Less is more with Tees

[Kyle Harris]

I received a phone call from an esteemed GCA.com friend the other day and he posited a rather interesting question regarding the amount of tees.

In summary: "Are less tees more?"

As with most things, I've let things stew for a bit. But has the increase in the amount of tees lead to a decrease in the overall variety of golf designs and a more formulaic approach to design? Has it served as a crutch for architects to stymie creative thought and stick with so-called time tested things like forced carries and 7000+ yard golf courses?

If one accepts the adage of designing the golf course to challenge all skill levels - how does limiting the amount of tees to less than 3 affect the design?

How does the definition of par and the almost sense of entitlement for all golfers to have a "right" to make a par fit in? After all, isn't "par" the score an expert player would make for a hole? How many on GCA actually consider themselves expert players?

[tlavin]

It's a conundrum.  I think four or five sets of tees is great for the consumer.  It allows players of every ability to pick the length that best suits their game and therefore helps everybody enjoy the game more.  If they don't go too far back for their level, it also helps pace of play.  On the other hand, there can be no doubt that five sets of tees really mars the visual landscape on a lot of golf courses.  A course that only has two sets of tees per hole is sure a lot easier on the eyes.

[Charlie Goerges]

I wonder if it could be approached like the 3-point line in basketball. There are only 2, and if 5th-graders are playing, hey, it's there if one of them can make it, but it's not really a part of the game at that level.

Maybe two (or three in my opinion) sets of tees should be enough. And if one can't get home in regulation then that's just not a part of the game at that level.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

With all due respect this is one of the worst thought out hypothesis ever tried here.  The way I read this, if you wanted to post a thread on either using one tee OR forgetting par because it's evil you should have just titled the thread that way and not drag modern gca's through the mud.  If either you or your esteemed friend ran a golf course for profit, you would probably see the light differently as well.

For the life of me, I can't see how providing multiple tees to spread out wear and allow players to play a course somewhere near their ideal distance would stifle creativity and I would LOVE to hear your explanation of how it might.  For that matter I see no relation to tees and your idea of "time tested theories of the forced carry." What BS.  Most gca's avoid forced carries whenever possible and then use forward tees to eliminate them for average players even if better ones (or at least longer ones) have to deal with them.

As to the 7000 yard course, that length is now a no man's land - not long enough for good players (who probably need 7250-7600 yards for a course to play "the way they are used to playing it - i.e. using driver on most tees) and too long for the other 97% of golfers.

But, at any length, using multiple tees allows basically one landing area (and its expensive hazards) to be used for most tee shots on the theory that we have to build so much tee anyway to spread wear.  So, its basically no additional cost, whereas building the so called "random landing areas" down the fw is very much a cost.  And, multiple tees can be creatively used to set up the course differently, if desired. Plus, the average golfer gets to play the same course (almost - at least the same tee shots) as the big boys. 

But, does any of that constrain an architect in his creativity in designing that landing area? I think not.

And none of this has anything to do with par - I doubt the average golfer feels entitled to par.  I do think they get tired of hitting driver - 3 wood - wedge because some gca follows the advice of a few loonies on this site and says to go back to a two tee set because "that's the way they did it in the Golden Age." 

Frankly, I think most women and many men would find a two tee set very rude and offensive in this day and age.  And, I would like to see some data that the two tee sets of the old days (with the forward tee being very much an afterthought) really catered to the needs of the golfers that played the course before we go back to in some wave of nostalgia.

Statistically, there are 5 distinct groups of golfer, distance wise. Tee shots cluster around 290 (3%), 260 (16%), 225(57%), 190(19%), 140 yard tee shots (5%)) So, to me, 5 tees makes sense.  I see no sense in making any of them play a course not suited to their distance, and for that matter, would love to see an argument justifying why they should. 

I wouldn't want to play a course where I couldn't remember all the hazards and strategies because I never reached them or overdrove them, would you?  The easiest way to accomplish all of the above is multiple tees.  I agree each tee should be designed carefully rather than just go with 25 or 30 incrmental distance differences to make the most of the opportunity presented and make each hole play the best it can for the intended user.  That doesn't always happen (and don't ask how I know this! )

In summary:  "Less tees is less tees." 

