[Mike Hendren]

Does the deployment of four or five tees per hole make life easier for the architect?  Should the architect, as Mike Cirba suggested, be able to design holes that are playable / negotiable for a broad spectrum of skills from merely two tees?

Seems to me two sets of tees a mere twenty yards deep would yield enough elasticity to make the course play 6600 to 6900 yards from the back tee and 6300 to 6000 yards from the front tee.  

Wondering,

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I think that Cirba guy is correct, although I'd see the yardage breakouts more in the 6400-6900 yard range (using Tillie's idea for perhaps 30-40 yard, broad teeing areas), and 5,000-5500 yard shorter tees.

I would think that (PC time) "less long hitting" players of all ilks would be well served by the forward tees, and anyone with a proven handicap of say, 15 or less could play from the "tips".  

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike,

I think you've hit the nail on the head; it's lazy architecture. Flip through any Golden Age architecture book and you'll see detailed plans of holes where each player, according to his ability, tacks his way around the hazards in a different fashion; with the boldest rewarded with the optimum attack angle. Today's architects seem to say that "the green was designed to be played with a 7 iron" and therefore I must build 6 sets of tees, spanning over 150 yards so that Mom and Tiger can both have a 7 iron in. Granted the fact that today's ball is engineered only for the elite player has disrupted the balance that used to allow all classes of players attempt to play the hole from a single tee, according to their abilities.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I think you've hit the nail on the head; it's lazy architecture. Flip through any Golden Age architecture book and you'll see detailed plans of holes where each player, according to his ability, tacks his way around the hazards in a different fashion; with the boldests rewarded with the optimum attack angle. Today's architects seem to say that "the green was designed to be played with a 7 iron" and therefore I must build 6 sets of tees, spanning over 150 yards so that Mom and Tiger can both have a 7 iron in. Granted the fact that today's ball is engineered only for the elite player has disrupted the balance that used to allow all classes of players attempt to play the hole from a single tee, according to their abilities.

Bingo, Pete...you've described the different approach and architectural mindset PERFECTLY.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

I feared being chastized by everyone on this site who apparently routingly drives the golf ball 310 yards and considers anything less than 7,000 yards chump change.  Your yardages are closer to mine except for the front tee that I'd like to see in the 6200 to 5800 range.

If I get to pick a yardage, I'd start at 6,300.  

Pete,

I agree.  Is the architect's need to level the playing field a result of our medal play mentality?  Seems the handicap system would be sufficient adjustment otherwise.

Mike

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think the idea of multiple tees can work well if it's designed to really change the playablility of the hole.  If done well, a different tee position nearly creates a new golf hole.  

One of the best examples of this that I've seen is #9 at the Kingsley Club, a par 3 of 157 yards.  I love the hole from both tees and it's equally challenging and fun.  

#9 from the Southern tees


#9 from the Western tees


View from behind green showing both sets of tees on the right and left:

[Lou_Duran]

Mike,

I am a different courses for different horses kind of guy.  I've yet to play the one-size-fits-all club.  Perhaps some could suggest the best candidates in this category.

Building multiple, staggered tees to test most levels of golfers would seem to be a more difficult task than planning two sets to a wide fairway sectored by bunkers, knollls, and rough.  I particularly like what some architects like Morrish have done by setting the tees at progressively more difficult angles from front to back.

 

[Pete Buczkowski]

Fellow HB Mike,

My first thought is that there should be a distinction between multiple tees from the same angle and multiple teeing grounds from a different angle.  My favorite example of the latter is #6 at Tobacco Road.  The green shape demands different demands depending on the teeing ground used for that day - the left teeing ground requires distance control while the right teeing ground requires accuracy.  I really like this concept & think its a great concept for member/repeat play.  

As for multiple sets of tees...if 2 sets were appropo for the golden age, then with today's distance differential I can get behind 3 sets of tees.  The skill and length disperity is so much greater today that 2 tees is IMO too extreme.  I certainly don't think everybody needs to have a 7-iron approach to the same hole, I think the guide of "requiring (nearly) every club in bag" is a good goal.  

And on a side note I think my wife would give up the game if she had to play 6000 yard courses, and I would if I had to play 7000 yard courses.  

[Pete Buczkowski]

On a side note, the North course at Fernandina Beach is a poster child for a single-tee course.  Its only 2900 yards or so from the back tee and not much different from the forward tee, yet they still have 4 sets of tees.  My wife and I played the whites together there and it worked perfectly.

Edit Addition:  Check out this thread on the same theme...
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5492

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I don't think it's lazy architecture, I think it's lazy golfers.

Golfers think they have a "right" to reach a green in regulation.  They think the have a "right" to have a chance at a par.  They don't accept a design that is more difficult for them than for the better player.  That's "unfair".  They seem to all say: "I suck, so give me a break!"

So that's what architects do.  They give them a break:  Shorter tees, better angles, hazards out of reach, open greens.  "Tough par, easy bogey" ideas.

I've always been of the opinion that an architect's responsibility lies in simply telling them where to start, and where to finish.  Then give them a kick in the butt and send them on their way.  "Figure it out yourself", so to speak.  

