A course that I frequent has sets of tees at roughly these distances: 7100 (black), 6700 (white), 6200 (gold), and 5400 (green) yards, with slopes from 135 to 122.  Predictably, the majority of players play from the white tees, even though many do not belong there.  Even the starter says that most people play the whites, and goes as far as calling the gold tees the "senior set".  I should point out that there is also a recommended handicap level for each set of tees (the whites range to 16!), but it is mostly ignored.

I wonder if Tobacco Road has it right by not having any colors at all - they have symbols for their tees.  Each set of tees simply has a yardage and a recommended handicap level, so nobody feels goated into playing the wrong tees.  Plus, they strongly advise against the back set, making the second set seem like the back tees, which pushes many to play the third set.  Why can't more courses adopt this practice?  

Dave,

I'm not so concerned with the 5 or the 12 or whatever.  For all I care play the tips or whatever tees they want - I doubt that it will have a great effect on pace.  However, the 120 shooters that I see playing the so-called whites of 6700 yards, its a completely different matter.

Pete:
I think the problem is that for most recreational golfers white tees are where they think they should be regardless of yardage/difficulty. This course should change the colors of their tees to:
7100 Black or Gold
6700 Blue
6100 WHITE
5400 Green or Red

Another thought would be to eliminate tee colors altogether as some courses are doing by having NUMBERS instead of colors. Some courses in Florida are doing this: Back Tees are 1 and go down to the forward tees which are 4 or 5 depending on how many teeing areas exist on the course.

Steve

Players need to be educated that they should play the tees that enables them to play the course the way the architect designed it, ie. they should be hitting approach shots with everything from a wedge to a long iron or fairway metal, to enjoy their round.

Mark, While the above may sound good, I find it hard to believe that if a golfer can learn to play the correct set of tees, they can should learn to go to thier ball and hit it again.

Neither is the case for the people we are talking about. However, on the days when I am one of those people, I know when to give up.; But there are also days when I am playing the way back tees (wrong set for me) but I find the round more enjoyable. Sure, Im not hitting greens in reg, but I am also not getting into well placed trouble.
 

In his Analysis of Layout essay for the Oct 1927 Green Section Record, William Flynn wrote :

"In fitting the course to all classes in everyday play it is necessary to maintain relative values in the holes.  This can only be done by using two and in some instances three tees to a hole the various players using the tee that fits their particular game.

The value of a hole is immediately lost when the 200-yard driver uses the back tee on a normal 420-yard hole.  It is impossible for him to get home in two, whereas had the forward tee 40 to 50 yards ahead been used he would then have played a long iron or spoon shot to the green with a resultant thrill of satisfaction and at the same time be within his limitations.

A great many players are averse to using forward tees perhaps because they were originally christened "ladies tees" but regardless of that fact it seems that a great deal more enjoyment could be had if golfers used the tee on the various holes that really suited their game.

A little card tacked on their locker door with the following inscription might go a long way toward correcting their prejudice against the so-called "ladies tees."

Golfers, Attention!

In order to accomodate all classes of players your club has gone to the expense of building forward, intermediate, and back tees on many holes.  These tees are kept in order and markers are placed on each one.  Except in tournaments please use the tee that fits your particular game and enjoy the course."

Seems like Dave and Flynn share a similar view of this matter.

By the way, I don't think Flynn is advocating a GIR mentality at all.  He was indicating a method for ensuring that all classes of players have a similar shot value and thus each class of player would have a similar shot test within their own distance limits.

We actually directly considered this in setting up our tee blocks.

We went with Red (7169), Black(6749), Green(6232), White(5558), and Yellow(4845).  What has happened is a number of seniors who would otherwise avoid the "senior tees" are playing our whites and really enjoying the game as they played it in their youth.  All players are seeing bumb and runs and temptation shots are back in play and the round is full of options most have either never experienced or haven't seen for a number of years. Others are stopping to look at the card and analyze where to play. Dave you'll be happy to know the undecideds are referenced to our 12th Hole a Par three of 258, 230, 192, 158, and 100 and asked what the longest par three is they ever want to play.  Even if they don't know that its a redan.  It has worked very well and improved playability and enjoyment.

Cheers!

JT

Thanks for all of the thoughtful responses so far.  I really like Jim's idea of reversing the colors with Red as the back tees, and setting the whites as the second set.  The more I hear about Angels Crossing, the more I like it!  I'm going to try hard to escape the FL summer next year to catch a game at your place Jim - wish it was around when I lived there.  

