Higher tees

[mike_beene]

I was referring to Curt Sampson.

[Tom_Doak]

I wish I could remember where I heard this and I think it was related to my home course in Dallas: Desmond Muirhead was visiting and made the guy he was with stand on tee benches to show how much better the course would be with the tees raised. I think it was either Ben Crenshaw or the writer who is pretty famous from around here who comes to our club sometimes ( he wrote a Hogan book) Sorry I am getting too forgetful. If either are reading this or someone can fill in the blanks please do.

I can't see Ben doing that, but I will try to remember to ask him, because there are not enough Desmond Muirhead stories.


I am more in the Tip Anderson school.  Does that make me a conservative???

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was referring to Curt Sampson.

Could have just edited your original post, and it would not have revealed the failing memory......


Back to higher tees....


In most cases, they are a good idea.  As DM said, they give a better view of the hole.  Not sure 6 feet changes how much the wind affects your 100 foot high shot, but still.  Golfers like the view, because only gca nerds really like blind holes, architects like it, because if we have created an artistic hole (usually at least one goal of gca) we prefer golfers can enjoy it.  And, you need to raise the front tee about a foot for drainage in most cases, (but not more, for ADA access) so if there are four in a row, the others often need to be 3, 5, and 7 foot higher, or so.  Hopefully, the ground is higher in the back so that doesn't all have to be fill.


I have the impression that most of the argument against them around here focuses on how standard they are thought to have become.  So, the question of "Do we have to do it every time?" is a good one.  That said, I doubt any courses other than dead flat ones really have 18 holes in a row with 1,3,5 and 7 foot tall tees.  I could be wrong, but as I mentioned, in my quest for variety (even it tees, since I still subscribe to the Packard "tees as artistic elements" school, I actively look for a few that work fine without artificial elevation, usually gently uphill holes where a lower forward tee isn't necessary to preserve vision from back tees.  I look for a few tees where they can be scattered from side to side rather than elongated, etc.


I think most architects do the same, but I really don't study each architect that closely, so I could be proven wrong........again.

[Terry Lavin]

I’ve liked the lower tee movement in recent restorations. Bob O’Link #2 is a great example. A short par 4 with a slight turn to the right off the tee, there’s a menacing pond in front of the green.


In Urbina’s masterful redo, he got rid of the elevated tee, accentuated its absence by the effortless short grass green-to-tee walk off which left the longtime members befuddled, because now you can only see the bottom of the fronting green side bunker.


“Where’s the fucking pond,” they’d often cry. It was exactly where it used to be, but they could no longer see it. Which got into that huge spot in between their ears. Much to their detriment.