[Tom_Doak]

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.

And this is the end problem: the over precision of the handicap system and its insistence on turning in every score with a precise course rating, makes one a cheater if you are just out there to enjoy playing from where you'd like.


There is no reason for that.  If I went out and played from a mixture of your blue and white tees, it wouldn't be hard at all to guess what the course rating might be - for example that your friend playing the back tees on short holes probably increases it by 0.5 to 1 full stroke.  And he could report it as such, but he'd probably be accused of cheating for trying to be accurate.


The handicap system the rest of the world is abandoning was much more simple and probably better in preventing sandbagging.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, but if you have even played in a Calcutta or similar, and the winner is a 16 handicapper who shoots 72, 74, 73, you probably want to tighten up reporting standards, not loosen them.


I agree in general golf should be about fun, but others look at it differently. 

[Sean_A]

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.

And this is the end problem: the over precision of the handicap system and its insistence on turning in every score with a precise course rating, makes one a cheater if you are just out there to enjoy playing from where you'd like.

There is no reason for that.  If I went out and played from a mixture of your blue and white tees, it wouldn't be hard at all to guess what the course rating might be - for example that your friend playing the back tees on short holes probably increases it by 0.5 to 1 full stroke.  And he could report it as such, but he'd probably be accused of cheating for trying to be accurate.

The handicap system the rest of the world is abandoning was much more simple and probably better in preventing sandbagging.

+1

Talk about the tail wagging the dog...now we want to design courses based on a handicap system?

What is the percentage of golfers who actually have a sanctioned handicap?  Hint..surprisingly low.

I say focus on good design because who knows, the handicap system could change again 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Don't disagree with you about the tail wagging the dog Sean.
Unfortunately the tail, whether it be hcp, heath and safety, environment, general bureaucracy (bureau-crazy!) etc has generally got longer and longer over the decades. No longer a simple stick and ball game.
As to multiple tees and hcps, would a slight saving grace be that resort golf and club golf are somewhat different beasts and at the former hcps and the use of pick-n-mix tees might not have the significance that it does at a club where competitions and matches and the like rule the roost (although given the world wide hcp system cards will seemingly still have to be submitted if folks want to carry a hcp). And of course at some clubs an element of the membership play 'out for a walk with some sticks and a ball' social, unfussed about hcp golf rather than something more formalised.
atb

[Sean_A]

ATB

The main thrust of mega tees is in the USA and USA influenced emerging markets.  In the US, very few clubs are competition oriented. In the UK, there isn't a real push toward mega tees, but there is a focus of competitions for many clubs.  In truth, mega tees aren't necessary for a vast percentage of courses.     

My point was that a huge percentage of golfers don't care about handicaps.  This is mainly an issue for those who belong to private clubs...everybody else learns how to wing it when playing with mates. 

I wonder what the percentage of private club members post their "holiday" scores...on courses much of the time that will be resort/public courses?

When the new handicap system kicks in I suspect there will be a large percentage of golfers who will not post all their scores...I know I won't..never have even when I lived in the US (and I knew a ton of golfers who didn't)...not even close.  At serious comp oriented clubs in the UK, do you relaly think golfers will want to keep a score and post it when out for a jolly when they play in 25+ comps a year?  Furthermore...who is tracking all these cards?   

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

And this is the end problem: the over precision of the handicap system and its insistence on turning in every score with a precise course rating, makes one a cheater if you are just out there to enjoy playing from where you'd like.

There is no reason for that.  If I went out and played from a mixture of your blue and white tees, it wouldn't be hard at all to guess what the course rating might be - for example that your friend playing the back tees on short holes probably increases it by 0.5 to 1 full stroke.  And he could report it as such, but he'd probably be accused of cheating for trying to be accurate.

The handicap system the rest of the world is abandoning was much more simple and probably better in preventing sandbagging.

+1

Talk about the tail wagging the dog...now we want to design courses based on a handicap system?

