Course Setups Holding Back Women's Golf

[Stooch]

For the record, I have no issue if they wanna try this with say 5 courses a year.  The Green Bay event that is now cancelled, was great fun (a couple time a year) not sure it was short but it was really easy and the scores were crazy low, Sei Young set the scoring record there.  But from memory it was always right before the KPMG and thus usually had a weaker field, so maybe if you wanna play around do it the week before the Majors when field strength tends to drop.  Not sure an either/or type strategy is good out of the gate.

 

Having been able to watch Lee westwood quite a bit the last 2 weeks especially matched up with Bryson, Lee had plenty of 2nd shots in between 160-200 yrds and honestly I think this is comparable with 2nd shots most LPGA players face each week.  The 75th player in driving distance on the LPGA hits it 248 yrds and outside the the US Open and KPMG you should be left with a shot under 130-140 yrds on most par 4, I'm not sure that's really a big ask for the top 1% of female golfers on the planet.  I think Seamus alluded to it and I mention it the drive on thread, the difference between top and bottom on the PGA is night and day with the difference on the LPGA.  The difference between the top driving distance and 150th place on the PGA is 29 yrds (Bryson 320 and 150th spot 291) but the distance difference on the LPGA from top 280 Anne V. and 126th spot (total # available) is 50 yards (229yrds), you can drop Anne as she skews it cause she's 10 yrds longer than 2nd but then it's still 40 yrds.

 

I think there's a transition on the LPGA one which the PGA went through over a decade ago and that's a much more athletic golfer.  Even less than a decade ago the most players on the LPGA where rhythm and tempo players that prioritized this skill over say swing speed.  I think this is changing and changing more and more every year.  The players coming out of college to the LPGA are much better athletes and I only see this trend continuing.   I guess I see this as lowering the ceiling to make everyone fit in, rather than raise the floor and push your game forward.  

 

To me it's sorta like the WNBA, the amount of players who can dunk are probably direction proportional the amount of players on the LPGA who average 270 driving distance.  Sure you can make the WNBA as high flying and played above the rim like the NBA but all you gotta to do is drop the rim a foot or two and then are you really accomplishing what you want too?  Do we feel bad for the male player who has A+ skills throughout but is a short hitter who can't drive it more than 280 and thus will never get a sniff on the PGA.  No we say "Sorry Bro, get longer or continue hustling Investment Bankers on the weekend".  I think you should always strive to push your game forward and not revert to the mean to be more inclusive, but I guess the LPGA can also start handing out participation trophies each week for those who don't win or make the cut. 🙂

[Pepperturbo]

I've watched LPGA events, and played with a few LPGA, now retired, touring pro women that could smack the ball.  At my last two clubs we had a few scratch and some superb single digit women golfers.  I think it's great.  My wife plays to a 12/13 and her friend is an 11 and both have years of interclub match tournament experience.   At certain long courses, they don't like having to hit hybrids and woods into what they see are long Par 4 greens, but they do it without whining.  They know many courses just plugged in Red and White woman's' tees as after thoughts. 

 

With that said, it doesn't bother me a bit.  And it doesn't surprise me that pipsqueak Chamblee is up in arms, yet many LPGA women could probably out drive and play him; but that's another topic.   I am not more likely to watch the LPGA if they have players going low and or reaching Par5's in two.  I just don't see woman's golf reaching PGA Tour level of attraction, much less revenue generating; nor do I see their game as a measure of mine.

 

Sure, they could make courses shorter, so gals could score lower, but would they feel better?  I am not convinced of that.  As a 70yr old, I could play much shorter courses and score much lower - but don't.  Why, because longer tees are the true measuring stick of ability.  If that wasn't true, why then do so many hacks and ole guys walk to tees their game isn't suited for?   Probably has something to do with why Annika Sorenstam willingly played in PGA Tour events, and she's NOT one of the longer LPGA players, yet miss 59.

