[Patrick_Mucci]

s is to have just one tee.

Why do we have multiple tees ?

Isn't the answer to that question:To allow lesser players to make "par".

That with the emphasis on medal play, "par" took on more significance and became a universal goal ?

Absent medal play, would "par" be meaningful ?

Since golf began, golfers teed their ball up within one club length of the cup on the hole just played.

It took about 100 years to change that rule.

To two club lengths.

By having but one tee, the architect can craft his challenge, "proportionately" or according to one's ability.

I see courses with 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees.

Think of the increase in construction and maintenance costs.

Think of how much simpler handicapping would be with just one tee.

Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?

That's what multiple tees attempt to do.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

If you think you've read this before, that's because you have.  

Whilst I kind of endorse the sentiment, I'm certainly not sure that longer hitters should be presented with all the trouble while shorter hitters can just blast away. Furthermore, problem after problem in the DZ for the longer hitter tends to induce a procession of hybrids from the tee.

More and more tees is an unfortunate result of the powers that be failing to address the reality that long hitters are now SO MUCH LONGER than short hitters. In principle, you and I are on exactly the same side. I entirely agree that the situation is nonsensical but until someone has the balls to seriously threaten roll back we are stuck with the status quo of twenty three different sets of tee. It's absurd.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Is it really about par, or the fact that those middle shots in golf really aren't much fun, compared to the thrilling bomb/long hit of a tee shot (yes, to most that is a bigger thrill than placement) and hitting the green?  Why do you think an extra  shot or two, that is more boring would be favored by (and more fun for) the many average golfers.  Or that more in place of fewer shots with some hazards to negotiate?  Just curious.  Or lastly, do you think the average golfer wants fun or boring challenge?  I think the vote boat has sailed in favor of more fun.

Why doom the majority of players to playing something other than golf intended.  Or conversely, why have too short or too long of a course for every class of golfer, save one?

In some ways building extra tees aren't really that expensive.  You need a certain amount to spread the wear, and you can build it all together, or for about 10% more tee, you can spread it out over many tees.  It would be just as expensive to build bunkers from 200-320 yards in the fairways, no?

Not worried about simpler handicapping, since most of the work is done by computers these days, and they can handle the variations.

As Paul says, if the ball rolls back and the range of tee shot distances narrows a bit, then designers will reconsider.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you think you've read this before, that's because you have.  

I know.

Whilst I kind of endorse the sentiment, I'm certainly not sure that longer hitters should be presented with all the trouble while shorter hitters can just blast away.

They're not, I don't know why you infered that.
I indicated that the architect could create a "proportional" challenge, one commensurate with their abilities.

Why should a 24-18-12 handicap be presented with the same challenge that a zero handicap faces ?
They have different abilities, hence, the challenge they interface with should be proportional.

Furthermore, problem after problem in the DZ for the longer hitter tends to induce a procession of hybrids from the tee.

Which means that they now have a longer more difficult shot into the green.   Architectural mission accomplished.

More and more tees is an unfortunate result of the powers that be failing to address the reality that long hitters are now SO MUCH LONGER than short hitters.

I would agree with you on the "back" tee, but, not on all the others.
Multiple tees are a concession to the lowest common denominator.
An attempt to make lesser players feel better because they made the same par from 310 that the better player made from 450.

In principle, you and I are on exactly the same side. I entirely agree that the situation is nonsensical but until someone has the balls to seriously threaten roll back we are stuck with the status quo of twenty three different sets of tee. It's absurd.

Paul,

Absurd is right.
I recently played a par 3 under 190 with five huge sets of tees.

[Paul Gray]

Why have one thread when you can have two.  

I went on to say: But all this just sounds like pinch it here, there and everywhere in an attempt to control the long hitter and we both know that just means less width and therein less strategy. We've both seen that misguided strategy at many a course, of that I'm sure, and we both know there's nothing truly strategic, not in the classic sense, in the "leave the driver in the bag" mentality because "it's all a bit narrow." Hopefully we're finally getting away from that nonsense.