What is the percentage of golfers who actually have a sanctioned handicap?  Hint..surprisingly low.

I say focus on good design because who knows, the handicap system could change again 

Ciao

Sean,

C'mon; I never said ANY of that, and you know it.  I asked Tom a question about hybrid tees; he responded, as did Jeff Brauer.   It was, I thought, a reasonable discussion of that subject.

Tom likes the idea of three sets of tees, separated by somewhere around 800 yards; I don't.  I asked him how he felt about hybrid tees, and he responded that you could do that informally.  That doesn't work for me, or anybody else who posts their scores in an attempt to have an honest handicap, and I'm sure you understand that.  The gap between THAT, and saying that courses should be designed "based on the handicap system" is bigger than the Grand Canyon, and in no way related to the discussion, which was measured and reasonable.

Flame throwing like this happens all the time on this site, and has for a long time now.  I enjoy the site a lot less than I used to, and spend a lot less time and energy on it than I used to.  IMO, this sort of thing is the reason that so many individuals who were GREAT resources have left the site, never to return; I'm sure you know the names as well as I do. 


It gets old.

[Edward Glidewell]

I agree with A.G. in regard to posting scores for handicap purposes, which is one of the reasons I don't care about mega tees. I like seeing my handicap go down (hopefully) as I post my scores. Beyond that, though, I like having a specific area I'm supposed to play from. The idea of just randomly hopping from tee to tee, even if I wasn't posting scores, is not interesting to me. I personally would be fine with playing from 6600 or 5800, because neither of those distances bothers me, but I understand that that spread doesn't work for some people.


I still don't understand why "mega tees" bothers people, as long as it's not causing a massive increase in maintenance costs. It doesn't affect your game in any way if there are 5 other tees out there.

[Sean_A]

AG

Sorry to hear you feel as though you are being misrepresented...that was not my intention.  Just pointing out that considerations other than good design can get in the way of...well...good design. 

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

Sorry to hear you feel as though you are being misrepresented...that was not my intention.  Just pointing out that considerations other than good design can get in the way of...well...good design. 

Ciao

Sean,

Speaking only for myself, I have NEVER seen a course design be considered more (or less) favorably because of either the presence or absence of teeing options, nor because of hybrid tees on the scorecard that have been rated by the state association and for which scores can be posted.  The idea that having 5 teeing positions varying yardages (which does not mean "mega" tees, IMO) is gets in the way of good design vs. 3 teeing positions is an idea I have never come across before.  And hybrid tees on the scorecard only even less so, of course.

I'm not a fan of the aesthetics of the RTJ runway tees, but I think providing flexibility and options in design is a good thing in almost any iteration.  Including more teeing areas and more options can be done without harm to the rest of the design, and we've all seen it done. 


The idea that somehow a design would be enhanced by only three tees instead of five is not one that resonates with me; I've never once thought that on a golf course, or heard anyone say that on a golf course.  And the idea that the solution to large gaps between three sets of tees is for players to move around more or less randomly between tees within the round is absolutely contrary to the Rules of Golf; it just is.  The number of golfers who choose not to play by the Rules and/or maintain an accurate handicap with all that is involved with that is completely irrelevant.  It's against the Rules to do many things, and playing the wrong tees is one of them; it just is.

That isn't the handicap system dictating what is and is not good design, or anything of the sort; the decision of whether or not to play by the Rules never is.  If anything, it's much more likely that a design that somehow encourages players to NOT play by the Rules is NOT a good design.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


I agree in concept here.  I wouldn't think having 5 sets of tees would be an automatic negative.  I just figured it would be a financial deterrent in having to have a bit more space to accommodate them and maintaining the extra turf. But if it was my course that i bought from a previous owner, I would keep the back ones closed and limit regular play to the 4.

