[John Challenger]

Yesterday I played a game of Nassau with my friends at the Lido. We used the tee system to make the game more interesting. This may be old news to some, but for me, it is going to change the way I play golf with my friends.

We had played the day before from the whites at approximately 6500 yards. Sam is a 7 index who drove the ball 260 and I knew he wanted to play a longer course. Ryan, who had not played the day before, hit his drives about the same distance as Sam. Chuck is a 14 index who drives the ball about 200 in the air. Over the first two days on the white tees, I had watched some of his shots just miss flying over a bunker.

I have come to realize that on a well designed course, every tee arrangement presents different and interesting shot decisions.

I want to play all the arrangements, including from the stones and the shorts. Why wouldn't I want to play from the shorts? Who wouldn't want to play an 18-hole Par 3 course with some driveable Par 4s? Today, we know how fun great Par 3 courses are. Maybe for the second 18 on a 36 hole day? Also, of course, I will love playing from the stones. For a golf geek, what could possibly be more fun than hitting more long irons and hybrids and getting to plot my way around the golf course?

I was worried that by playing from different spots on the tees, it might hurt the cohesion of the group. It didn't. We walked together the entire way in various combinations of two, three and four.

My two longer friends played the blue-white tees. Chuck and I played the green-whites.

Clark, the Lido's brilliant, resident clubmaker (including hickories), recommended we add one stroke to the index of the blue-white players and take one stroke off the handicap of the green-whiters. Interesting to give the longer players an extra stroke. It worked perfectly. Over two nines and an 18 score, and three presses, the match came out all square, 3 to 3, at the end of the (glorious) day.

The thrill of flying bunkers and hitting stunning recovery shots was had by all, and often.

We lost no balls and there were no 3-5 minute searches.

The Channel hole, #4, is quite interesting. From the green tees, I had the opportunity to drive directly towards the green to the fairway on the right, which requires too long of a carry for me from the blue tees. From the blue tees, I hit to the left, then hit a second shot over the water, then a third to the green. From the right fairway, I could hit my second shot to the green, and also try to hit the left side of the green where it undulates up with a backboard for safety. On the right side of the green, there is no backboard, which makes a shot that is too long, roll off.

The greens were massive and undulating which made everyone happy about hitting more greens. The greens are not so fast and stimped up that it would make all the green undulations unfair. At the right speed, the greens don't need to be flattened. We had many more interesting putts to read and execute properly.

I realized that I don't get to hit 20 to 60 foot putts on a regular basis. It takes art and skill to master lag putting and I don't get enough chance to work at it or put it into practice. I feel like I have found a new type of shot to master.

We didn't throw balls to determine partners until after the first hole was over so that we could have one hole of amity before the competition became fierce!

[Tom_Doak]

John:


It's a nice topic, but your post didn't say what I thought it was going to say!


Placing the tees at The Lido was a difficult exercise because many modern players [including, apparently, you] don't really like the way C.B. Macdonald intended golf to be played. 


Macdonald deliberately put in several carries that a shorter hitter like yourself couldn't make, and then provided alternate routes that you could play, which combined with getting a stroke on those holes, ought to even out the competition with your friends.  Instead, you want to be able to make the carries and take the short-cut on the Channel hole!  I don't blame you, exactly, but Macdonald will probably be haunting you from his grave now.


The original course had pretty much one tee per hole, 40-50 yards long, with three yardages posted from the back, middle, and front of the tee.  There were only a couple of holes that had an alternate tee.  I thought for sure that whatever else we added, the middle or back tees on the card would be exactly the same as the card for the course in the 1920's -- but no, between the client and my associates, they thought some holes needed to be played differently for today's "white tee" player.  I had to insist on putting stakes or plaques out or doing a separate scorecard so that people could play the historic setup, but I don't know how many are doing so.


If there is any course which you can play from the "wrong" tee markers and still find it interesting, I think The Lido is the one, because of all of the alternate routes of play it provides.  I find it somewhat sad that people still don't want to do that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always wondered if golfers back then really played the most conservative routes on holes like Mac's prize winner, etc.  It has never been proven that those theories really worked, and as long as I have been golfing, most golfers say things like, "I didn't come here to lay up!" 


