The golfer's and the architect's dilemma

[Patrick_Mucci]

How does a golfer decide which tees to play from ?

And how often does he make the right decision from the perspective of maximizing his ability to interface with the intended architectural features ?

We're all aware of how increased distance has obsoleted the interfacing process due to the long ball, but what about the golfer who can no longer reach the intended features ?

When does it become self evident that he needs to move up ?

Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

For me, it was an opportunity to play Pinehurst 2 with Rees not long after his renovation for last Open there.  I walked up on the 6700 yard tees, and he told me in no uncertain terms that I would enjoy this challenging course from the 6300 yard tees.  It became clear to me.

Not sure if most golfers pick a tee baesd on more than pure yardage off the scorecard on the first tee. I do know that statistically, 57-60% prefer to play from 6300 yards or so.

You might be interested in next months USGA/PGA sponsored Tee it Forward Week, where they are encouraging player to move up based on their tee shot distances.  From the chart they include, as far as I can tell, they are recommending 200-225 hitters to play well under 6000 yards, whereas I feel most of the 225 hitters are the ones now playing at 6300 yards.

If this experiment goes well, I suspect there will be a new move to shorten courses even further than now.

[David Harshbarger]

Along those lines, how much of the architect's stratgic intent gets documented and left with course?  Other than a keen interpretation of the features to infer the strategy, how would you know you weren't interfacing with the course as intended?

One option would be to try the different tee boxes and ask  yourself what you like and don't like about how the course changes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Usually none as far as documenting strategic intent.  Or, if it is, the pro files is somewhere and never looks at it again.

As Ken Moun points out, it doesn't take long sometimes for intent to get screwed up.  At Firekeeper, they took out my five sets of tees and are running with four, placing many hazards at the wrong places for far too many golfers than I would find ideal.  But, its theirs now and I got no say in the matter.

[Tim Bert]

Patrick

In my opinion architects do interested players a great favor when they design all of the tees with a good bit of variety as opposed to just lining them up.  I played Kingsley Club last weekend with some friends and we played the course everywhere from 5700 to 6600 yards. We only played 3 of 7 rounds from a set tee color. The others were all mixed and matched using gold (tips), blue (members), as well as both sets of forward tees (white and red).  When you are playing match play, distance goes out the window.  We played several par 4s that ranged from 280 to 415 depending upon the tee selection. Usually when you chose the 280 option, it was from a very different angle than the 415 option which kept it fresh and interesting instead of just shorter. For someone that isn't playing competitions and hung up on a handicap, there is such variety here that you can tailor your own course. One round we played a par 5 that we stretched to 602. In the same round, another par 5 was playing less than 450.

Ballyneal is another course in my opinion that does a good job creating unique interest from multiple tee boxes on the same hole. For a member course, I think this variety is irreplaceable and will help keep the interest well through the later playing years when distance is not longer a luxury for the player.

If DeVries had simply lined up his tees "runway" style, I'd probably never even give the white and red tees, or probably gold tees for that matter, a second thought and visitors would be missing out on some of the best options from the tee.

[David Harshbarger]

David,

Usually none as far as documenting strategic intent.  Or, if it is, the pro files is somewhere and never looks at it again.

As Ken Moun points out, it doesn't take long sometimes for intent to get screwed up.  At Firekeeper, they took out my five sets of tees and are running with four, placing many hazards at the wrong places for far too many golfers than I would find ideal.  But, its theirs now and I got no say in the matter.

Jeff, would you consider adding a "owner's manual" to your deliverables when you next build a course?  Maybe include your overall rationale, hole by hole discussion, including strategy, teeing options, maintenance plan, potential issues, etc., and possibly adding in thoughts on expansion, future changes, etc.?

Sure, it could be ignored, but better that than unknown, and who knows, 50 years hence some sympathetic green committee might pick it up and bring your vision back to life.

[Carl Johnson]

How does a golfer decide which tees to play from ?

Can I reach the fairway with a reasonably good drive?  Can I expect a reasonable variety of approach shots -- short, medium and long?  (Modify answer as obviously appropriate for very short holes, which some call threes, and very long holes, which some call fives.)  No right or wrong here -- just my personal preference.

And how often does he make the right decision from the perspective of maximizing his ability to interface with the intended architectural features ?

Not my problem.

We're all aware of how increased distance has obsoleted the interfacing process due to the long ball, but what about the golfer who can no longer reach the intended features?

