[Paul Gray]

Jason,

Much as Lyne has been suggesting, I don't think those ladies would have moaned if the ladies tees moved up to something like 5,400 yards.

The cause and effect, I believe, is the other way around. In other words, lush turf is the cause and multiple tees the result. Let me just give another example: Let's take the 410 yard 4th hole at my home course. In the summer I might hit driver and leave myself with as little as a wedge in. Doing so however means hitting a draw as anything else means an accurate angle on approach from the right hand side of the fairway with a well placed ftont right bunker to negotiation and a green like concrete. Now, on such a hole the short hitter can fire away with impunity, run the ball down the centre of the fairway and maybe have a five iron for the second shot. Add in the wind and suddenly my aerial wedge approach, coupled with the extra risk I've had to take from the tee, doesn't look so special. One thing however that I need not really worry about is the fairway bunker at 320 yards, save for on a day when the wind is right at my tail. That bunker though is a big issue for the short hitter when looking at the second shot. One course, one set of tees, questions asked of every level of  player. Water the fairways however, meaning that shorter hitter can't roll the ball along and I can fire away without any concerns about the ball rolling to the right of the fairway, and the hole is considerably weaker. Better then maybe for the short hitter to have a forward tee. At least then we can both blast a long iron as far as we can before the ball lands and abruptly stops.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
You still never addressed my post?

I thought that I answered it when responding to another poster.

But, I'll address the question with a caveat.

As you know, Pine Valley has added tees, solely for the best amateurs in the country, if not the world, as well as for local and regional pros, and those tees can only be reasonably played by those exceptional golfers.

Holes such as # 4, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 18 have had significant yardage added to them.

Secondly, Pine Valley was created solely for one type of golfer, "The Championship Golfer"
It was not conceived, designed and built for the broad spectrum of golfer.
It was never meant for the beginner or women golfer.

I believe, at one time, if your handicap exceeded a certain number, membership was beyond your reach.

Hence, understanding that Pine Valley was never meant to cater to the broad spectrum of golfers, I'll address your question with the caveat that excludes the recently added tees created for a single purpose.

Yes, Pine Valley could be played from the existing foot pad/s other than the ones where significant length was added for a singular purpose that extends beyond the membership.

Let me ask you, would Pine Valley be a better golf course for all with one set of tees?

It wouldn't suffer at all.
It would remain a great golf course and a great test.

It's the defense of par in tournaments that's fueled the added length along with the desire to keep the defensive architectural features relevant in the face of quantum leaps in distance.

Most every Golden Age architect understood that over time their designs would likely need to expand. 

That's not really the case at Pine Valley where many tees are land locked.
In addition, some of the holes could only be lengthened by altering the angle of attack into the fairway.
Holes 18, 4, 7, 12, 13 and 16 are good examples of that.

Building elasticity into their courses was an important factor and many incorporated this where they could into their routings and teeing locations, etc. 

The problem you and others have is that you're confusing elasticity with "static" design principles.

Let's take the 1st, 2nd and especially the 8th hole at NGLA as perfect examples.
Just because you lengthened those holes, vis a vis elasticity, it doesn't undermine nor refute the one tee principle.
Those holes still have but one footpad, and as a result, the markers are moved back because the back of those tees were lengthened, SOLELY to counter the additional length brought on by hi-tech and improvements in I&B which resulted in quantum leaps in distance.

Does it really matter where I play those holes from ?

290, 300, 320 ?

What difference does it make if I'm playing a match against another golfer ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's a pretty big jump to suggest a relationship between the presence of multiple sets of tees and the practice of maintaining courses with lush green fairways and six inch rough.

As for "architectural proportionality," the term refers to a concept first written of in the 19th century that has become a central principle of architectural theory. It specifically refers to the relationship between various objects and space built into an architect's design, typically placed at standard distance intervals to visually stimulate onlookers. In other words, for purposes of this thread, it's a made-up term that Pat reappropriated to try to obscure the fact that he's really just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Jason,

Just say that you don't understand "proportionality" rather than condemn it and my use of the term.

