[JESII]

What’s that line about removing everything possible until nothing else can be?  I butchered it, but my man Pallota will clean it up.

[Peter Pallotta]

   I think it might be: Perfection is achieved not when there's nothing more to add but when there's nothing left to take away.
(On the one hand, I think that's one of Ian A's favourite lines; on the other, I made a feature film recently that honoured that maxim and is minimalist to the extreme, and I like it very much...but so far no one else does!)
Very glad to have in 'my camp' the likes of you and Jeff -- ie very good golfers who are also smart and sensitive (in the best sense). My bold convictions might quiver and crumble if I stood alone...

[Brock Lynch]

I think the future is us, Brock, and that it's here already in all its precious and unsustainable glory.
Just a brief few years ago, I could never have guessed that a beloved architect (Bill Coore) would ever build a highly praised course (Sand Valley) that had not 3 sets of tees, or 4 or 5 sets, but 6 sets of tees!
Just a few years ago (or so it seems) that type of shameless pandering ('to golfers of all skill sets') and misguided design philosophy ('with everyone getting to play the same golf course') and tired marketing cliches ('a challenge for the experienced golfer but playable for all') was the purview of only the most reviled of architects, designing the most banal and soul destroying of real-estate courses, with spectacular, view-maximizing routings that made carts an absolute necessity and that 'justified' having 4 or 5 sets of tees -- and even then not 6 sets!
As I say, that's what it seemed like to me, only a few short years (and a lifetime) ago.
Who would've thought that, in the 'future', even a non-purist would be pining for 'just' 3 sets of tees at a course like SV: e.g. 4800 yards, 6350 yards, and 6900 yards? And who would've thought that we'd have convinced ourselves that this set-up didn't serve everyone perfectly well?
Peter

Peter:


The three sets of tees you mention sound perfect. I'll play the course at 6350 and my wife can play it at 4800 and we will enjoy our rounds at Sand Valley. The problem is that most places have the following set of three tees; 7,100 yards, 6600 yards, and 6200 yards. I will enjoy the course at 6600, but my wife at 6200!? Maybe the problem is not the number of tees offered, but the choices that are offered!


By the way, we can agree that soul destroying real-estate courses cannot be saved by one set or twenty sets of tees.


Cheers

[Brock Lynch]

And sure, there are a lot of narcissists [I prefer the term "weenies"] who would choose to play each hole from where they could comfortably carry the relevant hazards, instead of from where they might be challenged, or occasionally have to lay up.  But I'm not going to lay awake at night trying to figure out how to bring those people back into line; and I'm not going to litter the landscape with tees to try and accommodate them all.  I'll give them three or four choices per hole, and put it in them to do the right thing.

Wow! Weenies! Really. Calling someone who has no chance to carry a relevant hazard a "Weenie" because they would like the chance to carry that relevant hazard is completely backwards. Who says your forced carry hazard is relevant? For some, it may be a formality. For others it may be an impossibility. What makes it relevant is that carrying it is in question. Put that extra tee in and you make the hazard relevant to more people. Oh, I forgot. You went to sleep before considering it.


Cheers

[JHoulihan]

I think an important distinction needs to be made between correlation and causation. Correlation meaning two things are related but not impactful of one another individually (example being the amount of beer sold in Wisconsin decreased as the number of Brewers baseball tickets sold increased). Causation meaning one thing directly affecting another ( example being I started playing with colored red and yellow golf balls and have not lost one in the first 21 days of play - with the addition of color making it easier to find when off the fairway).

Just because course 1 has more or less tee boxes (or more/less bunkers for that matter) does not make it a better or worse overall than course 2. The number of objects (tee boxes - bunkers - parking spots in the parking lot) a course has does have or NOT have make it or keep it high on the "list". ITS OVERALL QUALITY AND COMPOSITION DOES!

Yes there may be outliers, but are we talking about the 99% or the rare exception?

Justin 

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,


Here's my question in response to yours -- would any of those courses suddenly be worse if they had 2 or 3 extra sets of tees but everything else remained exactly the same? I simply don't see a correlation between number of tees and quality of design; just because some great classic old courses have a small number of tees doesn't mean that a small number of tees leads to a great golf course (which of course I don't need to tell you, of all people).

Well, there is a correlation:  most of the top 100 courses are older courses, and not many of them have adopted the modern crutch of going to five or six tees.  Four is the most you'll find on about any course built before 1980.