 

I've played both PGA and LPGA tracks before and after a televised event.  The LPGA does the same thing the PGA Tour does, makes certain measuring fairways extra fast, and greens fast too.   Why?  To support Tour advertising and sponsor wishes that tour players go low, and those conditions make it easier to do that. 

 

My last thought, society should not spend it's time trying to find every conceivable manner in which to make "REAL" women athletic accomplishments equal to those of men.  Wait, unless the greater goal is to make women and men into one.  Glad I won't be around for that....

Edited March 17, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[JBirdUt]

One of the points brought up in the article was if the women go low, then the course was too short and easy.

A few years ago, my daughter was playing a local junior tournament. They played these 15-18 year olds between 6200-6500 yards and scores were 75 up to triple digits. The rationale was “ it will prepare them for later”.  
One tournament the course was set up at 6000 yards, five ladies shot par or better. Instead of congratulating the girls for playing well, the organizers added 300 to 400 more yards the next two days, aaannddd scores went up. When I asked why add the extra yards I was told the girls scored too low. The same rationale was never applied to the boy’s side.

[tatertot]

Honest question for rec golfers ... are the "women's tees" the shortest tees at most courses? Can they move up a set if they're struggling to reach holes?

[mkuether]

45 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Honest question for rec golfers ... are the "women's tees" the shortest tees at most courses? Can they move up a set if they're struggling to reach holes?

@tatertot, I think there is exactly one course in my area where there is a set of tees forward (at 4000 yards) of the typical "Ladies" tees (which are about 4950 yards). That course is part a retirement community so it probably makes sense to them to give the senior ladies a place to hit from. Other than that, the shortest I generally see is about 4800 yards, with many between 5000-5200 yards or even longer. So the answer is generally no, recreational women golfers typically do not have the option to simply move up a tee in most cases. Those few hundred yards make a big difference for my wife and she is a seasoned golfer, for less experienced women golfers it's going to be an even bigger difference.

 

Matt

[Argonne69]

4 hours ago, tatertot said:

Honest question for rec golfers ... are the "women's tees" the shortest tees at most courses? Can they move up a set if they're struggling to reach holes?

 

It's a mixed bag. Many courses have "super" forward tees for the juniors.

 

One of the courses I play regularly has five sets of tees, each of which is rated for men and women. The majority of women appear to play the 2nd set (green), which plays at 4899 yds. The white forwardmost tees are 4668 yds. 

 

Another course has five sets of tees. The 2nd set (red) plays at 4927 yds, and the forward set (green) plays at 4525.

 

[Holy Moses]

Men’s game: make courses shorter because men are too long and courses are too short; implement a local rule on equipment; fans will prefer shotmaking anyway

Women’s game: make courses shorter because the courses are too long; fans will prefer this type of game anyway

 

Maybe the LPGA and PGA are moving closer together. 

[golfortennis]

On 3/17/2021 at 1:38 PM, Pepperturbo said:

My last thought, society should not spend it's time trying to find every conceivable manner in which to make "REAL" women athletic accomplishments equal to those of men.  Wait, unless the greater goal is to make women and men into one.  Glad I won't be around for that....

 

My biggest argument about women teeing it up in men's events, is that it changes the focus from "these are great women golfers", to "how would they do against the men?"

 

One of these feel-good things that really does a disservice, IMHO.

[ClintDagger]

Course setups have nothing to do with fan interest or lack thereof regarding the women’s game.  The only thing that moves the needle are individual stars.  Dominant players with likable or interesting personalities.  

[Tasals]

On 3/17/2021 at 6:00 PM, tatertot said:

Honest question for rec golfers ... are the "women's tees" the shortest tees at most courses? Can they move up a set if they're struggling to reach holes?

