[Patrick_Mucci]

so many tees solely or primarily a product of medal play, the handicap system and ego ?

Understanding today's enormous variance in play/distance and the intent of integrating golfers with the architectural features would golf courses
be a better field of play with one tee and more random features ?

In other words, rather than have one prescribed DZ as the focal point, framed with bunkers/features, accessed by the diverse spectrum of golfers from multiple tees, have one tee but multiple DZ's with more random bunkers/features accessed by all levels of golfers

As the golfer's game expanded or contracted there would be no need to shift tees as the elastic nature of the field of play would accommodate that shift ?

In addition, why should golfers of different abilities have to confront or interface with the same architectural features ?

Retaining just one tee would reduce maintenance costs significantly.

Would it promote more comraderie amongst golfers since everyone would be playing from the same tees ?

And, since everyone plays from the same tees, gaining a sense of relativity regarding ability, scoring and handicapping would be simpler,
more visible to the golfer's eye.

Construction costs would escalate in order to reconfigure the field of play between the green and the tee.
Increased maintenance costs in the body of each hole might be wholly or partially offset by the reduced maintenance costs gained by having one tee.

Lastly, would the finite length of a hole/s place greater emphasis on controlling distance vis a vis the I&B ?

[jeffwarne]

so many tees solely or primarily a product of medal play, the handicap system and ego ?

Understanding today's enormous variance in play/distance and the intent of integrating golfers with the architectural features would golf courses
be a better field of play with one tee and more random features ?

In other words, rather than have one prescribed DZ as the focal point, framed with bunkers/features, accessed by the diverse spectrum of golfers from multiple tees, have one tee but multiple DZ's with more random bunkers/features accessed by all levels of golfers

As the golfer's game expanded or contracted there would be no need to shift tees as the elastic nature of the field of play would accommodate that shift ?

In addition, why should golfers of different abilities have to confront or interface with the same architectural features ?

Retaining just one tee would reduce maintenance costs significantly.

Would it promote more comraderie amongst golfers since everyone would be playing from the same tees ?

And, since everyone plays from the same tees, gaining a sense of relativity regarding ability, scoring and handicapping would be simpler,
more visible to the golfer's eye.

Construction costs would escalate in order to reconfigure the field of play between the green and the tee.
Increased maintenance costs in the body of each hole might be wholly or partially offset by the reduced maintenance costs gained by having one tee.

Lastly, would the finite length of a hole/s place greater emphasis on controlling distance vis a vis the I&B ?

The biggest problem with multiple sets of tees is that it is assumed every hole needs multiple sets of tees.
of course there are certain natural features or hazards that would require a hole to have 2,3, or even 4 tees, but there are so many holes where from say 400 yards one tee could be used , and those who really needed more could have a set dropped at the beginning of the fairway.

I'd love to see a clever course designed where there was the occasional alternate tee that created the length differenc (say a 50-80 yard differnece 3-6 times in a round on holes where it would not greatly increase the walk) and the rest of the time players were playing virtually the same hole (given turf wear consideration)
Also complimented by 3-6 very forward tees to accomodate those who couldn't negotiate difficult carries.

Just not 4-5 sets of tees on EVERY hole.

The biggest myth is that each set of tees can present the same challenges to every player.
A very short hitter who by tee placement faces a similar dilemna to the longer hitter on the tee shot, will not sniff the same shot demands for the next shot.
The next biggest myth is that a player should be able to reach all greens in regulation via tee placement
Then there's the theory that Mrs. Befuvnick's tees need to be far enough uo so she can hit the same club in other players do from other tees.
(How long would the par 4 be for the 130 yard driver to hit wedge in? 170? ) so you walk 250+ then play 170?

by that logic every hole would need 7 billion tees, or however many people there are on the planet.

It's interesting that when Golden age courses are "restored" some pretty prominent features aren't .Original tees, green speeds etc.

[Tom_Doak]

It's ego.

The long hitter wants to play tees where he can show off his strength; he doesn't want every par-4 to be driver-wedge, even though that's what they all are for the pros.

And today, the medium and short hitter believe they're entitled to play a tee where they can hit every par-4 in two, no matter how short they hit it off the tee.

By pandering to the latter group, we've made the game boring for the former group, or, created the need for additional tees.

From my survey, most people would be fine playing a course of 6500 yards overall.  But, it's all about how the length is distributed.  There ought to be two or three really long par-4's in that mix, that the short hitter has to play as "bogey 5's".  And then there ought to be two or three very short par-4's in the mix, to balance the longer ones.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

We also forget that on most courses, but not the largely exclusive ones you play, that there needs to be ample tee space.

