Multiple Tees on New Courses

[jeffwarne]

Well JM, at least you're keeping up with the equipment!

[Edward Glidewell]

That's a great example of the slippery slope fallacy. Having 5 or 6 tees so everyone has a tee where they can play reasonably isn't remotely the same as having infinite tees.


I personally would be fine with only 3 sets of tees, because I don't have a distance problem. But I also don't understand why we would try to exclude people from playing golf if they want to play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B:
you wrote: "The notion that going back to fewer tees because that's how it was done in the old days resonates with a few here, but I see no clamor for it elsewhere."

Okay, granted. So, although I'm one for whom the 'old days' resonate, I'll stay instead with a modern/real world example and 'argument'. While no one here would recognize the names (and even less think them 'great'), I've played many many many courses built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Not a single one has more than three sets of tees - blue, white and red. 
Not a single time have I ever heard a single complaint from a single golfer that three sets weren't enough.
Not a single time have I ever been paired with anyone (in the hundreds I've been paired with) who played a 'mix/hybrid' set of tees during the round.

Me and those countless golfers, of all ages and skills sets, have approached a round of golf at a new (for us) course or our home course in exactly the same way:  every single time we've looked at the scorecard, decided on a set of tees, maybe thought 'oh this is gonna be a tough round, especially the 3rd and 7th and 15th hole' and then played. In the late fall or after a big rain, we might look at the card and decide to play whites instead of blues. But that's it -- and then we get on with it and play golf. We play the golf course, as it is and as we find it.   

Every time. Happily. With nary a complaint about 'distance' or lack of additional tees. If we make a par or the rare birdie, we celebrate. If we make a double we blame ourselves, and get frustrated by our inconsistency or bad choices.

Not one single time have I ever heard any golfer I've been paired with complain that it was the course's fault, and I can never even imagine anyone suggesting that the problem was not enough sets of tees.

That's my experience, in the modern-real world.

And because it *is* my experience, when I see a new course with 6 sets of tees, I tend to think it is catering to a spoiled and/or wealthy clientele and that architects (and developers) will do and justify just about anything to keep those wealthy and/or spoiled golfers happy, lest they should blame the golf course (or lack of tees) for their own ineptitude.       

I guess the rationale for that is the notion that golf should be all about 'fun'.  Well, in my world, me and countless other golfers are having a ton a fun -- with 3 sets of tees. And the 'not fun' part we lay on our own shoulders, not on the architect/course.

PS - today's architects seem to take pride in saying that they 'don't/shouldn't design for the 1%'. How about this? How about taking pride in not designing for the 2-5% either? Because if you didn't, you'd be the first to realize & admit that 6500 yards is more than enough for 95% of everyone who ever plays this game -- and then you could much more easily defend and justify 3 sets of tees:
6500 yards
5800 yards
5000 yards.

And golfers, at least like the ones I play with, would accommodate themselves to that -- sometimes taking less than driver off the tee, sometimes trying to make the best of hitting a 5 wood into a Par 4. Oh, but maybe that's the 'old days'....hmmm?

Peter
   

Peter,


At the risk of offending all your past playing companions, I wonder if they even thought it was an option?  We usually don't hear a lot of gripes, but when we take seniors and women out to proposed shorter locations, they all seem to "have a friend" who would really enjoy hitting the green in regulation, more easily carry the pond, etc.  Again, if form follows function, and for the golf course owner, pleasing its customers is a function, they I find we need to consider the forward tees more carefully than we have in the past.  IMHO, the old way simply isn't good enough any more, nor is "good enough" good enough for most course owners.  Throw in speed of play from less shots and shorter tees are a winner.


Eliminating tees over 6800 removes about 1% of players from having enough length.  Shortening to 6500 might remove another 17% who prefer playing at least 6600 up to under 6900.  Most course owners wouldn't go that far, but again, I agree there are some that should. 


I recall an old article where someone pointed out that a senior community has a 7200 yard course. Why?  In a few years, if my son visits me in my senior community, I suspect playing with dear old Dad is motivation one, and playing once in a while at the 6300 yard or so max that course really needs to be wouldn't (hopefully) be an obstacle that would keep him from coming to see me.  Not every round, even for good players is about the challenge.


