[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul brought up several interesting questions in my other post but there's just one I want to address right now:

6. Should tee placement be used more to accomodate various levels of golfers than the green and green-end design?

In short, NO!!!!!

I've brought up my disdain for forward tees several times here, most recently about a month ago.  My post yesterday about shallow greens goes hand in hand with that philosophy; the two are tied together, as Tom correctly brings up.  But I am 100% convinced the opposite choices aren't a good alternative [any more than two wrongs make a right!].

When I worked for Pete Dye, Pete was always worrying about Greg Norman hitting driver-seven iron on 470 yard par 4's.  [Now of course it's driver-wedge.]  Pete wanted to make the pros hit long irons to greens; he used to say if they had to hit 4-irons to all the greens then we'd see whether they were really better than Ben Hogan.

At the same time, Pete used to worry that his courses were too hard for average players if they didn't move up to the third set of tees.

At some point I put two and two together and told him I knew why players didn't want to move up ... because it was just as boring for us to hit driver-wedge to every hole as it is for the pros!  But it was impossible to play Pete's courses from too far back because all the greens were designed for 7-irons and wedges.

I always want to leave players a CHANCE to get on the green even if they've got a 4-wood in their hands [and it doesn't matter to me whether they hit their 4-wood 100 yards or 280], if they've placed their ball in the right part of the fairway.  Just a chance ... it could be a really narrow opening between bunkers or to one corner of the green, or even a hillside to bounce the ball off.  But I think the game is more interesting when you're never out of a hole if you can pull off a perfect shot.

Some good players insist I'm wrong ... their definition of a perfect shot is a long carry drive, or a spinning approach shot that they can hit [by virtue of their superior technique] but others can't.  They hate to lose even one hole to someone who can't strike the ball so purely.

Maybe if they played more golf with their grandparents or their wife or kids they'd understand my point.

[JakaB]

Tom Doakzio,

I'm glad to see that my two favorite Toms (architecturally speaking) agree on this...Fazio just likes to take it one step further and provide multiple tees and interesting greensites where par can be had by running up but birdie requires spin..on a given set up that is...Victioria National is known to be a difficult test..or as somebody you respect said when touring the course.."hard on hard"...but I of stone hands and chunk wedge have putted onto the green from at least 70 yds out on 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,12,13,14,17, and 18 while having the choice to begin on appoximately ninety tees between the above.   I have putted from far on the par threes too..but a putt after a drop is best left forgotten.   Why can't everybody have it all...

[Bruce Katona]

One of the best ways to evaluate a golf course for possible acquisition is for me to play the course with my wife.  She is an average golfer, who on a better day playing from the forward tees, can break 100.  If she has fun and enjoys the course, I know we can run enough rounds through the place to make the economics of annual operation work.  If she can't play the course or thinks it's too hard, the average golfer playing from the regular men's tees will struggle, thus slowing play and reducing the number of daily rounds played at the facility.

Speed and fairness of play will come in several forms:
1. Length of carry off the tee to the fairway ( not nmopre than 75-80 yards from the forward tees with a driver or 150 yards from the regular men's tees).
2. Carry of approach shots over hazards to the green ( or can she run a shot up to a portion of the green ( not more than 75 yards over water for the shorter hitters).
3. Speed of putting surface ( too fast will encourage 4 putt greens).
4. Length of rough ( too thick and an average player will not be able to advance it out of the rough with a wedge). remember the average player spends more time in the rough than the lower handicap player.
5. Chipping areas around green complexes rather than bunkers.  For the better player, it is tougher to play out of chipping areas to get the ball close than to hit a bunker shot.  For the average player, most will struggle to get the ball out of the bunker on the first try, thus slowing play.

Just the thoughts of a guy who does this for a living.