Does that mean Pine Valley would fall from the top 100 if they went to six sets of tees?  No.  But Pine Valley with six sets of tees wouldn't work as well.  You'd have to start giving up the island fairways, because somebody playing from the fourth set of tees would have driver taken out of their hands at the 7th hole, or the 11th, or the 13th.  You would start to tear away at the foundation of Pine Valley, and make it more like everywhere else.


That's my problem with six tees.  It's not just the entitlement of modern golfers who think everything should be optimized for them, individually; it's that going in that direction results in homogenizing the game.  If you need to have a course where you can tee off from anywhere you want, I've built a couple of those, too.  Just don't insist we make them all that way! 


Most of the best golf courses are built to challenge you.  If you don't want to accept the challenge, you should stick to where you're more comfortable instead of demanding that they change.

It seems that PV must not work as well in its current configuration.  I can count 6 tees on the hole below.


I consider Pacific Dunes to be great, despite the fact it has 5 sets of tees now, although I suppose the Royal Blue tees were probably an add-on by the resort. It's great, in part, because there is a set of tees that I can play where I enjoy the architecture and and can be challenged.  If there were only 2 tees, it might still be great in most eyes, but less of an enjoyment and too much challenge for me, colouring my assessment of the course.


I wonder also, if a course is great with just two sets of tees, from which of the two is it great?  Is it less great from the other tee.  Would it not depend upon who is determining the greatness and would their assessment not in some way depend on their abilities to play the course from one set of tees or the other.  If a course has six sets of tees, could it be great from one or two of those sets and less great or not so good at all from the others?

[Tom_Doak]

And sure, there are a lot of narcissists [I prefer the term "weenies"] who would choose to play each hole from where they could comfortably carry the relevant hazards, instead of from where they might be challenged,

Wow! Weenies! Really. Calling someone who has no chance to carry a relevant hazard a "Weenie" because they would like the chance to carry that relevant hazard is completely backwards.

Your reading comprehension is not good.  I was referring to players who continually choose to make the carry easy for themselves, instead of ever worrying about it ... like, choosing a tee where the carry is 180, when they consistently carry the ball 220 yards.  [And yes, there are people who would do that.]  I was not talking about your wife.

If you've got three tees per hole, with the forward tees at 5400 yards and the back at 7000, you could play the overall yardage anywhere in between, just by choosing to use the forward tees more or less often.  I often do this on my own courses:  a couple have rated the "Doak tees" which are simply the shortest walk from the previous green, whether it's the back tee or the forward tee.  Since I always try to design a course so that any player can use any tee, the course is usually quite interesting even from this hybrid setup.  I suppose there will be someone who comes on here next to tell me it's wrong because having the best players play the forward tee is not how my hole was "intended" to be played . . .

[Blake Conant]

Since I always try to design a course so that any player can use any tee, the course is usually quite interesting even from this hybrid setup.  I suppose there will be someone who comes on here next to tell me it's wrong because having the best players play the forward tee is not how my hole was "intended" to be played . . .

When working on Dismal River Red, Ryan Mahaffey was training for his upcoming golf season by playing the White.  His coach had him playing from the forward most tees, and he couldn't move back a set until he shot a bogey-free round.  He wanted Ryan to familiarize himself with shooting high birdie rounds and keeping them clean.  Ryan also needed to learn how to reign himself in by using different clubs and not always smashing it.


To my recollection, Ryan never made it off the forward most tees, and he's a damn good golfer.


Once you put ego aside, playing the forward tees can be challenging and fun if the course has some interest to it i.e., I don't think this concept works as well at Firestone.

[JESII]

Similarly, Bill Davis from Jupiter Hills reportedly told Jerry Kelly, as a young aspiring tour player, to play the forward most tees until he made 9 birdies a few times then move back a set at a time.


That’s golf career training, which is a little different than this conversation...but your last point is spot on. If the course is interesting, it doesn’t have to be long AND difficult to provide an engaging challenge.

[Cliff Hamm]

How many folks in favor of 'only' 3 tees are female or over 65 and not a single digit??...


Even 5400 yards is way too long for most ladies.  The PGA recommends 4 - 4.2k.


https://www.pga.org/sites/default/files/assets/library/Player_Development/setting-up-course.pdf


So make it a tad longer but not 5400. 


I routinely drive the ball about 180, yes depressing, but it happens to most of us as we age.  I now play courses around 5800 and will use combination tees to do so.


If you do 3 tees I recommend 4400, 5800, 6600 with combo tees in use...This essentially give you 5 tees...

[Tom_Doak]

How many folks in favor of 'only' 3 tees are female or over 65 and not a single digit??...


Even 5400 yards is way too long for most ladies.  The PGA recommends 4 - 4.2k.


https://www.pga.org/sites/default/files/assets/library/Player_Development/setting-up-course.pdf


So make it a tad longer but not 5400. 


