The case against "play it forward" (as well as "play it back")

[Ken Moum]

Old Macdonald does the trick by putting tee markers for some players who opt for them IN A FLAT PLACE ON THE FAIRWAY.  There are no extra "tee boxes" of the sort Ulrich was complaining about.  This is the perfect solution for players who don't want to tackle the "real" course and are just out to have fun ... and it works just fine there.  However, at so many clubs, the solution is rejected because everyone wants their very own tee.

IMHO, this IS a huge problem, which is too bad.  I suspect it wouldn't be such a big deal if we hadn't built up so many of the "men's" tees on our courses.

There are certainly a lot of tees in Scotland that are no more than what you describe.  At my home course, I know that some time in the 70s an idiot member with a bulldozer offered to "improve" the course...  One of the things he did to our Donald Ross design was raise a bunch of the tees by at least a couple of feet.

K

[Ulrich Mayring]

How does Old MacDonald deal with minimising green-to-tee walks, while at the same time offering many different tees?

I suspect the answer is that walking is optimised for the two most commonly used tees and everyone choosing to play forward or back of those, will be in for some additional walking. In that case I see no harm in having those extra tee markers. Design a course for two different sets of tees and put some additional plates in the ground forward and back of those. Concentrate on making it a great course from the two main tees.

Ulrich

[Brent Hutto]

The ultimate of that was a course I saw years ago that wanted a shorter kid's course for the youngest of the juniors. Eventually they put little plates in the ground somewhere between 90 and 130 yards from each green.

But their initial form of the "junior tees" was to print up a batch of scorecards with a "junior" yardage for each hole, chosen to correspond to marked sprinkler heads that were already present. The kids just looked at hole number such-and-such, saw that it was "126 yards" then walked up the fairway to the sprinkler that said "126".

After a few months this system was replaced by small marker plates in the fairway but it was good proof of concept. I think they had an 18 hole course not much longer then 2,000 yards for the youngsters, which was cool.

[archie_struthers]

 

I think you can "hide" the tee boxes by changing the angle of the boxes at the various distances . The difficulty then comes in the green design , as a 250 yard hole needs more green space by nature .

A huge green for a 150 yard shot typically looks bad.

The tee boxes of the 60's and 70's tended to be linear and ugly.  Setting them at different angles may take some more space , but is much more aesthetically pleasing .

[John Percival]

Forest Dunes has a set of constructed fwd Junior tees. They are built like other tees, are listed on the scorecard and shown on the ydg book. The tee at 18 is beyond cool...a heroic Cape shot that plays for any age or putting it sideways to the fwy. Check it out.

[Tom_Doak]

How does Old MacDonald deal with minimising green-to-tee walks, while at the same time offering many different tees?

I suspect the answer is that walking is optimised for the two most commonly used tees and everyone choosing to play forward or back of those, will be in for some additional walking. In that case I see no harm in having those extra tee markers. Design a course for two different sets of tees and put some additional plates in the ground forward and back of those. Concentrate on making it a great course from the two main tees.

Generally, this is what we do.  Sometimes it's only natural that the closest tee to the previous green is the back tee, but where we can, we try to prioritize the middle tees in the walk.  I figure if someone wants to play the course all the way back, they can walk a bit more to do so.  I know they hate it ... which shows how considerate they are of the other 95% of golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

C&C hid the forward tees rather well at Hidden Creek

[Adam Lawrence]

Some people have a definite view that walks backwards are a bad thing, because golfers like the feeling of making progress during a round. This (plus back tee thinking) is what leads to courses laid out in a linear fashion, where you have to walk past the back tees wherever you're playing. I understand this view, but share Tom's attitude that the small percentage who play the backs should not be the ones who get the shortest walk to their tee.

[Sean_A]

Adam

I detest walking away from the green to tee up.  The hole has to be special to justify it, but instead its usually really about added yards and making sure the course rating is at least a respectable number in relation to par.  Sometimes owners use high course rating to show how good the course is.  As if difficult and good are the same thing. For sure I would rather have the 5700-6200 yard tee next to the green.  For one, more people would be encouraged to play those tees because they are convenient.  If you are going to make golfers walk in the wrong direction, make it the small percentage of flat bellies.  

While not nearly as dogmatic as Bailey, I understand his point.  All courses cannot be all things to everybody.  What archies are striving for now is some sort of socialized golf.  There are plenty of courses for all to choose which suits them best.  Will that course be prefect?  Likely not, but who said golf is all about accommodating everybody?  I don't think its possible to build a sensible course with a spread of tees between 7200 and 5000 yards.  I think it must be coming more and more toward the point where archies who can afford to be choosy will not work with certain clients who insist on the socialized design approach.