Just my $0.02 and excuse my quarterly rant if you can.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

I have to run to a Scout meeting right now.

But how would you approach the problem if a client were to REQUIRE one set of tees for a golf course on which you were the sole architect in whom he was interested?

The course would be a public golf course with the target of $60 green fee on weekend peak time.

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff,

I have to run to a Scout meeting right now.

But how would you approach the problem if a client were to REQUIRE one set of tees for a golf course on which you were the sole architect in whom he was interested?

The course would be a public golf course with the target of $60 green fee on weekend peak time.

Kyle, how about if it was one 50-yard long tee with three or four sets of markers? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Interesting question.  Before I answer that, how about you answer this - if that client was a Martian with a green head, would it affect your design?

[Sean_A]

Kyle

I will take the opposite view as Jeff - just because he supports a southern hockey club.  

Jeff's first defense for several sets of tees is hazard placement.  I say the first reason for limited tees should be varied land and how its used.  The problem with Jeff's theory is he is trying to satisfy all consumers in a single package and it just can't be done.  There is no one course fits all and the obvious non fit are the best players.  

One of the few ways I would support mega tees is if its mostly angle changing rather yardage build up.  Lets face it, adding yards to a course doesn't hold back the best players so there is no point in doing it for them.  Besides, the best players rarely show up anywhere so nearly every course in existence doesn't even have to consider the best players.  

I think mega tees are for the most part a marketing scam that sensible archies have not yet found a way to break down.  If an archie can't build a good course which challenges and provides fun for nearly every golfer in the world he is doing something wrong.  The UK is full of cracking courses with 3 sets ranging from 5500 to 6200 yards.  

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Kyle,

With all due respect this is one of the worst thought out hypothesis ever tried here.  The way I read this, if you wanted to post a thread on either using one tee OR forgetting par because it's evil you should have just titled the thread that way and not drag modern gca's through the mud.  If either you or your esteemed friend ran a golf course for profit, you would probably see the light differently as well.

For the life of me, I can't see how providing multiple tees to spread out wear and allow players to play a course somewhere near their ideal distance would stifle creativity and I would LOVE to hear your explanation of how it might.  For that matter I see no relation to tees and your idea of "time tested theories of the forced carry." What BS.  Most gca's avoid forced carries whenever possible and then use forward tees to eliminate them for average players even if better ones (or at least longer ones) have to deal with them.

As to the 7000 yard course, that length is now a no man's land - not long enough for good players (who probably need 7250-7600 yards for a course to play "the way they are used to playing it - i.e. using driver on most tees) and too long for the other 97% of golfers.

But, at any length, using multiple tees allows basically one landing area (and its expensive hazards) to be used for most tee shots on the theory that we have to build so much tee anyway to spread wear.  So, its basically no additional cost, whereas building the so called "random landing areas" down the fw is very much a cost.  And, multiple tees can be creatively used to set up the course differently, if desired. Plus, the average golfer gets to play the same course (almost - at least the same tee shots) as the big boys. 

But, does any of that constrain an architect in his creativity in designing that landing area? I think not.

And none of this has anything to do with par - I doubt the average golfer feels entitled to par.  I do think they get tired of hitting driver - 3 wood - wedge because some gca follows the advice of a few loonies on this site and says to go back to a two tee set because "that's the way they did it in the Golden Age." 

Frankly, I think most women and many men would find a two tee set very rude and offensive in this day and age.  And, I would like to see some data that the two tee sets of the old days (with the forward tee being very much an afterthought) really catered to the needs of the golfers that played the course before we go back to in some wave of nostalgia.

Statistically, there are 5 distinct groups of golfer, distance wise. Tee shots cluster around 290 (3%), 260 (16%), 225(57%), 190(19%), 140 yard tee shots (5%)) So, to me, 5 tees makes sense.  I see no sense in making any of them play a course not suited to their distance, and for that matter, would love to see an argument justifying why they should. 

I wouldn't want to play a course where I couldn't remember all the hazards and strategies because I never reached them or overdrove them, would you?  The easiest way to accomplish all of the above is multiple tees.  I agree each tee should be designed carefully rather than just go with 25 or 30 incrmental distance differences to make the most of the opportunity presented and make each hole play the best it can for the intended user.  That doesn't always happen (and don't ask how I know this! )

In summary:  "Less tees is less tees." 

