[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

FYI, this operator is considering building or adding another course to his inventory.  He clearly thinks about public golf, not private golfers, who may be better, I don't know.

In any case, he had one strong and simple view about design.  He said, "don't put any trouble on the right side 160 yards from the men's tee".

That is where most people hit tee shots......hazards in that location spell disaster in terms of pace of play, he insisted.

Sure, for plenty of my adult golfing life I would typically hit 250-275 yard drives.  Hell, when I really played, belting out a 300 yard drives with my old Powerbuilt persimmon wasn't that unusual.

But that hardly contradicts what this Florida operator found.  The game is damn hard.  200 yards is beyond the ability of many people.

[redanman]

Tim and others

My point is

How useful is a sampling of all players from a single course only and only for a week and only in one part of the country and .....

Also

Do we want a sample of golfers who acually play golf or people who go onto a golf course?

How much of golf course design should accommodate everyone who wants to go out on a golf course?

A question for Jeff and other architects:

How often do you get asked to specifically accommodate everyone?

Shouldn't we see more mom and pop operations with slopes of about 90?  Places where anyone who wants to hit a ball towards a hole has something to play on?  Should every course accommodate all these players?  50%? 10% 1%, less?

I know of only one place like that within 30 minutes from my house.

What should be the cutoff for consideration in design of a golf course?  18 hcp, 30hcp, 50 hcp, 200, yes 200 hcp?  Once a year corporate player?  10/year player?  30/year player?  If you really need to accommodate these players, do you need a golf course?  Call me elitist, but let's draw a line somewhere.  Maybe what we do is throw out the bottom half of any sample.  Maybe that's what a study such as the one that spawned this thread is telling us.

This site so committed to identifing, honoring and ripping apart the top 500 courses in the world and their merits now defends the 75 yard driver of the ball?  I really don't know.  I am honestly tryng to stimulate debate here.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

As someone who hits the ball a decent ways off the tee you must always remember that "carrying" the ball in the air is really the best way to analyze distance. I do agree with you that few "average" players really hit the ball any appreciable distance. So -- how is that any news! I believe Alice Dye was one of the leading voices regarding how far most women can really hit the tee shot. No doubt if you go to any driving range and watch most players a number of the are lucky they don't nail the person in the stall adjacent to them.

Distance is also related to where you live -- and I'm not just referring to higher altitude locations. When you see someone hitting tee shots in heavy mositure filled air (i.e. the Bay Area is one good example) you know you're talking about someone who can really motor it.

I strongly concur w Redanman that most of these players should always opt for the forward tee placement -- unfortunately, too often you get the macho type guys who have to have a "crack" at the big boy tees and simply become frustrated (not counting those playing behind them  ) as they must deal with their pop gun tee game.

When people say a person can nail it 280 plus yards -- I say that might be true with baked out fairways, downwind or from an elevated tee. But do so consistently or anywhere near it --only the smallest percentage of those who play can hope to make such a claim.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Redanman,

I usually figure on accomodating everyone all the time! Especially on public courses, where by definition, anyone can play, if they can afford the stipulated green fee. .....In purely philospohical terms, would you design a course for someone who would never show up to play (Tiger) or the potential customer who shows up to play every day?   Golf courses are a business, and speed of play and customer happiness index must be considered

At a corporate outing course, like Cowboys, it gets tricky.  Not only do you have a wide variety of players from scratch to plays once a year, and today's the day on the course at the same time, but they may be playing the course from the same (usually white) tees in a scramble!

It is this type of consideration that minimizes cross hazards to the degree they have been minimized in recent years!  Basically, if we could do it, most architects would design a course you could play with a putter, (ie, avoid all cross hazards) and you would pretty well accommodate all levels of play, while sacrificing certain challenges for the best players.

Of course, this is rarely practical, and even occaisional players like a carry hazard, if not overdone.  On the other hand, I doubt the cross hazards would really stop Tour Pros, except in front of greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

On a related topic, I love to play my own courses, where I often know within a few yards how far a bunker or other landmark is from the tee.  It is always a constant source of amusement how golfers can fool themselves into thinking they hit father than they do!  Most think they hit it 250, when in reality, they hit it 215 or so.....

