News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci


This thread is about argument rather than truth.

What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title.

If you don't understand the premise ...........


For the vast majority of golf clubs, provision of one tee is far removed from the game and business of the day. It is short sighted to infer otherwise.

Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise


As was the case in the recent forced-carries thread (among others), a portion of the discussion ridicules and dismisses those golfers who are not as strong or able as the very accomplished. Yet these players form the majority and keep clubs in business.

You just don't get it.
Nor do you understand architectural proportionality


Golf needs to work harder to become a game that includes - rather than a game that excludes.

As I stated, you don't get it.
You don't understand the premise and therefore want to argue for inclusiveness.
Have someone who understands it, explain the premise to you.


Course elasticity assists inclusion.

That statement is proof positive that you don't understand the premise.

One could reasonably conclude that you favor a dozen tees per hole and the absence of a proportional architectural challenge.

Go back and REREAD the first sentence.


Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0


What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title...

Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise


The second sentence suggests maybe your brain isn't as sharp as you think it is.

What is an ideal total distance for the single set of tees?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Lyne Morrison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sean,

Harry Colt spoke of elasticity in the early 1900's, the concept is not so new.


Re the drop in participants; The game varies in different parts of the world but in general terms shifts in society have influenced participation in golf. Research released by the Australian Sports Commission states that the sports we play, as well as how, and why we play them, has shifted over the past few decades.

Participation in individualised sports and fitness has risen sharply while organised sports such as golf are in decline. The ASC reports "a decreased willingness of time constrained people to commit to structured sporting activities."

"People are increasingly opting to go for a run with headphones and a music player when the opportunity arises rather than commit to an organised sporting event." Cycling is the fastest growing sport in the country.

With respect to women; difficulty, intimidation, time and access are identified as major deterrents to participation.

Down here, increasing participation among juniors, women and seniors is a key goal of Golf Australia. Providing shorter formats of the game and embracing multiple tees has been identified as key to this end. The ASC also states that to retain strong participation rates sports of the future will need to cater for senior citizens.

Australian courses typically have three tees, similar to the UK I expect. As noted previously I believe four would assist participation. In essence a medal and regular tee for each gender (although with the slope system this could vary). The world is not perfect but with good planning and construction, forward tees can be low profile and unobtrusive and bring more enjoyment to more players.

Cheers

Ref:

http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/523450/The_Future_of_Australian_Sport_-_Full_Report.pdf

http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00017555-source.pdf

http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00017556-source.pdf





Don Jordan

  • Karma: +0/-0
One tee worked up until the pro v1. Even accepting the premise that having senior, ladies tees etc. is only an ego thing to help them make par (personally I don't support this it is simply to help overcome some very long forced carries in most cases to get to the fairway) the biggest problem is tees moving back to maintain the challenge for top amateurs and professionals so that classic courses don't turn into pitch and putt.

The average golfer has not had the big increase in distance that the top have so why should they have to follow the bombers back? Most tees are about protecting par not making par possible for lesser golfers.  A better way to make things a challenge for all is to have options, the 16th hole at Yowani (ACT) is a great example, it is a 165m par three with water from the tee box to the front of the green, all carry if you want to go at a pin anywhere on the centre and right of the green but an option to get on the left of the green if you can thread the needle between water and trees - for mine this is a good way of posing different challenges on the one shot that is proportionate with skill level. Good bunkering can achieve this also.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 02:50:39 AM by Don Jordan »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Harry Colt spoke of elasticity in the early 1900's, the concept is not so new.

Somehow, I don't believe Colt envisioned 1000+ worth of tees.  Again, how come participation is going down while teeing space is going up?  Your solution has been tried and it hasn't worked.  The only result has been in the main the production of mediocre golf courses.  If you want women to play you must design courses for women.  Trying to include women with teeing space of up 2000 yards is I think an unsustainable model of design.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Don Jordan

  • Karma: +0/-0
An interesting article on the topic

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-05/golf-barney-adams-forward-tees

in the end I think it makes more economic sense to make the game fun and attract more people than to create a more masochistic pursuit that fewer and fewer want to play

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Lyne,

I would suggest that you and I are not that far apart. In fact, despite his well known contrarian persona, I suspect you and Pat are not so far apart.

I appreciate your suggesting that women need shorter courses. I'd agree with that. I'm not convinced however that that means an extra set of tees.  I'm equally not sure I've ever met a junior golfer that hampered for a shorter golf course. I made reference to that earlier in the thread. Kids have a habit of wanting to rise to a challenge and I'm not convinced that making the game easier for them will do them any favours.

