Looking at the Chambers Bay pix piqued my interest in mix n' match tees - meaning playing from a fancied tee at any given hole regardless of "sets of tees".  Are tee sets designed with a particular flow in mind?  Do archies feel that rhythm they are trying to create is disrupted by guys playing mix n' match tees?

Ciao

It’s an interesting question. Personally I like to challenge myself by playing the course from the plates, but then I tend to play with good players and it’s more of a test all round. I would not play from those tees if I was not of suitable ability to do so.

However, from an architectural and playing standpoint, it really frustrates me if I have to walk back a long way to the back tee. A course will always seem to flow better to me if the previous green and subsequent tee are close to each other, and one does not have to traipse back 70 odd yards to the back tee (I found the new back tee on 12 at Riviera very incongruous for this reason).

I appreciate the designer (especially of modern courses with housing) can not easily accommodate these wishes, but it does make a course seem far more natural of a layout to me.

Of course, I play in the UK where cart paths aren’t as prevalent as they are in the US (thankfully!). I’m also grateful to be able to walk whichever course I play at my home club.

Sean,

Tom is right regarding the tees at Chambers Bay.  Playing at 6600 or 6700 yards is really the best way to feel the real flow of the course.  Holes such as 5, 9, and 14 all require big treks to get up to the tee boxes.  I think the course is made better by these tees, as Washington undoubtebly needs a course that can sustain a major or big event, but as far as flow is concerned, a couple tee boxes do require big treks.

As far as mix n' match go, I have no problem playing varying sets of tees.  From the back tee markers (not the tippy tips) at Chambers I can reach two of the par-5's, sometimes more or less depending on the wind.  However, I played #14 at 498 yards and didn't stand a chance at reaching the green into a 30 mph wind, despite its downhill nature.  On a hole like that I wouldn't mind moving up.  For the matter, I play the lower and back tee box on 17 because for me, its a better hole from there.  Playing from up top, I hit 8-iron past the pin from 172, and so the hole isn't really hard at the back tee markers.  At 217 and a bit uphill though, its a real great hole.
So, I definitely go mix n' match sometimes.

Tom:

Don't forget that at most clubs only 5-10% of golfers play from the back tees.  If we make the course "flow" ideally for those tees, then it's a longer walk for the other 95% of players.

Tom

Is it not true that if the back tees "flow" (i.e. are near the green), every player will have the same length of walk--the 90-95% will just have to walk forward before they hit their drives rather than after they do so (as will be the case for the 5-10%).  Same as the situation of the men vs. the ladies if you place the regular men's tees near the green.

Rich

Tom:

Don't forget that at most clubs only 5-10% of golfers play from the back tees.  If we make the course "flow" ideally for those tees, then it's a longer walk for the other 95% of players.

Tom,

I appreciate the % who play the backs, although that % is certainly higher at my home club but then so is the % of single figure handicaps, I just love a course that winds and sweeps around in a natural, fluid progression rather than having tees jut off 50 or 60 yards backwards in the opposite direction of the flow of the course. From an enjoyment perspective I would also suggest that the average handicap golfer would be able to gain some sort of insight – and further appreciation – of the relative toughness of the course from the back tees if they walk past them in order to get to the set that they are playing. Of course, it is easier to accommodate this if the course is not designed with cart paths and housing having to be considered. If the green to tee walk is relatively short then I don’t think the majority of average handicap golfers would be too upset with having to walk a bit further – they would at least be walking in the direction the hole is going! Edit: Richard just explained above what I was trying to get at, he just did it far better than I did!

The main point for me is the feel and flow of a course and I find that somewhat interrupted by tees which take you away from the prevalent routing of the course. There is a perfect example at my home course of a new tee – the tee makes the hole much better from a playing perspective, and indeed was the only real solution to offer the better player a challenge on the hole. However, the tee is 40 yards back and elevated, so it slows down the pace of play and doesn’t really seem to fit in (one can tell it is a new addition). I find myself torn between the positive change to the challenge of the hole and the negative side of the clearly newly added feature. I guess part of that would be an appropriate addition for the topic of what the eye “sees” on a course.

In order to provide longer yardage from the back tees on most courses, the back tees must be set back from the place where you enter the tee box from the previous green. Therefore, you can't easily design the course so that all players walk the same distance regardless of the tees being played. As one who plays back and middle tees about the same amount, I don't think it's a big deal.

Many courses in my area have a suggested mixed set of tees.  It appears to me that they simply alternate between sets from hole to hole.  

I think a better general approach is to play back tees on par fours and forward tees on 5's and 3's.  3's tend to be too long, I believe because designers like to sneak yardage into those holes and 5's become more fun if the agressive play is a viable option.  For the same reason, I would also play forward tees on short par fours if any exist.

"A decision is made at the start and that is that."

I guess that's how nearly everyone plays but I think it's a shame.  I was just reading a great article this morning in the Journal of the Shivas Irons Society, about one of my favorite courses (which goes unnamed in the piece), and will quote from it here ...

