A Tee Too Far, from the Wall Street Journal

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting reading, despite the quotes from yours truly......Mr. Little has been working on this subject with Frank Thomas for a long time.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120311057048072255.html?mod=weekend_leisure_banner_left

[Bill_McBride]

Quote from the article: "For most players, the back tees on any course should be just a rumor," says Jeff Brauer, a Texas-based golf architect who, whenever possible, hides the longest tees on the courses he designs so that average golfers won't be tempted. Often he positions them behind trees or mounds."

Does that mean the long hitters have to drive OVER the trees? 

That would increase the difficulty for the big hitters for sure!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I have toyed with making players drive over a mound (specifically the 9th at the Quarry) but bailed out.  The idea comes from the 11th at Royal County Down where I wasn't sure my driver would clear the mounds in front of the tee and took a 4 wood.  Never trees though.

The mounds, trees, bushes, different angle on the first, tenth tees is lateral to hide it from the cart path, perhaps making players think the second set of tees is the back, and encouraging them to play from there.  Once they start, I hope they will continue, for handicap reasons.  Of course, I have no real data that this idea works.

[Bill_McBride]

I was just toying with you!  I was just picturing a tree or mound directly and right in front of the tee - sort of like those World Hardest Holes!

The drive on #11 at Royal County Down is really terrifying, although #9 isn't far behind and #2 isn't a breeze either. 

[Craig Sweet]

At Canyon River they have some way back tee's that they put no markers on and do minimal maintenance on  until they need them for a tournament...

[Matt_Ward]

I remember playing a club a number of years ago and the test they instituted in regards to being able to play from the back markers was that an assistant pro who would handle the driving range would watch you warm-up and then see if you could carry "x" number of yards consistently with your driver. If you could not do it then you needed to move up to the middle markers.

Those who could do it were more than able to meet the challenge. Those who knew they could not do it knew enough not to ask if the back tees were available.

Likely, can't be done on bonafide taxpayer-owned layouts but I find it insulting that in going to Pebble Beach for the first time I was FORCED to play from tee boxes that were literally almost paced in the fairway in order to accomodate the choppers intent on slogging it around the course.

Candidly, I voiced my opinion in a follow-up letter saying that for me the experience in playing Pebble Beach comes from playing from appropriate markers to correspond with my handicap. The response was supportive in theory but they simply mentioned the tees were closed for that day.

On a follow-up round about a year or so later the same situation happened.

I have no issue with the fact that most golfers (90%+) have no business in even remotely contemplating the back tees. However, the situation should not penalize those capable in doing it. It would be the same as FORCING everyone to ski the bunny slopes and not permitting anyone to handle the double diamond terrain.

[Joel_Stewart]

I loved this article, I just hope people understand it and get it.

I'll give you two examples.  Two courses, almost across the street from each other.  Both classics, built in the 1920's or close.

Course 1, a club that values its pedigree uses an architect with restoration background and simply places new back tees by clearing and mowing a small 10 x 10 foot area anywhere from 20 to 50 yards back from the old back tee.  Its almost invisable.  The costs are nominal and maintance is virtually none.

Course 2, uses a modern architect with no experience in classic restoration work and builds massive tiers of tees going back 30 to 75 yards.  2 holes have 6 tiers.  The cost for construction was enormous and the maintance costs for maintaining these tiers over a long period of time will be substanial. 

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

Thanks for that.

[Bill_McBride]

I loved this article, I just hope people understand it and get it.

I'll give you two examples.  Two courses, almost across the street from each other.  Both classics, built in the 1920's or close.

Course 1, a club that values its pedigree uses an architect with restoration background and simply places new back tees by clearing and mowing a small 10 x 10 foot area anywhere from 20 to 50 yards back from the old back tee.  Its almost invisable.  The costs are nominal and maintance is virtually none.

Course 2, uses a modern architect with no experience in classic restoration work and builds massive tiers of tees going back 30 to 75 yards.  2 holes have 6 tiers.  The cost for construction was enormous and the maintance costs for maintaining these tiers over a long period of time will be substanial. 

Oakmont #4 come to mind?

[JohnV]

Oakmont #4 come to mind?

Oakmont #7 is a much better example..  The original tee shot was uphill.  Now it is extremely elevated.

[Steve Lang]

  What's this buisness with tees???  I thought one was supposed to start for the next hole 4 feet aways from teh last one??

