[JESII]

FWIW, how does a 400 tee offer me an option that the 380 tee doesn’t?

[Edward Glidewell]

How does having both a 400 and 380 yard tee hurt you? (I actually don't see the point in having two tees that are only 15 yards apart, but I also don't see how that's a hindrance to anyone else's game or the course itself)

As for the one tee idea -- I think that course would go under pretty quickly if it was a public facility because not many people would want to play there. If it was private and everyone was on board, then why not? Additionally, while it's great that you can have fun just dropping in the fairway and playing, a lot of people would NOT have fun doing that. Why tell them that's the only way they can play if they want to play this course? I don't get it.

[JESII]

Could somebody post one of those pictures of 5 or 6 island tees in a line?


Then, could somebody post a picture, at ground level, of a neat, tight tee box?


The contrast is pretty powerful.  Virtually zero tee boxes look natural. So, by definition, the fewer the better...although the game certainly begs for multiple.

[George Pazin]

How does having both a 400 and 380 yard tee hurt you? (I actually don't see the point in having two tees that are only 15 yards apart, but I also don't see how that's a hindrance to anyone else's game or the course itself)

As for the one tee idea -- I think that course would go under pretty quickly if it was a public facility because not many people would want to play there. If it was private and everyone was on board, then why not? Additionally, while it's great that you can have fun just dropping in the fairway and playing, a lot of people would NOT have fun doing that. Why tell them that's the only way they can play if they want to play this course? I don't get it.

It's 20 yards, but that's immaterial. If you can't see the silliness therein, you wouldn't see it if it were 15, 25 or 40.


You are likely new to the site, so you don't know me at all, but my one tee course would not be a public course looking to turn a profit. And you're correct, you don't get it. And there's nothing wrong with that. You don't get my concern, I don't get your willingness to accept trivial distance differences in pursuit of some silly desire for equality, when we all brings different skills to the game and experience the game in different ways. It's a big wide world out there, feel free to find your own way.


The funny thing is, you're the one who called what I do not playing golf, while I made no such assertion with your idea of the game. That's a bit odd, no?

[Kalen Braley]

I'm being entirely serious here.  I had no clue Tee boxes were so controversial in GCA.


Sure some are prettier than others, but we talking about tee boxes.  What are we talking about?  We talking about tee boxes. Not the fairways, or greens, or bunkering, or hole placements...we talking about tee boxes

[Edward Glidewell]

When I said you weren't playing golf, I didn't mean that as a personal attack and I apologize if you took it that way. I meant that in the most literal sense that you aren't playing by the rules of golf; i.e. you couldn't play that way in a competition. I couldn't care less what someone does to have fun on the golf course; it doesn't affect me in the slightest. We could be playing together and I'd be fine with you dropping and playing from anywhere you want. But that's also why I'm fine with multiple tees. If people want multiple tees because it makes the game more fun for them, why in the world would we deny them that fun?


I just don't want to exclude people from golf.

[George Pazin]

How does my approach exclude anyone? I'm offering more opportunities, just not asking an architect to formalize them.

[Tom_Doak]

When I said you weren't playing golf, I didn't mean that as a personal attack and I apologize if you took it that way. I meant that in the most literal sense that you aren't playing by the rules of golf; i.e. you couldn't play that way in a competition.


I just don't want to exclude people from golf.

You can't play multiple tees in a competition either.


We are not excluding anyone with this concept.

[Edward Glidewell]

How does my approach exclude anyone? I'm offering more opportunities, just not asking an architect to formalize them.

I'm talking about people that want to play from a defined teeing ground, whether because they want to post a score for handicap purposes or otherwise, but also either want more variety in club usage or simply can't play from whatever set exists because of distance issue. The formalization is part of the package for those people.


Tom:
Of course not, but they may be able to use a 6100 yard tee for the competition rather than a 6600 yard tee or a 5700 yard tee. And I don't think you're excluding anyone.


I'm honestly not sure how I became the spokesman for this, because I am personally fine with only three sets of tees (although I do care somewhat about the formalization; I personally don't have interest in tee hopping during a round). I just don't see any harm in having more (even if they are just markers somewhere in the fairway), and know there are people out there who don't want to have to choose between two sets of tees that they feel are too long or too short for them, respectively. And I don't think they are wrong for feeling that way -- if playing from that yardage is what makes golf enjoyable for them, why deny them?

