One set of tees, random bunkering and handicaps will take care of themselves

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think a golfers scoring average or handicap is a true representation of their ability.  "Ability" would need to be measured more by individual skills (i.e. Driving Carry Distance & Accuracy, putting, bunker play, etc).  Every course gives people of similar handicaps different challenges based upon their Ability, not score average.  That ability, is a direct relation to if they score well at a course. 

If one golfer scores well and the other suffers (because the course exposed their inabilities...forced carries, aerial game required, ground game required...etc), how do you get them to return with only one or two miserable length tees.   

I'm a +.4   My scoring average in tournaments this year was 76.6.  What are my abilities?

Better than most in pretty much every category I'm guessing!!   

[Pete Lavallee]

If you read any of the Golden Age GCA books, such as Golf Architecture in America, they are filled with diagrams of holes with ideal strategy. In every case the author diagrams how the A, B, C and D players will play the hole; always from the same tee! It would seem that these pioneers held the single tee concept in great esteem, probably from a deep love of The Old Course, which in those days surely only had one tee box per hole. The random nature of The Old Course's bunkers provided a different route to the hole for golfers of varying ability; think of The Good Dr's sketch of how the A, B , C and D players would tacle the Long hole, #14. It was a given that the D player would need an extra shot to reach a long par 4 or par 5, but his journey was not a slog, but a series of tacking maneuvers; these holes were essentially 4 holes in one, with a seperate path for the four different skill sets. As Kyle stated those holes are hard to design well.

But why did this concept fall out of favor? My only explanation is that the distance gap, due to improved balls and clubs, between the A and D player became so large that this was no longer practical. Surely multiple tees only became popular in the 40's when the Dark Ages of GCA started. Think RTJ building holes were there was only one predetermined route to the green, usually right down the middle and for every class of player to be stimulated they needed a head start so they could interface with the pinching fairway bunkers just like the A player would. Making every hole play the same for every player with multiple tees is a lazy aproach to GCA, but you sure can crank out 100 of designs that way.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pete - good post.

You ask : "But why did this concept fall out of favor? My only explanation is that the distance gap, due to improved balls and clubs, between the A and D player became so large that this was no longer practical."

I think that's what most folks/those in the profession say is the reason, but I can't believe it is. Why?  Because I'm probably a
Mr. C or Mr. D, and yet I'd bet a lot of money that, even with all the new technologies and fitter professional golfers, I'd still only take one more shot to reach the 14th than would Mr. A -- which is exactly the same situation* as golfers found themselves in back in the good Dr's day. 

* The same situation except for the unrealistic demands of today's Mr. Cs and Ds -- unlike those of yesterday -- that no lack of skill or talent or strength or experience should result in not reaching a green 'in regulation'.    And where did these unrealistic demands come from? Why did they develop? For the very fact and the very use of multiple tees!!

Peter

[Niall C]

Patrick,

Golf should be accessible to the older players who grew it, and to the younger players who will sustain it. And it should be challenging to the accomplished player. The only way to provide for all that is by varying distances with multiple tees.

But that said, I think it gets ridiculous when you have more than 4 sets of tees. And for most clubs three sets would be fine.

I still like the idea of letting the player with honors decide where to tee off.

Sorry Bradley, "the only way" ? Thats nonsense. Patricks basic premis is absolutely right. You don't need any more than one tee. Why have various tees so that different standard players can finish the hole in the same number of strokes. Thats whats handicaps are for.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Holy crap... I've now agreed with Mucci on two things in a row.

One set of tees also eliminates multiple tee boxes as an architectural crutch. It takes a boat load of talent to design a golf course to be played from one tee.

No Kyle. Pat has read enough of our posts that now he is beginning to agree with us.

[Joe Leenheer]

[/quote]

Sorry Bradley, "the only way" ? Thats nonsense. Patricks basic premis is absolutely right. You don't need any more than one tee. Why have various tees so that different standard players can finish the hole in the same number of strokes. Thats whats handicaps are for.

Niall
[/quote]

If I were an 18, I would much rather make 9 pars and 9 doubles then 18 bogeys....and I would be more likely to win my match that way as well.  A 4 for 3 or 5 for 3 on the Road Hole would not be talked about as much as an ACTUAL Birdie...regardless of which tee played.  All golfers want a shot at greatness...not a "net" shot.  Do you count 2 for 1's as Aces?

