[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps it was my second glass of The Macallan last night, preceded of course by a Yuengling Porter...

Perhaps it was the rather somber and yearning theme of Genesis keyboardist Tony Banks' first solo album, "A Curious Feeling" from 1979.

Perhaps other personal factors have lead me to romanticize simpler times in my life.

But man, how this Discussion Group has become stagnant. I phoned Mike Cirba this morning regarding his recent Saucon Valley trip. It was nice to talk with Mike and with my day off, I got to using my idle brain time to remember just how epic golf can really be.

The last time I saw Mike, we met up to carpool of to Shoreham, NY to play Gil Hanse's Tallgrass is the windiest conditions I've ever laid club face to ball. The company, the trip (and almost having my month old 2007 Ford Focus blown off the Throgs Neck Bridge), and the golf were all sublime and it was great to finally meet Jason and Laura Blasberg, as well.

I'm rambling, so I'll digress. Now for the architecture. There have been numerous little salient points I ponder during the day about golf courses, and I've often failed to bring them all into one coherent thought. I'd like to see what sort of mental fugue the contributors on this site can build from a few small points.

I'll just throw them out there for discussion.

First:
Tee location: The rules of the game define both starting and end points for a hole. The architect is granted near supreme control over the point of view the golfer has of facing the challenges of the hole. What are some examples of the architect using this control in a good way? A bad one? What defines the good and bad?

[Garland Bayley]

On Matt Ward's thread about NE Oregon courses, I mentioned Buffalo Peak. To get to the first tee, you must walk up a steep hill from the clubhouse (unless of course you are cartballing). The course then loops around the outside of the back nine to finish at the bottom of the hill well below the clubhouse. To continue, you guessed it. You walk from the lowest elevation to just below the highest elevation to get to number 10 tee.

Architects use the cart crutch far too often. They use it to allow them to make their courses play generally downhill, because riders can climb to tees. Are they running themselves out of business? They make courses that highly recommend cart usage. Carts damage courses and make fees go up. Using carts needlessly adds to the expense of an already expensive past time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Garland,

That's an excellent, excellent post.

[Kyle Harris]

Agreed, Mike...

...and certainly an angle that didn't enter my mind until now. Living in flat Florida for two years has taken that possibility out of my mind for the time being.

Here, we do have the cart crutch for long walks between holes. My course features 7 miles of cart paths.

[TEPaul]

"First:
Tee location: The rules of the game define both starting and end points for a hole. The architect is granted near supreme control over the point of view the golfer has of facing the challenges of the hole. What are some examples of the architect using this control in a good way? A bad one? What defines the good and bad?"


Kyle:

Good subject.

I'll leave the whole idea of tee locations as far as just getting to them for another time.

I would like to talk about what the creative use of tee locations can do to golfers when they get on those tees and begin to consider what to do, but also and just as important or even more so (at least to me) what various kinds of tee locations make a golfer "feel like" and I mean psychologically in the context of the spectrum of comfort or discomfort.

I'm a big believer that golf should replicate the basic feelings of simply a visual observer's feeling about nature and landforms (topography and such). I don't like the idea of design of golf holes from tees that simply serve to make most golfers feel comfortable and/or powerful. I think there is plenty of room in design to mix it up and to try to make them feel uncomfortable too so they can use their minds and emotions as best they can do to suck it up and deal with it in their planning and execution.

There are scores of holes in my life I could mention as great examples of this and at opposite ends of the comfort/discomfort spectrum.

Golf architecture came under attack years ago to not utilize pyshological techniques that make golfers feel uncomfortable. I don't like that. I don't want to see it that way all the time just more than we generally do. It's really about diversity and variety in the end, and we sure all know some of the best of Nature and natural topographical landforms are varietal and diverse.

Always in the back of my mind in this basic visual and emotional and psychological way is if you put two people side by side up in North England looking out over something like miles of tumbling moorland and got them to say to each other: "You take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before Ye."

Then give them a ball and some clubs and send them off.

You know what I mean?  

[Kyle Harris]

Yes, I know.

My present employer, Hunter's Green Country Club, offers several very appealing differences in angles from the back tees to the other sets. Our ninth is a pretty standard fare Cape Hole, but the different in angle between the back tee and the next tee up changes the angle of the water hazard just enough to enter into the golfer's mind.

Same goes for our first hole. From both back tees, the water hazard is more parallel and along the centerline of play than from the next tee forward and so on.

[TEPaul]

Don't forget the vertical.

Have you ever stood on the 11th tee of Royal County Down? My first sensation when I looked at it was:

"You're kidding me, forget about direction, am I gonna get it up high enough quick enough?"

[Kyle Harris]

Don't forget the vertical.

Have you ever stood on the 11th tee of Royal County Down? My first sensation when I looked at it was:

"You're kidding me, forget about direction, am I gonna get it up high enough quick enough?"

Vertical and Florida... right.

I haven't been overseas to date, but I think a fine example of this is the 18th at Huntingdon Valley, no?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

That's an excellent, excellent post.

