[Mark_Fine]

I have lots of opinions about this but will hold sharing most of my thoughts for the moment.  What I will say to start is this; there isn’t an architect I know that would tell you that all the golf holes they have ever designed are equally as good regardless of the tee chosen to start the hole.  Given that, where should you judge the quality of a hole or even a set of holes from?

[Ian Andrew]

Misunderstood the question….

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:


I think Mark meant, which of the tees do you use to judge the hole?


My personal answer would be "all of them".  I know that's impossible in practice; most golfers only think about themselves.  Most men wouldn't even notice if the hole is unplayable for women from their tee.


If the rating panels were a true cross-section of golfers, that would sort itself out . . . just as I've argued for course conditioning or the effects of the wind, every view would be given its correct weight.  But when the raters all look alike and sound alike, you sometimes don't get a fair representation.

[Mark_Fine]

I was talking about from which tee or tees do you make your judgement?  Tom, I agree with you.  You need to look at all of them however as we all know, sometimes tees can get added that make little sense for all but a few players.  What if for example Augusta National added another 50 yards back on #13 making the hole 600 yards long.  Would it still be the greatest reward par five in golf? As such, what tees are you judging that or any hole from when you make an evaluation of how great it really is?  And one more point if 200 yard par three from the tips can be equally great or greater from the 120 yard teeing location can it also be considered a great “short” hole?  If not why not?

This thread came about from the Harbour Town par threes thread where the “card yardage” for the four par threes from the tips is similar.  In my opinion, who cares as the course set up, the wind conditions, the back drops, the hole locations, … can make all those holes play completely different on any given day. 


Note:  Mauna Kea’s 3rd hole from the tips is 272 yards (pretty much all carry). What an awesome long par three though completely impossible for most.  From the composite tee it is about 140 yards.  What a fantastic short par three for any level golfer      Where do you judge it from?  Do you take a balance 

[jeffwarne]

I'd argue a hole that is considered great by ALL could be effectively played from mostly 1 tee.
Example a 260 yard par 4..
See Tree Farm #18(minus the back tee-lol-so there goes my arguement)


There just aren't many/any holes that would be great if the tees were actually set up at driveable distance for all regardless of how long/short they hit it.
I.e. a forward tee at 140 yards as a 'driveable par 4.
Because nearly all women(compared to the way men tend to spread out) play at the forward tees. It would be very hard to design that hole where ALL women would enjoy it.
To say nothing of the aerial and spin challenges of lower speed golfers..
Better women players tend to want longer tougher holes,but nearly all play the same tees.



Yet a 270 par 4  can be exciting and driveable for the elite  and average and be a fun 2 shotter for others.
I often have senior players tell me they love a 260 par 4 we have that they could never drive. but CAN reach in 2, and get rave reviews from others as drive and pitch or a driveable par 4.
I think you have to think about all players/speed/skill and all options when building any hole, but especially one where most start from the same place.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Years ago, a female journalist took me around a well known course to demonstrate just how poorly considered most forward tees were.  Some were behind trees, blind, forces a shot into a pond or cross slope that was impossible to hold, etc.


Since then, I and I believe most of the field do give more consideration to all tees and how they play, but we are still far from perfect.  Even then, most holes probably have an angle from which they look or "feel" best, and sometimes you can't get every tee at the most favorable angle.  Of course, the standard stair step down the hill often gives a less attractive presentation to the lower tees.


Play wise, most of us probably plot landing areas from each tee to try to at least avoid impossible landing areas.  Sadly, in many cases, the best way to provide good landing zones for all is to bulldoze hilly topo into something more consistent the length of the fairway, because when you plot those various landing zones, tee shots are likely to end up just about anywhere down the fw.  Some would consider that bad or at least dulled down architecture, but it is a case of where playability might trump naturalness in design criteria.

[Thomas Dai]

How about standing behind the green and looking towards the tee? Gives a different perspective.
As an aside, I believe there’s a Moe Norman story where he asks his caddy what clubs he’ll likely use on a particular hole. Caddy replies Driver, 9-iron so when they reach the hole in question Moe hits 9-iron from the tee and Driver to the green.

Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


Well, RTJ said a good hole would be a good hole in reverse in most cases.  I have had clients who read that and looked at it that way.  They were also amazed that all the bunkers disappeared, having been built up at their backs from visibility off the tee, and thus blind looking backwards.  There have been some reversible courses that prove that this can be true.


I recall playing golf with Bob Cupp once at an ASGCA meeting and the caddy asked if he designed holes from the green back, which put Bob in convulsions of laughter.  Honestly, most of us design holes the way you play them, from tee onward, which always made sense to me, and the backward design is one of the oft stated myths of golf course design.

[Bruce Katona]

Back when I used to do standing inventory acquisitions, one of the exercises we did when evaluating an asset for purchase was to have a foursome of different skilled players (one of our professionals, a low handicap, medium handicap & high handicap/senior/female) play the course and rate each hole from tee to green for playability, fairness, aesthetics etc. on a scale from 1-4.  When done playing, we'd add up the totals to see which set of tees played from ranked best, worst, etc. so we'd know what we were potentially getting and where we'd need to spend CAPEX dollars on improvements.

