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.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2008, 09:13:48 PM »
JES II,

Now that goes to Tom Doak's point.

One has to assume that the orientation of the tee in combination with the green is the ideal configuration or presentation, since the architect originally created both features to work in harmony with one another.

One might assume that if an alternate tee location enhanced a hole, that the architect got it wrong the first time around.

My thread wasn't in that context.

It had more to do with variety in the presentation while at the same time retaining the values of the hole.

I think the dual tee concept at # 13 at NGLA does that splendly.

You owe it to yourself to play NGLA

As to # 11 at Shinnecock, your question or position was one I presented to TEPaul.  I was concerned about the angle of attack and orientation of the green from a point 15 yards to the right of the current tee.

While Wayno and TE assure us that the core values of the hole would be retained, I'd rather reserve judgement until I'd hit a few dozen balls to the green from that location.

I do think that lowering the tee would benefit the hole.

I wonder if that tee was ONLY elevated 3 feet from it's original height.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2008, 09:17:14 PM »
Pat,

Are you sure you would be able to make a judgement after only "a few dozen balls"?


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2008, 09:49:07 PM »
Pat,

Are you sure you would be able to make a judgement after only "a few dozen balls"?


JES II,

Having played # 11 for over 30 years I have a slight idea of what the hole is about.  Hitting a few dozen balls should be adequate if the point is to test the receptiveness of the green from a tee 15 yards right and below the current tee.  Naturally, those few dozen would have to be under varying conditions.

Peter Pallotta

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2008, 09:57:16 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.

JES - that makes sense to me, except that it doesn't seem to factor in that an architect's choice is not (I'd imagine) an absolute, or made in a vacumn. That is, the 'first choice' tee is the first choice for lots of reasons, e.g. the prevailing wind, the need to accomodate a range of players and talent levels (even within the 'regular' or 'championship' stratas) etc. In  other words, it's not the 'ultimate' or 'only' choice, it's the best possible choice given the number of factors an architect has to juggle.  I understand your point and I think I agree, but the 'one tee' idea is a convention; there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with an architect at least considering making a choice about an alternate tee, for use if only during those parts of the season when the prevailing wind is not the prevailing wind.

Peter

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2008, 11:42:27 PM »
JES II,

It's unfortunate that you can't get high quality resolution on Pacific Dunes Golf course on Google earth.

An aerial view of the 10th hole might cause you to change your mind on your single tee preference.

The 10th hole provides wonderful variety with the dual tees.

They present remarkably different shots from different angles.

I think you'd like the hole from both sets of tees.

The icing on the cake is the dual greens on # 9 that play remarkably different as well.

It's quite a unique and clever arrangement, one that benefits the golfers experiences.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #55 on: March 15, 2008, 10:08:21 AM »
Peter,

I probably would not suggest a criminal trial for any architect building an alternate tee...



Pat,

I look forward to getting out to Pacific Dunes at some point...the whole facility is on the top of my list for dream golf trips...by the time that seems realistic they may have 5 or 6 courses to pick from.

My objection to the idea is that I feel some continuity is lost when you create essentially an entirely different hole. That is how I view alternate tees on par 3's...as an entirely different hole.

When I went to Australia two years ago for my brothers wedding I played Kingston Heath and they have an extra hole for use when construction is needed on one of the regular holes...well #15 was under work at the time. The substitute hole is a nice par 3, but from all reports playing KH and not playing the 15th is a bit like playing Shinnecock and not playing the 11th. I know it is not perfectly equivalent, but that is the taste in my mouth...

If #10 at Pacific Dunes is so good I would think letting it stand on its own merits would benefit the course...instead of forcing the required follow up question of "which tee did you play, the upper or lower?"


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #56 on: March 15, 2008, 11:00:31 AM »
Pat,

Here is a aerial of PD 10 using Google Earth.  It also puts the elevation difference at about 15 feet between the higher and lower tee box.



Kalen
« Last Edit: March 15, 2008, 11:03:02 AM by Kalen Braley »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #57 on: March 15, 2008, 11:33:53 AM »
JES II,

Since you haven't been to Bandon, you don't understand the direct relationship between the tees on # 10 and the greens on # 9.

Especially in the context that you deemed so important, CONTINUITY.

The lower tee on # 10 flows harmoniously from the lower green on # 9.
The upper tee on # 10 flows harmoniously from the upper green on # 9.

Playing the upper tee on # 10 from the lower green on # 9 would disrupt that flow, that continuity.

The same applies to playing the lower tee on # 10 from the upper green on # 9.