Again, not my problem.

When does it become self evident that he needs to move up?

See answer to first question, above.

Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision?

Neither - see answer to first question, above.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

This is a great topic and one I have wrestled with often.

Unfortunately, there is a point in nearly every golf course project where the architect and client get together to see what lengths the course is going to turn out, and to manipulate the scorecard in order to project what the owner wants to project.  More often than not, that will mean (1) building a couple of extra tees to get the course up to a certain figure from the tips; (2) hopefully building a few more forward tees to get the yardage down for the average woman; and (3) mixing and matching the tees to give certain yardages from the normal men's tees, even if it means using the second tee for the third set of markers on some holes, and not putting the third tee on the scorecard at all.

The problem is that owners want the tees further back, for "respect", than most people really ought to play or even want to play.  Sometimes, this is compensated for by the management not putting the tees as far back as advertised, and pretending they need to spread out the wear and tear, when in fact, they are advertising a course with a higher slope rating than you are actually playing.

I hate "design by scorecard" -- it reminds me of the "paint by numbers" sets we used to have as kids.  I love having the freedom to build five alternate tees on a hole where they might make a difference, and sticking to two or three tees on other holes where that's all you need.  I love the approach they took at Ballyneal not to put out any tee markers at all -- just the same way that I'll ignore the tee markers and play from whichever tee I want when I go out.  I wish more people could let go of trying to control where the golfers play, and just let them have fun.

[Peter Pallotta]

Speaking as one average golfer, it isn't an issue that I struggle with, i.e. I am able to feel/tell in my bones/know almost right away what the most interesting set of tees is on any given course -- with interesting being a balance of challenge and opportunity. It all happens on Par 4s, where that balance is manifested as having to flirt with bunkers off the tee while having a 5-8 iron left.   

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

The leave behind strategy book has been discussed here.  It has been done, and still it gets ignored.

If I get called back to a course, its usually to take out bunkers or make it easier, hardly ever to rethink strategy.  Once the course is in operation - save a few that really are owned by guys who love golf - there really isn't a lot of going back to tweak.  I have written emails to some of my best courses (including the Quarry last week) with some suggestions. I will pass on Ken Moun's real life expericne with the tees at Firekeeper. 

I don't think I will get much traction mostly because they won't spend money (even to reprint scorecards, as minor as that seems) or close parts of the course to achieve some golden ideal their gca wants to pass on.  It does happen, but its rare for those kinds of reasons.

Add in that so many club pros and supers like to tinker a bit with design - 40 of my 50 courses probably have had the nines reversed by the pro - and things just happen.

[Steve Lang]

How does a golfer decide which tees to play from ?

... first time normally from the middle tees provided or as recommended by pro or starter

And how often does he make the right decision from the perspective of maximizing his ability to interface with the intended architectural features ?

... only time can tell.. At Home courses its a function of either practice (long or short game) or socializing, i.e., all at same tee.  At resort, its all about fun and tees are only a suggestion.  In competition, one doesn't normally have a choice unless you have strong negotiating skills and then its not so much about the architecture, is it?

We're all aware of how increased distance has obsoleted the interfacing process due to the long ball, but what about the golfer who can no longer reach the intended features ?

... if its a fairway or par three green that's one thing (e.g., forced carry, trajectory to stop shot, etc.) we mix it up.. after all, who's paying?  the distance across the niagara river didn't stop me from trying to cross it one day at Whirlpool, from an impromtu tee across the road from the course

When does it become self evident that he needs to move up ?

... this is ultimately where scores control.  We sometimes play a progressive game where all start from front tee, birdie or par moves you back one tee, bogey you stay where you are, double you move forward one tee.. do that on a given course several times and you'll find where the challenge of bettering bogey lies.. (for all proficiency levels).


Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision ?

... YES

[Jeff_Brauer]

Years ago I was playing in a mixed foursome at Carnoustie and a par 3 had a spilt tee.  It was cold so the ladies played one tee and we played the mens tee simultaneously.  For a long time, I tried to propose alternate, widely split tees so two players at once could tee off, to speed up play.

Most people thought I was ridiculous to ignore the social aspects of the game.  Same reason killed off my idea for individual golf carts.....

[Adam Clayman]

When does it become self evident that he needs to move up ?

Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision ?

It's fun. When it becomes no fun to hit driver-fairway wood, on every hole.

