The Back Tees???

[Greg Holland]

Lorne Rubenstein, in "A Season in Dornoch," writes that "most course architects, meanwhile, design holes from the back tees forward:  the real hole plays from the back tees. . . ."

Is that true?  
Are we high handicappers missing out when we play from the white tees?  
Or, do you designers try to design mutliple holes, depending on the tee box selected, for each green.

[Mark_Fine]

Your question is an interesting one and you'll probably get a variety of answers.  Mr. Rubenstein's statement appears to be in line with the paradigm that most people follow - the "real" golf course is as viewed from the back tees (or at least from the different tee box yardages that are stated on the score card).  I remember making a post a while back about a person making a statement that a particular course was missing a really good short par three.  I said to the person, "What about the par three sixth hole played from the 135 yard tee box"?  Their response was, "That's not the real golf hole if you play it from there".  My response was, Why not?  If the back tee was placed there on the day you played it, then would it be the "real" golf hole?

I believe the best architects study all the tee boxes they put in and try to make the holes the best they can be from each one.  At the end of the day though, a lot depends of the golfer and their ability to execute the shots that the different yardages/angles of play require.
Mark  

[Mark_Fine]

Oh I forgot to mention about whether you are missing something playing the up tees.  Let me answer that question in this way.  If you can only carry the ball 170 yards and the back tee is a carry of 200 and the shorter tees are only 150  or less, then maybe the one thing you won't be missing playing up is a golf ball  

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

That's an interesting question and one that I've often wondered myself.  The short answer would be "yes"

In the design world, every hole begins with the centre-line.  That's the spinal column.  This centre-line begins at the back tee, extends to the one (or two) landing points, and ends at the centre of the green.  The length of that line, obviously, is the length of the hole.

The design of the hole is based on that centre-line.  Or, put another way, we don't design a hole from the ladies' tee, and then add back tees.

That's not to say we don't consider how a hole plays from the forward tees.  It's not an after-thought either.  Every forward tee is carefully planned and located.

It's just that the forward tees are based on the back tee, not the other way around.  

____

Incidentally, I've often wondered why forward tees are necessary (save perhaps for the long forced carries).  

Rather than designing a golf holes with one landing area and multiple tees, why not have one tee, and many landing areas?

[George Pazin]

GregH -

I don't think you're missing much, though occasionally you will run across a hole where the tees are so spread out that you might. For the most part, golfers who truly deserve to play the back tees, especially overseas where back tees are usually reserved for competitions, are probably playing a shorter course than the rest of us anyway, due to the difference in ability. I played yesterday with John Vander Borght and, judging by where we hit our approaches from, the 6600 yard course that I played was longer than the 7000 yard course he played.  

Jeremy -

I can answer your ending question in one word: space. If granted more words, I'd add: maintenance costs.

[JohnV]

George,

Actually your tees were 6300 yards.    As I figure it, I was playing a shorter shot into 10 of the 14 par 4s and 5s and we were about even on one other one.

Given that the back tees have been added on many of the classic courses, I think it might be a mistake to assume that the comment applies to older courses.

Even modern courses are sometimes better from the "up" tees.  As an example, when I think about Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow, I think that the last 4 par 5s are more interesting from the blue tees than from the black.  They all present more options and in some cases add more of a "fear factor" than the blacks.

[George Pazin]

John -

Is that counting my 1st or 2nd tee shots on each hole?  

Interesting observation about Pumpkin Ridge. I've thought many of the changes to the par 5s at Augusta were bad for similar reasons. Bobby Jones seemed pretty happy with 4 reachable gambling type par 5s - fortunately there's probably not enough room to see if the current administration would be willing to try to make unreachable.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,

I started designing my routings from the back tees years ago when I found that real estate developers starting encroaching on my "dot" marking the center of the tee.  When using the middle tee, the back often dissapears.  Even on conventional sites, many tees have to back up to a property line, so it makes sense to start from the back tee.

As a feature designer, I try to consider all tees, especially when looking at forced carries, where I may placed them farther forward.  If its a layup hole, I may keep them closer together, so the short tee players may still hit a driver.  Bunker placement works off tee locations, although Jeremy's random bunkers to create many landing areas is intriguing, if costly.  If in housing, there may be a safety benefit in clustering tee shots to one wider area.

As a golfer, the back tees are merely a rumor, although last Sunday, Dan Kelly preferred to play the back tees at Giant's Ridge, and I obliged.  Oddly, my score didn't really go up all that much, even hitting longer clubs in.  It was still the two foot putts that got me.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

What do you design from Back tees to landing are...in yards.