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Bradley, "the only way" ? Thats nonsense. Patricks basic premis is absolutely right. You don't need any more than one tee. Why have various tees so that different standard players can finish the hole in the same number of strokes. Thats whats handicaps are for.

Niall

If I were an 18, I would much rather make 9 pars and 9 doubles then 18 bogeys....and I would be more likely to win my match that way as well.  A 4 for 3 or 5 for 3 on the Road Hole would not be talked about as much as an ACTUAL Birdie...regardless of which tee played.  All golfers want a shot at greatness...not a "net" shot.  Do you count 2 for 1's as Aces?

I've got an idea. Why not let the worst hitter on the team bat first. It will do his ego good, and give him something to talk about in the clubhouse.

[Peter Pallotta]

Garland - tee hee

Joe - I understand what you're saying, but are you familiar with the old 'tiger-rabbit' distinction that Bernard Darwin (I think it was) made about 80 years ago? (Tigers being top flight players, rabbits being the vast majority of the rest of us).  He said that architects, in designing a course, should take into account the fact that rabbits know they are rabbits but that they occasionally want to feel like tigers.  The challenge for architects, however, is that rabbits are a sensitive and touchy group, and don't want to be pandered to or given an 'easy way out', especially in an obvious way; because this obvious pandering -- instead of making them feel like tigers --- has the reverse effect of actually confirming for them the fact that they are, indeed, only rabbits.  

I think multiple tees have had the same reverse effect - except that few dare to speak the words out loud for fear that the whole house of cards will come tumbling down (including the billion dollar equipment industry).

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think a golfers scoring average or handicap is a true representation of their ability.  "Ability" would need to be measured more by individual skills (i.e. Driving Carry Distance & Accuracy, putting, bunker play, etc).  

All are irrelevant.

Every course gives people of similar handicaps different challenges based upon their Ability, not score average.

Not if the architect has fulfilled his mission.
The architects goal in forging the challenge is to NOT FAVOR OR DISFAVOR particular aspects of the game, but to forge a balanced challenge over the entire 18 holes that's neutral to individual abilities.

That ability, is a direct relation to if they score well at a course.  

If one golfer scores well and the other suffers (because the course exposed their inabilities...forced carries, aerial game required, ground game required...etc), how do you get them to return with only one or two miserable length tees.  

The flaw in your position is that your accusing the architect of forging an unbalanced challenge, one that favors particular elements of the game.

One's score/s will determine their ability.
The collective product of ability is one's score/s
One's score/s determines one's handicap and that handicap is the numeric indicator of their ability.

As to the reason to return, that's simple, to improve your score, if you're playing medal play, or to defeat your opponent if you're playing match play.

I wouldn't care if I was playing four (4) football fields linked together, I'd just want to beat Ran Morrissett, Mike Sweeney, Tom Huckaby or anyone else every day of the week.  The configuration of the field of play, while meaningful, isn't the driving force in my competitive desire.
Hence, I'd return 365 days a year to compete against them.  

I'm a +.4   My scoring average in tournaments this year was 76.6.  What are my abilities?

Your individual abilities are irrelevant.

Collectively, your abilities translate to a 4 handicap.
Golf isn't a one dimensional game, it's composed of many elements.
However, the collectivization of those elements produce a numeric indicator of your overall abilities, not your individual abilities.

What you seem to miss is that architects forge a disinterested challenge, neither favoring nor disfavoring any particular type/style of play.
Their overall challenge is a balanced one.
While one hole may favor a draw, another hole favors a fade, but, overall the tactical challenge balances out if they've fulfilled their mission.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete Lavallee and Niall,

You get it.

I think improvement in equipment, increased popularity and safety may have had something to do with moving the tee from within two club lengths of the hole/cup to an independent area removed from the green.

It's also possible that continued improvements resulted in moving tees further back.

But, the creation of 4, 5 and 6 sets of tees certainly has to be attributed to catering to the lowest common denominator.
Trying to be all things to all golfers.

It's my understanding that TOC does not permit normal play from the back or Open tees, that play is confined to limited tees, yet, TOC remains a viable challenge for 98+ % of the golfers who trod those fairways.

It's not a course with elevated terrain, it's basically flat, but, the random bunkering, and the good fortune of wind, combine to make it an incredibly enjoyable challenge, from both directions.