Of course, he's using the term to refer to the idea that, if everyone tees off from the same place, an architect can place hazards in locations where they are more likely to be in play for better players while being out of reach for weaker players. While this is true on the tee shot, it fails to account for what happens on subsequent shots. After all, the landing zone for a low marker's 300 yard tee shot is the same as the landing zone for the 140 yard 3-wood advancement shot of the weaker player who drives it 160 yards. There's no doubt that a weaker player playing a course with a single set of tees will find more challenge than he would on a course with multiple sets, some of which are shorter and more proportional to his skillset. Unfortunately, this magical arrangement of features where punishment is only in play for the stronger player simply doesn't exist, regardless of how tees are laid out.

I thought you were doing great until you got toward the end.
"Proportionality" exists, you're just not aware of it.

I play a few rounds a year with 30+ handicap women. The forward tees don't exist to help them make pars, and they don't think about making pars when they play. They just try to enjoy themselves.

That's pure nonsense and if you're serious, refutes your own position.
For, if they're not out there to make pars, what difference does length make ?
More length equals more fun.

To a woman, the ones I've talked to all hate par 5s. It's not because they can't par them - they can't do that on par 3s either generally. It's because they turn into five or six shot slogs with little purpose on a given shot.

And, could that be because the architect hasn't crafted proportional challenges along their journey ?

You still don't get the concept.

An interesting thing happened to me.
When I went from driving the ball 250+ to my biggest blast at 170 including lots of roll, when my trajectory on all shots was very low, I enjoyed the game even more because I had to tack my way around the golf course.  Objects and hazards took on heightened significance and I had to figure out how to deal with them, given the status of my new game.

So, maybe if you play with whiners or people who feel entitled to making par or on courses void of challenges to the shorter hitter, I understand your advocacy.

The forward tees simply exist to make the game more enjoyable for them. I have a feeling Lyne has seen the same, and she likely knows more about this topic than any of us.

No, she doesn't.
And, enjoyment tends to be a function of success in achieving your goal, and when your goal is par, which it is universally, despite your claim to the contrary, therein lies the problem

The simplest determinant of a course's difficulty is it's yardage. If you really want an "architecturally proportional" challenge and, more significantly, an enjoyable one as opposed to just a difficult one, then the simplest way to ensure it is to offer multiple tees that allow some flexibility in how much challenge a player takes on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Quite simply, you don't get it.

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks Pat.

Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy.  A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun).  The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death.  Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different!  Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole 

[Paul Gray]

Thanks Pat.

Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy.  A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun).  The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death.  Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different!  Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole  

But the beginner skier would be happy to start at the top of the slope if more gentle routes could be taken to get down the mountain, therein providing proportional challenge along said route. No?

[Lyne Morrison]

Paul, Jason et al.

The assumption that shorter hitters are keen to accept the challenge of a steady diet of driver, fairway wood, fairway wood ... is flawed.

As a game golf does best when the player is delivered a desirable feeling - be it pleasure, happiness, joy, success, etc.

For this group, repeat wood play does not adequately deliver the positive feedback that translates into fun, enjoyment and return play. Throw in bunker challenges along the way and enthusiasm drops very quickly.

One wise woman at our club who fronts up to this very situation each week describes her ritual 'as torture alleviated by good company and a walk.'


Meantime we question why women don't stay with the game.

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
Your point is feasible but leads to what Lyne is saying, a long arduous path to get to the bottom/hole.  Forget about par, even high handicappers don't like knowing the best they will do on a hole is double digits.  The bottomline is that golf needs to accommodate all levels (at least most levels) of ability.  One set of tees is not the answer! 

Next idea?
Mark

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

More length equals more fun.

Do you believe this for yourself?

Do you always play the longest set of tees when you're playing for fun (assuming you play for fun sometimes)?

Do you believe it is true for a wide spectrum of other golfers?

It's not true for me.

[Sean_A]

Paul, Jason et al.

The assumption that shorter hitters are keen to accept the challenge of a steady diet of driver, fairway wood, fairway wood ... is flawed.

As a game golf does best when the player is delivered a desirable feeling - be it pleasure, happiness, joy, success, etc.

For this group, repeat wood play does not adequately deliver the positive feedback that translates into fun, enjoyment and return play. Throw in bunker challenges along the way and enthusiasm drops very quickly.

One wise woman at our club who fronts up to this very situation each week describes her ritual 'as torture alleviated by good company and a walk.'


Meantime we question why women don't stay with the game.

Lynn

What yardage do we need for more women to particpate?

