Tee location - The further from the green, the more diluted the challenge ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It took about 100 years for the teeing area to go from one club length from the cup on the green previously played, to two club lengths.

Every golfer faced the identical challenge in the context of the starting point for each hole.

As the teeing area moved further away from the cup on the green previously played, has the universal challenge been diminished ?

Should multiple tees be abandoned in order to present a universal challenge to all golfers.

Is the need to make a par the driving force for creating multiple tees ?

[Kyle Harris]

Maintenance of the area around the hole certainly had something to do with it as well as the need to maintain tee areas. 

I've been curious about this very idea for some time now and how it relates to the sense of flow in the routing. If you mean universal challenge in terms of everybody playing from the same tee, the distance from the hole to the next tee doesn't much matter so long as everyone starts from the same tee.

[John Moore II]

I am not certain I understand how moving the tees can be less of a challenge.  If all golfers tee off from one club length away from the cup to a hole 400 yards away, is it really less challenging than teeing off from a tee box 20 yards, or even 200 yards, away from the original hole to a hole an equal 400 yards away? I am not sure how I can understand how one 400 yard hole is any less challenging than another 400 yard hole, assuming the land variables and hazards are the same.

[Adrian_Stiff]

ITS CALLED PROGRESS. Seriously though most holes need between 50 and 100 yards from the Tips to the Ladies in order that ALL levels of golfer can enjoy.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

I think you are mixing two questions together.  You say you are asking about the distance of the tee from the green, but then you switch the question to be about "universal challenge", where women, seniors, and top amateurs are all playing from different tees that don't present the same challenge to everyone.

I don't see how the amount of challenge could matter just by having the tee located further from green.  In fact, I'd suggest that if you require the tee to be within a few paces of the previous green, the challenge would by necessity be REDUCED because the architect would be more constrained in his choice of green sites by the need for that green site to work as the starting point for the next hole.

Now at this point you are probably warming up the green ink to point out all the great classic courses where the tees are right next to the previous green, or were, and were made worse when the tees were pushed back to lengthen the holes.  But I have to wonder how much better some of those courses could have been if the architect had freed from the requirement to keep the tees close due to the fact that all golfers walked from green to tee.

If we all drove around in carts that could do 100 mph even a quarter mile would not be an unreasonable travel distance.  Maybe if Pine Valley was on more land Crump could have produced a course even greater by the greater flexibility that would have offered.  I'm not advocating long trips from green to tee, I'm just saying that if travel time and land use wasn't an issue, I can't see how the challenge could be worse, and a good architect should be able to find better holes in the larger area and thus increase rather than dilute the challenge.

As to the second part of your question, you already know the answer.  Yes, the need to make par was the driving force behind multiple tees.  If women were willing to accept higher scores and more fairway wood layups/moveups per round, they could play from further back on many courses.  But some challenges would be lost by the need to accomodate them -- pretty much any forced carry would be lost.  Say goodbye to Merion's 18th, and many other classic tests, so relaxing this requirement would reduce the challenge in some cases.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am not certain I understand how moving the tees can be less of a challenge.  If all golfers tee off from one club length away from the cup to a hole 400 yards away, is it really less challenging than teeing off from a tee box 20 yards, or even 200 yards, away from the original hole to a hole an equal 400 yards away?

The distance the tee is from the previous hole isn't the issue, it's the use of the same tee by all golfers that's the issue.[/color]

I am not sure how I can understand how one 400 yard hole is any less challenging than another 400 yard hole, assuming the land variables and hazards are the same.

All golfers aren't playing a "400" yard hole, some are playing 400, some are playing 375, others 340 and others 300.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

ITS CALLED PROGRESS.

Are you sure of that.

How is it progress if the challenge has been muted and/or diluted ?[/color]

Seriously though most holes need between 50 and 100 yards from the Tips to the Ladies in order that ALL levels of golfer can enjoy.

Why ?

When I couldn't hit a ball 180 with my best drive I enjoyed the game MORE than when I could hit it 260 +. 

The architectural features took on more significance, mainly because I couldn't get a high trajectory.

Why is there a need to create a set of tees for EVERY subset of golfers ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I think you are mixing two questions together.  You say you are asking about the distance of the tee from the green, but then you switch the question to be about "universal challenge", where women, seniors, and top amateurs are all playing from different tees that don't present the same challenge to everyone.