I had one friend who came up short for all the years I played with him, saying "I didn't quite catch it" rather than admit he couldn't hit a nine iron 150 yards plus!

[Stan Dodd]

I am glad to see Jeff and others input on the architectural merits in this thread... some of this discussion sounds like locker room talk with guys talking about the size of their ...
I think we would be wise to adopt the UK tradition of no play off the back tees except for competitions.
It reminds me of my son working in a golf shop and the guys that would come in and tell him that they hit it 290 now ...does he have a club that can get them over 300. His usual answer was if you can already hit it 290  you might need a new putter.

[Tim_Weiman]

Redanman:

I don't mean to be hypocritical.  Due to time and financial constraints I only travel to see the best of what golf architecture has to offer: the best existing courses and the  best new projects.

But, I thought GCA existed to discuss golf architecture matters not just the elite courses.

Anyway, do you really think we should forget about the bottom fifty percent of the golfing public?  Wouldn't it make more sense to forget about the top five percent?

Also, you question whether we should focus on "people who actually play golf" vs "people who go onto a golf course".  Isn't the latter group more important?  Don't most industries try to figure out how to attract new customers?

I still haven't heard you suggest what would be a representative sample.  If 800 is too small, how big a sample do you think is required?  If one course is not enough, what is enough?  More than three?

Can you explain why organizations like Gallup routinely poll 1500 people nationally and are convinced the margin of error is in the low single digits?

Finally, regarding your suggestion that we forget about the bottom fifty percent, does that mean you believe hitting 200 yard tee shots IS beyond the skill level of many people who walk on to a golf course?

[Richard_Goodale]

Tim

Gallup and other pollsters use scientifically selected samples which mimic whatever population they are surveying. This allows them to be confident of the +/- 3% error rates you hear of.  I doubt your operator friend has done the same.

That being said, I think that his data are indicative of the fact that the average golfer does not hit hte ball very far.  I'd be surprised if anywhere near 1/2 of healthy male golfers can consistently carry the ball as much as 200 yards off the tee.

This all gets to, and is getting to, a very important point, that we touch on from time to time on this forum, i.e. for whom should a golf course be designed?  The "average" golfer?  The "good" golfer?  The pros?  All of the above plus the true hackers?  It's nice to be purist and say that the "tests of golf" like Pine Valley or Muirfield are the paradigm, but how many golfers can really enjoy playing these sorts of courses when set up for top flight competition?  All of us can, of course, because we are masochists.  But, how about the rest of the world.........?

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I think we are in agreement.  This study was never intended to be scientific, but it was a fairly large sample, large enough  to strongly suggest exactly what you said:

200 yard tee shots are very long for a large part of the golfing public.

[Mike O'Neill]

Like I said, multiple tees.

[Stan Dodd]

Almost every course I have ever played has multiple tees.  the problem is getting people to play the correct tees. The American attitude (arrogance) of I paid my money I'll play from what ever tee I want, takes precedence over everyone who is playing that day enjoying the day.  I would support course checking handicap certificates and only single digit players on the back tees.

[redanman]

Accommodating the bottom 50% can be as simple as elimiminating the forced carry from the majority of courses and those players playing the correct set of tees, even if those are the "Women's" tees........But do we need to see the majority of historically interesting courses become unchallenging for the masses?

One thing no one has addressed is that the skulled shot goes the same distance not respective of the ball and club design.  You can still hit a durable 2-piece reduced initial velocity ball (e.g. a proposed competition ball) as far as one that's not because you never use the aerodynamics and   strengths of the ball if it is not compressed.  So the merry golfer who hits it 170 and never uses the ball or clubs as intended will not see a decrease in distance anywhere near what the elite player will.  Taking 10% off the ball and "saving old classic courses" won't affect the duffer's game  (The 50%) AT ALL.

Tim you answered your own question "Poll 1500 people NATIONALLY" and are convinced that the margin of error.....D-Oh.

