Multiple Tees on New Courses

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff W - I think 'par' is a psychological reality and an excellent architectural tool. And if you're going to have many more and different kinds of golfers playing from the same set of tees (because there are only 2 sets), it becomes even more important to recognize the reality and to use that tool. Eg: you and I are playing the same tees, you off the Championship card and me off the Tournament card. We get to the 13th, a 475 yard Par 4 for you  and 475 yard Par 5 for me. Same golf hole for both of us, same fairway, same angles relative to the contours on the same green and same hazards -- except very different goals and tactics for you and me, befitting both our different skills and different pars. I think it would be great fun. At least for me it would, don't know about for you

[Mark Fedeli]

Golf survived just fine with three sets of tees until the 1980's, and that should still work if the course is designed appropriately, so that players have a reasonable approach shot to play even if they are straining to reach the green.  If the wind is in your face and you can't reach a par-4 in two, the Scots would just tell you to man up and deal with it . . . it happens all the time over there.

I know some might think this way of thinking is a bit harsh, but I don't think so. In the Sand Valley thread I commented that "People enjoy or get frustrated with golf for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with gender or age or length or ability," and that the nature of the sport is such that is requires a lot of time and patience and practice to learn how to adapt to adversity and still find enjoyment.


The same way a lot of golfers need to stop hoping their home course can match the conditions of Augusta, a lot of golfers need to figure out ways to play the game that best suits them, regardless of what they see the pros do on TV. My favorite version of golf is a team match on course like North Berwick against players of similar ability. But 80% of my golf is played as a single on Bethpage Black. It's not my ideal, and sometimes I wonder what I'm even doing out there, so I completely adjust my thinking and my priorities to get as much enjoyment as possible out of the round.


That can be done at all skill levels.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Golf has survived a long time with three sets of tees".  Perhaps, but the question is how to best move forward in the future, is it not? 


Maybe it's one tee, rolled back ball, etc.  Lots of folks seem to long for the old days.  But it rarely happens that we go back, does it?  The US survived without a lot of things, like social security, until the 1930's.  Yes, sort of unrelated issue, but the main point is once people (including golfers) get used to some entitlement, or pandering to them, they rarely give it up.


Regarding forward tees, and women especially, rolling back anything that screams of inequality or unequal treatment (5400 yards, or the equivalent of a 10,800 yard course for the pros) by saying "It's is good enough for you lady.  Shut up and go play some golf."


LOL.  All I can really say, is, I am not going to be the first one to make that decision or utter those words.

[A.G._Crockett]

"Golf has survived a long time with three sets of tees".  Perhaps, but the question is how to best move forward in the future, is it not? 


Maybe it's one tee, rolled back ball, etc.  Lots of folks seem to long for the old days.  But it rarely happens that we go back, does it?  The US survived without a lot of things, like social security, until the 1930's.  Yes, sort of unrelated issue, but the main point is once people (including golfers) get used to some entitlement, or pandering to them, they rarely give it up.


Regarding forward tees, and women especially, rolling back anything that screams of inequality or unequal treatment (5400 yards, or the equivalent of a 10,800 yard course for the pros) by saying "It's is good enough for you lady.  Shut up and go play some golf."


LOL.  All I can really say, is, I am not going to be the first one to make that decision or utter those words.

Good post, Jeff; thank you.
Put another way, golf hasn't "survived" for all these years BECAUSE of three tees; given the lack of involvement of women, for instance, you could even make the opposite argument, that golf has survived in spite of a lack of options.  I don't necessarily believe that, but I REALLY don't believe the idea that somehow three sets of tees are better just because that's the way it used to be done.  I'm just not much on the good old days in general, I suppose.
And going forward, if the game is to prosper, issues such as keeping aging Boomers on the course, getting more women to play, making the game a bit faster and more inviting to new golfers, and so on, are certainly not hurt by more yardage options.  I just can't see the harm in it, especially in hybrid tees, which cost nothing.

[Sean_A]

AG

Part of the harm in mega tees is courses are more difficult to walk...and if folks aren't walking anyway...why not build tees miles away from previous greens.  Its a slippery slope to relegating one of the best marketing aspects of the game to an after-thought. 

Another issue is more features tend to be built when mega tees are at work.  This requires more money to maintain and honestly, rarely improves the design aesthetics.

