One tee, why not?

[JESII]

Was fairness or agronomy the primary reason for building multiple teeing grounds for one hole?

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but what hasn't.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

You are right, it has been discussed here at length.
IMO the reasons for mulitple tees are in order:

1 Robert Trent Jones Sr.
2. Agronomy, spread wear and tear.
3. Fairness issue always being addressed in today's society.    Especially a form of advertising resort courses (husband and wife can play the same course).
4. Laziness on designer's part.  The more tees, the less they need to contemplate.

Mac O'Grady was the first I heard refer to RTJ Sr.'s tees as airport runways.

[Eric Pevoto]

George Thomas wrote of multiple tees simply as a means of variety.

[JESII]

George Thomas wrote of multiple tees simply as a means of variety.

Does this mean he still had in mind the notion of all players playing from the same teeing ground on a given hole, with a variety of possible tee locations? Or was he suggesting different tees for different caliber players?

[TEPaul]

Multiple tees appear to be simply an evolution in golf and architecture from the rudimentary days of both. At one time there were no "tee boxes" and actually a series of rules requiring the player to tee off a certain amount of club-lengths from the previous HOLE (cup) initially beginning with one club-length.

It seems to me that multiple tees were part of what was loosely referred to by early architects (just after the turn of the century) as "modern" architecture or "scientific" architecture which was an attempt to design golf courses in such a way that they would begin to accomodate all levels of player ability. "Modern" or "scientific" architecture was probably as much an attempt by early architects to popularize the game by accomodating the games of all player levels as anything else.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Memberships want them in order to cater to every possible level of golfer.

Forty years ago you never heard of Senior tees or Junior tees.

And, fifty years ago, you never heard of Championship tees.

The games popularity amongst a broader spectrum of golfers has been responsible for the addition of tees.

[JohnV]

Enjoyment.

People like to be able to have a chance to reach a par 4 in 2 shots or at most 2 full shots and a chip.  Why not give them that chance?  If the only tee on a par 4 is at 460 yards, many golfers have no real chance of getting there ever.

The laziness of some architects is not so much in building multiple tees as it is in not making it an interesting strategic course from the forward tees.

[JakaB]

Those of us who don't live their lives as one time, one play access whores enjoy 100 different tees from 100 different angles and lengths over the course of a 100 rounds in a year.  Some people only know the joy of a different pin placement now and then...the lucky ones see a different hole, sometimes better, sometimes worse but always interesting.

It's kinda like the Sheep Ranch but organized for safety and ease of flow..

[JESII]

Mr Kavanaugh,

Maybe my comprehension is lacking this morning, but Ican't understand what you said, care to clarify?

John, Pat and Tom,

Would it be unreasonable to ask an architect to design a hole that is playable and interesting to all level golfers, if they (golfers) start from the same spot.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jim
I have always loved the idea of one tee for everybody, even though it may not be practical or 'fair"
I do like the idea of several tees,purely in the interst of playability for all levels,  but leave them unlabelled..do not call them championship..mens..senior..ladies just different tees and choose your poison.
That is what I liked about Merion at first visit..no tee markers just take your pick.

[TEPaul]

"Would it be unreasonable to ask an architect to design a hole that is playable and interesting to all level golfers, if they (golfers) start from the same spot."

Sully:

I don't think it would be unnreasonable to ask an architect to try to design a whole course that way. What would really get interesting if that were done would be rating the course and playing it handicap-wise!  

The nature of modern handicapping just might have as much to do with multiple tees as anything else. In other words if you designed a course of perhaps 6800 yards for all there would be far more multiple shots necessary PER HOLE than I believe the present handicap processes like to have. Consequently the reality of modern handicapping is not just stroke allowances but also distance allowances. But very little distance adjustment was the way it was in the old days obviously.  

[TEPaul]

"That is what I liked about Merion at first visit..no tee markers just take your pick."

Michael:

That's because that day that happened Matt Shaeffer simply forgot to put the tee markers on the course. He's still taking heat for that oversight!  

[TEPaul]

The thing I would really like to see a good architect do one day is what I call "courses within a course". To do that well though would take not only a particular type of site but also one that didn't have many trees. It would potentially be a massive amount of design work. That's precisely the type of thing that that ultra-genius George Thomas began to attempt to do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Ron Prichard made a great presentation on this topic at our February 2004 get together at Baltusrol.

I think multiple tees are a reflection of a clash of cultures.
One with its roots firmly anchored in the history and traditions of the game and the other anchored in the culture of entitlement and fairness.

[JESII]

It seems to me that, as Pat says, "entitlement and fairness" would have been the initial reasons for creating multiple tees, but agronomic considerations would be a strong reason why it might be unrealistic to do today. Agree? Disagree?

Pat,

Is that Prichard presentation available in any format?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Are we talking about seperate structues or seperate sets of tee markers ?

I believe that agronomic reasons are latter day reasons brought on by the increased popularity of the game, and the foolish planting of trees.

Sadly, neither the Alpine or Baltusrol get togethers were video-taped or recorded.

[JESII]

Good question Pat!

I am speaking of all players playing a golf course from the same set of markers. I would put no restriction on the number of different "structures" available for the superintendent to place those markers. I do feel it would be ineffective, or counter productive, to have several (3 or 4) possibilities on each tee that each make the hole play substantially different from each other. In other words, I don't like the idea of simply removing all but one set of markers from the current setup at most courses and rotate the markers among the available tee pads. Let me know if this is clear, or as convoluted as it sounds coming out.

[JakaB]

JES,

How about one tee box the size of a football field rotated along the appropriate axis to allow for different angles of attack.  That way everybody could be happy.