Just my $0.02 and excuse my quarterly rant if you can.

I'm with Kyle on this one
5 or 6 sets of tees is giving golfers too many choices-and looks ridiculous as well as a lot to maintain separately.

I play three courses regularly that have one/two sets of tees-great fun.
Sometimes it's a good thing to play the same tees as someone you're giving a shot or two a hole on.
Certainly an 18 handicap shoudln't really expect to have legitimate expectation  to reach a green in regulation the majority of the time.
As a kid I played one set of tees and required 2,3,4 or 5 shots to reach.
If there were only two sets of tees ,there's be less of a stigma about men  playing forward tees-and one could mix and match the two sets.
and if running a course for profit, I'd prefer to maintain less tees, but somewhat larger.

perhaps if more "modern GCA's" had been "drug thru the mud"(rather than glorified by the press and the USGA), we wouldn't be seeing courses renovated/restored/ rewhatevered every 10 years or so.

[Steve Salmen]

I think it would be great to see a golf course with one set of tees.  The only circumstance under which this would be possible is if the club is exclusive to good players.  Depending on the shot lines, tees that are 40 yards long could could possibly change the length of the course around 700 yards.

Chicago basically has one set of tees.  There are four par 4s with back tees that add 30 to 40 yards.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I would also love to see your stats on newer courses being renovated every 10 years or so.....and your backup for the lack of stigma thing.  It might be true, but I haven't really seen evidence of it and I have looked!

Back to tees, I disagree that the normally sized 5 sets of tees is too big.  Basically you need about 2 SF for every 100 rounds played, or on a 35,000 round course, 7000 SF.  I agree six tees can be a bit visually consuming for those 3% who play the back tees. But, a gca can hide tees (Fazio does this extremely well, although it spreads them out even further) and besides, what looks worse, one big 7000 sf tee or a few smaller ones?

It can be great fun to play from the same set of tees as your buds.  Most of us do.  But, what if the group is mixed?  Or what if the one tee available is too long for your group?   How much fun is it to knock a non strategic shot around on 14 holes?  At an average of 3 minutes a shot, does the 42 extra minutes a round they add make for a more or less fun round?

While its impractical to accomodate every length of tee shot, I would say that the average golfer doesn't expect to reach all greens in regulation, but would appreciate the chance to do it if he hits two straight shots.  Based on hanging around public courses I get more convinced that the number of folks who actually want to play a too long course is going down as people realize what many say here - there is a lot more to golf than length.  That is why I can't understand why so many of the same people then want to force the vast majority of the players to play from one tee that will most certainly be too long for their games........

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Interesting question.  Before I answer that, how about you answer this - if that client was a Martian with a green head, would it affect your design?

No.

Quit dodging and start thinking. I'm interested in how Golf Architects tackle design problems - not about how they best sell the last 50 years of golf design.

All,

One set of tee blocks will be set per hole. Any variance in yardage is allowed to be designed into the hole. One day a hole could play 360, the next 380.

[Matt_Cohn]

Three tees used to be enough, let's say in the 1980's. Now the short hitters hit it the same distance, but long hitters hit it 40 yards further.

Based on that, how can we justify not having at least one extra set of tees - at lesat 4, total - on a course built to accommodate modern distances (i.e. 7,000+ yards)?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I would also love to see your stats on newer courses being renovated every 10 years or so.....and your backup for the lack of stigma thing.  It might be true, but I haven't really seen evidence of it and I have looked!

Back to tees, I disagree that the normally sized 5 sets of tees is too big.  Basically you need about 2 SF for every 100 rounds played, or on a 35,000 round course, 7000 SF.  I agree six tees can be a bit visually consuming for those 3% who play the back tees. But, a gca can hide tees (Fazio does this extremely well, although it spreads them out even further) and besides, what looks worse, one big 7000 sf tee or a few smaller ones?

It can be great fun to play from the same set of tees as your buds.  Most of us do.  But, what if the group is mixed?  Or what if the one tee available is too long for your group?   How much fun is it to knock a non strategic shot around on 14 holes?  At an average of 3 minutes a shot, does the 42 extra minutes a round they add make for a more or less fun round?