I don't think anybody is saying screw shorter hitters.  On the contrary, folks are saying why haven't the shorter hitting masses been given front and centre attention?  What folks are arguing for is more playable courses which ultimately means the choice of land to build on has to be done with more care. To me that doesn't mean more tees.  It means creating courses which for the most part are playable for all from all sets of tees except for the very back set...hence the reason I am all for the back set being very well removed from the other tees.  I have no issue with the odd forced carry for daily folks with a forward tee set to minimize the danger....or the creation of added fairway for shorter hitters.  The length of the hole needed be much if at all different. See below for a great example....why do we not see more of this instead of asking golfers to walk (or should I say ride) beyond the water?

   

What I do object to is riding past 2, 3 or 4 sets of tees to arrive at a forward tee.  These days, the tee spreads are such that holes could be played between the backs and not even the far forward tees...surely this can't be considered good design on terrain which is very walkable.  Its not as if this wasn't done for the first god knows how many years of golf design.  ODGs created courses to be walked and generally walked comfortably.  When we do have bad walk tees it is invariable a modern addition to accomodate a small percentage of golfers and reach a magic marketing number.

I think golfers have been totally hood winked by mega tees. Archies and developers build inappropriate courses then try to sell them to golfers as playable for all because of mega tees.  Its a two-fold lack of creativity.  First, building the same old distance courses then, second, using mega tees to band aid the problem the of courses being too long.
 Wouldn't it make more sense to build appropriate courses then there wouldn't be a need to hood wink golfers?  So sure, if folks think it is absolutely necesssary to continue building 6800+ yard courses, then we will continue to have mega tees.  However, if we really focus on building appropriate courses for the mass market of shorter hitters...then mega tees are simply not necessary.   

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

Part of the harm in mega tees is courses are more difficult to walk...and if folks aren't walking anyway...why not build tees miles away from previous greens.  Its a slippery slope to relegating one of the best marketing aspects of the game to an after-thought. 

Another issue is more features tend to be built when mega tees are at work.  This requires more money to maintain and honestly, rarely improves the design aesthetics.

I don't think anybody is saying screw shorter hitters.  On the contrary, folks are saying why haven't the shorter hitting masses been given front and centre attention?  What folks are arguing for is more playable courses which ultimately means the choice of land to build on has to be done with more care. To me that doesn't mean more tees.  It means creating courses which for the most part are playable for all from all sets of tees except for the very back set...hence the reason I am all for the back set being very well removed from the other tees.  I have no issue with the odd forced carry for daily folks with a forward tee set to minimize the danger.  What I do object to is riding past 2, 3 or 4 sets of tees to arrive at a forward tee.  These days, the tee spreads are such that holes could be played between the backs and not even the far forward tees...surely this can't be considered good design on terrain which is very walkable.  Its not as if this wasn't done for the first god knows how many years of golf design.  ODGs created courses to be walked and generally walked comfortably.  When we do have bad walk tees it is invariable a modern addition to accomodate a small percentage of golfers and reach a magic marketing number.

I think golfers have been totally hood winked by mega tees. Archies and developers build inappropriate courses then try to sell them to golfers as playable for all because of mega tees. Wouldn't it make more sense to build appropriate courses then there wouldn't be a need to hood wink golfers?  So sure, if folks think it is absolutely necesssary to continue building 6800+ yard courses, then we will continue to have mega tees.  However, if we really focus on building appropriate courses for the mass market of shorter hitters...then mega tees are simply not necessary.   

Ciao

Sean,
Actually, I don't think we disagree about very much here, other than some semantic differences.  In that regard, I'll ignore the term "mega tees", which has no objective meaning.  Likewise, the issue of courses being too difficult, especially off the tee, is another issue that will have to be confronted regardless of teeing options, whether on the course itself or only on the scorecard.


With all due respect, I don't think there is any correlation whatsoever between more sets of tees and more difficulty in walking.  If the course is 7000 from the tips, then it's 7000; how many tees are in front of the tips is irrelevant.  And, of course, with hybrid tees, there's no issue at all.  For the most part, difficulty in walking in 2018 has only to do with the distance BETWEEN greens and tees, and that has zero to do with the number of tees once you arrive at the next hole.


I get that a lot of folks on here like the aesthetic simplicity of fewer tee boxes, just like they like the aesthetic simplicity of a particularly uncluttered scorecard; I do, too.  But neither has much to do with the good of the game going forward, and there are NO great courses that are great BECAUSE of just two or three sets of tees.

I play in a lot of Carolinas Golf Association senior tournaments, and this year for the first time, the CGA has a number of tournaments in which you sign up for a particular division based on yardage alone, with no regard to handicap or age.  For the most part, the C division, which is the shortest yardage, has still been primarily the 65+ "super seniors", but what the CGA is attempting to do is to find a way to bring more people into the events. 