I agree courses ought to start targeting segments more, which would mean more shorter courses.  God knows we don't need a lot of longer ones.  

I hope to propose a max 6300 yard course in the right place, someday.  For a city, who has a business consultant rather than enlightened single owner like MK, guiding them, it won't be an easy sell.

[A.G._Crockett]

I can't even begin to answer that without offending the hell out of a lot people. But I will nevertheless try.


The logical end point of your argument is an infinite number of tees, tailored to each person's game. I'd argue that's beyond silly, but maybe that's just me. By all means, let ask Google to calculate our handicaps for each specific tee and each specific course. Google seems to have an answer for everything!

George,

"The logical end point"?  Hardly.  You have taken a common practice by guys like Jeff Brauer and Tom Fazio and Mike Strantz, among many, many others, to it's ILLOGICAL extreme, which makes no better of an argument that going in the other direction and saying that the "logical end point" of FEWER tees is NO tees! 


Reducing the gaps between sets of tees is a reasonable idea, otherwise there would only be one set, and I don't think anybody is seriously advocating THAT.  Whether that is best done by more tees, or scorecard-only hybrids is an additional question, of course, AND the question of which tees to play among a group is another completely.  What you and your group are choosing to do has NOTHING to do with the question at hand unless you are advocating that there either be ONLY one set of tees per golf course, which I doubt is the case.


I'm sort of surprised that a guy that I've sort of taken to be a Libertarian all these years is advocating that things be done one particular way or it's a form of "insanity".  The decision of your group to all play the same tees regardless of age or infirmity or ability is fine, and I suspect the majority of ALL groups (including mine!) plays this way.  That doesn't mean that offering other players more options lacks merit, does it?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Jeff - I do appreciate the clear and reasoned (and 'seasoned') response.
Heck, we all know where this is going. As in that famous movie line: "The revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. The bums lost!".
The 'bums' aren't going to win this one either.
But I feel a bit duty bound to at least put up a fight....
P

[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks, Jeff - I do appreciate the clear and reasoned (and 'seasoned') response.
Heck, we all know where this is going. As in that famous movie line: "The revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. The bums lost!".
The 'bums' aren't going to win this one either.
But I feel a bit duty bound to at least put up a fight....
P

Peter,

I am ordained in the Church of Dudeism (Really, I am!  I even printed out the certificate that I got online in case I ever need it when I perform weddings and other sacraments.)  And I'd hasten to point out the The Dude wins in the end, NOT Jeffrey Lebowski!  So don't give up hope!  This aggression will not stand, man!

[A.G._Crockett]

Here's one of the things that's happened to me over the last six years or so; I see the world and a lot of issues as much more binary than I used to.

This thread is full of red herrings.  The tyranny of the handicap system, the distance walked, the size of tees, and on and on.  None of those things have anything to do with the topic at hand.  I suppose that one can make a solid aesthetic argument that more tee markers are gauche, but that's about it.


It's either a good idea to give more people more yardage options when they play golf by the Rules, or it isn't.  That's all.  There are NO other issues.

And since I've expressed my own opinion on this binary issue so eloquently already, I'm out of here. 

[Peter Pallotta]

 
Ah, AG, goodness knows I *wish* I could be more like the Dude -- but alas we've got very different temperaments (not to mention choices in recreational drugs). And it's a bit sad too, because while it's true that the Dude abides, I think you actually have to *be* the Dude for that to play out. Indeed, I have a sinking feeling that, golf wise, it's the Jeffrey Lebowskis who will win the day!
(Loving the fact that you have the Church of Dudism certificate!)
Peter

[Thomas Dai]

If you're just teeing it up from wherever you want, you're not really playing a round of golf. You're out hitting a ball on a course, but you're not playing by the rules. For a lot of people, that's just not fun. Why shouldn't those golfers have the chance to play a real round of golf? No one is changing the game for them; they're just giving them a teeing ground from which they can play a round.
Just because it's fun for you doesn't mean it's fun for everyone.