I'll also repeat that I'm not advocating for 6 tees at every course in existence, or suggesting every new course should be built with them and every old course should be altered to add them. I just have not yet seen an argument that convinces me there's something inherently wrong about the practice, or that it is harmful to golf if some courses have them.

[Peter Pallotta]

A slightly different take/lens -- to say that tees/number of tees and the art-craft of gca are indeed related. This from the PGA (not the tour, the association), and its study on using multiple tees. I assume it reflects the conventional/accepted wisdom:

"The basis of good tee positioning is rooted in the concept of DESIGN FAIRNESS [emphasis, theirs]. The central idea of this philosophy is that golf course operators should provide sets of tees from which golfers with a wide spectrum of driving distances and swing speeds can reach greens in regulation and putt for pars or even birdies. Done correctly, the tees should be positioned PROPORTIONALLY [emphasis, mine] to each other, so that players who are playing the correct set of tee markers for their driving distance and swing speed may use similar clubs for their approach shots on each hole".

Now, as you know I'm not an architect, but goodness help me if I can understand HOW to try to focus on a great design while ALSO trying to meet/achieve that kind of proportionality -- which seems to me impossible in any event.

[A.G._Crockett]

FWIW, how does a 400 tee offer me an option that the 380 tee doesn’t?

Jim,

At my course with 5 tees, the average difference between the blues and the whites is 40 yards; at a course with only three sets of tees, the average would be more like 80 yds.   You're using a rather extreme example, in addition to deciding for others whether or not 20 yds. is significant.


But using your extreme example, I'll answer:  There are LOTS of holes on which I can carry a bunker IF I hit the ball perfectly, but only if; from 20 yds farther back, that bunker isn't even in play, and I'm poorer for the loss of the decision I have to make. 


I imagine that a time or two over your golf career, a lot less than 20 yds. has been the difference between sugar and s**t on one of your shots. 

[JESII]

AG, “extreme”?  Ha.


Is that hole you describe a worse hole when it’s into the wind?

[A.G._Crockett]

Suppose that Tom Doak designs a wonderful golf course that is 6800 yds from the tips.  (There are rumors to the effect that he has actually done this!)

Meanwhile, suppose that another GCA designs an absolute turkey of a track, also at 6800 yds.  (This, regrettably, has also been rumored to have happened.

Am I to believe that anyone seriously believes that Tom's otherwise brilliant design would be compromised if two additional sets of tees were places in between the tips and the very front?  Really?

Meanwhile, does anyone think that I believe that the turkey would somehow be saved if two tee boxes were removed so that it had the Perfect Number Of Tees In The Spirit Of The Game?  Because if you believe that I believe that, then I've failed worse that I could have imagined. 


The bunkers at my home course are awful.  They're awful from 7223, from 6781, from 5909, from 5541, and from 4902.   (And for the record, they are also awful from the two sets of hybrid tees on the scorecard.)  There is a way to save those bunkers, but it doesn't involve tees; it involves dynamite. 


Pinehurst hired Hanse to restore #4 not by figuring out which of the 5 sets of tees to take out; Pinehurst hired him largely to take out ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY BUNKERS put in 18 years ago by the same guy that built the unfortunate bunkers at my course just two years before.  Suppose instead that Hanse had left all 140 bunkers (that's almost ten per hole, if you're keeping score at home...) that Donald Ross did NOT build, and instead had simply taken out two sets of tees on each hole.  Would that have somehow been a comparable "restoration"?  Would golfers have benefitted from that change somehow?  That's an absurd example, of course, but you get the idea.


The number of tees and the quality of the design have no real relationship; none at all.  Great design isn't either helped or hurt by the number of tees, and bad design can't be saved by the number of tees, either.  It's just about options; binary.  You either like that, or you don't, but don't muddy the water by talking about other stuff like the handicap system, the spirit of the game, the way some group that you know of plays the game, or some made up fantasy game where golfers just throw the ball down and hit from wherever they feel like hitting, or whatever.  None of that actually matters to this question.  It's just options, nothing more.  If you don't like options, just say so.