Ciao    

[Ally Mcintosh]

Quite often, the topography will determine exactly which tee is closest to the previous green… But given a 4-tee set up on a 6,600 yard plus course, I guesstimate the percentage plays at approx 10% back; 50% next back, 30% second forward and 10% forward… And therefore the two middle sets of tees should be placed as close to the previous green if at all possible…

I am a big fan of setting up very forward sets on the fairway…

[Brent Hutto]

I'm trying to back out of this discussion before I totally repeat myself but I do have one followup question for Sean, first.

So let's say there's a course with a perfectly reasonable set of tees at 6,400 yards or whatever. Akin to the member tees at a UK course. And let's say the walk works out well for playing those tees. You take the obvious path from one green to the next tee and there's a direct route to those 6,400-yards tee boxes.

What I'm hearing is, as an ideal the course would have just those tees. Anyone who wants to play the course can just play from there. Clean, obvious, clear-cut, simple. And a good walk with no backtracking and so forth.

Here's my first question. Would you view it as a major downgrade of the course in your estimation if every hole also had another set of tee box 40 yards longer? You  could still have the good, direct walk but anyone wanting to play the course at 6,900 yards will have to backtrack on every hole in order to do it.

And second question. Would you view it as a major distraction or lack of "integrity" if there were another tee box 50 yards forward of those 6,400 yard tees. You'd possibly see it when standing on the "real" tee box and you may have to walk past it on the way to the fairway after hitting your shot. But anyone who wants to play the course at 5,800 yards will have to walk forward 50 yards on each hole in order to do so.

In other words, is your objection to the very presence of longer and shorter tees? Or does your objection only occur if multiple tees force you to backtrack, etc?

[Michael Felton]

Generally, this is what we do.  Sometimes it's only natural that the closest tee to the previous green is the back tee, but where we can, we try to prioritize the middle tees in the walk.  I figure if someone wants to play the course all the way back, they can walk a bit more to do so.  I know they hate it ... which shows how considerate they are of the other 95% of golfers.

Most "older" courses kind of do this by default no? The old tee would be the original back tee and would be close to the previous green. New back tees are further back and involve more of a walk. At Walton Heath, I typically play from the purple tees and on the old at least, that means walking back a further 50+ yards on almost every hole. I don't mind. If you play the whites, the tees are right there.

I do think it's totally reasonable that the shortest walk should be to the most trafficked tees, which would probably be those at or around 6500 yards or so. And I say that as a back tee player (most of the time).

[Andrew Buck]

Generally, this is what we do.  Sometimes it's only natural that the closest tee to the previous green is the back tee, but where we can, we try to prioritize the middle tees in the walk.  I figure if someone wants to play the course all the way back, they can walk a bit more to do so.  I know they hate it ... which shows how considerate they are of the other 95% of golfers.

Most "older" courses kind of do this by default no? The old tee would be the original back tee and would be close to the previous green. New back tees are further back and involve more of a walk. At Walton Heath, I typically play from the purple tees and on the old at least, that means walking back a further 50+ yards on almost every hole. I don't mind. If you play the whites, the tees are right there.

I do think it's totally reasonable that the shortest walk should be to the most trafficked tees, which would probably be those at or around 6500 yards or so. And I say that as a back tee player (most of the time).

Agreed.  I never have had a problem or felt slighted waling back to the back tees.  Also, If I'm playing with players who prefer shorter tees, I join them on the shorter tees.  

[Thomas Dai]

Any adult male remember when they were a young, small size boy/junior golfer?
The most used club in your bag other than the putter? A fairway wood. Typical par-4 hole - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-3 - fairway wood, chip, putts. Typical par-5 - driver, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, fairway wood, chip, putts. Pretty well, boring, just like folk are suggesting golf can be for lady golfers if played from inappropriate tees, but at least with age young, small junior boys get bigger and stronger. Golf ought to be for all, not just big, strong, fit, long-hitting men.
All the best.

Thomas,
I remember EXACTLY that.
and it provided a number of wonderful advantages.
1.I certainly learned how to hit a fairway wood!
2. Gave me plenty of tries to practice different lies and stances
3.I developed a great short game
4.I had a benchmark to track my progress.

That process was fun. However that process was fun for me because I was getting bigger and stronger each year to improve.  
I don't anticipate it being as fun on the downside.  

Andrew, I go along with your sentiments. One of the reasons I'm now playing some occasional golf with old hickories and sometimes tee-off from the start of the fairways or even the, whisper it quietly, ....ladies tees. I end up in the same places as when I tee-off with titanium/graphite/steel from further back but don't have to walk so far and have some variety and laughs as well.
All the best.

