The simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I think you bring up a very interesting tangential point.

Isn't the push to "move up" an attempt to:

A.     Speed Up play
B.     Make "Par" more attainable

What would happen if there was but one tee at NGLA, PV, GCGC, Seminole, CPC or ANGC.

Golfers would adjust, as would their handicaps.

But, this thread isn't so much about altering existing courses as it is about designing new courses.

In terms of conceptualizing, and forgetting about the PGA Tour and Professional golfer would anyone object if the following holes had but one tee ?

1-18   NGLA

1-18   GCGC

1-18   PV

1-18  ANGC

1-18  CPC

1-18  Seminole

1-18  Merion

[Randy Thompson]

I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long. As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept. If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head. Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings. Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees. Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long.

As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept.

That's just not true, not in the construction phase and the maintainance phase.

If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head.

Nonsense.  Daily play dictates square footage and you get more available square footage out of one tee than you do with multiple tees with the same overall square footage.  Take four or five separate tees totaling 10,000 Sq/Ft vs one tee of 10,000 sq/ft and do the math.

Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. [

More nonsense, green diameters approximate 30 yards, tees not 10 yards.
If you have to irrigate 10,000 Sq/ft it's cheaper to construct, irrigate and maintain one continuous tee than 4 or 5 separate tees.

Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings.

You must be kidding.
High wear and tear is far more prevalent on smaller multiple tees than it is on a singular larger tee.
No wonder you're over budget

Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees.

That's your opinion, one I don't share, and it's an integral part of the problem I'm alluding to.
Should we create another set of tees for beginners 5 yards short of the fairway ?

Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.

Just the opposite with one tee where all golfers initiate play on every hole versus having to wait until those playing further back, tee off first, and then walk up to the more forward tees.

[Jeff Shelman]

I personally don't need tees by the dozen on each hole.

That said, I see some value in having more sets of tees. I want people to have fun playing the game as they get older and if that means playing from a forward set of tees, that's cool. Likewise, I'd like a new golfer to have fun if that means starting short and moving forward, I'm good with that as well.

[Paul Gray]

Serious question (or two):

Does anyone really know any elderly golfers at classic courses who demand a short course? Equally, does anyone know any 12 year olds that demand the same?

I speak only from personal experience but I've just never met these seemingly mythical characters that we have to be pandering to. I have however met an awful lot of middle age men that want to pretend to be good.

I won't repeat the story yet again but I'll summarise by mentioning the two old gents (well into their 80's) that I had the pleasure of playing in a competition with last year. Safe to say that driving the ball 180 yards maximum on a firm and fast course did not have them calling for more tees. Actually, one of my other most memorable rounds last year was a round of exactly one hole played with a boy of 11. We both played from the men's tees, as is just the norm, and he hit driver, three wood, chip straight into the hole for birdie, beating my par. He was ecstatic. He wouldn't have been if he'd played the hole from 100 yards ahead of me.

And that, if I can extrapolate for a minute, is exactly the kind of earned reward Pat has been promoting. You don't get that reward if you play a pitch and putt course and call it par 72.   

[jeffwarne]

Serious question (or two):

Does anyone really know any elderly golfers at classic courses who demand a short course? Equally, does anyone know any 12 year olds that demand the same?

I speak only from personal experience but I've just never met these seemingly mythical characters that we have to be pandering to. I have however met an awful lot of middle age men that want to pretend to be good.

I won't repeat the story yet again but I'll summarise by mentioning the two old gents (well into their 80's) that I had the pleasure of playing in a competition with last year. Safe to say that driving the ball 180 yards maximum on a firm and fast course did not have them calling for more tees. Actually, one of my other most memorable rounds last year was a round of exactly one hole played with a boy of 11. We both played from the men's tees, as is just the norm, and he hit driver, three wood, chip straight into the hole for birdie, beating my par. He was ecstatic. He wouldn't have been if he'd played the hole from 100 yards ahead of me.