[JESII]

AG,


If you told the architect there could be no more than three tee pads per hole but they could be any length they wanted, I guarantee you it’s a better course then telling them they need to have 7 sets of tees to accommodate everyone.


I say that because then the focus on all the in-between areas Amps up 1000%.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, “extreme”?  Ha.


Is that hole you describe a worse hole when it’s into the wind?

Jim, I don't really want to play this game with you; you and I both know the answer to this.  But I actually had a specific hole in mind when I wrote that; the 9th at UNC Finley. 


It's a dogleg right, with a very deep bunker on the inside of the dogleg.  There is a 26 yard difference between the blue tees and the white tees on that hole, which is unusually small, but it matters a lot to me.  From the blues, I simply cannot reach that bunker, so I can hit just about any tee shot I want to hit.  From the whites, IF I take an aggressive line and hit it great, I can actually carry the bunker and REALLY shorten the hole.  For ME, it's a great hole from the white tees, but a yawner from the blue.  (The wind can influence that; I know that you know that.)


So you and I both know that most tee box differences aren't 20 yards, but that when they are, it can in fact make a difference, sometimes more than others.  There's no point in arguing it.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


If you told the architect there could be no more than three tee pads per hole but they could be any length they wanted, I guarantee you it’s a better course then telling them they need to have 7 sets of tees to accommodate everyone.


I say that because then the focus on all the in-between areas Amps up 1000%.

Ah, yet another extreme.  Have you seen many courses with 7 sets of tees, Jim?  C'mon, man...

[JESII]

More than with 3 these days...you even mention 7 at your course including the hybrids...


Hmm...

[Peter Pallotta]

"Am I to believe that anyone seriously believes that Tom's otherwise brilliant design would be compromised if two additional sets of tees were places in between the tips and the very front?" 

AG - ah, I think this might be a crux of the discussion (at least 'philosophically', in a Dude-ish sense) -- because I think I could just as meaningfully propose the question this way:

"Does anyone believe that, being obliged/constrained by the client to create six sets of tees because of what that is meant to imply & entail [as per my earlier post], Tom's brilliant original-and-constraint-free design wouldn't be compromised"?   

Peter
PS - it's like talking about the original Port Huron statement instead of the compromised 2nd draft.

[Edward Glidewell]

"Am I to believe that anyone seriously believes that Tom's otherwise brilliant design would be compromised if two additional sets of tees were places in between the tips and the very front?" 

AG - ah, I think this might be a crux of the discussion (at least 'philosophically', in a Dude-ish sense) -- because I think I could just as meaningfully propose the question this way:

"Does anyone believe that, being obliged/constrained by the client to create six sets of tees because of what that is meant to imply & entail [as per my earlier post], Tom's brilliant original-and-constraint-free design wouldn't be compromised"?   

Peter
PS - it's like talking about the original Port Huron statement instead of the compromised 2nd draft.

It's not an either-or proposition, though. Tom could design a course exactly how he wanted, then drop in two extra tees somewhere in between. The statement you posted earlier isn't important in this discussion, at least to me -- I don't think it's necessary to try to place the tees in specific positions to ensure players have the same clubs or whatever as players from other tees.

[Peter Pallotta]

But that's the thing, Edward - it doesn't matter one bit that the PGA-approach/statement isn't important to you or me; what matters is that the statement clearly represents the current (and increasingly consensus-dominant) rationale for having many sets of tees, and the intention behind that choice, and the nature/spirit/ethos of the game that these rationales & intentions & choices are meant to reflect and promote. And you know that it's the dominant-consensus approach these days because both Jack Nicklaus at a real estate course and Bill Coore at a high-end and highly praised resort course are designing with 6 sets of tees firmly in mind. For me, I think that simply has to effect the nature/quality of the design and the kind of golf that is played there. 
P

[jeffwarne]

This from the PGA (not the tour, the association), and its study on using multiple tees. I assume it reflects the conventional/accepted wisdom:

"The basis of good tee positioning is rooted in the concept of DESIGN FAIRNESS [emphasis, theirs]. The central idea of this philosophy is that golf course operators should provide sets of tees from which golfers with a wide spectrum of driving distances and swing speeds can reach greens in regulation and putt for pars or even birdies. Done correctly, the tees should be positioned PROPORTIONALLY [emphasis, mine] to each other, so that players who are playing the correct set of tee markers for their driving distance and swing speed may use similar clubs for their approach shots on each hole".
.

