Was fairness or agronomy the primary reason for building multiple teeing grounds for one hole?

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but what hasn't.

George Thomas wrote of multiple tees simply as a means of variety.

Multiple tees appear to be simply an evolution in golf and architecture from the rudimentary days of both. At one time there were no "tee boxes" and actually a series of rules requiring the player to tee off a certain amount of club-lengths from the previous HOLE (cup) initially beginning with one club-length.

It seems to me that multiple tees were part of what was loosely referred to by early architects (just after the turn of the century) as "modern" architecture or "scientific" architecture which was an attempt to design golf courses in such a way that they would begin to accomodate all levels of player ability. "Modern" or "scientific" architecture was probably as much an attempt by early architects to popularize the game by accomodating the games of all player levels as anything else.

Enjoyment.

People like to be able to have a chance to reach a par 4 in 2 shots or at most 2 full shots and a chip.  Why not give them that chance?  If the only tee on a par 4 is at 460 yards, many golfers have no real chance of getting there ever.

The laziness of some architects is not so much in building multiple tees as it is in not making it an interesting strategic course from the forward tees.

Mr Kavanaugh,

Maybe my comprehension is lacking this morning, but Ican't understand what you said, care to clarify?

John, Pat and Tom,

Would it be unreasonable to ask an architect to design a hole that is playable and interesting to all level golfers, if they (golfers) start from the same spot.

"Would it be unreasonable to ask an architect to design a hole that is playable and interesting to all level golfers, if they (golfers) start from the same spot."

Sully:

I don't think it would be unnreasonable to ask an architect to try to design a whole course that way. What would really get interesting if that were done would be rating the course and playing it handicap-wise!  

The nature of modern handicapping just might have as much to do with multiple tees as anything else. In other words if you designed a course of perhaps 6800 yards for all there would be far more multiple shots necessary PER HOLE than I believe the present handicap processes like to have. Consequently the reality of modern handicapping is not just stroke allowances but also distance allowances. But very little distance adjustment was the way it was in the old days obviously.  

The thing I would really like to see a good architect do one day is what I call "courses within a course". To do that well though would take not only a particular type of site but also one that didn't have many trees. It would potentially be a massive amount of design work. That's precisely the type of thing that that ultra-genius George Thomas began to attempt to do.

It seems to me that, as Pat says, "entitlement and fairness" would have been the initial reasons for creating multiple tees, but agronomic considerations would be a strong reason why it might be unrealistic to do today. Agree? Disagree?

Pat,

Is that Prichard presentation available in any format?

Good question Pat!

I am speaking of all players playing a golf course from the same set of markers. I would put no restriction on the number of different "structures" available for the superintendent to place those markers. I do feel it would be ineffective, or counter productive, to have several (3 or 4) possibilities on each tee that each make the hole play substantially different from each other. In other words, I don't like the idea of simply removing all but one set of markers from the current setup at most courses and rotate the markers among the available tee pads. Let me know if this is clear, or as convoluted as it sounds coming out.

The one thing everyone seems to be forgetting about here is “fun”. John V. touched on it, but how many 15+ handicappers are going to enjoy the same course a scratch golfer might enjoy…and vice versa? It would take one hell of a design to meet everyone’s needs, and frankly I don’t believe it’s possible anymore. There are a lot of golfers out there – with a wide…wide range of playing abilities.

Why do folks need to get so caught up in “how the game was originally played” and pseudo-intellectual ramblings of the sort? Multiple tees are probably the best thing to happen to golf. They have allowed a wide spectrum of players to both enjoy and be challenged by the same golf course.

One tee golf certainly is a romantic reminder of how the game was played in the past. The thought of two golfers, of differing ability, each playing a single hole with a different plan is certainly the hallmark of most of the Golden Age's golf literature. I think we saw a perfect example of this this past weekend, with Tiger and Chris DeMarco. With Tiger outdriving Chris by as much as 70 yards on many holes, just how did they manage to have an equitable game? I'd like to think that the thought that went into the design of Augusta was the prime reason that several viable routes to the hole were not only possible but extemely interesting. This was apparent on #7, as Tiger chose an iron off the tee and Chris used driver. Even thouugh Chris had a 4 iron into #9 and Tiger a wedge, he was still able to birdie. The par 5's on the back certainly showed that there are different ways to make a 4, or 5, as the case may be. The key seems to be the design interest; the amount of thought put in by the designer as to how to make a hole play interestingly for golfers of differing levels. Does anyone really think that Chris needed a different teeing ground because Tiger can outdrive him by 70 yards? Conversely, if the Championship was played out at a flat course with flat greens, would there have been any doubt as to the outcome between these two? So long as the weaker golfer can reach all the par 4's with a 3 wood and all the par 5's in three shots, why do we need different sets of tees?

I've long been a believer in the idea of different tees so that everyone can have a shot at reaching a green in regulation, but I've been reconsidering that position lately.  Playing with my dad, seeing how he plays now that's over 70 and needs two pretty good pokes to reach a 350 yard hole in two, I don't think that his enjoyment is really impacted by the fact that most par 4s are three shotters for him, and he's hitting his driver at some par 3s.  I can see the strategy for him coming from elements that I'll carry without even thinking about it teeing off all the way back, his lack of ability to hit a high shot with spin making angles far more important than they are to me.  In some ways, he's playing a more interesting game than I am.

Other than forced carries on some courses, there's really no reason he couldn't play from the tips.  I keep thinking some time when the course isn't too busy (so I don't have to wait on driveable par 4s) I'm going to join him and his friends on the senior tees at my home course just to see how close I can come to shooting my handicap playing it at a rating of 66.0/118 instead of 74.1/134.  Maybe I should talk him into playing all the way back with me sometime just for the heck of it.  He'd probably come closer to his handicap from back there than I would up with him.


Shivas,

Interesting idea.  Too radical though.  In today's climate it sounds like it is hard enough just convincing owners that they don't need a course that can stretch to 7600 yards just in case the PGA tour adds it as a stop.  It'd make for interesting gambling games where at least one of either you or your partner have to hole out on the expert pin but you don't have to decide until you get there

JES II,

The problem with reverting to one tee is the current perception of the game as it relates to "PAR"

If one returns to the old days, the next hole was played from within a short distance from where the player had just holed out.  It took almost 100 years to increase the teeing distance permited from within "one" club length to within "two" club lengths, of the hole.

Can you picture golf today, if EVERYONE had to tee off from a spot no more then 25 yards from the previous hole.

The next question is, if that rule existed today, would architects be hard pressed to create features meant to interface with every level of golfer, and would the cost to design and construct a golf course be much higher.

Mulitiple tees seem to be a way to force every level of golfer to confront the same architectural features, whereas, one tee would force the architect to build mulitiple features for every level of golfer to confront.

Maybe, that's why we love some of those old courses so much.  # 15, # 17, # 18  and # 8 at NGLA seem to embody that theory.  Come to think of it, so does almost every other hole.