[Dan_Belden]

How does the position of a tee help dictate strategy, or effect it in a way not forseen by the architect. It has to do with where the tee is postioned in relation to the ideal position in the fairway for the second shot.  We have all heard that good course management tells us that it is easier for a right handed player to fade the ball from the right side of the tee, and easier to hit a draw from the left side of the tee.  A tee( I am mainly concerned with the championship tees for this post) positioned to the left of the ideal landing spot for a right handed player favors a draw, and vice versa for a tee to the right of the ideal landing spot.  
    I have often wondered why Crenshaw and Coore courses, of which I have played three, seem to fit my eye so well of the tee.  The reason for it is if the scheme of the hole dictates the ideal way to play the hole from the tee is with a draw, the tee is always positioned toward the left side of the landing area.  The perfect example of this practice can be seen in the first five holes at Talking stick North.  The first three holes idealy call for a draw of the tee for a right handed player. The tees on all of these holes are postioned to the left of the ideal landing area.  This is important because it is much easier to hit a draw if you feel like you can close you stance in relation to your target.  Conversley the fourth at TS North calls for a fade, and there the tee is positioned to the right of the ideal landing spot.  This is important because it is much easier to hit a fade if you feel like you can open your stance in relation to the target.
   Great examples of this practice can be found on many classical courses.  Examples that come to mind are the first, second, and sixth holes at Shinnecock, the first, eight, and the lower tee on the 13th at Pine Valley.
   I think that this is an important topic as many course are lengthening their championship tees, and if they are not careful they could change the way the hole idealy should be played.  My course, Brookside in Canton, is definitely guilty of this.  Our eighteenth hole is great example of a Ross hole where the land dictates the ideal shape of the tee shot is right to left, and the second shot is idealy played with a fade.  But with the new back tee positioned well to the right of the ideal spot from which to play the second, the tee shot of choice is a fade.  An unintended consequence I am sure.
   And in closing I am wondering how many architects keep this in mind when they are building the championship tees.   I have certainly come across some examples of holes that are screaming at you to play a fade or a draw, but have the tee in the wrong position for the shot required.  
    

[Flathead]

In your thinking on this subject, keep in mind also that tees are constructed to drain in a certain direction. Sometimes you are hitting, albeit ever so slightly, downhill, uphill or sidehill shots on the tee. The angle of the tee affects one's visability. Imagine an uphill slanted tee on a downhill hole. One's view would be that much more blocked.

[Forrest Richardson]

Dan, you asked...

1. "How does the position of a tee help dictate strategy, or effect it in a way not forseen by the architect?"

I would hope golf architects always take tee angle, position, setting and shape into account. After all, it's one of the key components to a golf hole and, ultimately, the course as a whole. Sure, there are examples of poor planning and tee placement in the context of strategy and giving the player a view of the line of charm and the hole. I'd say one of the worst conditions would be tees that always seem to favor a side or angle or shot.

2. "...how many architects keep this in mind when they are building the championship tees?"

Most of them, I hope. I spend time with all tees. If I did have to choose I would place a premium on those which will be played most by the majority of golfers. That is, if I had to choose. These would not be the championship tees on most courses as they are not the predominant tee set.

Here is an interesting quote, from, of all people, Las Vegas developer, Steven Wynn -- it's among my favorite "tee" quotations:

"[The tee] is one of the few perfectly controlled perspectives in life. We put two tee markers down and we say, stand here, golfer, and nowhere else, and you will look at what we put in front of you."

[TEPaul]

Dan Belden:

What an interesting thought, point and subject. Frankly, this is one I've neither thought of before or even heard any architect speak about--at least not exaclty in the way you frame it about purposeful alignment off the tee this way to something that might feel comfortable and actually be ideal.

My immediate thought, I hate to tell you, certainly if I was an architect, would be not to hold the golfer's hand all the time this way architecturally. I'd throw in those tee setups occasionally I thought might even make a golfer feel uncomfortable and force him to work things out for himself. It's better variety, better and more sophisticated overall architecture. If he can't line things up for himself he should feel uncomfortable.

I'd take a page out of Max Behr's naturalistic book on this one. A golfer should look at a course and his strategy solely as his own--not the architect's. If the golfer has problems with execution emanating from his alignment and such due to a tee he should go see his professional about it--not the architect of the course.

