[Tom_Doak]

Mark F:

Yes, we try to make it so that any player can play any tee.  Obviously, there are some settings and circumstances where we have to have significant carries between the back tee and the start of the fairway, and we assume that no one will play the hole from a tee where they can't reach the fairways.  But, once they get to the short grass, they'll find that pretty much any hole we build is playable, whether they are hitting their approach shot with a wedge or with a 3-wood, and that a longer approach shot will also offer a strategic option of some sort.

[Garland Bayley]

Mark F:

Yes, we try to make it so that any player can play any tee.  Obviously, there are some settings and circumstances where we have to have significant carries between the back tee and the start of the fairway, and we assume that no one will play the hole from a tee where they can't reach the fairways.  But, once they get to the short grass, they'll find that pretty much any hole we build is playable, whether they are hitting their approach shot with a wedge or with a 3-wood, and that a longer approach shot will also offer a strategic option of some sort.

Given what you have written about Wicked Pony being akin to Pine Valley, will this be true there too?

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

Wicked Pony is a departure for us in many respects ... it's deliberately intimidating in places.  It's quite a bit narrower than what we've built lately, and there will be several long par-4's where a shorter hitter is better off playing for three shots and one putt.  But, if he's getting a stroke on those holes, the more patient approach will probably win the hole two-thirds of the time.

[SL_Solow]

What is interesting to me about this post is that most, if not all, of the classic courses that we love so much were designed without the "benefit" of mutiple tees to equalize the game and the approach options.  Yet those are the very courses that we hold up as paragons of strategic play and interesting, fun golf.  Why then the change?  I think a good part of the reason is the different attitude toward the game.  Greater emphasis on stroke play led to the view that all players should have a chance to make a "conventional" par.  Additionally, I think the trend was exacerbated by the changes in equipment which I believe increased the differential between long hitters and average hitters thus reducing the challenge of many traditional length courses for long hitters.  The longer courses (or new back tees) built to challenge them became "too long" for the shorter hitter thus necessitating multiple tees.

[Ken Moum]

What is interesting to me about this post is that most, if not all, of the classic courses that we love so much were designed without the "benefit" of mutiple tees to equalize the game and the approach options.  Yet those are the very courses that we hold up as paragons of strategic play and interesting, fun golf.  Why then the change?

In addition to your answers to the question, I would add that those old courses were designed to be played by one class of player, the businessman amateur. They didn't need a bunch of tees for other classes of players.

But even more significant is Alice Dye's contention that golf course maintenance and design has demolished the games of weaker players.

With softer, greener fairways, the shorter hitters--who usually have been low-ball hitters--lost a lot of their distance.  Add a bunch of hazards immediately in front of the green, and you set them up for major difficulties.

My home course is 93 years old, and only had one set of tees into the 1960s. But it didn't have irrigated fairways until then, and it's possible to run the ball onto every single green on the course.

Playing like that, my wife could probably compete quite nicely from the "mens" tees. As it is, she'd like to see the forward tees shortened by about 300 yards.

K

[Chris Cupit]

At first I thought the idea a little silly but after returning from a golf course with NINE (9) different sets of tee combinations for the men alone, I'm on board!

At what point does the golfer, heaven forbid, actually play the course as it is presented to him and adjust as best as he can.  Today it seems golfers are so spoiled that there MUST be a course with the distance "tailored made" just for their game.  

There's a long par 4 and a par 3 or two that plays long for you?  Demand another "players course" to fit your game!!

The course was the Tom Fazio Crabapple course (Capitol City Club) in Crabapple, GA.  Big property (900 acres!), big greens, big bunkers, big fairways.  

And, a tee for everyone!

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
you don't need my support on this, but you've got it. I think it's a terrific idea. (Is it unlikely, impossible, and antediluvian? Maaybbe. But what good thing isn’t?) But I can tell you this: that I currently play on a course much like the one you describe (well, at least in one way):

Perhaps not surprisingly, it's always ranked by the local golf-guides as the worst of Toronto's municipal courses. But I think it's a fun course, built a long time ago by Mr. Anonymous, and played today from only one set of tees.