My course has red tees, then green tees, and then a yellow tee up in the fairway on a the holes that cut them way way down in legnth which is a great idea but Ive never seen anyone use them. My mother who is a short hitter and in her 60s refuses to use them for some unknown reason despite almost never being able to reach a par 4 in two. There are also some guys who even playing whites on the mens league days are too far for them to realistically play, my home course can get streched out to almost 7600 yards. People refuse to move up a set of tees, there are no marshalls anymore and Ive seen groups who have no business playing the tips trying to play the tips where a good drive in the group doesnt reach the fairway. The people who I see play appropriate tees more often than not are the guys who can bomb the ball and go out ot have a good time, sure they could be playing the tips but they want to have a few beers and hang out with their buddies so they play the course at 6600ish yards.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Tasals

[DavePelz4]

Professional vs non-professional female players is probably where bifurcation is needed most. There are probably only 4-5 courses of the hundreds in the Chicago area that have proper tee boxes for new/junior, older, and female players. LPGA professionals don't need courses less than 5,000 yards while many in the group mentioned prior do.

 

Another thing that needs to be considered are the conditions.  It's rare that you see a PGA course that isn't set up with fast and firm fairways. Tour players can get 30+ yards of rollout. With the exception of the USWO and the WBO, you rarely see the LPGA players get that much roll out.

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the lack of shafts designed specifically for female players. While shafts are gender agnostic, some manufacturer should look at the characteristics of the non-professional female player and see if there is an approach that can be of assistance. Generally, you see driver heads for those who have some issues getting the ball airborne with higher lofted driver heads.  Are any manufacturers looking at shafts specifically to help in this area?

Edited March 22, 2021 by DavePelz4

[Pepperturbo]

No..not here in CA or Maui.  And yes, at some course they can move up.  I haven't seen women that play decent golf moving up to the real forward tees.  They make for some very short holes like 90yd Par 3.  The women I know don't like it, but ole men and kids do.  Upon occasion, I've seen "Green" tees way forward and at times behind Red tees, no rhyme nor reason.   

 

Even though many courses are changing the color scheme of tee markers, not convinced its changing anything for seasoned golfers, male or female.  At better more upscale courses, seniors can hardly cover carry distances to fairways from White tees.  If I play 5700yds I am not using woods, just irons and I am 70.

 

Though my wife and her girlfriends sometimes play the Woman's White tees, it's getting less and less.  They play the "yellow" tees, which are between Red and White, and around 5700yds.  A retired LPGA friend plays predominately "Yellow" tees too unless the girls got a game then it's from the Women's White tees 6100+yds - essentially the same as men's white tees.  The best my wife has scored from that yardage is 86.

 

If you've ever played with LPGA players, most of them do not hit the ball as far as promoted, but they do hit it further than most seniors and average hacks. Take away fast fairway conditions, where turf grain is made down grain, women would be coming up short compared to what's advertised.  The PGA and Champions Tours do the same thing to fairways too.  Female or male, if you're good enough to enjoy playing FAST conditions, you'll benefit in ways that will surprise you.  If you're not good enough, move up and see how you feel.

[North Texas]

1 hour ago, DavePelz4 said:

Professional vs non-professional female players is probably where bifurcation is needed most. There are probably only 4-5 courses of the hundreds in the Chicago area that have proper tee boxes for new/junior, older, and female players. LPGA professionals don't need courses less than 5,000 yards while many in the group mentioned prior do.

 

Another thing that needs to be considered are the conditions.  It's rare that you see a PGA course that isn't set up with fast and firm fairways. Tour players can get 30+ yards of rollout. With the exception of the USWO and the WBO, you rarely see the LPGA players get that much roll out.

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the lack of shafts designed specifically for female players. While shafts are gender agnostic, some manufacturer should look at the characteristics of the non-professional female player and see if there is an approach that can be of assistance. Generally, you see driver heads for those who have some issues getting the ball airborne with higher lofted driver heads.  Are any manufacturers looking at shafts specifically to help in this area?

 

From what I have read, and from talking recently to a club fitter, XXIO markets their clubs and more specifically their shafts toward moderate swing speed golfers. They do not have anyone make shafts for them but instead manufacture their own shafts. I only know of one person who plays XXIO irons and they seem to perform as advertised.  

