Pat
Since we are going to dig up old statements I made (I'm not sure what that has to do with mulitple tees), and since you are well known to demand "standards of accuracy and honesty", I thought maybe we should try to get exactly what I said accurate (and honest).  

I said "Rees has remodeled a lot of courses by a lot of architects - Tillinghast (Bethpage, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge), Travis (Equinox, Hollywood), psuedo-MacK (Monterey, Lake Merced), Ross (East Lake), Flynn (CC of Va) and his father (Congressional, Hazeltine). The common result is that he has left his distinctive mark on all of them." You then focused your attention on the changes Rees made to Baltusrol, ignoring the other courses. Eventually in a heated exchange you wrote:

 "REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THOSE GREENS.

Let me repeat that in case you've missed it.

REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THE 9TH, 10TH OR 14TH GREENS."

Obviously you felt quite strongly about the subject (busting out the CAPS).  I then quoted Rees directly, where he explained the changes he made to those greens and other changes he made to the course prior to one of the Opens (including new bunkers and tees). I guess we did bring it back to tees.
I was under the impression you liked Rees's work (his distinctive style). If you like his work why to object my saying he left his distinctive mark (do you think his style generally melds well)?  MacKenzie left his distinctive mark at Pebble Beach. Travis left his distinctive mark at Columbia. Trent Jones left his distinctive mark at Oakland Hills. Is there something objectionable about this phrase?


If you're looking for the specific thread here is one of the mothers of all pissing contests (in it Pat raises points of legitimate architectural interest with the strength of five men):
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=128

Rees Jones:
" Remodeling Baltusrol was a special opportunity for me....We marked every bunker edge....In 1954 my father added a new tee to the right of the existing one, creating the dogleg. We built a new fairway bunker on the right....We added a third bunker to the left of the fairway on the 374-yard eighth."

Pat
Re-read the entire thread....it make for exhilirating reading. I especially like the part where you break out the all CAPS. It is clear what new features Rees added...he clearly explains what he did (I believe there is also a link to an earial). Maybe your definition of leaving your mark does not include adding new bunkers.

Why do you constantly re-hash these old threads and these weak examples of bias. You claimed that Rees never touched the greens...if anyone should be held accountable for inaccurate statements its you...but I have no desire to re-hash your mistakes because we all make mistakes. Move on.

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.

This is actually kind of funny. If you define issues as questioning posters motivations & biases ad nauseum, then I guess I agree. I'd prefer to see actual discussion of substantive content, but I guess I'm biased.

He demands standards of accuracy and honesty which are perhaps not feasible for (or attractive in) a free-wheeling medium such as this.

He searches quixotically (sp?) for accuracy & honesty in a completely subjective arena.

The logic of not pointing out every conceivable mistake made on every course implying some sort of bias is so flawed that if it were adopted by mankind some 5 centuries ago we never would have made it out of the dark ages. When coupled with an insistence of playing every course in every conceivable weather pattern (which is violated by every poster on this site) this is a formula for paralysis.

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.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. But you know what they say about people in glass houses....

I'm going to go way out on a limb & say that if this thread had been titled "Multiple tees at Bandon" & proceeded to simply examine how multiple tees at Bandon work or don't work, the stated objective of discussing this situation would have stood a much better chance of being accomplished. As it stands, we have yet another thread where the focus has been on posters & not on content. More insanity.

If you think Patrick starts more substantive threads than any other 5 contributors, you need to look at more threads, especially Paul Turner's. Quantity does not automatically trump quality.

George

Paul Turner mostly unearths pictures of hidden gems (mostly Colt, mostly England) and shares them with us.  I think this is great and I fully enjoy and support these efforts.  I'll still take Pat at 5-1 vs. Paul vis a vis the posting of substantive GCA issues, however.

PS--we were well out of the Dark Ages 5 centuries ago--that period was was called the "Renaissance".....

Pat and Tom

Are there multiple tees at Baltusrol (evidenced either by your being there or looking at pictures of and words about the place)?  If so, are they (or our interpretation of them) evidence "BIAS?"  If not, why not move the cat fight onto another thread?

damaging?

damaging you say?

It's nothing that can't be fixed with some more gloss from the USGA about the Rees the "Open Doctor"

Nothing that a few color ads in Links won't repair.