[Sean_A]

I stated earlier, the more tees the more likely it is that the course will have a walk which disrupts the game, or worse, basically makes the course a dreadful walk. To me, a good walk spoiled by over-choice of tees is poor design unless the course wasn't going to be walkable anyway.  I can understand if you believe more choice of tees is more important than the quality of the walk, but I do think it is a valid reason why a mega tee course may not be as good as it might with less tees.  More or less, mega tees encourages archies to, in concept, make a course playable for all.  To me, more playable doesn't mean much when what really happpens is there is a set of tees way back which few play (if they are even open) and a set well forward which eliminates nearly all of the thrill which golf will hopefully provide.  I advocate building courses which are more market targeted that make more sense in terms of yardage and will thus provide a better experience and encourage people to walk.

That isn't to say that mega tees can't work, I have seen it work at Pinehurst because the much of the course extension over 80 years has been backwards...for very good players.  The regular set of tees is often a short walk from the previous green.  Its the new courses which mainly fail in this department because they may start off with the main set of tees being pretty far back...so most folks are walking well forward...or playing a set too tough for them and slowing everybody down.

All of this really only matters if you consider a course designed to be a good walk as good design...which I do...very much so.   
 
Ciao 

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


I may be in minority position, but i'll take fun and interesting shots any day over an interesting walk.


I've played plenty of courses with interesting walks thru the woods or parkland, but the golf is otherwise pedestrian.  But sure an interesting walk with great holes is the preferred goal.

[Jeff_Brauer]

AG,


Agree on the five tees.  The notion that going back to fewer tees because that's how it was done in the old days resonates with a few here, but I see no clamor for it elsewhere.  There have also been a few experiments with no formal tees.  Maybe Americans are to sheepish, but they seem to like to know where to start.  We follow the rules!



I can agree six is too many visually, even though, if you want to closely accommodate every cluster of tee shot length groups, that is what it would take (if you have the 7300 back tees).  The real solution, IMHO, is Fazio's - put even more shaping into the tees, building small ridges, stagger them, etc. to hide them from back tee players.  That of course, goes against the minimalist ideas touted here, but if one design charge is to make every golfer feel as if they are on the only tee, and form follows function, then tees get designed differently, and take more work, golf construction gets more complicated, etc.


As to Sean's idea that it spawns too long a walk, I guess total course length does that already.  Best solution - unless absolutely necessary, just forget the 300 yard drives, as it totals about 1% of players.


And, as I have already mentioned, I do consider making sure the middle and forward tees are the shortest walk from the previous green.

[George Pazin]

From Tom Doak - Jim: Your last paragraph is my ideal.  I held out on putting in "back" tees at Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle because I have seen how many modern courses have back tees that even a scratch player or club pro may struggle to break 75 from.  I just don't understand the point of that.  It's possible to test a player but let him shoot in the range of +2 to -2 ... you don't have to beat him over the head every hole to make him think.

The problem is that very few people, and I'd argue scratch players and club pros are foremost among these, are capable of objectively viewing a course from where or how they played. If you move them up to where they should be, scoring-wise, they will say, a tour pro would have done this or a high handicapper would have done that. I have met very few people who are capable of saying what anyone, INCLUDING THEMSELVES, would really actually do. Most prefer to rate/judge based on a mythical standard of what someone else may or may not do..

-----

To address AG's seemingly reasonable concern of "who is hurt by multiple tees?", I'd argue everyone is. Multiple tees are a crutch that needs to be abandoned. There are too many golfers at too many levels who hit the ball too many different distances. Enough with the multiple tee nonsense, present interesting shots for all levels at all different distances. Multiple tees offer a one dimensional answer to a three dimensional question. And an unsatisfying answer at that.

