Tees - They can be controversial and impact golfers perceptions.

[Mark_Fine]

Continuous, squared off, round, amorphous, low profile, elevated, runway, back, middle, forward, too many, too few,…. Outside of bunkers, tees are probably the second most common project architects face on existing courses. 


So how critical are tees to making a hole good vs great? 


Note:  One of my pet peeves is when someone talks about a course and says for example, “I would like to see more variety because the par threes were all similar distances from the tees I played.”   The reality is that each of those holes likely has a wide range of teeing locations and a golfer can choose to play from any of them (not just where a certain set of markers are located).  Why should the yardages from any one particular teeing yardage define the quality of the golf hole/s? 

[Mike Sweeney]

The reality is that each of those holes likely has a wide range of teeing locations and a golfer can choose to play from any of them (not just where a certain set of markers are located).  Why should the yardages from any one particular teeing yardage define the quality of the golf hole/s?

Mark,


Honestly this is a very timely and interesting comment. I played a "not-fancy" Long Island, NY golf club over the weekend and made this exact comment to my son.


We are playing our now normal match where we play even, and he plays the "Blue" tees and I play the "White" tees. I did jump back to the Blue-6550 tees on 3-4 holes because they are more interesting from the back tee.


None were Par 3's.


I needed the 8 iron (from my white tee) to match his 8 iron (from the blue tee) to have a chance at beating him in our even match. He is 50+ yards past me when we "hit" our drives. Just a reality of life...


The "perfect course" these days seem to be the "Blue - White" combination tees in prime season - ball running, heated ball that carries.



PS - With apologies to The Tribe, we received a Military discount and the course has hosted Autism charity events. Sorry!!

[Wayne_Kozun]

Note:  One of my pet peeves is when someone talks about a course and says for example, “I would like to see more variety because the par threes were all similar distances from the tees I played.”   The reality is that each of those holes likely has a wide range of teeing locations and a golfer can choose to play from any of them (not just where a certain set of markers are located).  Why should the yardages from any one particular teeing yardage define the quality of the golf hole/s?

While you can do this it is kind of screwing with the handicapping system, and you can't do this if you are in a competition, or even in the Saturday mornings skins match with the boys.

[jeffwarne]

Note:  One of my pet peeves is when someone talks about a course and says for example, “I would like to see more variety because the par threes were all similar distances from the tees I played.”   The reality is that each of those holes likely has a wide range of teeing locations and a golfer can choose to play from any of them (not just where a certain set of markers are located).  Why should the yardages from any one particular teeing yardage define the quality of the golf hole/s?

While you can do this it is kind of screwing with the handicapping system, and you can't do this if you are in a competition, or even in the Saturday mornings skins match with the boys.

I get this comment frequently, from guys who never putt out inside 3 feet, take longer gimmes when they lose a hole, take "6xs" when they are headed for 10's,roll the ball out of divots, and drop balls laterally when a ball is lost
Moving up a tee on one hole and/or back on another is far less "screwing with the handicap system" than the way 90% of golfers score their rounds.
While no, not in a formal competition, you certainly can get the boys in the skins match to mutually agree to modified tees.

[Pete_Pittock]

A teeing area that is 20 yards long, playing to a green that is 30 yards deep can have a playing range differential of 44 yards if set ups are rotated properly by the superintendent and staff. But if they go with a front/middle/back strategy and both tee and hole locations are synced, the playing range differential is effectively zero to maybe ten yards.

[Ken Moum]

Wayne, there's always the option of posting scores from unrated tees. The handicap manual has a chart.

[Wayne_Kozun]

But who is going to bother. My club ahas Black, Blue, White and Red tees. And there is the Black/Blue hybrid - Silver, Blue/White hybrid - Green and White/Red hybrid - Orange. Isn’t that enough with seven sets.

[Mark_Fine]

Everyone, I realize jumping around to play different teeing locations from what are designated on the scorecard or by the tee markers will mess with handicaps.  By the way there will eventually be an app on your phone where you will be able to play from where ever you want and at the end of your round it will calculate a course rating for handicaps.


But anyway, what I am talking about is more the quality of the hole/architecture from different teeing locations.  Does a hole/course need to be judged from the same teeing locations on every hole as stated by the scorecard or where the super or head pro decided to place the markers that day?  We all know sometimes a hole is way better from say the blue tees vs the blacks or the greens or the browns or … Also variety can be added by simply altering the teeing locations (sometimes par fours for example can be altered simply by changing the tee markers to make them more drivable).  Does that change one’s opinion of the overall design of the hole? Should holes be looked at in this vain?  The teeing locations are there so why not?