The two holes work in perfect harmony with one another in terms of green and tee locations.  It's a "hand in glove" situation.

Garland,

I used to be able to dunk a basketball, however, I have a hard time believing that the upper tee is only five feet above the rim. ;D

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2008, 12:07:11 PM »
So Pat...to the logical full extent of that ideal...you and I could play the same property on successive days and not have a single shot in common...what exactly is the value of that?

As to Pacific Dunes, I am sure both holes are wonderful, I have heard only great things about the course and the rest of the facility so my criticism is not specific to PD, but rather the idea of multiple tees and greens for alternate use. That's more the CONTINUITY I speak of...the "which course did you play"... conversation.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2008, 12:24:05 PM »

So Pat...to the logical full extent of that ideal...you and I could play the same property on successive days and not have a single shot in common...what exactly is the value of that?

Two things,

Firstly, So what ?

If you played TOC in the reverse rotation and I play it in its current rotation we wouldn't have a single shot in common, but, we both would have had a wonderful golf experience.

Why do you find the need to have a "common" shot ?

Each day, when courses change their pins and move their tees, the "commonality" of shots is lost on successive days, but, that doesn't detract from the daily experience.

Secondly, So what ?

Why must the play of a golf course be identical on successive days ?
[/color]

As to Pacific Dunes, I am sure both holes are wonderful, I have heard only great things about the course and the rest of the facility so my criticism is not specific to PD, but rather the idea of multiple tees and greens for alternate use.


You've always waxed poetic and been a staunch defender of everything at Pine Valley.

How do you reconcile your views in the context of dual greens on # 8 and # 9 ?

Is the course or the playing experience somehow inferior because you play different greens on successive days on those holes ?
[/color]

That's more the CONTINUITY I speak of...the "which course did you play"... conversation.

What difference does it make ?

Does it matter what tees you played as well ?

Does it matter where the cup was cut ?

I've NEVER heard anyone ask that question regarding Pine Valley, in the context of the 8th and 9th greens, so why should it be an issue at Pacific Dunes or anywhere else ?
[/color]


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #60 on: March 15, 2008, 12:41:10 PM »
I think the right green on #8 at Pine Valley was built as a concession to wear and tear and in that context it is fine...fortunately they only use it about one day per week and, to my knowledge, never in competition. #9 is different, and I think both greens are good. In fiact I think the left green is great and the right green is good and the hole works for the right green. But if it were not there the next time I went back I would not be a bit disappointed...and further, the left green has so much interest I could never grow bored of the hole if it were the only green.

As to hole locations and that part of your questioning...you went right to my point...the architect has as much room as they need to create an interesting green that dictates play and challenges back to the tee. When they build two of them for a single hole I can't help but assume they feel they didn't get all they could out of the original green and figured they'd add another.

70% of 2 greens (140%) is better than 100% of one...I disagree with that line of reasoning.



"Why must the play of a golf course be identical on successive days ?

It never is! That's the great thing about golf.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #61 on: March 15, 2008, 12:47:24 PM »
Pat,

Are you sure you would be able to make a judgement after only "a few dozen balls"?


JES II,

Having played # 11 for over 30 years I have a slight idea of what the hole is about. 


I wanted to touch on this...

"...slight idea..." would be about right considering 30+ years ago must mean you were about 60 at the time of first playing...

I am sure you have forgotten more than I know about architecture...a couple of times!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #62 on: March 15, 2008, 01:06:51 PM »
I have often said that most greens do only one thing well - accept a fade, draw, high shot, low run in, etc.  As Tim Nugent notes, its often  difficult to design a green, esp. with a controlled starting point on a par 3 for widely varying tee sets.  For dual tee par 3's and dual fw long holes, I think the best greens for those are actually multiple greens within a green, like KBM's neat example or Strantz huge greens.  These can be designed for multiple shot types.  Of course, on par 3 holes, the tee settings might have to be coordinated with pin settings.

Its also difficult to make bunkers work and look good from multiple angles. Any portion of a bunker can only slope up one direction, and looking at it from one angle gives best visibility. It might be semi or fully blind from a wildly divergent angle.  Like greens, it often takes a multiple or multi part bunker sloping different ways to make a hole equally attractive from two angles.

No one has mentioned the supers view of this. While he/she may be mowing slightly more tee, that would certainly be acceptable on a par 3.  And, for any hole with tees on either side of the cart path, alternating traffic gives the walk up banks an every other day rest, which helps their care.  Downside is a visible cart path, so it should be reserved for ultra high play courses.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #63 on: March 15, 2008, 01:21:07 PM »
Wayne:

Of course I'm suggesting they put a new tee to the right of the present one on #11 if they're going to consider lowering the present tee to what it was originally. Why not, if all that fill is right there? I say use it rather than trucking it off the property. I don't think you even looked at the hole from over there. You were walking to the green when I went over there and looked at that angle.