I see NO upside beyond aesthetics in the old two or three tee system; none.  That it was always done this way means dead zero to me, and that Pine Valley or anywhere else still does it that way means dead zero to me as well.   I see at least potential upside to multiple tees and hybrid tees in the growth of the game; I don't know how much, but I see it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Sean.
For me, it's not about 3 tees being 'historical' or about a  necessary correlation between the # of tees and the quality of the course. 
Instead, it's about wanting the professionals to have to make real, meaningful architectural decisions every step of the way.
After all, they get paid to know both golf courses and golfers best -- and I believe they do.
And so I think that if they had to make such decisions (instead of taking refuge in marketing schemes or meaningless palavar about playability for all), we'd not only get better & more walkable & more sustainable golf courses, but also a realistic (and tried and tested assessment) of what actually works for the vast majority of golfers.
My guess?
Front Tees: 4800-5000 yards
Middle Tees: 6100-6300 yards
Back Tees: 6800-7000 yards.
Or to be clearer: 4900, 6200, 6900.
And then design something great so each golfer/tee gets to enjoy a variety of long & short challenges every day.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


If you limited us to three sets of tees, I think most architects would go for 5000 yards, 5800, and maybe 6600, for maximum playability and interest.  You could also have a handful of extra back tees or alternate middle tees, where you put the tee markers occasionally to allow for certain winds, or just for the golfers who want an option.


The problems all arise because the marketing guys want 7000, and because lots of men reject anything under 6000 as too short, even if they couldn't break 90 from 5800 yards.  So now you need two more sets of tees, or you need to give up the yardages that work beat for the masses.

[Niall C]

A question for the architects - with multiple tees, do you try and vary the angle of the tee or do you keep them on the same line ?

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom.
I suppose runway tees won't ever make a comeback, huh?
It's too bad: I always thought they looked kind of cool, and clean, and even 'golfy.
More importantly, they'd allow for variability (and even some straightforward deception & disguise) in distances.
Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


Understand your POV to a degree.  Not as much damage as you think.  First, we need about 6-7K SF of tee on every hole anyway, no matter where we put them.  Why not put them where the hole is most fun for a big chunk of golfers?  As I said in another post, if walking by forward tees is one of your biggest problems in life, you are very blessed!


I agree that for most courses, the best way to reduce tees is get rid of 7200 yard tees, built for marketing purposes, while rarely used.  Only 0.5% of golfers demand such tees.  I see you propose to take out 6800 yards, which according to most stats I see appeal to about 17% of golfers.  Not many owners will even take a chance on taking out their appeal to that top half percent, much less the next 17%.


Falsely, I think, my former college golfer son was happy to play our home club at 6700 yards, even though it was short for him.  I mean, if 0.5% of your golfers play your course half as much as they might at 7200 yards, you still aren't losing a lot of biz.  The real marketing problem is that so many golfers who prefer 6300 yard  somehow think the course is better if there are 50-100 yards of hole behind them that they never use.


Once I made the decision to go five tees (four under 6800 Max) I started to look at locating tees with their mid point (6300 yard) tees closest to the green to aid circulation.  In some instances, the standard was to walk, ride golfers to the back tee, and then forward.  If the next hole plays 90 degrees to the previous one, its not hard to arrange things (in most cases) to make those 1% or 17% of golfers walk/ride a bit more and the 6300 and 5800 yard golfers walk less.


Once the big picture is decided (how many tee sets) the little details of design have to adjust to make it work.


Niall,


If in heavy woods, the tees usually line up to save tree clearing.  On dog legs, we generally try to reduce the angle of the dogleg by placing more forward tees further to the outside of the dogleg direction.  In open areas, it is possible to consider each angle a bit differently if we want, staggering tees left and right.  Given the presence of cart paths, it is sometimes hard to do that and still get riding golfers close to the tee.

[A.G._Crockett]

Peter:


If you limited us to three sets of tees, I think most architects would go for 5000 yards, 5800, and maybe 6600, for maximum playability and interest.  You could also have a handful of extra back tees or alternate middle tees, where you put the tee markers occasionally to allow for certain winds, or just for the golfers who want an option.


The problems all arise because the marketing guys want 7000, and because lots of men reject anything under 6000 as too short, even if they couldn't break 90 from 5800 yards.  So now you need two more sets of tees, or you need to give up the yardages that work beat for the masses.