With more data available, multiple tees, in theory, DO allow golfers to play the strategy/options the way it was intended, without always playing safe.  I have never understood why playing an original design, which gave no real thought to fun for average players, via the use of multiple tees makes anyone sad.  Or why anyone would espouse going back to 1, 2, or 3 tees because that is the way they did it in the old days?  We know more now about golf statistics and it seems a shame to ignore that.


You design for players, not for history, if there happens to be a disconnect.


As always, just MHO.

[Niall C]

Jeff


I tend to think that back in the day higher handicappers and what you'd term weaker players did chance their arm as much us modern hackers do. That's what makes a lot of us higher handicappers. We just don't know when to lay up ! However perhaps back then "not laying up" meant taking on as much risk as you dare ie there were options. When you consider MacKenzies Lido hole, I'm not sure that any of the potential routes to the hole were entirely risk free but they did allow the player to choose his level of risk.


Also crucially, there was no expectation that the hole should play the same for each class of player. Or as you would have it "how the architect intended". For instance, as Tom refers to the hole at the new Lido, MacDonald didn't intend the bunker to be carried by every class of player.


Niall


edited so as to read the way the writer intended !

[Thomas Dai]

Variables tees. Splendid. Options, yippee!
Of course ‘back then’ it was a damn sight harder for most players, elite players likely excepted, to even hit the ball decently which makes things somewhat more of a challenge irrespective of which tee marker or fairway line is chosen. Wooden heads and mostly hickory shafts, leather grips, thin soled irons, less lofted wedges and a ball that would cut and wasn’t necessarily round even when manufactured. Bit different now what with 460cc frying pan drivers, ‘custom fitted’ irons, multiple-grind wedges and high spec ‘solid’ golf balls.
The maintenance regime interests me too. Speed of greens, height of cut, cutting implements, mowing frequency, rakes etc. Inputs and irrigation too.
Atb

[Niall C]

Jeff


If you go back and have a look at the writings/plans of the golden age guys like MacKenzie, Colt, Simpson etc. their plans of golf holes generally show different routes to the hole starting from the same tee. There was no prescriptive way to play a hole or "as the architect intended".


Not sure when there being a proper way to play the hole became the thing.


Niall

[Tommy Williamsen]

The thing about Lido is that almost everyone has to make a decision on the tee. At 76 I can only fly the ball about 210 yards on a good drive. The guys I played with are big and 50 years old. They can fly it 250. I played the green tees, and they played the whites. A good illustration of how the course plays is on the par five 7th hole: The Hog Back. Off the tee are four very deep bunkers that run diagonally from left to right. One of the players aimed over the third bunker from the left. Two over the second bunker from the left. My caddie looked at me and said, "You're going to hate this, but hit it to the left of all the bunkers." I did and made an easy par. I never hit it into a fairway bunker. You just have to be smart and play the correct tees. The only hole I played the white tees was on punch bowl. I just wanted to make the 190-yard carry over the water, but it turned it into a three-shot hole for me.

[Peter Flory]

An interesting thing about the Lido to me is how hard CBM intended for it to play for scratch players.  Unless the course could be stretched to about 8,100 yards, that is out the window now because of equipment inflation.  Just some examples: on the 10th (Alps), he thought that an expert player should have to hit a brassie (2 wood) for the approach.  On the 12th hole (Punchbowl), he expected them to have a driving iron in (1 iron).  The initial course record was 77 for several years and then it notched down to 74 for a bit before the course was "easified" and the scores dropped further. 

If anyone wants to get a feel for what CBM intended, borrow a set of hickory clubs from Clark and play the course from about 6,700 yards. If you're going to do that, I'd recommend playing a match against a friend who is doing the same thing so that you can have the pressure to save a shot here and there through strategery. 

[Brett Hochstein]

Jeff


If you go back and have a look at the writings/plans of the golden age guys like MacKenzie, Colt, Simpson etc. their plans of golf holes generally show different routes to the hole starting from the same tee. There was no prescriptive way to play a hole or "as the architect intended".


