[Kyle Harris]

I believe that at least half of a golf course's quality lies between the green and the next tee.

One of the most appealing things of golf courses built BGC (Before Golf Cart) are how the green sites integrate themselves with the next tee complex, and how the next tee complex is often subservient to the previous green site in terms of location.

I'd offer that many of the quirky blind tee shots and awkward angle tee shots are a result of the need to build a tee reasonably close to the previous green and the inability of the architect to merely run a quarter mile of cart path to the next knob to give the golfer an "ideal" teeing site.

Naturally, 1920s era architects made extended paths to the next tee in the case of unusual landforms or holes just worth the walk. Examples like the walk from 14 green to 15 tee at Cypress seem germane.  

Speaking of which, where did the concept of the "ideal" tee come to being? How did this evolve?

Nowadays, it seems like some architects build 18 first tees...

[G Jones]

Carnoustie is interesting in this regard, as for quite a while now the tees have been the same as the first cut of fringe around the previous green... and on most holes there is continuous fringe like this from the green, so that in effect each green has a large fringe off to the side of it with the next holes' tee markers on it!

The obvious examples are:
1st green/2nd tee
4th green/5th tee
5th green/6th tee
6th green/7th tee
...although on most of the other tees it is the same but the tee isn't close enough to the green for it to look like you tee off on the fringe, even though there is often continous fringe. I guess the 1st green is like that as there is a long thin path to it... but it's more therefore that most tees don't have 4 sides - they have a defined front, back and one side, and the other is just sort of part of the path to the previous green which is the same quality as the tee and so is part of it.

It is only around the last 6 holes that this tends to break down as the tees are generally quite far from the greens, although it still happens on 14th green and 16th green.

NB. Here we are talking about the main tee, not the championship tees.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:  

While I would agree with you that green-to-tee relationships are important and undervalued by many modern architects, I doubt you will find many takers for your theory that it counts for "at least half of a golf course's quality".

Every time I see a new ranking of courses, the point is reinforced.  There isn't a true cartball course to be found in any of the major rankings; all of the new courses which graduate to the lists were designed with walking in mind.

Maybe we could just agree that the transition from green to tee is more important than the framed view from the tee itself.


G Jones:

I just returned from four days at The Valley Club, where Dr. MacKenzie and Robert Hunter frequently arranged the next tee to be an extension of the previous fairway ... between holes 1-2, 5-6, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 and 17-18.  I think it's where Jim Urbina stole his "original idea" for the "uni-tee" like we've built at Ballyneal and Sebonack.  I think MacKenzie and Hunter stole it from St. Andrews, though.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:  

While I would agree with you that green-to-tee relationships are important and undervalued by many modern architects, I doubt you will find many takers for your theory that it counts for "at least half of a golf course's quality".

Every time I see a new ranking of courses, the point is reinforced.  There isn't a true cartball course to be found in any of the major rankings; all of the new courses which graduate to the lists were designed with walking in mind.

Maybe we could just agree that the transition from green to tee is more important than the framed view from the tee itself.

Tom:

I think we may be confusing each other, or at least I may be confusing you. Wouldn't the large amount of walking courses in Top 100 reinforce my point? If one considers that the previous green is one of the main influences for the location of the next tee, and that the tee must be a reasonable distance for walkers (less than 70 yards away, perhaps?) then the architect may be forced to choose between a great tee site or a great green site for the previous hole. I think that a great green site is more valuable to the hole than a great tee site so therefore would allow for an awkward tee shot on the next hole be the expense for a great green on the previous. I think how that linkage is done by the architect does more for the feel and quality of the course than anything from tee to green.

In fact, the game started this way... the golfer was required to tee off within 2 club lengths from the previous hole. The popularity of the game forced the tee to a different, but still near location. How many of the blind and awkward tee shots in Great Britain and Ireland developed out of the original rule? There, the green and the next tee were irrevocably linked by the rules. I'd say that may have influence early golf architecture more than anything - since it was golf architecture de jure.  

I'm glad to hear that there aren't many cartball courses littering the Top 100 lists. It seems the more I play golf down here in Florida, the more I find courses where you could pick the space between any two consective holes, plop a clubhouse down there, and play the routing from there with no real change in the experience.

[Ryan Farrow]

Kyle, the one problem I have with your argument is that close green to tee relationships do not guarantee awkward tee shots. Take the Valley Club for example, again. There is not an awkward tee shot on the entire course and I don't think there is really a poor green site either. Perhaps it was the nature of the property which is generally subtle but the Valley Club is a poster child for a great walking course.

[Kyle Harris]

Ryan,

Well yeah, you're right.

But if you had to compromise, the choice of having an awkward tee shot for the next hole for a great green site on the previous holewill almost always yield better results, IMO.

If you don't have to make the compromise... well aren't you just lucky to have a great site.

In your recollection of Valley Club, do you know of any locations or areas where a different architect would have placed a tee further away from the previous green for the sake of a good view or more "user-friendly" tee shot... maybe forsaking a blind shot?

I'd like to extend the theory to state that many blind shots are the result of the location of the previous green, and not the desire to purposely make the tee shot blind. Green location necessitates the next tee shot.  

[Andy Troeger]

We-Ko-Pa Saguaro is wonderful in terms of having the green sites and following tees blend wonderfully. Its especially visually apparent there due to the desert setting. Coore/Crenshaw used the same technique a couple times at Colorado Golf Club, although its not as obvious there.

[Ryan Farrow]

Kyle, I don't remember any blind tee shots at the valley club, or any blind shots whatsoever.

I don't see any architect relocating a tee for the sake of a good view because they are all good. But I am sure other architects would not have come up that great of a routing and would not have put a priority on close green to tee walks.

[Jeff Doerr]

Kyle,

I think Chambers Bay has brought the idea back some.

The tee ribbon on 7 flows right off 6 green.


On 8 there is a great flat spot right off the green that would make a great (and LONG) tourney tee. Jordan can speak to this one.


#17 has a tee area that can be used right off the back of #16 green.

[Kyle Harris]

Bump

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()