[Michael Whitaker]

On another thread the idea was put forward that multiple tees were the primary[/i] way of making the game interesting to a variety of skill levels... and, that without these tees highly skilled players would get bored and average players could be overwhelmed, possibly causing both to give up the game.

If UK courses have gotten by for generations without multiple sets of tees are they are necessary for different skill levels to enjoy the game?

[Forrest Richardson]

Multiple tees can make the game interesting.

They are — if looked at positively — a return to the days when golfers decided the "hole" to be played across an open landscape, opting both where to begin and end.

[Rich Goodale]

A huge flaw.

They complicate what is (if the course is designed properly) really a very simple game.

[Tony Ristola]

I don't like the look of one set of tees after another...but, when trying to provide a challenge for a vast range, sometimes it is the only answer. Not all holes need four or more tees, but some do.

I try to get along with three, and use a mix of front and mid-tees for the stronger ladies. Same for the men... mixing back and mid-tees (It's why I think a Flex Rating System should be instituted...rating each tee). I also have the long par-4's for experts as short par-5's for members (it's only a number on the scorecard). I try to stagger, angle and hide tees, but if the property is tight and the developer wants a long course from the back... you're stuck.

Multiple tees aren't a flaw...they add flexibility.

[Padraig Dooley]

More choices can only be a virtue, the flaw is making the wrong choice.

[Eric Franzen]

The multiple tee thing removes the preconceived notion that men and woman have to play from certain colors, with no consideration of skill level or physical shape, that exists here in Sweden.

Flex rating is actually in effect here, but I don't see any signs of encouraging guys to move up to the blue (ladies competition tee) or red (ladies club tee) when needed.

When visiting clubs like Sand and Hills that uses five or up to seven multiple tee's, I have noticed that people are more open to moving forward to a tee that is named after it's yardage (5700 etc) than proclaiming that they are playing the blue tee today.    

[Brent Hutto]

I think a choice of tees is a virtue. However, having five or six different choices is not as important as having sufficient range between the longest and shortest. For example if a course has tees at 5700, 6300 and 7000 yards I don't think it would necessarily be improved by additional sets at 5900 and 6500 as well.

For some courses the idea of mixing short, middle and long tees in various combinations to give variety is fun. By that I mean having two, three or four teeing areas depending on the layout of the particular hole and then have maybe four distinct combinations as the "Red, White, Blue, Gold" distances or whatever you call it.

[Donnie Beck]

Multiple tees can make the game interesting.

They are — if looked at positively — a return to the days when golfers decided the "hole" to be played across an open landscape, opting both where to begin and end.

They also require more labor and more money to maintain.

[redanman]

Flaw

Two, three max is more than enough.  Forward tees to eliminate forced carries and proficiency-related difficulties for the weaker golfer as much as possible.

All the others are ego strokes either up or down.

[Eric_Terhorst]

"Are multiple tees a flaw or virtue?...Are multiple tees necessary?"

"Is irrigation good or bad?"

Michael,

Ultimately, these binary questions serve no purpose other than to give an opportunity to self-appointed experts around here to blow hard one way or the other, with 100% certainty (nice work if you can get it!).  Amusing, but not very illuminating.  

Padraig's comment below, Forrest Richardson's on making the game more interesting, and Tony Ristola's on flexibility are on point.   We have all played courses where we felt multiple tees were flawed and annoying, and some where we felt they were artfully used.  We have all played courses on which we felt irrigation was sparingly used to good effect, and some where it was used to drown out the game.  Note these are personal preferences--what works for you may seem clumsy to me.

I hope you'll agree there is no right answer--only one that appeals most to the decision-maker...thereupon to be judged by pundits, critics, raters, blow-hards, future green chairmen, club members, CCFAD consumers,...etc., etc.

Make a decision.  If you make one that is judged to be "flawed" by an important constituency, then I guess you'll just have to fix it.

More choices can only be a virtue, the flaw is making the wrong choice.

[Rich Goodale]

Eric

Those of us who are expressing an opinion are not doing so as "experts" but just as golfers, who actually have an opinion, rather than some sort of woolly "let a thousand flowers bloom" sort of ideal about how they imagine golf was or ought to be.  Sorry if this bothers you.

Rich

[Michael Blake]

If UK courses have gotten by for generations without multiple sets of tees are they are necessary for different skill levels to enjoy the game?

Would the different conditions of UK courses as compared to US courses be the equalizer instead of multiple tees?  I don't know?  Though fast and firm with lots of roll off the tee as well as the ground game on approach shots would seem to make length less of an issue in the UK.