You mentioned Colt and his making reference to the need for elasticity. Like Sean, I'm not sure umpteen different sets of tees was what he had in mind, merely that space between tees might need to increase as technology caused the differential between long and short to grow. I wonder if people would really mind if a course had tees at 5,400 yards, 6,300 yards and 7,200 yards, assuming the room existed for the latter. As a low capper I'm always somewhat bemused when a high handicap man tells me that the 6,300 yard course is to easy for him, usually said with a straight face and a card saying 95 in his hand. I'm not sure how it's too easy (and implied in that is that it's too short for him, apparently) when my 78 says it was anything but easy for me. And it's ridiculous anyway to suggest that we all have our optimum length of course, given that the changing seasons provide more than enough variables to blow that notion out of the water.

I have to say that I  disagree a little with Sean about this kind of differential not being practical. I actually think the problem arises because some courses have too many tees in between the ones I've suggested. Put fourball after fourball on the conveyor belt, each group with four different players playing from four different tees and, big surprise, play is slow. In my opinion, although as mentioned earlier I think the dominance of the aerial game has played its part, those extra tees have come about because everyone now thinks they need a route to 72 which has been tailor made for them. That isn't want the challenge of golf is supposed to be all about. The idea should be to play the course as you find it and try to improve from there, rather than to adjust the course until you find your magic 72 and then progressively turn your experience in to more and more of a slog as you move further back each time you improve substantially. It's golf after all, not target practice.    
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 06:57:35 PM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Brent Hutto

I've played quite a few rounds lately with a local friend who not only hits the ball miles farther than I do but is also a substantially better player. He's fun to play with and we generally play a good, tight match that comes down to the last hole or two. But we do that by playing *very* different tees.

It might be possible for him to give me something like 10, 12, 14 strokes and then we meet in the middle to play a set of tees that are a bit too long for comfort for me while being so short he leaves his driver in the car trunk. And heck, it may even as Paul claims improve our pace of play by 5-10 minutes if we played the same tees although honestly we seem to always be waiting on slower players ahead anyway. But by playing a course that's typically just over 1,000 yards different in length we can play straight up under what I think is called Sunningdale Rules (either player who is 2-down or worse gets a stroke) and somewhat match shot-for-shot.

There are two observations I'd like to share about our arrangement. First off, playing from something like 5,600 vs. 6,700 yards is not ideal since we really can't pay attention to the honor off the tee. Usually he just hits first regardless of the honor since I'm still walking forward. But on the other hand me consistently hitting three full shots to his two on every hole just destroys the back-and-forth rhythm of match play golf. And it means even though we would be together on 18 tees before hitting our shots, we would almost never be hitting from anywhere near the same spots in the fairway. So that aspect almost balances out.

My second observation is that courses vary in how perfectly a 1,000 yard difference works to lets us play the "same game" in terms of shots required. At his home course, it is amazing how often a hole that's driver/5-iron for him from 440 yards also happens to be driver/5-iron for me from a set of tees 70 yards forward. Or he'll hit an 8-iron from the 165 back tee on a Par 3 where I'm hitting 8-iron from 130, two tees forward. When many holes work out like that, the game is more fun than otherwise. For us at least.

At my (former) club it doesn't work out quite the same. Something about the arrangement of the tees and the terrain of each hole routing often means we play a given hole very differently. I might hit pitching wedge on a Par 3 hole where he needs a 7-iron or he may have a dogleg hole that lets him hit driver from the back tees where my driver shot from the front tees would run through the fairway. It's still fun of course but not every course works out so that a "1,100 yard difference" means the same thing to a given pair of golfers.

My theory is, his home course is a good bit more hilly than mine. I think playing across ridges or with more uphill or downhill shots gives the course designer more leeway for choosing how to position various tees on the same hole. My course is older and tends to have lined up tee boxes using the same angle, just from different distances. His is a few decades newer and seems to position quite a few of my tees at a meaningfully different angle to his. Anyway, just a few random thoughts on wildly different hole lengths by way of separate tees.

P.S. I agree with Sean that it must be very, very difficult to pull off these kinds of things when you talk about 2,000 yards or more difference from women's tees to the flat belly ones.

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Brent,

Nice post.

I'm a little confused though that you mention the notion of him giving you shots and then you both playing the same tees as if that's an after thought. It's the handicap system and that what it was designed for. Surely that would be your default, rather than to separate yourselves by 60 yards at the beginning of each hole.