Thanks for this Edward. +1
Just the other day I observed an elderly lady player, a decent player when younger, playing a par-3.
The hole is 140 from the reds and there is a pond a little way in front of the red tee that requires a shot of about 80 yds to carry it. The lady in question hit a fine tee shot which failed to carry the pond and plunged into the water. Not only demoralising and disillusioning to her but a £2 lost ball as well. And a delay in play for those in the ground behind. Oh what fun.
There is no forward tee on the far side of the pond for her and her likes.....but there really ought to be for she and her likes are long term members of the club who pay their subscriptions on time and contribute positively to the overall life of the club. Such folk deserve the opportunity to play a proper round of golf but are being prevented from doing so due to arcane teeing ground limitations. And folks/golfers are living longer all the time and will want to play for longer as a result.
Forward tees, as I’ve mentioned above, don’t have to be on every hole and there doesn’t need to be numerous sets of them either. Just occasional ones where appropriate.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Ah, AG, goodness knows I *wish* I could be more like the Dude -- but alas we've got very different temperaments (not to mention choices in recreational drugs). And it's a bit sad too, because while it's true that the Dude abides, I think you actually have to *be* the Dude for that to play out. Indeed, I have a sinking feeling that, golf wise, it's the Jeffrey Lebowskis who will win the day!
(Loving the fact that you have the Church of Dudism certificate!)
Peter

"Oh, the usual.  Bowl.  Drive around.  The occasional acid flasback." 

Pete, fake it 'til you make it; you can BE The Dude!

[corey miller]

One man's opinion:


"The trend in golf course architecture today is for the design to favor the better player.  We are dedicated to ALL golfers.  Everyone from a professional to a beginner will have fun playing our courses.  This is evident by the numerous tee boxes and their position on each hole.  The better player who will play from the longer tees will have a challenge that matches their skill level; just as the beginner who will play from the forward tees will be challenged according to their skill level."
[/size][/color]-Rees Jones[/font]

[jeffwarne]

Forward tees, as I’ve mentioned above, don’t have to be on every hole and there doesn’t need to be numerous sets of them either. Just occasional ones where appropriate.

perfect-and we might see more interesting and creative architecture if we were designing courses where most were playing from the same area, but with different routes/trajectories

[Kalen Braley]

I'm glad The Dude has entered this conversation.  I too am an official Dudeist but haven't yet ascended to AG's level 


P.S.  I thought I read a number of years ago that the pros and top Ams hit it much further, relatively speaking, now...than they did 30,40, 50 years ago.  For example, DJ regularly hits over 320 and I can count on one hand how often I've done that and they all involved cart path love, wind, downhill, or sprinkler head action...and in some combination.


But wasn't the average joe much closer to hitting it as far as the pros did when they were only 250-260 off the tee?


I only mention this as possible reasoning for added tees.  The older crowd is still just as short as they've always been,  the hacks like me are maybe 10-20 yards longer....maybe.  But its the top end guys who have spread the scale out so much further percentage wise. 


Just a thought....

[Brock Lynch]

George:


Would you play golf at all if you had to play from 8500 yds? I think most people here play the game with some expectation of scoring, shot making, and do it in a reasonable amount of time. I believe most on this site would not play a course from 8500 yds. What is the maximum reasonable distance for an 18-hole course from which you would play? Depends on the course, its obstacles, and how far you hit the ball. Pine Valley from 7,500 yds? I'd play Pine Valley from any tees, but that's not the point. The point is that golf is many things to many people. Score is not your thing. That's OK. You can play, not keep score, and I'll play along with you from the same tees and grind out my round. We will have a great time. I do exactly this on a weekly basis with a friend at our home course. He only hits it about 220 of the tee, never keeps score, and prefers to play from the back tees at almost 6,900 yds. I don't understand any of it, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't understand why I drive myself crazy trying to shoot my life's best round every time! But it doesn't matter. We respect each other and we can play together, each his own way. Now, bring my wife, her game, and her expectations into this formula. Is she expected to play from the back tees? Seems like your saying she should! JUST PLAY GOLF! Easy for you to say. She wants to be tested, challenged, and has expectations just like many of us. My wife is not playing the back tees with us. Wow, that's going to require another tee from which she would like to play. A teeing ground that provides her with a reasonable chance of being challenged like the rest of us. So, she is delighted to play from approximately 5,200 yds. A little too long in my opinion, as she hits many 3rd shot woods into par fours. For those who play golf to make some sort of score (we're not talking handicaps here), I don't know of any that play from tees requiring any 3rd shot woods. All 3 of us play on a regular basis with our varied games and expectations. One person would be left out if not for the teeing options given.