I think multiple tees offer all skills the chance to enjoy the game.  Inclusion not exclusion.  Personally I enjoy playing from different tees now and again, whether it's to experience different angles from the tee or when I'm only carrying a few clubs and driver isn't one of them.  


Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

Donnie — Whether they take more money to maintain is a complex question.

One needs to look at total square footage and the use of tees. There is also the flexibility that a greenkeeper has in shifting play to allow a tee to mend. And, there is the complex issue of marketing and return play — if a resort course did not have multiple tees it is likely that very low handicap players may find it "too easy" whereas a weaker player may find it a course not worth returning to. And, for women and kids, the same holds true.  

In the case where there are not enough members or people playing because they cannot find "their" skill level, then — yes — it will be expensive to maintain. But, when design decisions are balanced with those of the financial and marketing, I think flexibility in tees can be a good investment.

Tees, by the way, are a nominal maintenance item. Yes, they have associated costs, but not to the degree of some other features. Tee maintenance is a matter (mostly) of square footage. So, if we design a small mid-range tee on a par-4 — let's say 325-yards — we might keep it very small, perhaps only 800 square feet. This lessens the required square footage of a main tee by a small amount. So, maybe we are close to even had the tees been larger.

At 300 golfers per day at a recent course we completed, it is essential that we mantain enough tees — and have teeing grounds to accommodate a range of player types. The alternative is to mandate play from just a few tees (2) and live with the reality that a novice player or very, very elderly player may not be able to carry to the fairway or will make 5-6 strikes to reach a par-5. At one hole on this layout there is more than 140-yards from back tee to forward tee on a par-5 into the wind. Play can be significantly speeded when we offer multiple tees at clubs/courses that will have a variety of player types. The course I mention is one such course.

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,

I would imagine that a number of players would use an iron on a short par 4 of 325 yards.  Wouldn't this necessitate providing more tee space than if a teed up wood shot was required?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Richard,

Nothing "bothers" me about anyone here expressing an opinion, have at it.  I said I find it amusing that someone can without reservation or qualification say, for example, that multiple tees on golf courses are "a huge flaw."  It's just as silly to categorically label something as misguided as it is to have a wooly-headed everything-goes mentality.  Michael asked a binary question, and you took the bait.  

Once you find your ideal one-tee course, you're entitled to play it every day from the same tee and I wish you well.  Meanwhile, may the rest of us enjoy our favorite multi-tee course, today from one tee and tomorrow from another?  May Forrest and  other gcas continue to dream up novel ideas for course design, or should the same single-tee formula be applied over and over again?

Can the O'Neal brothers choose to have multiple tees with no markers at Ballyneal, or in your world must they choose one set, mark it, and "force" all of their members to play the holes from those spots  

Would you say that the original golfers way back when, having chosen one spot to start a game, never asked themselves, "What if we started from over there today?"

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — In my example I was thinking about an alternate tee that would allow a par-4 of the high 300s (370, 380, 390, etc.) to play at 325-yards for the lesser player. In this example, (which I should have better described) I would think the lesser player would be hitting all they could — a driver, cannon or bazooka.

Yes, of course, in the matter of a 325-yard hole, you may well get players hitting irons. And, yes, that will require more tee space if the tee is to be well kempt.

Which — is a decent cause for multiple tees on its own merit. At a course at which aesthetics is of importance, and play is frequent, having multiple tees allows closure of a beat-up tee, allowing it to mend and returning play to it once the grass has grown-in. This isolates players from the tee when it looks its worst.

[Rich Goodale]

Good post, Eric, but if asked a binary question, I think it is disingenous or lazy to give anything but a straight answer. Otherwise we'll all live in a very wishy-washy world.  I do also think that the question was defining "multiple" as more than the "normal" 3, but I could be wrong.

I do have a very strong bais towards courses which flow seamless from tee to green to tee to green, etc., and have said so consistently on this forum for many years.  That is why they call it a golf "course" rather than a golf "gallery."

In ye olden days, contgrary to your and Forrest's speculations, tees were singular and fixed--within 2 clubs lengths of the hole.  Even 100 years ago, the concept of more than one tee was unknown, at least to my knowledge.

I think it is good that there are now forward tees, for the weak or infirm and back tees, for the strong or foolish, but that's enough to accomodate 99 and 44/100% of all golfers.

