[Forrest Richardson]

Change is almost always a good thing. One only needs to look nat the model for change in the world: The Life Cycle. All things need to change in order to foster new growth and new life. Old ideas need to change in order to foster new ideas. When this happens it is too easy to believe that all old ideas need to go away — wrong. But change is needed to accommodate new ideas.

As for the changes you wish to have us consult on — please provide some more information; what courses, how many holes, etc. I'll send a fee proposal to your attention!

[DMoriarty]

Change is almost always a good thing. One only needs to look nat the model for change in the world: The Life Cycle. All things need to change in order to foster new growth and new life. Old ideas need to change in order to foster new ideas. When this happens it is too easy to believe that all old ideas need to go away — wrong. But change is needed to accommodate new ideas.

Comparing changes in golf conventions to the Life Cycle is a little much, don't you think?
 We agree in your second sentence;  it is too easy to believe that all old ideas need go away.  That is what I am trying to get at here.  I have yet to hear why so many tees are necessary.  Saying something akin to 'change is inevitable and therefore good' just doesnt convince me.  

The best I have heard so far is Jeff Brauer's point regarding the increase in distance variation between now (125-150 yds) and sometime in the past (25-50 yds.)  While I see this as more an indictment of the rule making bodies, I do agree that it is (unfortunately) a factor of which golf course architects need to take into consideration.  

Yet Jeff also hit on the shortcoming of trying to fix this problem with different tees--  all of the strategic features (bunkers, slopes, etc) are still all out of whack.  

As for the changes you wish to have us consult on — please provide some more information; what courses, how many holes, etc. I'll send a fee proposal to your attention!

NOt sure what  you are referring to.  If it my request that you tell me where you would add tee boxes to the world's great holes, I was just following up on your suggestion that the great courses could be made better with the addition of different tee boxes.   I dont want any changes, but thought you did.  

As far as paying you for your opinion, I am sure it would be worth the money, but I must respectfully decline.  I chided Rich Goodale for last year for placing a monetary value on his contribution here, and would hate to make him feel inferior by placing a monetary value on yours.  
______________________________

Jeff, I am not sure I was clear with you in my first response.  I am not really worried about the aesthetics of multiple tees (althouth they are often ugly.)  In fact I am objecting to Fazio (as you described him) trading strategic interest for increased aesthetics, This is a trade off I am not willing to make.  
____________________________

AClayman, I have not been fortunate to play as many rounds at Pinon as you, butI must say that I am not that fond of the multitude of tee boxes at the par 3 you call the signature hole (I think the nines must have switched since I was last there.)  It just seems kind of hokey to me to have so many different tee shots.  I think the hole is good enough that they don't need changes all the time to make it interesting.  The Plus I always get the sense I am missing something by seeing all those tee boxes and not getting to play them. Also, it seems when courses have a ton of choices, the Supers too often leave out the most interesting/difficult options in order to keep play moving.  For example, in the 15+ rounds I have played at Pinon, I dont think I have ever seen the tee markers on the furthest boxes on the left cliff/bluff.  (I have played the hole from there clandestinely, and enjoy that tee box more than the others.)

[Forrest Richardson]

As I noted several posts ago:

"Multiple tee locations per hole have been fostered by several factors; frequency of play, diversity of players playing, perceived need for "perfect" turf conditions, and the variety/fun factor."

And, yes, a golf course is a living entity — it is NOT static or stale. So, comparison to living change is quite appropriate.

And, no, I do not propose to change any great holes by adding tees. But there are probably several examples where the addition of one or more tees would be a positive thing. (My reference to sending you a fee proposal for this consulting work was a joke.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

At a course that I'm fairly familiar with there are five (5) sets of tee markers, but usually, two or three, and sometimes five sets of tees.

The tee markers began as three for men,( white, red and blue) and two for women ( green and yellow)

The purpose of the five sets of tee markers was to provide an enjoyable test for every level of membership, but length alone doesn't accomplish that.