[Forrest Richardson]

It's not only architects that might favor a particular tee orientation or angle...Jack Snyder has told me a story about (the late) Henry Shelton, a golf course builder, who would always grade tees slightly higher on the right. Jack would get after him about this and finally realized the reason: Shelton, a right-hander, played a slight fade and the higher right side encouraged a draw!

I'm note sure I would go so far as to misalign a tee. Gee, golfers have enough problems. But there are tricks we play on steep uphill or downhill grades. And placing tees to one side of a fairway can pose new problems. One of my goals is to create as many tees as practical -- with not just different lengths, but more so different angles. Especially on par-3s, as I find this a way to keep the endless variation alive.

[Tom Doak]

Dan:  A eureka moment for us!  You prefer Crenshaw's courses to mine as driving courses because he plays a draw off the tee more often, and I play a fade!  (Although I think Ben would agree, lately both of us are likely to hit a fade or a draw without any warning at all.)

I have always felt I could tell which way an architect played golf just by looking at how he set up tee shots.  We try to consciously put both types of shots into a round, but the fade bias sometimes creeps into my courses just like it does on Jack Nicklaus courses and Alister MacKenzie courses; the push bias is dominant for James Braid designs; and the draw bias is sometimes obvious from Coore & Crenshaw and from Pete Dye.  (To make it worse, Jim Urbina who works for me hits the power fade; but I'm so aware of his game that it helps me try to balance things out.)

It's a simple matter -- when we're first looking at a property and what are the best natural holes to use, we tend to favor those which fit our game.  I'm more likely to prefer the natural holes which set up for a fade off the tee.  (Ironically, about 8-10 years ago I had a two-year case of the hooks, and at that point I was more likely to see the "draw" holes.)

Last year Urbina and I went to see Paa-Ko Ridge in New Mexico, the first Ken Dye course I'd seen.  After three holes I looked at Jim and said, Ken Dye must be one hell of a player, because his first three holes favor a three-yard draw!  Turns out he's a one handicap, and I bet you'd love his work.

[kye Goalby (Guest)]

Tom,

  Not that my  all over the map driving  gives me any opening to talk, but are you sure Jim's shot is a "power fade".     I think even Jim might call it something different.  You are obviosuly getting much more generous with with your words after 40!

[A_Clay_Man]

At Pebble the 7th hole back teeing ground lines one up perfectly for the left bunker and at Spyglass the 2nd hole's upper teeing ground lines you up left. Any non-thinking un-observant golfer will likely not find the fairway.

As for my personal belief the only real obstacles to hitting whatever shot I have or want are trees. Trees at the dogleg or trees just off the teeing ground can make me rethink my cut shot. otherwise I should be able to aim sufficiently left to be able to bring it to any neck in the fairway no matter what the archie wanted me to hit.

Tom Doak-  Did you think that Paa Ko Ridge was slightly one dimensional in that regard? Did you see Pinon Hills last year too?

[Dan Belden]

TEPaul:

   I kink of agree with you about messing it up now and then, but from a classical standpoint I don't think they did that very much.  Shinnecock is such a great driving course that I was trying to use it as my model, and invariably if the bail-out area is right, the tee is left and vice versa.  
   This all comes from  two thoughts on playing, they are it is easier to draw the ball fromt the left side of the tee, and vice versa, and a tip I got from Chi Chi.  He said never go after a pin on the left side of the green with a draw if you are on the right side of the fairway.  The reason being that the tendency is to over hook the shot, or push it.  The opposite applies for the fade to a right pin from the left side of the fairway.  
 Tom Doak:
   This is interesting because this came to me after playing number 4 at Apache Stronghold a couple of weeks ago.  I am playing with two good players, pro's from Ohio, one overhooked it off the tee, the other pushed it well to the right and almost thru the fairway.  I got up there and hit a perfect fade 3 wood that left me a little wedge.  We had played talking stick the day before, and all of a sudden it hit me why it felt more comfortable for me to hit a fade on a hole that looks like a hook.  It was because the back tee was positioned to the right of the ideal landing area.  And that is different than one, two, four, five, eight, etc...etc... all holes where I feel real comfortable off the tee.   The more I think aobut it the more I kind of like it, at least maybe one or two holes that set up that way.  Can you think of any classical examples of this practice.?  I can think of one at my home course BCC in Canton,Oh.  # 5 is a long par 4 with a creek running down the left side, and up at the green dog legs to the left, with the creek in front and left of the green.  The original tee was up a hill and to the right of the fairway. Interesting stuff.  