So, why not adopt that architectural template ?
One tee, one overall tee length, allowing the course to be play differently each day, with really random bunkering.

[Dan Kelly]

The defense of multiple tees is that they make the game more enjoyable for a wider range of golfers; but what they actually do is further highlight the importance the game places on one's score as a measuring stick for fun, and further stress the card and pencil as the true judge and jury for what kind of golfer one is. Ironic, isn't it?
Peter   

Peter --

Haven't read this whole thread (can't get through threads with technicolor back-and-forths), but read Pat Mucci's original post and then yours, with a stop to read Rick Shefchik's note about No. 10 at Stillwater.

I think Rick's description of No. 10 at Stillwater is a perfect answer to Pat Mucci's question about facing the same problems at the green end of each hole. Men and women DON'T face the same issues at the green end, under an essentially one-tee system, because good players of the two sexes don't face the same approaches under that essentially one-tee system.

The women at Stillwater would have much more fun with that hole if they'd accept a forward tee, regardless of its potential effect on their handicaps, allowing them to figure out how to approach that green and not just lay up in the Valley of Sin (much deeper than the actual Valley of Sin). As for cards and pencils: I seriously doubt that putting the green in range would decrease their average scores; in fact, I suspect it would have the opposite effect.

My daughter Rose (about a 5 handicap) would have enormously less fun on a one-tee course -- not because her scores would rise (as they certainly would, if you added 500-900 yards to the 6,000-yard courses on which she generally competes), but because she'd be hitting fairway woods to every par-4 over 390 yards or so.

That gets old in a hurry.

[Joe Leenheer]

I don't think a golfers scoring average or handicap is a true representation of their ability.  "Ability" would need to be measured more by individual skills (i.e. Driving Carry Distance & Accuracy, putting, bunker play, etc).  

All are irrelevant.

The Golfers Ability (regardless of the level) is fundamental to GCA.  How else can an Architect truly challenge a golfer without a measure ability.  If you are trying to design to challenge all, you must understand the limitations and abilities of all.  

Every course gives people of similar handicaps different challenges based upon their Ability, not score average.

Not if the architect has fulfilled his mission.
The architects goal in forging the challenge is to NOT FAVOR OR DISFAVOR particular aspects of the game, but to forge a balanced challenge over the entire 18 holes that's neutral to individual abilities.

Everyone here knows that golfers hit shots where Architects never dreamed of someone hitting to and from.  "Neutral to individual abilities" is impossible without multiple tees and handicaps.

That ability, is a direct relation to if they score well at a course.  

If one golfer scores well and the other suffers (because the course exposed their inabilities...forced carries, aerial game required, ground game required...etc), how do you get them to return with only one or two miserable length tees.  

The flaw in your position is that your accusing the architect of forging an unbalanced challenge, one that favors particular elements of the game.

If playing from the same tee...most golfers ability to carry the ball further, land it softer, spin it more, get it up and down.... will always be tested more than mine.  Thus it is unbalanced design..unless we play from different tees.

One's score/s will determine their ability.
The collective product of ability is one's score/s
One's score/s determines one's handicap and that handicap is the numeric indicator of their ability.

Ability is constant and changes slowly....score is not and does not.  It's changes vastly from day to day, course to course, and in conditions.  You cannot take a players handicap and predict what he or she will shoot at a course.  We are not machines.

As to the reason to return, that's simple, to improve your score, if you're playing medal play, or to defeat your opponent if you're playing match play.

I wouldn't care if I was playing four (4) football fields linked together, I'd just want to beat Ran Morrissett, Mike Sweeney, Tom Huckaby or anyone else every day of the week.  The configuration of the field of play, while meaningful, isn't the driving force in my competitive desire.
Hence, I'd return 365 days a year to compete against them.  

I'm a +.4   My scoring average in tournaments this year was 76.6.  What are my abilities?

Your individual abilities are irrelevant.

My individual abilities relate directly to my score on any given day.  I putt & chip well..which keeps me in most rounds.  If I hit the driver well...I score even better.  If I could improve my driving ABILITY...I would score much better more frequently.

Collectively, your abilities translate to a 4 handicap.
Golf isn't a one dimensional game, it's composed of many elements.
However, the collectivization of those elements produce a numeric indicator of your overall abilities, not your individual abilities.

Actually the "collectivization" of my scores gives me a numeric indicator.  My abilities/weaknesses allow me to improve on that "collectivization".