You want to talk about short Par 4s? They're ALL short Par 4s here. You want to talk about trajectory control on Par 3s? Well, you have to be pretty good at it when a decent player is taking something off a sand-wedge (or blasting a 60 degree wedge) on 80 and 90 and 100 yard holes. Small, slightly undulating greens? Yes, and slow as molasses or as hard as a rock depending on the green and how it's situated. And the bunkers? Those white fluffy bunkers the pros play out of have nothing on the wet and hard-packed dirt (at least an inch and a half of it!) they got there, with the bunkers squeezed right to the edges of the greens.    

And you do get a few choices when there's a 290 yard severe dogleg right that 'bends' at 150 yards; and a 280 yard severe dogleg left that bends at 180 yards -- especially when there's mature trees all around and you could fit four of these green sites into one from a modern day course, so that there’s about 16 'green-side' bunkers in play on any one “driving” hole.  

One of the things that makes the course neat for me is the idea of 'unintended consequences', i.e. the original designer didn't build a short par 4 to provide options etc; he built a straightforward and modest hole a long time ago, and now it's become THIS....for those with eyes to see, I guess.  

By the way, it's nice to hear that there are still the Linc Rodens of this world around to carry on the "what ifs" and "what's this game about" questions of someone like Behr.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

I'll speak up as a short hitter and share this meet-halfway offer with the architects. I will play from a single set of tees (presumably designed for someone who hits it farther than my 200-yard tee shot and my 4-hybrid from 150) if you will provide something other than the same upslope landing area, layup to a narrow-but-featureless fairway 60-90 yards out and maybe even put the odd fairway bunker in one or two of my landing zones somewhere during the round.

I've played courses from tees that made three shots and one putt the Par 4 formula for my game on all but a couple of holes and still had a whale of a time. But that's only possible when there's some variety as opposed to hitting my tee shot short of everything then laying up to the empty zone between the fairway bunkers and the green and then hitting a plain-vanilla wedge shot or chip. Ideally, give me greens like those at the Ocean Course or Cuscowilla and maybe a little random bunkering (like some of the surviving bunkers 30-50 yards out on early 20th century courses by Ross, et. al.) and avoid the dreaded 180-yard carry off the tee.

But failing that maybe you'd better give me a set of tees 30, 40 yards shorter on most holes. I understand there is a certain economy of design acheivable by just having one set of interesting features and moving us short-knockers up far enough to bring them in play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

One of the objectives of multiple tees is to reintroduce the golfer to the architectural features and intended play of the hole, especially off the tee.

While I don't think there will ever be a return to one set of tees in our lifetime, I do favor limiting tees to a total of three sets, front, middle and back.

[Ken Moum]

I do favor limiting tees to a total of three sets, front, middle and back.

I agree, and having played with and/or watched the play of golfers ranging from octogenarian women to college men recently, I suggest they be (roughly):

5,000 yards
6,000 yards
7,000 yards

<G>

Ken

[Adam Clayman]

Why then the change?  I think a good part of the reason is the different attitude toward the game.  Greater emphasis on stroke play led to the view that all players should have a chance to make a "conventional" par.

Shel, Excellent point about change. Another is the attitude change towards Professionals when those courses were built.

Mark Fine, I do believe you need to make a trip to NE Colorado and see not only what No tees looks like, but also, what Tom means when he states how  every hole, from every potential teeing ground, is just flat out fun fun fun.

kmoum- The only problem I see with your numbers are that many of us X chromosomers will default to the 7000 yards, where a majority do not belong unless elevation is a factor.

[Mark_Fine]

Adam,
I happen to believe that a skilled golfer can have fun playing from almost any set of tees or from most any distance (if no formal tees exist).  But that is clearly not the case for “less skilled golfers”.  The game can become a chore and taking 8, 9 or 10 shots to finish a hole is not what most golfers would consider fun.   They probably don't have the time either.  Can you picture the local golf league playing the back tees at Pine Valley?  How does seven hours and a dozen lost balls each sound  

We happened to be working on the redesign of a hole the other day that potentially included re-directing a small stream/ditch.  The question was where to have it cross the fairway and how tee location would be impacted.  As we were evaluating our options, we watched several groups of women players come through with only one in four carrying their tee shot much more than 60 or 70 yards in the air.  Do you think this should have had any impact on where we located the hazard and/or how we set up tees?  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
One of the objectives of multiple tees is to reintroduce the golfer to the architectural features and intended play of the hole, especially off the tee."