I suppose that boils down to interfacing, but it's mostly from bunkers or water drops.

[David Harshbarger]

David,

The leave behind strategy book has been discussed here.  It has been done, and still it gets ignored.

If I get called back to a course, its usually to take out bunkers or make it easier, hardly ever to rethink strategy.  Once the course is in operation - save a few that really are owned by guys who love golf - there really isn't a lot of going back to tweak.  I have written emails to some of my best courses (including the Quarry last week) with some suggestions. I will pass on Ken Moun's real life expericne with the tees at Firekeeper. 

I don't think I will get much traction mostly because they won't spend money (even to reprint scorecards, as minor as that seems) or close parts of the course to achieve some golden ideal their gca wants to pass on.  It does happen, but its rare for those kinds of reasons.

Add in that so many club pros and supers like to tinker a bit with design - 40 of my 50 courses probably have had the nines reversed by the pro - and things just happen.

Jeff, sounds like you should reverse the nines yourself so they end up the way you want.

An interesting by product of GCA.com is that when you architects post here about your courses, like Randy Thompson is doing on his course in Chile, those posts become part of the archive for future reference. 

Tom, for those of us trying to maintain a handicap in the US of A, the USGA slope/rating formulas kind of tie us to a set of tees for each round, as I know you know.  The game of trying to improve your handicap is fun, after all, so I don't want to overstate this point.

Going back to Pat's original point, and tying that back to a point you've made Tom in the past, about how if a player complains they can't hit driver-hybrid and score on his course, he's done his job, if players have the freedom to pick their tees, how many are going to do so to bring the strategy into play versus taking the strategy out of play, especially when playing stroke play?

Most of the choices we make on course are choices on how to beat the course.  If we play by Hoyle, the course is defined tee box to hole.  The only choice you get on where to tee off is between the markers, two lengths back.

Two things I'd like to see more of: USGA ratings for men from forward tees, and, a little more out there, USGA ratings by hole, so you could build a slope and rating for each round if you do move around.

Tom, I do love your attitude.  If more people shared it golf as experienced in the US would be very different.  Jeff, I love the way you challenge assumptions in the name of innovation, like the split tees.  That's really commendable.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have said this before, but I see a few signs that the prodigious distances pros hit is driving the reaction to shorter courses or playing length choices.

Years ago, I was paired in a pro am with some pros, including Cal Peete, Jim Colbert, Fuzzy Zoeller, Gary Player, and scheduled to play with Tom Watson, but they had a mix up and I lost the coin flip.  My tee shot distances were 20-40 yards behind these guys.  Their coruse was just over 7000 yards and we played about 6600 or more.

If paired with Bubba Watson in a pro am this year, my tee shots (which have gone down in length unless I am really swinging well, when they are the same as they used to be at 245-255) I would be 80-100 yards behind these guys.

I would rather play at 6100 yards and have the same clubs in my hand for approaches given there is no way on God's green earth I can play anywhere near them any more.  And, I have heard more comments from other golfers to that effect.  At the same time, I have seen a difference in senior men over the years - My Dad would not play under 6000 yards, but I see many senior men who won't play over 6000 yards now.  If there are no 5600 yard tees, they won't even pay the greens fee.

So, while many here ask for a reduced distance ball for pros, but it hasn't happened, it appears that not having one may be having a good effect on the game of golf.  We are no longer trying to keep up with the Watsons.

[Tim Martin]

Historically and especially on newer courses with more sets of tees I have been a fan of the hybrid setup. I don`t like having a par three that is between 175 and 225 from farther back reduced to 140 because of the forward tee setup. I don`t think it is what the archie intended. Many times we have played par fours from whites and 3`s and 5`s from blues. Everyone should move up at such point they can`t get to the landing areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Interesting perspective.  Of course, the architect and managment (on a daily basis) have to pick and choose a course set up.  Nothing saying anyone has to follow it, unless playing for official handicap, or just too cowed by the American tradition of following signs and directions like sheep!

[Tim Martin]

Tim,

Interesting perspective.  Of course, the architect and managment (on a daily basis) have to pick and choose a course set up.  Nothing saying anyone has to follow it, unless playing for official handicap, or just too cowed by the American tradition of following signs and directions like sheep!