Not sure when there being a proper way to play the hole became the thing.


Niall

Or that "proper way" being obvious the first time you step up to the tee. The best strategic holes leave the decision making ambiguous and confounding even after many repeat plays.  Otherwise it can be a bit like those old 50s/60s execution-type holes that are always derided here, just instead of the bunkers and trouble left and right dictating straight play down the middle, the trouble is shifted around a bit while the edict for "proper" play is still just as obvious.

[Ben Sims]

I have a hard time reconciling architectural intent of golden age (particularly template) architecture with the modern game.

I understand and appreciate the feeling of nostalgia. But let’s be real, modern equipment has allowed for carry distances to be inflated for most golfers. These templates don’t play the same. What’s more, playing from the “appropriate tees” more or less kills strategic intent.

[John Challenger]

I like to think that C.B. Macdonald, who I believe is often viewed as more one-dimensional than he was in reality, would have embraced the idea today that all players should play from tees that provide them with similar problems and thrills. Ideally, even pro caliber players should constantly be forced to think about where to play their first shots (and second shots on three-shot holes). When taking on more risk, they should be rewarded and penalized more heavily than when making safer, more conservative decisions. On a golf course with the kind of width of The Lido, where there are often multiple possible routes to a green, the expert placement of tees and hazards gives everyday players these same decisions. Nobody wants to take the safe route every time! Holes that play to a rating of 2.5/3.5/4.5 and 5.5 can be some of the most interesting because they force more risk vs safety type decisions. Everybody loves just clearing an important bunker on their drive! Everybody loves landing in a difficult spot and then making a brilliant recovery shot. Everybody loves taking the safe route because the risk is too great, and then capitalizing on the decision with a one-putt. It's the essence of what makes the game interesting for all golfers, not just for the most capable.

[Tim Gavrich]

I like to think that C.B. Macdonald, who I believe is often viewed as more one-dimensional than he was in reality, would have embraced the idea today that all players should play from tees that provide them with similar problems and thrills.

Without presuming to know what C.B. Macdonald believed or didn't believe, I am not convinced that the object of different sets of tees is to enable players of widely varying skill levels to play a given course in the same.


While the play-it-forward movement seems to have gotten some golfers to play a more appropriate-sized course for their skill, I have started to detect from some higher-handicap golfers a sense that the correct set of tees is the one that allows them to hit the same assortment of clubs on their approaches as low-handicap players who play the tips. I think this negates some of the reward that better players have historically reaped for the level of dedication they've put into becoming better players. Why should a shortish hitter who plays twice a month feel entitled to hit as many short-iron and wedge approaches as a scratch player on the same course?


I think the explosion in the number of tee sets - and hybrid tees - is a symptom of this sense of entitlement. And while I agree in principle with Jeff Brauer's suggestion that 1, 2 or 3 sets of tees might be insufficient, based on data that's been gathered over the years, where does the tee building and mushrooming Rating and Sloping (and tee box-building) exercise end? There are certain courses in Florida that have 10 distinct sets of concrete and hybrid tees. That is insane - there are not 10 discrete bands of skill among all golfers.


The tee area on the hole below has NINE (!!!) discrete sets of tee markers, many of them no more than three or four yards ahead of or behind another set. I think this madness is a direct result of the mistaken notion that every golfer is entitled to play the "same" course relative to their hitting distance.

[Charlie Goerges]

That photo is tough to look at Tim. If it wasn't from you, I'd wonder if it was a false-flag-photoshop operation designed to turn us against multiple tee markers.

[Niall C]

The thing about Lido is that almost everyone has to make a decision on the tee. At 76 I can only fly the ball about 210 yards on a good drive. The guys I played with are big and 50 years old. They can fly it 250. I played the green tees, and they played the whites. A good illustration of how the course plays is on the par five 7th hole: The Hog Back. Off the tee are four very deep bunkers that run diagonally from left to right. One of the players aimed over the third bunker from the left. Two over the second bunker from the left. My caddie looked at me and said, "You're going to hate this, but hit it to the left of all the bunkers." I did and made an easy par. I never hit it into a fairway bunker. You just have to be smart and play the correct tees. The only hole I played the white tees was on punch bowl. I just wanted to make the 190-yard carry over the water, but it turned it into a three-shot hole for me.