What you seem to miss is that architects forge a disinterested challenge, neither favoring nor disfavoring any particular type/style of play.
Their overall challenge is a balanced one.
While one hole may favor a draw, another hole favors a fade, but, overall the tactical challenge balances out if they've fulfilled their mission.

So Donald Ross didn't favor accurate iron play?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter --

Haven't read this whole thread (can't get through threads with technicolor back-and-forths), but read Pat Mucci's original post and then yours, with a stop to read Rick Shefchik's note about No. 10 at Stillwater.

I think Rick's description of No. 10 at Stillwater is a perfect answer to Pat Mucci's question about facing the same problems at the green end of each hole. Men and women DON'T face the same issues at the green end, under an essentially one-tee system, because good players of the two sexes don't face the same approaches under that essentially one-tee system.

They're not supposed to, and, they don't face it with multiple sets of tees.
Under your theory, if a scratch handicap is hitting a 9 iron for an approach, so should a woman golfer.
Which means that her tee has to put her in a position of about 100 yards from the green whereas the scratch golfer would be.... say 150 from the green.  So, on a 420 yard hole, with a scratch golfer hitting his drive 270, the woman golfer would be playing a hole under 300 yards.  Presented another way, her tee would be near his DZ.  Is that the type of course you want today ?

That's the problem today, everyone wants to be equal on the golf course despite not having equal abilities.

The women at Stillwater would have much more fun with that hole if they'd accept a forward tee, regardless of its potential effect on their handicaps, allowing them to figure out how to approach that green and not just lay up in the Valley of Sin (much deeper than the actual Valley of Sin). As for cards and pencils: I seriously doubt that putting the green in range would decrease their average scores; in fact, I suspect it would have the opposite effect.

My daughter Rose (about a 5 handicap) would have enormously less fun on a one-tee course -- not because her scores would rise (as they certainly would, if you added 500-900 yards to the 6,000-yard courses on which she generally competes), but because she'd be hitting fairway woods to every par-4 over 390 yards or so.

Typically, there are only 10 par 4's.
Some shorter than 390, some longer.
What's the problem with her having to hit fairway woods on 5 holes ?

So you don't think she'd enjoy TOC, or NGLA from one set of tees ?

That gets old in a hurry.

No, it inspires you to play better.

When I couldn't hit a ball 180 yards with a driver, every course I played, that I had previously played, I enjoyed to the fullest.
You just have to learn HOW to play each hole with the abilities at your disposal.

The problem with a set of lady's tees, is that next you'll have seniors requesting their set of tees, then senior women requesting their set of tees, then Juniors requesting their set of tees, then the best players requesting their sets of tees and you'll soon have six (6) sets of tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Leenheer,

You stated:

So Donald Ross didn't favor accurate iron play?

That has to be one of the dumbest questions/statements posted on GCA.com and shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

Did he also favor accurate driving ?

How about precision putting ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan - the thread and my thoughts have been bopping around different fronts/tacks (sadly, i continue to be a rather undisciplined thinker and writer) -- but I'd say a few of us basically agree that if you and I and Rose played a course that was 6,100-6,300 yards  long with a variety of hole lengths and without significant forced carries (and as recent threads have shown yet again, there are a countless number of such courses already in existence, providing challenge to the vast majority of golfers) and if we played that course from the same set of tees, we'd have a great deal of fun, each in our own way, and a wonderful competition, each playing the course to the best of our (current) abilities, and the most possible time together for companionship and a good walk; and this would be a simple and honest and ideal expression of the 'game' in the 'game of golf'.

Peter

[Rick Shefchik]

Peter --

Haven't read this whole thread (can't get through threads with technicolor back-and-forths), but read Pat Mucci's original post and then yours, with a stop to read Rick Shefchik's note about No. 10 at Stillwater.

I think Rick's description of No. 10 at Stillwater is a perfect answer to Pat Mucci's question about facing the same problems at the green end of each hole. Men and women DON'T face the same issues at the green end, under an essentially one-tee system, because good players of the two sexes don't face the same approaches under that essentially one-tee system.

They're not supposed to, and, they don't face it with multiple sets of tees.
Under your theory, if a scratch handicap is hitting a 9 iron for an approach, so should a woman golfer.
Which means that her tee has to put her in a position of about 100 yards from the green whereas the scratch golfer would be.... say 150 from the green.  So, on a 420 yard hole, with a scratch golfer hitting his drive 270, the woman golfer would be playing a hole under 300 yards.  Presented another way, her tee would be near his DZ.  Is that the type of course you want today ?

