Using Tee Quadrants - Supers as Architects

[Jim_Coleman]

    On a tree lined course (and there are some good ones), should a super set the tee markers on one side of the tee, making the shot almost impossible for a fader or hooker, depending on the situation?  For example, the 5th at Bel Air (a par 3) is impossible for a fader if the tee is placed on the left side of the teeing ground, while it is doable if the entire tee is used.  There are oodles of examples of this on par 3's, 4's and 5's.  I think Doak critisized this practice in his book on architecture (not the "Con. Guide").
     My view: a super should concentrate on growing grass (ok, maybe a little harsh, but you get the point), not dictating the play of a hole.  That job should be left to the architect.  And if the architect REQUIRES that ONLY one type of shot can be used (as opposed to giving options to all, but with a preference for a particular shot), then I think he's done a pretty bad job.  

[mike_malone]

 So, are you the guy who took that book out of the grill room?

  BTW I agree with you.

[Dan_Lucas]

Supers set markers to move the traffic around on a tee so one side doesn't get too beat up. My guess is that on that hole at Bel Air if he uses the whole tee, the golfers use ONLY the right side. So he puts the markers left to give the right side a break.
If a hole is unplayable from one side of the tee with a fade, either some trees need to be cut down, or the architect would like you to hit a draw or a straight shot. Some courses still require some shot shaping.

[Steve Okula]

        My view: a super should concentrate on growing grass (ok, maybe a little harsh, but you get the point), not dictating the play of a hole.  That job should be left to the architect.  

Do you know any architects who come around three times a week to place the tee markers?

[Dan_Lucas]

Do you know any architects who come around three times a week to place the tee markers?
____________________________________________________

Or cut cups?

After construction, nothing dictates the play of a hole more than setting the pins. Anybody know of anyplace where the maintenance staff doesn't set the pins?

[Steve Okula]

Obviously golf course superintendents are too ignorant to understand anything about course set up or the strategy of a hole. The point is that we should leave those important decisions to more intelligent people who have taken the time to train and learn about golf courses.

[Kyle Harris]

   On a tree lined course (and there are some good ones), should a super set the tee markers on one side of the tee, making the shot almost impossible for a fader or hooker, depending on the situation?  For example, the 5th at Bel Air (a par 3) is impossible for a fader if the tee is placed on the left side of the teeing ground, while it is doable if the entire tee is used.  There are oodles of examples of this on par 3's, 4's and 5's.  I think Doak critisized this practice in his book on architecture (not the "Con. Guide").
     My view: a super should concentrate on growing grass (ok, maybe a little harsh, but you get the point), not dictating the play of a hole.  That job should be left to the architect.  And if the architect REQUIRES that ONLY one type of shot can be used (as opposed to giving options to all, but with a preference for a particular shot), then I think he's done a pretty bad job.  

If ya'll played the hole without inhibiting the super's ability to grow grass... he could concentrate on growing grass...  

The better question is, why build the tee if you don't intend on using it?

[Mike_Young]

   On a tree lined course (and there are some good ones), should a super set the tee markers on one side of the tee, making the shot almost impossible for a fader or hooker, depending on the situation?  For example, the 5th at Bel Air (a par 3) is impossible for a fader if the tee is placed on the left side of the teeing ground, while it is doable if the entire tee is used.  There are oodles of examples of this on par 3's, 4's and 5's.  I think Doak critisized this practice in his book on architecture (not the "Con. Guide").
     My view: a super should concentrate on growing grass (ok, maybe a little harsh, but you get the point), not dictating the play of a hole.  That job should be left to the architect.  And if the architect REQUIRES that ONLY one type of shot can be used (as opposed to giving options to all, but with a preference for a particular shot), then I think he's done a pretty bad job.  

If ya'll played the hole without inhibiting the super's ability to grow grass... he could concentrate on growing grass...  

The better question is, why build the tee if you don't intend on using it?

I AGREE
Jim,
I just don't understand the question.  If the architect places the tee and the supt decides to put markers anywhere on that tee it should be acceptable as long as they are two paces forward from the back of the mowed area.    He manages the teeing ground.  This seems to get into micros IMHO.  

[Jim_Coleman]

   If it's fair to critisize a super for putting a pin in a silly/unfair place (e.g., #18 at Olympic when Stewart couldn't get close), why not when tee markers are unfair?