Doug, I'm not mixing the questions, I'm providing some historical perspective for those that were unaware of how the game was played in its early phase.[/color]

I don't see how the amount of challenge could matter just by having the tee located further from green.  In fact, I'd suggest that if you require the tee to be within a few paces of the previous green, the challenge would by necessity be REDUCED because the architect would be more constrained in his choice of green sites by the need for that green site to work as the starting point for the next hole.

The starting point is partially irrelevant, although, I prefer short green to tee walks, and better yet, I like tees that flow from the previous green, like NGLA and AppleBrook.

The issue is having ONE common tee for all levels of golfers instead of 5 or 6 tees for every subset of golfers.[/color]

Now at this point you are probably warming up the green ink to point out all the great classic courses where the tees are right next to the previous green, or were, and were made worse when the tees were pushed back to lengthen the holes.  But I have to wonder how much better some of those courses could have been if the architect had freed from the requirement to keep the tees close due to the fact that all golfers walked from green to tee.

You're right about the green ink, but wrong about the issue.
I understand and value elasticity vis a vis lengthening, it's the concept of creating 5 or 6 sets of tees that I question[/color]

If we all drove around in carts that could do 100 mph even a quarter mile would not be an unreasonable travel distance.  Maybe if Pine Valley was on more land Crump could have produced a course even greater by the greater flexibility that would have offered.  I'm not advocating long trips from green to tee, I'm just saying that if travel time and land use wasn't an issue, I can't see how the challenge could be worse, and a good architect should be able to find better holes in the larger area and thus increase rather than dilute the challenge.

You're heading in the wrong direction.
Go back to the begining when ALL golfers teed off from the same spot.
That's the gist of this thread, the commonality of the challenge for all golfers in terms of their starting point.[/color]

As to the second part of your question, you already know the answer.  Yes, the need to make par was the driving force behind multiple tees. 

Why ?

Do you feel that the philosophical need arose when medal play took root ?

In match play, what difference does it make with respect to what par is ?
If you play from the same tee, you face the same challenge and the golfer who scores the lowest wins the hole, irrespective of whether he scores a 9 or a 2, if his score is lower than his opponents, he wins, and couldn't care less as to what par is or isn't.[/color]

If women were willing to accept higher scores and more fairway wood layups/moveups per round, they could play from further back on many courses. 

"Higher scores"
Scoring seems to be the culprit.
If women were playing match play, what difference would it make in regard to what they score on each hole, as long as they beat or tie their opponent ?[/color]

But some challenges would be lost by the need to accomodate them -- pretty much any forced carry would be lost.  Say goodbye to Merion's 18th, and many other classic tests, so relaxing this requirement would reduce the challenge in some cases.

"Accomodate" seems to be a critical word.
The need to "accomodate" every golfer who sets foot on the golf course, without having a minimum standard.

It's sort of like having a swim meet with the requirement that those that can't swim should be offered some sort of "accomodation", like floatation devices, flippers, and breathing apparatus.

Your 18th at Merion example is a good example that focuses on THE issue, an issue accentuated and expanded by the disparity in play between the best and the worst golfers.  A gap that's taken a quantum leap over the last 10 or so years.

Was the carry at # 18 at Merion always heroic ?
Did it require a minimum standard when it came to ball striking ?
One can't look at # 18 at Merion without looking at # 16 and to view how  carries were presented in the context of playing options for golfers unable or unwilling to attempt the carry.

TODAY, is it far more difficult for architects to create the same, or a similar, or a distantly similar challenge for EVERY level of golfer ?

Have the prodigious distances achieved by the better golfer made that task infinitely more difficult, if not impossible for the architect ?

Forgetting the maintainance issue, how did the game go from a common teeing area for all golfers, to 5 to 6 sets of tees 200 or more yards removed from one another ?

And, should those 5 or 6 sets be compressed to a fewer number, like 2 or, at the absolute maximum, 3 ?[/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

Swim meet = tournament, and every tournament I've ever played in was from the same set of tees. So no, that's not what Doug is saying. At all.

When the pool isn't being used for a swim meet, I'm sure you'll find all sorts of accommodations for less skilled swimmers like floaties and trainer assistance...

[David_Elvins]

Is the need to make a par the driving force for creating multiple tees ?

Pat,

I think that forced carries is the number 1 reason for multiple sets of tees.  

No matter how long a course, if it is interesting and and has no forced carries, there is only need for one set of tees.