That's the problem today, everyone wants to be equal on the golf course despite not having equal abilities.

The women at Stillwater would have much more fun with that hole if they'd accept a forward tee, regardless of its potential effect on their handicaps, allowing them to figure out how to approach that green and not just lay up in the Valley of Sin (much deeper than the actual Valley of Sin). As for cards and pencils: I seriously doubt that putting the green in range would decrease their average scores; in fact, I suspect it would have the opposite effect.

My daughter Rose (about a 5 handicap) would have enormously less fun on a one-tee course -- not because her scores would rise (as they certainly would, if you added 500-900 yards to the 6,000-yard courses on which she generally competes), but because she'd be hitting fairway woods to every par-4 over 390 yards or so.

Typically, there are only 10 par 4's.
Some shorter than 390, some longer.
What's the problem with her having to hit fairway woods on 5 holes ?

So you don't think she'd enjoy TOC, or NGLA from one set of tees ?

That gets old in a hurry.

No, it inspires you to play better.

When I couldn't hit a ball 180 yards with a driver, every course I played, that I had previously played, I enjoyed to the fullest.
You just have to learn HOW to play each hole with the abilities at your disposal.

The problem with a set of lady's tees, is that next you'll have seniors requesting their set of tees, then senior women requesting their set of tees, then Juniors requesting their set of tees, then the best players requesting their sets of tees and you'll soon have six (6) sets of tees.

Re: Stillwater #10. For a month or so this summer they put the red tees at the bottom of the valley in front of the white tees, shortening the hole by almost 50 yards. It was not much easier from down there, though, as a lot of women have a tough time getting their tee shots up in the air high enough to clear that rise in the fairway on the fly. Even so, there were definitely more pars; My wife parred it more often, though I think she hit the green in regulation just once. You’d think that might have changed their minds about a new red tee – especially since the proposed location of the new tee is on a knoll forward from and to the right of the white tee, which would put the red tee at almost equal elevation to the fairway. But most women vetoed the idea, even after making more pars with the temporarily shorter tee.

Some of the men suggested building the tee anyway. The women said they wouldn't use it, but it was proposed that the gold, or senior tees, could be put there. The seniors would definitely use it -- they are far less concerned about their handicaps going down than they are about making more pars (recapturing old glory?) The theory is that once the senior men began using the tee, the women would, too. I have no doubt that they would. After all, the white tees are open to them on every other hole, but none of the women choose to use them.
 

[jeffwarne]

Peter --

Haven't read this whole thread (can't get through threads with technicolor back-and-forths), but read Pat Mucci's original post and then yours, with a stop to read Rick Shefchik's note about No. 10 at Stillwater.

I think Rick's description of No. 10 at Stillwater is a perfect answer to Pat Mucci's question about facing the same problems at the green end of each hole. Men and women DON'T face the same issues at the green end, under an essentially one-tee system, because good players of the two sexes don't face the same approaches under that essentially one-tee system.

They're not supposed to, and, they don't face it with multiple sets of tees.
Under your theory, if a scratch handicap is hitting a 9 iron for an approach, so should a woman golfer.
Which means that her tee has to put her in a position of about 100 yards from the green whereas the scratch golfer would be.... say 150 from the green.  So, on a 420 yard hole, with a scratch golfer hitting his drive 270, the woman golfer would be playing a hole under 300 yards.  Presented another way, her tee would be near his DZ.  Is that the type of course you want today ?

That's the problem today, everyone wants to be equal on the golf course despite not having equal abilities.

The women at Stillwater would have much more fun with that hole if they'd accept a forward tee, regardless of its potential effect on their handicaps, allowing them to figure out how to approach that green and not just lay up in the Valley of Sin (much deeper than the actual Valley of Sin). As for cards and pencils: I seriously doubt that putting the green in range would decrease their average scores; in fact, I suspect it would have the opposite effect.

My daughter Rose (about a 5 handicap) would have enormously less fun on a one-tee course -- not because her scores would rise (as they certainly would, if you added 500-900 yards to the 6,000-yard courses on which she generally competes), but because she'd be hitting fairway woods to every par-4 over 390 yards or so.

