The trend towards elevated "back tees"

[redanman]

This is an aesthetic thing, no?

IMO, this actually does not make a hole harder and can even make it a little easier especially with a large elevation change.

After playing way too many drop shots in the Rocky Mountains, they become very tiresome as one unintended consequence of great drops with crisply struck iron shots is relatively increased effective backspin. (Trust me on this one or go play 200 drop shot holes and get back to me).

Unfortunately at PVGC, Mr Fazio as consultant built the newest back back par 3 tees (3, 14) much higher and the height negates the effect of the need for a longer club. One might argue that if it's really windy then it might play havoc, but lower tees make it harder to judge wind. (The new tee on the par 4 18th is however brilliant in its location.)

The countenance to this is that relatively no one builds uphill par 3's because
-we all want to see the ball land
-they are too hard
-they are unfair

Anyway, greatly elevated tees are disappointing except aesthetically -  on any course. Widely differing opinions and comments are welcome.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you call being able to see the fairway over the front tees aesthetic, then yes.  

Fazio has often built tees at similar levels, but at different angles to avoid this.  In fact, he does so much grading to hide forward tees you often don't know they are there and feel as if you are playing off the "only" tee in many cases.

This is perhaps the next evolution in tees.  If you think about it, the tees in a line are not necessarily well thought out, but just multiple extensions of the first crude tee boxes.

Tees in a line may make sense in wooded areas, to preserve trees. (except on the right, hey Redanman!)  In open areas, creating multiple tees at different angles to keep one from blocking the view of the other takes more room, and may also slow play and/or encourage cart use since they can get further from the last green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Functionally, they are a necessary evil as older courses look to extend yardage, while still maintaining original playing angles and providing something like the original "view".

Aesthetically, they're generally a mess unless the land behind the original tee areas is already naturally elevated..

[jeffwarne]

It is an aesthetic thing mainly,often done to take advantage of a view.
Progressively more elevated tees do tend to make the hole play the same length from all tees.
Fairways do tend to shrink when playing from elevation as the ball does go farther so an offline shot stays in the air longer and therefore go deeper into trouble.This is particularly difficult in crosswinds.
It's not a lot of fun walking uphill and/or backwards to a back tee all day either-Many times when confronted with this situation I'll play the tee which is nearest the green to increase walkability and find myself no farther out than usual--and a lot less winded.
Unfortuneately many modern architects follow this trend and it grows tiresome as many holes play similarly,particularly the architects fear of building an uphill par 3(one of my favorite type holes),even when the terrain screams for one.
Augusta CC where I grew up had a wonderful uphill 145 yard uphill par 3 where Jack Nicklaus and his golf surgeons elevated the tee 10 yards(an eyesore from adjascent fairways)and lowered the green,removing most of the bunkers in front.
The previous hole went right by the green so you knew to check the pin location so visibility was a non issue.I'm often now tempted to tee off with putter out of contempt for the change as it turned an excellent old style hole into a modern boring undefined shot unless the pin is behind the one contrived bunker left.
The course was renovated by Silva in the last few years but somehow most of this holes' artificial elevation changes remained.

[wsmorrison]

Tell me, Bill.  What is the equalization point of increased elevation and increased yardage?  I've heard the rule of thumb is every one foot in elevation equates to 1 yard of distance.  If that is true, for the 5th at Merion, the back tee would have to be 50 feet higher than the former back tee to equate distance.  This is not the case, maybe it is 10 feet.  The middle tees on the 5th are 420 or so.  The back tee is 500.  Are the back tees 80 feet higher than the middle tee?  Of course not, maybe 20 feet.  The elevation mitigates the increased yardage but by how much?  Not as much as you think, I think  

[cary lichtenstein]

I have always enjoyed elevated tees, not where they look forced, but when they are built correctly.

An example of an elevated tee that is very, very forced is the 18th tee at Trump International in West Palm Beach, but the elevated tee at I think the 16th at Friar's Head is just wonderful.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tell me, Bill.  What is the equalization point of increased elevation and increased yardage?  I've heard the rule of thumb is every one foot in elevation equates to 1 yard of distance.  

Wayne, I have heard, and use in design one foot for one foot.  IE, it takes three feet of tee elevation to add a yard.

[Ted Kramer]

I am a supporter of uphill shots in general.
Drop shots and elevated tees just don't do it for me.

Many of my favorite shots in golf tend to be uphill:
approach, #4 Black
approach, #5 Black
approach, #15 Black
par3 3rd at The Sagamore
drive to the "upper fairway", Pac Dunes #9

Although I have never played or seen Pine Valley,I'm sure I'd love it with or without any new "elevated back tees" . . .
but all things being equal, I think that downhill shots are way over-used while uphill shots are under-used in newer designs.