Secondly, and slightly related to the previous point, I think that "modern" design largely flipped strategy so that it started at the tee rather than the green.  Whilst an interesting green provides strategy for all golfers, "modern" features such as split farways, island fairways and risk reward water carries where reduced distance for the next shot is a reward (rather than a better angle of attack) need multiple tees to be relevant to a wide range of golfers.

Thirdly, somewhere along the line I think there is an expectation of reaching greens in regulation but I think it has somewhat followed the first two points.

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
Seems like the pretty simple solution to creating a universal challenge is to have all golfers in any competition play the same tees. This has happened about as long as there have been golf competitions. 

However, the nice thing about multiple tees is that you could have a competion from one set one day and another set another day. If you have a long hitter who can't putt and a short hitter who can, it might create some intrigue to switch starting points occasionally. It switches the advantage, but it also sees who better can adjust to playing at a disadvantage with their particular game. Maybe one or both of them learns to improve their skill set as a result. It creates variety, that's the advantage.

There have been threads on "what is the ideal length of a course" and even among better players the variety is pretty wide as to their preferred length. I might be fine playing a 6500 yard course, but would Tiger Woods or a beginner want to try that? Maybe if its Cypress Point or Crystal Downs, but that's a seperate issue entirely.

What are your thoughts regarding the tees at Augusta where your only options are the Masters tees and Members tees. That might be the closest to your example as actually exists.

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

Requiring every player to use the same tees would dilute the enjoyment of the game, increasing the challenge for some or diluting it for others.  My club is an object lesson in the utility of multiple tees.  The difference between the blues and whites is about 450 yards.  I belong to a small percentage of players who strongly prefer the blues.  I try to arrange games so that at least a quorum will want to play the blues.  Occasionally this doesn't work out and I end up on the whites, which dilutes the challenge as well as the enjoyment of the game for me.

But from the perspective of the majority who want to play the whites, pushing them back to the blues increases the challenge at the cost of making it less enjoyable - par 4's become 3-shot holes, par 3's two-shot holes etc.  Guys who feel overmatched by the course rarely have a good time.

I think Tom Paul has also advocated a single set of tees, but you are both wrong in this case.  Golf is a game to be enjoyed:  having multiple teeing areas to accomodate different skill levels increases the enjoyment of the game.

[Adrian_Stiff]

ITS CALLED PROGRESS.

Are you sure of that.

How is it progress if the challenge has been muted and/or diluted ?[/color]

Seriously though most holes need between 50 and 100 yards from the Tips to the Ladies in order that ALL levels of golfer can enjoy.

Why ?

When I couldn't hit a ball 180 with my best drive I enjoyed the game MORE than when I could hit it 260 +. 

The architectural features took on more significance, mainly because I couldn't get a high trajectory.

Why is there a need to create a set of tees for EVERY subset of golfers ?[/color]

Yes Patrick i am sure it is progress that we now play off tees two clubs away from the previous hole. Ofcourse some people will enjoy playing the longest possible, but the majority do not. So by having multiple tees the course allows enjoyment for the majority.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The questions you asked in your initial post have been asked and discussed many times and in many different ways on this website.

To get back nearer the way things once were that way would obviously create an immense change in not just architecture but more so in golf itself.

It would, in fact, restore one of the most NATURAL handicaps to the game---and that is the distance any particular golfer is capable of hitting a golf ball.

But that's the way it once was and there was a relatively efficient means of adjusting for it handicap-wise, even if some might not admit to that today.

The fact is, before the teens most all golf was played by everyone from generally the same tee markers---including women.

To do this again today, would of course put many additional pressures on architects in routing and the designing of features but if it was done once it certainly could be done again.

The only remaining question is who would and who wouldn't like it? The fact is both golf and architecture has been swept over the ensuing years with all kinds of ideas of "fairness", "equity" or should I say "forced equality", and obviously the most effective way to do that (albeit perhaps not the most efficient or economical way with the use of ground) is through the manipulation of distance for various levels of golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes Patrick i am sure it is progress that we now play off tees two clubs away from the previous hole.

That's not what I was refering to.[/color]

Of course some people will enjoy playing the longest possible, but the majority do not. So by having multiple tees the course allows enjoyment for the majority.

By appealing to the common denominator, don't we dilute the game ?

Do you think, when but one tee was used, irrespective of its location, that the game was enjoyed by those that played it ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Too often golf and GCA are contexted and confined to the play of Tiger Woods and his peers, if he has any.

You have to view the issue in everyday play as it occurs at clubs throughout the country.

