Chris Clouser,
I must confess to creating another set of tees for a golf course when I was the green chairman.
The club had white, red and blue tees for the men and yellow tees for the women.
Think about that concept.
One set of tees for women of all handicaps and abilities, but, three sets of tees for men of all handicaps and abilities.
Thus, I created a forward set of tees with a more benign angle of attack.
And, I tried to shy aware from referencing them as men's and lady's tees. Instead, I just referenced them by color code.
Many older members thanked me and claimed that they made their first par or birdie in more than a decade by playing from the new green tees.
Hi-tech has created some of the dilema.
If you had a golf course that played to 7,200 yards, you couldn't expect more than a few members to play that course every day. Having a course at 6,800 would also seem to be the domain of the lower handicap, with the 6,400 course the course of choice for the majority of the male members.
Shouldn't the same principle apply to the women members ?
Shouldn't there be a concession to differing levels of ability ?
While I happen to like the concept of one tee with several markers, that configuration doesn't address angles of attack and degrees of difficulty.
To further illustrate part of the problem. The members began to play a hybrid golf course, using some red tees and some white tees, or some blue tees and some red tees, so, in effect, by mixing and matching, you had seven sets of tees.
They even created mixed scorecards to accomodate play from the mixed set.
If hi-tech continues, unbridled, you'll need another set of tees, land permitting, for the scratch player.
The issue doesn't rest with the architect, it rests with the desires of the members.