The industry rule of thumb is 20 feet per thousand rounds, so a 30K course needs 6000 SF of tees, and probably 8000 or more on par 3 holes.  That amount of tee space certainly starts to make multiple tees make sense.  In woods, we rarely build wide tees to save trees, so the extra space comes length wise, creating different tee lengths.

I agree that on some holes we don't need as much yardage variation as others.  Par 3 holes for one, where maintaining 20-25 yard differences between tee markers results in about 55 yards from the front tees.  Short par 4's are next.

As to TD's "pandering" remark, I find it hard to think of it as pandering, when you are talking about 60% or so of all golfers, vs the tour pros who will never show up at any given golf course.  If we pander to anyone, its that 1% of long hitters who won't show up.  As he suggests, the way to do that is to have the guts to avoid the long tee that statistically no one uses anyway.

It still leaves the problem of either targeting your course to a narrow segment of the golfing population, or as you suggest, investing more in multiple LZ hazard creation.  An intersting idea, but I think the time tested multiple tee method is probably the cheapest way to cater (not pander!) to each "class" of golfer.  It is possible that land, irrigation, etc. costs may change that in the near future, or even now in selected locations.  That said, the cost of bunker maintenance is so high, building five of those at various locations down the fw might never be cost effective as five tees and one bunker.

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

Obviously each of the reasons you gave contribute to the issue. I will weigh in on the handicap system.  I believe the handicap system reduces the fun factor by requiring a posted score for every round.  For example, when one plays Ballyneal without a slope and rating and without tee markers, the fun process of mixing and matching tee areas is the underpinning to a fun round.

Hey let's hit from over there. Let's tee up next to the green, let's play this as a dogleg.  At Ballyneal it can be a version of cross country golf which is pure fun. The USGA does have a chart that allows you to compute the slope and rating at courses where you mix tees but sometimes you need Jim Colton in your group to keep track.

Ego, medal play, Jeff's myths are all contributing factors.

Cheers

[Paul Gray]

A good thread Pat.

The utmost of respect to TD for being prepared to at least comment on the "pandering issue." I've long been of the opinion that we lost something when architects began to nurse peoples egos. If you can't get up in regulation, get better or, where applicable, accept the limitations of age. In a cold winter in Britain there are a number of par 4's which require me to hit, at the very least, driver/3 wood. The club pros I often play with might be hitting driver/4 iron. I don't conclude anything from that other than my swing needs to be better. They're effectively scratch golfers, I'm a 7 handicap. That's my issue, not the golf courses'.

Linking the above to Pat's original point, I do believe TD, in The Anatomy of a Golf Course, advocates hazards at greatly fluctuating distances in order to produce variety for all. Furthermore, who is to say a hazard placed for a shorter hitter is out of the long hitters' scope? Has the longer hitter never been known to find himself in trouble 150 yards from the tee? And finding trouble so close to the tee means extra penalty, since a reasonable player that's searching for par will then face a real challenge to come out with anything better than bogey.

[Jason Thurman]

Isn't golf supposed to be fun? And don't golf courses want to make money by encouraging players to come back?

I think we're grasping at straws here. Most golfers don't carry a handicap, and most bad golfers don't have an ego that architects are pandering to. But they do want to have fun, and slogging it out from 6500 yards isn't fun for them.

Likewise, it's not much fun for strong players to bunt it around from 6500 yards either.

Sometimes it's ok for a game to be enjoyable.

[Willie_Dow]

One factor which seems to be omitted is speed of play.  For the short hitter it is hard to keep up with the group ahead if his drive requires two more shots to reach the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One factor which seems to be omitted is speed of play.  For the short hitter it is hard to keep up with the group ahead if his drive requires two more shots to reach the green.

Willie,

Might it not be just the opposite ?

That the shorter hitter can get closer to the green while the group ahead is still in the green ?

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't golf supposed to be fun? And don't golf courses want to make money by encouraging players to come back?

I think we're grasping at straws here. Most golfers don't carry a handicap, and most bad golfers don't have an ego that architects are pandering to. But they do want to have fun, and slogging it out from 6500 yards isn't fun for them.

Likewise, it's not much fun for strong players to bunt it around from 6500 yards either.

Sometimes it's ok for a game to be enjoyable.