I started this thread wanting to know how far the spread between tees should be. It has been interesting to read the many posts that have followed. Some advocating for less tees and others more tees. Some for the same number of tees, but greater spread or less spread. Good stuff! The posts I don't get are those that tell golfers "take or leave it" or "we don't care if it's too tough, just play" or "If it's too difficult, maybe you shouldn't play". These types of comments can't be what golf is about. We need to find a way to let people experience golf as we do. It is incredible to play places like the Old Course or Bandon Dunes or Burnham & Berrow, all of which I have done with friends and family. It is incredible to play my home course each week with my wife, my sons, and my friends. In many of those situations, some have played from different tees. Not by the choice of others, but by their own choice. Play from where you want to play!


I don't know how many tees there should be. I know that many courses have limited forward tee choices and in most cases are far too long for my wife. Let's advocate for more people to get into golf. Advocate for teeing options for shorter hitters, including kids. I'm not talking about infinite tees, just another option or two to bring more people to the game.


Cheers

[Sean_A]

Brock

Its interesting that you mention Burnham. There is a fairly small ladies section partly because there are many carries which are uncomfortable for some ladies.  Holes such as 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 & 17 have carries, but I don't think any are more than 100ish yards. Although, in a few cases I would suggest additional fairway before added tees.  I don't see the issue with creating a few more forward tees as the course is what it is.  Being a traditional out and back course which is 7000 yards, the design already takes golfers past many back tees anyway so there won't be any additional dead walks except for those who need a tee a bit further forward and there is no threat of serious extra cart usage. Plus, the course is exceedingly long at around 5800 yards with only 3 shots added to par...I would be happy to play many of those tees!  Looking at Burnham from a short hitter PoV, I am surprised we have many ladies at all as members.  These old out and back designs which are long will often create a walking nightmare for short hitters.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

George:


Would you play golf at all if you had to play from 8500 yds? I think most people here play the game with some expectation of scoring, shot making, and do it in a reasonable amount of time. I believe most on this site would not play a course from 8500 yds. What is the maximum reasonable distance for an 18-hole course from which you would play? Depends on the course, its obstacles, and how far you hit the ball. Pine Valley from 7,500 yds? I'd play Pine Valley from any tees, but that's not the point. The point is that golf is many things to many people. Score is not your thing. That's OK. You can play, not keep score, and I'll play along with you from the same tees and grind out my round. We will have a great time. I do exactly this on a weekly basis with a friend at our home course. He only hits it about 220 of the tee, never keeps score, and prefers to play from the back tees at almost 6,900 yds. I don't understand any of it, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't understand why I drive myself crazy trying to shoot my life's best round every time! But it doesn't matter. We respect each other and we can play together, each his own way. Now, bring my wife, her game, and her expectations into this formula. Is she expected to play from the back tees? Seems like your saying she should! JUST PLAY GOLF! Easy for you to say. She wants to be tested, challenged, and has expectations just like many of us. My wife is not playing the back tees with us. Wow, that's going to require another tee from which she would like to play. A teeing ground that provides her with a reasonable chance of being challenged like the rest of us. So, she is delighted to play from approximately 5,200 yds. A little too long in my opinion, as she hits many 3rd shot woods into par fours. For those who play golf to make some sort of score (we're not talking handicaps here), I don't know of any that play from tees requiring any 3rd shot woods. All 3 of us play on a regular basis with our varied games and expectations. One person would be left out if not for the teeing options given.


I started this thread wanting to know how far the spread between tees should be. It has been interesting to read the many posts that have followed. Some advocating for less tees and others more tees. Some for the same number of tees, but greater spread or less spread. Good stuff! The posts I don't get are those that tell golfers "take or leave it" or "we don't care if it's too tough, just play" or "If it's too difficult, maybe you shouldn't play". These types of comments can't be what golf is about. We need to find a way to let people experience golf as we do. It is incredible to play places like the Old Course or Bandon Dunes or Burnham & Berrow, all of which I have done with friends and family. It is incredible to play my home course each week with my wife, my sons, and my friends. In many of those situations, some have played from different tees. Not by the choice of others, but by their own choice. Play from where you want to play!