Tommy


I fully accept that you can play whichever tee you choose but do you not think you'd have choices to make irrespective of what tee you chose, assuming of course that it was you making the choices and not your caddy ?


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Nobody wants to take the safe route every time! Holes that play to a rating of 2.5/3.5/4.5 and 5.5 can be some of the most interesting because they force more risk vs safety type decisions. Everybody loves just clearing an important bunker on their drive! Everybody loves landing in a difficult spot and then making a brilliant recovery shot. Everybody loves taking the safe route because the risk is too great, and then capitalizing on the decision with a one-putt. It's the essence of what makes the game interesting for all golfers, not just for the most capable.

Once upon a time however, it wasn’t just the course and it’s features that presented the challenge, it was the clubs and balls available to use too.
Modern era equipment is so much easier to use, not just distance wise but massively more forgiving too, in comparison to the clubs and balls of yesteryear for likely all but elite or semi-elite players. For others, the majority I would suggest, with clubs of yesteryear making regular decent or near-decent contact with club on ball would be an achievement.
Atb

[Niall C]

I like to think that C.B. Macdonald, who I believe is often viewed as more one-dimensional than he was in reality, would have embraced the idea today that all players should play from tees that provide them with similar problems and thrills.

John


Surely what you are proposing with everyone facing the same or similar choice eg. a bunker they can carry with one of their best drives, is more one dimensional than say different calibre of players all playing off the same tee and having to avoid the bunker in different ways ?


Niall

[Peter Flory]

Nobody wants to take the safe route every time! Holes that play to a rating of 2.5/3.5/4.5 and 5.5 can be some of the most interesting because they force more risk vs safety type decisions. Everybody loves just clearing an important bunker on their drive! Everybody loves landing in a difficult spot and then making a brilliant recovery shot. Everybody loves taking the safe route because the risk is too great, and then capitalizing on the decision with a one-putt. It's the essence of what makes the game interesting for all golfers, not just for the most capable.

Once upon a time however, it wasn’t just the course and it’s features that presented the challenge, it was the clubs and balls available to use too.
Modern era equipment is so much easier to use, not just distance wise but massively more forgiving too, in comparison to the clubs and balls of yesteryear for likely all but elite or semi-elite players. For others, the majority I would suggest, with clubs of yesteryear making regular decent or near-decent contact with club on ball would be an achievement.
Atb

There is one set of photos where a great players failed to clear the hill on the 2nd hole with his drive (due to a miss, not due to distance).  He went from down there into the principal's nose.  The comments were that he may have threatened the course record if it weren't for the mistakes there.  Another one that comes to mind was the match between Ted Ray and George McLean.  McLean beat Ray 5 and 3 in an exhibition match and then McLean made a 7 on the par 3 16th hole as they played on for fun.  With those clubs, disaster lurked, even for professional players on top of their games. 

[Tom_Doak]

I think the explosion in the number of tee sets - and hybrid tees - is a symptom of this sense of entitlement. And while I agree in principle with Jeff Brauer's suggestion that 1, 2 or 3 sets of tees might be insufficient, based on data that's been gathered over the years, where does the tee building and mushrooming Rating and Sloping (and tee box-building) exercise end?

Tim:


I appreciate your illustration of the insanity of ten sets of tee markers.


In reality, there are not just ten distinct players, there are as many as there are golfers in the world.  And it's not all just about carry distance . . . it's also about whether you can ask certain types of players to hit through a narrow space in lieu of a carry.


I tend to believe that any four of us could have a fair and highly interesting match at The Lido whether we played the holes from the back tees, or the forward tees, or the historic tees, or any combination thereof, because of the impact of all the bunkers and optional routes.  There are maybe a couple of holes where our new back tees are too far for the weaker players among us, but not that many where they couldn't find their way around.  Maybe we will find out in the Renaissance Cup this fall, if they let me set the course up for the semifinals and final match.