And that, if I can extrapolate for a minute, is exactly the kind of earned reward Pat has been promoting. You don't get that reward if you play a pitch and putt course and call it par 72.   

Paul,
I'm with you on this though certain restrictions could make this more difficult on a modern course (Hot equipment, wetlands issues dictating more forced carries)
I see kids who play very short courses competitively and shoot in the 60's very early.
May well help their ability to have a low comfort zone but I have fond memories of the driver, 4 wood wedge days, and look forward to them later in life again-if nothing else to piss people off with my short game

[Mark_Fine]

This may have already been covered here but Pine Valley ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT WORK with one set of tees.  I play there often and most of my hosts are older members.  They all play from a special set of shorter tees so they can make the carries to the fairways as well as have some reasonable chance of reaching the par threes in one shot (not that they do).  They literally would no longer be able to play the golf course (and have any fun) were it not for that shorter set of tees.  

Think of golfers like skiers; if they all had to start from the same spots, there would be A LOT fewer golfers and skiers 😊

[Randy Thompson]

I like the one tee concept....when they are eighty yards long.

As far as cost are concerned the multi tee concept can be constructed a lot cheaper then the one tee concept.

That's just not true, not in the construction phase and the maintainance phase.

If your going to do one tee and it should be close to the size of an average green, which means irrigation cost of an average green, With smaller more individual tees I can use a much cheaper head.

Nonsense.  Daily play dictates square footage and you get more available square footage out of one tee than you do with multiple tees with the same overall square footage.  Take four or five separate tees totaling 10,000 Sq/Ft vs one tee of 10,000 sq/ft and do the math.

Final cost in the vicinity of half the cost for five smaller tees than one tee irrigated with big green irrigation heads. [

More nonsense, green diameters approximate 30 yards, tees not 10 yards.
If you have to irrigate 10,000 Sq/ft it's cheaper to construct, irrigate and maintain one continuous tee than 4 or 5 separate tees.

Then depending on the situation you have the chance to add a low maintenance grass, hopefully with less wáter requirements and make further reduction in the quality and quanity of the irrigation installation. You can also eliminate a mínimum of 10% of high maintenance turf áreas that are subject to chemicals and frequent cuttings.

You must be kidding.
High wear and tear is far more prevalent on smaller multiple tees than it is on a singular larger tee.
No wonder you're over budget

Alice was right when pushing for a reduction of up to 25% for women and begineers tees.

That's your opinion, one I don't share, and it's an integral part of the problem I'm alluding to.
Should we create another set of tees for beginners 5 yards short of the fairway ?

Velocity of play also has to come into play, directly or indirectly.

Just the opposite with one tee where all golfers initiate play on every hole versus having to wait until those playing further back, tee off first, and then walk up to the more forward tees.

I will try again. One big tee lets say 5,000 sq feet will need irrigation heads that throw somewhere around 80 feet and will require a sprinkler that cost in the vicinity of three hundred dollars. If I créate 5 tees of 33 X 33 feet for a total of 5,000 sq feet I can use a head that throws 35 feet and cost in the vicinity of 40 dollars. Two heads per tee times five tees equal ten heads, $400 vs 4 heads at 300 dollars, 1200 dollars.

The native áreas or grasses I was refering to were in relation to the tee surroundings not the tees themself. I think it a great cost reducer but I am not comfortable asking average golfer of 23 handicapp to have to fly 50 to 100 yards eighteen times in a round but seems to work well with multiple tees and making the carries less and sometimes non existent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I personally don't need tees by the dozen on each hole.

That said, I see some value in having more sets of tees. I want people to have fun playing the game as they get older and if that means playing from a forward set of tees, that's cool. Likewise, I'd like a new golfer to have fun if that means starting short and moving forward, I'm good with that as well.

Jeff,

If there's a value added in additional tees I believe that softening the angles of attack is a more valid reason rather than distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I will try again.
Me too.

One big tee lets say 5,000 sq feet will need irrigation heads that throw somewhere around 80 feet and will require a sprinkler that cost in the vicinity of three hundred dollars.