[Tom_Doak]

I recall playing golf with Bob Cupp once at an ASGCA meeting and the caddy asked if he designed holes from the green back, which put Bob in convulsions of laughter.  Honestly, most of us design holes the way you play them, from tee onward, which always made sense to me, and the backward design is one of the oft stated myths of golf course design.

It's not always a myth.  Certainly there are holes on most of my courses where I found a green site first, and then looked backwards for the right place to play it from.  Likewise, I am more likely to design/shape the green first and then sort out what fairway bunkers to build or not build.


Maybe it would be more appropriate to say, not everyone does it the same way? 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Judging from someone else's perspective has led to horrible outcomes.
I judge from where I play.
And I also design from the green, and I also sometimes design from something or somewhere unique.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I'm sure I have found a green site and worked backward occasionally.  The 7th at the Quarry comes to mind. 


I would probably have done more of that if I had been offered more spectacular sites, which I think tend to demand that a bit more.  If I found a nice-looking green site with a tree on the north side, it would become pretty obvious that the hole would have to play from the E, S, or W of that tree. 


As to hazards, design is more of a circular process.  As Mike says, if there is a really unique feature you might start from almost anywhere, and work one way, but the design is never done until you work it backward to make sure everything really works as your first impression may have told you.  Most often, for me, the land around the green site wasn't particularly spectacular, but most often it made sense to put the hazard on the low side of the green as a natural fit.  Then you can work out the rest. 


But overall, I think it most often makes sense to find a tee location (which should be near the previous green, of course) and work it out as a golfer plays it.  We can say that it isn't always a myth, but it is one of those pithy sayings that has gotten far more play than the supposed process underlying it.  Hey, it does sound like it makes sense, lol, and as you say, sometimes it does.


Mike,


Certainly, as a player, you are likely to judge it by where you play.  I think it is the job of the architect to anticipate how all players might reasonably play a hole.  Judging a design on your own game has also led to some less than desirable outcomes, i.e., JN and his greens bent hard right to fit his game, CB Mac routing all holes hooking out of bounds because of his slice, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Yeah, nobody likes Chicago Golf Club! 

[cary lichtenstein]

How about standing behind the green and looking towards the tee? Gives a different perspective.
As an aside, I believe there’s a Moe Norman story where he asks his caddy what clubs he’ll likely use on a particular hole. Caddy replies Driver, 9-iron so when they reach the hole in question Moe hits 9-iron from the tee and Driver to the green.




Atb

great story, never heard that one before

[Paul Rudovsky]

Walking golf holes backwards is also an outstanding way to decide strategic options for playing holes (forwards).

[Mark_Fine]

Lots of great comments by everyone, thank you. 


What I was really getting at, however, is this - do you have to judge or should you judge the quality of a course/golf holes from essentially just one set of tees participating the set on a score card?  If for example you think a particular par three hole is phenomenal for all levels of players from the 140 yard tee box but not so great from the 230 yard tee that maybe some golf committee had added, how would you judge it? 


I think this topic is important as it very much impacts all the various lists out there. 


Let me throw out a few more thoughts; we all like variety and temptation and risk/reward.  If there are four par fives on a course and they are all say 580 yards or so from the tips or even from the “main” tee boxes but several of them would and are exceptional risk/reward par fives if played from shorter tee boxes, how would you judge them?  Would you judge this set of holes as simply a set of long three shot par fives or judge them as a great set of mixed variety fives with a wide range of shot options and risk/reward temptation? 


If a course is “missing” based on card yardage from the back or even middle tees, a “drivable” par four that you would enjoy seeing and playing but for example you realize hole #7 would be a great drivable par four if played from a more forward existing tee, is it ok to judge it from there and say the course has an amazing short risk/reward par four?


I hope you see what I am getting at.  Those kind of short or long or risk/reward type of holes might exist on the course if played from various tees but if we are forced to judge a course from one set say the black 7300 yard markers or the blue 6500 makers,…, is that fair to the course and to the architect/s who designed it?

[David Harshbarger]

Yet another reason to rein in equipment to better match the scale.


As equipment has propelled the scale at which stronger players play the relative difference in scale between weak players and strong players is that much greater, and the challenge of maintaining golf qualities across the range of scales that much more difficult.


Soly on the No Laying Up podcast recalled his round at Augusta last week. He is a good player and lamented that he just hit the ball too far to experience the challenges Augusta offers, played from the member tees. It was an observation rarely heard, as most of the time we aren’t in a situation where 1) we have an expectation for a specific experience and 2) there’s awareness that this may be the only opportunity to have that experience.


But, playing Augusta as a winner of the press lottery setup this circumstance. Years of intently watching the Masters established an interest in trying to pull off certain shots (off the tee) - specific experiences, while the lottery system to play might never surface your name again.


On air Soly never quite connected the threads. The member tees are closer to the original intent. And that intent was scaled to equipment from the 30s to 50s.


In 1955 I would have to think a quality amateur would experience all of the features a pro did while the am still played member tees.


2024 - member tees are too short for a quality am to be engaged by the architect.

[Niall C]

David


You speak of the architects intent in relation to Augusta. Do you think MacKenzie and Jones intent was that every golfer irrespective of standard or capability should experience the course the same way and if so why wasn't there multiple tees they way you get with most modern courses ?


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()