Chuck:
I really don't like the same kind of tees you like. Do you think that sort of thing affects your ratings of golf courses, even a little bit?
Don't mean to hijack the thread, it's a good topic. Mr. Keiser and I have had some debates along the same lines: "people like elevated tees," he would tell us at Pacific Dunes, "so why fight it?" Personally, I just like variety.
Tom, I actually recall you saying that very thing, in another context. And, subconcsiously, I might have written what I did with you in mind. Which is sort of like my telling Tiger Woods how to read putts.
So allow me to continue in the Doak vein.
You've written about how much you admire Garden City's unforced close-to-ground look. I agree with you. I know you feel like you didn't have much to do there, but what about those tees?
You've written about the genius of Seminole's routing, in which Ross used the two dune lines, some of which were utilized for teeing grounds. Again, I couldn't have agreed more.
I don't equate "squared up" with elevated, neccessarily. Indeed, I don't equate modest tee elevations with George's original complaint, which was essentially, "tees elevated so much that they reveal more about the hole than is needed, or is wise in order to maintain challenge."
Confession time -- I do think that well-built, well-designed tees do affect my ratings of courses, a little bit. I plead guilty, but only in the exact way you described. That style -- the squared-up style -- is, I think, important only that it is one way the architect can express intent -- he can point the player in one way or another. He can help the player by helping him align, or he can trick the player by aiming him in perhaps an overly conservative direction, forcing the player to "fight" the direction of the tee, and take aim in another direction.
You say you like variety, and you are probably right. So what else is new? One thing I'd agree on is that it is easier to run a triplex mower around an oval pad.
Cheers. You're always keeping me honest...