[Daryl David]

From Tom Doak - Jim:Your last paragraph is my ideal.  I held out on putting in "back" tees at Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle because I have seen how many modern courses have back tees that even a scratch player or club pro may struggle to break 75 from.  I just don't understand the point of that.  It's possible to test a player but let him shoot in the range of +2 to -2 ... you don't have to beat him over the head every hole to make him think.
The problem is that very few people, and I'd argue scratch players and club pros are foremost among these, are capable of objectively viewing a course from where or how they played. If you move them up to where they should be, scoring-wise, they will say, a tour pro would have done this or a high handicapper would have done that. I have met very few people who are capable of saying what anyone, INCLUDING THEMSELVES, would really actually do. Most prefer to rate/judge based on a mythical standard of what someone else may or may not do.-----To address AG's seemingly reasonable concern of "who is hurt by multiple tees?", I'd argue everyone is. Multiple tees are a crutch that needs to be abandoned. There are too many golfers at too many levels who hit the ball too many different distances. Enough with the multiple tee nonsense, present interesting shots for all levels at all different distances. Multiple tees offer a one dimensional answer to a three dimensional question. And an unsatisfying answer at that.

+1. Excellent post

[jeffwarne]

From Tom Doak - To address AG's seemingly reasonable concern of "who is hurt by multiple tees?", I'd argue everyone is. Multiple tees are a crutch that needs to be abandoned. There are too many golfers at too many levels who hit the ball too many different distances. Enough with the multiple tee nonsense, present interesting shots for all levels at all different distances. Multiple tees offer a one dimensional answer to a three dimensional question. And an unsatisfying answer at that.

Will be interesting to see Tom's course at SV, although it really shouldn't be anything all that different(other than the fact that hopefully it's a great thought provoking course that no doubt will be challenging in relation to par) for those who play 6000-6300 yards already (the majority).

I want to challenge an architect to build a course that can be enjoyable and challenging for ALL classes of players with just ONE primary set of tees. and the occasional forward tee for terrain challenges, and the occasional Tiger tee for variety/terrain challenges of their own. You know- a COURSE that everyone plays .TOGETHER

[JMEvensky]

To address AG's seemingly reasonable concern of "who is hurt by multiple tees?", I'd argue everyone is. Multiple tees are a crutch that needs to be abandoned. There are too many golfers at too many levels who hit the ball too many different distances. Enough with the multiple tee nonsense, present interesting shots for all levels at all different distances. Multiple tees offer a one dimensional answer to a three dimensional question. And an unsatisfying answer at that.

I was trying to think of a way to express something similar but never would've been able to do it as well as this.

[George Pazin]

I had the good fortune - the extremely good fortune - of playing my favorite course (yinz know the course - Burghese - or y'all know the course - Southern) with 3 wonderful people: my amazing host, and another friend of his and his son, who just finished his sophomore year at Notre Dame.


I'm a terrible golfer, at this point in my life. I don't play nearly enough, and I practice less. (But I'm working on both of those.)


We all played the same tees. The youngster bombed it past all of us. His dad played solidly throughout, as did my host. I really really struggled off the tee, but surprisingly enough, I did ok with everything that makes my favorite course one of the toughest in the world - I was fine from the rough, out of the bunkers and ok on the best greens in the world. The funny thing is, the youngster struggled more in the vaunted bunkers (at least, to my observation).


So should I have played a different set of tees? One that didn't really exist? My host hinted at such, he told me to drop in the fairway on the first few holes, because I was beyond nervous, my hands were literally shaking. But I did ok from the rough and the tough spots, I just was so nervous that I couldn't hit a tee shot past an embarrassing distance. But the second shots were generally true.


So what tee should I have played? How would Fownes, or Tom D, or Jeff B (or any other architect (such as my favorite, Mike N) have created a special challenge just for me? Should any of them have done so? I'd argue no, and I'd argue so strenuously.


Play the course. Not some 70% or 85% version that some bozo plugged into bogus USGA formulas.


Just play golf.