Instead, golfers expect us to hold their hands the whole way down.

[Ted Kramer]

I don't think it's lazy architecture, I think it's lazy golfers.

Golfers think they have a "right" to reach a green in regulation.  They think the have a "right" to have a chance at a par.  They don't accept a design that is more difficult for them than for the better player.  That's "unfair".  They seem to all say: "I suck, so give me a break!"

So that's what architects do.  They give them a break:  Shorter tees, better angles, hazards out of reach, open greens.  "Tough par, easy bogey" ideas.

I've always been of the opinion that an architect's responsibility lies in simply telling them where to start, and where to finish.  Then give them a kick in the butt and send them on their way.  "Figure it out yourself", so to speak.  

Instead, golfers expect us to hold their hands the whole way down.

Couldn't agree more!

-Ted

[Brian_Gracely]

Gee, this wouldn't have anything to do with the owners and target audiences/mebership.....would it?  Even Doak has mentioned that Mike Keiser wanted additional tees added to Pacific Dunes.

Be careful where you put the blame in that big bucket of generalities....

[Phil_the_Author]

I originally posted this on the thread dealing with the question of forward tees but feel it is far more germane to this discussion, especially as his views disagree with the supposition that multiple tees equal lazy architecture. I believe that he would state that a single tee with few options on it is the laziest form of this architectural feature.

Here are a few of Tillinghast's thoughts on the teeing ground and need for multiple tee locations:

“The ideal teeing ground is nothing more than a great level area, which will permit the placing of the tee-markers in many, many places.”

“Early in my career I ruthlessly tore away from these [small and mathematically formal tees] and wherever possible graded large teeing ground areas which permitted of a constant change of the tee plates to suit weather conditions and to lend variety by playing from different angles. The short fourth, the water hole at Baltusrol, with its irregularly shaped teeing ground, somewhat after the fashion of an immense horseshoe, is a sample of this.”

“There is one point that occurs to me and I think that I have never mentioned it. Often when there are two or three teeing grounds provided for one hole, they are laid out in a straight line. This not only looks artificial but the arrangement robs the hole of variety. Playing to the fairway from different angles not only is pleasing, but often the wind dictates a different angle almost as much as length.”

“The teeing ground should be sufficiently expansive to give the hole this playing length [385 yards] under any condition of weather or wind." [Accomplished by positioning of tee forward or back]

[Mike_Cirba]

Philip,

It seems that Tilly is saying that "2 or 3" tees constitutes "multiple teeing grounds", not 5 or 6 or X.  

I agree with his two.

[Craig Van Egmond]

I think if your going to appeal to all golfers of varying skill levels you need to have 3 set of tees, forward, middle and back.   I can see no reason to have more than that from a golfer or maintenance perspective.

I do like it when like Kingsley Club they have multiple tee boxs that given you a totally different look at a hole. But that can be overdone.

[Bob_Huntley]

Gee, this wouldn't have anything to do with the owners and target audiences/mebership.....would it?  Even Doak has mentioned that Mike Keiser wanted additional tees added to Pacific Dunes.

Be careful where you put the blame in that big bucket of generalities....

Brian,

Very well said.

When Monet painted what later became to be considered his masterpieces, he was not painting for a patron or master, but for himself. When a golf course architect builds a golf course he does not build it and then sell his creation, rather he is doing so under the aegis of some rather deep pockets who will want a say in the final product.

A classic example is the MPCC Shore Course by Strantz. It has multiple tees, some of which I think are superfluous but are designed to accomodate the aged, of whom we have a fair amount and the ladies, of whom we have a lot. These requirements were laid down by the Club in advance.

No one in their right minds could possibly call Mike Strantz lazy.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Craig,

I agree that multiple tee boxes from various angles can indeed be overdone.  #9 is the lone example of it at Kingsley.  Mike DeVries definitely did it right.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

   You wrote, "It seems that Tilly is saying that '2 or 3' tees constitutes 'multiple teeing grounds', not 5 or 6 or X."
   I think that you will find this interesting. Actually Tilly didn't care as to the number of teeing grounds for a given hole as much as he wanted a multiplicity of options. For example, he wrote of this and made a sketch of a par three with a single large curved teeing area (sorry I couldn't get it to copy on here.
   He wrote that, "The sketch shows six lines of drive from various points on the large and irregularly shaped teeing ground. The solid lines A, B and C illustrate elective drives from the extreme left; the first taking the long carry and leaving an open shot to the green. B takes the medium carry but although the route to the green is directly straight, the second has to carry the long pit and along the pronounced break of the ground on the right. The player from C, confessing lack of length by playing safely to the right, must take three to get home for obviously the route for any second from this sector directly toward the green is quite beyond his ability."
      He then points out how having a large and wide teeing area can change the hole and how it is played quite dramatically. “The broken line D from the center of the tee shows a drive of exactly the same length as A with approximately the same carry, but from this point the hole is somewhat longer. Still another along the dot-
and-dash line F, from the extreme right, is of the same length as A and D. In this instance there is no obligatory carry necessary to gain the coveted zone between the long hazards…”

Notice how he was actually creating SIX distinct teeing areas from the one large tee ground. This was not accomplished by moving the tee only but by also placing the cup in separate areas. This single par three could then be played in a variety of ways.

