just tend to disdain ceremonial tees that are never used.
2. PLEASE don't mix the highly objective course rating/slope process (which I also do) with the incredibly subjective "course rating/ranking" attempts. The purity of the former will be forever tainted by the mix. That being said, I do like the "Mucci" system.
3. Why not put suggested tees on signs or on the scorecard? Because I swear to god, that will encourage more people to play farther back than they should, just out of ego. What long-hitting golfer is gonna let a scorecard or sign tell him where to play, no matter what his index is? Not to cast aspersions on my buddy Dave S., but as you can tell from all this, he's gonna play the tips no matter what, as he should. But if he decides to get back into the handicap game... well it wouldn't take much for his index to get above 6... and then are you telling me if some course says tips only for 0-5, that's gonna stop him? If anything it just steels his resolve! And remember, blather here notwithstanding, truth be known Dave is a very upstanding guy who does indeed do what's best for the game. So if even he acts this way... good lord, what are all the ego-driven dorks who CAN'T handle it gonna do?
So I say leave these off - few follow them anyway, and for too many it's just a temptation they need not face.
Scotland's treatment of visitors is very sane, btw. As per usual, they do everything right when it comes to golf. But of course, at these places, you are the visitor and thus you do what they let you do. That's not really what we're talking about here... We're talking about what members do at private clubs, or anyone does at a public.
Good luck in the club championship! Such can be quite a thrill, I hear.
;)
-
Tom -
Liked a lot about your response.
FYI - Our Club Champ this weekend is Match Play from the Tips. ;>
We have also added the Handicap Club Champ. to the mix this weekend as a separate Match Play event from the MGA White Plates.
Obviously the only drawback is that I can't play in both. One year I gave 26 shots and won by virtue of an eagle and 2 birdies in the last 4 holes. I was five down at the turn.
Never won the big kahuna though. I guess there is a first time for everything ;D
JWK
How did it feel on 35?
-
JWK:
Small world. Our club champ. was match play from the tips. Loved it. But competition and regular golf remain two different things, as the great Bobby Jones was among the first to note. ;) But yep, we also do flights played at handicap differences, from the whites. You're darn right though - winning both would be the maximum in golf cool.
And yes there is a first time for anything, as some idiot recently proved. And it was quite a thrill - just note it occurred on 17, not 35. Oh I wish they'd let us do a 36-hole final... but 18 be all we get.
TH
-
This reminds me of one of the old SNL skits ... "Jane you ignorant slut ..."[/i]
One more question to ask, who is, TH or Shivas, Jane[/i] ?
-
Pat, I've seen your wedge game in action and it's awesome. But how much pleasure do you get from yet another 80 yard sand wedge nustled up to within 4 feet on a 350 yard par 4?
When I was playing well it depended on how I evaluated, planned and executed the shot. If I hit a low screamer with 6,000 rpm's and it took it's intended two hops and came to a dead stop, that was fun.
From the time I was 50, right up until last year I was fairly long off the tee, but length only mattered if I could put the ball where it needed to be positioned. A long drive, deep in the woods, gave me no satisfaction.
I don't tend to look at golf shots in isolation, I usually view them in a context of continuum, meaning that it took a 270 yard drive to position me so that I had that 80 yard wedge in your above example.[/color]
Now how much pleasure do you get from striping a 4 wood to 10 feet into a 500 yard par 5?
I get great satisfaction from planning and executing that shot. The satisfaction associated with the successful execution of a shot increases as the challenge of the shot increases.
That 80 yard wedge, over a deep bunker, with trouble on all sides, down wind, isn't the piece of cake everyone thinks.
It requires a special set of skills, mental and physical, and the evaluation, planning and successful execution of that shot is highly rewarding.
As is a 300 yard drive with perfect flight and trajectory.
The beauty of golf is the diversity of shots that the architecture and your mind will blend to create.
I'm not saying you view the game in one dimension, but it seems that all of your emphasis is on the long drive.
Not necessarily a perfectly shaped drive, not necessarily a perfectly flighted drive, but a long drive. So, perhaps the diversity, created by the architecture and my mind, makes an inordinate variety of shots more appealing to me.[/color]
Here's another one I want you to answer: which puts a bigger smile on your face: making a 4 footer or snaking in a 30 footer for birdie?
Wednesday I made an 84 foot birdie putt.
Initially, after I had hit a 3-wood into the green, I wanted to get down in two. As I was standing over the putt, I said to myself, "you know, you used to make some of these in the good old days" I made perfect contact, and right off the blade announced that this might be a great putt. Sure enough, it went in, and, I was in a tight match with competitors of 40 years. So the satisfaction was much greater then making a 4 footer. But, the reason it's more satisfying is, that it's more challenging than a 4 footer, but, it's not an impossible shot. In addition, there's less pressure on the expectations of making that putt, and far more pressure should you miss the 4 footer.[/color]
No BS, please. This isn't a political convention.
What happens when you stiff a wedge? Ho hum. Right? Make a 4 footer for birdie. That's what you're SUPPOSED to do. You probably don't even crack a smile anymore. Stiff a 4 wood. I'd bet even YOU smile over than one. Snake in a 30 footer? Same deal.
It's never ho-hum when I stiff a wedge, there's always great satisfaction, but, the more difficult the challenge, the greater the satisfaction with the successful planning and execution of the shot.
But, when the challenge of the shot becomes unreasonable, and unyielding, the game ceases to be fun, and inordinate distance is squeezing the fun out of the game.
Try playing the 2nd hole at the Medalist from the back tees into a good wind from the west, a not uncommon occurence.
Stay there all day, have a hot line to the pro shop, but you'll run out of balls before you run out of sunlight, and you'll still be trying to force those carries when you're enjoying that beautiful sunset[/color]
You gotta be out of your mind if you pick the former in either scenario. EVERYBODY picks the latter. Why? Because distance matters.
Face it -- both chicks and dudes dig the long ball. It's been that way since time immemorial. The longer the shot, the tougher it is, all things being equal. Why the hell do you think the sheperds invented 400 and 500 yard holes in the first place? Because 100, 200 and sooner or later 300 were too easy and no fun, that's why!!
Look at what powerball did to men's tennis.
Golf is heading in the same direction.
P.S. Chicks dig winners[/color]