[Thomas Dai]

How would those who don’t like the idea of well forward tees feel if their age or physical limitations meant they were unable to carry the ball more than 80-100 yds in the air?
Would they like to have to play over forced carries that are only carryable on an occasional basis with their best shot?
Would they then like to have to hit 2-3 fairway metal shots followed by a hybrid or an iron to get close to the green on a 350-400 yd-ish hole?
And would the four young buck bombers in the group behind be happy bunnies waiting on the (back) tee while those of a certain age or with physical limitatims in the group in front search for their balls in forced carry rough and then take several more shots to play up the fairway to the green?
Golf should be for all ages and physical strength not just some. And the money those of a certain age and with physical limtations plough into the game is a nice little earner.
Atb

[George Pazin]

With all due respect, Thomas, why do you ask the game be changed for these golfers? Is someone out there running out and stopping them from teeing it up in an appropriate area for themselves?


I haven't played a ton of golf, lately, but I haven't seen anyone running out and stopping elderly or handicapped people from teeing it up wherever they feel appropriate. I recently had the good fortune of playing my very first round with my son, who is a beginner. No one stopped us from teeing it up wherever I felt appropriate.


My wife has played precisely ONE round of golf. It was at TOBACCO ROAD. (How'd like like to call that your only round?) She teed it up where I said, played until we were pressed. The gentlemen we were paired with often said to me, slow down, hit the ball, enjoy your round, as I was uncomfortable with the thought of slowing anyone down. No one ran out to stop us from a HIGHLY ENJOYABLE ROUND OF GOLF.


Please feel free to share contrary examples if you have them.


I spray my tee shots. Should every course be forced to widen their out of bounds limits to accommodate my weak suit?

[Edward Glidewell]

If you're just teeing it up from wherever you want, you're not really playing a round of golf. You're out hitting a ball on a course, but you're not playing by the rules. For a lot of people, that's just not fun. Why shouldn't those golfers have the chance to play a real round of golf? No one is changing the game for them; they're just giving them a teeing ground from which they can play a round.

Just because it's fun for you doesn't mean it's fun for everyone.

[George Pazin]

I can't even begin to answer that without offending the hell out of a lot people. But I will nevertheless try.


The logical end point of your argument is an infinite number of tees, tailored to each person's game. I'd argue that's beyond silly, but maybe that's just me. By all means, let ask Google to calculate our handicaps for each specific tee and each specific course. Google seems to have an answer for everything!


Why stop there? Perhaps a relatively healthy male such as myself should have a different handicap formula than someone who isn't either.


Oh wait, I have arthritis in my left knee - should I move up a tee? But I can overhead press a pretty solid amount of weight - maybe I should move back a tee? Or two? Or negative two, as I didn't break 100 at my favorite course in the world?


Insanity.


Just play golf. Everyone plays the game differently! That's one of the most beautiful aspects of the game!!


Architects should design interesting fields of play. And we should play them, different games and strategies be damned! And we should ignore the nonsense. Multiple tees are nonsense.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff B:
you wrote: "The notion that going back to fewer tees because that's how it was done in the old days resonates with a few here, but I see no clamor for it elsewhere."

Okay, granted. So, although I'm one for whom the 'old days' resonate, I'll stay instead with a modern/real world example and 'argument'. While no one here would recognize the names (and even less think them 'great'), I've played many many many courses built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Not a single one has more than three sets of tees - blue, white and red. 
Not a single time have I ever heard a single complaint from a single golfer that three sets weren't enough.
Not a single time have I ever been paired with anyone (in the hundreds I've been paired with) who played a 'mix/hybrid' set of tees during the round.

Me and those countless golfers, of all ages and skills sets, have approached a round of golf at a new (for us) course or our home course in exactly the same way:  every single time we've looked at the scorecard, decided on a set of tees, maybe thought 'oh this is gonna be a tough round, especially the 3rd and 7th and 15th hole' and then played. In the late fall or after a big rain, we might look at the card and decide to play whites instead of blues. But that's it -- and then we get on with it and play golf. We play the golf course, as it is and as we find it.   

Every time. Happily. With nary a complaint about 'distance' or lack of additional tees. If we make a par or the rare birdie, we celebrate. If we make a double we blame ourselves, and get frustrated by our inconsistency or bad choices.