Tom,

Perhaps you've already addressed this, but how do you feel about hybrid tees on the scorecards of your courses?  Does it matter to you?

I ask this because the yardages you give here REALLY don't work for me at age 66 and driving the ball around 225 these days.  At 6600 yds, I'm hitting hybrids all day long on par 4's, and there likely won't be any risk/reward decisions for me on your par 5's, and likely not on the par 4's where you intended such decisions to come up.  But from 5800 is typically going to be too short for me to have a lot of decisions to make, either; my "sweet spot" is somewhere in between, say around 6200.  (I play a LOT of golf on a LOT of different courses; I'm not pulling a hypothetical number out of thin air here.)

800 yds is an average of over 40 yds per hole; that's a pretty big gap if you think of it in terms of club selection.  A hybrid set of tees that cuts that in half is perfect for me in terms of playing your golf course the way you designed it, at least IMO.


And it isn't really a matter of what I score, before somebody heads down that particular rabbit hole.  I can manage my game well enough on the long course to put my second shots in places where I can still score ok; it just isn't as much fun to hit the same clubs over and over.  And really, it's the same from the short yardage; I'd have to decide whether to hit driver or 3W off the tee several times, but I would hit a ton of short irons and not many of my longer clubs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

AG,


I am in the same distance boat as you.  Took a while to realize I am a senior golfer, but moving up from 6600-6800 yard tees made golf so much fun again.  With average mid irons, I am hitting greens and fringes a lot, which is fun.  Not sure why any golfer wouldn't want that for every other golfer.


As to hybrid tees, you didn't ask me, but.....isn't the fact that so many courses are implementing these on their own when the designer left them with 3 or 4 tees all the market research we need to say "golfers want it, let's do it?"  Or is that just "pandering" whatever that means (would still like someone to give me their golf design specific definition, thanks in advance)


As a designer/re-designer, I try to just put those multiple tees where they make sense, and I mean on each hole.  If you look at the proportion of tee shot distances between, say the A player at 290, and us at 225, each hole ought to play (about) 225/290 or 76%.  In design, I typically round to 80% for ease of in my head calcs, but you get the idea.  I don't need to hit the same, say, 9 iron into a green as the club champ, but I want to be in the short iron category.


So, instead of mindless 25 yard splits, a 450 hole will go down to 342 for blue tees, etc., obviously, if that tee doesn't fit topography, like sitting in a valley, or puts a full tee shot in a pond, then it moves for the individual good of golfers like you and me.

[Thomas Dai]

Of course you don’t need to have an extra set of tees on every hole.
And the very forward ones (perhaps a bit like the super backs) can be pretty small and offset to the most appropriate side of the fairway, very much akin to the very forward tee at Woodhall Spa seen in the photo below.
Indeed such tees probably don't even need irrigation in many/most parts of the world.
Perhaps we could call them 'occasional tees'?
And, if in the course of time, if such small-size forward/occasional tees get beat-up from plenty of use well there's a message... they're popular (so make them a bit bigger!).
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


It's pretty well known in golf design circles that any forward tee that looks like a half assed effort is insulting to women. They want a full tee, equal in quality to other tees.  Yes, it can be smaller, because they don't put the divot pressure on tees, but it can't be that small.  In fact, the limiting factor is turning radius of tee mowers, which gets smaller all the time, but 24-32 feet diameter seems to work out best.


And, for them, occasional tees would be a bit insulting.  I have had a real problem with golf pros naming forward tees things like that.  Just the name would suggest that we somehow don't think they ought to get used, when in fact, we put them there for them to use every day if they like.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - first, because I don't say it enough: I am very aware that the actual doing of a particular art-craft like gca is exponentially more difficult & complicated & skills-based that even the most intelligent & insightful theorizing about it. The latter is the only thing I've got (sans the intelligent part), but I know that the former is the only thing that matters. That said 

To pander: is to cede to the golfer in the name of playability (and, frankly, popularity) and to an excessive degree the rights & responsibilities more properly and traditionally held & discharged by the architect to conceive and create an engaging field of play that is in keeping with and honours the spirit of the game and golf's inherent challenges and opportunities -- including the opportunity to learn from our mistakes, to accept with a measure of equanimity the vagaries of weather and of fate, to play the golf course as we find it, to respect the 'rules of engagement' both implicit and explicit, and to discover how we might turn our apparent limitations into potential strengths.