Patrick:

Don't worry, I'm well aware of the purpose of multiple tees.  

You say their purpose is to reintroduce the golfer to architectural features and intended play.

Intended play?

What do you think that means exactly? Do you think it means that all golfers should be strategically dealing with all the same features on any golf hole?

Do you think that's the way architects have come to design golf courses?

If so, that is most of my point here.

If golf architects designed courses that both challenged and accommodated all golfers from the same tees, golf and architecture would seemingly become more realistic for the game of anyone.

Clearly this means the same features would not be effecting all golfers in the same ways.

This obvious fact simply recognizes that all golfers of even the same handicap do not hit the ball the same distances by a long shot.

All multiple tees are in reality is a "distance" handicap.

If a course were to take that away, then the architecture of any hole would seemingly have to deal with that.

I do know how that might play out in reality. For instance, a little lady might have to deal with some hazard feature on her second shot that a strong and good man would have to deal with on his tee shot, and so on and so on......

The point is if everyone played from the same tees architects would have to consider the distance realities of all players in the way they design golf holes.

Again, you said "Intended play".

Do you really think an architect should design his own single "intended play" strategy into golf holes for everyone?

That is clearly not very realistic given the way various golfers hit the ball very differently.

[JESII]

Tom:

We try to think about our holes as if all the players might use any of the tees.

If it were a universal practice, some of the benefits would be:

a)  The majority would insist on a reasonable length and there wouldn't be any more 7500 yard courses;

b)  Green to tee walks would be a breeze; and

c)  Courses would be more interesting visually because there would be more "foreground" bunkers to provide interest for the shorter hitters.

Pay very close attention to what TD said here in point (C)...

Sounds like a win for everyone except the really low handicapper that wants to play a tipped out course most of the time...

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
How that would play out in reality is so: Pick some yardages and design a course around them, only have one tee box per hole, don't be surprised when those who feel your course is too long or too short go somewhere else to play, sell out at a loss, watch as the next operator installs two or three new tees per hole.  

[Steve Kline]

That's not true. Some old courses were designed tipped out. Perhaps playing the same set of tees are why so many half par holes were designed - even though they may have thought of par 100 years ago when designing courses. I thought I read that given the length of modern players (not just pros but all goflers) that TOC would have to be stretched to some 8,000 yards to make it play like it did around the turn of the last century. And everyone played from the same spot then. Plus as was mentioned earlier, different tees is just a distance handicap. Without different tees everyone's handicap would self adjust.

[JESII]

Steve,

Are you suggesting there are many 18 handicappers looking for a longer course to play?

I would think taking a person that hits the ball 175 yards to a set of tees measuring 8000 yards would be a tough sell...

[Steve Kline]

I'm suggesting the course that is the supposed ideal for strategic design supposedly had everyone playing from a distance that was ridicuously long, but shooting par or breaking 90 wasn't a consideration then. Of course TOC has always been kept firm and fast.

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, just it has happened and it didn't stop St. Andrews from becoming a hotbed of golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You say their purpose is to reintroduce the golfer to architectural features and intended play.

Intended play?

What do you think that means exactly?

It means that the architect create corridors or routes of play, laced with features meant to integrate with the golfer.

Absent that configuration, you're playing on a polo or football field.[/color]

Do you think it means that all golfers should be strategically dealing with all the same features on any golf hole?

That would be impossible, but, as general "classes/categories" of golfers go, yes.[/color]

Do you think that's the way architects have come to design golf courses?

In General, Yes, with the emphasis being on the scratch player with accomodations being made for the higher handicap.

You can't design a golf course for every individual golfer's game.[/color]

If so, that is most of my point here.