Now, this point about proximate hazards: shallow bunker at 180 yards, deeper one at 230 and a cave at 280? Where are you going with this?  

Your point about forward tees is absolutely fair enough. In my view, an architect should always try to make a courses as enjoyable as possible for as many golfers as possible but not to such an extent that he or she panders to a players' ego or lack of humility. It always strikes me as one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Golden Age intent when people confuse the desire to enable all levels of player to have an enjoyable game with the notion that the ODGs were keen on everyone finding a way of breaking 70. Look at those old Colt sketches and more often than not a route is considered for the high handicapper but it involves reaching the green in a few shots more than regulation, meaning all such architects were thinking about was a way for such players to break 120.

Since I'm on my high horse, I'll add to the above by pointing out that I grew up at and still play at a classic old Simpson links. There are medal tees, daily men's tees and ladies tees. Try staring at open, barren duneland in a strong wind in February and then tell me Simpson was intent on finding a way for a 12 year old boy (because I actually was 12 years old once) to break par!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Is it really about par,

Jeff, I believe it is.

or the fact that those middle shots in golf really aren't much fun, compared to the thrilling bomb/long hit of a tee shot (yes, to most that is a bigger thrill than placement) and hitting the green? 

Why should a 24 handicap be entitled to hit the green in regulation ?
I don't get it.
Why do we want everyone, irrespective of ability, to play the same game ?

Why do you think an extra shot or two, that is more boring would be favored by (and more fun for) the many average golfers. 


You're advocating for dumbing the game down to the lowest common denominator and insuring that that segment of the golfing spectrum will have fun because the game has been made so easy for them, vis a vis altering the field of play down to their level.

Where's the aspiration and striving for improvement in that theory ?
Just curious
Or that more in place of fewer shots with some hazards to negotiate?

Not sure that I understand the above sentence.   

Or lastly, do you think the average golfer wants fun or boring challenge? 

Who says it has to be boring ?
It would only be boring if the architect lacked imagination.

But, let's go back about 100 years to the creation of GCGC, NGLA, Merion and Pine Valley.

Did those courses provide 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees ?
Or, did they provide but one (1) footpad for each tee ?

And, in those last 100 years did golf not enjoy tremendous popularity and growth ?

Did golfers of lesser ability not enjoy themselves on those courses even though they had to tee it up from the same footpad ?

Was playing any of those courses ..........BORING ?

No, it was exciting and challenging.

I think the vote boat has sailed in favor of more fun.

An enormous component in the "fun" is the nature of the challenge.

Why doom the majority of players to playing something other than golf intended.  

You couldn't be more off base.
Was golf intended to be easy ?
Was it intended to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator ?
I think you're confusing "golf" with "putt-putt"

Or conversely, why have too short or too long of a course for every class of golfer, save one?

It' neither too short, nor too long.

Does a football field get altered during a game from 120 yards to 100 or 80 because some of the players are faster/slower than others ?
A pitcher's mound moved forward or backward because a power hitter or dinker comes to the plate ?
A basketball hoop lowered and raised based upon the height of the guy with the ball ?

Once the game starts, they all compete on the same field of play

In some ways building extra tees aren't really that expensive.  You need a certain amount to spread the wear, and you can build it all together, or for about 10% more tee, you can spread it out over many tees.

Nonsense, building 4, 5, 6 and 7 tees is exponentially more expensive than building one large tee.

Ditto maintainance 

It would be just as expensive to build bunkers from 200-320 yards in the fairways, no?

I don't think you're grasping the concept.
A proportionate challenge doesn't require duplicating the challenge faced by the better player.

Not worried about simpler handicapping, since most of the work is done by computers these days, and they can handle the variations.

Not so fast my friend, try negotiating a match when one guy or team plays from one set of tees and the others play from a different set of tees.
That's not a short discussion.

As Paul says, if the ball rolls back and the range of tee shot distances narrows a bit, then designers will reconsider.

We all agree that a roll back solves numerous problems, and while I was hoping that ANGC would help solve that problem, I don't think it's going to happen.