[Ally Mcintosh]

At most courses, there are teeing locations that bring the strategy of the golf course far more in to play for each individual player than for other sets. It is noticeable.


This is the No.1 reason for throwing out “bunker positioning at the turning point” design where you find all bunkers placed at 260-310 yards from the back tee.

[Thomas Dai]

Be interesting exercise in non formal competition play to see where the wear patterns on each teeing ground would accumulate if there were no marker blocks at all, just an expanse of short cut grass.
atb

[Kyle Harris]

We’re generally good if the forward tee for one of the Par 3 holes is longer than the back tee of another. Problem sort of solves itself then.

[jeffwarne]

Everyone, I realize jumping around to play different teeing locations from what are designated on the scorecard or by the tee markers will mess with handicaps.  By the way there will eventually be an app on your phone where you will be able to play from where ever you want and at the end of your round it will calculate a course rating for handicaps.

THAT is a cool idea, and no doubt completely doable right now.

[Tom_Doak]

Everyone, I realize jumping around to play different teeing locations from what are designated on the scorecard or by the tee markers will mess with handicaps.  By the way there will eventually be an app on your phone where you will be able to play from where ever you want and at the end of your round it will calculate a course rating for handicaps.

THAT is a cool idea, and no doubt completely doable right now.

It could be done easily today, except that it wouldn't be legal until the USGA figures out how to make it proprietary.  And, by the same logic, they'd rather just dictate to you where to play from. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

At most courses, there are teeing locations that bring the strategy of the golf course far more in to play for each individual player than for other sets. It is noticeable.


This is the No.1 reason for throwing out “bunker positioning at the turning point” design where you find all bunkers placed at 260-310 yards from the back tee.

With the greater use of "proportional length tees" I haven't really seen any architects discuss hazard placement ramifications.  For instance, if the two forward most tees are 60 and 70 percent of back tee length, it is possible for the target LZ to be further down the fw than from the back tees.  On a 470 yard par 4, with forward two tees at 282 and 329 for 150 and 175 yard drivers, their landing zones might be 132 and 154 yards from the green, vs about 170-180 for the back tees.  Bunkers at the "dogleg point" for good players will be at least 30 yards short of the expected good tee shot for the shortest hitters, maybe more.


What to do, without littering the fw with hazards its entire length from 280 to 338+ yards off the back tee?  If placed as lateral lz bunkers for other tees, the bunkers might only affect the longest hitters from the back tee.  If lateral for the back tee LZ at 300 yards, they might end up as carry bunkers for the shorter hitters on forward tees, which seems okay, I guess. 


Any thoughts from the architects or others?

[Mike Nuzzo]

At most courses, there are teeing locations that bring the strategy of the golf course far more in to play for each individual player than for other sets. It is noticeable.


This is the No.1 reason for throwing out “bunker positioning at the turning point” design where you find all bunkers placed at 260-310 yards from the back tee.

There are 18ish holes, mix it up.
peace

With the greater use of "proportional length tees" I haven't really seen any architects discuss hazard placement ramifications.  For instance, if the two forward most tees are 60 and 70 percent of back tee length, it is possible for the target LZ to be further down the fw than from the back tees.  On a 470 yard par 4, with forward two tees at 282 and 329 for 150 and 175 yard drivers, their landing zones might be 132 and 154 yards from the green, vs about 170-180 for the back tees.  Bunkers at the "dogleg point" for good players will be at least 30 yards short of the expected good tee shot for the shortest hitters, maybe more.


What to do, without littering the fw with hazards its entire length from 280 to 338+ yards off the back tee?  If placed as lateral lz bunkers for other tees, the bunkers might only affect the longest hitters from the back tee.  If lateral for the back tee LZ at 300 yards, they might end up as carry bunkers for the shorter hitters on forward tees, which seems okay, I guess. 


Any thoughts from the architects or others?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I agree with mixing it up over 14 long holes.  Certainly, if I had calculated a "perfect distance from the tee" for the mythical good player, but found a natural hill to fit a bunker anywhere within 20-30 yards of that, I would put it there to be more natural, knowing not all players hit the 283 typically used for the turn point, nor does the wind blow the same direction all year.


Still, I think most of us start with some kind of philosophy on basic hazard placement and vary from there.


I say that because I spent the last five years of my career doing many bunker reduction plans, including some on my own courses.  The DOG and super would take me out and show me bunkers with no rake marks, sometimes with the comment that "they haven't seen action in years."  Then, they are put on the reduction plan to save money.


So, I think there should be some theory in place that makes most bunkers "in play" for the greatest number of golfers for some type of strategery.  They just cost too much to build and maintain for all but the top courses with no budget problems.


