Commentaries from Donald Ross

[Matt_Ward]

It is probably doubtful that many people will open the thread on level tees since they believe it has played out, but I wanted to add a quote from a master designer who is respected by nearly all students of golf architecture.

Some have questioned the importance of level tees and even implied that the masters of design from the Golden Era were silent on the matter.

In "Golf Has Never Failed Me," Donald J. Ross states the following on p.126 --

"There are two, and only two, inflexible rules for layout out a tee. It should be big, and the top must be PERFECTLY LEVEL (my emphasis added)."

If someone can provide other master architects who either advocated unlevel tees or believed they are not important I would hope you could cite the reference.

I believe it's fair to say that Donald Ross knew something about golf design ... clearly more than me and I dare say countless others.

Ross goes on to say ... "How pleasing is the impression of a course when the tee is in the pink of condition. What a delightful intimation it is of the joys the course has in store for us." I could not say it more eloquently or straightforward.

Now I just wish all these clubs who spend $$$ on all the other gigor would direct their superintendents to do what clearly is a priority but is clearly lacking on too many courses.

Ross clearly understood the nature of what tees are and what they must be. When ground is not level it is by Ross's definition not a tee. I agree completely ...

[TEPaul]

I believe that the entire subject of tees in Ross's day (particularly his very early days) was a much different subject.

It would probably be downright shocking to us today to see the design and condition of tees in the early days of golf (the early part of the last century). That might have been what Ross was reacting to. If Ross could see the design and condition of almost all golf course tees today, I'm sure he would be satisfied with their condition.

According to Ron Prichard, Ross, in the beginning condoned one set of tee markers for all golfers to be moved only to suit seasonal and particular conditions. And from the early photos you can see some tee designs that were used that would never be considered on even the most poorly designed courses--things like tees on stilts, tees with periscopes, raised boxes etc. Golf architecture and conditioning has come a long way from the early days, but tees may have come the farthest.

Ross also said he didn't really favor blind shots to green surfaces but he certainly did design and build an awful lot of them.

[aclayman]

What is meant by "the top"?

Does this imply that they should not be level at the bottom?

Perhaps for drainage "the top" could mean the elevation? Which now brings up the option that a portion isn't suppose to be level?

Since this quote is taken out of context, whats with "the big"? I have been on many a small teeing ground and a predominant number were at someplace you may get to rate as a GD panelist, Cypress Point Club.

Was he stating his inflexible beleif or style?

[Peter Galea]

In "The Course Beautiful" AWT states: "The ideal teeing ground is nothing more than a great level area, which will permit the placing of the tee markers in many, many places."

[Jeff_Mingay]

I can't recall exactly where I read it, but didn't C.B. Macdonald write about "unlevel" tees, "breaking" in the centre; draining left and right?

Such tees, according to Macdonald, would also allow golfers to tee their ball for different types of shots: ie. on a downhill slope (on the right side of the tee) to promote a fading trajectory, or an uphill slope (on the left) to promote a draw.

In fact, as I write this, I also recall speaking with Karl Olsen about restoration work at The National, and he mentioned that it would be foolish today to restore the tees as Macdonald and Raynor had constructed them, because they were indeed purposely constructed "unlevel".

This does sound crazy, so I hope Geo. Bahto chimes in to support my story  

[Jeff_Mingay]

If you examine the classic strategies devised by the Golden Age architects, every one was based on all golfers using the same set of tees.

The long man usually had an option to carry a hazard to gain the advantage of a shorter distance of approach and/or a better, relatively unimpeded, angle into the slope and length of the green.

Shorter, less accurate golfers were offered a path around the hazard at the expense of a stroke and distance, and usually a poorer angle into the green from the "safe" side of the fairway.

Ultimate strategies have gone "out the door" with the introduction of multiple tees.