If golf architects designed courses that both challenged and accommodated all golfers from the same tees, golf and architecture would seemingly become more realistic for the game of anyone.

I believe that that's impossible.

You'd have to create features that integrate with everyone's game, equally, and that's impossible.

If you played from one tee, then, the challenge should be graduated, not universal, with the higher handicap golfer having a diminished challenge.  Like it or not, distance is a huge factor.[/color]

Clearly this means the same features would not be effecting all golfers in the same ways.

That would depend upon the design and location of the feature.  Like an eel trap, as you get closer to the bait/hole, the features take on a universal quality where they can't be avoided, thus, they effect everyone's play.

Multiple tees have served to present a similar presentation of the architecture/effect to golfers of differing abilities.[/color]

This obvious fact simply recognizes that all golfers of even the same handicap do not hit the ball the same distances by a long shot.

I'm not so sure that I buy into that in the sense that the marginal differences aren't substantive in most cases.

I've yet to see a +2  handicap who hits it 200 with his drive.

You can't design a golf course that will present the same challenges to every golfer's game.  But, you can present an overall challenge, throughout 18 holes, that's representative of the architect's intent to provide a similar, but not congruent challenge.[/color]

All multiple tees are in reality is a "distance" handicap.

If a course were to take that away, then the architecture of any hole would seemingly have to deal with that.

That's almost impossible unless you provide different challenges for different golfers, and, that can be very expensive.[/color]

I do know how that might play out in reality. For instance, a little lady might have to deal with some hazard feature on her second shot that a strong and good man would have to deal with on his tee shot, and so on and so on......

Isn't that part of the genius of the bunkering scheme on # 18 at NGLA ?[/color]

The point is if everyone played from the same tees architects would have to consider the distance realities of all players in the way they design golf holes.

I think you have to remember that that's the way it was and continued to be at many courses, GCGC amongst them, until recently.

However, at democratically run clubs, you inherently deprive the higher handicap golfer of interfacing with the features experienced by the lower handicap golfer until you get to the green.

Golf in America has a strange personality.
Everyone wants to play a golf course suited for PGA Tour Pros.  They don't want to be deprived of the experience.
Hence, given the choice of one set of tees, versus multiple sets of tees, I believe most clubs would vote for multiple sets, so that the higher handicap members could interface with the same bunkers/features that the lower handicap members interface with.  It's this foolish notion of equality of play that discards the inherent difference in the ability of the golfers.[/color].

Again, you said "Intended play".

Do you really think an architect should design his own single "intended play" strategy into golf holes for everyone?


Charles Blair MacDonald did it exceptionally well at NGLA.
If you view the schematic, now in the Pro shop, that shows the two routes of play for the scratch player and the higher handicap golfer, it will enlighten you.

There, CBM created seperate routes where different features
interfaced with different golfers.

That's where I see some of the genius in the design, the ability of the architect to present two distinct challenges, for golfers of different abilities, on the golfers journey from the tee to the green.

However, without WIDTH, presenting the dual routes is difficult, if not impossible.

Width is a key component in accomodating the higher handicap golfer.

CBM allowed lesser players to tack their way about the holes, avoiding the onerous features.

NGLA has retained those dual playing corridors.

NGLA's issue, and the issue clubs and architects face today is the enormous disparity in ability and distance.

Year's ago, a PGA Tour Pro didn't outdrive a good amateur by 100 yards, they didn't carry a drive 300+ yards, so the task presented today, courtesy of unbridled I&B advances, is far more difficult.  The disparity in the games of the various classes of golfers is greater, making it more difficult for modern day architects to design golf courses for ALL golfers.

I think the ONE tee system would make it even more difficult.[/color]

That is clearly not very realistic given the way various golfers hit the ball very differently.

CBM was able to do it at NGLA and elsewhere, and his designs have survived for about 100 years.

The issue is weighted in one direction, the better player.

It's gotten impossible to present a stern challenge to the best golfers in the world.

While Hi-tech may have diminished the challenge for amateurs, it's almost eradicated it for the PGA Tour golfer.
That's why courses are par 70 and 7,400+ plus yards.