And, proportional tees do complicate that and architects, in my opinion, need to reconsider fw bunkering now that we aren't expecting one landing zone as we used to (often wrongly, LOL) assume.

[corey miller]

When clubs have multiple tees "for players of different ability" and they are spaced out it tends to decrease the daily variability in tees for all golfers. 


Can't we blame the Supers a little on this?

[Kyle Harris]

When clubs have multiple tees "for players of different ability" and they are spaced out it tends to decrease the daily variability in tees for all golfers. 


Can't we blame the Supers a little on this?

How? I can see one way, but I’m not sure that’s where you’re going.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When clubs have multiple tees "for players of different ability" and they are spaced out it tends to decrease the daily variability in tees for all golfers. 


Can't we blame the Supers a little on this?

In my experience, it is the committee and club pro who come up with the combo tees seen so frequently now, and the supers just implement what they want.  What I see in those combo tees is that most clubs come up with "play the longer tee on short holes and the shorter tees on long holes" which often ends up with all holes being very similar lengths from that given combo tee.


I agree that if there are six designed tees, in most cases, each is so small that there won't be more than ten yards variability for the hole on that tee, except for a long green with pins separated by many yards.  Sometimes the traditional blue tee is bigger than others and you can move white or other tees up or back to it if you want.

[corey miller]

If a club has a sixty yard tee pad with three sets of tees invariably the first set will be 10 yards back from the front edge most every day and the middle tee will be 30 yards back from the front edge most every day and the back tee will be 5o yards back from the front edge most every day.


I am not saying superintnedents don't have a hard job but I do think on things like this they take the easy way. 


My home course now has five sets of tees with par 3's playing the dreaded "same" distance" from the regular mens tees.  Do you really think members would not understand if the Super took some initative and moved the tees around? Put the white with the blue for a day? or by golly with the ladies?


I would be shocked if many of the Supers at the top 100 type courses are getting mandates from committee members to always put the tees near the USGA measured card yardages. 

[jeffwarne]

When clubs have multiple tees "for players of different ability" and they are spaced out it tends to decrease the daily variability in tees for all golfers. 


Can't we blame the Supers a little on this?

In my experience, it is the committee and club pro who come up with the combo tees seen so frequently now, and the supers just implement what they want.  What I see in those combo tees is that most clubs come up with "play the longer tee on short holes and the shorter tees on long holes" which often ends up with all holes being very similar lengths from that given combo tee.

ugh.. so true, especially the committee

[Kyle Harris]

When clubs have multiple tees "for players of different ability" and they are spaced out it tends to decrease the daily variability in tees for all golfers. 


Can't we blame the Supers a little on this?

In my experience, it is the committee and club pro who come up with the combo tees seen so frequently now, and the supers just implement what they want.  What I see in those combo tees is that most clubs come up with "play the longer tee on short holes and the shorter tees on long holes" which often ends up with all holes being very similar lengths from that given combo tee.

ugh.. so true, especially the committee

My one comment when we did this was to keep a long hole long and a short hole short.


Easily sold when I asked why that player shouldn’t have a driveable Par 4, too!

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

If a club has a sixty yard tee pad with three sets of tees invariably the first set will be 10 yards back from the front edge most every day and the middle tee will be 30 yards back from the front edge most every day and the back tee will be 5o yards back from the front edge most every day.


I am not saying superintnedents don't have a hard job but I do think on things like this they take the easy way. 


My home course now has five sets of tees with par 3's playing the dreaded "same" distance" from the regular mens tees.  Do you really think members would not understand if the Super took some initative and moved the tees around? Put the white with the blue for a day? or by golly with the ladies?


I would be shocked if many of the Supers at the top 100 type courses are getting mandates from committee members to always put the tees near the USGA measured card yardages.

I'm dealing with this at the moment. We had a hybrid course that gave some flexibility on where to put the markers (as they had a mixed color on them) but last year we switched to 7 full sets of tee markers (not including the embedded short course ones in the fairways for the kids). The issue is even though there are now 7 lengths to play the course only one or two sets have room to add variety to it. The biggest issue is there is no room for the markers on the shorter tees (and in most cases the tees are huge here) so in inevitably on some you have 3-4 sets, that are 10 yards apart along the tee (like you described).


We paired some up but we were told to re-separate them and there is another group that doesn't want them at all, so I can confirm its very member driven, with the super stuck in the middle. I can't imagine the conversation if I were to really go nuts and move say a white to the blue, especially when I hear it if we move the whites 10 yards back to the front of its own box from a mixed tee.


Par threes are a little better due to the larger amount of divots forcing superintendents to move around more for wear and tear, but the markers still won't be moved from their designated tee.