I don't know how many tees there should be. I know that many courses have limited forward tee choices and in most cases are far too long for my wife. Let's advocate for more people to get into golf. Advocate for teeing options for shorter hitters, including kids. I'm not talking about infinite tees, just another option or two to bring more people to the game.


Cheers

I would.


 


The fact that I play at all shows at least some level of masochism....


It's pretty clear that at least a few others don't consider what I do to be playing golf. I don't have an issue with 2 or at most 3 sets of tees, but I have a big issue with the 4-5-6 sets that seem to be popping up on modern courses, or the dismissals from some when a lesser golfer criticises a hole or a course, only to be met with the inevitable "Did you play the right tees?" I actually like seeing the tees for beginners that are simply set out on some courses at 150 or so yards out from the green.


I think we're all arguing different things. Those who prefer fewer sets aren't saying there should be one set and one set only and it should be at 7000 yards for the best players. And those who prefer multiple tees aren't saying there should be 10 sets on every hole with infinite playing options.


Me, I'm simply saying adding a few more tees is an ineffective way to deal with the issue at hand. I'd prefer to see it addressed by thoughtful accommodating designs.

[George Pazin]

I'm sort of surprised that a guy that I've sort of taken to be a Libertarian all these years is advocating that things be done one particular way or it's a form of "insanity".  The decision of your group to all play the same tees regardless of age or infirmity or ability is fine, and I suspect the majority of ALL groups (including mine!) plays this way.  That doesn't mean that offering other players more options lacks merit, does it?

Thanks for noticing my libertarian bent.


In theory, I would agree with you about more options. The problem is, I don't think it works out in practice. I think multiple tees are a crutch for simplifying a complex issue. I don't think it's nearly as simple as "poor golfers hit it shorter, so let's just shorten up their shot requirements". And I think having many tees (and you're right, my exaggeration of infinite tees was a bit silly and over the top, I was trying to use absurdity to illustrate absurdity and I failed at that) misses the point of what lesser golfers struggle with.


If the issue is the length of forced carries of 80 yards, then why have the carry in the first place? I don't think shortening it to 40 yards is the answer. Is making a carry of 80 yards a rush to anyone? I suppose to the handful of people who carry the ball 100 yards, it would be thrilling, but that can't be that many people, and I'd think those handful would be more intimidated than excited.


I think in a sense we're all shooting for the same thing: courses that are playable by all levels of golfers (I'd set aside beginners as completely different from high handicappers, btw). I don't think multiple tees accomplish it as effectively as designing courses that are accommodating to misses. Lesser golfers obviously have more misses and bigger misses. I don't think just giving them shorter shot requirements really effectively addresses the issue.

[Brock Lynch]

 I don't think just giving them shorter shot requirements really effectively addresses the issue.

Yes, it does. Consider the 80-90 yd shot to a tucked pin. This is one of the moments we look forward to during the week thinking of our rounds to come on the weekend. I will choke down on my 56-degree wedge, keep my head down, and trust my swing hoping for a great result. That same moment is possible for the shorter hitter. It just can't be at 80-90 yards. Now it happens at 40-50 yds. Same club, same scenario, same expectation. Nothing about the course changed. No hazards were removed or lessened. The rough was not cut back to make the course more playable. The only difference is that the shorter hitter was given a tee option, if executed properly, that will produce a 2nd shot that the rest of us get to experience on the same hole. In this scenario, the hole is probably in the neighborhood of 340-350 yds. from the tee I play from. To get that shot for the shorter hitter, the hole will be about 200 yds. This seems to the best solution to addressing the issue. All options mentioned in other posts either make the course less interesting or keep people away from the course.


Cheers

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm sort of surprised that a guy that I've sort of taken to be a Libertarian all these years is advocating that things be done one particular way or it's a form of "insanity".  The decision of your group to all play the same tees regardless of age or infirmity or ability is fine, and I suspect the majority of ALL groups (including mine!) plays this way.  That doesn't mean that offering other players more options lacks merit, does it?

Thanks for noticing my libertarian bent.