Most golfers play the same set of tees day in and day out.
I rarely see golfers playing from every set of tees on their golf course.

As to ANGC, I like the two tee concept.

GCGC used to do the same until a set of Senior tees was added in recent years.

[Norbert P]

As to ANGC, I like the two tee concept.

No Ladies tees at Augusta?  Hmmm, imagine that.

Let's see, when women were finally allowed to play courses in Scotland, they were often relegated to their own courses. Isn't building a closer set of tees more economical that that?  What about Juniors? Is a course inviting by design to all or just to anglo apes?

  Shorter tees allow the option, on a par 3, of a selection of clubs for attack. The farther back we go the less of a selection.   At Husum Hill GC in WA, the 7th is a 100 yarder that I love to play with a 6 iron.  People are constantly flying the green into a giant void of no return. The bump shot always boggles others but it's the percentage shot, and it's more thrilling in the John Kirk Time Theory sort of way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slag,

Every time I've played ANGC, women were playing the golf course, so I don't see how you perceive that there's a problem with the two tee configuration.

I've also observed some elderly gentlemen, with limited ability, playing the course as well.

Everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves.

So again I ask, why do you think the two tee configuration creates a problem ?

The members tees played to 6,365 and the Masters tees about 7,445.

When you consider the downhill nature of some of the longer holes, like # 2, # 10 and # 11, the fact that on the par 5's only the 2nd hole plays slightly over 500 from the Members tees and that the fairways remain generous, the golf course is very user friendly to all level of golfers who choose the Members tees.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes Patrick i am sure it is progress that we now play off tees two clubs away from the previous hole.

That's not what I was refering to.[/color]

Of course some people will enjoy playing the longest possible, but the majority do not. So by having multiple tees the course allows enjoyment for the majority.

By appealing to the common denominator, don't we dilute the game ?

Do you think, when but one tee was used, irrespective of its location, that the game was enjoyed by those that played it ?[/color]

Patrick- I think the game has changed dramatically, perhaps more so in the last 10 years. The range the people hit their tee shots is now 100 yards, say 220-320. going back in time the range was much smaller. I played with some tour players recently (I was scratch years ago now I am a 7) holes that were drive and 7 irons for them were 2 woods for me. I did not enjoy it, I need to play with the seniors now off the middle tees for 9 holes I can be level par. We are in the entertainments business and largely people like making pars.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

Unfortunately, I'd agree with your last sentence.

Is that due to the constant exposure of golf via the medium of TV broadcasts of medal play tournaments week after week ?

Has the culture of golf changed in the context of the objective ?

By that I mean has it transitioned from vanquishing your opponent via match play, irrespective of your score, versus producing a "score" in match and medal play ?

Quite often on USGA and PGA broadcasts of match play, there always seems to be a reference to the winners score versus par when that information is completely irrelevant to the outcome of the match.

Has the medal play format, despite the fact that most non-tournament play at local clubs is match play, created a scoring mentality that's become pervasive to the game to the extent that the game now must accomodate that mentality, vis a vis softening the architecture or teeing area ?

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Too often golf and GCA are contexted and confined to the play of Tiger Woods and his peers, if he has any.

You have to view the issue in everyday play as it occurs at clubs throughout the country.

Most golfers play the same set of tees day in and day out.
I rarely see golfers playing from every set of tees on their golf course.

As to ANGC, I like the two tee concept.

GCGC used to do the same until a set of Senior tees was added in recent years.

Patrick,
I'm a little disappointed that I did not get the green ink treatment!  

I do agree that most golfers play the same tees day in and day out. Some do switch back and forth, but they are in the minority.

I do tend to agree that some courses have 6 tees is rather overkill. If you want to create that many configurations I'd prefer using the system I've seen at some clubs in Arizona where they have "combo" tees on the scorecard that allow you to mix and match tees and still have a course rating and slope.

Despite your comments about decreased length related to enjoyment of the game I'm afraid not all people share your view. I wish more did. My father almost always at least one set up from me because he's lost so much length that he has more fun playing a shorter course. I don't see any harm in that. I don't think we are appealing to the common denominator with multiple sets of tees, we're trying to make the game enjoyable for as many golfers as possible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Troeger,

Define enjoyment.

I lost 80 yards on my drives, distance and loft on my irons and I enjoyed the game as much, if not more than before.

