Less is more with Tees

[Tom_Doak]

Lyne:

As a big believer in "more is less," I'll argue the point just a little more.

The closest thing I've seen to a course with one tee, that works, is not a 6800-yard course but a course like Swinley Forest (6001 yards par 68), or even Kilspindie (5600 yards) or Painswick (under 5000 yards I think).  Par is reduced for the long hitter but the holes are still very interesting; the length and the time it takes to play are REDUCED for everyone, not increased.

Moreover, the acreage and the maintenance budget and the cost to the golfer for courses like this would ALSO be much less.

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks Tom - I like that – enjoyable and interesting golf for the people and within reasonable bounds.


Kyle - multiple tees also introduce the opportunity to address sustainable initiatives in a way that a traditional tee cannot - for example, naturalised tee carries have many benefits that include significantly reduced turf area that equates to decreased water and fertiliser use and a flow on reduction in labour and material requirements - reduced costs and playable golf - from an environmental, social and economic perspective this is not only good, it is - one would think, necessary.

Cheers

[Sean_A]

  The more tees the better. Who wants to play Royal Groundhog Day where you know what clubs you are going to use before you play. GIVE ME TEES!!! I want variety!!!


  Anthony

Royal Groundhog Day isn't routed through Royal Weatherproof Bubble is it?

FOR THE THIRD TIME I AM NOT ADVOCATING LESS OPTIONS FOR TEES, JUST LESS TEEING GROUNDS DEFINED BY THE TWO MARKERS WHICH ESTABLISH THE STARTING POINT FOR THE HOLE FOR THE DAY

Just to be clear, I am advocating the same thing as Kyle. Offer as many tees as there are good different angles to play (rather than based on so much on yardage) and that don't look a mess.  However, use 1-3 tees each day.  I like the idea of width in tees, but for some reason it has never caught on even on sites where thee is plenty of room.

Ciao   

[Lyne Morrison]

Hi Sean - re you last post..

Just to be clear, I am advocating the same thing as Kyle.

I have reread Kyles posts and the way I interpret things is that he would prefer a ' hole of the day' ie one set of tee markers positioned per day (two at the most) - from the same teeing ground with limited length variation (where two) and no angle variation. Perhaps I am wrong ..or perhaps the problem is that I am reading this upside down??

Offer as many tees as there are good different angles to play (rather than based on so much on yardage) and that don't look a mess.

Where space allows and they fit the ground - why not.

However, use 1-3 tees each day. 

3 is getting closer 

I like the idea of width in tees, but for some reason it has never caught on even on sites where thee is plenty of room.

I like varied angles too - the Kingsley images that I posted earlier show good variation of angles (and I was wondering if you may have noted or commented on that )

Oh and Sean - is it really fair to suggest that architects concentrate on length to the detriment of other design elements, surely that a generalisation?

Cheers - Lyne

[Kyle Harris]

Lyne,

I appreciate the thought out response and could possibly concede many of your points on existing golf courses - especially those with a multitude of forced carries or longer holes. The pace of play argument is compelling when thinking in the old paradigm, but I still can't help but wonder what may come out of the design problem of one or fewer tee locations.

The issue, it would seem, is in the discord between the higher handicap golfers (let's say 20+ plus) and the very low handicap golfers (0-8) who would be playing the back tees generally. Is it really impossible to design a hole to start from the same tee for both caliber of player? How about just two tees?

Would the concept of a one tee design be more accepted if a golf course had the foresight to get a course rating on each hole from 180 yards out?

[Lyne Morrison]

Kyle - I actually can see what you are pondering -- but its late here and I'm done for the day - time to pass the baton on.

Cheers Lyne

[Sean_A]

Hi Sean - re you last post..

Just to be clear, I am advocating the same thing as Kyle.

I have reread Kyles posts and the way I interpret things is that he would prefer a ' hole of the day' ie one set of tee markers positioned per day (two at the most) - from the same teeing ground with limited length variation (where two) and no angle variation. Perhaps I am wrong ..or perhaps the problem is that I am reading this upside down??

Offer as many tees as there are good different angles to play (rather than based on so much on yardage) and that don't look a mess.

Where space allows and they fit the ground - why not.

However, use 1-3 tees each day. 

3 is getting closer 

I like the idea of width in tees, but for some reason it has never caught on even on sites where thee is plenty of room.

I like varied angles too - the Kingsley images that I posted earlier show good variation of angles (and I was wondering if you may have noted or commented on that )

Oh and Sean - is it really fair to suggest that architects concentrate on length to the detriment of other design elements, surely that a generalisation?

Cheers - Lyne

Lynn

Perhaps Kyle and myself vary slightly in what we are suggesting.  I like "extra" tees if the main focus is width/angles and if they fit in well with the surrounds.  However, I don't see the need for all of the tees to be in play everyday.  1-3 is ample teeing space.  I can accept that some tees are only there to provide length, but I don't like what I consider a heavy concentration of extra tees for the main purpose of adding length.  When I see courses extending miles beyond 6500ish yards (which is more than enough distance on a well designed course to challenge all but the very best players - no matter how far they hit the ball), then no, I don't think its a generalisation to say archies are over-concentrating on distance or that other aspects of design will be neglected because of this concentration - unless of course archies have unlimited budgets. 

I can accept that some people want to play long courses.  I say buildem and charge the guys who want to play that sort of thing whatever it costs.  There is no need to muck with all, most or a significant number of courses to accommodate the flat bellies or the wannabee flat bellies who are 5 cappers.  I say this because I don't believe archies can pull off designing a quality course which suits all or nearly all levels of players, but once in a blue moon.  Its a marketing scam which nobody seems willing to confront.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


With the greatest of deference to all of you who argue for more ,  I don't think some of us are arguing for one tee, but rather an end to the five or six boxes with the requisite tees for beginners , seniors , women , 5-10 handicappers , 0-5 handicappers , tour pros , guys who were out too late the night before (girls too LOL)  , one set for touring pro's who never set foot on property , one for colege kids using anabolic aids,  one for those who have old equipment , one for those with new super sized 480CC drivers etc etc etc......

Just thinking of the clutter drives me crazy,  not to mention the costs and having to hire a certified air- traffic controller to figure what tee is right with current course conditions and wind for all the above named groups


Golf has gotten way too commercialized , I see the overuse of multiple teeing grounds in design as an artifice rather than a  real breakthrough . Not only does it not speed up play , for various reasons, it makes for too much confusion on many levels.

[Mike_Cirba]

Multiple tees "for all level of player" are not only the ultimate in wasteful excess and usually less than lovely to behold, but they also permit architects to mask/band-aid bad routing and hole concept decisions.