[TEPaul]

Dan;

This is interesting although as I said earlier I never really thought about something like this before--something quite this nuancy. At Shinnecock, we've looked at it and are going to look pretty carefully some more but this idea sure never occured to me. I wonder if it did to Flynn. If it did to anyone at that time it might have to him as we're seeing the mention now and then of things like "modern" and "scientific" design principles, some real detailed preplanning of strategies and I'm hoping that doesn't turn out to mean he (they) were getting too formulaic.

Then I started to think if I'd ever noticed something like that in the years I played lots of tournaments. I don't think I did really. Certain tees sure did feel more comfortable to be on or how they made you feel about the shot you were thinking about but I think when I played my best I just sort of tried to hit everything pretty straight. I never got to the point where I even cared about attacking pins or whatever--not really anyway.

Unless there was some very good reason to do more (like a green within a green) I always thought if you just concentrated on hitting fairways and greens (obviously taking into consideration club selection if the pin was front/middle/back) you'd do just fine.

Obviously at the higher levels and the tour level all this stuff becomes more sophisticated and useable. Frankly, I never could hit a draw with a driver very well--if I tried too hard to do that it could get pretty messy. If I really wanted to hit a draw off a tee I'd always hit a 1 or 2 iron--just so much easier to hit those right to left for some reason.

Maybe all this stuff is one of the reasons I so much agree with a guy like Geoff Shackelford about the basic strategic blandness of so many American style courses. Frankly, there are just so many holes out there where if you hit the middle of the fairway you'll be fine all day long.

Maybe that's why I appreciate a hole like Riviera's #10 so very much! What's the middle? There's just a whole lot more to think about on the tee on that hole and if there even is a middle it probably has a bunker there anyway. So I can't see thinking much about the set up of the tee box, but I sure might be in the vast minority. And again, I do think if you can make the golfer a bit uncomfortable sometimes, go for it. That way you're really just forcinng him to concentrate more and trust himself.

But Dan if you want to see the absolute last word in radical tee set up construction wait until you see the back tee box on Hanse & Co's French Creek and Bill Kittleman's #17. It's a long par 3 but the entire back tee box is set about 45 degrees to the correct line of play. I'm not kidding about that--it's true.

[Dan Belden]

Tom Paul:

   It really is nuancy type stuff.  But put this into practice in your game a few times.  If you are left of where you are intending to aim, play your straight shot or a draw, and vice versa if you are right and aiming left.    I was just looking at a picture of me hitting a 3 wood on 14 at Shinnecock.  The hole always looks like a fade to me, and sure enough the tee box is well to the right of the fairway.  
  From a design standpoint I think it can help empahsize the type of shot that the architect would idealy like you to play.  Think of the left tee box on 3 at Shinnecock vs the right one. I have never played it from the right tee box, but I guarantee if I did if would feel like a fade.  It seems to me Flynn wanted you to get on that tee box and try to hook one down the left side to take advantage of that downslope. By placing the tee on the left side he is helping you out.  To take advantage of the slope from the right side of the tee you have start your tee shot at the trees, and fade it over from there.  To me that kind of goes against the recoverablily aspect of classic design. The strategy I am implementing here is that you should never aim where a straight shot puts you into trouble.
I realize too that I am talking about the back tees much more so than the forward tees.  
   It would be intersesting to know what shot you like to play, and what types of holes you feel uncomfortable driving on.  You might find that left of target tees or vice versa give you problems.  Then again maybe not.  

[Dan Belden]

TEPaul:

   Another way to put this is that it seems the tee is either next to or in a straight line with the trouble.  In other words you are always aiming away from the trouble, and trying to work the ball back to it.  Again the 3rd at Shinnecock is a great example, and I would be willing to bet that the tees to the right were not put in by Flynn.  Why, because you have to aim at the trouble down the left side, and not away from it. #6 is another great example of this.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()