There was a time when PGA Tour Pros played on 6,800 yard courses and they were considered long, today, 6,800 is very short for the better amateur.  Didn't you learn anything from watching the finals of the Nebraska State Amateur at Wild Horse ?

So, how does an architect present an "equitable" challenge for the wide spectrum of golfers ?

Golfers who will play from 7,800 yards to 4,800 yards ?

It's a very difficult challenge, one that single tees don't solve.

Without freezing or rolling back I&B the problem will only get worse.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think three (3) sets of tees provides a balanced challenge, acceptable to the great majority of clubs and golfers.

While it may not be a perfect solution, I think it's a practical solution.

[Adam Clayman]

Mark, Teeing ground placement for the golfer you describe is important.  I just find it hard to justify re-directing streams, it never entered my mind.

Were these lady golfers walking?

[Mark_Fine]

Adam,
The hole with the stream/ditch is in a floodplain and the hole as it is now is marginal.  It is likely that an extensive stream bank management project is going to take place in the area and the range of distrubance will be significant.  This could provide an opportunity to not only enhance the stream/ditch but improve the golf hole as well.  
Mark

[Steve Kline]

"This obvious fact simply recognizes that all golfers of even the same handicap do not hit the ball the same distances by a long shot."

"I'm not so sure that I buy into that in the sense that the marginal differences aren't substantive in most cases."

I"'ve yet to see a +2  handicap who hits it 200 with his drive."

As a +3 handicap, there is still a difference in distance and while the absolute value of that difference may not be as great as it is for say 15 handicaps the relative is still very important. While I rarely if ever get to play with other plus handicaps, at least four players at my club that are between a 1 and 4 handicap that I play with regularly easily out drive me by 20 yards when we all hit it well. My adverage drive is close to 270, but another 20 yards would make a huge difference. Two clubs less into a green for someone of my ability makes a whole lot more difference than for a 15 handicap. I feel hit it much closer with an 8 iron than a 6 iron and will be taking dead any time I have a wedge when with an 8 iron I still might play conseratively. That 20 yard difference in drives can also lead to reaching slots on fairways of par 5s to reach the green in two or carry uphill tee shots to plateaus. Trust me - it makes a difference. And if you still don't think it does - ask Nick Faldo, Justin Leonard, David Toms or any other really good amatuer player.

[TEPaul]

"So, how does an architect present an "equitable" challenge for the wide spectrum of golfers?"

An "equitable" challenge Patrick? What is that when one 18 handicapper may be capable of hitting a golf ball a hundred yards farther than another 18 handicapper?

The way to make this work in architecture in the future is to start fairways or parts of them no farther than about 100 yards from the tee and simply give the very short hitter A WAY to play from there the golf holes on a course.

If his or her distance limitation does not allow him or her to get to a 450 yard hole in less than four strokes of his or her longest shots, so what?

Remember, this was the way golf once was. If they could do it then we can do it now.

In the last year or so you seem to be so much into this idea you call "interfacing" with the architecture.

And now you seem to suggest the challenge should be "equitable" for all that way.

Well, how does architecture accomplish that anyway when one scratch golfer is capable of hitting a tee shot 50 yards farther than another scratch handicapper, or if one 18 handicapper is capable of hitting a tee shot 100 yards farther than another 18 handicapper?

In a sense when everyone played from the same tees it was "real" golf in a comparative sense because distance handicapping had nothing to do with it. The only handicap necessary was in the true "currency" in golf----strokes!

[paul cowley]

I consider Tom Doaks teeing areas at Ballyneal [and maybe at others that I am not aware of], to be a true Modern innovation....or maybe a totally new unqualified by any Era innovation.

Really very good and fun [accent on fun].

As for me, I plan on going back to a single tee for our new stuff.

Par threes will have one thats around 70 yds long.
Par fours will will have one about 100 yds long.
Par fives will have one that is between 120 to 135 yds long.

I know I might be stepping on RTJ's shoulders, but I don't think his were combined as one single tee.
....but I have been wrong before.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()