He strongly felt that where more than one tee box was built, that they not be in line but be placed so that the angle(s) of play would become subtly different and remain challenging for all players of every skill level.

 

[Mike Hendren]

Phil The Author,

I'm not overly familiar with Tillie.  Did he practice what he preached?  I ask because I'm always astonished by George C. Thomas, Jr.'s apparent failure to implement many of the concepts he advocated in Golf Architecture In America.

Mike

[Dale_McCallon]

I don't think it's lazy architecture, I think it's lazy golfers.

Golfers think they have a "right" to reach a green in regulation.  They think the have a "right" to have a chance at a par.  They don't accept a design that is more difficult for them than for the better player.  That's "unfair".  They seem to all say: "I suck, so give me a break!"

So that's what architects do.  They give them a break:  Shorter tees, better angles, hazards out of reach, open greens.  "Tough par, easy bogey" ideas.

I've always been of the opinion that an architect's responsibility lies in simply telling them where to start, and where to finish.  Then give them a kick in the butt and send them on their way.  "Figure it out yourself", so to speak.  

Instead, golfers expect us to hold their hands the whole way down.

I don't get this--if everyone is expected to play "from the tips" isn't that just going to slow everyone down.  Does it make me lazy that I would rather play a par 4 that measures 420 yds as opposed to 485?  I don't mind making bogey, but I have trouble enjoying a round where every second shot is a fairway wood.  Nothing sillier in a round of golf than to follow hacks playing from the back, just because of some ego trip.  If having my hand held will speed play up, then I'm all for it.

Also, is having multiple tees really a major maintence problem?  I can't imagine it takes a member of the grounds crew that much longer to maintain a few extra teeing grounds, so why does it matter?

One thing that has suprised me about this site.  It seems that so many of you guys play from the tips.  Granted, the playing level of a lot of you guys is quite high, but at my home course the back tees are almost always deserted.  Not because of excessive length, but most people just want to enjoy themselves.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Dale,

I understand what you're saying, as it makes perfect sense.

But if there is only one tee, there wouldn't be any "tips".

Courses today are designed to be played using multiples tees.  In effect, they have one landing area, and many tees.  So when you're playing from the "wrong" tee, and can't reach the effecting landing areas, then obviously the course won't work for you.  It'll feel too long or too short.

We need to change the way courses are designed.  Have everyone start from the same spot (after all, we all finish at the same spot -- what's next, multiple hole locations??).  But design the hole to accomodate all sorts of tee shots from that one spot.  Have a swale 100 yards from the tee, then a dogleg at 200 yards, with a fairway bunker in between.  Then the green sits behind a small pond 260 yards away.  Holes would be all type of lengths, hazards would be in all types of locations.  Some in play for you, others in play for me.  Something for everyone to deal with, regardless of ability.

It's a completely different way to design.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeremy, how big do you propose these tees ought to be, if only one per hole on a course that does average good business (in our northern climate experiences) of about 30--35K rounds a year?

It seems to me that you need to have sufficient square footage of teeing grounds that one tee can not provide under most modern circumstances, if you don't want that teeing ground to look like a cattle feedlot.  So, if you are going to provide nice level and well groomed teeing areas, you might as well opt for a few from varying angles and distances rather than one huge clumsy looking launch pad...

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Richard,

The tee surface would be, as usual, six to eight thousand square feet.  Same square footage as the total square footage of multiple tees.

This surface area can in fact be broken up into multiple tees as well, if one tee is too big (which would probably be the case).

I'm not saying there should be ONE mamooth tee deck, but rather one set of tee markers.  This tee maker would be moved on a daily basis, perhaps even a significant distance to another tee deck (50 or 100 yards even...).  Moving it such a distance wouldn't render the hole's design obsolete, but rather simply change which features are in play for which player on that particular day.  That swale I mentionned in the last post that was 100 yards from the tee (in play for Grandma) would now be 200 yards away (in play for dad), and the green is now 360 yards away.  Different hole, but perfectly playable for everyone.  

The point is that EVERYONE starts from the same spot on that day.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeremy, thanks for clearing that up!

Now I have a completely different basis on which to disagree with you

I can't really see the thrill in playing any course I can think of from lady distance with all other golfers in the field, until I'm a bit older.  I once played a men's league from the forward green tees at about 6000 yards for my beloved Wild Horse.  While it was OK, just too many wedges to the greens for my taste.  The greens still defended par well, but I think one realistically needs to get some element of distance into the game no matter what the course, if you are even a 13-14 like me and can hit the ball over 200-210.  

They say Jack Nicklaus plays at Muirfield Village sometimes from the ladies tee.  I can see that as a perfectly interesting change of pace and get some other view of the course to break the monotony.  But, not as a practical matter for even a skins game or $2 nassau with your relatively equal playing skill buddies...

[Mark_Fine]

How they look and where they are located is far far more important than how many.  A good course with a good set of multiple tees probably requires more effort from a design standpoint than one with less.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()