[Tim_Weiman]

Redanman:

I'm not an expert in statistics, but relatively speaking, 800 golfers is a much bigger sample size than 1500 people for national political polls.  Also, i'm not sure what a "national" polling effort would look like when it comes to tee shot length.  My guess is that if you selected no more than three sites your margin of error would become pretty small.

Anyway, what is the implication of all this?

The evidence is anecdotal but it does point to a couple things:

a) the logic of a competition ball
b) the rationale for building more 6500 yard courses on small sites

I don't hink it suggests doing anything to "historically interesting" courses.  Just keep the pros off them and things will be fine.

[redanman]

The evidence is anecdotal but it does point to a couple things:

a) the logic of a competition ball
b) the rationale for building more 6500 yard courses on small sites

I don't think it suggests doing anything to "historically interesting" courses.  Just keep the pros off them and things will be fine.

Agreed
Agreed

I think that it is a good idea to once and for all stop the never-ending expansion of golf courses.  Independent of any advances made for younger, stronger, fitter, better-looking, righer, blonder players, today's driver/ball combination has made fundamental irrevocable change in the status of historically important courses.  We have to now keep the under 60 year old reasonably efficient player off some of these courses as well as the near-elite amateur player(scratch to 4), elite amateurs (Scratch and below) as well as the professional player.

Every one of us here knows  50-60 year old players who can hit the ball straighter and farther than when they were 20-30.  Technology has roared in the past few years, unless your head is in the sand or you walk around muttering to yourself  "No, it hasn't, no, it hasn't!"

I still contend that taking 10 even 20% off the ball will have no effect whatsoever on the lower 1/3 of players.  All the new developments have helped only the top 1/3 of golfers, disproportionately more the closer you get to the top.

[redanman]

Out of 800, only one player hit his tee shot more than 250 yards.

Also, I think this is the biggest clue that this sample is misguided.  I would expect this number to be about 8-10, 5 if you want to be very conservative,  if it were a statistically correct sample.

I believe that the USGA quoted that only 20% or so of golfers can break 100 by the rules of golf. If anyone knows the exact number, chime in.  30 hit it over 200.  How many are going to break 100 this way?  Statistics say 160.  Even if it is one third that it is still 54ish.

Maybe one of our course raters/slopers can chime in on statistics of the bogey vs scratch player as used in the formula.  My Bro',JohnV, I know knows;  Huckster, the newest of all, Dennis Harwood, etc.

BV

[THuckaby2]

BV - I don't know the stats, my impression is we're supposed to accept the USGA definitions of "scratch" and "bogey" players and not ask too many questions!  But I am a newbie at this.

Dennis Harwood gave the definitions and explained how ratings and slope are determined PERFECTLY in a thread down below asking for such.  Dennis, you could have taught the seminar I just went to!

But as for how many players meet each definition...well... that's very easy re scratch!  But re bogey, it seems to me to fall under don't ask don't tell....

TH

[Ed_Baker]

I'm not surprised by the "stats" on the 800.

I am a lifelong "bunter" with low clubhead speed. Technology hasn't done ca-ca for my tee shots other than the really bad mishits will go thirty yards farther than the same awful shot with persimmon. My "best" still only goes 225 and the last thirty is on the ground! My handicap index has been between 3.1 and 8.5 for thirty years, not lower than 4.9 in the last ten years though mostly due to becoming really obese as opposed to merely fat. My turn is now more of a controlled sway and impact is a desparate flick of the wrists more resembling slapping at a fly than driving a golf ball. My arms seem to get shorter every year and the toughest part of the round is getting my golf shoes tied.

That said, I still routinely compete well against players that hit the ball much farther than I do by course management,not attempting shots I can't hit and reasonably consistently good putting. The difference between 85 and 77 is simply the number of four to eight foot par putts I hole on a given round.

All of the above probably has the most influence on why I prefer "classic" courses without a bunch of forced carries.

My experience has been that most players over estimate how far they actually hit each club, especially the driver.

[THuckaby2]

You crack me up, Ed.  You and I are gonna have a great match if we play in May.  I see a lot of myself in what you're saying there...  

