The BIAS against multiple tees

« **on:** July 21, 2003, 07:58:22 PM »

In some previous threads many expressed their disapproval of golf courses with multiple sets of tees.

Some complained about CCFAD golf courses others complained about resort golf courses.

Some thought that five (5) sets of tees was ridiculous, uncalled for, and a sign of architectural inferiority, but, noone complained about Bandon Dunes.

Why does Bandon Dunes get a pass for having five (5) sets of tees ?

Could it be that part of Bandon Dunes appeal is that the architecture is excellent from every set of tees, and that those multiple tees allow every level of golfer to have a challenging and enjoyable experience ?

« **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:23:13 PM »

Quote

multiple tees allow every level of golfer to have a challenging and enjoyable experience

Geesus.... You sound like a brochure from a Nicklaus course.

I feel that a properly designed course doesn't need more than one set of tee marker.

Take a 420-yard hole. With 5 sets of tees, everyone would play the hole the same way. Driver, short iron.

But if everyone plays from 420 yards, golfers will play to different areas, with different clubs, according to their ability. The architect is no longer dictating "you start here, you hit to here, and then to here". Rather, it's more a case of everyone starting here and finishing there.

Christ, you don't see 'em have the 100m dash for men and a 82m dash for women!

« **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:02:08 PM »

pat.....i think we might want to explore 'other' alternatives........same one [or two ]sets of tees , but change par.....72 from the front ,70 or 71 from the middle ,and,[break the barrier] 68 or 69 from the tips.................involves fives to long fours ,short fours to threes etc.........would save many 'old ' courses playability.....

and allow designers the ability to create courses on dirt that is not stretched 20% to accomodate 5% of players....

« **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2003, 10:09:02 PM »

Do you equate the number of tees on each hole with the quality of the golf course?

Bandon is a wonderful course, whether with one tee or five. My personal opinion is that 5 tees are not necessary - but it doesn't necessarily imply "architectural inferiority" as long as it delivers the proper challenge/experience from whichever tees one chooses to play.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:34:57 AM »

Jeremy,

You commented, "I feel that a properly designed course doesn't need more than one set of tee markers."

"Properly designed" is what intrigues me most. What on earth is this? I'd love to see such an animal. Where do you keep it? Is it available for loan? Can we see pictures?

The number of tee markers matters not to the worth of a golf course — at least this aspects all on its own. However, I would say that many golf courses could be improved by ADDING so tees, while I would take the position that there are few courses which might be improved if tees — even if there are six per hole! — were removed.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2003, 03:45:14 AM »

Patrick,

Yale removed the Black tees this year, and I believe it was done for maintenance reasons, so it is back to 3 sets. On most holes, it is not a big difference. I normally play the Blue, and would only play the Black when I was showing the course to somone, however I would often sneak back to the black on 4 and 18 which are better holes from the back/black tees. Obviously, I can still can go back there, but I don't do it out of respect for the super. They will probably only use those tees in tournaments now, which IMHO is not a good thing.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2003, 07:19:24 AM »

I think all courses need 4 sets of tees......play golf with a senior or a junior who does not want the appearance of playing red or ladies tees.

Older golfers playing from white tees only slows down pace of play.

Multiple tees allows the course to conserve the tee boxes of the most used tees by moving them around.

JK

« **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:33:15 AM »

Quote from: Jeremy Glenn. on July 21, 2003, 08:23:13 PM

Take a 420-yard hole. With 5 sets of tees, everyone would play the hole the same way. Driver, short iron.

But if everyone plays from 420 yards, golfers will play to different areas, with different clubs, according to their ability. The architect is no longer dictating "you start here, you hit to here, and then to here". Rather, it's more a case of everyone starting here and finishing there.

So Jeremy - when I go out and play with my 82 year old grandfather, he should be happy hitting driver-driver (and possibly not getting there with 2 good pokes) into this 420 yard hole which is designed properly with one tee?

This is a man who carried a +1 handicap the majority of his life, and has gradually stepped 2 tees forward over the years. Shooting 74 last week from the 6100 yard white tees at his home club probably meant more to him than any round he ever posted in the 60's in his younger years. The shot values are the same, he just doesn't hit it as far.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:48:28 AM »

I will not bring back my discussion about abolishing the wooden tee (peg) altogether --- but, why have teeing grounds at all?

I would easily increase the rating and slope of my layouts by having undulating ground, broken grounds and even hazards at the locales of tees. Whimps! Each of you --- expecting delicate, flatish ground to strike your first shots. How unnatural and artificial!

I say make the tees as interesting as the greens! A break here,. a break there. How about at Biarritz tee? How about a punchbowl tee? Or a three-tiered, double breaking, humbcak tee?

« **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2003, 09:35:22 AM »

Forrest,

A “properly designed golf course”, from the point of view of using one tee set, would be a beast such as the Old Course. There, it doesn’t matter what your skill level or how far you hit the ball, there is interest on all you shots.

