A Tee Too Far, from the Wall Street Journal

[Rich Goodale]

Rich:  With all due respect, the architect of course #2 has not served the course or the membership well.   

All I was trying to say, Joel, is that perhaps the architect did exactly what he was asked to do by the powers that be.  Whether or not that was in the best interests of the course or the membership is another matter, and one on which I will gladly defer to you.

Rich

[corey miller]

Joel stewart says
"It is was people expect but not what an experienced architect should produce.   The concept of big tees was generally introduced by RTJ Sr. in the 40's and continues to this day"

First off, it seems everyone knows what course we are talking about but me.  

Nonetheless Joel, I would recommend you change the word experienced in your above quote, and I would likely agree with you.  Go through the roster of the ASGCA and I would suggest that most all of the guys would do the clubs bidding in regard to moving the tees back and raising them.

I would also suggest that unless the architect told   the club that the new back tees would look "classic", he is just doing his job.  Again, it is an education process, I would suggest, and again I do not know the club, that 80-90% of the membership prefers these tees higher as they go back.

Do I think a honorable architect working on a classic should alert the membership to the fact that these sorts of tees were not developed until a later date? Yes, but I have seen and heard a lot more egregious things in my studies. 

The club got what it wanted and in lieu of other facts I can't blame the architect. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I kinda wanna puke.....

The point of this article is to discuss everyday golf and proper design for that.

How this and every other topic, up to and including "Is the sky blue?" morphs back to what Fazio might do vs. Doak if restoring and old course, or doing one for a US Open is so far off point its ridiculous.  We get it.  To some here, Faz is the devil and the only true God is Tom Doak.

Go to some senior targeted course in Florida, or any muni in America, and you will see what golf in America REALLY is, not at some old blueblood place only 1% of us will ever play, and only 1% of that every play twice.

The home page say we can discuss the best, worst and all in between. Could we do some mid level discussions on architecture please?

Thanks in advance.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I kinda wanna puke.....

Could we do some mid level discussions on architecture please?

"The world is blessed more by men who do things than by ones who merely discuss them" - James Oliver   

Jeff,
I  fear your reaction, or a blessed event a la James Oliver, is more likely to happen than the discussion you're asking for... 

btw, a special thanks, from those of us who like to play 18 holes golf in less than 4 hours, for promoting the idea of "playing from the correct tees"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Eric,

Yeah, and I knew that, but I posted anyway......

[JMEvensky]

My place is a little different in that most of the people playing the "wrong" markers aren't playing the back tees.

Over the last several years,we've stretched the course ~300 yards by adding 2 new tee boxes and extending a few others.The next-to-back tees(blue) got lengthened a little as a result,as did all others but the ladies'(5 sets of markers total).

The net result is that the people who had always played the "blue" markers have suddenly found themselves playing a golf course 150-200 yards longer.

You can't force someone to play from a set of markers he doesn't want to.Even suggesting same is a problem.Adding extra sets of markers didn't do much except make the place look like a resort.

[Steve Lang]

 

Ever play the game where if you par or birdie you move back a tee and if double or worse you move up?  Helps to determine where you should be playing

[Joel_Stewart]

The club got what it wanted and in lieu of other facts I can't blame the architect. 

The superintendent got what he wanted.  The club got sold a bill of goods.


Mike Benham:   Do you agree or disagree that its maybe 4%?   On #4, #5 and 12 it may be less than 1%.

[Sean_A]

I find all of this quite perplexing.  If the percentage of players good enough to step back to 6800, 7000 or 7200 yards is neglible, why are those tees built?  If the wrong folks (and if the rights folks is only 1% of the market there must be a load of wrong folks doing it) stepping back adds 30 minutes to the round surely there is a break even point (especially considering maintenance and building costs) where owners would think it isn't a money spinner to have tiger tees.   Furthermore, even if back tees are built, why can't a course close back tees for a day (busy days?)?  It makes sense to me to tell folks the goal (for the enjoyment of most people) is to get people around in under 4 hours.  Opening the back tees is not conducive to reaching the target.  Finally, much of this hullaballoo could be eliminated if back tees were more about angles than distance.   The average Joe probably isn't even bothered about different angles and would probably see a back tee in this instance as a waste of time because it doesn't ass any yardage.

Ciao 

[Mark_F]

Providing multiple tees is related to giving all the punters the same experience as each other - a shot from roughly the same distance. 

But doesn't it completely neglect the rich variety of holes a course can have, and the way various players might play them? Does a 280 yard par four need more than two tee boxes - one for short hitters, one for average/long?

Does a five hundred yard par five? After all, the big hitters are going to be able to go at it their way, shorter hitters will have an alternate route and alternate types of shots they are going to have to play.

Surely a well-designed course is going to/should have a variety of hazards to confront any length golfer from the same tee?  Angles, a bunker for one, a slope for another, an uneven stance for someone else?

It all seems to come down to variety of expectations.  Average players possibly expect to hit 350-380 yard par fours in two.  That distance hole should surely provide the longer hitter with a choice of clubs to use from the tee, and test their short irons. 

Longer holes test the mid and long irons of better players, and the short irons/game of average hitters, who may have a bit more leeway from the tee. 

Trying to provide the same experience for all classes of players from a huge number of tees is plain silly.  There's no give and take, and less variety.

[Mike Benham]

Mike Benham:   Do you agree or disagree that its maybe 4%?   On #4, #5 and 12 it may be less than 1%.

I think the number of golfers who play the Black tees are definitely less then 10%, maybe not quite as low as 4% ... and those who play the Blacks, play where the tee markers are ... so how often does the club put the Blacks way way back?

I think that it is far less then 4% of the golfers who will attempt to play those holes from the "new" tees for the simple challenge of it ...

 

[Richard Choi]

I have radical suggestion.

Why don't courses just remove the color designation? Just set tee markers in each separate tee boxes (or separate them by 20 or 30 yards if it is a big tee box).

And let people choose the distance based on what they are comfortable with.

It seems to me, a lot of people play blues (or whites) because that is where they are "supposed" to play. But if you get rid of the color designation, that motivation goes away and people can choose whatever they would like.

I understand this would put a big monkey ranch into slope/rating and posting your scores, but what is a bigger problem - people playing wrong tees or posting score becoming bit more vague?

[Joel_Stewart]

I find all of this quite perplexing.  If the percentage of players good enough to step back to 6800, 7000 or 7200 yards is neglible, why are those tees built? 

This will be my last post on this subject.  As Rich said its because this club wants to hold big tournaments.  My point is the architect choosen, built tier after tier of more tees until they got to the championship tees.  As a result on some holes that were lengthened you have up to 6 tiers.  It cost a lot of money to build all of these tiers of tees and costs a lot of money to maintain them.

On the course #1 example, they simply walked back 50 yards and placed a new 10x10 foot tee flush with the ground, no tiers, limited cost and virtually un-noticeable.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

It was certainly easier to do on course #1 for a variety of reasons:

a)  The holes aren't laid out on cross-slopes where it is hard to build a tee in the first place,

b)  The course hasn't had subsequent architects go in and elevate tees previously -- which puts stuff in the way when you want to go do it again 20 years later, and

c)  No one was dictating how long each hole needed to play, so we could take length where it was laying there and not have to fight the topography, and

d)  Club #1 wouldn't have considered spending the kind of money that club #2 approved.  They are just two very different clubs.


And a special note to Mark F:

I agree with every comment you made in your last post.

Now, go apply that line of thinking to the 13th at St. Andrews Beach. 

[Garland Bayley]

...the only true God is Tom Doak.
...

Sorry Jeff, but TD has not reached that level.  However,TEP undeniably has.