The Ocean Course has five sets of tees.  We have the back tees.  They are never meant to be played the entire round as the course plays 7,937 yards from them.  They are there to give options during tournament play.  Our Gold tees are 7,296 yards and are for the absolute best golfers with good length off the tees.  The Blues at 6,552 yards are for the better than average golfers with some substantial carries off the tee.  The Whites at 6,031 yards are for the typical resort male players and better women players with limited carries off the tees.  The Red tees have no long carries off the tees and play to 5,372 yards.  Carries off the tee tournament set-ups are the reason we have multiple tees.

Agreed,
There are definitely good designs with both single tees and multiple tees.  It all depends on the land and the purpose of the golf course.
In a perfect pure world were every golfer is fairly proficient at the game one single tee box may be ideal.  The modern game does not seem to allow courses to be built with only one tee box.
Personally I do feel as though an architect should not determine what kind of tee boxes or how many until they see the piece of property.
What about the runnaway tee?  That is only one tee box, but it gives you a wide variety of options as far as distance.

I don't take back my words...I meant what I said...I was sorry I offended this lovely group, not you.  

Sorry Mr.Hearst....and to all on this site who I offended. They say a person's internet personality can be much different than their true personality. I'm sure you are correct that Mr. Mucci is a gentleman....do you know him personally? On the internet frankly he comes across as an A....Hole, to be honest a gigantic A...hole. I pray the members of this site are not anti-Rees....I haven't observed it as yet....I love Talamore, Haig Point and Ocean Forest. I might add Rees is very thoughtful when considering the forward tee (ladies)....all three courses are lovely examples of multi tee golf.  

Surely you don't expect Mr. Mucci to go back threw 5400 topics to find the posts do you.  it is well documented(thank you pat) that there is a bias on this site by some that favor the MFA who can do no wrong.  Other architects are left to fend off the arrows from the biased masses.  Geez, when C&C add tees it is genius because of the added flexibility.  When others do it, it is laziness and not a mark of a good course.

Hey mdugger, I am here to learn what i can about architecture.  The most insightful on this sight is Mr. Mucci, so I pay close attention to his posts.  i also know he has no agenda like many others.  Geez were it not for him i would have believed those Oregon pictures you tried to pass off as surrounding Sandpines.  

Why is everyone taking sides.  Should not everyone just be defending there own opinion.  
It is easy to agree on one topic and disagree on another.  Every single person on this websight thinks that they are right . . . and they all are because it is pure opinion.  

Actually, TOC would be very fun to play from various points and angles. I'm not suggesting that tees be added, but I can envision some of the great scholars who shaped the layout as feeling this might be a truly interesting and maddening addition. Especially in a world when the course sees 60,000 players.

I was hoping you might comment more on your opinion that a course well designed would/does need multiple tees. I find this a fascinating position, but not one I agree with. Golf is about change and varying conditions and angles — exponential opportunities. Your "one tee" theory goes against a mathematical variable which is essential: Varying points at which players will have to get used to different angles, distances, carries and hazards. Multiple is not all about length and ability, although these aspects are increasingly important. By the way, my wife says that women do, in fact, play TOC.

Why do so many GCAers defend Course X? The course is is not only a poor design, but it is dangerous and a blight on the landscape and designed by Satan's seed. There are a large number of GCAers whose taste is so bad that I am embarrased to be asscociated with this site. You know who you are and you know this Course X. Most of you are obviously godless racists, cheats, ditchers and wife beaters. *

* I chose not to name individuals in order to avoid any posts that I made being deemed a personal attack on the person referenced.

Tom MacWood,

Isn't this just another course that you've never seen or played

Patrick,

We are all here to engage in an open and frank discussion.  I am sure if anyone has unfairly and unjustly maligned multiple tees they would expect to be called out by name.  In fact, I am sure they would like the opportunity to address their accuser.  You are doing us all a disservice by hiding your accusation behind vague and meaningless terms such as "posters" and "some people."  It is as if you have decided to conduct a trial but have failed to give the defendant notice of the procedings.  How can we be expected to respond to your inquisition if you dont even identify the target of your inquiry.  Just because you refrained from naming names doesnt mean it isnt personal.  