[James Edwards]

I enjoyed this comment

"I always want to leave players a CHANCE to get on the green even if they've got a 4-wood in their hands [and it doesn't matter to me whether they hit their 4-wood 100 yards or 280], if they've placed their ball in the right part of the fairway.  Just a chance ... it could be a really narrow opening between bunkers or to one corner of the green, or even a hillside to bounce the ball off.  But I think the game is more interesting when you're never out of a hole if you can pull off a perfect shot"

This is why I believe that shallow greens are still valid features in suitable golf course design.  As long as they can accommodate, as you so rightly pointed out "a golf shot" - doesn't matter where or what part of the green?  just as there is a chance to sneak it on....

My father isn't a good player, but he knows his limits..  If he sees that opening on the green and he can't go for the flag, he is delighted with hitting it where he intended to.

[Tom_Doak]

Jaka:

The only person who has looked at any one of my courses and compared me with Tom Fazio was Ron Whitten re: The Rawls Course, and I think he was kidding.

The person who taught me to hate the forced carry was actually, believe it or not, Pete Dye.  He would do a diagonal forced carry from the tee, but almost never a carry from fairway to green.  I think the 18th hole at The Golf Club was the hole that convinced him he shouldn't build forced carries from the fairway.

[James Edwards]

Tom, Why did he believe in that (fairway to green)?  

[JakaB]

The bones of great architecture do not always reveal the father....or in your case...do you still buy into the forced carry template provided by Alice Dye on par threes...

[TEPaul]

TomD;

"6. Should tee placement be used more to accomodate various levels of golfers than the green and green-end design?"

That question of mine was not asked with my own opinion in mind necessarily only the opinions of various architects and what they've done at any time or in any era or with any particular principle or philosophy in golf and architecture.

And also, I really didn't mean to ask the question in a general sense regarding most all holes on a golf course. I primarily meant to ask the question in the sense of the old "shot testing" principle that one reads about so often from some of the "Golden Age" architects, particularly the golden age Philadelphians such as Crump, Wilson, Tillinghast, Thomas and Flynn.

There's no question that all of those architects and others (Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, Ross, Mackenzie etc) also designed such holes and my point is those green approaches involved a "forced carry" shot test of every level of golfer!

But certainly one needs to look very carefully at the kinds and types of holes they designed those "forced carry" shot tests. In almost every case it was on short holes in a par context.

So my only point here is the question---are holes like those valid in design today recognizing that they are a no option  affair for all on the approach shot at hand (other than to choose to lay up and make up the lost shot on the next one or just pay the penalty for failing to execute)? The latter choices in parentheses appears to be the only choices those architects I mentioned were willing to offer any level of golfer!  

Personally, I believe these types of holes are valid designs for all because there happen to be so many of them that are wonderful holes and have gloriously past the test of time by all---or almost.

I say "almost" because I think of a wonderful little hole such as GMGC's #8 which is a mere 329 yards from the tips. And for the little old lady the hole is only 258 yards. But the fact is for the little old lady and man (old man's tees are 319 yds) the approach shot to a very shallow green with bunkers completely surrounding the hole they often don't have a chance of stopping their approach shots. This is not exactly becasuse they can't hit a drive and a lofted iron to a straight 258 or 319 yard par 4, it has much more to do with the angle of the hole and other features on the hole's mid-body.

So my point is with holes such as this type ONLY I think the solution to accomodate those short hitting little old ladies and men better is to offer them even shorter tees rather than doing away with such an interesting type of hole that has a shallow green and is completely surrounded by hazards.

Almost all the old architects mentioned did include in their philosophy that only one or two of these types of holes at most should be built on any course but what they were obviously referring to was "forced carry" approach only and not necessarily "forced carry" approch only combined with a shallow green!!

To be honest I can't think of many completely forced carry approach holes with very shallow greens. It seems to me from what I know of, though. that Perry Maxwell may have been the designer who used them most. And I sure am a fan of Perry Maxwell but that doesn't solve the problems the little of ladies and men have day in and day out on GMGC's #8--a hole that almost every one else admires greatly!

I'd like to solve that constant problem for those little old ladies and men on that hole so rather than change the green and green-end to offer them a better opening (that would be a goddamned tragedy!) I'd rather just offer them a more forward tee so they could more often get a lofted club in their hands and have a better chance with their approaches like the better golfers do!