Typically, there are only 10 par 4's.
Some shorter than 390, some longer.
What's the problem with her having to hit fairway woods on 5 holes ?

So you don't think she'd enjoy TOC, or NGLA from one set of tees ?

That gets old in a hurry.

No, it inspires you to play better.

When I couldn't hit a ball 180 yards with a driver, every course I played, that I had previously played, I enjoyed to the fullest.
You just have to learn HOW to play each hole with the abilities at your disposal.

The problem with a set of lady's tees, is that next you'll have seniors requesting their set of tees, then senior women requesting their set of tees, then Juniors requesting their set of tees, then the best players requesting their sets of tees and you'll soon have six (6) sets of tees.

Re: Stillwater #10. For a month or so this summer they put the red tees at the bottom of the valley in front of the white tees, shortening the hole by almost 50 yards. It was not much easier from down there, though, as a lot of women have a tough time getting their tee shots up in the air high enough to clear that rise in the fairway on the fly. Even so, there were definitely more pars; My wife parred it more often, though I think she hit the green in regulation just once. You’d think that might have changed their minds about a new red tee – especially since the proposed location of the new tee is on a knoll forward from and to the right of the white tee, which would put the red tee at almost equal elevation to the fairway. But most women vetoed the idea, even after making more pars with the temporarily shorter tee.

Some of the men suggested building the tee anyway. The women said they wouldn't use it, but it was proposed that the gold, or senior tees, could be put there. The seniors would definitely use it -- they are far less concerned about their handicaps going down than they are about making more pars (recapturing old glory?) The theory is that once the senior men began using the tee, the women would, too. I have no doubt that they would. After all, the white tees are open to them on every other hole, but none of the women choose to use them.
 

If MOST of the women don't want the new tee, why on earth is there ANY discussion?

[Dan Kelly]

... a few of us basically agree that if you and I and Rose played a course that was 6,100-6,300 yards  long with a variety of hole lengths and without significant forced carries (and as recent threads have shown yet again, there are a countless number of such courses already in existence, providing challenge to the vast majority of golfers) and if we played that course from the same set of tees, we'd have a great deal of fun, each in our own way, and a wonderful competition, each playing the course to the best of our (current) abilities, and the most possible time together for companionship and a good walk; and this would be a simple and honest and ideal expression of the 'game' in the 'game of golf'.

Add me to the few of you.

Except for that "countless."

[David_Elvins]

Patrick,

Great opening post.  I am in 100% agreement with you.  

I believe that the explosion of multiple tees after the second world war are caused by three things

- The increase in forced carries as golf moved onto sites that were as suitable for golf

- The reduction of infinite options in design with a more prescribed formula for how the course should be played.

- A fantasy element being introduced to the game where players wanted to face the same challenges that they saw the pros face, even though they dont have the same game.  It is impossible for a single design element to challenge all golfers  in the same way.  multiple tees operate under this false pretense.

NONE OF THESE CAUSES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GREAT GOLF COURSE DESIGN.

THe other day I was struck by the 16th hole at Royal Melbourne West.  

It is a 220 yard par 3 that requires the good player to hit a really well flighted long iron or wood into a beautifully angled green.  But what reall struck me was the 40m wide fairway that started about 80m from the tee.

The design of the  hole is not only an interesting long par 3 but it is also a really good drive and pitch par 4 for those that cannot reach the green.  The short hitter does not face the same challenges that the long hitter faces but he still faces his own challenges.  This element of desing is found throughout the course, as well as many of the world's other great golf course.

[Rick Shefchik]

If MOST of the women don't want the new tee, why on earth is there ANY discussion?

Because some of the women do want it.

[David_Elvins]

A 4 for 3 or 5 for 3 on the Road Hole would not be talked about as much as an ACTUAL Birdie...regardless of which tee played.  All golfers want a shot at greatness...not a "net" shot.  Do you count 2 for 1's as Aces?

And that is why western society is going to shit.  let me guess, you run American education.   

If you want to birdie the road hole, you should have to earn it.  Not by playing the hole off a short tee that makes up for your ineptitude.  I would be a shot at breaking the world record for 100m if I only had to run 60m.  It would be as hollow as birdying the road hole off a short tee. 