And, no, I dont recall "a great deal of blanket criticism" with respect to the use of multiple tees or an implication or explication of inferiority of courses using multiple tees-- Unless of course you were referring to my comments on the thread I started.   If you are referring to me, I invite you to reread all of my comments and then tell me if your initial accusation really holds true.

Going back through the last 50 pages should be no problem.  Go to advanced search an put in "multiple tees" and search for phrase.  I did it and it didnt take long at all.  

I was wondering how individuals who supported that position overlooked referencing Bandon Dunes, a spectacular golf course that uses five (5) sets of tees ?

 
Patrick, I get the feeling that you dont get out much.  Multiple hundreds of modern courses have been built with multiple tees.  Some of these courses are very good and rated highly, some are terrible, some are in the middle.  Isn't it a little unreasonable to expect those of us who have anything to say about multiple tees to "reference" the one course you happened to play and like with multiple tees?  

I'll tell you what. . . I will comment on the multiple tees at Bandon and explain what I like and dont like about them if you go out and play 75 modern courses with multiple tees and then report back to us on whether they have been a positive or negative development in golf architecture.  After all, by your understanding of "BIAS," I have to assume BIAS because you have stated your pro-multiple tee opinion without referencing at least one of the disasters out there with multiple tees.  

Or . . . if you really want to have a discussion about the multiple tees at Bandon, I suggest you start a new thread.  After all, you have already stated that the point of this thread wasnt to discuss Bandon but to continue your Mccarthyan BIAS inquisition:  

"The point of the thread was that people shouldn't be so quick to universally condemn a feature and expand their disapproval of that feature to the entire golf course and the architecture."  

A few suggestions for a new thread:  Avoid directing accusations at unnamed bogeymen; avoid directing accusations at anyone else;  avoid accusing people of BIAS just because they [supposedly] failed to address the one of thousands of courses that you want to talk about.  Wouldnt it be more productive to simply explain why you think the multiple tees make Bandon a better course, and ask for comments, opinions, etc?  

DMoriarty,

You are free to start threads in any manner or form you choose.  And you are free to put forth your opinion in any manner or form you chose.

If you want to be in denial with respect to a site perspective, that's okay with me.  I don't think it's critical to name a specific individual versus a general point of view supported by some on this site.  Some would have us believe that certain archhitectural principles or features are universals.  
By referencing Bandon Dunes, a golf course acknowledged as wonderful by many on this site, as a golf course with five (5) sets of tees, places into conflict, the idea that a golf course can't be architecturally worthy if it has multiple sets of tees, a position advocated by some.

Again, if you want to deny that some postured along those lines, it's okay with me, but, my reading comprehension skills remain fairly sound.

You may recall that many condemned containment mounding, universally, but containment mounding can serve a valueable and practical purpose.  Should I not have provided examples where containment mounding made sense because it offended you that I didn't reference the names of those individuals who were blanketly critical of containment mounding ?

When Tom MacWood stated that Rees Jones left his distinctive marks on Baltusrol, a course that he has never seen or played, should I not have questioned him about exactly what were those distinctive marks and where do they appear on the golf course ?

He stated that Rees Jones worked on some elements of the golf course, like the 9th, 10th and 14th green, but when asked what distinctive marks Rees left on those greens, he has failed to provide an answer.

If you were consistent in your position, I would think that you would have admonished Tom to put forth the specific facts, allowing him to support his position and not get away with vague, unsupported references.

So, is your objection really issue related or driven by personality ?

Lastly, are you familiar with Wrestling on TV  ?
And, haven't you figured it out yet ?

TEPaul,

I'm confused, on what other thread did I ask you to post on this thread ?

Bob

I think that Pat raises more points of legitimate architectural interest than any other 5 contributors on this website combined.  He is indefatigable in trying to get people to stick to the issues at hand which can be very uncomfortable to many contributors who prefer to score points rather than rationally discuss the points at hand.  He demands standards of accuracy and honesty which are perhaps not feasible for (or attractive in) a free-wheeling medium such as this.  He deserves much better than the mindless opprobrium which is often laid upon him, usually by those who have little of substance to contribute to our conversations.