In theory, I would agree with you about more options. The problem is, I don't think it works out in practice. I think multiple tees are a crutch for simplifying a complex issue. I don't think it's nearly as simple as "poor golfers hit it shorter, so let's just shorten up their shot requirements". And I think having many tees (and you're right, my exaggeration of infinite tees was a bit silly and over the top, I was trying to use absurdity to illustrate absurdity and I failed at that) misses the point of what lesser golfers struggle with.


If the issue is the length of forced carries of 80 yards, then why have the carry in the first place? I don't think shortening it to 40 yards is the answer. Is making a carry of 80 yards a rush to anyone? I suppose to the handful of people who carry the ball 100 yards, it would be thrilling, but that can't be that many people, and I'd think those handful would be more intimidated than excited.


I think in a sense we're all shooting for the same thing: courses that are playable by all levels of golfers (I'd set aside beginners as completely different from high handicappers, btw). I don't think multiple tees accomplish it as effectively as designing courses that are accommodating to misses. Lesser golfers obviously have more misses and bigger misses. I don't think just giving them shorter shot requirements really effectively addresses the issue.

George,

I'm back to the binary question of whether 5 choices are better than 3.  Other than the possible aesthetic objection to that, everything else on the thread is a different issue.


The question of how a GCA designs a course that is enjoyable and playable for all skill levels, ages, both genders, and so on, is perhaps THE most basic question that a GCA faces, I suppose.  But that has little or nothing to do with the question at hand, which is simply about options.  HOW to design a course for all has to be dealt with regardless of how many tees are in front of tips, or listed on the scorecard.

I can't think of a bad design that is saved by playing it from a shorter yardage, and I can't think of a great design that becomes less great by virtue of playing it back.  My ability to play the shots required is separate from the quality of the design, whether it's because I'm having a bad day, or because I'm playing the "wrong" tees.  Likewise, you can't save a bad design with 5 tees, and you can't ruin a good one, either.


On my home course, I find the fairway bunkering to be formulaic and WAY overly penal.  The location of the bunkers is brilliant, but there is a fairway bunker on 13 of the 14 par 4's and 5's, and all but one is essentially a full shot penalty.  It's BAD design, and that's true for low handicappers who are playing the tips, and it's true for anyone playing the front tees as well; it has zero to do with which tees you play, and it would be true if there were only three sets of tees instead of the 5 that are on the ground plus the hybrid set on the card.

If you don't like the look of 5 tees, that's fine.  But the only REAL issue here, at least IMO, is whether or not more choices are better than fewer choices.  I think they are.

[JC Urbina]

Brock,

How about one mowed tee for all levels of players?


Do you think that would work?

[JESII]

Brock,


In my opinion, you're approaching the idea of equality all wrong. The 45 yard shot you describe for your wife is never going to be the same as the 85 yard shot you hit exactly because you can hit it that far. She does not generate the club head speed to impart the spin necessary to control that shot as well as you can...her shot will be much more difficult.


That, to me, is the core of the primary debate here...should the golf course be the same for everybody?


I think once a reasonable short end is set you could go up from there pretty easily to get to a manageable long end. the tee boxes themselves can be 15 or 20 yards front to back to fill in a lot of the gaps but playing interesting holes from non-conventional yardages is a very useful exercise and should be promoted by the set up people at every course.




Seeing AG's post just in; I do think 5 tees is a significantly worse aesthetic outcome than 3. But I do not see this as a more options versus less options debate at all. At least I don't think it should be. It should be about how the game of golf should be played.


Back to the Ballyneal concept of infinite tees. People are inclined to go to "their" most comfortable/best spot. The game should present awkward challenges and ask you to so solve them. I think it's an architects responsibility to create those awkward situations and the more tees available, the less the architect has to do.

[George Pazin]

AG, I like your last post, but I think we're at an "agree to disagree" moment. Aesthetically, I don't like the extra tees, that's true, but unlike you, I think that multiple tees discourages the architect from thinking through how to make the course interesting to all. I'm firmly in Sully's camp on this one. I think having 5 or 6 tees does affect the idea of the game of golf. I don't view it as simply having more options, I view it as fundamentally altering the spirit of the game.