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I have always felt that with good design and course can be enjoyed by all levels of players playing from the same tee.  As I type this I am looking at an old picture of Riviera from the 1920's.  It shows men watching a woman tee off from what is now the blue and white tees.  She can hit it about 180 yards to the base of the hill and then hit her second shot up onto the upper fairway and possibly have a 3rd shot of about 100 yds left.  A 5 this way should present her with satisfaction.  I have no doubt George Thomas intended it this way.  Changes to multiple tees have occurred over time due to the reasons presented above with much blame going to Robert Trent Jones.  By the way most women today cannot reach the par 4's in two when the length exceeds 350 yards.

Another reason I believe that would prevent a return to just one tee is our quest for equality.  It is unattainable, but in today's world to everyone thinks there is a right or entitlement to reach a par 4 in two or a par 3 in one.

I played once with volleyball great Karch Kiraly at Riviera.  On the 4th hole not being a very good player, he hit layed up with a 7 iron on the 230 yard par 3.  He then hit a wedge of about 90 yards to within 10 feet and just missed making 3.  I realized then what a strong head he had.  No ego involved, just assessing his strengths and weaknesses and judging the best chance of making a low score.
Pat, a GCA event should be played with the use of just one tee.
Finally, as for requiring too much teeing ground, it seems to me that the square footage wouldn't change and I agree that tees could be built more horizontal to the green creating more variety.  I believe Tillinghast wrote about this on par 3s.

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,

Great opening post.  I am in 100% agreement with you.  

I believe that the explosion of multiple tees after the second world war are caused by three things

- The increase in forced carries as golf moved onto sites that were as suitable for golf

- The reduction of infinite options in design with a more prescribed formula for how the course should be played.

- A fantasy element being introduced to the game where players wanted to face the same challenges that they saw the pros face, even though they dont have the same game.  It is impossible for a single design element to challenge all golfers  in the same way.  multiple tees operate under this false pretense.

NONE OF THESE CAUSES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GREAT GOLF COURSE DESIGN.

THe other day I was struck by the 16th hole at Royal Melbourne West.  

It is a 220 yard par 3 that requires the good player to hit a really well flighted long iron or wood into a beautifully angled green.  But what reall struck me was the 40m wide fairway that started about 80m from the tee.

The design of the  hole is not only an interesting long par 3 but it is also a really good drive and pitch par 4 for those that cannot reach the green.  The short hitter does not face the same challenges that the long hitter faces but he still faces his own challenges.  This element of desing is found throughout the course, as well as many of the world's other great golf course.

That's really cool hole.
par whatever,playable  and interesting for all

5 sets of tees aren't what's needed.
options and a reasonable amount of room to navigate around obstacles are what's needed.

[Ian Andrew]

.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Elvins,

The schematic you posted is a perfect example of what I encountered when I went from hitting the ball fairly well to hitting the ball like a powder puff, with a drive of 180 being my best.  I'd have to play your schematic, like Karch played Riviera, placing my shots to give me the best tactical advantage

I had to learn to play each hole differently.

After reading your post, What immediately sprang to mind was the schematic at NGLA showing the different routes to the green from the tee, for the different level of golfer, the par golfer and the bogey golfer.

One has to learn to "tack" their way around a golf course if they don't possess the ability of the Pros.

In a medal play, qualifying competition at NGLA, not being able to hit the ball 180, I shot two over par.
It was clearly one of the best rounds of my life, despite having scored many rounds in the 60's including one with 8 birdies and an eagle in a substantial money match.
That "two over" was a tribute to my mind, my ability to play within my limited abilities and take advantage of what the architect offered. 

I play with a lot of fellows who complain when they don't pull off a shot that a PGA Pro would hit.
I tell them, "what are you upset about ?  You stink !  Why would you expect to execute a shot that's obviously well beyond your ability.  On the other hand, I also play with guys who get so much out of their limited abilities because they play smart.

The notion that everyone should hit the greens in regulation, or that an 18 handicap should be presented with the same shots as a 1 handicap is insane.

As to the heroic carries, I don't know many courses that have just one, let alone many.

If someone can't carry the ball 100 yards, do they belong on a golf course with the expectation that the challenge presented should be easily achieved ?

The diagram you presented is a good example of what makes the game great ................options, rather than singular forced play.

An 18 handicap shouldn't expect to play the same corridors, the same shots as a 1 handicap.

Each golfer must aspire to score the best that they can, using their mind and their clubs.

There shouldn't be any right of entitlement in golf

End of rant