While its impractical to accomodate every length of tee shot, I would say that the average golfer doesn't expect to reach all greens in regulation, but would appreciate the chance to do it if he hits two straight shots.  Based on hanging around public courses I get more convinced that the number of folks who actually want to play a too long course is going down as people realize what many say here - there is a lot more to golf than length.  That is why I can't understand why so many of the same people then want to force the vast majority of the players to play from one tee that will most certainly be too long for their games........

Jeff,
You certainly have a qualified and expert opinion, we just disagree.

I also think courses should be much shorter. 5000-5800 for on set, 6000-6600 for the other -plenty for 99%
If anything I'm forcing golfers to play up (much as they do in the UK)
3 sets is OK too- I give

I can think of a lot of modern courses redone since they opened in the 90's,
but it would be an anecdotal and unscientific sampling, as well as many older  courses redone in the 80's and 90's that have since been "restored".

Can we agree that with three sets 5300-6300-7000 that one could mix and match to find an appropriate set?
Of course that would require some reprogramming on the part of players, but I'd say both players and operators could use some reprogramming.

[Kyle Harris]

It can be great fun to play from the same set of tees as your buds.  Most of us do.  But, what if the group is mixed?  Or what if the one tee available is too long for your group?   How much fun is it to knock a non strategic shot around on 14 holes?  At an average of 3 minutes a shot, does the 42 extra minutes a round they add make for a more or less fun round?

As the architect - it's your job to make sure this doesn't happen. How do you do it?

All,

Why is it acceptable to offer graduated starting points for golfers all skills levels instead of differing paths of varying difficulty from the same tee to the hole?

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't know about acceptable, but a common situation I see on courses in MN is the presence of large crossing hazards like marshes or environmentally sensitive wetlands that can't be gotten around. There's no way across but to carry the ball at least 100 yards either in the air or in your pocket on your way across the marsh to the next set of tees  .

I'm not saying such locations are ideal, but I've never seen any course deal with it in any other way than several sets of tees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its late so I won't answer a bunch of good questions, but Charlie, MN - land of 1000 lakes is also home to 10,000 small pocket wetlands and perhaps 10 Mil mosquitos......with environmental reggies, its hard to avoid crossing them but I still say most gca's try, or try to put them in front of tees to minimize their effect - or on par 3's where more golfers get the iron tee shot airborne.

Kyle,

As far as avoiding the 14 extra shots, its simple math - if I hit it 190 off the tee and 170 for the second, if I am playing a par 4 over 360 yards I take an extra shot.

As to the alternate route thing, I have expounded on that before, but its my theory that the Golden Age multiple route theory was simply found wanting.  Why?  Who do you know today that will purposely aim for an ultra safe route?  Some, but most say "I didn't come out to lay up"  Over time, those multiple routes were used so little that clubs took them out to save maintenance costs.  Most would say that one fw per hole is enough, if designed right, perhaps zigging and zagging in all the right places.

And, in reality, staggering bunkers down the fw can work with multiple tees, too, keeping options of carry vs center of fw open for more people, not less.  If you have a concrete example (and their are some, but not enough IMHO to constitute a paradigm of single tee multiple routes I would love to hear it.

Jeff Warne,

I agree that there are so many courses that would really benefit from the idea of forgetting about the 3% who need 7300 yard courses and build courses with tees at 6800-6300-5800-4800.  I actually think 7000 yards is kind of no man's land right now as a good yardage, I really do.  As a practical matter, I do have many clients report that golfers prefer a 4 tee system to a 5 tee system.  There isn't a lot of charm in 5 tees scattered all about if you see them - it is part of the price we pay for the play flexibility.

I think thats it in a nutshell for those who argue for two or three sets of tees - the shorter and typically older courses that have them do have lots of charm.  But, we do try to build for nearly all types of players which requires the extra set or two.

I had this discussion with a course owner today.  We were looking at a 6600 yard course.  Somehow, most golfers are brainwashed.  Even if they play 6600 or 6300 yards they consider one with back tee length in that range to be inferior.  I would bet that most players would say the 7000 yard course with 6600 and 6300 yard options is superior to the one topping out at 6600, even if they never see that length.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff Brauer,

Perhaps you are reading a bit into this? I'm not attempting to rehash a Golden Age v. Modern debate. I'd like to explore the idea of ONE start point for all skill levels on a hole and how to build a hole and golf course that reflects that skill level.

