George,
I would have said, "Where the gca mindlessly locates the forward tees w/o any real consideration as to how the players use them." I have seen too many forward tees (including a few of my own) that are not thought out at all, or at least have been hindered by "unintended consequences" like having a big upslope in the normal landing area, having a forced carry on the second shot too far from the first landing area, etc.
BTW, you are correct that many of a 100 shooters 28 "extra shots" are duffs, bad chips and poor three putts. You could argue that only a few extra shots are added by having holes too long, since the player would often being playing a short third shot to the green, whether from the side or in front. However, if nearly every hole is beyond their reach in regulation figures, can the course be any fun?
I am not ready to abandon the multiple tee theory quite yet, but am always looking for ways to improve it. I think the reason we see so many is that the course needs (according to USGA reps and my own experience) 200 sf of tee per thousand rounds - ie 4000 SF at low play clubs and up to 8-10,000 SF for the busiest munis.
Since that tee has to be built anyway for maintenance reasons, it really costs no more to build some of it in different locations. If we used one tee on a hole, and wish to provide suitable challenges to all players, we either need to extend fw bunkers Pete Dye waste bunker style along the entire length of the fw, or use "random bunkering" scattering them at different distances to affect play differently.
Its not that there is anything wrong with that, either in theory, or even as a change of pace on multiple tee holes. The problem is that each bunker costs to build and then maintain in infinity, so it is really more cost effective to build one primary landing area and simply stagger some tees, with the side benefits of reducing froced carries, if any, dogleg angles and other concessions to make the course slightly more forgiving for the vast majority who pay the bills, if located correctly.
BTW, Fazio has taken the lead in separating tees side to side, so each player isn't seeing other tees, to get a feel of the old days.
I do agree that getting players to a similar landing area off the tee doesn't allow for the same approach shot. However, what is the alternative? Certainly more or even more widely scattered tees have their problems. Getting a hole to where the golfer hits the same clubs as Tiger is nearly impossible.
For that matter, it is somewhat futile to assume that a large majority of players are going to hit it to the turn point nearly exactly. In fact, a one day USGA studiy showed that about 22% of middle tee tee shots don't make it 130 yards, i.e., were scuffed somehow. Although there were clusters of tee shots at 200,230 and 260 yards, the actual distance of 150 shots that day was well distributed.
As we discussed in the 400 yard hole thread, some hole distances are problematical in design. Another example is 475 yard par 4, where I usually go against the long shot big green formula to build a small green - requires accuracy from the tigers and accepts the wedge of the average guy on the third shot okay.
On the other hand, for those of you who propose a single large tee (or perhaps only two) what design conventions do you propose to introduce to replace them in modern thinking?
(PS to Jim Thompson - if one or two landing areas isn't enough, how many do you propose is required on most holes? I understand that there can be subtle differences, diminishing returns, etc. but two basic landing areas provides choice, at the minimum of construction and maintenance costs, no? We have seen the gradual destrcution of the Lido rize doglegs over the years every time the economy goes bad, because we find that playes gravitate to the "best" route and it seems unnecessary for a cash strapped club to maintain a landing are that only a few golfers use.