You're confusing enjoyment with scoring satisfaction.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

I don't agree that medal play is responsible for multiple tees.  It may be one of the reasons (along with out of control technology) why we now have 5 or 6 sets of tees, but it isn't why we have more than one.

If you want to know why we don't have one set of tees, and why wouldn't have one set of tees even if every single golfer in the world played match play exclusively, to the point of not even bothering to add up to their 18 hole score, and equipment was rolled back to 1970 technology, I'll let you in on the secret:  The "full fairway wood layup" is the most boring shot in the game of golf!  No one wants to play it, including women, so they play shorter tees to avoid it (or more realistically for most, at least play it less often)

Perhaps you don't believe me, and are thinking of some of the wonderfully strategic three shot par 5s you have played that you believe support your position.  They don't.  They are the 0.1% exception to the 99.9% majority.  You might not have a problem with such shots, but only because you play them so rarely.  If you had to play one or more such shots on every par 4 and par 5 hole, as would be the situation with making an average woman play a course from the regular men's tees today (let alone the tips) I think your viewpoint would be different.

I recall your battle with cancer a few years ago, where you were in a weakened state and lost a great deal of distance, but you were still outdriving all but the top women golfers and many seniors.  At least the shorter par 4s and par 5s were within reach for you in regulation, and when you couldn't get there in regulation you were generally getting close enough to rely on your wedge game to save your bacon.  It wasn't the game you were used to playing by any means, but it was closer to the game you were used to than that which would be played by an average women playing from the tees you did.

I think you and I would need to visit that course that has the 1001 yard hole and play that hole over and over again all day long to get an appreciation for what the typical woman golfer would go through if everyone was forced to play the same set of tees.  I'd quit the game if I was forced to play like that all the time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you want to know why we don't have one set of tees, and why wouldn't have one set of tees even if every single golfer in the world played match play exclusively, to the point of not even bothering to add up to their 18 hole score, and equipment was rolled back to 1970 technology, I'll let you in on the secret: 

The "full fairway wood layup" is the most boring shot in the game of golf!  No one wants to play it, including women, so they play shorter tees to avoid it (or more realistically for most, at least play it less often)

How can it be boring when architectural demands are placed on properly executing that shot, while at the same time punishing errant shots ?

It would appear that these are the words spoken by a man who didn't play golf in the 60's and 70's when virtually every golfer, including the better players, hit their 3-woods or 4-woods on all four par 5's, a couple of long par 4's, and an occassional par 3.

Hitting a 3 or 4-wood to the optimal spot, including a green was a demanding shot, one that was required more than a few times during the course of a round for even the better player.  It was/is anything but boring.[/color]

Perhaps you don't believe me, and are thinking of some of the wonderfully strategic three shot par 5s you have played that you believe support your position.  They don't. 

They do, and, they're not alone.  A good number of par 4's and par 3's require hitting an accurate and demanding 3-wood[/color]

They are the 0.1% exception to the 99.9% majority. 


The last time I looked, most golf courses had four (4) par 5's and a couple of long par 4's and one long par 3.  That's close to 20 % of non-putting shots, and a much higher percentage if I eliminate tee shots.[/color]

You might not have a problem with such shots, but only because you play them so rarely.  If you had to play one or more such shots on every par 4 and par 5 hole, as would be the situation with making an average woman play a course from the regular men's tees today (let alone the tips) I think your viewpoint would be different.

That's absolutely untrue.

I had to play them on almost every hole and I enjoyed each and every shot.
[/color]

I recall your battle with cancer a few years ago, where you were in a weakened state and lost a great deal of distance, but you were still outdriving all but the top women golfers and many seniors. 


That's not true.
A BIG drive for me was 180 yards.
And, I had great difficulty getting loft on my low to mid irons.
The 3-wood became my "Ginsu" my all purpose club and I enjoyed the variety of shots I was able to produce with it.  I was never bored.

During a round, anyone who gets bored hitting a particular club ISN'T
a "GOLFER", no matter how many times they have to hit it.

Do you get bored when you're putting ?
I don't, yet we hit our putter about 50 % of the time,
We hit our driver about 40 % of the time, not counting putting.
Yet, I never heard anyone claim that they were bored with their driver or driving.[/color]

At least the shorter par 4s and par 5s were within reach for you in regulation, and when you couldn't get there in regulation you were generally getting close enough to rely on your wedge game to save your bacon. 

Firstly, with my best tee shots maxed out at 180, I wasn't reaching many par 4's and par 5's in regulation, and I was hitting my 3-wood constantly in an attempt to do so.  My 2-iron also became a club of choice.