Angles of attack are a vital ingredient.

A par 3 with a 180 yard carry over water can intimidate a scratch handicap, but not nearly as much as a 60 yard carry for a 36 handicap.  

Enter, angles of attack.

By offsetting the tee so as to diminish the direct confrontation with the lake/hazard, an objective is achieved,
making the hole play in concert with the golfers relative ability.

It is not a flaw in the architecture or the architect.
It's a deliberate, well conceived idea that permits all levels of golfers to enjoy a challenge commensurate with their skill.

As their skills improve, they can bite off a bigger chunk of the golf course, architecturally speaking.

Differing distances and angles of attack accomplish this most worthwhile goal.  They should be applauded not panned because you don't get it   (note: double smiley)

[DMoriarty]

Well now that I have been insulted by Patrick  I know I must be wrong.  (note no smiley)

So let's move on and decide where the membership at CPC should put their additional tees on 17 in order to give everyone a chance at hitting the green in one!  After all a 60 yd carry to a green over a tiny corner of the Pacific must be just as exhilerating as a 150 yd layup straight over the hazard.  

Also, 17 at TOC just isnt fair for a 15 handicap, so lets put some tees about 130 yds up and while we are at it lets take that pesky ob dogleg out of play.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

where are the ladies tees on # 16 at CPC and # 17 at TOC ?

[Willie_Dow]

Senior golfers should get the tee box closest to the last green.  Younger guys should get the box further away.  Why argue?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I'm stunned you remember a thread I started months ago!  

You are right, in that Forrest suggests the multiple tees provide options for the superintendent, mostly for maintenance reasons, although the golden agers talked a lot about using the space to adjust hole length for seasonal winds and moisture.  

Frankly, I can't think of an instance outside a tournament where such a thing was considered in daily set up of the course.  When I worked on a golf course, I had the cup and tee job, and was reminded constantly that it was because I was generally worthless for other maintenance jobs.

Longer tees can make the hole play slightly differently for regular players on different days, though.  My hypothesis was that ultra wide tee sets might allow different players to attack the hole differently in the same foursome.  As I recall, the practical among us pretty well shot that idea down, didn't they?

I didn'tmean to suggest that multiple tees put the hazards out of whack.  I think the keep them in whack as best as possible.  In fact, I suppose thinking of staggered, or random hazards in conjunction with longer tees could produce some very interesting variations.

What I was trying to say in both posts, was that no design concept is perfect.  Multiple tees do address a few problems of providing more space for better maintenance, more reasonable distance for more players, etc.  They do take up space, look bad unless hidden, etc.  As I said, you give something to get something....

Like Forrest, there are a few unique holes, like CPC 16 and TOC 17 that wouldn't ever be the same with forward tees.  I don't know that citing the exception to a general rule - that I assume is about standard now, that multiple tees allow different players to play the same course more or less to their abilities, diminishes the value of using them in new, non historic design.

Back to your original question, is it so bad that different players play the course differently?  Since golf began, I think the option has been separate courses, like ladies and junior courses, or multiple tees.  We all know how popular men only courses are in the US right now!  We also know/presume that the slope rating allows handicaps to be fairly computed when playing different tees in the same match.  And, while going to each set of tees for different classes of player does slow play, it probably doesn't do so any more than having two high handicappers play an extra shot per hole from the back tees.

So, other than the "tradition" of having fewer and smaller tees, which Fazio corrects for by hiding other tees well from each other (and not at great angle differences as you imagined) what's not to like?

BTW, I actually was playing a bit of devil's advocate, figuring  mention the Faz in a positive light (which I generally think of him) would set off some GCA style fireworks, three weeks early to boot.  Fortunatly, you guys are getting more mature!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, all points well taken.  Near the end of your, you ask the question:  

"Is it so bad that different players play the course differently?"