That's the theory, anyway 

[Sean_A]

I am a bit surprised that someone could say mega tees doesn't create longer walks.  The only way 7000 yard courses work is with mega tees.  So if the tee yardage spread is 2000 yards compared to 1200 yards for a shorter course requiring less tees its obvious somebody is doing some extra walking.  On new courses it tends to be people playing shorter tees.  Some of the few times I have seen mega tees work is on proper championship courses because their back tees often require the bulk of the extra walking due to them being added over time.  So the green to main tee for the "original" course is usually anything from 6200ish to 6600ish yards.  However since the well forward tee has become popular in recent years, even on these courses the forward tees require the added walk.  When I say added walk I mean walking without playing...or dead yards. The only thing being accomplished is getting closer to the house.  I have already said its a lesser of two evils compromise to install well forward tees, but it would make much more sense to design courses where the green to main tee is for anything from 5500 to 6200 yards. This way the walk isn't constantly disrupted with dead yards and the onus of the extra walk is on those wishing to play the full monty...which is relatively few golfers. 

Anyway, there is no way that I will be convinced that mega tees is anything but a crutch which enables courses which are too long to be built. Archies think they are doing a service to the game, when actually its a bad route for golf to take simply because it encourages golfers to ride...as if they needed anymore reasons.  If archies want to encourage women and children to play they should be building shorter courses rather than hedging their bets by half assing it with mega tees.  I applaud what Doak is doing in Wisconsin and can only hope that others will see the light.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Perhaps you've already addressed this, but how do you feel about hybrid tees on the scorecards of your courses?  Does it matter to you?

I ask this because the yardages you give here REALLY don't work for me at age 66 and driving the ball around 225 these days.  At 6600 yds, I'm hitting hybrids all day long on par 4's, and there likely won't be any risk/reward decisions for me on your par 5's, and likely not on the par 4's where you intended such decisions to come up.  But from 5800 is typically going to be too short for me to have a lot of decisions to make, either; my "sweet spot" is somewhere in between, say around 6200.  (I play a LOT of golf on a LOT of different courses; I'm not pulling a hypothetical number out of thin air here.)

AG: 


I am a libertarian when it comes to tees; I'm totally okay with people playing from different hybrid tees during a round of golf.  I do it myself, as often as not.


However the insistence in some circles of formalizing and rating many different combinations does concern me.  If you assign the color green to the hybrid tees you like, then you may object when the superintendent doesn't have every tee marker in the spot you prefer.  And if he does, your opponent who hits it 15 yards shorter may object. 


My view is no matter what we do, there is no such thing as perfection in this regard, so it's silly to pander to those expectations.


PS. Note that the course that prompted these discussions is planned to be only 6200 yards ... perfect for you and for many others!

[Tom_Doak]

If you look at the proportion of tee shot distances between, say the A player at 290, and us at 225, each hole ought to play (about) 225/290 or 76%.

There's your problem right there - designing everything for the top 1%.


Nothing about the game of golf was based on the A player hitting it 290.  (If it was, par-4's would go up to 540 yards.)  Even if you described players on an A-Z scale, each letter would represent 4% of all golfers, and I don't believe 4% hit it 290.


I'm not saying we should make them lay up.  I'm saying there should be risks for hitting it more than 240-250 that they should have to consider.

[Thomas Dai]

One aspect to consider is the relationship of the tees to the handicap systems in operation and the forthcoming move to the world handicap system.
The turning-in of scores for accurate handicapping surely requires measured courses from consistent tee markers, not the use of pick-n-mix tees.
Now if folks aren’t fussed about handicaps, say purely social knockabout golf, I guess this aspect doesn’t matter.
But if your playing in formal organisaed competitions for prizes, often substantial prizes, then accurate handicapping certainly does matter as it almost undoubtedly also does if your playing for a few £-$-€ with a few mates (ie a “fierce friendly”).
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

A random thought:
If the end of the so-called Dark Ages in gca was marked by a return to/revitalization of the creative approach and architectural value-system of a previous (Golden) Age, it's striking that 'the number of tees' was one of the very few elements of that Age that didn't make the transition and come along for the ride.
I mean, with new-builds and renovations-restorations both, architects and master-planners want to: cut down trees; bring back width; contour/re-contour greens; encourage firm & fast conditions; reduce the amount of rough; use hazards as more than eye candy or directional beacons; and make courses more walkable.
In short, they want and promote and market a whole panoply of Golden Age elements and qualities.
BUT - having just 2 or 3 sets of tees, just like in the Golden Age? Nonsense! these master-planners and some architects say. Dictatorial and precious! say some fellow golfers.
Impractical! Superficial! Fun-Killing Idiocy! The mindless grumblings of old Luddites!
The Golden Age? Yes! Fantastic! Let's get those old photos out and restore every damn course we can find!
Hey, the Golden Age tees, too? Die, heretic, die!!
But why? Isn't it at least plausible that the Golden Age architects who knew enough to have few trees, use less/no rough, make contoured greens, take advantage of width, and have imaginative hazards might've had perfectly sane and golf-related reasons for using just one or two sets of tees? Just 'plausible', is all I'm saying...