Jeff- Around what year did the advent of multiple tees outside of red,white and blue become the norm?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Not sure, really.  The whole concept of tees evolved gradually, and I am under the impression, unevenly.  We do have examples of forward tees way back (or women's tees as they were called). I am not sure where the idea of the third or middle tee came into play, but it had to have started early in the 20th century at the latest.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, for those of us trying to maintain a handicap in the US of A, the USGA slope/rating formulas kind of tie us to a set of tees for each round, as I know you know.  The game of trying to improve your handicap is fun, after all, so I don't want to overstate this point.

Going back to Pat's original point, and tying that back to a point you've made Tom in the past, about how if a player complains they can't hit driver-hybrid and score on his course, he's done his job, if players have the freedom to pick their tees, how many are going to do so to bring the strategy into play versus taking the strategy out of play, especially when playing stroke play?

Most of the choices we make on course are choices on how to beat the course.  If we play by Hoyle, the course is defined tee box to hole.  The only choice you get on where to tee off is between the markers, two lengths back.

Two things I'd like to see more of: USGA ratings for men from forward tees, and, a little more out there, USGA ratings by hole, so you could build a slope and rating for each round if you do move around.

Tom, I do love your attitude.  If more people shared it golf as experienced in the US would be very different.  Jeff, I love the way you challenge assumptions in the name of innovation, like the split tees.  That's really commendable.

David:

I think the Slope system [like many other things USGA] has become more of a handicap than an advantage.  If they would quit trying to do the math so freaking exactly -- the difference between a 133 slope and a 131 on one score out of 20 is like 0.01 on your handicap -- then the problem you mentioned could be eliminated.  All we really need is a "yardage rating" for the tees we choose to play on a given day, and then an average slope from somewhere around the middle tees, and we could dispense with having the Slope system dictate course set-up.

[In fact, the whole Slope system could be obsoleted if you just used a computer and entered scores and handicaps to produce a daily course rating tailored to the conditions of the day ... but that would minimize the USGA's control of things, and cut out all those free rounds that course raters get!]

I do have some sympathy for the other way of doing things -- the Scots' egalitarian attitude that dictates everyone play a particular tee regardless of conditions.  But in America, where the customer is always right, there is no way in hell you could run a golf course like that anymore.

[Jud_T]

As a form of protest I think we should all establish a GB&I handicap, meet once a year at Askernish for a 3 Day Medal, say FU to the USGA system and clean up at our club Calcuttas from this day forward....

[Jason Topp]

How does a golfer decide which tees to play from ?
Consensus from the group which is not always easy given the spread in driving distances

And how often does he make the right decision from the perspective of maximizing his ability to interface with the intended architectural features ?Not very often.

We're all aware of how increased distance has obsoleted the interfacing process due to the long ball, but what about the golfer who can no longer reach the intended features ?

I had that experience last night.  There are a couple of new tees at my course that make the holes less interesting but in some ways easier.  Fairway bunkers used to be located right where I would otherwise place a drive.  Now I cannot reach the bunkers off the tee

When does it become self evident that he needs to move up ?
I don't think anyone needs to move up.  People should play from where they want to play and architects should recognize that it will happen

Is it score, rather than interfacing that triggers his decision ?
In my experience it is the ability to reach the green with an iron on par fours more than anything else

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I think the simple answer to your question is to not be tied down to one set of tees just because the scorecard is set up that way.  By that I mean you should have the flexibility to use a combination of tees based upon course conditions, weather conditions, etc.  My club drew up a new scorecard with 6 new possible tee combinations to give players more options.  The best scenario is something that we've done when I have gone out to Ballyneal which is the low score on the hole gets to pick the tees for the next hole - sometimes we go the other way and high score gets to pick.  This can be really good on a par 3 like number 5 where angle is much more important than length and then number 6 and the lower versus the upper tee.  

[archie_struthers]

  ??


Our guys play the tips  (black tee Monday's). At two every Monday

Scratch game  6750


Wednesday and Friday they play the whites.   About 6100.    Net game



Saturday and Sunday.        Blues.        6300.           Net game


Lots of fun for all levels.        And that's why they play

[David Harshbarger]

Lots of interesting comments on the teeing choices.  A question to the architects:

When looking at tee box options, how often would you like to put in different tee boxes to provide variation in strategy vs. Just variation in length?

When you look at nine hole courses some have different tee boxes to make the holes play differently, taking out doglegs, short vs long, etc.  When does that come into the equation, and are there situations where owners are receptive to that?

Dave