By the way, ANGC is the epitome of my premise.

Essentially one set of tees for all but the narrowest segment of golfers.

[Carl Johnson]

is to have just one tee. . . .

Question for Pat: Under this approach what should be the maximum carry from the single tee to the fairway, in your opinion?  (For this purpose, let's assume a level fairway that's level with the tee, and that the architect could make appropriate adjustments for uphill and downhill drives.)

As long as the carry is not unreasonable for higher handicappers and real old folks (of which I am both) and women and children, I would have absolutely no problem with a single tee for all.  Par is irrelevant to my personal enjoyment of the game, which is based on friendly, competitive handicapped matches.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

Make a note of this....... ()

.......having just read your response to Jeff, spot on. The points you're making about classic American courses and the growth the game experienced when those courses were the undisputed model are exactly the points which apply to my home course and the likes of. The game grew whilst the game was playable by all but not conquerable by all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

s is to have just one tee. . . .

Question for Pat: Under this approach what should be the maximum carry from the one tee to the fairway, in your opinion?  (For this purpose, let's assume a level field, and that the architect could make appropriate adjustments for uphill and downhill shots.)

Carl, good question.

I think you have to depart, conceptually, from what's evolved in terms of carries over the last 60+ years and adjust your architectural thinking to
"unigolf".

Obviously, site restrictions would have an enormous influence.

But, I'd look at the carries required at Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC and Merion in the early part of the 20th Century and use them as a reasonable guide.

As long as the carry is not unreasonable for higher handicappers and real old folks (of which I am both) and women and children, I would have absolutely no problem with a single tee for all.

I don't know that you can accomodate everyone, but, if NGLA, GCGC, Merion and PV could accomodate a broad spectrum of golfer, I don't see why we couldn't do that today, especially with modern equipment that has club heads on drivers the size of tennis rackets.

[Joe Bausch]

Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?

[Lyne Morrison]

Patrick, you say:

Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?
In the above scenario the 24 handicapper would be presented a different question to the 12 handicapper or scratch player by virtue of his or her skill level.

That's what multiple tees attempt to do.
Not necessarily. This assumption suggests that when playing from the DZ the 24, 18 and 12 handicapper are presented with the same shot as the scratch player.  However if the 24 hcp is playing a 5 wood, and the scratch player a shorter iron, the challenge is significantly different.


For many higher handicap players varying course yardage presents the potential to remove the tedium of continual wood and hybrid play - the challenge of the game however still needs to be addressed.

Lyne

[Lyne Morrison]

Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?

Joe,

The model presents pace of play issues.

Rhythm of play issues.

Engagement with play issues.

Interest in play issues.

Lyne

[Michael Felton]

Hi Pat,

Let's take Pine Valley here. Do you think holes like 6 or 16 could be playable for a player who can only carry the ball 180 yards from the back tee? I don't know exactly what the carries are on those holes, but, from memory they are fairly substantial. If you're only permitting one set of tees, how long would you want the course to be? Do you go with the tips on those holes? Or would you have everyone playing from up tees? The problem with that is that for the stronger player you would lose the strategy provided by a hole like 16 as they could merrily hit it down the right and not worry about the carry.

That said, I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground. I think three sets of tees is a good number. It's what most clubs in the UK have used pretty much forever. You have a medal tee, a members tee and a ladies tee. All seems to fit pretty well to me and allows for a range of levels of player to enjoy the game.

[Joe Bausch]

Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?

Joe,

The model presents pace of play issues.

Rhythm of play issues.

Engagement with play issues.

Interest in play issues.

Lyne

Let me get you ready for a reply, Lyne.

Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.
Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.Green.

[Lyne Morrison]

Lol
 

[Mark_Fine]

How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers 😳😁😳!  Talk about speed of play problems 😳

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, you say:

Why present a 24, 18 and 12 handicapper with the same challenge in the DZ that a zero handicap faces ?
In the above scenario the 24 handicapper would be presented a different question to the 12 handicapper or scratch player by virtue of his or her skill level.