[ChasLawler]

The one thing everyone seems to be forgetting about here is “fun”. John V. touched on it, but how many 15+ handicappers are going to enjoy the same course a scratch golfer might enjoy…and vice versa? It would take one hell of a design to meet everyone’s needs, and frankly I don’t believe it’s possible anymore. There are a lot of golfers out there – with a wide…wide range of playing abilities.

Why do folks need to get so caught up in “how the game was originally played” and pseudo-intellectual ramblings of the sort? Multiple tees are probably the best thing to happen to golf. They have allowed a wide spectrum of players to both enjoy and be challenged by the same golf course.

[Eric Pevoto]

George Thomas wrote of multiple tees simply as a means of variety.

Does this mean he still had in mind the notion of all players playing from the same teeing ground on a given hole, with a variety of possible tee locations? Or was he suggesting different tees for different caliber players?

Sent me scrambling for my copy of Golf Architecture in America!

I can't find the quote concerning variety.  I don't think I imagined it! Gotta keep looking.

Thomas did mention that it was becoming the custom of building several tees (2, even 3) as a way of dealing with the length of carries, different caliber of players, and wind conditions.  He adds that he thinks it's a mistake to completely eliminate carries, as "the thrill of seeing your well-hit ball from the tee soar strong and true over a hazard, is a thing not to be too often lost."

The idea of adding variety to a home course is appealing.  Why not have 3 or 4 choices to change the play of the hole for a given day?  Keeps things interesting over the years.

I do agree with Pat Mucci, "entitlement and fairness" and the growth of the game (agronomics and trying to appeal to all) are the roots.

It's a shame, but I suppose the thought is people won't stay with the game if they continually get their asses handed to them.  It can be a hard game.  The more sporting the attitude, the better, in my book.

[Pete Lavallee]

One tee golf certainly is a romantic reminder of how the game was played in the past. The thought of two golfers, of differing ability, each playing a single hole with a different plan is certainly the hallmark of most of the Golden Age's golf literature. I think we saw a perfect example of this this past weekend, with Tiger and Chris DeMarco. With Tiger outdriving Chris by as much as 70 yards on many holes, just how did they manage to have an equitable game? I'd like to think that the thought that went into the design of Augusta was the prime reason that several viable routes to the hole were not only possible but extemely interesting. This was apparent on #7, as Tiger chose an iron off the tee and Chris used driver. Even thouugh Chris had a 4 iron into #9 and Tiger a wedge, he was still able to birdie. The par 5's on the back certainly showed that there are different ways to make a 4, or 5, as the case may be. The key seems to be the design interest; the amount of thought put in by the designer as to how to make a hole play interestingly for golfers of differing levels. Does anyone really think that Chris needed a different teeing ground because Tiger can outdrive him by 70 yards? Conversely, if the Championship was played out at a flat course with flat greens, would there have been any doubt as to the outcome between these two? So long as the weaker golfer can reach all the par 4's with a 3 wood and all the par 5's in three shots, why do we need different sets of tees?

[wsmorrison]

Flynn started using multiple tees, for different players, around 1922-1923 at Cascades, Cherry Hills and Denver Country Club for example.  The Denver CC plans (much was not implemented) called for a wide range of teeing grounds.  Sometimes in the form of 3 distinct tees of up to 100 yard differential and sometimes single tees up to 75 yards long (some with various angles of approach).

How early were multiple tees used in everyday play for various abilities?  What architects used them and where?

[Doug Siebert]

I've long been a believer in the idea of different tees so that everyone can have a shot at reaching a green in regulation, but I've been reconsidering that position lately.  Playing with my dad, seeing how he plays now that's over 70 and needs two pretty good pokes to reach a 350 yard hole in two, I don't think that his enjoyment is really impacted by the fact that most par 4s are three shotters for him, and he's hitting his driver at some par 3s.  I can see the strategy for him coming from elements that I'll carry without even thinking about it teeing off all the way back, his lack of ability to hit a high shot with spin making angles far more important than they are to me.  In some ways, he's playing a more interesting game than I am.

Other than forced carries on some courses, there's really no reason he couldn't play from the tips.  I keep thinking some time when the course isn't too busy (so I don't have to wait on driveable par 4s) I'm going to join him and his friends on the senior tees at my home course just to see how close I can come to shooting my handicap playing it at a rating of 66.0/118 instead of 74.1/134.  Maybe I should talk him into playing all the way back with me sometime just for the heck of it.  He'd probably come closer to his handicap from back there than I would up with him.


Shivas,

Interesting idea.  Too radical though.  In today's climate it sounds like it is hard enough just convincing owners that they don't need a course that can stretch to 7600 yards just in case the PGA tour adds it as a stop.  It'd make for interesting gambling games where at least one of either you or your partner have to hole out on the expert pin but you don't have to decide until you get there

[JESII]

JES,

How about one tee box the size of a football field rotated along the appropriate axis to allow for different angles of attack.  That way everybody could be happy.

I'm not interested in making everybody happy!

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

The problem with reverting to one tee is the current perception of the game as it relates to "PAR"

If one returns to the old days, the next hole was played from within a short distance from where the player had just holed out.  It took almost 100 years to increase the teeing distance permited from within "one" club length to within "two" club lengths, of the hole.

Can you picture golf today, if EVERYONE had to tee off from a spot no more then 25 yards from the previous hole.

The next question is, if that rule existed today, would architects be hard pressed to create features meant to interface with every level of golfer, and would the cost to design and construct a golf course be much higher.

Mulitiple tees seem to be a way to force every level of golfer to confront the same architectural features, whereas, one tee would force the architect to build mulitiple features for every level of golfer to confront.

Maybe, that's why we love some of those old courses so much.  # 15, # 17, # 18  and # 8 at NGLA seem to embody that theory.  Come to think of it, so does almost every other hole.