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

"A great many players are averse to using forward tees perhaps because they were originally christened "ladies tees" but regardless of that fact it seems that a great deal more enjoyment could be had if golfers used the tee on the various holes that really suited their game. " WILLIAM FLYNN

I used to be a short player and trying to gain some distance in the past few years drives me to health problems (back, neck,...). 2 years without golf due to pain, and now, with a healthy back, I've accepted my distances, focusing more on ball control and consistant contact. Now, for my rounds, I use the "ladies" tees and I assure you I take a lot more pleasure than before  

[JLahrman]

Now, for my rounds, I use the "ladies" tees and I assure you I take a lot more pleasure than before  

Do we think more male players would be OK using the shorter tees if they were not referred to as the ladies' tees?  I don't know how many courses officially call them the ladies' tees anymore.  I think forward tees might help break down some testosterone walls, or not even having names for the different tees.

Even for good players, it can be useful to play shorter tees.  You get a lot of wedge practice, and you get used to the feeling of shooting lower scores.  I read an article awhile back about a college coach who had his team play the short tees every so often.  He thought it was helpful to get them mentally comfortable with being five under par, so that they wouldn't think so much about it if they got on a hot streak during a tournament.

[Mike_Young]

Joel,
I think KBM is correct in his assessment above...or at least in many cases it is just the opposite of what you mention. 

[David Druzisky]

KBM - Here, Here!

[Bill_McBride]

Oakmont #4 come to mind?

Oakmont #7 is a much better example..  The original tee shot was uphill.  Now it is extremely elevated.

I haven't seen Oakmont since either tee was built, and haven't seen a photo of #7 tee.  The photo I did see of #4 tee was pretty daunting. 

Roll back the frickin' golf ball...........

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel,

I don’t doubt the accuracy of your story and I certainly prefer the approach by the restoration architect at club 1, but I feel you perpetuate a stereotype that is unfortunate.  It seems from your story that an architect without restoration experience can not build tees like those built at club 1. 

Its an important subject and I'm not trying to perpetuate any type of stereotype.  It has happened time and time again and I'm just trying to bring a point that its still happening and like you I prefer the work done by architect #1.   The sad thing in this example is the architect could have done the right work but was not experienced nor did he do the proper research.  He also acts as a yes man for the superintendent who shares much of the blame, more so than the architect.  Its a sad state, poor planning, poor management and very poor execution.

[JWinick]

I'm not sure if there is much you can do to tame the male ego.   One problem I've seen is the insistence that every player in a foursome play from the same teebox.   Inevitably, the strongest player wants to play from the back tees, so the rest of the group joins him back there.   

Perhaps, the course can dictate where people play.  But, I'm not sure that would go over well.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Course 1, a club that values its pedigree uses an architect with restoration background and simply places new back tees by clearing and mowing a small 10 x 10 foot area anywhere from 20 to 50 yards back from the old back tee.  Its almost invisable.  The costs are nominal and maintance is virtually none.

Joel, you might add that the back tees on Course 2 get used quite a bit (the back tees if not the championship tees) by guests who want to play Course 2 at its tournament length.  Course 1's back tees are used in a monthly medal tournament and infrequently otherwise.  Hence they can have small tees and not worry about wear.

You might also remember that one of the back tees at Course 1 is quite noticeable, as someone teeing off from that new back tee would be playing his tee shot below and to the right of a tee box on a different hole, with the tee shot starting over the "air space" of the different hole.

[Rich Goodale]

To add to Kevin's comments, Course 2 seeks both publicity and USGA tournaments whilst Course 1 strenuously avoids both.  Course 1 needs the "tiger" tees, Course 1 does not.  It seems to me that both architects have served their clients well.

Getting back onto the topic, Little and Thomas are completely right that IF your goal is to give every player the same club for each shot you need to radically reduce the distance for the shorter hitters.  Whether or not that is what they want, however, I'm not sure.  I play golf once or twice a year with my sister, who maxes out at about 150 on her drives, only 100 yards or so of whcih is air time.  She is a decent golfer who plays to her ~20 HCP by hitting driver, wood, short-mid iron to 350 yard holes, where I'd be hitting driver/lob wedge.  To get a lob wedge in her hand for her second shot you'd have to make the 350 yard hole under 200 yards.  She'd spend more time walking from the previous green to the forward tees than she would playing golf.

I think the Little/Thomas conjecture is well-meaning but a bit flakey, which is how I remember Art when were friends in college........