"Sadly, our sense of play in golf has been hemmed in by our own creations in the name of efficiency, or perhaps ego, and they give us less enjoyment than they might if we could just bring ourselves to loosed the constraints of self-perception that force us into our usual roles as golfers:  the capable from the tips, women and children up front and the great mass of us somewhere in-between."

and, later,

"The experience has given me renewed license forthe playful anarchy I experienced as a teenager, when the evening light was filtering through the treetops and the marshals had long retired for the day. . . . Real play in golf demands a spirit of spontaneous invention, tempered by a respect for others.  We should make up the tee box from time to time, as we did that day, just to ensure that we can still perceive ourselves as capable of being creative and playful outside the box that the modern golf world insists we inhabit."

The above was written by a fellow named Hilton Tudhope, who goes on to write some profound things about playing without keeping score, etc.

For Rich:  Of course you are right in your analysis of walking distance, but Garland summed up the point I had intended to make.  Most people are playing the middle tees and don't want to walk an extra 500 yards between holes.

Sorry for dragging the topic away from the intended course Sean!

I certainly have never experienced anyone playing from various sets of tees throughout the course of a round. A decision is made at the start (normally the blues unless someone more than a 12 is playing in which case the whites) and that is that.

I have played a couple of courses in the US where they had some form of composite tees which meant you played the back tees on some holes and then the next set up on others. I think the idea was to bridge the gap between the 7200 odd yardage and the 6600 odd yardage the respective tees played. I didn’t like it (and I can’t for the life of me remember what courses they were).

Tom

You are generally right about UK courses.  There are fewer sets of tees and often times the back set is only available for comps.  I was thinking more for American courses where there are often at least fours sets of tees.  When I played Pinehurst we mixed and matched tees depending on the whim of the person with the honour because we didn't fancy playing all the back on many holes nor forward on some holes - just by glancing at the card.  It was an idea born out of a game we play in which the man with the honour can choose the club all tee off with (of course all use the same club or close aproximation).  Generally, I liked the idea (and so did the caddies as they often did less walking), but I thought we may be messing with the flow a bit.  For instance, I am not sure, but I bet we never went to the back tee for par 5s.  However, I am not sure archies get that deep in their thought process about this sort of thing when the blocks at many courses are placed willy nilly anyway.  

Ciao

Good question Sean. I personally like a mixture of tees on many courses although I don't mind the walk "forward" as much any more, as long as the walk is towards the green. Long gone are the days when I looked around to find where the tiger tees were!  (Speaking of Tiger tees I was at a meeting at the Links Trust today and saw the Championship tees on the Old Course were called the Tiger Tees in the 1930s).
I've found the worse mix of tees is usually the forward and the next one back, for almost every women's event it requires using a mixture of tees (some Red, some Yellow). It's hard to find a course around 6000 yards for women. Too many 5200 yarders. Nothing wrong with 5200 yard courses, except they don't all look planned, they look like someone just wanted some "forward Tees".

Tom:

Don't forget that at most clubs only 5-10% of golfers play from the back tees.  If we make the course "flow" ideally for those tees, then it's a longer walk for the other 95% of players.

Is it really that many people that play the back tees?  My experience is that it is much less, more like 2% of golfers who would play the back tees, especially at newer courses that have 5 or so sets of tees.

At my club there are three sets of tees for Men - Gold, Blue and White.  The Gold tees only exist on four holes and the length difference is significant on only two of these holes but it is very rare to see anyone playing from the Gold tees - usually hotshot juniors and the Mens CC.

I guess that's how nearly everyone plays but I think it's a shame.  I was just reading a great article this morning in the Journal of the Shivas Irons Society, about one of my favorite courses (which goes unnamed in the piece), and will quote from it here ...

"Sadly, our sense of play in golf has been hemmed in by our own creations in the name of efficiency, or perhaps ego, and they give us less enjoyment than they might if we could just bring ourselves to loosed the constraints of self-perception that force us into our usual roles as golfers:  the capable from the tips, women and children up front and the great mass of us somewhere in-between."

and, later,

"The experience has given me renewed license forthe playful anarchy I experienced as a teenager, when the evening light was filtering through the treetops and the marshals had long retired for the day. . . . Real play in golf demands a spirit of spontaneous invention, tempered by a respect for others.  We should make up the tee box from time to time, as we did that day, just to ensure that we can still perceive ourselves as capable of being creative and playful outside the box that the modern golf world insists we inhabit."

The above was written by a fellow named Hilton Tudhope, who goes on to write some profound things about playing without keeping score, etc.

Could the improbable name "Hilton Tudhope" be some sort of anagram for "Max Behr"?

Bob

Jordan:

Not to pick on you, because I've seen lots of others do the same thing (or complain about it when they are too embarrassed to move up), but aren't you pandering to yourself a bit if you switch your tees around so you can go for a par-five in two?  And isn't that unfair to the guy you're playing with who is twenty yards shorter off the tee than you are?

Tour pros are often lousy critics of architecture because they think everything should be designed around their games.  Really, though, most other golfers think the same thing ... they just don't get to say it into a microphone.

Tom, I play the back tee markers, and therefore do not move up to reach the par-5's.  

I simply move to the tips on one or two holes (17 and sometimes 15) and move forward sometimes on 14 so I can have a legitimate shot at hitting the green in two (its a long par-4).