No.  This is part of what I am trying to say.  I just dont think that golf holes always need a bunch of tees in order to play differently for different players.  As the great holes emphasize, holes can play differently but interestingly from the same tee.  

Why water down the game by trying to make the duffer's game a compressed version of the scratch's game? Why does hole X have to be a driver-8 iron for four different calibers of player from four different tees?   It is certainly much more difficult for the architect to make the hole interesting for every level of golfer from a more limited tee area.   But even though it is more difficult, it might be worthwhile goal, at least where the land allows.  So why don't more architects at least give it a shot occasionally?

Why is it a worthwhile goal?  Why should architects give it a shot?  
    1.  Because the concept of shorter holes for worse players is severly flawed.  Players are worse because they cant hit the ball straight, not because they cant hit the ball far.  They shank, they banana slice, they hook, they hit it fat, they top it, and sometimes they miss it all together.  It doesnt do them much good to scoot them up on the same narrow, trouble lined fairway, if they are hitting their first at a 45 % angle anyway.  If the entire hole is designed keeping different levels of golfers in mind, then there is little need for so many tee boxes.  Sure the duffer may not record as many pars, but that should be okay, because he is just not very good.
    2.  It would make the architecture more interesting for every level of player by creating additional options that could be utilized by different skill levels depending on their situation.  
    3.  It would put an end to all the big hitters gripes about how duffers always play from the wrong tee.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with every point David has made.  [In fact, I think I made some of the same points in The Anatomy of a Golf Course a long time ago.]

When I worked for Pete Dye he was always being criticized for "building courses only for the good player."  He remarked to me once, "How can I plan a golf course for the average 18 handicap?  After two shots he could be anywhere!"

I've always taken this to heart, and I've extrapolated it to mean that GENERALLY (because I'll make exceptions to any rule for the sake of variety), I believe golfers should always be able to hit their shot onto the green if they can physically reach it.

One of the great examples of this is Garden City.  Most holes have only one tee, with two sets of markers.  For some members it's the 450-yard holes which require two woods to get home; for others it's the 400-yarders; for some seniors it's the 350-yard holes.  But they pretty much always have a way to hit their 4-wood on the green, regardless of the length of the hole; and if they can judge it perfectly, there's nothing to stop them from getting it close.

Pinehurst #2 is another great example.  So are most links, because they had to be designed for tremendous wind variations.

If most golf holes were designed thus, we wouldn't need so damn many tees.

The Old Course at St. Andrews is a different version of the same principle.  Everyone could still play it from the original tees and have a blast; there are hazards in play for people that hit it 100 yards, 200 yards, and 300 yards.  They've only extended the course because some of the holes are justifiably famous for certain hazards which they want to keep in play.

Now, I have nothing against providing an extra tee from a different angle if it adds variety to a hole.  But trying to do this 18 times per round REDUCES variety, it doesn't add.

[Mike Nuzzo]

As the "Marketeers" have glommed on, it can't be right for the treehouse.  If only the golfing universe were one big treehouse.  What a boring concept, variety everywhere.

[Forrest Richardson]

A variety of tees per hole will always increase the available options for play of a golf hole. Math. I agree that it can become tedious to have a row or repeating pattern of multiple tees, but this does not affect the math.

I believe that each course / hole / constituents are best treated on an individual basis — for a great many busy courses the need comes down to player ability and being able to close off a particular tee (tee area) to allow rejuvenation. If, at the same time, the design options on a hole can be improved, well, that can be very positive.

A shortish par-4 may bring more people into a gambling mode if the regular markers are set on a more forward regular tee for a few days. While, when the regular markers are back one tee it may play as a much different hole — and thought process, club selection, attack, angle, and, ultimately, choice, will all be "new". The same is true for a longer hitter playing at the same markers. This group will need to readdress tyheir approach to playing the hole.

I believe David may have answered his own question in his opening remarks: "...you're not really playing the same course, are you?"