The suggestions of some of the other contributors on the other thread that neither they, I, you nor any architect or anyone else should consider those little old ladies and men in design and what they have to go through day in and day out is frankly patently ridiculous to me. I guess those contributors don't have to consider them if they don't have to deal with them day in and day out but I do!

[Lou_Duran]

As a general rule for most things including golf, I believe a one-size-fits-all approach or trying to be all things to all people just doesn't work.  Attempts to do so generally result in a fairly bland product that falls well short of its objective for all but the least discriminating.

In many if not most cases, isn't it better to design a course with the relevant range of golfers in mind, say between a maximum of two standard deviations from the mean?  Forget the pros and the "liitle old lady" who can't get the ball airborne (the former can build their own stadium courses; the latter has plenty of places to enjoy fresh air and golf- driving ranges, par-3 and executive courses, etc.).

Mr. Doak is right about a course being equally boring for the shorter hitter playing from the third set of tees and hitting driver/wedges as it is for the long knocker doing the same from the backs.  This is specially true if the greens are then open in the front as well.

A solution that I think works fairly well is to have multiple tees that do not shorten the course by more than 150 - 200 yards from each set (at least for the first three), and lessens the angle of difficulty somewhat to the driving areas and greens from the backs to the fronts.

Personally, I prefer holes and greens which allow for a great recovery after an indifferent tee shot.  So, in most cases, an opening at the green and/or a backboard is good.  But I also think that most courses should have a couple of holes with well-guarded greens (like #15 at CPC), and an occasional challenging forced carry (of diminishing lengths from back tees to front).
 
I am also fan of the occasional shallow green which requires the proper placement of the prior shot, and a well struck approach.  A course which Mr. Doak doesn't think highly off, OSU-Scarlet, has two par 5s, #s 4 (more diagonal) and 12 which, when firm, require such shots.  The holes are a lot of fun, though I suspect that the high handicappers may think otherwise.

I have to wonder if making the greens and surrounds really wild (such as the Rawls Course, Black Mesa, and Dallas National) not make the game disproportionately more difficult, and possibly more frustrating for the higher handicapper.  Multiple tees can provide some relief to differences in distance, but the greens are the same for everybody.  Many less proficient golfers I've observed have as many if not more issues with the short game as they do with the rest.
   

[A_Clay_Man]

The problem for me may be semantical, but I find that many who golf are not golfers. They have become customers. I agree with Doaks justification of recoverability. I think it's paramount for enjoyment at my or any level.

Lou- Short game is golf. The bomber is and will always count the same as a 6" putt. If the newer or average golfer can't get behind the idea that they need to work on their short game, they will never improve and should have less consideration than the pro and old lady you want to throw out of the mix.

[Carlyle Rood]

Tom:

I agree with the preponderance of your comments regarding multiple tees with regard to skilled and less-skilled players.  I'm noticing another type of golfer evolving at my home club: the highly-skilled player in advancing age.

These are single-digit handicappers who, despite the remarkable advances in technology, are rapidly losing distance and TRAJECTORY as they get older.  Though their proficiency around the greens is still sound, I'm watching their handicaps climb into the double-digits simply because each round they can't reach a number of par 4s in two shots.  (And I am referring to two PERFECTLY executed shots.)

A few of them have moved up to the forward tees recently, and their enjoyment of the game has escalated proportionally.  They're excited to be reacquainted with most of the shot values they appreciated when playing from the other tees during their youth.

But MOSTLY, I think they're excited because they're competitive again.  The comment I hear most often is "It's nice to be 'in' every hole."

These guys make a lot of excellent strokes each round.  They have graceful, efficient swings.  It's nice to see them afforded--through a forward tee--an opportunity to execute a shot that they've executed from the other tees in previous years.

I've always bristled when I've overheard someone suggest that forward tees allow high-handicappers to "experience the same golf course as the pros."  Unskilled golfers will never experience the same golf course as professionals until they acquire SKILL.  However, forward tees will allow skilled players in advancing years to experience a similar golf course to the one they enjoyed twenty years earlier.  And given the time and effort they've invested in refining those skills over their lifetimes, I think they should be afforded that opportunity.

