[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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

[THuckaby2]

 

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.

 

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[THuckaby2]

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....

[George Pazin]

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.

[THuckaby2]

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

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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

[THuckaby2]

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

[Mike Benham]

Does #16 at Cypress have a set of tees where you don't have carry the Pacific Ocean?

[THuckaby2]

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.

 

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

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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!

[A_Clay_Man]

You tipsters are hilarius. When was the last time you played the forward tees?, Ever? So, how do you know it's less fun?

[Tom_Doak]

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.]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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]

[Doug Siebert]

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.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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

[THuckaby2]

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.  

[THuckaby2]

Much better description - allows for lots of drivers.

So yes, I believe you would dig that, blast-boy.  

[Tom_Doak]

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!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Have you considered "driving ranges" as the venue for your "one shining moments" ?  

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.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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

[THuckaby2]

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

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

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

[THuckaby2]

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()