Did I mention that those beginners forced into carts by the architecture have no idea how to play at a reasonable pace since the most obvious thing to do is to sit in the cart until it arrives behind your ball, at which point you get out, get a club and return to the ball (in the amount of time a good walker would already have played his shot), play the shot, return to the rear of the cart and put club back, then go sit in the cart; finally continuing to the next ball location.

After playing like this for a few times, they figure they have better things to do with 6 hours of their time.

[TEPaul]

"I haven't been overseas to date, but I think a fine example of this is the 18th at Huntingdon Valley, no?"

That's a pretty good example. So is Merion's #18th, and even GMGC's 18th to some degree. It takes more concentration from some golfers because their psychological tendency is to hoist the ball higher with their whole swing----generally not a good idea and prone to mistakes. Better to do it mostly with your setup, that is if you even know what to expect that way---many may not.
 
 
 

[JESII]

Huntingdon Valley #8 and #6 in a different way...sort of an "end of the world" type thing...

[Kyle Harris]

Huntingdon Valley #8 and #6 in a different way...sort of an "end of the world" type thing...

I've hit some great tee shots off the 6th tee at Huntingdon Valley, but have NEVER in my life felt comfortable. Something about either hitting a blind fade with OB right, or starting a draw toward the OB with the potentially for it ending up about 60 yards left of center...

Especially from that back tee - I may as well be teeing off from Welsh Road.

[Ed Oden]

I tend to notice the effects of tee position more on courses with wide fairways than on those with tight playing corridors.  When its tight, the directional focus is correspondingly narrowed to the point that tee position doesn't really come into play since there isn't much question where the ball needs to go.  But when the fairways are wide, tee position often steers the eye toward a less than ideal line.  A sign of good architecture perhaps?  I always thought Pinehurst #2 does this as well as any course I've played, although the narrowed fairways of recent years have admittedly diminished the effects somewhat.

[Kirk Gill]

Kyle, interesting thread.

Two things come to mind for me. I've played many a muni in my life, and there's a good number of straight-ahead holes and I've always wondered why they never build tees over to one side or the other (whenever there might be room) to allow for the tee shot to have to deal with an angle. Sure, the penalty for missing the fairway might not be all THAT great, as the rough on these courses isn't that threatening, but it would be a relatively inexpensive way to add interest and strategy to otherwise boring tee shots.

Secondly, a lot of the women I play golf with on the aforementioned munis are really getting a disservice when their tees are just moved forward 10 yards from the "men's." Putting thought into the placement of forward tees is something that is much appreciated by those that use them.

[Phil McDade]

Kyle:

Interesting topic; I wonder, re. Garland's point, if this is a classic-era vs. modern-era issue.

I thought of two courses immediately here in Wisconsin -- Lawsonia Links and University Ridge. At URidge, a course I loathe (RTJ Jr), the course practically screams "take a cart" in part (yes...) because of some rugged terrain, but also because of what seems to be unnecessarily long green-to-tee walks (and the transition between 9 and 10 is especially poor). It also has its share of elevated tees, which gets at Garland's point of architects designing courses that way because they know it's set up for cart use.

At Lawsonia (and even more so at Langford/Moreau's low-key Spring Valley in southern WI), the sensation is often of walking DOWN to tees, because those courses are built with noticeably pushed-up greens AND Langford really disdained elevated tees. I know of few architects who consistently built tees as flat to the fairway as Langford. He also designed his courses to have, for the most part, logical flows from one hole to the other, so green-to-tee walks are either short or pleasant diversions in logical directions from the green.

P.S. Good taste in porters. Beer standards are pretty high here in Wisconsin, but I have yet to find a porter that matches the one produced by Yuengling. A buddy of mine liked it so much he ordered a bunch to serve at his wedding.

[DMoriarty]

ed near supreme control over the point of view the golfer has of facing the challenges of the hole. What are some examples of the architect using this control in a good way? A bad one? What defines the good and bad?

Good question, but most the answers might deserve there own thread.   

Bad: 

- Excessive multiple tees are crutches for poor architecture that cannot provide and interesting challenge to multiple skill levels of golfers.  Almost always the hole is neither enjoyable nor does it make sense from some or most of the tees.

- In a similar vein, multiple tees are used to mask the glaring differences between the games of big hitters and short hitters brought on by adancements in technology that disproportionately benefit the big hitter. 

-Excessive multiple tees also damage comradery and flow of the game.  Golfers of differing abilities supposedly playing together might be a short par 3 yards apart on many tees.

- It seems most tees step up in elevation from the front tee to the back tee, thus almost always providing the longest hitters the best view of the holes and a relatively downhill shot to boot, while leaving shorter hitter with limited vision and  a much more level (or sometimes even uphill) tee shot.   This makes no sense to me.  The advantage of seeing and hitting downhill often far outweighs the extra burden of having to hit it a dozen extra yards or so, especially when the person playing the back is probably extraordinarlily long in the first place.     I imagine it is much more challenging to pull off, but designers ought not to always take the easy way out.  They should try and put the back tees lower, even if it gives the big hitters an awkward shot with a less than ideal view.   The short hitters have to deal with this most of the time!