Tees spotted and hidden throughout the course/galleryare interesting bagatelles, but not really golf. In a parallel universe it might have been how golf turned out, but in this one we live in it is not.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

[Forrest Richardson]

Richard — Your reference to teeing from the adjacency of the hole was a rather "modern" invention. Predating that was the open landscape of golf — that "holes" and "courses" were whatever players deemed interesting and challenging. In essence, the game we now call "golf" was a field of no formality at all, far different from what we not call "normal".

While multiple tees are a far cry from that, they do — to a degree — bring back to the game the potential that players are participants in the choice of what "hole" to play — perhaps today it is the 420-yard version...tomorrow the 442-yard version...and, maybe Tuesday, we can try the 390-yard tester.

In regions without significant wind, multiple tees replace the effect that wind can have on a course and its layout. Consider that in Phoenix, for example, the least windy of earth's major cities (2 million plus).

All of this notion — the choices — are in addition to the ability that multiple tees have on allow players to match distance and angle to their particular game.

I am on board with the flow that you describe. It is often a poor byproduct of multiple tees.

One angle (pun) not covered here is — angle. Multiple tees have a tremendous effect on making the game more interesting when, despite distance, tees can significantly change a hole in character simply by providing a variation in attack perspective.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I do have a very strong bais towards courses which flow seamless from tee to green to tee to green...

Tees spotted and hidden throughout the course/gallery are interesting bagatelles, but not really golf. In a parallel universe it might have been how golf turned out, but in this one we live in it is not.  IMHO, of course.

Rich, I share your bias and seek out courses repeatedly that have this characteristic.  But I don't understand the second comment.  Courses with multiple tees "hidden throughout the course" exist, and when done well exploit a good property or a creative imagination or both.  There is simply no reason to restrict this just because it's done badly sometimes (perhaps more often than not) or because such a technique doesn't fit your or my definition of good golf.  

[Rich Goodale]

ERic

I'm OK on hidden tiger tees (even if you have to look for them on another golf course, a la The Old Course), but when you walk off a green and have several options in terms of which direction to go, that's less golf to me than a form of "Let's Make a Deal."  The game is hard enough as it is without having to design the course on the fly at the same time you are playing it!

Rich

[Forrest Richardson]

When restoring a Robert Trent Jones, Sr. course I had quite the argument with the owner who suggested a tee that played 315 yards across a pond was no longer useful. At the hole we were also proposing a tee addition that would bring the hole to 350 yards.

I argued that for professional tournaments — and even use by long hitters — the tee we were suggesting was more difficult. Why? because it places the element of choice and dare into the tee shot. At 350 the pond was not in play, and therefore the better player / pro can just hit away.

And, I argued, that having both tees would be even more difficult during multi-day events as tournament set-up could involve the use of each tee. This would make the hole unpredictable...at least more so.

[Rich Goodale]

Richard — Your reference to teeing from the adjacency of the hole was a rather "modern" invention. Predating that was the open landscape of golf — that "holes" and "courses" were whatever players deemed interesting and challenging. In essence, the game we now call "golf" was a field of no formality at all, far different from what we not call "normal".

While multiple tees are a far cry from that, they do — to a degree — bring back to the game the potential that players are participants in the choice of what "hole" to play — perhaps today it is the 420-yard version...tomorrow the 442-yard version...and, maybe Tuesday, we can try the 390-yard tester.

In regions without significant wind, multiple tees replace the effect that wind can have on a course and its layout. Consider that in Phoenix, for example, the least windy of earth's major cities (2 million plus).

All of this notion — the choices — are in addition to the ability that multiple tees have on allow players to match distance and angle to their particular game.

I am on board with the flow that you describe. It is often a poor byproduct of multiple tees.

One angle (pun) not covered here is — angle. Multiple tees have a tremendous effect on making the game more interesting when, despite distance, tees can significantly change a hole in character simply by providing a variation in attack perspective.

Thanks, Forrest.

Do you have any evidence of what you say in your first paragraph, or are you just dreaming?  As for me, I have no evidence one way or the other, but that's the way I imagine golf is and always has been played at Foulpointe........

Rich

[Forrest Richardson]

I think it is safe to say, and widely believed, that prior to formal rules, golf was a bit open and free. Like boxers. One needs to look at the enravings of citizens banded along and carrying clubs. Sometimes scores of people in a group, some watching and some playing.

I suggest you seek Jurek Putter in St. Andrews. (But don''t fall for his crap about the Dutch!)

http://www.jurekputter.freeserve.co.uk/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()