I routinely drive the ball about 180, yes depressing, but it happens to most of us as we age.  I now play courses around 5800 and will use combination tees to do so.


If you do 3 tees I recommend 4400, 5800, 6600 with combo tees in use...This essentially give you 5 tees...

I noticed you recommended the middle tees be exactly the distance you like to play all the time 😕

[Cliff Hamm]

Of course. Why think of anyone else? But 6000 would be just fine. Do you agree that 5400 is too long for a forward tee?

[Thomas Dai]

How many folks in favor of 'only' 3 tees are female or over 65 and not a single digit??...
Even 5400 yards is way too long for most ladies.  The PGA recommends 4 - 4.2k.
https://www.pga.org/sites/default/files/assets/library/Player_Development/setting-up-course.pdf
So make it a tad longer but not 5400. 
I routinely drive the ball about 180, yes depressing, but it happens to most of us as we age.  I now play courses around 5800 and will use combination tees to do so.
If you do 3 tees I recommend 4400, 5800, 6600 with combo tees in use...This essentially give you 5 tees...

There’s a lot of merit in this imo.
As an aside.....tee-marker colours.
Avoid using the colour ‘red’ like the plague!
There is a whole load of ego and vanity in golf and the use of red as a tee-marker colour screams ‘ladies’, which has a negative effect on male players of all ages and abilities some of whom should be playing from a forward tee and annoys females who are better players/longer hitters.
If we want more gender free usage of teeing areas a good place to start is avoiding using red markers!
Atb

[Matthew Prince]

On your point about tee colors:


We are a par 70. We used to have two "mens" tees - Blue (7,000 yds) and White (6,450 yds). The white was simply too long for many of our members, especially the older ones. So we introduced a new "senior" tee colored Yellow at 6,150 yds. However, much to our frustration, it seemed as though most of the men who would have benefited from it refused to play the Yellows. So we recolored the tees - we now have Black (7,000), Blue (6,450) and White (6,150). It does seem as though the Whites get a lot more play than the Yellows did. Go figure. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Let's look from a different angle.


Most have agreed in principle that a great course doesn't need six sets of tees.


So if I build them, am I not subtly telling you that I'm not confident the course is great?


It's often the things you don't do that are the most telling ... like not building mounds, not proscribing long rough, not putting a photo on the scorecard, or not going to 7200 yards.

I agree with your first sentence IN PRINCIPLE, but because the number of tee options has nothing to do with the greatness (or lack thereof) of the golf course.  Nothing.  I have never heard a great course evaluated that way, or heard anyone say that a particular course would be great but for too many tees.

So I disagree with the idea that building more tees means that you should or should not be confident about the "greatness" of the golf course.  Giving players more options for yardage doesn't seem to me much different than giving players more options like width off the tee, or which shot to play around the green.
 

I take your point about the possibility of players moving to a tee from which they can routinely carry a particular hazard or feature.  But in my experience, it is FAR more common for players to play too far back than too far up.

And this is, to me, where the intent of the GCA comes into play.  If you build a great par four with a bunker guarding the inside of the dogleg, and I play from a tee that is so far back that the bunker isn't even in play for me, then I've missed the risk-reward option of the hole that you built.  The fewer the tee options, the more likely that can become, and the more likely it might become that the player moves up to a yardage that is too short.

And so just as easily as 6 sets of tees could be looked at as a lack of confidence by you in the greatness of the design, you COULD view 6 sets of tees as you giving golfers the opportunity to find a set of tees that brings the best features and options of your design fully into play.

[Mark_Fine]