[Tom_Doak]

Carlyle:

I used to play more golf by myself and keep score.  Since I switched to match play, one of the most enjoyable aspects is that I don't feel obliged to play any particular set of tees, because I don't have to deal with people questioning my score and then "where I played from."

Lou:

I do agree that too much emphasis on the short game can make the game slower, and that the average 25-handicap is just as bad with a wedge or a putter as with the driver.  But I think they have more chance of improving at the former skills than at the latter.

Everyone:

What I find amusing here is that when I state my principles blatantly a lot of people question them, but I've been building these principles into my courses for years and not too many people find them boring or uninteresting in practice.  Occasionally someone says they think my courses aren't testing enough for the good player, and I usually dismiss it to my philosophy as outlined here.

[Carlyle Rood]

Carlyle:

I used to play more golf by myself and keep score.  Since I switched to match play, one of the most enjoyable aspects is that I don't feel obliged to play any particular set of tees, because I don't have to deal with people questioning my score and then "where I played from."

That's definitely a positive about match play.  There also isn't a preoccupation with "par."

What I find amusing here is that when I state my principles blatantly a lot of people question them...

Principally speaking, I agree with your principles...in principle...  I think there may be enough demand for alternate tees on longer holes to justify an exception?

[Lou_Duran]

Tom,

I've only played two of your courses, PD and TTU, and my impressions probably lack a good basis.  I certainly don't believe that either of these are not challenging enough for the good players under normal conditions.

I do think that both are very hard for the average golfer when the wind gets much over 10 mph, which is nearly always.  Without the multiple tees, I am not sure that they could be playable by the typical resort and public golf customer.  With the difficulty of those greens, I do see how disregarding par or the score might make the game more fun.  

Also, I am not sure that the short game is easier to learn.  I've played a few scrambles and have yet had a D player who could chip and putt worth a lick.   On the other hand, some could hit the ball nearly as good as the B player, and better than the C.  Maybe it is due to a lack of practice in this area as opposed to driving the ball.    

[Steve Curry]

Tom,
"Some good players insist I'm wrong ...  They hate to lose even one hole to someone who can't strike the ball so purely"

I have some members who can't stand to be tied or even win by only one shot...

Regards,
Steve

[Matthew Delahunty]

Tom,

I suspect your talk of "match play" has given me the answer to this but I'll ask it anyway. Much of the discussion has been about multiple tees. Something that hasn't been talked about a great deal is building the green to cope with different standards of players (other than accessibility). Greens can be built to accomodate different standards of player depending on the pin positions. Obviously, most good courses have easy and tough pin positions. But to go one step further, is it (a) possible and/or (b) difficult, and (c) desirable to build segmented greens or "greens within greens" to accomodate the better player and the weaker player? My point is, could/should you build a green for which all pins positions can be used for all players, or should you have green with some pins for all players and another set for the better player?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Read the thread, which by the way is the kind of debate I love here, as opposed to "Why Fazio sucks", and can't agree with the premise of defending par only at the green.

There is really no reason that you can't do both.  How does an extra tee somewhere affect any player who chooses not to use it?  Granted, there are some visual distractions for back tee players.  However, architects like Fazio do a great job of staggering tees so you don't see the others, eliminating this problem.  Yes, it takes extra land, and may accept the resulting use of carts because of increased green to tee distance, but I think the cart useage issue stems from other factors than the architecture, so why not use what that gives you.

In short, you give up something trying to use tees to make the course more playable for all, and giving choice to aging males to play a shorter course, but not so much that the "rights" of one level of players outweight the "rights" of others.

[A_Clay_Man]

Some good players insist I'm wrong ... their definition of a perfect shot is a long carry drive, or a spinning approach shot that they can hit [by virtue of their superior technique] but others can't.  They hate to lose even one hole to someone who can't strike the ball so purely.

Maybe if they played more golf with their grandparents or their wife or kids they'd understand my point.

TomD- Is the tell tale sign of a poor critic, one which includes a subjective definition as it relates to their game?

You clearly are not dictating to anybody "how", just how many.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()