That's not true.
See my example and math below

If I créate 5 tees of 33 X 33 feet for a total of 5,000 sq feet I can use a head that throws 35 feet and cost in the vicinity of 40 dollars.
Two heads per tee times five tees equal ten heads, $400 vs 4 heads at 300 dollars, 1200 dollars.

Let's use your 33 X 33 dimension for five tees.
That's 5,445 Sq/ft or 605 Sq/yds.

You would have five tees, each measuring 11 yards X 11 yards, versus my one tee of 11 X 55

From a practical perspective, you only have 10 X 9 usable yards, or 90 sq/yds per tee, = 810 sq/yds per tee, or 4,050 sq/ft in total

Whereas, I have 10 X 53 usable yards, or 530 sq/yrs = 4,770 sq/ft in total

I have an additional 720 sq/ft of usable teeing area.

Ergo, your tees will wear out quicker than mine due to the reduced available teeing area in your configuration.

In addition, it will cost me less to construct my one tee versus your five.

And, you conveniently left out the additional piping and wiring that your five tees will cost.

I don't need an irrigation head with a throw radius of 80 feet, let alone two that would cover a tee with one of the dimensions of 160 feet.

I can use six (6) heads with a throw radius of 35 feet and cover my entire 11 X 55 yard ( 33 X 165 ft) tee, so again, my maintainance cost is far less than yours and, I'm irrigating and have the use of 18 % more teeing area than you have.

Hence, I have a bigger, better tee that costs me less to construction and maintain than yours.

The native áreas or grasses I was refering to were in relation to the tee surroundings not the tees themself. I think it a great cost reducer but I am not comfortable asking average golfer of 23 handicapp to have to fly 50 to 100 yards eighteen times in a round but seems to work well with multiple tees and making the carries less and sometimes non existent.

But you're mower guy has to carry, ride, transport his mower/s five times versus one for me.
And, my configuration will take him alot less time, saving on labor.

Architecturally, at what point do you limit your carry distance for the average golfer with a 23 handicap ?
5 yards, 25 yards ?

If someone can't carry the ball 25 yards, is that the golfer you establish your architectural and maintainance practices for ?
50 yards ?

The lowest common denominator ?

I'm wouldn't design or maintain a course for the golfer that can barely carry 25, 50 or 100 yards.

Might I suggest that the money I've saved with my one tee per hole configuration be used to create an excellent practice and teaching facility so all of those golfers who can barely carry 25 or 50 yards can improve their games.

[Jason Thurman]

If it works for ANGC, PV and GCGC why wouldn't it work for other clubs ?

LOL!

[Sean_A]

Okay, I think I figured what is going on.  When I talk about tees, I am talking about the numbero f markers, not teeing space.  I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries.  I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees.  This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as model of design.  At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that.  If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily tee 5700-6200 yard courses.  If the trend is really to grow the game like all the golf business heads claim, it isn't done with length.  To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.  I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field.  People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.

Ciao

[Lyne Morrison]

To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. 

Or beginning juniors.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. 

Or beginning juniors.

Lynn,

I grew up playing with a fairly large number of junior golfers and the yardage of each hole wasn't really an issue.
We all just tried to hit the ball farther and beat each other.
And, junior golf flourished from the 50's.

Juniors strive to improve.
Juniors try to pound the ball, so I don't agree with your take on junior golfers wanting to play short courses

As to women prefering to play 5,700 yard courses, I think that's a predisposition that's been cultivated over the last few decades.
One of the things that fascinated me was the early photo of the woman holding a wood on the 2nd tee at PV and the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.

Before I & B took a quantum leap, if you played a 6,700 yard course that was incredibly interesting, but the scorecard didn't indicate par for each hole, would you reject the experience because you made 6's on 570 yard holes ?

I think you're just conditioned to relate your play to "par"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Okay, I think I figured what is going on.  When I talk about tees, I am talking about the number f marker, not teeing space. 

Sean,

I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.