I have scanned some of the posts but not read them in detail.  What I will say is that we are building a lot of forward tees (I never call them ladies or senior tees).  This makes the game more fun for players who don't hit the ball as far or struggle with certain hazards or maybe just want to have a "birdie" opportunity every once in a while    Most importantly they want to have fun and that is what the game is about for most golfers.  We are even setting up 18 hole par 70-72 courses to periodically on certain days or times to play as 18 hole "par three" courses.  I think this idea will catch on as you can play fast and golfers find it good practice and a change of pace. I think some here know Mike Keiser has "hidden" tees at Bandon for just this purpose.  As such I usually don't really care how many tees a golf course has - Sebonack has an infinite number.  It is more a matter of how and where they are built and incorporated onto the property.  What I do care about is when a club wants to add silly new back tees for two foursomes that will ever play there.  It can be a huge expense to the point where they are purchasing extra land (when available) to make this happen. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean A has often floated an idea that I think a really good one -- ie fewer sets of tees, but more 'cards' and differing 'pars'. For me, it is an elegant approach: aesthetically, historically (as per the 'bogey score') and architecturally. My own example, based on a hypothetical course like Tom's new one at SV:
Two sets of tees, back and front.
Two 'cards' per set of tees.
At the back: Championship and Tournament Tees: same distances throughout, but 2 Par 4s on the former are Par 5s on the latter -- so total par of 68 and 70 respectively.
At the front (and 70-80 yards ahead): Daily and Forward Tees, with the Daily tees sharing the same 2 Par 5s as above, for again Par 70; and the Forward tees having 2 additional conversions of Par 4s into Par 5s, for a Par 72 total.
If I played with a much older person or a much younger person or a beginner we could actually play *with* each-other, from the same (front) tee box, and yet on the longest holes they'd 'get strokes'; and conversely, if I played with a really good and long hitting golfer, we could play from the *same* (back) tee box, and on the longest holes I'd 'get strokes'.
And, in the right architectural hands, that 70-80 yard difference between the back and front tees, and those conversions of Par 4s into 5s, could lead to a wonderfully varied and interesting and (differently) challenging set of short 4s and half-par 5s and little 3s and very long 4s and difficult 3s and a bunch of the best hole in all of golf (IMO), the medium length 4.
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

There is no "right" number of tees?  I am not sure why the obsession with a set number?  For example, how many sets of tees do you need on a hole like #7 at Pebble Beach?  All you need are enough to spread out wear and tear.  Some holes might benefit from lots of tees from different distances and/or different angles of play.  Does it really matter if one hole has only two tees and another has seven?  For most golfers it is about having fun and presenting some variety of teeing locations on certain holes can add to that enjoyment.  I used to be a believer that three sets of tees was probably good enough. You choose where you want to play and deal with the consequences.  I have changed my opinion over the years and probably for the better. 

[Tom_Doak]

Do you agree that 5400 is too long for a forward tee?

It depends on the playing surface.  On a bouncy links, 5400 yards is not too long for most women golfers.  I used to consult at several clubs where the ladies argued even 5400 was too short, but opinions are changing as they go play much shorter tees on newer resort courses.  So we generally put in tees where you can get down to 5000 yards now, or even less than that.  But we don't always put them all on the scorecard.


On many of my courses the forward most tee is just a flat spot in the start of the fairway.  This speeds play, reduces maintenance, squares the angle to the fairway instead of hitting in from an awkward angle to the side, and helps out high handicappers because even a topped shot will roll out a few yards.  And yet we get complaints from some quarters because we haven't built a REAL tee    .  When I point out that we've done the same for the other tees, they still grumble.


The idea that you can and should please everyone is the issue for me.  This is why at Ballyneal I decided to just build a few tees that looked interesting and let you play from where you want.

[Cliff Hamm]

When we play in Ireland, my wife, plays about half of the holes from the beginning of the fairway. I will grant you that fast and firm is helpful, but 5400 is still long for her.  BTW she drives the ball about 160, which is 20 yards longer than the typical woman.


It is impossible to please everyone. That being said, it seems that it is only those who want to play a shorter course that are not being pleased. I have no problem with a tee being at the beginning of the fairway. It should be indicated, however, on the scorecard and a rating provided. Unless you do as you did at Ballyneal. Why should those playing more forward tees be excluded from the scorecard? Also, given the PGA data shouldn’t tees be provided at less than 5000 yards? 


 As a bit of an aside the course that I play in Florida had many women who would not move up. I had numerous conversations with them, that they to had the right to reach greens in regulation. They felt that moving up would take the challenge out of the game. Ha.


 The course was then regrassed and names of tees changed.  This made a huge difference. A big factor was also providing a hybrid/combo tee.

[Brock Lynch]

And so just as easily as 6 sets of tees could be looked at as a lack of confidence by you in the greatness of the design, you COULD view 6 sets of tees as you giving golfers the opportunity to find a set of tees that brings the best features and options of your design fully into play.

Well said.

[Brock Lynch]

When we play in Ireland, my wife, plays about half of the holes from the beginning of the fairway. I will grant you that fast and firm is helpful, but 5400 is still long for her.  BTW she drives the ball about 160, which is 20 yards longer than the typical woman.


It is impossible to please everyone. That being said, it seems that it is only those who want to play a shorter course that are not being pleased. I have no problem with a tee being at the beginning of the fairway. It should be indicated, however, on the scorecard and a rating provided. Unless you do as you did at Ballyneal. Why should those playing more forward tees be excluded from the scorecard? Also, given the PGA data shouldn’t tees be provided at less than 5000 yards? 


