[Patrick_Mucci]

while preserving drainage, the most cost efficient method of offsetting increases in driving distance over the last few decades ?

[JNagle]

Pat -

I think it depends on how much you anticipate lowering the tee.  If it is more than a foot then you are looking at essentially building a new tee.  Then you must consider is the elevation drop enough to reduce yardage.  I believe the net gain in yardage is 3 yards for every foot in elevation.  We have had two recent projects at the same course where tee elevation and equipment were creating major safety issues.  We lowered each tee over three feet and added length - problem solved. 

There have been many instances when rebuilding tees we have lowered them just to gain effective yardage.  When tees are up against a boundary and there is nowhere to gain yardage lower the, if the ground allows.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Why would you have to rebuild the tee if you lowered it more than a foot ?

Tee's aren't built to USGA specs with numerous tiers.

Wouldn't the equivalent of "push up" tees merely require soil removal and grading ?

At a course I'm familiar with one tee is about 8 feet high.
Lowering it by 7 feet would make the hole play about 21 yards longer, which is a considerable distance gain.

I'm very curious as to why there's a need to rebuild if you take off more than a foot.   It would also seem that you'd gain more teeing area by lowering the tee.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I used to be pretty good at math, but I didn't understand the math in your last post.  One foot of tee elevation does not equate to three yards of distance, as far as I am aware.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I entered my freshman year in college as a chemistry/chemical engineering major, which may have been my first mistake, and while it's been a long, long time, I still think that 3 times 7 equals 21. 

JNagle indicated that for every foot you lowered the tee you gained 3 yards in distance to offset high tech.  I accepted his formula

Lowering the tee by 7 feet would produce a 21 yard gain. (7x3=21)

Perhaps it's time for one of us to take a refresher course.

If, however, you meant that you found that the lowering or raising of a tee by one (1) foot produced less than 3 yards in gain or loss, that's another matter.

What do you feel the appropriate relationship is ?

And, most importantly, for courses that have run out of real estate, is this a viable, if not the only, alternative ?

[JNagle]

Pat and Tom,

The # we used was given to us a few years back from a gentleman out West that partnered with a ballistics engineer.  The engineer studied flight patterns of projectiles.  We had a tee in Boston that was elevated and sloped from front to back.  We were told by lowering the tee we would gain 3 feet in length for each foot in elevation drop.  In addition to the elevation change we also regraded the tee over 1/2% to bring the trajectory of the ball down.  No scorecard yardage gained, but overall yardage was gained by the lowering.  I will go back and look at my notes.

Pat -

As for the lowering of the tee I was implying that the tee was sand based.  If you are using soil based tees, then yes, the costs are low.  We prefer to build tees w/o drainage.  In some cases Supt. may request the drainage. 

[John Moore II]

I am not certain that lowering the tee boxes would do much, unless we are talking about a significant decrease in elevation. Thinking about my course I can't think of many tee boxes that could dropped more than a little bit without significant earth moving. The one foot of elevation change equates to 3 yards of distance change I wouldn't think is correct, it just sounds like a bit much. Though, I think it you sink the tees a bit and raise the green some, you might get a little bit of difference in distance. But simply lowering the tees even 2-3 feet each would only amount to 36-54 yards over the whole course using the given formula. I think anything over 2-3 feet would require significant earth movement, and at a place like mine, we pretty much have very little room to move the tees. So, in my specific case, dropping tee height would not be worth the trouble for 50-odd yards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKMoore,

Some courses don't have elevated tees, but, for those that do, the potential to gain playing yards can be significant if Jim's formula is true.

I know many courses with tees elevated 4, 6, 8 and 10 feet above the base of the foot pad.

Lowering those tees to 1 foot will produce significant gains at a minimal cost.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I hadn't seen Jim Nagle's formula.  I don't think it's right, but it's not your fault for applying it.

A few years back we lowered the third tee at Garden City by about three feet.  Do you really think the hole plays ten yards longer as a result?

[Bart Bradley]

Pat:

Another way to look at these numbers ....

