News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


wsmorrison

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2008, 10:05:46 AM »
Jim,

I don't think the 11th at Shinnecock Hills would be a better hole with a tee to the right, it would simply be a variation on a theme.  It is interesting that this small green on a short hole can be played from a different angle.  The result is that you are hitting a bit into the slope but the depth of the green is more shallow.   The visual is a bit different as well, though the green is still fronted by bunkers.  A tee to the right would be much lower than even the original height of the 11th tee with a more pronounced skyline effect and sense of uphill.  I don't think Tom, who discovered the possibility while we were studying lowering the tee, or I think that it would be better, just different and a nice variety on a short hole.  I don't think he's suggesting that it be done, but it was a fun academic exercise.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2008, 10:13:33 AM »
fair enough...so tell me, if both tees were built and they had no tee markers on the course, how many, out of 10 times, would you play the right tee? Just as a guess? I think I would play it maybe 2 out of 10 just for kicks.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2008, 10:28:15 AM »
Jim,
I guess you are not a big fan of The Old Course when it is played in reverse  ;)  That might be the pinnacle of multiple tees and different playing angles.  Though I have never played it that way, my guess is that the architecture would hold up just fine.
Mark

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2008, 10:39:08 AM »
Jim,
I guess you are not a big fan of The Old Course when it is played in reverse  ;)  That might be the pinnacle of multiple tees and different playing angles.  Though I have never played it that way, my guess is that the architecture would hold up just fine.
Mark

Please explain...I was under the impression that playing the old course in reverse is essentially a different course than the standard direction...a completely different course!

And so, to my point...if the reverse is so good, why do they play it the way they do 364 days a year? I have a blast playing cross country golf at HVCC, but it's a totally different conversation than this one.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2008, 10:46:10 AM »
Jim,

I haven't played cross-country golf in years.  It is a blast.  The problem is finding the occasion to do it when there are other people on the course who don't have a sense of whimsy.

wsmorrison

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2008, 10:55:37 AM »
Jim,

2 out of 10 is about right, as a change of pace.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2008, 12:02:47 PM »
Jim,

I haven't played cross-country golf in years.  It is a blast.  The problem is finding the occasion to do it when there are other people on the course who don't have a sense of whimsy.

No question...although I've never thought of myself as "whimsy"... :D


Are any of these holes virtually equal in quality from both tees? On a par 3, I would think that means something is missing at the green end...

#3 at Royal New Kent had this tee angle width option to an unbelievable degree...I think it might be 100 yards or more...interesting, but not good in my opinion...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2008, 02:14:07 PM »
Jim,
My point is just to emphasize that variety is fun and is good for the game. 

Have you ever played the forward tees on a golf course?  Isn't it the same kind of deal.  I would hope the architect gave thought to those tees as well and not just to the back tees that are tucked 150 yards behind or the middle set of tees that most people play  ;)  You seemed to imply (maybe I misunderstood) that there is always one best spot for tees (particulary on par three holes).  I'm not sure I would agree.  Best is relative. 
Mark

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2008, 02:21:21 PM »
Mark,

Agreed that variety is fun and good, but what you describe at TOC is simply a different golf course...sort of like playing cross country golf...there is no optionality built into any of the holes as far as the tee position is concerned.

I think it makes sense for the architect to try to find a position for each set of tees that will make that hole as interesting as possible. Would you agree?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2008, 02:40:09 PM »
Jim,
Lots of factors impact how many tees are on a hole and why they are where they are.  I'm just not as hung up on the point that there is a best spot for everything. 

The tee locations on #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass are scattered all over the place.  Which one would you say "makes the hole as interesting as possible"? 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2008, 02:58:02 PM »
Maybe you ought to be...

I'm just not as hung up on the point that there is a best spot for everything. 

 


Maybe you ought to be...



Re: #17 at TPC...how many different positions do the guys on TV play that hole from?