-Ted

[wsmorrison]

Jeff,

Wow.  I have no idea, I was just saying what I've been told.  If that is the case, the effect of elevation is really negligible.  I guess it must have something to do with what kind of club you're using, well, trajectory any way.  A lofted shot will come down straighter and stick while a low shot that can still get some run.  Even if it is between 1:1 and 1:3, it is still pretty insignificant given the actual elevation changes between most tees, although there are exceptions such as the 15th at Shinnecock Hills.

Ted,

If you like uphill shots, check out Rolling Green someday.  You'll be in heaven.  There's 11 or so uphill approach shots!  You're in the area, get in touch on IM or email.  

[wsmorrison]

"IMO, this actually does not make a hole harder and can even make it a little easier especially with a large elevation change."

It seemed that when you said that large elevation changes on back tees can make the hole play easier that you were referring to distance.  

If you are saying that having higher back tees can make greens more visible and therefore easier, I'm not sure I agree with that either.  

Another example of a lower and longer back tee would be the 15th at Pine Valley.  The angle is very different as well.

I would like to have seen the back tee at Rolling Green's 17th be lower and back left along the line of play.  The 1st tee (long runway style) at RGGC would be better lowered with added length as well.

Some elevated tees are stair-stepped into a hillside.  Seems to me the 14th at Pine Valley follows the slope of the hill.  Granted it is broken up with level teeing areas, but it doesn't look that bad, especially since it cannot be seen from most vantage points on the 13th.

The teeing area is pretty large on each of the tiers on the 3rd at Pine Valley and they are on a natural slope so it doesn't look offensive to me.

[George Pazin]

Call me a cynic, but I think some architects build elevated back tees to placate their most important critics - the top players, the raters, the writers, etc. - who will likely be playing from back there. These golfers then won't complain about not being able to see everything, plus they get at least a psychological boost on their drives, if not so much of an actual one. (Aside: I can't believe Jeff's numbers are correct, 1:1 sounds way too little to me).

I personally hate elevated tees - yep, hate them. And not just because of my fear of heights. They look unnatural, they remove an interesting element of the game (visual uncertainty), they help out the wrong golfers, blah blah blah. I also think they are a big part of why people rate canyon courses - at least the few I've played - so highly. Perch the big boy on a cliff, and let him bask in the glow of his power. Yuck.

AG -

I could be wrong, but I would think elevation affects longer clubs more than shorter clubs. This is judging by my own (limited) experience, as well as the fact that the shorter club's shot is likely descending on a steeper trajectory. Draw a couple parabolas on a piece of paper with different relative steepness and you'll see what I mean.

[Tom_Doak]

When we were building Pacific Dunes, Mike Keiser often mentioned his fondness for elevated tees.  But he also mentioned that he didn't like the fact that the best view was always from the back tee, and he asked us if we could sometimes make it from the regular tee.  This is why the tenth hole (from the tee by the upper ninth green) is one of his favorites.

It also worked out that the forward tee on the ninth (in the far right corner of the upper plateau, before the fairway starts) is one of the most dramatic views on the course.  The late Pamela Emory, who was writing something about Bandon Dunes before she passed away, was especially fond of that spot.

But, it's hard to set up a hole this way, because the players on the back tee will think the hole sucks if the forward tee blocks any of their visibility ... that would be a gaffe in any architect's book.  The only way to make it work is when you can set up the back tee on an entirely different angle.

[Jason Mandel]

Bobby Weed purposely built lower tees on the back tees on #16 and #17 at White Manor and like Tom mentioned you really need to have a totally different angle to the hole.  #16 is really cool because from the members tee you can see the entire golf hole in front of you, yet when you go back to the back tee some 30-40 yards back the only vision you have is of a centerline bunker some 50 yards from the green of a 400 yard plus hole.

I think this is a great feature and another way to "defend par" against the top tier players because of the uncomfortable nature of not having total control of your surroundings.  

Jason

[texsport]

Elevated tees obviously make a course more pleasing to the eye. But how about the idea of using elevated tees to actually control distance off the tees since shots land more softly from elevated tees and roll less. (Even more so if the landing area is an upslope)

My favorite medium to long par 4 holes all have elevated tees and uphill second shots.

This combination tends to equalize the second shots of all players.

[Forrest Richardson]

On an undulating site I look for at least one slightly uphill par-3. We are working with a site now which has several tees where the back tee is lower. We achieve this by cascading tees in a diagonal along uphill holes.

Brauer hits the nail on the head: Elevated back tees are often a necessity to see fairway or target when dealing with flat-ish or subtle downhill gradients.

I feel that the new 17th tee at Oakmont would have been much stronger located to the left, and lower. It would have increased the yardage and made the shot more interesting. I was told that television coverage would not like the lower spot.