If that formula was accurate, a 3 foot drop from tee to green would create a 9 yd difference...that means a hole would play 1 club shorter for just a 3 foot drop ....This doesn't seem remotely possible by common sense.  I tried to look up the formulae for projectiles (and in college could have done the math) but they are just far too complex for this now feeble mind.

Bart

[John Moore II]

Tom--for what its worth, he changed the formula in a second post-1 foot of elevation change=3 feet of distance.

Pat--No matter which formula is correct 1ft=3yds or 1ft=3ft, you gain either 18 or 54 yards of playing distance. Are those numbers really worth the cost of cutting up the turf, moving the dirt, and then putting the turf back down?? With my course budget and likely with many others (unless you have budgeted for a restoration) there are simply too many other items to spend money on to try to change the tee boxes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I hadn't seen Jim Nagle's formula.  I don't think it's right, but it's not your fault for applying it.

A few years back we lowered the third tee at Garden City by about three feet.  Do you really think the hole plays ten yards longer as a result?

That's an interesting question because the tee remains elevated above the fairway.

I suspect that Jim's formula might be modified by the initial and final differential between the tee and fairway elevations.

As to the 3rd hole I think lowering the tee made the hole play more difficult, mentally, and to a lesser degree physically.

I wonder what the effect would be on # 6 ?

Certainly a reasonable study could be made at # 14 where the two tees sit side by side, with about a 4 to 5 foot differential in elevations.

I'll attempt to keep a log on # 14, and, if the course isn't crowded, experiment with drives from the two tees.
I'll send you the results when I've hit 100 or more shots from each tee.[/color]

[Peter Wagner]

Guys I don't think that formula is correct.  For it to be correct the inverse would have to work as well:  one foot of elevation gain equals 3 yards of distance.  That would mean that on the 5th hole of my home course (elevation about 30 feet above the landing zone) that I would be hitting it 90 yards farther.  My normal drive is probably 250-ish and I can tell you I've never even smelled 340 yards off that tee.

I might buy the formula:  1 foot of elevation = 3 feet of distance.

- Peter

[Kyle Henderson]

The 9th hole at lake chabot drops 150 feet in 180 yards. I do NOT club down by 450 feet (150 yards).

[JNagle]

I will have to check in the office tommorrow regarding 1' to 1 yard or 1' to 3'.  The #'s keep swirling around.  I do believe the second post is correct.  I did some quick checking on ball flight trajectory.  One site allows you to enter information based on ball flight angle, speed ......  Nothing about tee elevation.  It is interesting that 1 degree of change in flight angle produces 2-3m of yardage difference.  

All I can say is the adjusted elevations at the Country Club of Buffalo (in excess of 2') created a slightly longer hole.  We just lowered thier 14th tee 4'.  The 5th tee and 4th green, which were in range on a short cut to the green, were much harder to get to after the tee was lowered.  No yardage change just distance.

[Mike Bowline]

Despite the distance debate and which formula is correct, another significant increase in difficulty added by lowering a tee is the decrease in visibility of the landing zone and the subsequent dissonance introduced in the player's mind.

Regarding the formula, I would be inclined to believe the 1 foot vertical = 3 feet (not yards) horizontal relationship mentioned earlier in the second post by JNagle. Imagine the trajectory of a drive when viewed from the side as it prepares to hit the ground: it normally is travelling more horizontally than vertically, and 3:1 seems about right. But it is not travelling 9 feet horizontal for every one foot vertical - that's basically horizontal, and we all know a ball isn't doing that off the driver right before it hits the ground.

IMO This formula does not apply to the 150' drop shot mentioned by Kyle H. When you get that much vertical (150'), the ball is dropping more vertically near the ground as it loses its forward momentum, and the formula cannot apply.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've always used a foot per foot, or yard per yard. Can't recall which Tour pro I heard that from, but another confirmed it using a slightly different method based on % of elevation change.