I still can't understand why someone such as Brock's wife would need the formality of an additional tee, were she to join him and his friend on a 6900 yard course. I can understand it if she were playing a match against another similar woman, but I can't understand why she wouldn't simply drop a ball or tee it up at an appropriate spot. I've done that myself, I've done that with my then girlfriend/now wife at Tobacco Road, I've done that recently with my son, who is just learning the game. Apparently that's not golf to some, but the architect dropping in a short tee is. I wonder what's closer to the original spirit of the game.......

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, I like your last post, but I think we're at an "agree to disagree" moment. Aesthetically, I don't like the extra tees, that's true, but unlike you, I think that multiple tees discourages the architect from thinking through how to make the course interesting to all. I'm firmly in Sully's camp on this one. I think having 5 or 6 tees does affect the idea of the game of golf. I don't view it as simply having more options, I view it as fundamentally altering the spirit of the game.


I still can't understand why someone such as Brock's wife would need the formality of an additional tee, were she to join him and his friend on a 6900 yard course. I can understand it if she were playing a match against another similar woman, but I can't understand why she wouldn't simply drop a ball or tee it up at an appropriate spot. I've done that myself, I've done that with my then girlfriend/now wife at Tobacco Road, I've done that recently with my son, who is just learning the game. Apparently that's not golf to some, but the architect dropping in a short tee is. I wonder what's closer to the original spirit of the game.......

We are indeed at an agree to disagree moment.  I can't see how the GCA's fundamental challenge changes in the least based on the number of tees; it just isn't relevant.  Giving the golfer CHOICES so that they can pick a set of tees suitable to their game has dead zero to do with the quality of the design.  Zero.

And I don't have ANY clue why three sets of tees is inherently better and more "in the spirit of the game" than four or five sets.  Three is a completely arbitrary number, with no basis in any context that I know of other than the fact that it's been "traditional" at some highly regarded courses.  That's all; there's nothing else.

As to Brock's wife, I don't think either you or I are in a position to say what's best for her.  There is a very high probability that I hit the ball significantly farther than she does, though, and I have less than no interest in playing golf from 6900 yards.  It doesn't matter what I score, either; it just isn't any fun to hit the same clubs over and over and over.  Tobacco Road is 6500 yards from the tips, fwiw, but I would suspect that you might get at least a little bored playing from the front, which is about 4950. 


But in either case, I'll say it again, except I'll shout it this time:  HOW MANY TEE MARKERS ARE IN BETWEEN THE LONGEST POSSIBLE YARDAGE AND THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE YARDAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY (or lack therof) OF THE DESIGN!  NOTHING!

And since neither you nor I have ANY idea what the "spirit of the game" means in terms of a number of tees, I'll file that on the list of red herrings in this thread.  Other than possible aesthetics, it's still a binary question:  More options or fewer?  You choose fewer, and I choose more, and THAT is the "agree to disagree" point.  And ONLY that.

[JESII]

AG - an interesting course will provide a wide variety of hole types that prove indistinguishable by the total yardage beyond basic blocks. A scratch won’t find interest more in repeated plays on a 4,800 yard course than an 80 year old woman would find from 6,800 yards.


There are great and crappy courses at virtually all yardage’s as well.


Point being that if players, good and not so good, had a more open mind about the course they were playing, the architect could work figure out how to build the course to accommodate for that broader range. This is a good thing for golf and golfers.


I’m not preaching width so much as options. Options for the player in the playing of the hole. When you’ve used the term options on this thread, it’s come across as comfort.

[George Pazin]

Love the caps. You know this isn't a court of law or a state debate tourney, where there's a winner and loser? We're just talking golf here, no?


To be clear, I'd have one set of tees on my course. And I wouldn't have forced carries over any sort of penalty hazard. My point re: Brock's wife isn't to make her play long tees, it's to free her up to play whatever she chooses.


3 versus 5? I'd argue those three are women's/seniors', men's and tourney. Anything else works against the spirit of the game, imho. NO CAPS NEEDED.


I've stated my belief repeatedly (REPEATEDLY! ) that I feel the additional tees you seek damage the game both in spirit and in practice. That's the point of disagreement, CAPS NOTWITHSTANDING.


Have a nice day.


GP