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you look at the proportion of tee shot distances between, say the A player at 290, and us at 225, each hole ought to play (about) 225/290 or 76%.

There's your problem right there - designing everything for the top 1%.


Nothing about the game of golf was based on the A player hitting it 290.  (If it was, par-4's would go up to 540 yards.)  Even if you described players on an A-Z scale, each letter would represent 4% of all golfers, and I don't believe 4% hit it 290.


I'm not saying we should make them lay up.  I'm saying there should be risks for hitting it more than 240-250 that they should have to consider.

To the extent that the client has asked for the 7200 yard tees, yes, I guess.  Nothing saying the features can't relate to any subset of golfers. I placed the 290 hitters at less than 1%. 


As I have said before, paraphrasing Churchill, "Never has so much golf course been built for so few."  It has happened.  I try to eliminate the 7200 yard tees where I can, but someone will always try to convince the owner to add them.  And, many golf writers still plug the back tee length. 

[A.G._Crockett]

One aspect to consider is the relationship of the tees to the handicap systems in operation and the forthcoming move to the world handicap system.
The turning-in of scores for accurate handicapping surely requires measured courses from consistent tee markers, not the use of pick-n-mix tees.
Now if folks aren’t fussed about handicaps, say purely social knockabout golf, I guess this aspect doesn’t matter.
But if your playing in formal organisaed competitions for prizes, often substantial prizes, then accurate handicapping certainly does matter as it almost undoubtedly also does if your playing for a few £-$-€ with a few mates (ie a “fierce friendly”).
Atb

This is an important point.  I DO play competitions, and I want an absolutely accurate handicap, so I turn in EVERY score.  Which in turn means that I only play from tees that are rated and are in the system.  It's not that I'm a legalist or anything like that; it's what makes the system work.

I have a frequent partner for casual play who often plays the par 3's from one set of tees back just for the variety.  I understand what he's doing, but if I move back on 4 holes and shoot a higher score but then enter it at the lower course rating, I'm gaming the system for purposes of any net competitions.  It isn't EXACTLY sandbagging, but it doesn't miss much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

AG,


I agree, and that is why I decide how many tees there should be and put them there.  The hybrid seems like a fix when there aren't well located tees.


One of the obstacles to shorter courses and especially forward tees is women who worry their handicap will "travel well" if built at too easy a course.  Same with many men.   So, I guess it depends on who you design for, even ignoring those 1% bombers - The golfers who play every day, or those that play every day and compete. No doubt, a lot of the standardization that some here dislike has come from considering the competitive function.  No surprise, given the roots of the USGA as governing competitions of all kinds.  The play for fun movement (which most do) is just now starting to get its way in design.  (not sure that is the best choice of words, but you get the idea)

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


I agree, and that is why I decide how many tees there should be and put them there.  The hybrid seems like a fix when there aren't well located tees.


One of the obstacles to shorter courses and especially forward tees is women who worry their handicap will "travel well" if built at too easy a course.  Same with many men.   So, I guess it depends on who you design for, even ignoring those 1% bombers - The golfers who play every day, or those that play every day and compete. No doubt, a lot of the standardization that some here dislike has come from considering the competitive function.  No surprise, given the roots of the USGA as governing competitions of all kinds.  The play for fun movement (which most do) is just now starting to get its way in design.  (not sure that is the best choice of words, but you get the idea)

Jeff,

That's EXACTLY what hybrid tees are, and I think it's a great fix. 


A 600 yd difference between tees, which is sort of usual for 3 tee courses, may not sound like a big deal, but it's a three club difference on average for the second shot; the difference for most of us between a 5 iron and an 8 iron really matters.  More to the point, the player MUST pick a set of tees from which forced carries off the tee can be managed. 


And BTW, there is another competitive advantage to hybrid tees; it lessens the adjustment in strokes if players are competing from different tees.  There is a 4 shot adjustment at my course between the Blue and White tees; the stroke adjustment from Blue to the Blue-White hybrid tees is only two shots.