 As a bit of an aside the course that I play in Florida had many women who would not move up. I had numerous conversations with them, that they to had the right to reach greens in regulation. They felt that moving up would take the challenge out of the game. Ha.


 The course was then regrassed and names of tees changed.  This made a huge difference. A big factor was also providing a hybrid/combo tee.

Cliff:


At some courses, my wife will do the same and tee off from the beginning of the fairway. Does your wife wish they had a tee near the beginning of the fairway or is she ok with teeing it up on the fairway? You are right, shorter hitters are not being considered as they should and the tees that a course has should be on the scorecard. We run into this occasionally when we go to the British Isles. There is a set of forward tees, but they are not on the scorecard. We usually bump into them on the first couple of holes, notably when we played Woodhall Spa. The forward pink tees were unknown to us until we saw them on the 2nd hole. After that my wife played from the "Pinks" and had a great time. Isn't that the idea? Play and have fun while being challenged.


Cheers

[Thomas Dai]

So we generally put in tees where you can get down to 5000 yards now, or even less than that.  But we don't always put them all on the scorecard.

This is a nice and rather canny compromise approach.
Worth pointing out that the folks who will play from the most forward tees are the very young and/or the elderly/infirm. Folks who may well not even be playing 18-holes and aren’t that fussed about handicaps. Nice for them to be able to play though and for the business to take in some revenue from them.
And with due respect to such categories of player, and there will be exceptions, their pace of play if often somewhat slower than ideal, more shots taken, slower walking etc, so having them play from forward tees can mean the pace of play for others on the course is more consistent especially if there are no forced carries from the very forward tees.
Atb

[jeffwarne]

Sean A has often floated an idea that I think a really good one -- ie fewer sets of tees, but more 'cards' and differing 'pars'. 

You had me at less tees.


Frankly given that about 1-5% of players would ever shoot "par" it's very hard to see why varying pars is important.
But I will agree that 6 scorecards is cheaper than 6 sets of tees....

[Jeff_Brauer]

What’s that line about removing everything possible until nothing else can be?  I butchered it, but my man Pallota will clean it up.

The more correct design axiom in play is "form follows function."  Under the "remove everything possible" I suppose you could go to one tee.  But, just as in society, where we are expected to share space get along with others different from us, on at least a public golf course, or even most clubs, you are expected to share the course with others of different abilities and perspectives.  If I was of such good golfing ability, I wouldn't consider seeing some other tees in front of me a big life problem, I would be grateful. And, I would be grateful Dad, grandpa, Mom, grandma, junior was enjoying the great game of golf their way, if for no other reason to help foot my bill!


Similarly, as an architect, I would not consider designing a course for a broad spectrum, including multiple tees, to be "pandering" (would love to hear someone's definitions of that in this instance) and I am pretty sure my public course owner would simply consider it trying to provide the best customer experience.


The theory of six tees (which few courses really like and accept) is that while tee shot distances are naturally all across the board, they seem to cluster at (with a bit of shameless rounding on my part) 290, 260, 225, 200, 170, and 140 on the typical American course. Yes, I agree it varies and should be considered if on links, in the mountains above Denver or the dense air of San Fran, etc.   If we want to remove a tee, statistically (at 0.15%) removing the 290 yard tee (and if considered for the 0.00001% of 320 hitters, makes the most sense.  Max the course at about 6800 yards.


What typically happens is the senior tees are combined at 200, or hopefully 185, so a large chunk of today's players are playing a course (if design considered them at all) at a less than ideal distance.  In my work, yes, being able to carry hazards reasonably is an issue for them, and if TD came in and said he wouldn't "pander" to that, or tell them to man up and try to make a bigger carry, he might leave with one of their three irons stuck where the sun don't shine.  Just a snarky way of saying their reaction, IMHO, would be "WTF?"  Old men are just coming to grips with the fact they don't hit is as far as they used to, and someone wants to come in and remind them of it? LOL.


As to total distance, it is not hard to figure. If we think about those 140 and 170 hitters, take 90% of that (tee shot plus 80% max for second shot three wood) and multiply by 36 and you get 4536 and 5508 as the maximum yardage they can be expected to have a shot at reaching a green in regulation.  And, if we want them to enjoy golf, and maybe hit a 5 iron in some times, it is probably less than that. 


We need/want seniors to keep playing, and we need women to enter the game, which they won't do if it is impossible.  When courses need golfers, you may consider it pandering, but they consider it perhaps survival! 


Just my thoughts.
05

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()