- I haven't read it in a couple of years, but I think that Fazio wrote something very similar to what you wrote in his book.   The tee is the one place the architect has total control of the golfer's point of view.     If I remember correctly, Fazio picks and builds his tees with this in mind, so  as to maximize the aesthetic value of the view from the tee.   In other words, if I remember correctly, he tries to build tees from which beautiful photographs can be taken.  While opinions may differ, and as much as I enjoy an occasional elevated tee with a nice view, I'd prefer that the designer be a bit more focused on building holes that are fun to play rather than nice to look at.  Definitely aesthetics matter, but I don't think the aeshetics ought to always outweigh the golf when it comes to tee placement.   But that is just my opinion. that with the playing experience than the viewing experience.     While opinions may differ, in my opinion.

-- Of course tees that require a long walk. 

Good:

-Tees that do not call attention to themselves.

-Tees that fit in with the surrounds and style of the course.

-Fewer tees that all provide interesting and exciting challenges to golfers of different levels.   

-Similarly tees used to create courses within courses, where the front tees were not just for hacks, but were meant to offer different challenges to all levels of player.   Think Thomas' plan for LACC that unfortunately was never fully implimented (that I know of.)

-Tees that are level with the surrounding ground.

-Lower back tees. 

[TEPaul]

Sully:

#8 HVGC is a great example, the best example yet. It's also pretty interesting that #9, #10 and #11 are the exact opposite. I wonder if that ever occured to Flynn?

#14 Lehigh is another good example, particularly when compared to #4 and #7 nearby. This is why Wayne and I have always said, as much as any architect we know "Flynn just rolled all over sites."

[Garland Bayley]

David,

You hit the nail on the head. Fewer tees, and lower back tees. Exactamundo!
\

[Tim Bert]

- It seems most tees step up in elevation from the front tee to the back tee, thus almost always providing the longest hitters the best view of the holes and a relatively downhill shot to boot, while leaving shorter hitter with limited vision and  a much more level (or sometimes even uphill) tee shot.   This makes no sense to me.  The advantage of seeing and hitting downhill often far outweighs the extra burden of having to hit it a dozen extra yards or so, especially when the person playing the back is probably extraordinarlily long in the first place.     I imagine it is much more challenging to pull off, but designers ought not to always take the easy way out.  They should try and put the back tees lower, even if it gives the big hitters an awkward shot with a less than ideal view.   The short hitters have to deal with this most of the time!

I think the Alps hole at Yale has a nice back tee that is placed at a lower elevation than the middle tee.  It really looks awkward just because you aren't used to seeing such a thing, but I agree it makes a lot of sense.  I dont think this ought to be standard operating procedure, but it would be much more interesting to mix them up and have some higher, equal, and lower in elevation.  That being said, I'm not playing the tips anyway. but I really like the idea.

 

[Sean_A]

I too would agree that there fewer tees are generally better.  It implies that there are fewer forced carries.  I also agree that more grade level tees should be built.  This implies that gaining a comfortable view for the tees shot is not really what the game is about - heaven forbid we re-introduce blind shots.  Below is an example of the sort of thing which is a thrill for me to see - the 9th tee at Painswick.


Much the same sort of thing can be said for greens.  Grade level stuff is practically a dead art, perhaps because it often doesn't look terribly impressive - the visuals again.  Places like Painswick, Kington and Huntercombe are lost angels and its a great discredit to gca and the consumer base imo.  The leap from thinking golf to raod map visual golf has a lot to answer for. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Interesting post, some very valid points and Garland as usual is spot on.

In my youth I only played links golf. The one and only time I can remember damaging a club was at Beauport Park Golf Club in Hastings (which is for the most part tree lined). My ball skipped into the trees – on my next shot the ball returned to the fairway giving me still a chance for a Par, but my follow through resulted in a ‘Boomerang’ shaped 5 iron. I rapidly came to the conclusion that golf and trees just don’t mix. An opinion I have retained to this day.

Trees that are planted on the actual course are, I believe a mistake by the architect, because he has no control over the development of the said tree. Whilst in the early years it may be described by some as quirky, but in later years with the direction of the branches being totally random they cannot be accredited as a design feature nor what I would call a hazard but a pain in the backside. Having said that I can understand leaving a beautiful mature tree in place as it would have achieved its general shape and size – but in all honesty I would still prefer no trees on the course. Perhaps that comes form my love of playing on links course. I don’t understand the reasoning behind designing a course with young trees in the line of play – the final result is down to Nature not the Architect.

A serious question to Architects has anyone conducted test on the Tees – using our modern tees against the old sand mound tees of the 19th century. To see which reduces and/or minimises the creation of divots or if possible removes the scaring from Tees altogether. On well used course some Tees are in very poor condition.
Just a thought   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()