No. The white, black, yellow, frog-green, off-blue, etc. markers are precisely that: Different courses. Each set of markers has a different rating and slope. If a course has two sets of rated markers, viola! — they have two courses. If they have five, well, they have five courses.

Of course, if they happen to play their course backwards a few days a year, they have yet another course...multiplied, of course, by the number of sets of tees.

David — Do you also oppose large undulating greens with several "smaller green sites" contained within their overall perimeter? Would you push for golf holes to be configured so the variable of the cup remains like it very likely was ion the pre-1800s? I.E., one hole, set one place, which never moved?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Right on, Mike.  And Forrest. While this group wants courses of sub 7000 yard courses to be enough for good players, its the best fiction this summer, notwithstanding the new Harry Potter book coming out later this week!

I agree with Tom that most players should be able to hit the green.  But with most men averaging tee shots of 215 yards, and a two shot maximum of about 400 Yards, they need shorter holes.  Meanwhile, it takes about 535 yards to get the best club players to pull out driver and four metal, for shots of about 285 and 250. As Forrest says, do the math.

Good players complain often about short courses, and we find the most popular length for average players is about 6300-6500 yards.  "Average" women (not PC, I know) play comfortably at about 4800-5000 yards.  Why not accommodate all?

I agree with Tom that most greens should be accessible with longer clubs, but that's really a function of providing greens with open fronts, regardless of hole length.

What course wouldn't want its best features to come into play?  For everybody? Most courses find its easier to build and maintain extra tee than a conglomeration of hazards to make the course playable for all.  That is not saying that some of those holes on any course would not be of interest, because they would, nor that there isn't room for a few courses with all holes that way.

I agree that each hole should be studied, without mindless 25 yard (or whatever) tee splits.  In particular, short holes, like drop shot par 3's and short 4's can actually be tougher for good players if the approach becomes something less than a full shot.  

While I could come up with other examples,  multiple tees serve a purpose in the real world where the owner wants to accommodate a diverse set of players.  As Tom Doak (and I think I did earlier) this also relies on a bit of fiction, in that average golfers will spray shots everywhere.  

[DMoriarty]

A variety of tees per hole will always increase the available options for play of a golf hole. Math. I agree that it can become tedious to have a row or repeating pattern of multiple tees, but this does not affect the math.

Forrest,

I think you and I have different ideas of what "options" mean, as the term applies to golf holes.  My version of "options" is synonymous to "choices;" choices for the golfer, not for the green keeper.  Also, in my version, the options/choices present themselves (or mask themselves) on a single play of the golf hole.  

As I understand your version, you provide the green keeper with "options" or "choices."  This doesnt necessarily translate to additional choices for the golfer, though.  Golfers dont normally choose their tee markers on each individual hole, they just choose a color and are stuck with whatever the green keeper gives them.  Not much option there.  

I would characterize what you are describing as "variety," as in variety from day to day.  (I think you or someone said this above as well.)  But even if you meant variety, I disagree here as well.  On the courses I have played separate black, blue white, green, yellow, red, etc. tees, the tee markers are almost always on the exact same tee box.   Sure, once in a while a tee may be closed, but in everyday play, the person who plays white tees always plays from about the same place.  Now of course the white tee player could venture up or back, but if chooses back he will face the wrath of the "play the correct tees" commentators.  

Now I have seen some holes, such as the par 3 at Pinon described above by AClayman, where everyone's tees can substantially change from day to day.  Seems to me to be a monumental waste of resources, but at least you get a little day to day variety, at least every three days.   Also, I think this is the exception rather than the rule.  By the way, I dont recall Pinon having separate ratings for each of their 3 blue tees (Adam please correct me if I am wrong, it's been about 10 yrs.) but each tee presents an entirely different hole.  