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2008, 03:16:39 PM »
Mark Fine, I was posing a ?  I meant that if a par 3 green is set up to be able to receive shots not only from varing angles and lengths, at what point does the set up for tee 'A' actual begin to help a poorly (less than optimal) hit shot from tee 'B'? And hence, become too "fair and equitable".  Since many here have not had the opportunity to play the Dunes Club, it might have been a bad example. But I posed the questiion to Tom and know that he knows the hole.

Also, I don't believe just because everyone tees off from the same spot, that they  "have the same challenge.opportunity at hand".  Everyone has different abilities. For example, on a 220 yds hole with firm fast greens, you'ld probably  have a much greater challange than, say Tiger Woods.  
And, as to your side note, yes, I do consider how different pin positions affect "shot demands".  And wind. And elevation.  It's what we get paid for.
Coasting is a downhill process

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2008, 04:13:49 PM »
Jim,
Didn't you say - "I believe each hole should have a fixed starting point and all of the optionality and variety and creativity should be geared towards that one spot as opposed to two." 

Wouldn't that go against your comment that you have a blast playing cross country golf at HV.  Why is that?  You obviously are not playing the holes from where the architect intended?  So be it.  It's fun because it is different.  I like to do the same.

Regarding #17 at The TPC; #17 is played from different positions and yardages during the tournament.

Tim,
I guess I was trying to understand what you meant by "less than optimal".  Also, what I saying about having the same challenge and opportunity at hand is that if for example, four golfers are standing on a tee, they all are faced with the same challenge - get the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes.  How they go about doing that will likely differ from one golfer to the other.  No need in my opinion for the architect to make sure that everything else is equal and fair as those terms are relative and not necessarily good for the game of golf.
Mark
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 04:42:53 PM by Mark_Fine »

Kyle Harris

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2008, 05:00:03 PM »
Jim,

What do you think of the lower tee on the 5th at HVCC? It definitely adds a new dimension to back right hole locations.

How about a cross country hole from the 4th tee to that green?  ;)

1st tee to 17th green?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2008, 05:06:24 PM »
Jim,
Didn't you say - "I believe each hole should have a fixed starting point and all of the optionality and variety and creativity should be geared towards that one spot as opposed to two." 

Wouldn't that go against your comment that you have a blast playing cross country golf at HV.  Why is that?  You obviously are not playing the holes from where the architect intended?  So be it.  It's fun because it is different.  I like to do the same.

Regarding #17 at The TPC; #17 is played from different positions and yardages during the tournament.



Mark,

It is mind-boggling to me that you cannot see the difference between "cross country golf" and an architect building two tees in order to provide multiple angles of attack to one green or fairway. Cross country golf has nothing to do with the architects intent...nothing at all.

I'll be curious to see you document the variety of tee positions used on #17 at TPC this year...I'll bet you get no more than 5 yards lateral movement and no more than 10 yards vertical movement.

Do you think the variety of fun, interest, challenge etc...available on #17 at TPC should be credited more to tee location variety or to the green complex and the days hole location?




I'll repeat a pretty easy question...

Mark,

I think it makes sense for the architect to try to find a position for each set of tees that will make that hole as interesting as possible. Would you agree?


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2008, 05:09:18 PM »
Kyle,

I tink #5 is a lesser hole from that lower tee to any hole location when compared to the right (upper) tee.

We had some great cross country holes...#1 to #17 is cool, but doesn't touch #1 to #10 as a short opening par 5...

then #11 to #17 and then #18 up to #16...made an 2 on that one once hitting 8 iron - 8 iron...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2008, 05:28:45 PM »
Jim,
So what you are saying about #17 at The TPC is that there is only one ideal teeing location for that golf hole and it is the one the Pros play from?  If so, I beg to differ. 

Regarding your question - "I think it makes sense for the architect to try to find a position for each set of tees that will make that hole as interesting as possible. Would you agree?"  Maybe.  How many sets of tees is the architect building?  Furthermore, why would someone as smart as Pete Dye have soooo many different teeing locations at #17 at The TPC? 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2008, 06:55:31 PM »

I think the use of multiple tee angles on one tee is generally a net loss.