[Matthew Rose]

I'll stick up for Jeff, at least from the point of view of someone who's played pretty much only public golf his whole life.

I play most of my golf with my brother and my father. Our threesome comprises a scratch who hits it 300 on the fly, a 5 who hits it 270-280 but is a little bit wild (yours truly), and a sporty 15 handicapper who makes good contact but is losing distance as he gets older. The three of us basically define your perfect survey sample on which to base your multiple tee placement. The system works pretty well for us. Add in one of the Rose family women and you've got a foursome that might play from four different tees.

Where fewer tees probably works better is on courses that are shorter to begin with.... if you're talking about a course that is 6650 from the tips to start with, there's probably no reason to have five or six sets.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Maybe I am. I focused on your paragraphs 3 and 5 rather than the question in 4.

I still have the question as to the overall value of limited starting points, given its basically a math problem - total length divided by average shot length = number of shots (excluding duffs and putts)  i.e. for a 180 hitter, a par 72 should be no longer than 36 x 180 (6480) and probably less, etc.  Given the ever expanding variety of tee shot length, the multiple tee system best allows more players to play a course that fits their game, which should increase enjoyment.  IF we agree that the second shot on a long par 5 is often inherently the most boring in golf, deliberatley designing so that 80% of your players face that shot a dozen or so times still makes little sense to me.

But, to go with your premise, (or to phrase it as "how can we make the second shot on a par 5 OR OTHER hole that has no chance of reaching the green more interesting?) I have postulated that a single starting point for all male golfers (you would allow one forward tee, no?) would simply result in a few more bunkers/hazards staggered down the fw to give each some strategy.  Even with multiple tees, I often use the staggered bunker to affect different lengths, especially on long 4's and 5's where play tends to spread out even more than on short holes, so it wouldn't be a huge increase in bunkering in most cases.

Basically, if you go back to that MacKenzie Lido Contest routing, where he has centerlines for several routes from just a few tees, I suppose that would be as good a theory as any.  But, to amplify my earlier point about those multiple routes being found wanting, let me add this - the Golden Age guys wrote about multiple routes, largely as a result of the early American tendency to single routes and forced carries.  They (most Behr) also wrote about the strength of the "line of charm."  Over time, did gca's and clubs simply find that Behr's line of charm was simply too strong to overcome by offering multiple, zig zag route not aimed directly at the hole?  

Did multiple tees and reduced routes evolve over 50 years time (although really about 20 years time, as they seem to have been cemented by RTJ by 1950) as the most logical answer to designing for all levels?  I believe its certainly the most efficient and shoud be used a lot.  

I promise to experiment in a current design with a more centralized tee and more routes, but wonder how such a hole will be accepted.  Worth a try to see, I guess!  Actually, I have proposed similar holes, usually a tweener 4/5 where the championship player would play it as a 500 yard par 4 and the rest as a 500 yard par 5.  Head Pros usually scotch that in the name of course ratings, handicap and scorecard issues, favoring the simplicity of those things over a potentially more interesting hole.  You are right about a sense of entitlement, or perhaps just a need to standardize that none of us fully understand......

[Philippe Binette]

I don't get it why the average player is so much an ardent defender of par...

why would you worry if par is 46,69,70,71,72,84,216... you shoot 95 anyway...

I love the Garden City approach. two sets of blocks. if you have a 420 yards par 4 into a light wind... well it's going to be a long hole today.. but so would be a 350 yards hole with a 25 mph wind in your face... play the golf course, play your game and don't worry about it, you are going to shoot 95.

[Tony Ristola]

In many instances, a couple tees could do the job.
On other holes three tees could suffice.
On others a fourth may be necessary.
Par can be changed for the members on par 4.5's, thus eliminating a tee and increasing par.

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat.

Fewer tees offers a greater chance the members and guests will play the set that offers the most fun for their skill level.

I think there should be a Flexible Rating System so you can pick and choose the tees you want to play. Then you could get away with two or three with no problem at all.

Rolling the ball back 10% would help too.