On the other hand, a course where one set of tees would not work as well would be… well, pretty much any modern course really… It’s just the way they are designed. Penal design. Forced carries. Framed landing-areas. Golf holes today are not designed to play many different ways. That’s how strategy became obsolete. And that’s why multiple tees became necessary.

Cabell,

If your grandfather expects to play a 420-yard hole in four strokes, then yes, he’ll be disappointed. Is that the hole’s fault, or your grandfathers?

Isn’t it the responsibility of each player to know the limit of their ability.

Heck, I play four or five holes a round that I can’t reach with driver-driver. Tiger doesn’t. That’s the nature of the game.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:22:48 AM »

Jeremy Glenn,

You oppose multiple sets of tees but are willing to give a golf course that is a big offender of your dictate, with five (5) sets of tees, a complete pass.

Is Bandon Dunes a sacred cow ?

Why have those who are so opposed to multiple sets of tees
not taken Bandon Dunes to task.

Or, are those who oppose multiple sets of tees, WRONG in their views about their assessment and impact on play of the golf course ?

« **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:41:38 AM »

Jeremy -

Where's the fun in laying up on almost every hole? Aren't we out there to enjoy ourselves?

I won't even address the pace of play issues of your theory.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:42:54 AM »

Patrick, why do you feel like you have to pick a fight with someone (or indeed everyone) on this issue? I don't like it when Tommy or whomever sets out to pick a fight with people who like Rees Jones, either...you can make your point without being so bloody confrontational (not least in mentioning the awful B-word in capital letters in the title of your thread).

To answer your question, I think having five or more sets of tee boxes on a hole is excessive in principle, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule. When I'm playing a course with little architectural merit, multiple tees - especially ones stacked right on top of one another, offering little real variation to the tee shot - stick out like a sore thumb. At a course like Bandon Dunes, there was enough to like about the golf course and the underlying design philosophy behind it (as I perceived it) that I don't remember much about how many sets of teeboxes there were. If Cypress Point had six teeboxes per hole, I probably wouldn't care or notice all that much, either.

A couple of ancillary points:

--If a course does a good job of hiding the different teeboxes from one another, or of blending them into their surroundings, that's much less offensive to me than if they stick out and/or blatantly appear unnecessary.

--In principle, a course with three or four sets of teeboxes per hole but only one or two sets of actual tees in play on any particular day sounds about right for me. That's all about day-to-day variety, not player-to-player-in-the-same-foursome variety - big difference.

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:47:42 AM »

Jeremy,

Glad you brought up The Old Course. The notion that it was configured to play from one particular place is a modern perception indeed. It is a wrong perception from what we know of golf, its beginnings and TOC specifically. Golf, in its very early origin, was not at all defined or constrained to teeing the ball from one locale. Only when rules were adopted did we see a set place, and even then it was a 360-degree circle away from the previous hole. This is a rather recent change in the game — it is only a few generations ago.

There is more than great possibility that holes were carved in different locales at TOC on occasion, so tees would have been regularly different when this change for wear and tear or intrigue was performed. Also, the cross-country aspect of golf prior to "courses" was much less defined — the teeing ground being virtually anywhere and anytime — after seventy shots, or six, or 102.

What "Old Course" do you consider so "perfect" as to claim your contention that multiple tees do not belong on older layouts, and only on modern venues? Is TOC the "ideal" links you see now? Or is it the one of 100 years ago? Or is it the one we cannot see, but will replace TOC in 175 years, when our words are archived in some new format for future generations to ponder?

One cannot — indeed, should not — relegate golf to an ideal of what is right or wrong based on a conceived notion of its playing board. Your assertion that there is a "perfect design" is just as fallible as that which says multiple tees are either good or bad. Playing from various spots is inherent in golf, so I would proclaim that multiple teeing grounds (the tee itself being an artificial condition in golf) is, in fact, much more along the lines of the ancient game and golf's origins than would be the set, one-place-only, do-not-even-think-of-playing-from-another-spot "tee".

If it is a link to the past that you seek, you cannot argue that multiple teeing spots is more like "real" golf than the game we play today. Of course, I do not hold hope of any of us defining "real" golf. But it might be an interesting discussion.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2003, 10:48:56 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 22, 2003, 10:22:48 AM

Why have those who are so opposed to multiple sets of tees
not taken Bandon Dunes to task?

Because under the "logic" of this inquiry they would have had to take thousands of other courses "to task" as well, and they didn't have time.

Amen Darren Kilfara.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:11:16 AM »

Darren Kilfara,

There is nothing confrontational about this thread or the use of the word "BIAS". The purpose of the thread is to ask questions, reveal that there aren't blanket dictates and to be educational. I'm not trying to pick a fight, that's your bias.
Can I not point out conflicting opinions from the same people ?

It struck me as odd that everybody raved about Bandon Dunes
yet on the subject of multiple sets of tees most seemed to rail against them, either forgetting or not knowing that Bandon Dunes has five sets of tees.

It seemed that, either multiple sets of tees, including five (5) sets, were not only acceptable but very functional and practical at Bandon Dunes, or that those railing against multiple sets of tees were championing a flawed position.