[Sean_A]

I'm trying to back out of this discussion before I totally repeat myself but I do have one followup question for Sean, first.

So let's say there's a course with a perfectly reasonable set of tees at 6,400 yards or whatever. Akin to the member tees at a UK course. And let's say the walk works out well for playing those tees. You take the obvious path from one green to the next tee and there's a direct route to those 6,400-yards tee boxes.

What I'm hearing is, as an ideal the course would have just those tees. Anyone who wants to play the course can just play from there. Clean, obvious, clear-cut, simple. And a good walk with no backtracking and so forth.

Here's my first question. Would you view it as a major downgrade of the course in your estimation if every hole also had another set of tee box 40 yards longer? You  could still have the good, direct walk but anyone wanting to play the course at 6,900 yards will have to backtrack on every hole in order to do it.

And second question. Would you view it as a major distraction or lack of "integrity" if there were another tee box 50 yards forward of those 6,400 yard tees. You'd possibly see it when standing on the "real" tee box and you may have to walk past it on the way to the fairway after hitting your shot. But anyone who wants to play the course at 5,800 yards will have to walk forward 50 yards on each hole in order to do so.

In other words, is your objection to the very presence of longer and shorter tees? Or does your objection only occur if multiple tees force you to backtrack, etc?

Brent

No, I wouldn't call back tees in your case a major tick against the design.  No,  I wouldn't view forward tees as a major distraction if done well.  By well I mean usually pushed to the side.  One of my main beefs with mega tees is the absence of angles solely in favour of yardage, but if done well it isn't a huge issue.  

The bigger issue really is about sustainability.  Guys talk about growing the game and 7200 yard tees in the same sentence.  First, designers should be looking toward smaller footprint courses to encourage walking.  Second, to grow the game, kids, seniors and women have to be the target.  That means a focus on 5000-6000 yards, not 6500-7500 yards.  To me its all part of the same image golf suffers, which in the main is very poor and wasteful.  Guess what, its hard to argue against that image of golf because in the main we are terribly wasteful concerning with resources.  The conversation about fast VS moderate greens made that quite clear - a lot of golfers don't care about waste, they care about their own enjoyment.  They then should not be surprised when folks get down on golfers and care little about what happens to the courses.  I am a golfer and its hard for me to feel sympathetic toward failing clubs or about saving courses from being developed/turned into parks or about water rationing.  Essentially, golfers must learn to be less selfish and more cognizant of how golfers and courses fit into wider society.  

Ciao  

Ciao    

[Thomas Dai]

The bigger issue really is about sustainability.  Guys talk about growing the game and 7200 yard tees in the same sentence.  First, designers should be looking toward smaller footprint courses to encourage walking.  Second, to grow the game, kids, seniors and women have to be the target.  That means a focus on 5000-6000 yards, not 6500-7500 yards. To me its all part of the same image golf suffers, which in the main is very poor and wasteful.  Guess what, its hard to argue against that image of golf because in the main we are terribly wasteful concerning with resources. The conversation about fast VS moderate greens made that quite clear - a lot of golfers don't care about waste, they care about their own enjoyment. They then should not be surprised when folks get down on golfers and care little about what happens to the courses. I am a golfer and its hard for me to feel sympathetic toward failing clubs or about saving courses from being developed/turned into parks or about water rationing. Essentially, golfers must learn to be less selfish and more cognizant of how golfers and courses fit into wider society.  
Ciao    

This extremely well written paragraph sums up many aspects of modern golf very nicely. Well said Sean.
All the best.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

Define smaller footprint courses.

Surely the Bandon courses are not smaller footprint courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hasn't the entire disparity in "walking" been created by hi-tech and the distance issue ?

When you analyze "classic" or "golden age" courses, the green to tee walks were minimal.

But, the expansion of the playing spectrum has now made that impossible.

So, what's every body crying about.

In a perfect world on a perfect course, you'd have the back tee near the green, and the walk forward, toward the fairway, for the other tees, but, it's not a perfect world.

[jeffwarne]

It appears that those of us who play with women on a regular or occasional basis have a different perspective on this issue than those who don't.


Dwight Phelps -

Thanks for referencing the holes at Old MacDonald as examples of holes that can retain their design integrity even with a wide variety of tee box distances.

DT

Old Macdonald does the trick by putting tee markers for some players who opt for them IN A FLAT PLACE ON THE FAIRWAY.  There are no extra "tee boxes" of the sort Ulrich was complaining about.  This is the perfect solution for players who don't want to tackle the "real" course and are just out to have fun ... and it works just fine there.  However, at so many clubs, the solution is rejected because everyone wants their very own tee.