Jason:

Sometimes it's ok to let go of your ego and just enjoy the game from whatever tees there are, instead of insisting that the whole course be set up perfectly for you.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, it's not about ego. I'm happy to play at any yardage between 5900 and 7200, depending on who I'm playing with. I also relish the opportunity to play with my grandfather, who struggles even to handle the most forward tees after a heart transplant, knee replacement, numerous back surgeries, and having a titanium humerus installed.

Are you suggesting that he should be playing from the same single set of tees as a scratch player? Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable? Should he just be relegated to executive or mini-golf courses? Not allowed to play the game at all? You took an informal survey that found a plurality of players on this forum like to play around 6300 yards, and now you're suggesting we should all play from the same distance. Whose ego is really out of control?

Seriously, part of what makes our game great is that it can be fun for all skill levels. I'm not suggesting there should be enough sets of tees that everyone can shoot par, or even hit more than a couple greens in regulation. But the game isn't much fun when you're beating a ball down a fairway endlessly, and it's even less fun if you're playing with a better player who hits the ball once for every three or four times that you hit it. It's not fun for the player who's never getting to hit either.

Don't be ridiculous. How many courses have you built with a single set of tees?

[Paul Gray]

Likewise, it's not much fun for strong players to bunt it around from 6500 yards either.

Jason,

I genuinely have no intention of picking a fight but, much as Tom's survey suggested, there are very few players for whom 6500 yards is dull. I'm not suggesting I fall into the category of "good golfer" but the club pros I mentioned before, if they're honest, would rather play something at that sort of length than some 7,500 yard monster where length is king. Admittedly the par over here is far more likely to be in the region of 70 or 71, but you see my point. So long as variety of length is used, 6,500 yards is neither too short nor too long for the male golfer, subject to egos being left at home. Hell, I've played some cracking little par 68 type tracks at no more than 5,500 yards where strategy was paramount. At no point did I think I was being short changed because I couldn't tee it up another 50 yards back on each hole.

And as for endless forward tees on longer courses, I seem to recall golf was still fun when I was a kid and could hardly ever get up in regulation. One of the great thrills, as I recall, was growing and improving and thus being able to get up where once I couldn't. There's a far greater sense of achievement in that for the improving junior than breaking 80 from some meaningless tees. In fact, there were some good juniors about when I was young and they were doing much the same as me. Nowadays, humility instilled due to this approach, they routinely win the Ryder Cup.    (a very cheap shot for which I immediately apologise).

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, I agree that the majority of players can enjoy a course from 6500 yards. I don't really see those courses becoming obsolete at anything below the pro level currently.

I do, however, think that large groups of golfers cease to enjoy the game in a world with a hypothetical single set of tees at 6500 yards (or any other arbitrary distance), as the original post inquired about. And it's not because those golfers have egos or become frustrated when they can't "shoot a number," at least in the case of the many and varied high handicaps that I play with. It's simply that they're endlessly pounding a ball along with their strongest possible club. It's monotonous at best and overwhelming at worst.

Most of the high handicappers I know are fine with making some 9s and shooting in the 120s, if they keep score at all. But it's not much fun when they're either hitting the same shot over and over or rooting around in woods and native grasses because shot demands are just too steep for them. Playing from shorter tees gives them more variation.

If the original post asked why we need more than 3 sets of tees, I wouldn't have any argument. But Patrick asked why we need more than a SINGLE set, and I think it's pretty clear in the real world that women, seniors, and players with disabilities are often going to have their enjoyment compromised if they have to play from the same set as a scratch player. It's analogous to saying that everyone who takes up tennis should only be allowed to play against the best player at the local raquet club. It's just more fun to play against someone (or in the case of golf, a course) that allows you to hit some shots even if you can't be truly competitive.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hope Tom doesn't take a survey from this group about how fast they play.  I know this group pretty well and nothing they say about their games can be taken as gospel.

[Willie_Dow]

Pat

Your thought on speed of play for the short hitter doesn't seem to work on the courses I play.  It seems as though I'm not sure I would hit into the group ahead on my second shot from the regular tee box, which delays my attempt.

Try it sometime when you get a little older.

Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accomodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, would it work well on other holes on the course or just the 18th?

I like the idea a lot on a single hole. I can imagine some players being annoyed if they were playing a match from different tees and the shorter hitter lost his yardage advantage on a hole or two. But overall, I think it would be fun for one or two holes per round.

