Abolition of the Tee: article from the 1920 Golfers Magazine

[Joe Bausch]

Alt Subject Title:  The Devil Did Not Make Me Do It.  

This was the first article written by a fellow named James P. Lawson in the Chicago based Golfers Magazine.  A quick search of this site doesn't show much on him.

Anyways, it is a fun read.

But what he wrote in 1920, was it basically true?  That US courses had limited teeing grounds vs large ones across the pond?  Has this 'problem' been solved by having multiple tee boxes of different lengths and angles?

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

It's an interesting article, which I have not seen before.

I don't know if the "tee" he describes as being used in the UK at that time was really common, or not.  I haven't heard much about it, and none of the architects who wrote books just after Lawson's article made note of the difference.  Generally, though, when you go to the great old links you don't see built-up tees at St. Andrews or Hoylake ... you just see tees that are mowed out on the ground.

I do hate the rectangular tees that have come back in vogue in America in recent years, especially on the restoration of courses by architects who never built rectangular tees to begin with.  The rectangular "tee box" is seen by many club members as being a classic form, but it is just an oversimplified one, as Lawson's article states well.

[Terry Lavin]

Tom,

Interesting that you hate the rectangular tee box look which is featured on almost all classic course renovations that I've seen. Have we been sold a bill of goods by Prichard, Silva and others on this limited issue?

[Bryan Icenhower]

I do hate the rectangular tees that have come back in vogue in America in recent years, especially on the restoration of courses by architects who never built rectangular tees to begin with.  The rectangular "tee box" is seen by many club members as being a classic form, but it is just an oversimplified one, as Lawson's article states well.

I find this very interesting, as I always thought of rectangular tee boxes as classic, and when thinking about it, have no real idea what pushed me to think that way.

I often walk 9 after work on my home course and play a random set of tees, sometimes the back tees forward, sometimes the closest tee I walk to, etc., and find it quite fun for variety.  But I probably could not get more than 1 other member to do the same with me, which is a shame.

What stops more architects from designing such a tee box - construction? maintenance? member acceptance?  Something else?

I do have a question though, if indeed the teeing grounds were set up as described in the article, would that have an effect on the handicapping?  The layman in me thinks that, when looking at the par 3 drawing, its clearly plays at different levels of difficulty from 150 yards over trouble on the left than it does from 130 yards on the right.  Unfortunately, as Brett pointed out in the Match Play/Speed thread, we Americans are often beholden to GHIN.  Could a course rating be done to accommodate such flexibility in the tee boxes on many if not all 18 holes?

[Doug Siebert]

Course rating is practiced as though it were a science, but in reality it is at best an approximation.  After all, how do you assign a single scratch and bogey rating to a hole with a single tee location but a large green that gives a 40 yard variation in hole length with some pin positions very difficult/risky to get anywhere near, and others that are extremely accessible?  There is already some 'averaging' going on to capture all the possible greenside variation, so why not do the same for tee variation?

[Garland Bayley]

...  Generally, though, when you go to the great old links you don't see built-up tees at St. Andrews or Hoylake ... you just see tees that are mowed out on the ground.
...

Would that be because they are on sand? If you don't need push up greens, you don't need push up tees?