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

It's not just women.  I have three sons.  Each is a good sportsman.  The eldest played representative cricket at a level below junior county, his twin brothers both played junior county cricket and one played 1st XI school cricket at the age of 15.  All play good level adult club cricket as juniors.  The eldest was 1st XV rugby player at a strong rugby school, his twin brothers represent their county at age group county field hockey and play adult club hockey at the (current) age of 16.

All three play golf.  Our home club is a regional Open Qualifying venue and is 6800 from the medal tees.  As younger golfers all three hated playing there.  If Cameron, the eldest, hadn't been a member at Elie (6200 yards, par 70), where even at 12 and 13 he could make par on some holes, I suspect all three would have given golf up.  Even last year Gregor, one of the twins, talked seriously about giving up his membership.  The Northumberland was, simply, too hard.  It was a slog, every hole bar the par 3s was driver, wood, long approach, even when played well.  The fairways are narrow and the rough difficult.  At various points in the past few years, however, each has reached a stage where they can hit the ball a good distance.  Now, all three enjoy golf. 

The Northumberland only has three sets of tees.  Medal (whites), Men's (yellow) and Ladies (Red).  I'm sure as younger golfers the boys would have enjoyed the game more from the Red tees but boys are boys and they wouldn't hear of playing from the Ladies' tees.

I am all for playing competitions off one set of tees and handicaps should allow for that.  Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.

[Sean_A]

Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.

I am not advocating this.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.

I am not advocating this.

Ciao

And nor am I.

Lyne,

I didn't ever suggest women play from the same tees as men. I specifically said that I agreed with you about women needing shorter courses.

I have merely said that, as has (or had) always been a very successful model here in Britain, less tees are needed, not more. I actually suggested that we increase the distance from one tee to another so as to replicate the scenario prior to the huge difference in distances various standards of player could hit the ball. That was once just how it worked. Essentially, you had medal tees which were only ever used for competitions and a round played by the the Club Pro. All other play was either from the men's or ladies tees. But over time, because of technology, the medal tees became pretty much blended with the daily tees with the 15 yards between the two being relatively insignificant in an age of hot balls and big drivers. We might as well just officially blend the two now and be done with it.

So, I'll go back to what I said before which is to increase the elasticity, if you like, without increasing the number of tees. Skip the 'one tee every 10 yards' mentality and you remove the temptation for people to play a set which is too far back for him or her. I can't quote the figures off the top of my head but something like 75% of golfers in America plays from tees which are too far back for them. Leap from 6,300 yards to 7,200 yards and you surely removing that and, in the process, cause golfers of all levels to experience proportional challenges, returning us to a position, a philosophy, whereby a golfer plays the golf course as it stands, not as he or she feels it should be in order to placate his or her ego. I mentioned in my last post a good example of that proportional challenge at my home club. Of course, if the shorter male hitter becomes so short that he really wants to move up to tee at something like 5,400 yards, no problem. But to try to endlessly move the goal posts by 10 or 15 yards defeats the whole notion of proportional challenge.

[Brent Hutto]

Remind me again what problem is solved by having just one tee instead of multiple ones?

Patrick says multiple tees make handicapping more complicated. OK, that's a disadvantage I suppose albeit a trivial one.

And at some point in history there were not multiple tees. That's not a problem at all, simply a historical bit of trival.

But I don't see any actual problem caused by a second or third tee choice.

[Mark Pearce]

Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.

I am not advocating this.

Ciao

I know.  But Pat is, isn't he?

[Sean_A]

Making women and children play from the same set of tees as a scratch golfer in all golf is a good way of further reducing the number of golfers playing the game.

I am not advocating this.

Ciao

I know.  But Pat is, isn't he?

I don't have a clue...way too much green to read...I rarely read Pat's posts...far too hard on the eyes.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Brent,

Much as you said to me earlier in the thread, I'm certainly not saying that I'm write and you're wrong.

Much as I said before, a second or third tee is fine by me. Essentially, as it always was over here: ladies, men's and pros. It's the philosophy of 'a five iron for all' which I don't agree with, meaning I don't agree with the notion that you fit the course to your game rather than fitting your game to the course.

Slight tangent but I think multiple tees is often wrongly promoted as being some sort of freedom of choice issue. Reality though is, hence so many people playing courses at length which are too long for them, people feel that they need to go back just a bit further than they really should. Peer pressure can be a terrible thing. So by increasing the difference from one set to another, i.e. removing the in-between tees, you set a clearer message as to where you should be playing from. Condescending as it may sound, and I don't include you in this for a minute, people need guidance because, despite the average golfer seemingly thinking the opposite, he or she is not an expert on architecture and needs a little help from the architect/club in terms of where the course should be played from.