[skyking]

Interesting... I’m firing up the sim this afternoon and playing Aviara, where the LPGA is playing this week. Based on the Tee it Forward program my max yardage is 6000. The blue tees on the sim match within a few yards the 6,558 yardage listed on the LPGA website. I actually worked with a fella who developed a golf algorithm to determine tees that maximize stroke allowance for handicapping, given my 9.5 index and distances. I have been surprised how many times it selects shorter tees. Best I can tell those surprises were because the next tee back added considerable yardage and I would only get 1 stroke. I do think many course needs to be re-rated. 
 

Heck, I like hitting high lofted clubs in to par 4’s like PGA pros. I have a feeling playing the course this afternoon even just on the sim will not go well. I do have a Heavewood (7 wood???) that’s deadly from 160-170. 
 

My wife worked with our pro when she took up the game a couple years ago and gave her great advice. She drives about 100-120 on her best shots, so she tees up from the white stake...par 5’s blue stake (200). Fun factor was night and day from playing even the most forward tee. 
 

My vote...move the LPGA tees up so we can watch them show skill attack tucked pins. I understand the logic behind opposing viewpoints on here. Just my 2¢. 

[Argonne69]

The Kia uses a combination set of tees. The vast majority of holes play at blue lengths, but a few are white, and the par driveable par 4 16th is moved way up. I played the course a few years back, and they had a special "Kia" scorecard available for those of us who wanted to play the tournament tees.

 

[dlygrisse]

Interesting article.  I have always thought most courses played too long from the forward tees, at least at the local club level, for exactly the reasons outlined in this article.  

 

That being said on the LPGA vs. the PGA tour comparison, it begs the question...Are women's courses too difficult, or are men's courses to short and easy?  The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, I find it ridiculous when I see a PGA pro hit a 6 iron or less into a "par 5"

I mean call it what it is at that point, a long par 4.  In the end par is just a number assigned to a hole, back days before TV the Scots used to refer to your score in relation to the number 4.  Because of wind, turf and the elements a par 3 or 5 didn't exist as conditions changed, so everything was + or - level 4's.  

[jholz]

I would say that PGA courses are too easy, not that LPGA courses are too hard. I would rather see PGA pros playing a game similar to the LPGA, rather than the other way around. 

[skyking]

18 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

The Kia uses a combination set of tees. The vast majority of holes play at blue lengths, but a few are white, and the par driveable par 4 16th is moved way up. I played the course a few years back, and they had a special "Kia" scorecard available for those of us who wanted to play the tournament tees.

 

Yeah...I noticed that watching a few minutes last night. One par 3 is listed at 180+ as I played it yesterday but was played in the 150’s. I’ve played the Seaview Bay course in Jersey, a Donald Ross gem where they play the LPGA Shoprite and regularly score in the mid-70’s from the white tees but never played there when it was windy. The course from the tourney tees is around 6,200 which I think is fine. However the course is completely dependent on wind or it’s pretty easy. I’ve seen 4 under win and high teens. Our Xfinity box went FUBAR last night watching the tourney so I’m interested to watch the rest and criticality see how they played the course, distances, clubs used. 
 

Full disclosure, I shot 81 from the blue tees yesterday on the Aviara course. At a 9.5 index that’s actually 3 shots better than the 12 I’d be given...no mulligans. Yeah it was on a sim. However, I can assure you I’d shoot low 70’s from the white tees on that course...I’ve done it many times. I see Inbee shot -6 yesterday so that’s 15 shots better than me...on day 1 of 4. 

[Argonne69]

3 minutes ago, skyking said:

Yeah...I noticed that watching a few minutes last night. One par 3 is listed at 180+ as I played it yesterday but was played in the 150’s. I’ve played the Seaview Bay course in Jersey, a Donald Ross gem where they play the LPGA Shoprite and regularly score in the mid-70’s from the white tees but never played there when it was windy. The course from the tourney tees is around 6,200 which I think is fine. However the course is completely dependent on wind or it’s pretty easy. I’ve seen 4 under win and high teens. Our Xfinity box went FUBAR last night watching the tourney so I’m interested to watch the rest and criticality see how they played the course, distances, clubs used. 
 