And as I said, everyone now seems to think they are supposed to face the same challenge, i.e. a five iron for you and a five iron for him. But none of the ODGs had that in mind. As I've equally said already, the like of Colt planned holes so that shorter hitters could compete playing a different way.

Would I be right to think that your friends' course is a bit more dependant on aerial ability? Leaving firm and fast aside just for one second, the hilly nature of his course could dictate an aerial route more often than at your course. Just a thought. I only wonder as I'm guessing you don't struggle playing the same tees as us lower cappers when you're over here in the UK?
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Chris DeNigris

  • Karma: +0/-0
When it's snowing who doesn't enjoy a good game of Gladiator Pat  ::)

I haven't waded through all the green but personally I like multiple tees. I like variety and I think playing the course the exact same way every time would be a detriment rather than an attribute.  But that's probably just a selfish viewpoint.  Of course the Ballyneal infinite tee concept is probably my mostest favorite.

Pat's in favor of a one tee concept- as long as it's his tee.  
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 10:44:31 AM by Chris DeNigris »

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

I will just reiterate that seasonal changes means that any course is in a state of continual change.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Brent Hutto

Paul,

I think for a lot of players the default is to stick together and let handicap strokes make up the difference. I've played that way (usually with people who really, really prefer staying together on the same tee like friend Sean) but once you get up around a 60-80 yard difference in driving distance and three to four club difference in iron shots I find it more fun to split tees.

Of course what I described is pretty specific to the case where the longer player is also the better player. If you had a 70-year-old, short hitting 3-handicapper playing a match against a long-hitting 15-cap then a difference in tees just exacerbates the number of strokes required. I guess in that case if they played 1,000 yard different tees the big-hitting 15 would need to get a stroke a hole or more which to me always makes a match rather awkward.

Regarding aerial vs. ground game my friend actually hits the ball a lot lower than some other longer hitters in my experience. But at his home course there are a lot more downhill tee shots than at my (former) club. In fact, that may be why the different tees don't work as well for equalizing our games. At his course, if you move me up say 40 yards on a Par 4 but my ball will land on a downslope that really helps. But if his ball lands on that downslope it may actually run into trouble because he hits it so hard. Not sure how to exactly analyze that part of it, I'll ponder on it next few times we play.

When I'm in the UK it depends somewhat on the particular course but typically it has not been all that much of a problem. First off, I prefer to come over in September when the weather is often dry and the turf generally at its firmest. That sort of thing really extends my comfort zone in terms of length of the course. There are 6,300 yard courses I've played in the UK where I did not feel I was too far back at all whereas back home anything over 6,000 yards (Par 72) feels like I'm slugging for distance shot after shot all day long without ever really getting much variety. Also, a lot of visitor tees are in the 6,000 to 6,400 yard range even if the medal or championship tees would be intimidatingly long.

I'm thinking back to a couple years ago when James Boon invited me to an Invitation Day round at Notts. So he and I were playing of course the same tees as were the two other fellows in our fourball for the day. While I loved the course and had a great time, that was mostly dependent on my host carrying me for probably 13-14 of the 18 holes. I don't think we used my ball except for a couple holes where he was out of play and maybe two or three others where I actually scored better. If we'd have been playing a head to head match instead of as a better-ball team I'd imagine I'd have been wishing I were playing the course at least a few hundred yards shorter.

But anyway, to your core question

Quote
And as I said, everyone now seems to think they are supposed to face the same challenge, i.e. a five iron for you and a five iron for him. But none of the ODGs had that in mind. As I've equally said already, the like of Colt planned holes so that shorter hitters could compete playing a different way.

I don't doubt that's what Harry Colt was thinking. And I know that's what many people prefer. Lord knows Sean and I have discussed it more than once over the years. I'm just saying I've tried it both ways and I prefer the arrangement my friend and I have arrived at. I've said in many other threads here that there's a reason golf has evolved with the "Par 4" or "two-shotter" being the majority type of holes on most courses. That's the rhythm that generations of golfers have gravitated toward. Hit it off a tee, hit it off the ground, chip and/or putt a couple times. The more often I can do that in a round, the more fun I have. Especially when my opponent and I are going about the same hole in much the same way.

Not saying my way is better or that it ought to be more fun for anyone other than myself. But I suspect it is preferred by an awful lot of golfers or else why would the vast majority of courses built in the past 75 years feature three, four or more sets of tees? What's the old saying about golf being about trying to turn three strokes into two? You can also save a stroke by turning five strokes into four but it just isn't the same thing.