And a quick aside to John Challenger:  Jesus, man, I hope you sleep well tonight after telling everyone that Charles Blair Macdonald would have changed his tune if he was alive today!  The man played matches with Young Tom Morris.  His respect for the history and traditions of the game was far deeper than anyone alive today.

[Charlie Goerges]

And a quick aside to John Challenger:  Jesus, man, I hope you sleep well tonight after telling everyone that Charles Blair Macdonald would have changed his tune if he was alive today!  The man played matches with Young Tom Morris.  His respect for the history and traditions of the game was far deeper than anyone alive today.

Sleep with one eye open John!

[John Challenger]

Tom, Due to the fact that you are keeping me up past my bedtime thinking about your broadside, and because I am now worried that the ghost of CBM might haunt me, I do have a question for you. I was suggesting that CBM, even given his traditionalist views and ties to St. Andrews and the R&A, would have believed in the evolution of golf course design. Do you think that his approach to golf course architecture evolved from NGLA to The Lido, and if so in what ways?

[Sean_A]

It's interesting that we are many years beyond the notion of removing so called top shot bunkers because weaker players can't cope. Rarely are they or any feature built at these distances today. Yet, now we have the concept of mega tees which is hailed as golf's savior. Nevermind the course walk is completely spoiled or that maybe it might be smart to actually create interest  for weaker players. No worries, we can build features for strong players and put people in carts to experience the "same course" at their personal level. I find the entire concept of mega tees as misguided, build it bigger paint by numbers architecture.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Once upon a time the player measured his game against the course (and the conditions) and was given a handicap accordingly while now it seems that players want to fix the course to suit their game. A far cry from Donald Ross's idea of there's the hole, play it as you find it.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

I have used this analogy before but just think how enjoyable it would be skiing at all the greatest ski resorts in the world if they made everyone start at the top [/size]
Golf courses are very similar in this regard. 


We are not far from the point where golfers will be able to pick any starting point they want and a GPS app will determine the course rating etc from where they chose to play (for handicap purposes). 


Don’t know about most of you, but when my kids started to learn to play golf, when I took them to the actual course vs the practice area, we didn’t start on the back tees.  We just selected a spot on each hole and as they improved, the spot would change. 


I have always been an advocate of multiple tees (not like in the picture shown which is really a picture of multiple “tee markers”).  There are ways to make multiple teeing locations less of an eyesore using low profile tees/markers etc. 


I think we want to invite more people to play and enjoy the game of golf whether that is for fun or for challenge or to just get outside for fresh air and sunshine.  If multiple starting locations helps in that regard which I believe it does, go for it.  No different than ski resorts allowing and facilitating skiers to not all have to start from the top of the mountain/every run!

[Niall C]

What makes a ski resort great ? Is it the top half of the slope or the bottom half ?


Niall

[John Challenger]

I like to think that C.B. Macdonald, who I believe is often viewed as more one-dimensional than he was in reality, would have embraced the idea today that all players should play from tees that provide them with similar problems and thrills.

John


Surely what you are proposing with everyone facing the same or similar choice eg. a bunker they can carry with one of their best drives, is more one dimensional than say different calibre of players all playing off the same tee and having to avoid the bunker in different ways ?


Niall

Niall, One of my plans this summer is to play all 5 routes that MacKenzie visualized in his award-winning hole. I believe Macdonald might have been one of the judges of the contest, although I returned my borrowed Bahto book to its owner so I can't look this up. He must have loved the hole because he decided to build it. In some ways, his thinking had evolved from a pure template hole philosophy in which he was trying to recapture the true essence of St. Andrews et al, to one in which he chose to build new hole designs by three people who participated in the Country Life contest. Is it possible that he or MacKenzie would have liked the idea of giving 90% of golfers various routes into holes based on risk/reward and the conditions? I know this sounds like sacrilege, and Tom's probably going to disrupt my Circadian rhythms again for saying it, but I just don't think, if those two architectural titans were practicing their art today, they would have wanted to confine 90% of golfers to playing only the safe route, and given the option of choosing the risky or safe route to the best golfers alone.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()