Full disclosure, I shot 81 from the blue tees yesterday on the Aviara course. At a 9.5 index that’s actually 3 shots better than the 12 I’d be given...no mulligans. Yeah it was on a sim. However, I can assure you I’d shoot low 70’s from the white tees on that course...I’ve done it many times. I see Inbee shot -6 yesterday so that’s 15 shots better than me...on day 1 of 4. 

 

I dunno. The white tees bring a number of different elements into play, e.g. running through fairways. The scores yesterday were heavily affected by the greens. There were a ton of 3-putts. 

 

[Shilgy]

I have always felt the ladies need to market their game as something different than the men’s game. Not sure the exact “how” but making it a direct comparison to the men’s game is a losing proposition.

  I really enjoy watching the ladies game as it is more comparable to the game we play. But on average the men’s tour does everything better than the ladies. This is largely a matter of depth on tour. The women’s tour, imho, is like the men’s tour of the 50’s and 60’s. The top players are really good but the talent level drops off rather quickly.

 It’s an interesting question raised in these last few posts. The men really cannot move back. They already often play tees that are only in play for their events. On the other hand the women cannot move up as they would lose credibility with the viewing public. The sweet spot to me would be somewhere in the 6300 yard range for the ladies. That is based on average drive(estimated) of 250 vs 290 and 7300 for the men. So the ladies range should be 6000 to 6450 vs the men’s 7000 to 7500.  When the ladies play 6700 plus in some of their big events they do their game a disservice.

 

Of course moving up would prompt more of those stupid discussions about a men’s 4 handicap.🙁

 

edited to add....maybe if the men’s tour bifurcated and rolled back their ball a bit the comparison would be better for the women. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Shilgy

[mkuether]

I know that this is more of an LPGA specific thread now, but I wanted to add to my earlier post highlighting the ridiculousness of course setups for recreational women's golf. My wife and I took the week off as I had some vacation to burn, so we decided on a golf staycation here in DFW and played Monday-Friday. Of the five courses we played, these were the yardages from the shortest tees (shortest to longest):

 

4874

4979

5010

5186

5577 (!!)

 

My wife didn't have her best stuff this weekend and averaged maybe 140ish yards off the tee (the DFW winds and wet courses did not help). I tracked her club selection for 3 of the 5 rounds. There were 13 par 3s in those three rounds and she was able to hit an iron into the green on 4 of those holes (3 of those came on the same course). I also looked at her approach shots on the par 4s and par 5s and she was only able to have an iron into the green in regulation in 4 holes in 3 rounds (around 10%). To be fair, her longest iron is a 7 (which she hits maybe 105-110 yards), but that still means that almost all of her approach shots (to all holes) were hybrids or longer. I think she probably hit 3-wood or 5-wood on the majority of her second shots while I had plenty of mid or short irons into greens. It's kind of amazing to me that she's still enthusiastic about golf, I'd get very burned out from so many lengthy shots. She had one instance where the fairway had a hill at around 150 yards, her tee shot couldn't quite carry all the way up, so after it landed the ball rolled maybe 50-60 yards back down the hill towards us. Again, ridiculous.

 

I really just do not get the course design here; in most cases there is plenty of room to move up the forward tee and it's already a separate tee box so it's not like there would be any changes in the effort required for maintenance. I saw it mentioned earlier that holes that are too short would be ridiculous, but is that really the case? It seems to me that the goal of multiple tees should be to present a similar challenge to players of varying length, which means hitting similar clubs into holes. When my wife and I both hit decent tee shots and we're right next to each other in the fairway that seems like a failure of design to me.