Could you expand on your assessment in the context of # 10 at Pacific Dunes ?
[/color]

I have not played many of the holes mentioned so I will not state unequivocally that it cannot work but I think Tom Daok's comment..."Should not an architect decide which is the better location for the tee on a par-3?[/i] goes to my point.

It's obvious from your comment that your kids are depriving you of sleep, or, that you're starting to spend more time with TEPaul.

I don't know where you and Doak came up with the idea that the architect of record didn't build the dual tee.  How do you come to that conclusion ?
[/color]

I believe greens, and green complexes should be the tool to suggest different angles and shot styles. I think different tee locations on par 3's is a crutch to not having the ability to build a green that suggests different shots or decisions well enough.

Evidently Tom Doak didn't agree with you when he built # 10 at PD.

And, I believe that CBM felt likewise when he replicated the Eden Green at NGLA.

How does the green at TOC which is common to the 7th and 11th holes meet your "crutch" criteria ?
[/color]

On par 4's I don't think it impacts a hole enough to warrant much discussion.

Have you ever played NGLA ?
[/color]

I believe each hole should have a fixed starting point and all of the optionality and variety and creativity should be geared towards that one spot as opposed to two. I think two tees dilutes the benefits of each.


How do you reconcile that belief in the context of # 10 at Pacific Dunes ?

# 13 at NGLA from the current tee and a tee behind and left of the 12th green ?
[/color]

Pat, Tom Wayne, or anyone...How would #11 at Shinnecock benefit from an additional tee 15 yards to the right (away from the 10th tee) of the current tee? How could it be a better hole?

An additional tee on # 11, one that was below the current tee would more accurately reflect Flynn's original intent.

In addition, a lower tee would reintroduce the skyline nature of that green.
[/color]

« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 07:00:50 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2008, 06:59:23 PM »

fair enough...so tell me, if both tees were built and they had no tee markers on the course, how many, out of 10 times, would you play the right tee?

Just as a guess? I think I would play it maybe 2 out of 10 just for kicks.


That's a flawed premise and an erroneous conclusion.

Obviously, most people are going to opt to play that tee which is closest to the 10th green.

If golfers approached # 11 tee from the right, the predisposition would be to play the tee on the right.

If golfers approached the 11th tee from directly behind it, I'd guess 50-50, with a caveat.  The caveat being that those people who don't like skyline greens would opt for the left tee, while those that like them would opt for the right one.
[/color]


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2008, 07:25:19 PM »
Mark,

To be clear, I am suggesting that there be one tee angle per tee set (ie: Ladies, mens and championship).

On a given hole, if the best location for the championship tees is at an offset to the best location for the forward or regular tees I have no issue. My issue is when an alternate tee box is added for lateral diversity for one of those sets of tees. One must be better than the other so why provide a lesser option? And no, I do not believe more than 1% of the golfing population actually play different sets of tees in the course of one round so I don't view that as a viable response.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2008, 07:28:23 PM »
Pat,

No, I cannot discuss this idea with respect to Pacific Dunes or National.

My premise for #11 at Shinnecock may be off, but the hole would be significantly less if played from 15 yards to the right of the current tee. The angle of the green IS the deal. Move over to the right and you lose it.

Lowering the current tee is an idea with real merit in my opinion.

wsmorrison

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2008, 07:48:54 PM »
Sully,

Restoring the 11th tee to its former level, about 3' less than today, is easy to do and would be a significant improvement. 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2008, 07:52:07 PM »
Wayne,

I think the angle of approach from the current tee is exactly the feature that makes that hole one of the best in all of golf. The speculative new tee location would comprimise the angle significantly...and that would be a shame.

wsmorrison

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2008, 08:10:59 PM »
I agree with you, Sully.  It is one of the best holes in golf.  But let's tee up a couple from the bottom right corner sometime, just for fun  ;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2008, 08:14:47 PM »
If we are going off the reservation I'd prefer to check out the one you've mentioned on #7...


Here's a question that might have been in Pat's original post...are there any holes that would be improved by adding an alternate tee for a substantially different angle?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back