Interesting that I suggested exactly that....
three threads ago,
and was blasted by multiple posters.

But Tom hits the crux of the proble, people want their experience and self worth justified by a perfectly placed tee JUST at their optimum precise yardage and comfort level -that lines up well-and is not awkward etc.

But then I'd be fine with EVERYBODY teeing off in a flat spot in the fairway, and naively I guess, absolutely don't see the need for USGA construction laser level tees anywhere

[David_Tepper]

Should the walks from green to tee be an element in judging the design intregity of a course? Isn't 99% of the design integrity of the course what happens from tee to green?

[Tim Lewis]

I was just reading The Anatomy of a Golf Course, and I got to the part about how Alice Dye advocated forward teeing grounds so that shorter players had chances to reach greens in regulation. While reading it occurred to me that if it wasn't for the notion of par, and greens in regulation there would be much less emphasis on providing teeing grounds for all types of players. The notion of greens in regulation tend to make people think that you are supposed to reach a green in a certain number of shots, and then if they can't reach a green in regulation because of their lack of length it is unfair, since often golfers cannot increase their length because of their stature, strength ect.. The goal of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the least amount of shots possible, so for people who hit the ball farther this goal is often easier. Why then are people so fixated on making sure all golfers can reach the green in the same number of shots. I think that a multitude of tees make designing a course much more difficult, and that golfers are not meant to all have the ability to reach the green in the same amount of shots. Having the ability to hit the ball farther is meant to be an advantage, so why don't architects let it be an advantage and design their holes so that all types of golfers will have the ability to reach the green in the least amount of shots possible... for their own specific skill set.

Tim

[jeffwarne]

Should the walks from green to tee be an element in judging the design intregity of a course? Isn't 99% of the design integrity of the course what happens from tee to green?

David,
One would think that,
until he'spends 99% of his energy and time getting from green to tee

but there's at least one architect who evidently agrees with you

[Garland Bayley]

Good post Tim,

You sound like the golden age architects that promoted such principles. Place the difficulties in places where the top players will have to deal with them, and let everyone else get on with their games.

If you are bored with golf because you can't reach greens in regulation, find something else to entertain yourself with. Don't be so arrogant as to screw up golf courses for those that are not bored with golf.

[jeffwarne]

I was just reading The Anatomy of a Golf Course, and I got to the part about how Alice Dye advocated forward teeing grounds so that shorter players had chances to reach greens in regulation. While reading it occurred to me that if it wasn't for the notion of par, and greens in regulation there would be much less emphasis on providing teeing grounds for all types of players. The notion of greens in regulation tend to make people think that you are supposed to reach a green in a certain number of shots, and then if they can't reach a green in regulation because of their lack of length it is unfair, since often golfers cannot increase their length because of their stature, strength ect.. The goal of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the least amount of shots possible, so for people who hit the ball farther this goal is often easier. Why then are people so fixated on making sure all golfers can reach the green in the same number of shots. I think that a multitude of tees make designing a course much more difficult, and that golfers are not meant to all have the ability to reach the green in the same amount of shots. Having the ability to hit the ball farther is meant to be an advantage, so why don't architects let it be an advantage and design their holes so that all types of golfers will have the ability to reach the green in the least amount of shots possible... for their own specific skill set.

Tim

But Tim,
it gets better.
Not only is every player, with every skill set, supposed to have a set of tees to be able to reach a green in "regulation"(and evidently now I find out that's most fun with a short iron), but I'm also supposed to give them a shot or two per hole as well.

Then after that, we go play cards and they beat the crap out of me, and there's no handicap

[David_Tepper]

"people want their experience and self worth justified by a perfectly placed tee JUST at their optimum precise yardage and comfort level "

"until he'spends 99% of his energy and time getting from green to tee"

Jeff W. -

Now you are engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole. I don't think anyone here expects or is advocating for "optimum precise yardage" on any or all holes on a golf course. Nothing that I have written here states or implies that. No one here expects that every green should be reachable in "regulation." Garland seems far, far more obsessed with the thought of making birdies than I am!

The reality is that many, if not most, male golfers cannot hit a drive and a fairway wood more than 400 yards. There are few women golfers who can hit the same 2 clubs more than or even close to 300 yards. I am not advocating that all 10 par-4's on a course be "reachable." But it would be nice if more than  one or two of them were.

Your "99% energy & time" comment is nonsense, but I think you know that. Of course, the majority of golfers don't have to worry about walking back to the back tees, because they don't play from them!

DT