I just threw up in my mouth. I just played a PGA event where the women's tees were placed on upslopes on dew paths in the rough to hit their magic 83% number, rather than simply having one hole be 92% or the length and another be 74%.
Proportionality, and evening everything out(tee placements, bunker placements) on EVERY hole is the lifeblood of formulaic golf, at best boring where terrain allows and at worst stupid where it doesn't.


Don't even get me started on why a 100 yard 8 iron is easier than a 165 yard 8 iron.

[A.G._Crockett]

More than with 3 these days...you even mention 7 at your course including the hybrids...


Hmm...

C'mon, Jim.

There are five sets of tees, ranging from the tips at 7223 (black, and only used for college tournaments) to the red tees at 4942.  There aren't seven sets of tees; there ARE seven CHOICES because there are two hybrid tees ON THE CARD.

You like less choices over than more choices.  I get it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Could somebody post one of those pictures of 5 or 6 island tees in a line?


Then, could somebody post a picture, at ground level, of a neat, tight tee box?


The contrast is pretty powerful.  Virtually zero tee boxes look natural. So, by definition, the fewer the better...although the game certainly begs for multiple.

Jim, even if somebody posts such pictures, it's meaningless, if only because you'd be asking us to go from the instance to the generalization.  Which is rarely helpful, I think we can agree.


You've played lots of good (maybe great?) courses with 5 sets of tees, and you've played dogs with only three sets of tees.  Heck, you've even played 5 tee courses that are aesthetically pleasing in every way; Pinehurst #2 might leap to mind.  Conversely, of course we could probably agree on some dogs that have only three sets.  But that, too, would be going from the instance to the generalization, and would be meaningless in the grander scheme of golf course architecture.


Whether the tees are done well is a design issue, for sure.  How many tees there are is NOT a design issue.  There's just no way around it; too many really good courses and GCA's have 5 tees and are still highly thought of.

It's binary.  You like more choices, or you don't.  Everything else is a separate issue.

[A.G._Crockett]

"Am I to believe that anyone seriously believes that Tom's otherwise brilliant design would be compromised if two additional sets of tees were places in between the tips and the very front?" 

AG - ah, I think this might be a crux of the discussion (at least 'philosophically', in a Dude-ish sense) -- because I think I could just as meaningfully propose the question this way:

"Does anyone believe that, being obliged/constrained by the client to create six sets of tees because of what that is meant to imply & entail [as per my earlier post], Tom's brilliant original-and-constraint-free design wouldn't be compromised"?   

Peter
PS - it's like talking about the original Port Huron statement instead of the compromised 2nd draft.

Well, El Duderino, Coore & Crenshaw were able to incorporate five sets of tees at Pinehurst #2, and for the most part it came out ok.  I bet if I wasn't on my third White Russian since I finished bowling I could even research this and find some great Doak courses that are not only REAL but have more than three sets of tees AND are highly regarded.  Just a guess...

(Actually, I think if you go back and read Tom's early posts on this thread, he objects to "pandering" (his word) to golfers thru more tees, rather than that his designs per se are compromised by more tee markers.)


So, yeah, I think Tom Doak is good enough to put in a couple of more tees and still build a GREAT golf course.  In fact, it's even possible that the extra tees might "really tie the course together".  You know, like a good rug...

[Matthew Rose]

I played Plum Creek a couple of days ago and one thing Dye did really well there was he placed the very back tees in discreet areas where they were not easily seen or accessed. On one hole the back tee sits about five feet in front of a road, surrounded and fronted by a ravine with lots of bushes and trees that nearly obscure it completely. It feels like the only way to access it is to walk down to the street and then approach it from there. It's also several feet lower in elevation than the middle tees on that hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()