And from Back to next tee and next and next tee...trying to be politically correct and not say seniors and/or ladies.

What carry max's do you observe?

[allysmith]

Gentlemen,

Surely a course is designed to be played in a certain manner. I.E. the designer considers a strategy for the hole and lays it out hazzards et all accordingly.

This being the case then a course is not set up to be played of any particular tee. It is rather set up so a person/persons of any particular ability/strength can choose his/her tee to be able to play the course as it was designed.

[Doug Wright]

Interesting topic. Following up on comments by Jeremy that he designs from the back tee to one or two landing spots and what I think are similar comments from Jeff, is this what all golf course architects do and have done? If so, unless they were designing with crystal balls in hand, anyone who built a course even 10 years ago or longer would likely have placed those landing points far short of what today's technology/balls and monster driving players can now attain from the back tees, and even us mortals from the regular tees. The first evidence of this was, I suppose, John Daly's exhibition at the Crooked Stick PGA, where he drove over all the hazards. If Jeremy's concept is the norm, short of designing 8000 yard courses (there's one going in here in Colorado now), I guess one would need to place hazards/cross bunkers/narrowed fairways at the end of the landing zone on a "normal" par 4 or 5 (ie not a hole that consciously intends to take driver out of a player's hand) or risk losing the design principle of a hole altogether, correct?

All The Best,

[Jeff Goldman]

It appears that architects also consider the angles when placing tees.  At the River Course at BWR, the back tees on the great par 5 16th are only a few yards longer, but play farther over to the right, making the angle of the tee shot much more difficult than from the white tees.  The 14th is an even clearer example, where the black and blue tees must cross the water, while the white tees have the water on the right only.  Apparently Dye is terrific at this (not even mentioning the 13th).

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Several years ago one of the  RTJ' stated that he was placing the hazards some 267 yards off of the back tee.  This number has recently increased to nearly 300 yards.  Tom Doak or Jeff Brauer would be able to comment on that.  

From that point it seems correct that each tee be moved forward and the angles changed to reflect the difficulty of the shot the designer wishes to create for the player.  

Jeff Brauer says his score didn't suffer much while playing from further back.  I would guess the hazards really didn't come into play.  The length in and of itself didn't create difficulty.

And finally, as to why to design forward tees, Golf is a difficult game at best. Some Women, Juniors and seniors are in a position where hitting a ball over 150 yards could be a problem.  Put yourself in a position where you must hit 3 wood to every par 4 and par 5 and still not reach in regulation.  Do you honestly think that you would find enjoyment in the game?  Do you think that you would continue to play?  

John Harbottle designed the Olypic Course in Bremerton Washington.  I have played with a very good woman player there.  We were in a position of hitting the same club into the greens.  If I hit my eight iron 140 yards and she hits hers 110.  Then she often finds herself in a position where we would select the same clubs.  She loves that golf course because she can actually play the course.  Rather than hit Driver, Three Wood, Wedge to every hole because she is asked to play from 6000 yards.  

Different tees are built to create a competetive and yet level playing field for all.

[ChipOat]

Without question, Merion's hazards (mostly bunkers) come into play from the "back tees" - Joe Valentine's white sheets were obviously placed with those distances as the reference.

Instead of "back tees" and "regular tees", perhaps they should be called "intended markers" and "forward markers".

Pine Valley's somewhat different, though, as the left/right trouble usually runs the length of the hole and most of the problems have to do with carries off the tee and/or on the second shot.

Does this suggest that "penal" holes can more easily be lengthened whereas a strategic hole needs to be built "from the tips" and is, therefore, less interesting from the "regular" tees??

[brad miller]

Chip, that might be a question worthy of its own thread

[TEPaul]

Jeremy Glenn and Jeff Brauer:

Some very good and very interesting answers--a lot in there for those of ue who are interested but don't actually build the courses--like many of the contributors on here. Much good reality based stuff too.

Cos:

The 267yds "planned tee shot" (the "dot") interestingly is probably less a function of the realistic estimated driving distance of the good player (or what the once good player drove it) although in fact I certainly think it is or was realistic! It's probably just as much a function of the fact that on a 1"-200' topo 267 yards just happens to be four inches on the ruler and it's very easy to do.

When I did hundreds of hours on two properties around here with two routings I used my little pocket ruler so much that I even had a little painted tick on the 4" mark!

Chip:

That would be interesting to do with the tee marks at Merion, for instance. Wayne and I ran across a Flynn course recently that's apparently marking on the tees (or thinking about it) "original tee marker"!