[Mike O'Neill]

Jeff, The discussion of multiple tees has been beaten into the ground like a Ken Venturi cliche, but here goes. As an example of how multiple tees ADD to the strategic merit of a given (not all) golf hole I will mention a hole that unfortunately few here have played, but it is a great example. It is at Bayside in Nebraska (built by Bunker Hill), hole number 6. It is a short par 5 with the prevailing winds at one's back but with very different options depending on where you land your tee shot. The back right tee is actually about 50 yards right of the back left tee but about the same distance from the fairway. The back right tee requires a carry over a ravine (the left doesn't) and if you hit it long and straight with the prevailing winds directly behind you you go through the fairway into really tall native grass. You have to be able to put a little bit of a fade on a long tee shot. That same shot from the back left is right in the middle of the fairway, except that the prevailing winds which can be strong will have a tendency to push the ball strongly to the left if you aren't careful. Left is good unless it is too far left. From the back right tee the green is not visable nor is the right side of the fairway.  From the back left the green and the hole itself is laid out before you. Different winds, different looks. And throw in a couple of middle tees that give varying options and throw in the strong and variable winds over the course of months and the strategy of the hole set up becomes very interesting.

How can that type of thing be bad?

[Jeff_Mingay]

I wasn't trying to insinuate multiple tees are always BAD. I just think that the overall strategy of a well-designed hole is very interesting to analyze with all calibers of golfers driving from the same tee.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt, 15 years ago when I used to go around to clubs they would all ask me if they shouldn't rebuild their tees to make them level, and I'd say:  "Why?  Merion and Pine Valley and those places don't have level tees!"

Now, of course, those clubs have spent a lot of $$ rebuilding their tees, too.

It's fine to have level tees, but if they make any difference at all in your appreciation of the design of a golf course, then I feel sorry for you.  Level tees are just about having the money to make them.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom: I appreciate golf courses in a much deeper way than just looking at tees (whether they are a level or not). But I feel sorry for you if you don't think they might influence to some degree how people might asses a golf course. Even Ross said so himself.

Tees are the orphan of course maintenance. I visit no less than 50 new sites each year throughout the nation as a GD panelist and it affects not just the muni course but the high end as well. Please keep in mind my golf career did not start by sipping tea in the afternoon on the veranda of Shinnecock.

I'm not advocating Augusta National billiard table type tees. Just a relatively flat surface in all hitting positions. You think I was asking for the cure for cancer. That's not the case and for people to imply that is really unfair to me.

Tom -- if it's just about $$ then why don't these clubs do it??? In many cases there too busy adding all the gigor that doesn't have any relationship to the course (i.e. clubhouse, water falls, etc, etc.).

The comments of Donald Ross are no less valid then as they are today. You, Tom, as
a first rate architect, should know that
the devil is in the details. Level tees are one of those -- albeit a small one in a
sea of other details. You do it for green contours -- why not for tees?

Is there more to a golf course than level tees. Without doubt and I make it a point to be fair in reviewing courses inspite of that fact. But, I am talking about continuous neglect year after year after year.

[T_MacWood]

Fair or not, this is a perfect illustration of the typical criticism that GD panelists are too focused on trivial or extraneous aspects -- in effect de-emphasizing the actual merits of a design.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom -- you have a wonderful habit in distorting what I specifically look at when I visit a course as a GD panelist. Let me help enlighten you as to the process I follow.

I look at the following key items FIRST:

1). The land the course is located
2). The actual routing of holes
3). The shot values that are called upon (i.e. does the course provide for a combination of all the clubs in the bag, the ability to present the player with options in strategy for different handicap levels and the proportionate balance the course provides in dishing out rewards and penalties.

I do not place IMMEDIATE emphasis on conditioning elements (not just level tees) but to say conditioning plays no role in determining the standing of a course is hard to believe since detail is important in bringing out to the best degree possible the original intent of the architect. The conditioning element has a role and as a GD panelist I am asked to provide my thoughts on this area.

In the final analysis you believe level tees are trivial. I believe playing tee shots from pitching mounds is unncessary given the fact that clubs which violate this have the wherewithal to correct the condition easily. It's just that they prefer to worry about adding additions to clubhouses, having one more waterfall and all the other extraneous gigor that has absolutely nothing at all connected to the actual playing of the game.

[Brad Klein]

With all due respect to Ron Prichard, whose restoration work I find admirable, he's simply wrong on the the issue of single sets of Ross tees.

At least half of Ross' original 18-hole sets of plans include double teeing grounds per hole. While it's true Ross would only list one set of yardages per hole, he clearly designed and built double sets of tees throughout his career.