[Mike_Young]

Joel,

I don’t doubt the accuracy of your story and I certainly prefer the approach by the restoration architect at club 1, but I feel you perpetuate a stereotype that is unfortunate.  It seems from your story that an architect without restoration experience can not build tees like those built at club 1. 

Its an important subject and I'm not trying to perpetuate any type of stereotype.  It has happened time and time again and I'm just trying to bring a point that its still happening and like you I prefer the work done by architect #1.   The sad thing in this example is the architect could have done the right work but was not experienced nor did he do the proper research.  He also acts as a yes man for the superintendent who shares much of the blame, more so than the architect.  Its a sad state, poor planning, poor management and very poor execution.

Joel,
Maybe and probably the situation of Architect vs Restoration Architect should be applied on an individual basis....But I have more often than not seen the Restoration architect create more work than the architect. And I have seen the architect tell a club they need less work.......my theory.....seems to me if one has the majority of his work coming from full 18 hole projects and a course hires him as a consulting architect for a few tees he wouldbe much more prone to say " mow out a flat spot back here "  than a restoration expert who may desire to "build new tees as Donald meant".  Simply $$$$$$.

[corey miller]

Since everyone but me seems to know the course we are talking about

I sincerely believe the most important element of any project on a classic era course is the selection of the architect.  But, in both cases that Joel highlights  it seems the mandate was for "back tees" rather than "length while maintaining a classic look". 

This whole restoration/renovation/improvement movement has become something of a scam with many architects having more success using certain code words and conventional wisdom jargon rather than educating the memberships or decision makers on classic design elements.

I live in NYC area and most every classic era course membership wants to be told the same blabber about how good the course is and how revered the original architect was and how any work will "honor" the original design. 

The problem is, after that introduction, oftentimes they do whatever they want because it is easier to sell a membership on changes they are predisposed to agree with (narrower fairways, back tees, formalized water hazards,  high rough, trees anywhere, visability, "safety") rather than invest human capital in trying to change the mindset within the club or at a minimum within the board/committee.

If you ask me, knowing the composition and architecture knowledge of a typical membership, the easiest way to get new back tees in the ground is to raise them up and move them back.  That is what people expect. 

This reverance for the classic course could work really well IMO if the folks doing the selling were just a little more honest.  The fact is, that most of the clubs in my area could benefit the most by just getting rid of encroaching trees and getting the fairway and green lines correct.  This is the most INEXPENSIVE stuff.  Things that can be done (or perhaps should have already been done by a super super) in house.

In many cases the best thing an architect could do, if he wanted to save/restore classic elements would be a one day consultation with the club.  Point out the many inexpensive quick fixes that all could be done in house.  Once that is complete, if ever ,  the architect would know that the club is "ready" for "everything" and they could return.

Many of the restorations I have seen the clubs do all the expensive stuff (things that are easier sells for the architect) and never get around to the small stuff that really makes the course. 

As for the article, my problem is that very little/no mention was made of the fact that people should be playing tees that put the design elements in the ground in front of them in play.  The fun is playing  400 yards and avoiding and negotiating the hazards (including the ground) in ones way.  These sorts of articles always seem to fall back on the notion of the goal is to hit move a ball 420 yards or 440 of whatever distance with no regard for any diversions that might be in the field of play.

[Joel_Stewart]

If you ask me, knowing the composition and architecture knowledge of a typical membership, the easiest way to get new back tees in the ground is to raise them up and move them back.  That is what people expect. 

It is was people expect but not what an experienced architect should produce.   The concept of big tees was generally introduced by RTJ Sr. in the 40's and continues to this day.   

The example above is not exactly apple and oranges.  Kevin is correct that course #2 gets much more play.   I will disagree that the back tees are used more, possibly 4% of the time which may be the same amount for the new tees on course #1.   The mid tiers may be used less?  The construction costs and maintance costs still are enormous considering the size of the tees and do not justify the costs based on the limited use.  Lastly they are a blight on the landscape.

Rich:  With all due respect, the architect of course #2 has not served the course or the membership well.   

[Kevin_Reilly]

Agree with you Joel that the multi-levels are awful looking.

[Mike Benham]

  I will disagree that the back tees are used more, possibly 4% of the time which may be the same amount for the new tees on course #1.   

4% ... ?   1 golfer per hour ?   

 The construction costs and maintance costs still are enormous considering the size of the tees and do not justify the costs based on the limited use. 

Are you including the cement cart path with the custom coloring?