Here is some Math for you.  If you have 6 sets of tee markers, and want each level of player to have at least one other "option" tee, that could be as many as 12 tee boxes per hole.  That is 216 tee boxes per 18 hole course.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against day to day variety.  But I think an exceptional design can create day to day variety without resorting creating 6-12 different courses within the course.  

Do I "oppose large undulating greens with several 'smaller green sites' contained within their overall perimeter?"   That depends upon the green, I guess.  I like greens with a personality and think that sometimes architects make schizophrenic greens by taking the green within a green concept too far.  But I am not opposed as a general rule.

I do think you ask a good question, though.  I guess I differentiate between tees boxes and pin placements by their degree of subtlety.   Pin placements on interesting greens are a very subtle way to tweak the avenues of play;  the golfer may choose to consider this subtle change or ignore it.  Different tee boxes are pretty blatant in comparison, and very hard to ignore.  

Do I want to reverse history to pre-1800?  Of course not.  My argument has very little to do with history and more to do with my understanding of what constitutes a quality golf hole.  I am still trying to hone my understanding which is why I started the thread.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think it that hard to make golf enjoyable for a variety of qualities of golfers from the same tee.  Tom hit on half of it above when he suggested you have to give the higher handicap player a way to hit it on the green, once they can reach it.  I think the other half is the same concept at the other end of the hole:  Give the higher handicap player a route to hit fairway off the tee.  

As the "Marketeers" have glommed on, it can't be right for the treehouse.  If only the golfing universe were one big treehouse.  What a boring concept, variety everywhere.

Right on, Mike.  And Forrest. While this group wants courses of sub 7000 yard courses to be enough for good players, its the best fiction this summer, notwithstanding the new Harry Potter book coming out later this week!

I am not exactly sure what you guys are getting at here, but I am sure you would not be so presumptuous as to discount opposing views based on anything other than flaws in the reasoning and/or assumptions

[Lynn_Shackelford]

David, be careful.  You are treading into a conservative philosophical area.  Based on your belief in fewer tees, to be consistent you must believe in a flat tax, not graduated, you must believe that some people must earn more money based on more production, that some doctors through excellence earn and charge more to patients than other doctors.  You must also believe.... well you get the picture.
1.  I don't believe everyone should have a chance to reach par 4's in two.  A good design has some 4's that all golfers can reach and some decent and short hitters cannot.  Tom Paul says he used to drive his longer hitting match play opponents nuts getting on in 3 on the long par 4's and halving the hole.  
2.  A good design has cross bunkers which challenge the long player is carry and the short player to carry in two.  What is wrong with that?  There is satisfaction involved in both.
3.  A good design has everyone walking from the green in the same direction and playing together from the same area.  Anything else slows play and disrupts the flow of the round.
In general we are all different, different abilities, different ages, and all the tees in the world will not equalize players.  We already have too many attempts in the world to equalize things.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I am not exactly sure what you guys are getting at here, but I am sure you would not be so presumptuous as to discount opposing views based on anything other than flaws in the reasoning and/or assumptions

David
I'm on your side ... and was trying to prove your case through faulty boolean logic, and attempted humor?....  If someone knows nothing about golf architecture (the marketeer), and they disagreed with you, then you must be right.  Huh?  

[DMoriarty]

David
I'm on your side ... and was trying to prove your case through faulty boolean logic, and attempted humor?....  If someone knows nothing about golf architecture (the marketeer), and they disagreed with you, then you must be right.  Huh?  

Gotcha Mike.  Thanks for the explanation.  I am a little slow on the uptake.

[Tom_Doak]

Just to clarify:  I did not mean that there should be tees so that every player could reach every par-4 hole in two.  I think it's perfectly okay to have long par-4 holes where the shorter hitter needs to suck it up and play a three-shot route, as Lynn describes.  (If you've seen much of my work, this would be obvious.)

What I meant was that once a player gets within HIS OWN RANGE of a green (whether that is 150 yards or 275), there ought to nearly always be a way for him to hit and hold the green, or at least miss the green in a place where he has a chance to get up and down.  One of the most frustrating feelings in golf is to stand over the ball knowing that you can reach a green, but have no chance of holding it.