Secondly, Therein lies the problem.

You speak about par as if it's a golfer's right of entitlement.
Every golfer isn't supposed to make par, yet, that's why you advocate multiple tees, to afford them a high probability of making par.

In order to cater to every element in golf we've lowered the bar, vis a vis multiple sets of tees.[/color]

It wasn't the game you were used to playing by any means, but it was closer to the game you were used to than that which would be played by an average women playing from the tees you did.

Doug, you have to understand that while I could no longer perform like a scratch handicap physically, mentally I was still a scratch handicap, and that is an important component in navigating the golf course with an eye toward scoring as best I could, or, defeating whatever opponent I faced.

Again, I can assure you that I wore out my 3-wood and 2-iron and enjoyed every stroke, except the short putts I missed.[/color]

I think you and I would need to visit that course that has the 1001 yard hole and play that hole over and over again all day long to get an appreciation for what the typical woman golfer would go through if everyone was forced to play the same set of tees. 


Women aren't supposed to score like Tiger Woods.
Women aren't supposed to hit the ball like Tiger Woods.

What's the difference if men play a par 72 course and women play the same course with a par of 90 ?

Isn't everyone going to have the same great time on the golf course ?
Meeting the challenge ?  Comraderie ? Fun ?
Why must there be equality with respect to making the same score ?

You seem to feel that if the challenge is severe, we should lessen the challenge ?

Women used to play the same tees as men.  To a large extent, so did Juniors and Seniors.

Augusta may be a great example or model for tees.

While the Masters or Tournament tees have been lengthened considerably, very little yardage has been added to the members tees, which provide a delightful challenge for the ENORMOUS majority of golfers.

In fact, on the Member's tees a good number of holes have been SHORTENED.  I believe that the course in 1934 played to 6,300 yards from the Member's tees.  Today, I believe it plays about 6,365 yards from the Member's tees, which is where the majority of golf is played at ANGC.

And, using one's 3-wood is a common occurance.
It gets repeated throughout the round, and in NO way is it boring.

The first time I played # 13 I had a 3-wood into the green.
I had dreamed about that shot since the first day I ever saw # 13 on TV.
The same for # 15.
Was I bored because in three holes I had to hit two 3-woods ?

I'd love to play a 1001 yard hole and I wouldn't mind playing it over and over again against you, Ran, TEPaul and many others.

You're hung up on the need to make par, while I'm focused on playing the hole as best I can and beating you, Ran and TEPaul.  That's the joy of the game.  Can you imagine Ran beating me, (I know, that's unrealistic) and complaining that he had to hit his 3-wood 8 times ?  That wouldn't happen.
Instead, he'd focus on a particularly good 3-wood that won him a hole.

So, again, I say to you, you're hung up on the need for EVERYONE to make pars, and in the face of the challenge, the easy way to accomplish this is to diminish the challenge vis a vis, a forward tee for every subset of golfers.[/color]

I'd quit the game if I was forced to play like that all the time.

I'd NEVER quit.
I'd relish the challenge and I'd relish the angst the challenge brings to my opponent.

Why do you think cross country tournaments are so much fun ?

Could I play cross country every day ?
You bet I could and I'd have a great time, especially if Ran and TEPaul were in my group.

Pine tree has two par 5's that are about 670 and 620, with the 620 yard 5th hole being more difficult than the 670 16th.  The prevailing wind usually hurts on # 5 and helps on # 16.  Often, I've had to hit two three woods on each hole, and, NOT one of them was ever boring.  They were challenging demanding shots.

Not long ago I played Seminole and wore my 3-wood out, from bunkers and fairways.  I hit five of the best fairway bunker shots I'd ever hit and four of them were with 3-woods.  I also hit 3-wood off # 8 tee.

Was I bored ?
NO, I was exhilarated.
[/color]

[Sean_A]

Zowie!  For once (or perhaps twice) I agree with THE BIG M.  I too would like to see the number of tees reduced unless there is a forced carry which many cannot make or if there is another cool angle of play which lends variety to the game.  I could even go for some longer tees which can also change angles and add variety.  I think if tees were reduced courses would become more playable for all and/or some people would know to avoid certain courses which don't suit them.  Furthermore, it may encourage more "random" (I hate this word because I don't think there is anything random in the placing of hazards) hazards - meaning and hopefully all obstacles rather than merely the very limited rules definition of the word. 

Ciao