Correct, one more commensurate with their ability rather than facing the challenge designed for the zero handicapper.

That's what multiple tees attempt to do.

That is exactly what they do.


Not necessarily. This assumption suggests that when playing from the DZ the 24, 18 and 12 handicapper are presented with the same shot as the scratch player.

The presentation which confronts them is identical, but, it's their skill levels that separate how to go about overcoming what confronts them.
The 24 handicap is INCAPABLE of duplicating the zero handicaps solution to the confrontation.
In addition, the 24 handicap does not have the same expectation for overcoming the presentation

You, like others have fallen into the trap of thinking that a 24 handicap should execute the same shot as a zero handicap. 

However if the 24 hcp is playing a 5 wood, and the scratch player a shorter iron, the challenge is significantly different.

It's supposed to be.

You can't provide a situation where the 24 handicap and the zero handicap face the same presentation and challenge on every shot.
That was never the intent of the game.
It's become the intent in an effort to allow the higher handicap to make "par"

Equalization, vis a vis 7 sets of tees is an attempt to replicate challenge from the DZ

For many higher handicap players varying course yardage presents the potential to remove the tedium of continual wood and hybrid play - the challenge of the game however still needs to be addressed.


So you want to move the pitcher's mound back 20 feet when the inferior baseball player comes up to bat, lower the basket when the shorter player has the ball, rather than retain the respective distance and height.

Let the higher handicap players aspire to improve their games.
Where is it written that golfers are entitled to a lower handicap because they are inferior golfers.

You're stuck in the mindset that everyone is entitled and deserves to make par on every hole.

Let's just go back in history, when after hundreds of years, due to traffic/safety, the tee for the next hole was moved beyond the putting surface.

How many of the great, really great courses had the next tee within a few steps of the prior green ?

And, golf exploded in popularity.

The 2nd tee at NGLA juts out from the 1st green.

No one whined and complained that more tees should be added, forward, to make the 2nd hole easier for the lesser player/higher handicap.

WHY ?

Because "par" and medal play were not nearly as significant as they are today.

You teed it up, played, holed it out and either won, tied or lost the hole.

But, the moment you deigned that a score higher than 4 should not be achieved, the element of "fairness" entered the equation and golfers clamored for more sets of tees to diminish the disparities in ability.

For about 100 years courses like NGLA, GCGC, PV had single footpads for their tees.
Even today those single footpads remain.
Have those courses become unpopular over the last century ?

The attempt to cater to every level of golfer is not good for the game and creating 5, 6 and 7 sets of tees isn't good for the game.

And, an out of control ball hasn't been good for the architectural game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers !  Talk about speed of play problems


Mark,

It's just the opposite.

Play is slower today than it was 60 years ago and I'd venture to say slower than 100 years ago.

Slow play is far more of a cultural phenomenon than a function of handicap

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hi Pat,

Let's take Pine Valley here. Do you think holes like 6 or 16 could be playable for a player who can only carry the ball 180 yards from the back tee?

The 16th tee is a rather recent addition and it was meant for the best amateurs and pros in residence in the region and invited from far and away. (Walker Cup)

But, yes, from the back tee on # 6 to the begining of the left side fairway requires a carry of 150 yards

I don't know exactly what the carries are on those holes, but, from memory they are fairly substantial.

150 and 210 from the back to the begining of the fairway.

If you're only permitting one set of tees, how long would you want the course to be?

When I first played Pine Valley in 1964, I believe almost every hole had but one footpad for a tee.
The first time I played Pine Valley I played with two pros, one of whom would win the NJ State PGA tournament.
I don't recall any of us thinking that the course was too easy or unfair.


Do you go with the tips on those holes?
Or would you have everyone playing from up tees?

Why the need for two extremes.
And, the ONLY reason that Pine Valley added back tees since 1964 was to PROTECT PAR.


The problem with that is that for the stronger player you would lose the strategy provided by a hole like 16 as they could merrily hit it down the right and not worry about the carry.

Michael, at a 255 yard carry from the back of the back tee, slightly down hilll, the stronger player isn't that threatened by carrying the sandy expanse.