Take what one guy I know calls "advancement shots". This is different from a "layup" which implicitly is a shot where you choose to play two shorter shots rather than attempting one long one. An "advancement shot" is where you simply hit the ball from fairway or rough with the longest club you hit and try to get it as far as possible with the knowledge that it's the *next* shot which will be a layup vs. go-for-it decision. My long-hitting friend may only face one or two (or none) of these shots in a typical round, after totally mishitting his tee shot. If I play from his tees there may be a few holes that are not only unreachable in regulation, they require a mid to long iron to reach in one more than regulation. I find that the more "advancement shots" required in a round, the less fun I have. Tee shots, approach shots, recovery shots, any kind of shot with a requirement other than "hit it as far you can but it won't be far enough" are preferable.

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Chris, I'm with you. Of course, this isn't a good game of GP. It's more like the Thunder last night - lots of shooting, but nothing is hitting the mark.

In his own "short sided" way, Pat's premise is correct. The best way for an architect to challenge every level of golfer is to make them all play from 7600+ yards. If you thought the US Open at Torrey Pines was tough for pros, wait until you see beginners try it! If we ignore ramifications to inclusion, enjoyment, affordability, and the general spirit of sport, and focus only on the "challenge to all levels of golfer," a single set of tees at the longest distance possible for a given property will inevitably be the best way to fulfill the objective.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'll suggest that Pat's initial premise is correct, not only in that one tee (or certainly a lot less than apparently exist at American courses these days) can provide a suitable challenge for all levels of golfer but also that that challenge can be enjoyable for all. However, there is one significant factor here which has already been mentioned and, I personally think, needs to be referred back to:

Firm and fast conditions. It is, after all, such conditions which provide the best alternative to all out added length for the big boys, hence British links courses have not faced quite the same pressures to push the tees back as has been the case on many lusher American affairs. Those same firm and fast conditions of course, much as Brent has suggested, allow him to play the same course at maybe 6,300 or 6,400 yards. Brent (apologies if you've been over here in the depth of winter before) might be more than a bit surprised to see how different our links and heathland courses are in January or February, particularly the links courses. Obviously they're still dry, but 6,300 feels like 9,300 yards sometimes on green turf in a strong wind. I guess if it's what you're used to you just learn to embrace that kind of seasonal variance and don't hanker to play from forward tees. You might stand there on a par 4 thinking "dear god, not another hybrid to the green," but you don't think of it as anything other than nature's way of reminding you that you're not really a proper player. And if you happen to actually score (dirty word, I know) something which would have even made you happy in the summer, the joy is all the more for that. Conversely, put me on a mud bath of a course and I'd equally be wanting to play from any tee which left me with a short iron in my hand as often as possible. Long iron after long iron is no fun on a bog.

Pat plays golf courses which the average golfer just never gets to experience. Pat is far more familiar then with sandy, firm and fast conditions than most golfers, even most golfers over here in Britain. When Pat isn't on such a course, he's playing from 6,000 yards at Augusta, where 6,000 yards works perfectly well. It seems perfectly reasonable then that he should come to the conclusion he has. So maybe, just maybe, his is an excellent ideal somewhat spoilt by 60 years of architecture moving in the wrong direction. Again, just a thought.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 11:46:35 AM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Patrick_Mucci



What this thread is about is having the brains to understand the premise behind the one sentence title...

Short sidedness is not being able to grasp the premise


The second sentence suggests maybe your brain isn't as sharp as you think it is.

What is an ideal total distance for the single set of tees?

Absent par, it's irrelevant.


Patrick_Mucci


One of the things that fascinated me was . . . the story of Marion Hollins at CPC.

You told us you didn't believe that story.

Which story are you referring to ?
There are many.

If you're referring to the 16th hole story, I never believed the story of her particular feat.
That disbelief was reconfirmed when I played CPC recently.

However, there are other stories regarding Marion Hollins and CPC.
Perhaps you should research them.


Patrick_Mucci

When it's snowing who doesn't enjoy a good game of Gladiator Pat  ::)

I haven't waded through all the green but personally I like multiple tees. I like variety and I think playing the course the exact same way every time would be a detriment rather than an attribute.  But that's probably just a selfish viewpoint.  Of course the Ballyneal infinite tee concept is probably my mostest favorite.

