[ed_battye]

I always get frustrated when I hear golfers, of all abilities, complaining after hitting a wayward shot, into rough, trees, water, sand etc... that that is where the tee was pointing.

Should the golf course architect be responsible for aiming the golfer on the tee? Or is it OK to aim a tee at a hazard to try to lull the foolhardy into a bad play?

[Slag_Bandoon]

  A directed tee is "obviousness" and strategically numbing.  Teeing grounds should blend, not box.

I like randomly shaped teeing grounds.  I also like boomerang or L-shaped tees as they give variable angles to target.

 My excuses are innumerable and insufferable.  

[TEPaul]

Very good question--very good!

This is one where I know we will find our contributors, all of who may be very knowledgeable on all things architecture to be at great variance.

But I'm with the first two posters--it isn't the job the architect to align the golfer and frankly if the architect wants to misalign even a square or rectangular tee on purpose that's OK with me! I subscribe to the philosophy that golf and its architecture should be a game between the architect and the golfer--a chess game, if you want! They should sort of spar with each other. The architect is at full liberty to create problems and the golfer should have plenty of latitude to solve those problems how he sees fit, always in the context of the old risk/reward equation.

If a golfer doesn't align himself properly on a misaligned tee he should just admit that he didn't notice and consequently he made a mistake (maybe even that the designer faked him out that time). But if a golfer insists on blaming the designer for getting misaligned I think he should either shut his mouth or stop playing golf! I don't even believe that tees really need to be all that flat either, all the time.

But I'm well aware that there are plenty of knowledgeable people that take the complete opposite opinion. There are quite a few great architects that do too. That's fine and I'm certainly not going to argue with any of them.

I just think that ultimately a golfer should be able to align himself to his target no matter where he is. Once he's off the tee he has to do it anyway, so what's the difference. The difference is he was under the impression that tee boxes had to align him to his target of the center of things or the ideal landing area or whatever. That's not true at all in theory so he only has himself to blame for not knowing or not noticing!

[Ed_Baker]

If it were the architects job to align the golfer,there wouldn't be any redan holes,would there?

[TEPaul]

Now Ed, that's absolutely brilliant! The next time I hear someone complain about getting misaligned by an architect that's what I'm going to tell him--word for word!

[John Bernhardt]

Well i will take the other side of this. I find it poor design work for a tee to be misalligned. I am with the other posts that like amore natural teeing ground rather than a box. Notwithstanding there are more boxes than other types of teeing grounds in the us at this time. It looks like lazy constuction and design work and speaks poorly of the course. Notwithstanding that it is the golfer who should correct his alignment not complain about it.

[TEPaul]

I already said that there would be plenty of knowledgeable people who would take the other opinion and claim that tees should not be misaligned and John Bernhardt has done that. As stated, I would not think to disagree with him about that and his opinion is a good and proper one.

On the other hand, I already know how Pat Mucci feels about the subject of misaligned tees and although he hasn't seen this thread yet I promise he will be on here and he will agree with John Bernhardt about it. Pat might even punctuate his post with, "That's just my opinion and I could be wrong."

But in Pat's case (on this subject) it's not that he could be wrong--he is wrong!

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Paul, you are a true gentleman.

I have also opined on this in earlier posts.

Golfer of different abilities, intending to execute different strategies, will want to aim all over the place (we have all seen the slicers who aim at the next fairway), so it would almost be impossible for the architect to align the golfer, and it is not his job.

It is also not the job of the architect to point the tee boxes 45 degrees away from the fairway into the forest. It is aesthetically displeasing, and not at all clever. It is the cheapest manifestation of "making the golfer think".

[Steve Wilson]

Not to take a position on this but I will ask this question.  "If the tee is aligned to the center of the fairway and the center is not the place to be, is that tee misaligned?"

[Slag_Bandoon]

  We need more Keiser tees.