Over the course of a whole round, though, I don't really like the idea for reasons stated above.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

As I'm sure you're quite aware, the Golden Age architects routinely designed holes with one tee and various routes, with hazards or shot demands for the A, B, C & D player all the time. Their books are filled with illustrations of these concepts. Perhaps we can explore what made them work then and less so now:

Life was harder back then; the difference between the have and have nots was greater also. Perhaps the lesser skilled or aging golfers were resigned to the fact that golf should be more difficult for them than the expert.

The disparity between the longest and shortest hitters was much narrower back then; surely due to the balls and clubs of the day; so play off one tee was possible.

The lack of fairway irrigation gave a tremendous assist to the short hitter. When I grew up playing in the late 70's, on an unirrigated Ross course, we routinely hit 3 wood on 2 par 5 holes so we wouldn't roll into the water that was 250 yards off the tee. Toady I can't reach that water with my Pro V1 and 910 driver simply because they installed fairway irrigation.

They just didn't care or cater to women! If they wanted to play they actually had to build their own clubs.

Less people played golf and courses didn't have to bear the traffic that todays layouts do; this lends itself to a smaller, single teeing ground.

[Bill_McBride]

Fellows,

Back to the underlying principle, one tee, with the body of the hole accommodating every level of golfer, not the multiple tees.

When I think of holes and bunkering schemes like those at # 18 at NGLA it makes perfect sense.

So that hole would be a par 4 for professionals, a par 5 for members and other amateurs, and a par 8 for ladies?

[Greg Tallman]

Questions to be answered by those supporting a one tee concept.

Tom Doak - Do you think you could build such a course and, with a straight face, say that "golfers of every age and skill level should be able to enjoy the course from the one set of tees we have bulit"?

Pat Mucci - If Tom were do this for free, call it a GCA experiment, would you fund such an endeavor? Or is just easy to discuss it as a pipe dream?

[Tom_Doak]

I'm happy to play at any yardage between 5900 and 7200, depending on who I'm playing with. I also relish the opportunity to play with my grandfather, who struggles even to handle the most forward tees after a heart transplant, knee replacement, numerous back surgeries, and having a titanium humerus installed.

Are you suggesting that he should be playing from the same single set of tees as a scratch player? Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable?

Don't be ridiculous. How many courses have you built with a single set of tees?

Jason:

I didn't say I was only going to build one set of tees.  I said it's possible to build one set of tees that provides a balanced test to long and short hitters, because you said it was impossible.

Once that's done, if the whole course was short grass, you and your grandfather could play it as far back or as far up as you wanted to ... but as long as you played forward the same amount on every hole, you'd preserve the balance of the course.

[Greg Tallman]

I'm happy to play at any yardage between 5900 and 7200, depending on who I'm playing with. I also relish the opportunity to play with my grandfather, who struggles even to handle the most forward tees after a heart transplant, knee replacement, numerous back surgeries, and having a titanium humerus installed.

Are you suggesting that he should be playing from the same single set of tees as a scratch player? Can you explain how requiring him to hit 3w 6 or 7 times to reach a 450 yard hole is supposed to be enjoyable?

Don't be ridiculous. How many courses have you built with a single set of tees?

Jason:

I didn't say I was only going to build one set of tees.  I said it's possible to build one set of tees that provides a balanced test to long and short hitters, because you said it was impossible.

Once that's done, if the whole course was short grass, you and your grandfather could play it as far back or as far up as you wanted to ... but as long as you played forward the same amount on every hole, you'd preserve the balance of the course.

Tom, In fariness I think your statement strongly advocates a 6500 yard course, properly designed, to be enjoyable for most every golfer. If that is not what you meant it is certainly the way it comes off. Now we can argue whjat you mean by "most" and both be certain we are not wrong but...

[Tom_Doak]

Questions to be answered by those supporting a one tee concept.

Tom Doak - Do you think you could build such a course and, with a straight face, say that "golfers of every age and skill level should be able to enjoy the course from the one set of tees we have bulit"?

Greg:

EVERY age and skill level?  Including Jason's handicapped grandfather?  That's a pretty tall order.

But I think I could build a course that 40,000 people a year would enjoy.

If my market were big enough to aim at only one segment of the market, the course would be between 6300 and 6500 yards, and most men would enjoy it.

If I had to appeal to seniors and women, too, the course would be about 5500 yards with par 67 or 68, like many of the smaller courses I've seen in the UK.  It would have plenty of cool par-3's and short par-4's, and a few longer par-4's, and maybe one par five.  Even the best players would enjoy it, unless they are just too stubborn to have fun playing golf.