[Philippe_Binette]

A good golf course should not be evaluted, nor designed with the tees, back or any other in mind. An architect should design a golf course, a strategic one of course, from the green to the tee and not the opposite.

 If you look at Mackenzie analysis of St. Andrews, he will first look at the green and then explian the strategies permiited by the green complex, as far as where the approach should be played...

 Also, did you ever notice that some holes are easier from the back tees than the forward ones...

[Mike_Young]

I think Phillipe is correct.
I have always thought that you design from the green to the tee.  And there we have the real distance problem that can't be overcome.  While we can always move a tee, the distance from where the tee shot lands to the green will remain the same.  So when it stands to reason that as driver distance increases so does iron distance.  Wedges replacing 7 irons.
IMHO "the real hole plays from the back tees" is incorrect.  The real hole should play from the intended landing area of the tee shot.  And the individual player should know his game well enough to know which tees will place him in that area with his average tee ball. The dilemma is that while the person that hit a 300 yard drive from the back to reach this area might have a wedge from there to the green and the player that hit it 220 from the whites might have a seven iron.  If you try to shorten the course to the point where the weaker player has such a tee advantage that he will be hitting a shorter iron into the green, then yes you have dissolved the strategy of the hole for someone.  Be it the back tee or the front tee.

I now place my turn points at 900 feet for the back tee wih a minimum of 75 foot radius around the tee.  And then before working the strategy plan I routinely space the other tees at 90 foot intervals.

[ChipOat]

Phillippe:

Welcome to GCA.  Please find the "Who are these guys" thread and sign yourself up.

I'm not sure I've ever played a hole that was more difficult from the forward markers although I can envision that a rapidly narrowing driving area which leads to a penal conclusion might offer that possibility.

We give specific examples in our discussions - recognizing that nobody's played all the holes we discuss (especially me).

What examples can you give of holes that are less difficult from the "back tees" than further forward?

Cheers

[Jeff Goldman]

Chipoat,

The 13th at BWR River Course.  The black tees give you a little more room to clear the tree with a fairway wood, while the blue tees are closer to the tree which seems to leave less room for error, especially for someone who uses a 5 or 7 wood for a hole 185-210 yds long.

[Greg Holland]

Mike,
You wrote "IMHO 'the real hole plays from the back tees' is incorrect.  The real hole should play from the intended landing area of the tee shot."  

With that in mind do you -- and the other designers out there-- concentrate more about the angles into the intended landing area or the distances to it, or both?

[Mark_Fine]

Most people don't seem to realize that it is "the ability of the golfer" that often dictates how much strategy or interest a golf course has (or at least how much they think it has).  

I recently played a very nice course from the back tees with a golfer who correctly pointed out that from the tips, the course offered him little in the way of strategy.  From the middle or shorter tees, the course would have been much more interesting and exciting for him to play!  

People need to keep this in mind when evaluating golf courses.
Mark  

[Matt_Ward]

When people play from the back tees the pressure you face in terms of length and accuracy is at its highest. Clearly, many people should hustle to the next markers in order to keep play moving.

I play from the tips whenever I play / rate a course. One time I asked the starter "is this the back tee." His answer -- "We could open the gate for you if you'd like."

Keep in mind the back tees, or any tee for that matter, is not based solely on the length but the angle one must play. Many times the rear tee position is more "demanding" because these two concepts -- length and angle, are married together.

I have also seen at times the angle be more demanding from the middle position because the driver is now not the only option when playing that particular hole.

Ultimately, a golf course should have the elasticity to challenge all types of players. The positioning of hazards and the routing of holes is quite a significant challenge to any architect who is best able to accomodate all these requirements. One such course I just finished playing which does this so well is Wild Horse in Nebraska. It's got enough length to take on the better player and the quality of holes does not diminish because of middle / forward tees because in a number of instances various different angles are in play.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

My experience has been that only a very small percentage of golfers can really handle playing from back tees, especially on courses approaching or surpassing 7,000 yards.

If you are going to rate a course, might it not be better to see how the course plays for the vast majority? Aren't you missing something always playing from the tips (when you do ratings)?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

In fairness to Matt's perspective, I should let you know that Matt hits the ball a LONG, LONG way.  He should play from the back tees, anywhere.

He also often brings along a friend of his who is a routine driving, older gentleman who is a 14 handicap.  

Just so everyone is aware, Matt does try to see it from both perspectives.  

We don't always agree, but I would never say that he doesn't make the effort to judge courses for every level of golfer!  Just thought you might want to know that fact.