Pat's in favor of a one tee concept- as long as it's his tee.  

Chris,

I see that you're as brain dead as some of the others.
Maybe winter does that to golfers.

Please go back and reread the very first sentence that opened up this thread.

This thread is about "architecture".  It's NOT about favoring or disfavoring the play of golfers based upon the distance selected.
It's about the architect creating proportional challenges............. and............ those proportional challenges would give ample consideration to the lesser golfer.

Perhaps I should refrain from initiating threads that require thinking and thinking outside of the box.


Patrick_Mucci

I'll suggest that Pat's initial premise is correct, not only in that one tee (or certainly a lot less than apparently exist at American courses these days) can provide a suitable challenge for all levels of golfer but also that that challenge can be enjoyable for all. However, there is one significant factor here which has already been mentioned and, I personally think, needs to be referred back to:

Paul,

That's an oversight on my part.


Firm and fast conditions. It is, after all, such conditions which provide the best alternative to all out added length for the big boys, hence British links courses have not faced quite the same pressures to push the tees back as has been the case on many lusher American affairs. Those same firm and fast conditions of course, much as Brent has suggested, allow him to play the same course at maybe 6,300 or 6,400 yards. Brent (apologies if you've been over here in the depth of winter before) might be more than a bit surprised to see how different our links and heathland courses are in January or February, particularly the links courses. Obviously they're still dry, but 6,300 feels like 9,300 yards sometimes on green turf in a strong wind. I guess if it's what you're used to you just learn to embrace that kind of seasonal variance and don't hanker to play from forward tees. You might stand there on a par 4 thinking "dear god, not another hybrid to the green," but you don't think of it as anything other than nature's way of reminding you that you're not really a proper player. And if you happen to actually score (dirty word, I know) something which would have even made you happy in the summer, the joy is all the more for that. Conversely, put me on a mud bath of a course and I'd equally be wanting to play from any tee which left me with a short iron in my hand as often as possible. Long iron after long iron is no fun on a bog.

Pat plays golf courses which the average golfer just never gets to experience. Pat is far more familiar then with sandy, firm and fast conditions than most golfers, even most golfers over here in Britain. When Pat isn't on such a course, he's playing from 6,000 yards at Augusta, where 6,000 yards works perfectly well. It seems perfectly reasonable then that he should come to the conclusion he has. So maybe, just maybe, his is an excellent ideal somewhat spoilt by 60 years of architecture moving in the wrong direction. Again, just a thought.

Paul, what seems to have been lost amongst the myriad of morons is the concept of "architectural proportionality" that is possible vis a vis the one tee arrangement.

There's not a doubt in my mind that architecture/set-up/maintainance has been moving in the wrong direction.

You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.


Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.
 
Agreed somewhat, but what I come across is, low handicapp boards that want there course set up this way, itīs not always the supers and the architects are almost never even consulted.
So, I think narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough has resulted in golf not moving in the right direction but has little to do with architecture or the architect and more to with boards filled with low handicappers that donīt understand and donīt want to understand that Golf is like Sex, you donīt have to be really good at it to enjoy it!

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat,
You still never addressed my post?

Let me ask you, would Pine Valley be a better golf course for all with one set of tees?

Most every Golden Age architect understood that over time their designs would likely need to expand.  Building elasticity into their courses was an important factor and many incorporated this where they could into their routings and teeing locations, etc. 


Patrick_Mucci


You can't have narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough and think that architecture has been moving in the right direction.
 
Agreed somewhat, but what I come across is, low handicapp boards that want there course set up this way, itīs not always the supers and the architects are almost never even consulted.

Randy,

Agreed.

For whatever reason, club members want to engage in diabolical setups, especially when outside events are held.
There seems to be a misconception that producing high scores is an indication or architectural merit.
That a harder golf course is a better golf course.

I don't believe that the thinking is confined to low handicap golfers, rather, I think it's universal, through out the entire membership.


So, I think narrow lush green fairways and six inch rough has resulted in golf not moving in the right direction but has little to do with architecture or the architect and more to with boards filled with low handicappers that donīt understand and donīt want to understand that Golf is like Sex, you donīt have to be really good at it to enjoy it!

Randy, I've rarely encountered boards filled with low handicaps.
And, at many of these clubs, they've retained a consulting architect, but, when a club gives their consulting architect a mandate or marching orders, as I've stated many times, "when you take the King's schilling, you have to do the King's bidding"  Ditto the Superintendent.