Sully:

What are you talking about a tee to the right would compromise that angle from the present tee? The  present tee angle into that green is still there like it's always been and it won't be compromised. A tee shot from a tee to the right is a very different challenge with a much shallower front to back target but one with much more "stop" or "bolster". Anybody who knows anything at all about architecture can recognize it's a very interesting and quite different challenge from the right, not to mention the fact the "skyline" effect from over there is otherworldly compared to the present tee angle.

Pat:

Have you ever considered how many holes have tees on either side of the previous green when the previous hole and the next one essentially go in the same basic direction?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #64 on: March 15, 2008, 01:33:52 PM »
Tommy,

What I am talking about is that the hole played from a tee in the neighborhood of your suggestion would be a lesser hole than the current hole because it would comprimise the angle of approach...which works amazingly well to the angle of the green and surrounding hazards...especially that fall off on the left shoulder. To me, the angle of approach IS the deal with that hole.

I am not saying the hole would be a poor hole from the right tee but we're dealing with one of the premier holes in all of golf and you think you can "improve" it...I don't think your suggestion would result in a net positive for the hole or the course.

wsmorrison

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #65 on: March 15, 2008, 02:57:27 PM »
Tom,

I was over there with you looking at the suggested tee location very carefully.  I have some pictures somewhere...I'll try to find them.  I think it is a nice idea, though one that is unlikely to get done.  However, you make a very good point that there will be plenty of fill and it has to go somewhere.  Too bad the road is right behind the tee, because it will be easy to move it out of there.

While Wayno and TE assure us that the core values of the hole would be retained, I'd rather reserve judgement until I'd hit a few dozen balls to the green from that location.

Pat,

Neither Tom or I said the core values (whatever that means) would be retained.  If that were the case, it wouldn't make much sense to consider an alternate tee.  In fact, there would be an entirely different set of advantages and disadvantages created.  Without question, the visual is awesome from that lower right corner.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #66 on: March 15, 2008, 04:26:44 PM »
Jeff,
From the crux of your comments, would it be safe to say then that in your opinion, most golf holes only look good and play good from “one ideal” starting point?  If that is the case, it would appear that all the width and strategy/angles of play that the dead guys employed on their par four and par five holes was a waste of time and real estate.  Maybe you could also give your take on why the greensites on par fours and par fives are apparently different from par threes.   Yes the architect determines the starting location for the hole on a par three, but don’t they also design par four greensites and par five greensites for shots coming in from many locations?  Your comments also seem to make alternative fairway holes, etc. very questionable design ideas.  Obviously both locations can't be ideal as they are very different from one another.  How do architects get the bunkers and everything else to work well on those type holes?  And finally if I understand correctly, the ground game and approach areas appear to be obsolete.   I guess I am in the minority opinion on all of this but maybe you can clarify?
Thanks,
Mark

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2008, 04:32:29 PM »
Maybe third time lucky and you'll answer Mark,



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?




A simple yes or no will do...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2008, 05:03:56 PM »
Jim,
The answer is yes and yes can mean in some cases multiple tee locations that create different presentations of the golf hole.  All of them can be very interesting!  What part of that statement is not clear to you? 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #69 on: March 15, 2008, 06:24:13 PM »
Mark,

I have built literally dozens of double fairway holes, and that is part of my experience in making greens play and look equally well from both sides. How many have you built from scratch?

Certainly, for a 50 or even 60 yard wide fairway, it’s possible for the green to look about as good from one side to the other.  That seems to be about how wide the old guys built their play areas, and that’s about how wide I build most of mine, although some fairway are narrower. Sometimes precision off the tee is as good a requirement as strategy.

I didn’t mention anything about the ground game in my posts. When I do design double fairway approaches, and usually otherwise, I usually allow for it.  That said, we can have a separate discussion on if it’s obsolete.

I explained the general gist of how to make greens and bunkers present well to two divergent angles, but I can’t understand it for you!