Wayne:

Would you mind telling me where Flynn's remarks end in your post #9. (It'll save me hunting through all his green section articles and such. Actually which article did you get that from?).

Wouldn’t it be easier if every course just used the same colors?

such as…
Black – 6800+
Blue – 6300+
White – 5800+
Red – 5800-

Obviously you can play with the yardages a bit, but the idea is that most golfers have a regular color tee they play from at their home course. It just gets confusing when you go somewhere else and the colors are different.

Mike,
This is one of the things that Flynn was cautioning against.  The shot testing or shot values are lost by players going off the "wrong" tees.  These players are avoiding their weaknesses rather than working to strengthen them.  Show them the error in their ways!

Dave, I don't disagree with you there - they can be boneheads!  (No smiley inserted.)  However, it definitely affects more people than you think.  My Dad has fallen victim to it as well.  At my old home course at UNC, the whites are the short set at 5500, while the "Carolina Blue" tees are at 6200.  He insisted on playing the whites since that's what he always plays, he said "They must be white for a reason".  The course where he regularly plays sets the whites at 6150.  Disclaimer: I grew up in the poor suburbs of Detroit.  

Also, in my dozen or so rounds around the course mentioned in my first post, I haven't seen anyone play the gold tees (6200); they all play the whites at 6700.  So its not just my buddies that are the boneheads!  Plus this is not a fast 6700, its a Florida overseeded slow 6700.  Vacationers.  

That October 1927 Flynn article in the USGA Green Section Report relating to this subject and Flynn's overall feeling about it is most interesting indeed.

It is not important that I agree with Flynn on his feeling and ideas on this subject, because frankly I don't. It is only important that I understand completely what he was trying to say and why.

Wayne and I have talked for a long time about portraying Flynn and his ideas about golf architecture during his career for what they really were. In this way we seem to agree that Flynn could be and should be what might be considered a true "transition" architect in the overall evolution of both golf and golf architecture in the last century. In other words he really was conceiving, designing and constructing into the way many things were changing about the game and relatively rapidly.

It appears Flynn (in this article) was very much proposing the effective use and relative scale of what might be called "GIR in the same number" for all levels of players.

Personally, I don't really like that concept---I think it was the beginning of both perceiving and designing into a form of "strategic political correctness" and frankly that's just not the way of the world between levels of players and never should be in my mind.

I prefer, in theory if perhaps not in complete practice, the  idea of length as Ron Prichard suggests an architect such as Ross ORIGINALLY suggested it and used it when all golfers teed off from the same and single tee markers for all. In other words there only was one set of tee MARKERS way back when and all golfers used them (the same markers).

The idea was if a little old lady needed four of her best shots to reach a green and a long man needed only two---Heh, that's just the way it was. What in fact was needed was handicapping by shots per hole, or some other handicapping form and not by adjustable length per hole! That concept of not using adjustable length is just the way of the world, in my opinion---that truly is reality and a golf course just like Nature itself should reflect that.

Would it be harder for an architect to do successfully throughout the entire length of holes instead of simply relying on tees of differing lengths? Of course it would be---but again it's the way of the world----everyone should begin from the same starting point if they're all to end at the same ending point! The expected shots it takes them to accomplish any hole from the same starting point to the same ending point is just the way it is!

Again, in my opinion, one of the worst things that ever happened to golf and golf architecture is the continuing perception of "GIR in the same number of strokes for all." It's just far too inexact to ever try to design and handicap this type of things given all that the entire spectrum of golfers can be. (legitimate 18 handicappers can be either very long or very short---and there's never going to be anything that architecture or handicapping can accurately do to reflect how to level that fact! So, in my opinion, they should simply stop trying!).

I say bring back that glorious analogy of the tortoise and the hare and apply it again to golf. You want to talk about real strategies? That my friends was real strategies----eg any golfer's very own!!! and certainly not something artifically layed on them by some architect in an attempt to create formulaic equality!

Wayne;

Flynn being a "transition" architect was obviously responding to the way golf was going at the time he wrote those articles. He talks about "relative values" (obviously being relative shot values to the distance various levels of players hit the ball) through the use of using two or sometimes three sets of tees---

"In fitting a course to all classes in everyday play it is necessary to maintain relative values in the holes. This can only be done by using two and in some instances three tees to a hole the various players using the tee that fits their particular game."

My point is that the distance various levels of players hit the ball does not relate to handicap level and it obviously never will---so using various tees by handicap level will always be a most inexact procedure.

But today differing course ratings from different tees will adjust the handicaps of players regardless how short or how long they hit the ball.