[Adam Clayman]

Didn't Mike Davis prove the advantages to having some elasticity as to how many teeing grounds can be used @ this years U.S. Open?

A dis-advantage of having only one teeing ground is the physical reality that many of the supporters of golf courses are closer to retirement age than college age. No short hitter wants to constantly have to play so far back that the round becomes too cumbersome. Why is that the longer hitters can't be satisfied with a shorter course?

I don't see where Kyle has thrown the modern GCA under the bus. Could someone highlight the subtext that got Jeff's backbone up?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillipe,

I really never said the average golfer is an ardent defender of par.  I just wonder why I should force them to hit a minimum of 50 long shots on pure distance terms rather than 36?  Does that make the game more fun?

Isn't the essence of the game to hit a tee shot to set up the approach and then nail the approch? (hopefully?)

Inherently, the middle shot is just not that much fun.  Presuming the course has to be long enough for the slightly better player, why do we force 60-80% of golfers to play a course too long for them?  As I said, I can see many cases where we should just ignore the 7400 yard tees but I can't see making a course much less than 6800 from the tips because that makes it unnattractive for about 16% of the players.  However, that is 500-1000 yards to long for the ENJOYMENT of 60% of average golfers.  

Nothing said about expecting, making, or defending par in this thread!

If I was forced into only 3 tees, I think I would make them (all factors being equal) 6800 - 6300 - 4800

Adam,

I reacted to his statement:

"has the increase in the amount of tees lead to a decrease in the overall variety of golf designs and a more formulaic approach to design? Has it served as a crutch for architects to stymie creative thought and stick with so-called time tested things like forced carries and 7000+ yard golf courses?"

I can see absolutely no correlation to forumla, forced carries (other than reducing them with forward tees when they are necessary) or lack of creativity.

As to the advantages seen at the US Open, my responses are all based on my practice of desiging interesting courses for average and better public players - not US Open participants.

[jeffwarne]

Phillipe,



Isn't the essence of the game to hit a tee shot to set up the approach and then nail the approch? (hopefully?)

Inherently, the middle shot is just not that much fun.  Presuming the course has to be long enough for the slightly better player, why do we force 60-80% of golfers to play a course too long for them?  As I said, I can see many cases where we should just ignore the 7400 yard tees but I can't see making a course much less than 6800 from the tips because that makes it unnattractive for about 16% of the players.  However, that is 500-1000 yards to long for the ENJOYMENT of 60% of average golfers.  

Nothing said about expecting, making, or defending par in this thread!

If I was forced into only 3 tees, I think I would make them (all factors being equal) 6800 - 6300 - 4800

Adam,

I reacted to his statement:

"has the increase in the amount of tees lead to a decrease in the overall variety of golf designs and a more formulaic approach to design? Has it served as a crutch for architects to stymie creative thought and stick with so-called time tested things like forced carries and 7000+ yard golf courses?"

I can see absolutely no correlation to forumla, forced carries (other than reducing them with forward tees when they are necessary) or lack of creativity.

As to the advantages seen at the US Open, my responses are all based on my practice of desiging interesting courses for average and better public players - not US Open participants.

Jeff,
16 % of players find courses 6800 yards unattractive?
That eliminates 90% (at least) of UK courses (and probably 99% of courses over there as they're actually set up for daily play)

It probably eliminates 80% of MET area courses.
Interestingly, the best playing PGA Professional section is the MET Section.
Who exactly then are these 16% that demmand over 6800?
I'd guess that # is more like 3%.

Why is the second shot ona unreachable par 4 so boring?
On a par 5 I can't reach, the second shot is one of the few I can use strategy as it's infinitely easier to position a layup second with an iron or fairway wood than it is strategically to position a driver on a par 4.
The same is true for a twenty laying up on a par 4.

how many youngish 20 handicaps are actually using any strategy (other than making contact) with their driver as the first shot on a reachable par 4?

and if you set your course up 4800-6100-6800ish, a creative golfer will have plenty of options. (and be smart enough to approximate a course rating for his "course" he played)
Somehow we've got to break the silly habit of playing whatever tees we start out on a given day-some holes are very cool from the forward tee and can save time as a shortcut if a group is falling behind
(oops I think I'm arguing for multiple tees )