 

Anyway, just venting. I know it's sort of a moot point since all of these courses have already been built, but it definitely seems like there is plenty of work to do to make golf more accessible to everyone.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

45 minutes ago, mkuether said:

I know that this is more of an LPGA specific thread now, but I wanted to add to my earlier post highlighting the ridiculousness of course setups for recreational women's golf. My wife and I took the week off as I had some vacation to burn, so we decided on a golf staycation here in DFW and played Monday-Friday. Of the five courses we played, these were the yardages from the shortest tees (shortest to longest):

 

4874

4979

5010

5186

5577 (!!)

 

My wife didn't have her best stuff this weekend and averaged maybe 140ish yards off the tee (the DFW winds and wet courses did not help). I tracked her club selection for 3 of the 5 rounds. There were 13 par 3s in those three rounds and she was able to hit an iron into the green on 4 of those holes (3 of those came on the same course). I also looked at her approach shots on the par 4s and par 5s and she was only able to have an iron into the green in regulation in 4 holes in 3 rounds (around 10%). To be fair, her longest iron is a 7 (which she hits maybe 105-110 yards), but that still means that almost all of her approach shots (to all holes) were hybrids or longer. I think she probably hit 3-wood or 5-wood on the majority of her second shots while I had plenty of mid or short irons into greens. It's kind of amazing to me that she's still enthusiastic about golf, I'd get very burned out from so many lengthy shots. She had one instance where the fairway had a hill at around 150 yards, her tee shot couldn't quite carry all the way up, so after it landed the ball rolled maybe 50-60 yards back down the hill towards us. Again, ridiculous.

 

I really just do not get the course design here; in most cases there is plenty of room to move up the forward tee and it's already a separate tee box so it's not like there would be any changes in the effort required for maintenance. I saw it mentioned earlier that holes that are too short would be ridiculous, but is that really the case? It seems to me that the goal of multiple tees should be to present a similar challenge to players of varying length, which means hitting similar clubs into holes. When my wife and I both hit decent tee shots and we're right next to each other in the fairway that seems like a failure of design to me.

 

Anyway, just venting. I know it's sort of a moot point since all of these courses have already been built, but it definitely seems like there is plenty of work to do to make golf more accessible to everyone.

 

The forward tees are an afterthought most of the time.  Designers and course owners provide them under duress. The last thing most want to do is encourage women to play more.

[bladehunter]

On 3/17/2021 at 5:40 PM, JBirdUt said:

One of the points brought up in the article was if the women go low, then the course was too short and easy.

A few years ago, my daughter was playing a local junior tournament. They played these 15-18 year olds between 6200-6500 yards and scores were 75 up to triple digits. The rationale was “ it will prepare them for later”.  
One tournament the course was set up at 6000 yards, five ladies shot par or better. Instead of congratulating the girls for playing well, the organizers added 300 to 400 more yards the next two days, aaannddd scores went up. When I asked why add the extra yards I was told the girls scored too low. The same rationale was never applied to the boy’s side.

Great post.  And I’ll tell you why.  Because the old guys running the event would never want to make it long enough for the boys that it hurts their own ego to think how they couldn’t play it that long.  Same reason why they lengthen it for the girls. It hurt their ego to know that those girls could beat them from that distance.  
 

in other words “ flat belly boys beating us.  Ok.  girls beat us.  Not ok “. 
 

as arrogant as I know I can be , ive never understood the insecurities that come from guys vs females in intellectual debate or athletic competition.   It’s a pretty weak guy who won’t acknowledge  his better ,once it’s proven.  
 