P.S.  I'm off the computer and on vacation with my wife for the rest of the week starting in half an hour, so I hope that's a sufficient answer for the purposes of this thread.

[Greg Tallman]

Questions to be answered by those supporting a one tee concept.

Tom Doak - Do you think you could build such a course and, with a straight face, say that "golfers of every age and skill level should be able to enjoy the course from the one set of tees we have bulit"?

Greg:

EVERY age and skill level?  Including Jason's handicapped grandfather?  That's a pretty tall order.

But I think I could build a course that 40,000 people a year would enjoy. Good enough for me, now if Pat will fund it we have a wonderful testing ground that could facilitate real change. Publicity could be off the charts. When do we start? I mean when do you start?

If my market were big enough to aim at only one segment of the market, the course would be between 6300 and 6500 yards, and most men would enjoy it.

If I had to appeal to seniors and women, too, the course would be about 5500 yards with par 67 or 68, like many of the smaller courses I've seen in the UK.  It would have plenty of cool par-3's and short par-4's, and a few longer par-4's, and maybe one par five.  Even the best players would enjoy it, unless they are just too stubborn to have fun playing golf.


P.S.  I'm off the computer and on vacation with my wife for the rest of the week starting in half an hour, so I hope that's a sufficient answer for the purposes of this thread.

[Paul Gray]

Paul, I agree that the majority of players can enjoy a course from 6500 yards. I don't really see those courses becoming obsolete at anything below the pro level currently.

I do, however, think that large groups of golfers cease to enjoy the game in a world with a hypothetical single set of tees at 6500 yards (or any other arbitrary distance), as the original post inquired about. And it's not because those golfers have egos or become frustrated when they can't "shoot a number," at least in the case of the many and varied high handicaps that I play with. It's simply that they're endlessly pounding a ball along with their strongest possible club. It's monotonous at best and overwhelming at worst.

Most of the high handicappers I know are fine with making some 9s and shooting in the 120s, if they keep score at all. But it's not much fun when they're either hitting the same shot over and over or rooting around in woods and native grasses because shot demands are just too steep for them. Playing from shorter tees gives them more variation.

If the original post asked why we need more than 3 sets of tees, I wouldn't have any argument. But Patrick asked why we need more than a SINGLE set, and I think it's pretty clear in the real world that women, seniors, and players with disabilities are often going to have their enjoyment compromised if they have to play from the same set as a scratch player. It's analogous to saying that everyone who takes up tennis should only be allowed to play against the best player at the local raquet club. It's just more fun to play against someone (or in the case of golf, a course) that allows you to hit some shots even if you can't be truly competitive.

Firstly, there's a degree of cultural difference at play here and I certainly don't want to suggest that we get it right over here and you get it wrong. Secondly though, from the little I know of golf in America, the issue of length is mitigated somewhat more over here by a greater use of variety in length. For example, most of the short hitters I know who, as per the people you were referring to, are not ego junkies (my own dad leaps to my - a confirmed hacker who ventures onto a course on a very sporadic basis and is about to have a hip replacement), enjoy playing courses of any length because we tend to have a fair few short par 3's and par 4's thrown into the mix. And when I say short, I mean 260 yards for a par 4 and maybe 120 yards for a par 3. Such holes work well for all golfers: the high handicapper gets excited about a possible par and the low handicapper feels extra self-induced pressure because par, at least, can suddenly seem like a must. In fact, having made an effort a few years ago to find courses which would suit both me and my dad equally (from the same tees, you understand), I've managed to stumble across a few real architectural gems where variety is key.

As a side note, until recently over here there was no history of allowing ability to dictate par. If a hole was over 475 yards it was a par 5. If it was under it was a par 4. You simply didn't, with the odd VERY rare exception in the case of a tree lined dogleg hole, have a 210 yard par 4. It was a par 3, plan and simple. If you needed to play it as a par 4, fine. That was down to you, no one was going to adjust the scorecard for you and let you think you were making par when you weren't.

Actually, following on from the above, the figures for women have of course always been different and I had rather assumed it was a given that ladies would tee it up further forward, much in the same way that top female pros still play championship courses a few hundred yards shorter than their male counterparts . In that respect, I concede that one set of tees is too limited.  Nonetheless, firm and fast and 6000 yards, par 69 for men, par 74 for women. Why not all tee it up together?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()