In short, and again, I build at least some part of them to face that approach area, and accept that some other parts may be blind. Its not that it can’t be done, and its easier if the play angles aren’t terribly divergent. But on a par 3, I have designed alternate tees up to 90 degrees off line.  The only way to make the green look good from both places was to angle it right between the two main tees.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #70 on: March 15, 2008, 06:30:25 PM »
"Tommy,
What I am talking about is that the hole played from a tee in the neighborhood of your suggestion would be a lesser hole than the current hole because it would comprimise the angle of approach...which works amazingly well to the angle of the green and surrounding hazards...especially that fall off on the left shoulder. To me, the angle of approach IS the deal with that hole.
I am not saying the hole would be a poor hole from the right tee but we're dealing with one of the premier holes in all of golf and you think you can "improve" it...I don't think your suggestion would result in a net positive for the hole or the course."


Sully:

What are you talking about when you say the angle of approach would be compromised if an alternate tee was created about 15-25 yards to the right?

I'm not talking about moving the present tee. I'm just talking about creating another one to the right with the fill available if the present tee was lowered to its original height. So how can the hole be compromised if the present tee position remains there and in use? And I'm not talking about improving the present tee position just creating another one that has a quite different set of challenges. It's probably something like the approach variety that's possible if one hits a drive into different approach positions on PV's #8 or #12. Do you think that means that one side of the fairway compromises the approach angle from the other side of the fairway?  ;)

And Pat is talking about 'retaining core values'??

What's that supposed to mean Pat?

What we are talking about is par 3 holes that have various angles of attack that create variety and that's exactly what an alternate tee about 15-20 yards to the right on Shinnecock's #11 would do. Go out there and hit some balls from over there, then. I don't give a damn if you do or don't. It wouldn't influence my opinion that that is a very interesting angle of attack that creates quite different strategy and challenges from the present tee.

I've seen some nonsensical answers on some of these threads and those two are a couple of them.  ;)

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2008, 07:16:44 PM »
This whole thead is very confusing to me.  If I can try to summarize - one set of views is that there is generally only one ideal location for tees on a par three.  One other set of views (maybe only mine) is that altering that location (sometimes even if only slightly) can make for interesting variety in the presentation of the golf hole.  I guess I am wrong.

Why can't we look at this "multiple tee option" from the perspective of a par four?  Doesn't the second shot for most golfers essentially boil down to playing a par three hole?  I believe a hole can look good and be interesting from a variety of locations for that second shot.  And if that is true, why would that differ from what could be presented on a regular par three hole?  If for example someone was going to move the tees up on #17 at The National or #10 at Riviera and play the holes as par threes, where would you put the tees?  My opinion is that there might or might not be one "best" location, but for sure there would be lots of interesting and unique options to choose from and each one would present the greensite in a different way.  These teeing locations would be in areas where many golfers now face shots when they play those holes right now. 

« Last Edit: March 15, 2008, 07:20:29 PM by Mark_Fine »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #72 on: March 15, 2008, 07:22:48 PM »
let's do it this way instead...in better keeping with the thread idea...can you name a hole that would benefit from an alternative tee angle for any of its tee blocks?

I do think it is important that the tee angle is substantially different (say 15 yards) for justification that it actually is a different shot.

I am not as well traveled as you so I may or may not recognize the holes you pick...also, please provide your line of reasoning for why the new tee is an improvement but losing the current one would be detrimental...from a strategic/golf perspective...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2008, 07:52:38 PM »
Jim,
Maybe I misunderstood the thread (I probably did) but I thought Pat was asking about multiple tees adding variety to a hole.  All I am saying is that yes they can add variety and sometimes that variety can add to the interest of a golf hole. 

As an example, we have been playing around with different tee locations for our restoration/renovation plan of Pocono Manor and the short #7 hole.  It is very interesting to study the different perspectives one gets on that hole from the different angles of play.  On this hole, we'll add back Flynn's tee as best we can for the original line of play (we have a road problem to deal with) but we might end up building all the different tees as we need more teeing space on that hole anyway.

I'm off to a St. Patick's Day party.  Maybe after a few pints, this will all sink in  ;)
Mark

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for dual tees - multiple angles of attack - variety
« Reply #74 on: March 15, 2008, 09:36:01 PM »
Wayno,

Any tee that promotes a skyline green is ok with me.

Jeff Brauer,

I believe that the 6th and 7th greens at NGLA would work well with an approach from any one of 360 degrees.

Those greens are crafted in such a manner as to make them work from any angle of attack.

While there may be preferable angles of attack, all angles of attack work.

That being the case, couldn't a green that accepts but a single approach from a specific angle of attack, be deemed limited ?

Not that the approach from that angle of attack doesn't produce a challenge, fun or both, but, it would seem to be a green of limitations, in that approaches from other tees, (ladies, short, regular and long) have to be linear in order to make the hole work to its maximum potential.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back