If holes are laid out like that, then it's not unfair to shorter hitters to have fewer multiple tees.  Their lack of length will cost them, but it won't make the course unplayable.

[Forrest Richardson]

Providing more than one, two or three tees on a golf hole is not mutually exclusive to creating either a bad (boring) hole or a good (interesting and option-filled, hole).

Providing more than one, two or three tees on a golf hole does not constitute a cop-out architecturally, although I suppose this is possible. (I have seen holes with multiple tees that were awful and repetitive — but I doubt the designers felt the addition of multiple tees was the solution to end all solutions.)

Providing more tees is not always done to equalize, although this is a benefit that some can enjoy. Lynn makes the point about it potentially slowing play. My direct experience is that it does not. At a project we designed there are 4 tees per hole (varies, as some holes have a large tee with two levels, but 4 areas) and the far forward tees are referred to as "Family" tees. I have seen kids play these tees while their father plays the far back tees and it works very well. The alterernative to pit both dad and kids at the whites, for example, would have a far greater effect to slow play as the kids could not carry some  tee shots and would be taking six additional FULL shots to reach the green on par-5s. The same comparison could be made between a highly skilled golfer and a retired player with physical limitations.

I do agree with Lynnn that we have too much equilization — but, then again, I do not think multiple tees per hole is 100% about equilization. But it can be a plus in many circumstances.

The tee and the hole are the "set points" in golf play:

Dear Golfer, "You will play from here today and nowhere else...you will hit your ball however you prefer — and however many times you prefer — but, in the end, you will play it to here, this little hole, and you will make it fall in. These are the basic rules. Whatever else you do and whatever route you decide to take is up to you...Now, have at it."

The variables of setting tees — or deciding which set to play on a given day — is a joint effort between management and golfer. The comment that a certain course does not use multiple tees is a management/policy issue, which is changeable. Architectural issues are changed much less easily.

[Forrest Richardson]

[ing]http://www.golfgroupltd.com/artwork/lavamtn_13[img]

This hole is one we designed which is 380-yards, par-4 OR par-5. The golfer chooses based on honor at the tee and this will also involve choosing the tees to be played. I believe the hole will be fun, exciting and unique, as well as being strategically appealing regardless of the par played.

(Please note the "multiple" tees!)

[Forrest Richardson]

Let's try this again......

[img]http://www.golfgroupltd.com/artwork/lavamtn_13[img]

This hole is one we designed which is 380-yards, par-4 OR par-5. The golfer chooses based on honor at the tee and this will also involve choosing the tees to be played. I believe the hole will be fun, exciting and unique, as well as being strategically appealing regardless of the par played.
(Please note the "multiple" tees!)

[Forrest Richardson]

Sorry, I can't get the image to post. Here is where you can seek it:

http://www.golfgroupltd.com/artwork/lavamtn_13

[A_Clay_Man]

David- Each site should be specific enough to determine what the proper number of tee boxes should be. In the case of the Par 3 at Pinon, that site is so unique that the fact that it has nine boxes is not a negative thing. The left side you mention is rarely blocked during the year. Last year it was there for a couple of weeks max. But, all the walkers play that box because it's efficient. There are only two boxes on that side of the canyon, so that means seven on the other. Three are up on top of the mesa, one for the gold and two for the blues. There is another blue tee box down below, next to the mesa and ahead of that and to the right there are two white tee box areas and one for the forward and senior tees. Really not that unusual consider the uniqueness of the hole.

On the second there are several teeing grounds but once again the topography dictates the viability for the need or desire for more than say the two teeing ground Ross used. Ron Pritchard informed us that the two teeing ground formula was more for the morning and afternoon rounds rather than seperating by ability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

GCGC now has three sets of markers on every tee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()