Of course, and this is what Pat alluded to when he mentioned Augusta, if you're out there having a game with your long hitting friend and the difference is such that he plays from 7,000 yards whilst you play the next set up at 6,000 yards, all well and good. It's the micro manipulation of a course in an attempt to promote some sort of false equality which I really don't think is good for golf. I guess really that's less about pragmatism and more about a genuine believe as t what the trials, tribulations and corresponding triumphs should all be about. It's ultimately an issue about the soul of the game as populism doesn't really interest me.

But again, it's just my opinion and I'm not saying your wrong.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm afraid invocations of golf as having a "soul" or any sort of meaning other than a pleasant pastime are completely lost on me. So we're probably just concerned about different sets of issues, which is alright with me.

[Jason Thurman]

So, to summarize, everyone except the OP agrees that a single set of tees is not the answer, and we're back to our weekly discussion about reducing total number of tees to any arbitrary number between 2 and 5.

[Paul Gray]

I'm afraid invocations of golf as having a "soul" or any sort of meaning other than a pleasant pastime are completely lost on me. So we're probably just concerned about different sets of issues, which is alright with me.

Admittedly it's not without contradiction (my position, that is), given that I'm a devout atheist and reductionist.  

Jason,

Well, sort of. And no. Since Pat's covered the whole 'proportionate challenge' thing, I won't do over old ground.

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

What you say is true, except for the threads where we all waxed poetical about courses at Bandon or wherever it is with no tee boxes at all!

[BCowan]

Thanks Pat.

Just go back to my skiers and golfers analogy.  A beginner skier doesn't really want to start at the top of most mountains and try to make it to the bottom (falling 50 times gets old quick and hurts too, can be dangerous, and is just not a lot of fun).  The same goes for the best skiers who wouldn't want to start near the bottom and likely be bored to death.  Golfers are the same, they want and need different challenges for different levels of ability. Skiing and golfing are actually a lot a like as the playing fields for both sports are all different!  Same goes for where you start down the hill or where you start the golf hole 

Mark, that is a brilliant post, couldn't stop laughing.  I think some on here would advocating regrading the mountain so it could be feasible and then proclaim it was cost effective .  I'm sure that they are for minimalism golf courses as well. 

[Steve Burrows]

Count me in as someone who believes that Pat's original premise is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, I suspect there are really only a small percentage of existing golf courses that could have their teeing grounds reduced to a single footpad where the result would be a better experience across all levels of playing ability. As mentioned by others, a steady diet of fairway woods on virtually every hole might indeed be “challenging" to the lesser player, but also monotonous and off-putting, irrespective of the quality of design features such as bunkers, landforms, etc.  Also, the existing strategies of a given hole that was constructed with multiple tees in mind might become obsolete for all but a small cross-section of players.

Secondly, Pat's argument has not even come close to demonstrating how the incorporation of a single teeing ground makes the practice and/or craft of a golf course architect "simpler" in the case of new designs. Instead, he makes sweeping assumptions about the wishes and expectations of a wide range of golfers, and then rationalizes it by way of personal experiences at some of the most well-funded and meticulously designed golf courses in the world.  But isn’t one of the primary reasons that these courses (NGLA, Augusta, et al.) are considered great because of the extreme pains taken in their design?  Such courses were not “simpler” to design because a single teeing ground is used to accommodate a diverse assortment of playing abilities.  I would suspect they were much more difficult to conceive and construct given that so many variables had to be accounted for to still make it interesting for such a wide range of potential users.  Golf course design is an exceptionally complex exercise that utilizes the full kit of tools available to those who practice the profession in concert with the exhaustive intellectual resources of a talented designer or team of designers.  Designing a golf course is difficult; designing a GREAT one is exponentially more so.  The idea that a push towards a single teeing ground would make such efforts "simpler" is laughable.

[Sven Nilsen]

There are some lessons to be taken on this topic from this Feb. 1902 Golf Magazine piece written by Devereux Emmet, proving once again that everything under the sun has been discussed before:

[Paul Gray]

Sven,

Great article.

Thanks.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Great article.

Thanks.

Paul:

Its amazing what you can learn when you read more and type less.

Sven

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()