News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Brock Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #150 on: September 19, 2018, 10:45:34 PM »

Brock,

How about one mowed tee for all levels of players?


Do you think that would work?


Obviously not. I'm Ok with it. But I think some will not be OK with it and will play somewhere else. As I said before, I would play Pine Valley at 7,500 for the experience and the chance to play a great golf course. Play it every day at that length? No. I'm going to look for a 6,500 option nearby. Also, someone posted a picture of a hole at Pine Valley and there were at least 5 tees on that hole. Why did they put so many tees in?


Cheers


Brock Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #151 on: September 19, 2018, 10:56:01 PM »
Brock,


In my opinion, you're approaching the idea of equality all wrong. The 45 yard shot you describe for your wife is never going to be the same as the 85 yard shot you hit exactly because you can hit it that far. She does not generate the club head speed to impart the spin necessary to control that shot as well as you can...her shot will be much more difficult.


That, to me, is the core of the primary debate here...should the golf course be the same for everybody?


I think once a reasonable short end is set you could go up from there pretty easily to get to a manageable long end. the tee boxes themselves can be 15 or 20 yards front to back to fill in a lot of the gaps but playing interesting holes from non-conventional yardages is a very useful exercise and should be promoted by the set up people at every course.




Seeing AG's post just in; I do think 5 tees is a significantly worse aesthetic outcome than 3. But I do not see this as a more options versus less options debate at all. At least I don't think it should be. It should be about how the game of golf should be played.


Back to the Ballyneal concept of infinite tees. People are inclined to go to "their" most comfortable/best spot. The game should present awkward challenges and ask you to so solve them. I think it's an architects responsibility to create those awkward situations and the more tees available, the less the architect has to do.


Jim:


Yes, that is still going to be a more difficult shot for her. There is no substitute for clubhead speed.


As to your point about starting at a reasonable short end, I agree 100%. Except that I know of no courses that start at the short end and work backwards to the long end. They all start from the max out length and reluctantly work forward. At least it seems that way. Even Tom's new course to be built at Sand Valley is being discussed from the point of view from its back tees.


Cheers

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #152 on: September 20, 2018, 10:49:20 AM »
AG,


I'm guessing if you teed off from the very back of every tee at Ballyneal you'd be pretty close to 6800.  There are some long par 4s out there.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #153 on: September 20, 2018, 12:21:37 PM »
Brock,


In my opinion, you're approaching the idea of equality all wrong. The 45 yard shot you describe for your wife is never going to be the same as the 85 yard shot you hit exactly because you can hit it that far. She does not generate the club head speed to impart the spin necessary to control that shot as well as you can...her shot will be much more difficult.


That, to me, is the core of the primary debate here...should the golf course be the same for everybody?

Back to the Ballyneal concept of infinite tees. People are inclined to go to "their" most comfortable/best spot. The game should present awkward challenges and ask you to so solve them. I think it's an architects responsibility to create those awkward situations and the more tees available, the less the architect has to do.


Jim:


Yes, that is still going to be a more difficult shot for her. There is no substitute for clubhead speed.


As to your point about starting at a reasonable short end, I agree 100%. Except that I know of no courses that start at the short end and work backwards to the long end. They all start from the max out length and reluctantly work forward. At least it seems that way. Even Tom's new course to be built at Sand Valley is being discussed from the point of view from its back tees.


Cheers



I never felt it was my job to create awkward situations.....


As to the second point, yeah, less spin for women and seniors.  But it would also seem you inadvertently create more classic strategy for them.  People talk about creating golden age type golf courses, and then someone does, and they complain about that? Touched on in another thread, but I have no desire, after a good tee shot to play 3 wood on my second, only to have a chip around the green for my third.  With proportional tees, good golfers who are shorter hitters get to play the game the way it was intended.  I see no harm in that!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #154 on: September 20, 2018, 12:29:31 PM »
Jeff, if itís not awkward, itís straight forward, no?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #155 on: September 20, 2018, 02:00:38 PM »

Jim,


I try to offer a choice on shots, but to be a choice, both have to be reasonably comfortable or there is no choice at all.  I understand the temptation of a wide LZ vs a narrow one, or open target vs. a protected one.  That is enough IMHO to lead to a touch of indecision, which is a goal, but never felt the golfer needed to feel awkward, just indecisive.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Multiple Tees on New Courses
« Reply #156 on: September 20, 2018, 02:37:23 PM »
Jeff - indecisive and a little uncomfortable is all I really meant by awkward.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back