Nothing that will affect the decision making of those who like his "style"

 

Forrest,

Let's first be clear on what I mean by "one tee set".

I don't mean one tee deck.  Have as many tee decks (ie. a raised flat area of tightly mown grass) as you'd like.

I also don't mean "one starting point".  Move the tee markers around each day to reduce wear.  Move them onto other tee decks to provide different distances and angles of play, for variety.

What I mean is that you don't NEED gold, blue, white, green and red tee markers.  Just one marker could suffice.

Each day, the marker is located at one spot and everyone (man, woman and child, hacker and tiger alike) tees off from that one location.  The next day, the marker is relocated (if necessary/desired) and everyone tees off from there.

But that would require a radically different approach in the way architects design golf courses, and a radically different outlook in the way golfers see their scores.

The classic way of designing, say, 400-yard, dogleg-left par four, would be something like a carry bunker 250 yards from the back tee on the inside, and another green-side bunker front-right.

But for Joe Q, if he played the back tee, the fairway bunker is not in play.  He can't reach it off the tee.  So we add a middle tee, making the hole 360 yards. And Jane Doe, from that back tee, has no chance of reaching either the bunker or the green in two.  What's the fun in hitting Driver - 4 wood - 7 iron all day?  So we put a forward tee at 300 yards.  (Then of course we'd put the forward tee to the right of centre, taking the fairway bunker out of play, thus nulifying somewhat the idea of forward tees, but that's another story...)

But what if Joe Q plays from the back tee.  For him, with a 200 yard drive, it's almost a three shooter.  So design the hole as a gambling "reachable par five" for him.  Honestly, that front-right bunker, while following the credos of traditional strategic architecture for the scratch golfer, really isn't in play if Mr. Scratch is coming in with a wedge.  So put the bunker front left instead.  It still requires Mr. Scratch to hit a solid approach for his birdie, but now Joe Q must decide whether or not cutting the corner is really going to make it easy for him to reach the green.  Maybe the long way 'round will give him a better angle in?

And what about Jane Doe?  She hit a good drive and has probably 250 to the green.  Now put a bunker short right about 100 yards from the green.  She now has to flirt with that one to give herself an easy third.  And if Joe Q ever lets his drive leak too far right of the tee, he's also got that bunker to worry about if his second isn't caught flush.  Mr. Scratch might wonder what the heck a bunker is doing 75 yards from the green, but who cares?  

It's a great idea (IMHO), but it'd never work.  It would screw up people's compartimentalized one-track-mind thinking about "par".

oh well...  


Patrick,

Yes, TOC has multiple tee decks.

But they aren't necessary.  Most (99%) of people play the white (medal) tee anyway, scratch golfer and weekend hacker alike.

Your proposal for one set of tees would require a change in the culture of golf, before it could be adopted, and I don't see that happening in the near or distant future.

 

You're right, it probably would.  And I don't see it happening anytime soon either.  But so what?

I think that the one size fits all concept is a fantasy in designing a golf course today.

Yes, but so was flying to the moon, at one point.  I'm not one to shy away from something simply because "that's not the way it done".

Tell me how you would handle the cry of inequity and the ability to satisfy the challenge and the fun for both players when a short hitting senior plays a match against a scratch player from the same tees ?

The handicap system.

How long would you make your single tee golf course?

Whatever fits the land.

I don't think the idea sounds good on paper, let alone in the field, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

So could I.  But I'll never know is by giving up.

Barney, that is an interesting concept.  Here in Green Bay we have nine holes of a 27 routing where there are double greens.  But, they weren't really designed or placed in the concept you are speaking of or this discussion which is centered around - one set of tees.  That course has up to 5-6 sets of tees.  But, dual or overlarge greens with pins cleverly placed for near and far would bring the disparity of man-woman, senior-young buck into some kind of parity.  I'd hate to pay to maintain that much green space however...

excuse if this has already been said, since I didn't read all the back and forth banter of the thread.  However, one course I can think of that works for one set of tees only is #2 at Medinah, the women's course.   It actually has two sets of tees, but that is a course of some 5500 yards where one set would work where like Jeremy says, you only put out one set of markers or blocks each day.  Come to think of it, #3 the brutish one would work where only one set of markers were put out each day, and you better by a gorilla to tackle it.  Otherwise, go play #1 where the distance demands are moderate.