You can't have it both ways. You can't take a rigid position and claim that multiple sets of tees ruin a golf course, or that multiple sets of tees reveal a weakness in the architecture, and at the same time praise Bandon Dunes as a spectacular golf course.

You do see the conflict or hypocrisy in those positions ?

There's nothing wrong with BIAS as long as you acknowledge it.
The problem arises when BIAS exists and is not acknowledged.

Why is it okay to have 3 to 4 sets of tees for the men, but only 1 set of tees for the women ?

« **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:17:37 AM »

I'm a newbie....I really respect the knowledge you all display....one question....does Mr.Mucci always act like a jerk?

« **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:31:10 AM »

Patrick, I think the point is that what you assume to be a "rigid position" isn't really all that rigid. I have a philosophical preference for fewer tees and teeboxes, and am happy to explain why I feel that way - does that mean I'm not going to like a single golf course with multiple sets of tees and teeboxes? Of course not, unless I were so insane as to view the numbers of tees/teeboxes as my single most important criteria in evaluating the merit of golf course architecture, which is a ludicrous position to take.

Sheri, Patrick is who Patrick is - an acquired taste to be sure

, but not someone worth swearing at in all capital letters.

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:44:00 AM »

Sheri Kuhn,

Only when trying to lower myself to your level.

Darren Kilfara,

But, you weren't one of those taking the rigid position that five sets of tees rendered a course architecturally inferior.
Others did, and my question was directed to them.

I love Bandon Dunes and find the multiple sets of tees very functional, especially for a golf course subjected to high velocity winds, from different directions.

Some have rigid positions on a variety of features, be it containment mounding, multiple tees, holes without options, etc., etc..

Like you, I think each feature, each course has to be judged individually, and not with blanket dictates.

Michael Moore,

Quite to the contrary, they did object to multiple tees, especially 3-4-5 sets, in blanket form, yet praised Bandon Dunes to the hilt.

« **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:01:04 PM »

Patrick, I think my point about multiple tees not being a "rigid position" speaks for most of the people you're targeting (although if you have particular people in mind, why not come out and name them?). Other hot-button issues - e.g. containment mounding - may indeed elicit rigidity from people, but I find it hard to believe that anyone really cares that passionately about multiple tees. The more I think about it, multiple tees (of the type that gets everyone's hackles up) are much more often symptomatic of bad architecture than bad architecture in and of themselves, but perhaps that's a separate point for a separate discussion...

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:12:41 PM »

Darren,

Well put...

Would Pebble Beach, Augusta, Pine Valley or many other great courses all of a sudden become worse if they mowed down a couple of other patches between the forwardmost and backmost tees? It might take away from the quaint character, but otherwise I don't think so.

It's hardly bias, nor an issue that defines bad design.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:29:08 PM »

Patrick,

As they say in Oz, "Good on yer".

You raise a good point and receive all sorts of flak. At any number of clubs there are 'old codgers', large and powerful women's associations, less than competent players and a few studs. To say that one tee fits all is bunk.

Multiple tees offer ALL members a pleasurable golfing experience.

« **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:41:35 PM »

Is the point of this thread another attempt to prove some kind of illogical bias? If that was the point it is a total failure. Plenty of blanket accusations, but as usual no specifics. Who refuses to criticize Bandon who is also an outspoken critic of multiple tees?

It seems most don't feel strongly one way or the other--with a few exceptions. I know Pat has been outspoken about his belief that the singular tees at GCGC should be preserved. Very confusing, especially considering Travis' thoughts on GCGC's tees.

Personally I've run accross good designs with both, not a big deal.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:16:42 PM »

I'm sorry...I've gotten off on the wrong foot. I shouldn't have used that word....I've changed it. It just seemed to me that Mr. Mucci acts like a jerk and is very condescending....but you all are big boys and are capable of handling the bullying.

« **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:33:17 PM »

Darren,

I've got to assume that I am one of the "some people" Patrick has in mind since I started the previous thread to which Patrick vaguely refers. As usual, Patrick is trying to reduce what (I thought) was an interesting and beneficial discussion regarding principles and trends in golf architecture into yet another boring diatribe on what he inaccurately describes as "BIAS." And, as usual, Patrick is misrepresenting others' positions in order to fit them into his tidy "BIAS" box.

If you or anyone is interested in the previous discussion, here it is:

[url] http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=67;start=0 [url]

As for where I unabashedly heaped praise on Bandon Dunes, I don't recall so doing; Patrick will have to dig that thread up.

-David

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Jeremy_Glenn.

paul cowley

Steve_L.

Forrest Richardson

Mike_Sweeney

noonan

ChasLawler

Forrest Richardson

Jeremy_Glenn.

Patrick_Mucci

ChasLawler

Darren_Kilfara

Forrest Richardson

Michael Moore

Patrick_Mucci

sheri kuhn

Darren_Kilfara

Patrick_Mucci

Darren_Kilfara

Steve_L.

Bob_Huntley

T_MacWood

sheri kuhn

DMoriarty

An Error Has Occurred!