What strikes me in all this though is that if the average golfer overestimates how far he hits his drives (which he does), he REALLY overestimates how far he hits his irons.  I can't count the number of times my playing partners hit 9iron from 150 and sit there amazed that I have a 7 or 6.  Of course, little things like actual distance (depth of green), heavy air, wind, uphill, etc. just never factor into the equation for them... And even on a flat shot with nothing extraneous to add, it's funny how my 7iron gets hole high and they shake their heads when their 9 comes up 30 yards short.  Didn't catch it, they say.  Perhaps it's the fact they hit a 9-iron 150 yards ONCE in their lives, downwind, downhill and thus every time thereafter hit 9 from 150?  

I play for the less than perfect hit, and thus take more club than anyone I know, except for the good players.  Strangely, I tend to hit the same club as them for the most part... Lesson to be learned here?  

Elimination of ego = better scoring.  This is an equation I luckily learned long ago.

TH

[Coral_Ridge]

Remember a number of years ago, when they used computer models to show Joe Louis boxing Mohammed Ali.  Because these boxers were from different generations, they had to do it this way.  Tiger and Jack are from different generations too, but...  What if Tiger played a round of golf, or went to the practice tee, with golf equipment from the mid sixties?   It would interesting to see the statistics on this.

Of course, getting Tiger, Daly, or Duval to submit to a test like this is another story.  I have heard that the players on the Senior Tour are hitting it farther than when they played the PGA Tour.

[George Pazin]

Matt Cohn's statement that he has added 20 yards to his tee shots while the 18 handicapper has added none is the most telling statement on this thread & perfectly encapsulates the problems of technology. I know Rich likes to paint most of us as chicken littles running around crying "The sky is falling!" but the reality is that, even though distance related technology is primarily benefitting the big boys, every else is feeling the effects in the way of greater cost to the game & loss of venues to compare historical results.

As for me, my drives average 200 yards with an approximate error range of +/- 100 yards. Check that: error range of -180 yards to +80 yards. I dare anyone to hit a greater range of tee shots than me! The hell with back tees, I see more of the course from the whites than any low handicapper from the back.

[Richard_Goodale]

George

You are not chicken little, but you sound as if you would be one helluva scramble partner!

I can carry my drives 260 or so, but a lot of good that does me when I can't hit more than 1 in 3 GIR's these days with 9-irons!  If it weren't for the CLAW I'd be struggling to play off 12!

To me, more seriously, watching the big boys struggle with that 300 yard "par" 4--both Phil and Retief having to sink 10-footers for par--shows me that the fact that one (anyone) can bomb the driver, doesn't at all make the game irrelevant or uniteresting.  Very much the opposite, in fact.

Case in point, Augsta.

I'm looking forward to next week, even if I have to watch it on tape delay on the BBC with the smarmy tones of Peter Allis and Dougie Donnelly and Alex Hay in the background.....

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Dangerous question for a bunch of guys to be answering on the 'net' without much accountability.

My answer is in the form of a question.  when in the great Northwest hitting from damp and soft Poa fairways I am ecstatic to move it out between 225 and 250.  When in Florida playing on bermuda in the depths of summer I get longer.  And when playing a track seeded in bent and during a hot spell I get longer still.  

For those of us who consider ourselves amateur golfers of the weekend variety, does the architect or developer spend enough time setting the golf course up to take all of these factors into account?  Believe me when I say I would much rather play a 425 yard par 4 in the desert rather than a 390 yard par 4 in a damp cedar grove in the Pacific Northwest.    

How Long?  Where, When, What?

[Bill (Guest)]

Coral - you would be interested in a test I saw done  ..learning channel or something.  They tested distance and accuracy with old club / old ball / new club / new ball -- all of the permutations.  Old being persimmon, new being Big Bertha.  They used varying skilled golfers - hack, psuedo hack, bogey, liar and scratch.  Everyone hits 20 balls with each test (I think this was the number)

Results were that pure old and new had very close maximum distances, but new had a much better aggregate accuracy.  Any combo of new/old resulted in poor distance and accuracy.  Hmmm.....

As for my own driving distance, I learned to get my weight behind the ball... 300 easy.  A couple more burgers and I've got 325 licked.  My problem is I putt like I drive ...they just don't make many 300 yd greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()