 My father in law is this way. Drives me nuts.  My wife ( his daughter ) can present an idea and  its immediately bunk. she’s an accountant in charge of millions of dollars daily , and handles his household finances.  Yet he won’t listen to her on the smallest points.   But if I say the same thing , maybe in a more “ hey boss , what about this “ way , it’s all of the sudden acceptable.   We’ve learned to just let me be the mediator ( scary I know ) to get things done.  Sad , but it’s reality.  I can see his type as being the guys running an event like that. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by bladehunter

[Golf Dino]

5 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Great post.  And I’ll tell you why.  Because the old guys running the event would never want to make it long enough for the boys that it hurts their own ego to think how they couldn’t play it that long.  Same reason why they lengthen it for the girls. It hurt their ego to know that those girls could beat them from that distance.  
 

in other words “ flat belly boys beating us.  Ok.  girls beat us.  Not ok “. 
 

as arrogant as I know I can be , ive never understood the insecurities that come from guys vs females in intellectual debate or athletic competition.   It’s a pretty weak guy who won’t a knowledge his better once it’s proven.    My farther in law is this way. Drives me nuts.  My wife ( his daughter ) can present an idea and  its immediately bunk.  But if I say the same thing , maybe in a more “ hey boss , what about this “ way , it’s all of the sudden acceptable.   We’ve learned to just let me be the mediator ( scary I know ) to get things done.  Sad , but it’s reality.  I can see his type as being the guys running an event like that. 

 

Plenty of generalizations, but enough "truths" that I agree with you.  I believe though, that it starts with the golf associations and organizing bodies.  Is their philosophy (at the junior golf level) to grow and develop competitive golf or is it to run their own version of the US Open?   So much growth of a youthful competitor -- in any sport, is  rooted in confidence.  Confidence from knowing that they can try a shot and it won't be the end of the world.  Confidence from having pushed themselves to try something, and actually succeed.    But all of it in a way that is both age and skill appropriate.  As you aptly put it, it should never be about the organizers as the focus should be on enjoyment and skill development.

 

 

[Argonne69]

Isn't the answer to have a good blend of long and short holes? Instead of a birdiefest, or a long difficult slog, why not a little of both?

 

I was very pleased with Gil Hanse's design of the course used for the Olympics in Brazil. There were long par 4s requiring a wood into the green where par was a great score. There were also short par 4s that required precise wedge shots, and well-positioned tee shots. 

 

[Pepperturbo]

Today, women are not much different from athletic men, presuming they are athletic and play golf.  Most women that know how to play golf tend NOT to move up tees, so they can hit a short iron into the green.  Like men, if they want the game easier, it's either physical or medical limitation or a personality type that wants everything to be easy, so they don't feel bad.

 

My jock wife (12-14), her gal pals (11-16) and many other club gals that are match play golfers like testing themselves.  Partly why they play by the rules in tournaments.  If anything, as women improve their skill they tend to move back or look for more challenging Combo tees.  Sometimes they play the white even blue tees depending on yardage. 

 

I suppose the people that think course setup holds back women are probably people with personality traits and maybe lousy golfers, only they won't admit it for the truth won't set them free, just rubs their egos in an unhealthy way. 

[Golf Dino]

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Today, women are not much different from athletic men, presuming they are athletic and play golf.  Most women that know how to play golf tend NOT to move up tees, so they can hit a short iron into the green.  Like men, if they want the game easier, it's either physical or medical limitation or a personality type that wants everything to be easy, so they don't feel bad.

 

My jock wife (12-14), her gal pals (11-16) and many other club gals that are match play golfers like testing themselves.  Partly why they play by the rules in tournaments.  If anything, as women improve their skill they tend to move back or look for more challenging Combo tees.  Sometimes they play the white even blue tees depending on yardage. 

 

I suppose the people that think course setup holds back women are probably people with personality traits and maybe lousy golfers, only they won't admit it for the truth won't set them free, just rubs their egos in an unhealthy way. 

 

 

And that is precisely why I believe, IMHO, that we need to move away from gender stereotyping of the tees.  Rather, like some courses have done, they have signage indicating which tees you should play based on how far you play your 7-iron and the course starter oversees the first tee so that many players just acquiesce and play to distance appropriate tees.  

 

That is not to say that many a time - when out of sight, say on holes 2 or 3, they don't revert back to the tees they wanted to play originally!   But at least it gets people thinking.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Golf Dino
spelling mistakes corrected