I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries.  I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees.  This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as  model of design.  At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that.  If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily 5700-6200 yard courses.  If the trend is really to grow the game like all this golf business heads aim, it isn't done with length.  To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.  I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field.  People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.

The biggest impediment to the one tee/footpad premise is the I&B.

When golfers, even 60 year old golfers are hitting the ball 300 yards it makes the premise untenable.

Yet, today there are good to great courses that only have two sets of tees.

Ciao

[BCowan]

I grew up playing with a fairly large number of junior golfers and the yardage of each hole wasn't really an issue.
We all just tried to hit the ball farther and beat each other.
And, junior golf flourished from the 50's.

Juniors strive to improve.
Juniors try to pound the ball, so I don't agree with your take on junior golfers wanting to play short courses

As to women prefering to play 5,700 yard courses, I think that's a predisposition that's been cultivated over the last few decades.
One of the things that fascinated me was the early photo of the woman holding a wood on the 2nd tee at PV and the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.

Before I & B took a quantum leap, if you played a 6,700 yard course that was incredibly interesting, but the scorecard didn't indicate par for each hole, would you reject the experience because you made 6's on 570 yard holes ?

I think you're just conditioned to relate your play to "par" [/color]

Well said, and I agree with everything except the GCA notion that ''par doesn't matter.''  ''how do you measure yourself against other golfers?  By height''.  Making a 6 on a 570 yard par 5 is like a D+.  It could be a great experience if a 7 or 8 was made the last time one played the hole  

[Patrick_Mucci]

To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards. 

60 years ago one tee/footpad could probably accomodate every golfer.

Today, with the enormous disparity in distance two tees could accomodate every level of golfer.


Or beginning juniors.

[JMEvensky]

Pat,I'm sympathetic to your argument. IMO,the single tee approach would be net/net/net good. But as you know,few clubs are willing to do something this "radical" when there's the risk of a membership revolt.The inmates have been running the asylum for the last 25 years and large percentages like having their own bespoke set of tee markers.

There's zero chance of today's clubs doing anything perceived as making the game harder. And rightly or wrongly,most will perceive a single set of tee markers as making the game harder.

[Michael Moore]

One of the things that fascinated me was . . . the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.

You told us you didn't believe that story.

[Lyne Morrison]

Sean,

I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.


Today, with the enormous disparity in distance two tees could accomodate every level of golfer.


If we go a few more pages we may get to three tees.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

My home courses were built a few years ago as "players" courses with 5 sets of tees on each.  The business model failed as there just weren't enough "players" for the location and price.  The owner leased it out to the local golf conglomerate who now operate it as a combined member and public play course.  The forward tees are still too long for most of the women and consequently they set up tees on the fairway on some of the more difficult holes.  Par is not a consideration - none of them come close.

The men play about half and half the 6000 yard and 6500 yard tees.  There is very little crossover between the two groups.  Prizing is even done by the tees played.

We have a 7000 yard set of tees and a 7400 yard set as well.  The 7000 tees rarely get used and the tips almost never.  Once a year we have a black and blue night, back tees and back pins - almost 7600 yards.  About half the people don't even bother showing up.

For the one tee advocates, what one tee should we impose on the membership?  How many, from our declining membership, would transfer elsewhere?  If it's the 7400 or 7000 yard ones I'm gone.  I could play them but it's no fun shooting in the 90's.  If it's the 6500 yard ones half the mebership is likely gone.  At 6000 the other half is likely gone.

I rhink most golfers want to have fun and have some success.  Successfully tacking around a golf course in a 100 shots probably doesn't interest many players of lesser ability, just as overwhelming a 6000 yard course in 65 shots doesn't appeal to most more skilled golfers.

Is the logical extension of one tee that courses would be stratified by length with players migrating to a course that gives them  pleasure playing at whatever score they're comfortable shooting?

[Sean_A]

Okay, I think I figured what is going on.  When I talk about tees, I am talking about the number f marker, not teeing space.  