Downhill 70 feet would net you 23 additional yards but lowering a tee 3' wouldn't cost you 9.  I think the vaguely remembered formula is a bit garbled. As always, I could be wrong.  But if I am, I have some wildly misplaced fw bunkers out there.....

[Mike Golden]

I will have to check in the office tommorrow regarding 1' to 1 yard or 1' to 3'.  The #'s keep swirling around.  I do believe the second post is correct.  I did some quick checking on ball flight trajectory.  One site allows you to enter information based on ball flight angle, speed ......  Nothing about tee elevation.  It is interesting that 1 degree of change in flight angle produces 2-3m of yardage difference.  

All I can say is the adjusted elevations at the Country Club of Buffalo (in excess of 2') created a slightly longer hole.  We just lowered thier 14th tee 4'.  The 5th tee and 4th green, which were in range on a short cut to the green, were much harder to get to after the tee was lowered.  No yardage change just distance.

that formula is not accurate.  When you elevate a tee the amount of distance added on the drive would be based on the angle of descent.  It is exactly the distance traveled by a golf ball descending 1' at the angle of descent.  If the angle was 45 degrees it would add 1'.  In order to add 9' the angle have to be on the order of 5 degrees, which is impossible.  If you look at NBC's tracking for golf shots it's obvious that there is a very steep angle of descent on most golf shots, including drives, probably on the order of 60 degrees  plus.

[Jim Nugent]

Does the formula also mean that 1 foot of elevation between the tee and the landing area adds a yard of distance to the hole?  If so, a hole that rises 20 feet plays 20 yards longer than a flat hole.  

[Mike Golden]

Does the formula also mean that 1 foot of elevation between the tee and the landing area adds a yard of distance to the hole?  If so, a hole that rises 20 feet plays 20 yards longer than a flat hole.  

Jim,

If the descent angle was 45 degrees it means a  ball traveling 1' down will travel 1' longer.  So a tee elevated 10' at that descent angle would increase the distance 10', or 3.33 yards.  But it's all dependent upon the angle of descent (I'm assuming there isn't enough extra distance to make a significant difference in the amount of roll-maybe if the tee was elevated 30-40' that might start to come into consideration

[Mike Golden]

the optimal descent angle, according to this scientific research is between 35-42 degrees:
http://www.qualitygolfstats.com/optimalflight.html

that would point to a 1:1 relationship (or something close to it) regarding tee elevation.  It is possible, though, that this relationship is non-linear, i.e., as the elevation increases eventually there is extra distance gained. I doubt, though, that elevations of less than 10' would be part of that sector

[Jim Nugent]

Thanks Mike, though I did not explain myself well.  I was trying to figure out how much longer a hole plays, if the landing area is higher than the tee.  i.e. how much longer does playing uphill make a shot?  Your explanation makes complete sense if the ball is falling at a 45 degree angle (and we ignore roll).

Do you know what angle mid-iron shots come into greens at?  Figure a scratch player who hits the ball fairly high, no wind or elevation changes.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Golden,

IF:
The lower the tee, the lower the angle of descent.
The higher the tee, the greater the angle of descent.

Wouldn't that imply that the ball would go farther from lowered tees ?

[Jim_Coleman]

    There's an illegal Bushnell being marketed that adjusts for elevation changes.  Somebody here must know how to do this calculation.  It can't be too complicated.  One would think that if there are enough brains here to waste thousands of posts on Merion's history and Morrison's departure, someone could come up with the answer to what should be a very basic architectural question.
     But, it ain't me babe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, if you think about it, the ball doesn't know where its hit from and the ascent will be the same from any level tee.  After it crests, it loses momentum more quickly, accelerating and increasing the angle of descent. 

From a highly elevated tee, eventually, it gets to coming straight down negating the distance advantage somewhat.  From a moderately elevated tee its probably close to that 1:1 ratio.  Hitting uphill, the angle of descent is actually less in theory when it hits the ground, so the distance decrease might be even greater than a downhill adds (isn't it always that way in golf?) , but the ball might tend to roll further upon landing, due to the shallower angle, balancing out the distance loss somewhat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()