Seeing "the whole" course. Does the tee matter?

[Adam_F_Collins]

I've met people that insist one should play from the back tees in order to truly appreciate a golf course.

Do you agree?

Does a golfer have to play any particular tee to get the "full" appreciation of an architects work? Is this true for any architect that you know of?

[TEPaul]

"I've met people that insist one should play from the back tees in order to truly appreciate a golf course.
Do you agree?"

I agree but I doubt I'd recommend it for very many. I think it just depends on what you're trying to accomplish---eg what you're looking for as both a golfer and a golf architectural analyst. I know I almost always play a course from the tips the first time and I'm I guy who even if I once played a lot of tournament golf never really hit my driver much more than 250 yards in neutral conditions.

But I enjoy seeing what any course is like from the tips and of course I very much relate it to my own game as well as those who regularly play the tips and who they're designed for. Doing this kind of thing can get a little depressing to say the least as it really shows how different various levels of golfers are.

"Does a golfer have to play any particular tee to get the "full" appreciation of an architects work? Is this true for any architect that you know of?"

Adam:

Even if this seems like a very hard question to answer I think it's a very fundamental question the more one thinks about it.

The more I get to know about architecture and anyone who deals with it at all the more I realize just how hard it is for most any person, golfer, even architects to truly visualize the realities of other golfers' games---and particularly right across the spectrum. And then of course to actually design for it well across the spectrum.

I've even seen some architects who I consider to be very fine architects who I think can be really weak in this area.

I think an architect (or anyone else) has to just force themself to consider this subject very specifically and observation is the best educator. Either that or they have to be naturally curious about this subject and question.

The two I know of who I think seem naturally interested in this area are Doak and Nick Faldo.

But it's a really fundamental subject and question, in my opinion, and if one thinks about it it's an area that can sort of make or break golfers' enjoyment of a golf course;

But as Ross said;

"It's easy to build a hard course and it's easy to build an easy course but it's not easy to build a course that can both accommodate and also challenge every level of golfer well".

But to understand how well any course does that one should probably play it from all lengths while at the same time not just viewing it in the context of your own game but truly appreciating the realities of the games of golfers other than yourself---and that is not an easy thing to do, and it's not easy to find people who can do that well----even amongst some otherwise very good architects.

 

[Andy Troeger]

I've met people that insist one should play from the back tees in order to truly appreciate a golf course.

Do you agree?

Does a golfer have to play any particular tee to get the "full" appreciation of an architects work? Is this true for any architect that you know of?

Adam,
  I think that playing a particular tee is very important to get the "full" appreciation of an architect's work, but I would argue vehemently that its not the back tee for the majority of players. Players should play the tee best suited for their game, wherever that happens to be. For a very strong player I would argue that it is the back tee on most courses, but not all GCA fans are scratch golfers. If they want to play the back tees on new courses then I'd argue that they're not seeing the course as the design intended because they were probably not intended to play from back there!
  I'll admit that I'm making this argument out of the frustration of watching people play tees that are out of their league and then having to sit there for 5 hours and watch every shot they hit. However, last year when I played Whistling Straits and Blackwolf Run we played the back tees at WS and the blue (next set up) at BR. My only goal at WS ended up being keeping my head above water because the course was too hard for me at that point (as a 3 hcp). Our caddies told me they have never caddied for anybody who wanted to play back there. At BR the strategy actually came into play because I had choices other than driver off the tee on just about any hole. I had to actually try to think through where I wanted to try to hit the ball, and for me it was a much better experience, even though I didn't really score much better the last two days, I was only three shots better over 36H at BR than the 36H at WS.

[Phil Benedict]

There has to be a compromise between the architectural experience and choosing a set of tees that suit your game.  I am a fairly long-hitting mid-single digit handicapper but I have no interest in playing from a set of tees above 7,000 yards.  I'm not good enough to enjoy it.  On resort type courses I always play the next to back set of tees.  6600-6800 yards typically.

I played a corporate event at Baltusrol the summer before the PGA (2004).  We used the white (front) tees because of the varying degrees of skill in our group.  I found the PGA setup laughable - the tees were that far back.  On 16, it was a full wedge from the white tee to the PGA tee.  The other thing I noticed is that the fairway traps, some of which added for the pro setup, were in play from the tees we played.  So in this sense the hole was playing the same way for me as it did for Tiger, albeit his tee was 50 yards back from mine.