Sean,

I'm not talking about a course that plays at a set yardage, per se, but one where there's one foot pad.

I am all for loads of teeing space that creates width, angles and some which eliminate stupid carries.  I am not in favour of most holes having 100 yard long teeing areas (as one tee or several) with 5, 6 or 7 sets of tees.  This type of design screams of trying to be all things to all people and led from the back tees rather than from the forward tees. I don't care who is responsible for this milly mouth style of design...I just know it isn't very sustainable as  model of design.  At some point, the powers that be have to decide who the main market is for a given course and design for that.  If this were done, we would have very few 7000 yard courses and many more daily 5700-6200 yard courses.  If the trend is really to grow the game like all this golf business heads aim, it isn't done with length.  To grow the game it will be with women and there aren't many women who want a course longer than 5700 yards.  I think archies know this stuff, but they don't control theor own field.  People say we are in a renaissance now, but that won't truly be the case until archies control architecture...just as they did 100 years ago. It should come as no surprise as to why there are so many cool courses 90 or 100 years old...and equally no suprise why so many modern coures are disappointing.

The biggest impediment to the one tee/footpad premise is the I&B.

When golfers, even 60 year old golfers are hitting the ball 300 yards it makes the premise untenable.

Yet, today there are good to great courses that only have two sets of tees.

Ciao

Pat

This is where I disagree.  The biggest impediment to less tee pads is ego.  It is very easy to build courses primarily for flat bellies and others primarily for hackers.  I think the mistake is trying to placate the two on one design.  I don't think that model of design makes much sense in terms of resources, but golfer ego requires a level of difficulty in design which very few golfers will use...yet how many hackers go on about course difficulty?

Lynn - I don't care if courses have five tee pads so long as width and use of angles is the primary reason for them.  What I don't like to see are loads of tee pads to create crazy length differences on most holes.  IMO it is very dfficult to get the best out of a design trying to cater to 5000 and 7000 yards.  So what tends to happen is (if there are 5000 yard markers!) courses get designed for tees back in the high 6000s or above.  Thus creating a demand for more hazards, more features, more money maintenance and more walking between greens and tees.  Its really a case of more for less to placate a very small percentage of golfers at the expense of the potential market of women and most current golfers.  Given that egos won't be checked any time soon nor will the ball be rolled back, I think its time for archies to focus on a particular market rather than trying to please everybody at once...and ultimately failing.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Unless I missed it you didn't address my post that Pine Valley is unplayable for all golfers from one set of tees?  I know you have always liked to toss out topics just for the sake of a debate, but this one has little to no merit on most existing golf courses.  Furthermore, you are out of touch with reality if you think most women want to play golf courses over 6000 yards!  5500 is a better target.  I know as I have sat in dozens of golf committee meetings at clubs across the country talking about building shorter sets of tees for this group of golfers.  There is also this program called "Play It Forward"!  If you were following the latest trends in golf lately, you would know it is about speeding up play and making the game more enjoyable for more golfers.  

I just played Nanea in Hawaii a few weeks ago.  If I would have made my wife play the back tees with me, she would have picked up after three holes and headed back to the beach without me.  

My analogy between skiers and golfers is a good one.  Think about it!

[Lyne Morrison]

This thread is about argument rather than truth.

For the vast majority of golf clubs, provision of one tee is far removed from the game and business of the day. It is short sighted to infer otherwise.

As was the case in the recent forced-carries thread (among others), a portion of the discussion ridicules and dismisses those golfers who are not as strong or able as the very accomplished. Yet these players form the majority and keep clubs in business.

Golf needs to work harder to become a game that includes - rather than a game that excludes.

Course elasticity assists inclusion.

[Sean_A]

Course elasticity assists inclusion.

How do we then explain the drop in participants just when the idea of stretching tees over a 1000 yards is in vogue this past fe decades?  Elasticity can usually only work if many elements come together for the course to really make it work (#1 being the archie is firmly in control of the design)...this often isn't the case...which often means women and walkers are meant to eat hard cheese. 

Ciao