That said, I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground. I think three sets of tees is a good number.

It's the "ball" that has caused tees to be placed further back.

Absent an heroic carry, why wouldn't one set of tees suffice ?

EGO ?  The need to make "par"

It's what most clubs in the UK have used pretty much forever. You have a medal tee, a members tee and a ladies tee. All seems to fit pretty well to me and allows for a range of levels of player to enjoy the game.

But, isn't the "medal" tee a restricted tee, effectively presenting only two tees for daily play ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would your model potentially have pace of play issues, Pat?

Joe,

The model presents pace of play issues.

Absolutely not.
Slow play is NOT a function of handicap.

Rhythm of play issues.

Just the opposite.
Everyone, after meeting at the previous green, would now meet at the next tee instead of being separated to play different tees.

Engagement with play issues.

Again, just the opposite, the architect would design features commensurate with the golfer's ability in the DZ

Interest in play issues.

Were the folks who played NGLA, GCGC, Pine Valley, Merion, Oakmont and other courses .......... disinterested ?

The resistance to the concept is rooted in ego.

No one wants a higher handicap and changing to a one tee per hole system would inflate most handicaps

[Mark Pavy]

It's the "ball" that has caused tees to be placed further back.

Maybe, but from my recollection the lengthening of courses was most abundant just after the introduction of Titanium heads and light weight composite shafts that allowed for longer more forgiving drivers. The average golfer didn't even use a 1 wood prior to metal heads. It would be an interesting exercise to see what goes further, a mid 70's suryln ball hit with a 460cc Ti head with a 45" graphite shaft or a ProV1 struck with a timber head with a 43.5" steel shaft.

[Sean_A]

Pat

I am generally in your camp, but that would necessitate archies changing how they build courses, seriously reducing the yardage of courses and seriously reconsider some sites used...that sounds good to me.  Even so, there are times when alternate tees should be built to accommodate weaker players when tragic hazards loom and to increase interest for better players (ie using width and angles where available). 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

I always remember sitting in a committee meeting talking about our master plan for the restoration of the club's golf course.  We were discussing adding back an original centerline bunker (it would have been maybe only 160-180 yards off the main tee).  Several people on the committee did not want me to restore it because they felt it would only penalize the higher handicappers.  Finally one gentlemen spoke up (a past multiple time club champion).  He said, “Mark, I used to be a pretty good player when I was younger.  Now I can’t hit it out of my shadow but that doesn’t mean I want all the interest and excitement taken out of the game just so I have an unobstructed path to the green.  Us shorter hitters what some challenge to and that bunker would be perfect for us even though the longer hitters would fly right over it.  They will have to deal with the other bunker on that hole farther up the fairway.  Put that shorter one in.”   

One set of tees doesn’t work anymore and the Golden Age architects figured that out pretty quickly.  Remember, tees (especially low profile tees) are one of the easiest and least expensive design features to add (or take away) from most golf courses. If adding them makes the game more fun and interesting (and faster) for a wider range of golfers - PUT THEM IN!

[Paul Gray]

The simplest way for an architect to present a challenge to all levels of golfer.......

......would be to grow a pair and start arguing, on mass, for roll back.

[Carl Johnson]

How would you like to be behind a group of 20 handicappers !  Talk about speed of play problems


Mark,

It's just the opposite. . . . Slow play is far more of a cultural phenomenon than a function of handicap

Agree with Pat on the "far more . . . ."  Of course, all other things being equal, hitting more shots takes longer, but all other things are rarely equal.  At my club I play with older men, now higher handicappers.  The ones who've played a long time play fast.  Mostly it's about getting ready being ready to hit your shot at the appropriate time.  There are some older high handicappers, newer golfers, who haven't gotten the picture.  We have young guys who play fast, and young guys, low handicappers, who play slow -- which, based on my observations, has mostly to do with spending way too much time on the greens.

If someone could figure out a sure fire way to get the slower players to speed up that person would be a shoo-in for every golf hall of fame in the world.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()