[Jeff_Brauer]

I may not have seen it answered this way here, but I'll take a stab.  I think most modern tees are an outgrowth of the RTJ era runway strips.  As he built longer courses, he probaby got complaints of his "monsters" being too tough for the average player, and added forward tees for most men, as women's tees were already common.

So, for most holes on most courses, its a matter of trying to use one set of fairway hazards to give all players relatively the same tee shot - bring those into play, or on doglegs, allow shorter hitters to get around the corner.  The reason is probably practical - it is far cheaper to build and maintain tees for every player than it is to build and maintain bunkers for every player.  Since most courses are concerned with costs to make them practical and affordable for their members or patrons, this has become standard practice.

As Forrest and Tom indicate, there are some situations where one tee might make sense, and make the hole play completely differently.  And, it pays architects to look for such opportunities to create interesting variety.  

But as most golfers are concerned with score and handicap, having a long par 4 turn into a par 5 in different wind conditons is not something desireable.  Funny, I don't recall any complaints about par 4's turning into reachable, i.e. par 3 holes, though!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat {LIRR, Hambone, Len Itnes}

That's ironic, I thought you found anonymous posts cowardly. I didn't know you were trying to trap a Rat....I had thought it was a (may I say pathetic) attempt to support your sinking ship at NGLA (it seems TE and George didn't exactly concur with your thoughts....but perhaps I am mistaken or they have poor memories).

Ran and others knew of my post, so I don't think it was anonymous to all, and it served its purpose.

With respect to my position on NGLA it remains unchanged.
You of all people who quote what every old architect writes suddenly wants to disavow what CBM wrote.
You are mistaken, TEPaul didn't concur with my thoughts, but, what's surprising about that.  And he never answered the questions or explained what happened to swamps and bogs that CBM referenced.

May I suggest you try to track down the articles in which Travis described his many changes...not his proposed changes, but the changes he implemented.

You quoted them, don't shrink from producing them under the quise of encouraging me to look them up.  Simply cite your sources, if you can.

You should look a little more closely at the aerials from 1938 and 1947...the tees are there. Unfortunately I can't post the 1950 map...Ran has seen it, Tommy has a copy...perhaps if you are nice, Tommy (the Rat) will post it.

Wasn't Travis DEAD from 1938 to 1947 ??
    Isn't he still DEAD ?
    If the multiple tees weren't there in 1936, Travis couldn't
    have put them in subsequently.
    Yes, I believe the 1950 map you cite was previously
    questioned by TEPaul and others, and not surprisingly, you
    failed to produce it and detailed information about it.
 
If you look at the aerial of the 12th (1936) in the most recent club history you will see two separate tees on the 13th. Can you post that picture again?

"It is also interesting to note that Travis was one of the earliest proponents of moving bunkers to the outer lanes of play and lining the fairways with bunkers that would catch the stray hitter, the errant shot."
I believe you may be referring to Travis's removing the center of a number of cop bunkers (crossing bunkers) at GCGC...in effect creating two bunkers on the phalanx. Travis was an advocate of a number of strategic schemes for bunkers. He is mistakenly thought to be a proponent of penal designs....Ian Andrews has studied many of Travis's designs and he agrees Travis has been given a bad rap on that count.

No, that's not what I was referencing.  I have great respect for Ian Andrew, but he is not the sole authority on Travis.

The architectural history of GCGC is fascinating...I would strongly recommend you look into it.

If you think it's fascinating, then why can't you support the claims you make in your posts by citing your references.

As I said, before Tommy edited my posts, and posted anonymously pre and post same,  you're an arrogant ass.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom - Thank you for getting things started! You're right, you do have strong opinions on this subject!

I've waded through numerous threads on this site where it is proclaimed that: 1) "real" golf can only be experienced from the back tees, and 2) a course can only be truly evaluated from the back tees. When I read these comments I always wonder which tee (on a course with multiple boxes) represents (as Bagger Vance might say) the "authentic" course... the true challenge the architect had in mind. Forrest suggests it is often the next-to-the-back tee, which makes some logical sense because you rarely hear of a course adding tees to make it shorter... always longer. So, if it is something other than the back tee isn't that longer version of the course an altered state of the "true" experience the architect intended to create?

This is difficult because I understand everyone wants to have fun on a course and feel like they have a chance to "succeed," whatever that means to them: long hitters want to bang their drivers... short hitters want to have a chance to reach par fours in two... women want to hit something other than woods and long irons all day. Like Pat says, it's tough when you're trying to keep everybody happy. And, it's got to be unbelievably tough on an architect when he's designing a course for mass consumption. I can see why Pete Dye incorporated the extended waste area as a means to provide the same challenge to everyone... now, if he could just figure out a way to provide different targets for each player's approach shots he would have the problem licked.