[John Bernhardt]

Thanks TEPaul, I apreciate your positive feedback. And no it is not a misalignment to have the tee down the middle when a different angle is the better play for that golfer on that hole. However, 90% of the time for the vast majority of the golfers, down the middle is not a bad place to be. Besides with the laser equipement we have today, it is weak not to have level straight teeing grounds. ( I still want ran to get spell check for me)

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Some deranged individual has been posting under your name, claiming that the architect has no obligation to align the golfer.

One could draw a conclusion from this lunatic post, that the architect should in fact, hide the tee, making it difficult to find, and then, misdirect the golfer, such that he aims at the 16th green at Pine Valley, rather than at the 15th fairway.

Once the architect goes geometric, linear, rectangular, I feel, their is a continuing obligation to align the tee in continuity with the hole of play.  That a square or rectangular back tee should intersect, like a fighter planes gun pattern, the mid-point of the fairway at the 250-280 mark.

But, that's just my opinion, you could be wrong.

[ed_battye]

John;

Bunkers are occaisionally used to deceive a golfer of his perception to distance. Is there no place for tee alignment to deceive a golfers' perception of direction, no matter how subtley this is done?

[Peter Galea]

Yes. Why shouldn't they, is it too much work? It is much easier to build tee ameobas, footballs etc; than boxes.
They show you the desired landing area by bunker placement, specimen trees, distant landmarks. They show you the green by bunkering, mounding, framing, elevation, on and on and on. A "player" will line up on the target no matter where the tee or markers point. So, who does a misaligned tee affect the most? Beginners and higher handicaps. I see misalignment as shoddy work.
The best architects are detail oriented. Tees whould be included in detail work.

[Peter Galea]

The foolhardy hardly need anyone or thing to lull them into bad play. They can do it all by themselves.

[RobertWalker]

Maybe we should change Pat Mucci's name to Contra Diction. First he says the game is about feel, wants no yardage indicators, no flagsticks, and now all of a sudden, he wants the Architect to come to the course and personally point him in the right direction, even on his home course!

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore:

Your remark,'it is the cheapest  manifestation of "making the golfer think".'

I like that very much! I'm awful cheap myself though and if a really good designer reverted to such a cheap manifestation with me and I fell for it, my hat would be off to him--because he would have outcheaped a real cheapskate. But it wouldn't even bother me if one of my sophisticated rich-boy friends fell for it too!

I'd always heard that this was a tactic that Donald Ross used to resort to occasionally although I really do think the jury is still out on him doing that. Ron Prichard, I believe, thinks he did that to trick the golfer, but I've never actually seen it--I suppose!

But I'll tell you an interesting story about why I personally thought that. The tee box on Gulph Mills's #3 hole is noticeably aligned to the right and I've always thought that was a Ross trick. Until I got into architecture, looked at the old aerials, did the Design Evolution booklet and realized that the right third of the fairway was removed and trees put in its place. When we remove the trees and restore the fairway and its width (to the right)--presto, the tee will be properly aligned again right at the hole's "safe play"!

There is a bit of a flip side of this whole thread and question though--and that's the tee markers themselves! Even if the tee is misaligned but the tee markers are aligned correctly the golfer is very likely to pick it up and not get tricked. Unfortunately misaligned tees seem to fake out maintenance much more than golfers and they align the tee markers with the misaligned tee.

I really don't even mind that and really can't remember being tricked by it. Where I would draw the line though is with a tee that was properly aligned and the tee markers were not. The reason I say that, though, is simply because I haven't seen that any of are maintenance guys are as clever as Donald Ross and they shouldn't try to act like they are either!

[John Bernhardt]

Ed good point but i feel it is different for misaligned tee to be  a part of the strategy of the hole. i feel in this day in time it is too easy for good teeing ground setup to be done. besides how many of our distinguished brethern here will confess to setting up a tee offline for strategic reasons. Actually that is how I look at it when i am playing a hole, as just another factor to figure into the hole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I just hate it when people post under my name! I just got home and read that nonsense. If you're a friend of mine you'll slap that guy down for me--don't let him up for air! BTW, your last sentence punctuation on your last post is one of the best to date.