Not one single time have I ever heard any golfer I've been paired with complain that it was the course's fault, and I can never even imagine anyone suggesting that the problem was not enough sets of tees.

That's my experience, in the modern-real world.

And because it *is* my experience, when I see a new course with 6 sets of tees, I tend to think it is catering to a spoiled and/or wealthy clientele and that architects (and developers) will do and justify just about anything to keep those wealthy and/or spoiled golfers happy, lest they should blame the golf course (or lack of tees) for their own ineptitude.       

I guess the rationale for that is the notion that golf should be all about 'fun'.  Well, in my world, me and countless other golfers are having a ton a fun -- with 3 sets of tees. And the 'not fun' part we lay on our own shoulders, not on the architect/course.

PS - today's architects seem to take pride in saying that they 'don't/shouldn't design for the 1%'. How about this? How about taking pride in not designing for the 2-5% either? Because if you didn't, you'd be the first to realize & admit that 6500 yards is more than enough for 95% of everyone who ever plays this game -- and then you could much more easily defend and justify 3 sets of tees:
6500 yards
5800 yards
5000 yards.

And golfers, at least like the ones I play with, would accommodate themselves to that -- sometimes taking less than driver off the tee, sometimes trying to make the best of hitting a 5 wood into a Par 4. Oh, but maybe that's the 'old days'....hmmm?

Peter
   

[jeffwarne]

I can't even begin to answer that without offending the hell out of a lot people. But I will nevertheless try.


The logical end point of your argument is an infinite number of tees, tailored to each person's game. I'd argue that's beyond silly, but maybe that's just me. By all means, let ask Google to calculate our handicaps for each specific tee and each specific course. Google seems to have an answer for everything!


Why stop there? Perhaps a relatively healthy male such as myself should have a different handicap formula than someone who isn't either.


Oh wait, I have arthritis in my left knee - should I move up a tee? But I can overhead press a pretty solid amount of weight - maybe I should move back a tee? Or two? Or negative two, as I didn't break 100 at my favorite course in the world?


Insanity.

George-you forgot-I hate to practice, I stay out late on weekends and I hate to work out.
What about a tee for me-factoring in I'm a senior as well of course....


Imagine now having a tournament from all those tees.....using handicaps to boot.


I will take a slightly softer stance on multiple tees than you by stating that terrain, maintained turf restrictions, wetlands and other factors may require more tees on certain/multiple holes.


a bit off topic, but I do find it interesting that as older courses have grown in back tee length, the "white" or middle tees have grown substantially shorter. Additionally on classic courses retrofitted with an extra way back set(blacks), the one up from the back (blues) are almost always shorter than the old back tees blues that we all played regularly.
 Usually this is because they don't put the new blues on the same pad as blacks, even if the old back tees(blues) were originally there-that way everybody can feel good.
ironically, as the ball and equipment get longer, the distances we play from get shorter-which I attribute directly to the concept of hitting greens in "regulation"-a nearly unheard of concept for a 20 handicapper 40 years ago,(now they expect a short iron in)

[JMEvensky]

a bit off topic, but I do find it interesting that as older courses have grown in back tee length, the "white" or middle tees have grown substantially shorter. Additionally on classic courses retrofitted with an extra way back set(blacks), the one up from the back (blues) are almost always shorter than the old back tees blues that we all played regularly.
 Usually this is because they don't put the new blues on the same pad as blacks, even if the old back tees(blues) were originally there-that way everybody can feel good.

ironically, as the ball and equipment get longer, the distances we play from get shorter-which I attribute directly to the concept of hitting greens in "regulation"-a nearly unheard of concept for a 20 handicapper 40 years ago,(now they expect a short iron in)

At my place, just the opposite--some black (back) tees were added and the blue (one forward) tees got moved back too. The net result is some guys now playing a longer golf course than they did 25 years ago--and they couldn't play it back then.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()