A recent architecture article that I read is very though provoking and spot on. “Scoring Tees” page 16. http://digital.tudor-rose.co.uk/asgca/bydesign/2016/spring/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=EWGA%20HQ (page 16)
FOOD FOR THOUGHT> When I built my first course in 1969 we as new course developers and owners certainly listened to low handicappers and tried to squeeze the longest yardages possible on our routing. We started with a 6900 yd course and quickly realized that is not what most golfers wanted even then. We quickly built shorter tees and shorter tees and shorter tees. Wish it had been opposite because we might not have wasted our time on the longest tees. When I built our second 18; again the first question out of our golfer’s mouths was “how long is it”. Guess in late 90’s it was still a measure of how great a golf course is to some players. I resisted this time and always answered the question with” I don’t know”. I knew approximate yardages but I did not design for a yardage.
I had a close friend that was a distance disadvantaged golfer and he always was complaining about the length of golf courses. I watched him to almost a stalker level and found out the distance he hit every club. I located the forward tees to accommodate his ability and placed each longer tee at a position that made my preferred landing area for that lower handicap golfer just a little farther from the green and a little more difficult to hit. I just wish he had lived long enough to enjoy the course. My strategy was to design from the green out, looking at the shape, size and trouble surrounding the green dictating proper club selection. Then I tried to place each tee in a position so that every golfer would be hitting a similar club selection to reach the green. Par 5s were another challenge but fortunately with the existing landscape features it made par 5 holes work very similar, but as a 3 shot green.
The two courses complement each other very well and I am pleased with our results. It has been very humbling to receive some of the well thought complements I have received from players that have played many of the greats. What is interesting, the high handicap players playing the correct tees typically score one or two strokes better on the newer course while the low handicapper when playing correct tees usually shoots 1 or 2 strokes higher even though the overall length is shorter than the original course. Accuracy not strength!
Shot placement is the key to enjoyment of the new course, especially from the longer tees. I always encourage young golfers to pick a target and not a direction, after practice on the new shorter course they soon are playing much more consistent golf. I don’t believe that everyone should shoot par; golf is a game of skill. Not everyone deserves a trophy. Let’s keep the skill but build options for distance challenged golfers.
I have built the two courses side by side, they complement each other very well, the scorecard golfer likes the more traditional design (hit it and hope) while the person that enjoys a personal challenge of shot placement and not just strength is addicted to our new course. The new course has enlisted more passion than our more traditional course ever did, mostly good but some negative. I guess that is what an artist wants to do?