Robert Walker has throw down the glove on you my boy! You will be both cowardly and pusilanimous if you don't accept his challenge.

Now I'm just going to get my lemonade and retire to the back benches and watch for a while!

[TEPaul]

John Bernhardt:

I'm very clear on your dislike for the misaligned tee, but I was just wondering what you have against the "shift" key.

[Tom_Doak]

My feeling is that it is not my job to align the golfer, but it is my job not to misalign him [or her].

Unfortunately, the reason for most of these ugly square-cornered tees on modern courses are all the "type A" golfers who insist on pointing out that an architect "misaligned" them.  Architects are so tired of hearing it, many have just gone to perfect rectangles aimed at the landing stake.  [They also do it to conserve tee mix.]

[Yes, I do think rectangle tees are ugly.  They're unnatural to look at, particularly when you're on the back tee and looking over three or four rectangles in front of you, each on a different angle to the hole and therefore pointing in a different direction!]

[Paul_Daley]

One of the things I admire about Nature is how it has evolved landforms to be non-symetrical, with a hefty dose of random placemement. And so, when Man intercedes
and builds golf courses, slide-rule straight tees are misplaced and incongurous.

My pesonal preference is for tees that align within 10-15 degrees of square. Tee-boxes that align 30-40 degrees left or right are absurd and appear sloppy, not cleverly random.

[jglenn]

Tee shapes can be orthogonal (rectangles, squares, etc...) or organic (kidneys, amebas...).  When designing a landscape, it is recommended to have a consistency of vocabulary, if you want things to blend in well together.  In other words, if you start with flowing lines, then use flowing lines.  Don’t mix and match.

If you use a straight line in an English garden, for example (or a curvy line in an Italian garden), that line is sure to be noticed.   Of course, this may not necessarily be a bad thing.  In fact, it is a strategy often used in design, when you’d want a feature to be noticed, as a strong focal point of the overall work.

The curve doesn't blend in, but that doesn't make it bad. It becomes the focal point.

Unfortunately, tees are not the focal point of a golf course.  And it is certainly not with this goal in mind that architects would give them orthogonal shapes amidst an organic landscape.  Rather, tees are most often given a rectangular shape as a clin d’oeil to the older golf courses, where many features where built that way.   That, and the fact that rectangular tees are still accepted on golf courses today.

Of course, we must remember that orthogonal shapes have, by definition, strong axis of direction.  They lead the eye along their edges.  And the longer that edge, the stronger the axis becomes, and the more important it is to have something meaningful at the end.  This is even truer when the straight line your eyes follow is the only straight line around.  As such, your eyes are naturally lead towards the end of a runway, or the end of a tee.  If that tee points in an arbitrary direction – or, in other words, if there is nothing meaningful at the end of the axis- it is confusing visual letdown.  

A straight lines “points” in a certain direction.  It is important that there be something meaningful in that direction.

So if you, the architect, decide to use rectangular tees, then make sure they point down the fairway.  If they point way off line, they become confusing eyesores.  If they point only slightly off-line, it will look like a mistake or like you did a half-assed job.

It’s got nothing to do with golf.  It’s just proper design.

[RobertWalker]

If a tee shape is going to misdirect, then it ought to be fairly obvious, not 1-3 degrees, but rather 5-12 degrees. But the direction of the markers ought to be the center of the driving zone arc.
My own opinion is that the tee box ought to be rectangular if not square, and as close to dead level as possible.
The Teeing area is where the man made intersects with nature, and I have no problem with the teeing area NOT being natural looking.

[Mike_Young]

If a golfer can determine that a tee is out of line then at the same time I would assume him astute enough to correct for what he considered an architectural mistake.  Everybody does it different and we all have played courses with aligned tees and misaligned tees.  I like them both ways.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()