I particularly like the use of multiple tees to create variety on a hole, especially on one-shot holes. One of my favorites is #6 at Tobacco Road in Sanford, NC. It has multiple-multiple tee boxes positioned at different distances and different angles... brilliant stuff. Here's a link: Tobacco Road #6

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat,

Travis is alive. I had a decent gin and tonic with him just last night on our back patio.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:  I hadn't really thought of your question in that way before -- what is the REAL course?

I think the REAL course is the WHOLE course ... not just the back tees but how it works from EACH AND EVERY ONE OF the tees.  If you look at it this way, multiple tees are often redundant unless they truly add variety.  [No one has mentioned yet, either, that having four more lily-pad tee boxes in front of the back tee on every hole tends to make the holes all look alike in the foreground view.]

Forrest:  Wish you'd invited me over for that drink.  Travis and I would have a blast comparing notes on our favorite GCGC members!

[DMoriarty]

Many have advocated for multiple tees for players of differing abilities, on the assumption that golfers of "differing abilities"  hit the ball differing distances.  But this theory only works if golfers of similar abilities all drive similar distances.  However, driving distance often does not predict ability.    

For example last week I played with a gentleman I outdrove by 30-40 yards on almost every hole.  Yet we were of similar abilities.  And I am by no means a big hitter--  some of similar ability routinely out drive me by 25-40 yds!  (Lately, the way I've been playing, everyone who can hit it 200 yds consistently is outdriving me. But let's set that aside.)  Put me in a match with players like this and there is a 55 to 80 yard difference in the distance we drive!  

So, all you advocates of multiple tees, which tees should we play??  

[T_MacWood]

Travis is dead?!

Pat
The schematic is from HB Martin's 'History'.

If you will look at your most recent club history written by Quirin, there is an earial of the 12th hole (from 1936), it is in the chapter entitled 'A Glimpes Beneath the Surface', in the picture there are two seperate tees on the 13th.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

Travis's tastes changed after 1927.
Are you sure that he had a gin and tonic ?
Are you sure it wasn't a Mud Slide ?

Tom Doak,

Do you think he would look favorably upon members and architects who advocated retaining, or deviating from his designs  ?

Would his candor vascilate or steady with consumption ?

Tom MacWood,

That's a theory I've heard that's been put forth solely by another contributor to this site, but the picture you reference doesn't supply sufficient photographic evidence to support that claim.
And that claim isn't backed up by any of the schematics that hang in the clubhouse.

Are you looking at the picture ?
Or is the other contributor feeding you this theory ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'm looking at the picture....I have the book. The picture matches exactly with the multiple tees in the schematic. I'm affraid it is true.

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

Travis has not taken me up on any drinks, lately. I do know that his drink is/was Old Crow Rye whiskey which was delivered in 10 gallon kegs from Mallard Distilling Co (NY). "Jack" bottled it himself.

In case you want to make him feel at home on the next visit, procure a lot of Ricoro Coronas (they used to be available at the Flatiron Bldg from United Cigar Stores Co of America).

Slipper size is/was 7.

Really make him happy and find his putter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Would you point out the exact location of the mulitple tees, my photo is grainy.

Could you also post the schematic so that we may study it?

[Forrest Richardson]

We only keep ginger beer, red wine, Black Bush and Gin...so I'm quite sure it was a G&T.

[T_MacWood]

Both tees are against the property line. The second tee is to the right and short of the back tee. You can see light colored line from the green to this tee and light colored line from this tee toward the fairway...evidently wear from walking.

I have no ability to post pictures...ask Tommy.

[Doug Siebert]

Many have advocated for multiple tees for players of differing abilities, on the assumption that golfers of "differing abilities"  hit the ball differing distances.  But this theory only works if golfers of similar abilities all drive similar distances.  However, driving distance often does not predict ability.    

For example last week I played with a gentleman I outdrove by 30-40 yards on almost every hole.  Yet we were of similar abilities.  And I am by no means a big hitter--  some of similar ability routinely out drive me by 25-40 yds!  (Lately, the way I've been playing, everyone who can hit it 200 yds consistently is outdriving me. But let's set that aside.)  Put me in a match with players like this and there is a 55 to 80 yard difference in the distance we drive!  

So, all you advocates of multiple tees, which tees should we play??  