Unfortunately, most Board members and Green Committees members watch golf on TV every week and what do they see.
Lush, narrow fairways with unique mowing patterns, and high, thick rough.
Monkey see, Monkey do.

What I've also noticed as a repeated phrase and objection to tree removal is this:
"If we remove the trees, the course will become too easy"
And, it's not just the low handicappers who make this statement.

One of the best recent examples I've seen of a club reversing the trend is at Somerset Hills.

That club has taken a quantum leap toward making play more enjoyable vis a vis going away from the lush, green, narrow trend.

 


Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
It's a pretty big jump to suggest a relationship between the presence of multiple sets of tees and the practice of maintaining courses with lush green fairways and six inch rough.

As for "architectural proportionality," the term refers to a concept first written of in the 19th century that has become a central principle of architectural theory. It specifically refers to the relationship between various objects and space built into an architect's design, typically placed at standard distance intervals to visually stimulate onlookers. In other words, for purposes of this thread, it's a made-up term that Pat reappropriated to try to obscure the fact that he's really just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Of course, he's using the term to refer to the idea that, if everyone tees off from the same place, an architect can place hazards in locations where they are more likely to be in play for better players while being out of reach for weaker players. While this is true on the tee shot, it fails to account for what happens on subsequent shots. After all, the landing zone for a low marker's 300 yard tee shot is the same as the landing zone for the 140 yard 3-wood advancement shot of the weaker player who drives it 160 yards. There's no doubt that a weaker player playing a course with a single set of tees will find more challenge than he would on a course with multiple sets, some of which are shorter and more proportional to his skillset. Unfortunately, this magical arrangement of features where punishment is only in play for the stronger player simply doesn't exist, regardless of how tees are laid out.

I play a few rounds a year with 30+ handicap women. The forward tees don't exist to help them make pars, and they don't think about making pars when they play. They just try to enjoy themselves. To a woman, the ones I've talked to all hate par 5s. It's not because they can't par them - they can't do that on par 3s either generally. It's because they turn into five or six shot slogs with little purpose on a given shot. The forward tees simply exist to make the game more enjoyable for them. I have a feeling Lyne has seen the same, and she likely knows more about this topic than any of us. The simplest determinant of a course's difficulty is it's yardage. If you really want an "architecturally proportional" challenge and, more significantly, an enjoyable one as opposed to just a difficult one, then the simplest way to ensure it is to offer multiple tees that allow some flexibility in how much challenge a player takes on.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason,

When you look at the practical experience, that leap you refer to isn't much of a leap at all.

I've copied below what I said early about conditioning being central to a limited tee set up.

A while back I (playing alone on a Sunday afternoon) played through two REALLY old ladies. I was struck by the fact that the nature of our course, i.e. a genuine links, afforded them the possibility of still playing the game. The course from the ladies tees is just over 5,800 yards and, whilst they were never going to make par, they were having fun running the ball along the ground. From their tees, which have barely moved in the last 80 years, they experienced those aforementioned occasional because the forced carries for them were still a real factor. It should perhaps be noted however that those carries did not, could not or would not represent insurmountable road blocks. Now, on the same golf course as I was playing, their games were being challenged just as much as my game was. Transport them to almost an course built in the 1980's and they just wouldn't have been able to play.

In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Paul, I still don't see the connection. Are you saying that if there were more sets of tees, the club would begin overwatering and encouraging the growth of the rough as well? I'm failing to see the cause and effect at play. Please explain the correlation for me.

Your tale is a lovely anecdote. Did you suggest to those two ladies that the course should remove the 5800 yard tees and have everyone play from the "members" set? If so, what was their reaction?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Hang tough Pat.  I am with you 100%.  If architects were skillful enough an interesting course would be played by all from one set of tees.  I would take it a step further and just mow flat spots at fairway height and let the superintendent or pro decide where to place the tees each day.  I am a member of a club that when opened, the founder preferred not to use tee markers.  The teeing location was to be determined by the members.  I think this would have added some fun, like a game of horse in basketball.  Naturally over time this creativity was overcome with discomfort from the members concerned about the course rating and the validity of their handicaps.
As I type this I am looking at a picture on my wall of a woman teeing off on the 18th at Riviera in 1929.  It is from presumably the one and only tee at 430 yards.  Can she make the hill?  No, but she can make the green in 3.

Your premise really comes down to the question have multiple tees improved the experience or not.

"The quality of a hole is also determined by if it makes you want to become a better player."  Alister Mackenzie
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson