multiple tees allow every level of golfer to have a challenging and enjoyable experience

Geesus.... You sound like a brochure from a Nicklaus course.

I feel that a properly designed course doesn't need more than one set of tee marker.

Take a 420-yard hole.  With 5 sets of tees, everyone would play the hole the same way.  Driver, short iron.

But if everyone plays from 420 yards,  golfers will play to different areas, with different clubs, according to their ability.  The architect is no longer dictating "you start here, you hit to here, and then to here".  Rather, it's more a case of everyone starting here and finishing there.  

Christ, you don't see 'em have the 100m dash for men and a 82m dash for women!

Do you equate the number of tees on each hole with the quality of the golf course?

Bandon is a wonderful course, whether with one tee or five.  My personal opinion is that 5 tees are not necessary -  but it doesn't necessarily imply "architectural inferiority" as long as it delivers the proper challenge/experience from whichever tees one chooses to play.

Patrick,

Yale removed the Black tees this year, and I believe it was done for maintenance reasons, so it is back to 3 sets. On most holes, it is not a big difference. I normally play the Blue, and would only play the Black when I was showing the course to somone, however I would often sneak back to the black on 4 and 18 which are better holes from the back/black tees. Obviously, I can still can go back there, but I don't do it out of respect for the super. They will probably only use those tees in tournaments now, which IMHO is not a good thing.

Take a 420-yard hole.  With 5 sets of tees, everyone would play the hole the same way.  Driver, short iron.

But if everyone plays from 420 yards,  golfers will play to different areas, with different clubs, according to their ability.  The architect is no longer dictating "you start here, you hit to here, and then to here".  Rather, it's more a case of everyone starting here and finishing there.  

So Jeremy - when I go out and play with my 82 year old grandfather, he should be happy hitting driver-driver (and possibly not getting there with 2 good pokes) into this 420 yard hole which is designed properly with one tee?

This is a man who carried a +1 handicap the majority of his life, and has gradually stepped 2 tees forward over the years. Shooting 74 last week from the 6100 yard white tees at his home club probably meant more to him than any round he ever posted in the 60's in his younger years. The shot values are the same, he just doesn't hit it as far.

Forrest,

A “properly designed golf course”, from the point of view of using one tee set, would be a beast such as the Old Course.  There, it doesn’t matter what your skill level or how far you hit the ball, there is interest on all you shots.

On the other hand, a course where one set of tees would not work as well would be… well, pretty much any modern course really…  It’s just the way they are designed.  Penal design.  Forced carries.  Framed landing-areas.  Golf holes today are not designed to play many different ways.  That’s how strategy became obsolete.  And that’s why multiple tees became necessary.

Cabell,

If your grandfather expects to play a 420-yard hole in four strokes, then yes, he’ll be disappointed.  Is that the hole’s fault, or your grandfathers?

Isn’t it the responsibility of each player to know the limit of their ability.

Heck, I play four or five holes a round that I can’t reach with driver-driver.  Tiger doesn’t.  That’s the nature of the game.

Jeremy -

Where's the fun in laying up on almost every hole? Aren't we out there to enjoy ourselves?

I won't even address the pace of play issues of your theory.

Jeremy,

Glad you brought up The Old Course. The notion that it was configured to play from one particular place is a modern perception indeed. It is a wrong perception from what we know of golf, its beginnings and TOC specifically. Golf, in its very early origin, was not at all defined or constrained to teeing the ball from one locale. Only when rules were adopted did we see a set place, and even then it was a 360-degree circle away from the previous hole. This is a rather recent change in the game — it is only a few generations ago.

There is more than great possibility that holes were carved in different locales at TOC on occasion, so tees would have been regularly different when this change for wear and tear or intrigue was performed. Also, the cross-country aspect of golf prior to "courses" was much less defined — the teeing ground being virtually anywhere and anytime — after seventy shots, or six, or 102.

What "Old Course" do you consider so "perfect" as to claim your contention that multiple tees do not belong on older layouts, and only on modern venues? Is TOC the "ideal" links you see now? Or is it the one of 100 years ago? Or is it the one we cannot see, but will replace TOC in 175 years, when our words are archived in some new format for future generations to ponder?

One cannot — indeed, should not — relegate golf to an ideal of what is right or wrong based on a conceived notion of its playing board. Your assertion that there is a "perfect design" is just as fallible as that which says multiple tees are either good or bad. Playing from various spots is inherent in golf, so I would proclaim that multiple teeing grounds (the tee itself being an artificial condition in golf) is, in fact, much more along the lines of the ancient game and golf's origins than would be the set, one-place-only, do-not-even-think-of-playing-from-another-spot "tee".

If it is a link to the past that you seek, you cannot argue that multiple teeing spots is more like "real" golf than the game we play today. Of course, I do not hold hope of any of us defining "real" golf. But it might be an interesting discussion.

Darren Kilfara,

There is nothing confrontational about this thread or the use of the word "BIAS".  The purpose of the thread is to ask questions, reveal that there aren't blanket dictates and to be educational.  I'm not trying to pick a fight, that's your bias.
Can I not point out conflicting opinions from the same people ?

It struck me as odd that everybody raved about Bandon Dunes
yet on the subject of multiple sets of tees most seemed to rail against them, either forgetting or not knowing that Bandon Dunes has five sets of tees.

It seemed that, either multiple sets of tees, including five (5) sets, were not only acceptable but very functional and practical at Bandon Dunes, or that those railing against multiple sets of tees were championing a flawed position.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't take a rigid position and claim that multiple sets of tees ruin a golf course, or that multiple sets of tees reveal a weakness in the architecture, and at the same time praise Bandon Dunes as a spectacular golf course.

You do see the conflict or hypocrisy in those positions ?

There's nothing wrong with BIAS as long as you acknowledge it.  
The problem arises when BIAS exists and is not acknowledged.

Why is it okay to have 3 to 4 sets of tees for the men, but only 1 set of tees for the women ?  

Patrick, I think the point is that what you assume to be a "rigid position" isn't really all that rigid. I have a philosophical preference for fewer tees and teeboxes, and am happy to explain why I feel that way - does that mean I'm not going to like a single golf course with multiple sets of tees and teeboxes? Of course not, unless I were so insane as to view the numbers of tees/teeboxes as my single most important criteria in evaluating the merit of golf course architecture, which is a ludicrous position to take.

Sheri, Patrick is who Patrick is - an acquired taste to be sure , but not someone worth swearing at in all capital letters.

Cheers,
Darren

Patrick, I think my point about multiple tees not being a "rigid position" speaks for most of the people you're targeting (although if you have particular people in mind, why not come out and name them?). Other hot-button issues - e.g. containment mounding - may indeed elicit rigidity from people, but I find it hard to believe that anyone really cares that passionately about multiple tees. The more I think about it, multiple tees (of the type that gets everyone's hackles up) are much more often symptomatic of bad architecture than bad architecture in and of themselves, but perhaps that's a separate point for a separate discussion...

Cheers,
Darren

Patrick,

As they say in Oz, "Good on yer".

You raise a good point and receive all sorts of flak. At any number of clubs there are 'old codgers', large and powerful women's associations, less than competent players and a few studs. To say that one tee fits all is bunk.

Multiple tees offer ALL members a pleasurable golfing experience.

I'm sorry...I've gotten off on the wrong foot. I shouldn't have used that word....I've changed it. It just seemed to me that Mr. Mucci acts like a jerk and is very condescending....but you all are big boys and are capable of handling the bullying.