If you are playing a match, you gotta play what works for everyone (probably pick the middle of the group)  Otherwise, I don't think what tees you play should depend so much on ability, but on distance.  I always say that if you find yourself hitting wedges to most of the par 4s, move back.  If you find yourself hitting long irons or fairway woods to most of the par 4s, move up.

[Lou_Duran]

David Moriarty:

You should play whatever set of tees you want.  If you have a game, that is totally negotiable.

Rereading my earlier comment to Lynn regarding his objections to having to be "fair" to everyone through offering multiple tees, I reread it and maybe Lynn he can tell me what it was that I meant.  Perhaps it was just a brain fart on my part.

Having only one or two sets of tees vs. multiple tees is not an issue of "fairness".  It has more to do with providing variety and choice to the consumer.  It also has to do with economics since in many areas of the country courses have to be able to compete.  As an operator, you would want to have a variety of product for a larger customer base.  Isn't that the reason so many ski resorts have bunny, beginner, intermediate, advanced, expert and Xtreme slopes?

The driver is a very important club to most players.  How else could you explain why some people spend $500 - $800 for a single driver?  When we hear complaints about the US Open, it is not because of strategic options, but usually because the fairways are so narrow and the rough so high that the drivers are being taken from the pros' hands.

There is a differential relating to distance which I don't think that the course rating and handicap systems capture.  Typically, the shorter player has to be in better form and more consistent.  In other words, his margin for error is much narrower.

I do compliment Tom Doak on his objective to provide a balance between power and finesse on his courses.  He probably accomplished this at Pacific Dunes, though not at TTU, at least from the back tees.

Personally, I am for checking our ego at the starter's shaq and playing from wherever we want to.  We can order from a single menu so long as there are more than one or two entrees.  

[DMoriarty]

Doug and Lou,

I agree that we could play from where we choose, but this solution is wholly unsatisfying to me.  I wouldnt feel bad if it was a choice of two or three tee markers are the same or proximate tee boxes, but often time the tee boxes are so scattered that the hole from different tees doesnt even seem like the same hole.  

To my mind golf has taken a wrong term when players of the same abilities do not enjoy the same course from the same tees.   Obviously (to me at least) this dilemna is largely the making of the modern equipment, but I do think that architects have played a role as well.  By building courses which rely on multiple tees to create variety for different level of players, they have made courses less interesting and less hospitible for different players of the same abilities.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Tom,

I also like the fact that the bunkers are waste bunkers @TPC...thus giving the player a "less than desireable lie" sometimes....what is your take on eliminating the perfectly raked bunker in the fairways and possibly the greens...I know it would be weird to have one raked and not the other.  I am curious though, it may make the hazard once again become a hazard and make the choice off the tee a bit more compelling for the long hitter and place more reward in the smarter players game management....thus back to finesse??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

On the first page of your copy of the book, "The Garden City Golf Club, a History", what appears on that page in your book ?

The back tee you reference on # 13 is not a tee.
In fact, it has trees growing in front of it, blocking the view and flight of anything headed south, like a tee shot.

And the walking paths you allude to are roads, vehicular paths if you will.  The same markings can be seen on the 12th hole.

In addition, roads traversed the club's property until fairly recently, and they can still be clearly seen on many holes today.  At one time, thirteen holes had roads crossing the lines of play, and one hole, # 9 had two roads, and possibly three roads crossing the lines of play.

You might want to turn to the fifth page, in the section entitled, "The Golf Course" and look at the old schematic of the entire 18 hole golf course.  You will note that there is not more then one tee per hole on that schematic.

If you want to, I'm sure that you can find a way to have your 1950's schematic posted, both TEPaul and I are seriously interested in it.

[T_MacWood]

A limited addition.....1358.

You don't think that is a tee or tees? You can't be serious....you really don't like being wrong do you?

Ask Tommy to post it (and the picture of the 12th)....I have no ability to post anything...nor do you...nor does TE. I hope he posts both.

[Doug Siebert]

DMoriarty, I don't disagree with you that golf has taken a wrong turn lately, but you gotta play the hand you are dealt, at least until someone makes me czar of the USGA and R&A equipment rules and I fix it  

I do disagree though that it isn't a problem if you aren't necessarily playing the same course by having different tees go from totally different angles and essentially creating a new hole.  That's pretty much required if we are still going to have some sort of "heroic carry" option like cape holes or the like.  True, you can set things up (in some cases) so that the heroic carry from each tee is truly a heroic requirement from each.  But obviously the second shot will be totally different from each, so if I play a heroic carry and then have a partial lob wedge into the green and my dad plays a heroic carry from his tees and has a 3W into the green, we weren't playing the same hole anyway even if we had the same demands placed on our tee shots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()