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
I just don't see how tee markers can be unfair if the supt has placed them on the teeing ground according to the rules of golf.  JMO

[Troy Alderson]

  If it's fair to critisize a super for putting a pin in a silly/unfair place (e.g., #18 at Olympic when Stewart couldn't get close), why not when tee markers are unfair?

Jim,

The placement of the pin was not the problem, the speed of the green was the problem.  In a previous tournament years ago, the pin was in the same place and Arnold Palmer putted up to the cup in the same spot and it stayed there.  The demand for green speed has ruined many a golf green, not the superintendent.  Tee markers are only unfair to golfers that play a certain shot and fair to other golfers that play a different shot.  If the tee markers were placed completely across the tee then one side would wear out as Dan said.  Steve, I hope you are joking about superintendents being too ignorant.  Most superintendents know more about GCA then your typical head pro.

Life is not fair and neither is golf.

Troy

[Matt_Cohn]

Is the architect responsible for only building tees in places where it's acceptable to place the tee marker?

Unlike a green, which is not expected to be 100% pinnable, is there an expectation that a tee is 100% tee-marker-able?

[Kyle Harris]

Matt,

I'd say yes, simply because the tee ground serves one purpose - to provide a starting point for the golfer on the hole.

Green slopes and all are integral parts of the course if pinnable or not.

Again, why maintain a tee if you aren't going to use it?

Do we only mow landing areas in the fairway?

[Walt Cutshall]

Our super told me that the majority of golfers tee up in the middle of the tee makers. If he didn't move the tees from side to side, there would be a bare spot running down the middle of the tees.

After he told me this, I started watching where people were teeing the ball. Darned if it wasn't mostly in the middle of the tee markers.

[James Bennett]

Steve, I hope you are joking about superintendents being too ignorant.  Most superintendents know more about GCA then your typical head pro.

Troy

Troy

I think Steve Okula is a superintendent (like you I believe, just in a different country), so every time he looks in a mirror he knows their level of ignorance.  I read it is a joke.

James B

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Play em like you find em!  Everyone else does!

If the hole needs a change then go find the architect.......after the round.

[Marc Haring]

My view is, we superintendents can sometimes have a bit of a complex about golfers, hence Steve’s remark, which was in jest. It comes out of all those years of being told we can’t do our jobs by people that can’t play golf. I’m going through it at the moment. The greens are firm and the so called good golfers are starting to complain. I guess they expect the course to fit their game rather than the other way around.

I have one hole where the pin can get a little shut out from the tee especially if it is a hard wind from one side. I have instructed all my staff to be aware of this when setting out the pins and I haven’t had a problem to date. Believe me if the golfers found they had to hit a forced draw or something into a hole they would set up a public inquiry. (See, even I’ve got a chip on my shoulder)

[Jon Wiggett]

Maybe the Tee was built and the trees grew afterwards. Perhaps the Super could cut them down with the semi-rough mower?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

In general, I think your criticism is misplaced.  Whoever is placing the tee markers is not at fault ... either the tee was built too far to one side, or there are some trees which have encroached over the years and need to be pruned back.

We do sometimes specify that the mowed "teeing ground" includes some contoured areas where the tee markers shouldn't be placed, but that's the only way a superintendent can get them wrong.

I did play a small course in Scotland this past week where the greenkeeper chose to place the tee markers no more than eight feet apart to REALLY direct traffic ... this is too close in my opinion, and it resulted in the day's tee space being completely worn out by a narrow band of divots.

[TEPaul]

Jim:

In my opinion, the extent to which a club (or those from the club who administer to all things about the course) think they have various areas of expertise that they don't even need to communicate with their super on, is the extent to which one problem or another arises. And the same is probably true of golf architects not communicating with supers. Obviously some supers are more savy than others on all the facets of "playability" but I don't think all that much can go wrong if those from the club have maximum communication with their super.

Face it, Jim, probably the primary reason why some club people who represent the golf course don't like talking to their supers about certain things is because they just don't want to run the risk of being told "no" about something by him.

To your immediate question, though, in my opinion, it's probably best to make as many options and shot shapes available as possible, and if some tree limits that off a tee, then the best thing may be to get rid of the tree.

Interestingly enough, yesterday we found two fairly glaring examples of that at PVGC---from the tip tees that is.