No tees allowed?

[Bill Shamleffer]

I think that the two quickest fixes to preserving some of the integrity of the architecture of classic golf courses for professional tournaments would be -
1. Limit set to 9 clubs;
&
2. Not allow the ball to be teed.  Thus the player can only place the ball in the teeing area and can not alter the ground.


I do know players will sometimes hit driver from the deck, but I believe that is a risky shot that may not be worth the risk on most tee shots.  This will require either a slightly slower (more controlled) swing speed and/or slightly smaller club head for tee shots.


From my experience many golfers who do not report scores for USGA handicap purposes, or who play in leagues, already do not abide by the full rules of golf (i.e. stroke & distance for lost ball and for OB; preferred lies; loose relief process).  They function fine with their agreed upon adjustments to the Rules.  These golfers might potentially continue to use tees and their current 14 club sets.  Although over time, some may evolve into including these rules changes.


I could see more series golfers having little issue with the reduced set.  Although, I expect the “no tee” rule could be difficult for the amateur golfers.


The other issue with a “no tee” rule, is that this may run contrary to the spirit of the most recent Rules of Golf changes.  The USGA and R&A were trying to make the rules easier, improve pace of play, and make the Rules less intimidating to the average golfer.


Making the tee shot Harder, appears to run contrary to the spirit of these Rules changes.


Could the “No tee” rule be accepted as a Local Rule similar to the “One Ball” rule that is currently limited to pro and championship golf?


Also, what would be the impact for wear & tear on tee boxes if all use of tees ceased?


Finally, although less then ideal, is this a more plausible fix as opposed to a ball “rollback” or reducing the size of the driver head?

[James Reader]

Would limiting the height of the tee - to, say an inch or inch and a half - be a less controversial alternative?  Wouldn’t it have a similar, if reduced, impact on the use of modern drivers and avoid the issue of additional wear on tee boxes?

[jeffwarne]

Tees would get destroyed for one, and players would certainly "create" a tee, doing further damage to the tee.
Whether we have a distance "problem" or not is a topic for many other threads,(i happen to think we do but that's not really relevant)


But if one thinks there IS a distance "problem", the solution to the distance "problem" is to further regulate(deinovate) and reduce DISTANCE via the ball ,the caving low spin faces, or the length and/or weight of the shaft.


Why create another problem rather solve the one created by innovation variables above?

[Niall C]

Well I suppose along with having a Greens Convener and a Match and Handicap Secretary, a club could have a Tee Measurer  . I'm not sure though that the greenkeeper will be too happy with players hitting using a lower tee. I suspect very quickly the tee will need to be re-turfed.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Tee-pegs used to be shorter years ago, ie before jumbo and frying-pan Drivers came into being.
Putting a tee-peg length limit, say max 1 inch, into the conditions of competition would be okay and over time tee-peg manufacturers would move into line so bringing such a stipulation into being, along with various other ball and equipment rollback related factors, wouldn’t be the worst move the authorities could make.
Crazy golf world however when tee-peg manufacturers have an impact on the distance a golf ball can be hit and the rules of golf ... tail wagging the dog.
Crazy golf world generally though when any sort of manufacturer is dictating the rules of the game.
Says an awful lot about the incompetency and weakness of those individuals, committees and organisations running the game, or rather not running the game but participating through inaction in its demise as a test of a players skill and brain.
Arb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Crazy golf world however when tee-peg manufacturers have an impact on the distance a golf ball can be hit and the rules of golf ... tail wagging the dog.

The USGA had a limit on tee height (4 inches) before the mid-90s. Not a ton of big-headed drivers back then.

[Jeff Schley]

https://golf.com/gear/nick-faldo-ban-tees-reduce-driver-distance/
Faldo recommended no tees a couple months back.

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't get this party train. You lads are doing worse by trying to put handcuffs on a generation. Every generation has played with the technology that it was offered. It's like a thread out of Wodehouse, but not a complimentary one.


We don't have access to the courses that the pros play, so why should we care what those clubs and TPCs do to enlarge themselves? I wouldn't liken this to altering art-a painting or a sculpture are not living, in the way that a golf course is, nor are they meant to be accessible like a golf course.


If you do have access to aforementioned courses, play the set of tees that suits you. If you're a member, and they've added a bunker or twelve, precisely where you drive, play up a deck or (if you know the super well) ask them to cut you a Keiser tee, a special, hidden one, for you to play.


I've got more, but I'll let this bit simmer.

[Tom_Doak]

https://golf.com/gear/nick-faldo-ban-tees-reduce-driver-distance/
Faldo recommended no tees a couple months back.

He's hardly the first.  I heard it brought up more than ten years ago, during the architects' meeting in St Andrews.


The problem is not a shortage of ideas, it's the lack of will on the part of the governing bodies to act on any of tge ideas.


The latest example is Gary McCord's new interview on golf.com


Perhaps in such interviews the publisher should disclaim that


(A) the interviewee is paid by the manufacturers to pooh-pooh any talk of rollback, and


(B) so is the interviewer, via advertising dollars

[Niall C]

Ronald


I've a better idea. Rather than have umpteen tees to suit every ability, why not design the course so that it is playable and interesting for every level of player playing off the same tee. That's largely what they did back in the good old days. That way you do get to play the same course as the pro's but obviously nowhere near as well.


Niall

[Sam Andrews]

I don't get this party train. You lads are doing worse by trying to put handcuffs on a generation. Every generation has played with the technology that it was offered. It's like a thread out of Wodehouse, but not a complimentary one.


We don't have access to the courses that the pros play, so why should we care what those clubs and TPCs do to enlarge themselves? I wouldn't liken this to altering art-a painting or a sculpture are not living, in the way that a golf course is, nor are they meant to be accessible like a golf course.


If you do have access to aforementioned courses, play the set of tees that suits you. If you're a member, and they've added a bunker or twelve, precisely where you drive, play up a deck or (if you know the super well) ask them to cut you a Keiser tee, a special, hidden one, for you to play.


I've got more, but I'll let this bit simmer.

OK come on Ronny baby, this is what you said when I suggested this as an idea (I'm still smarting!)


What is the point of making the game harder for everyone? This is akin to "Make America Great Again," as though someone has an enormous blanket that will fix problems that may or may not exist.[/size]If you wish to challenge yourself, get rid of your tees. They mate in your bag, you know, which is why you always have more the next time you play. Gestation period is twelve hours for a baby tee to be born.When club pros like Jeff Warne talk about how people would leave the game, when people involved in maintenance don't even bother to post, you know it's a bad idea to inflict on the game in general.Drop and hit as often as you want. You'll instantly turn into a local legend, that dude who hits driver off the deck EVERYWHERE. That would be a great rep to have, you'd doubtless improve through the bag.[/color]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Perhaps in such interviews the publisher should disclaim that

(A) the interviewee is paid by the manufacturers to pooh-pooh any talk of rollback, and

(B) so is the interviewer, via advertising dollars

Absolutely! We all know biases exist only on that "bad" side of the discussion.

 

[Ronald Montesano]

Niall: I'm listening...for Mr. Doak, Mr. Coore, Mr. Brauer, Mr. Clayton, Mr. every other architect on this DB to tell me how to do what you propose.


Sam: I'm flattered. I've never been quoted before. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll requote one word: you. Not everyone, not the professionals, you.


Let's look at American Football. Thanks to training methods, players are stronger and quicker. Let's go back to 1940s-era helmets and watch what happens. Let's look at American Basketball. Players are stronger and quicker. Let's go back to those sh!t Chuck Taylor sneakers from the 1950s and watch what happens. The one parallel that no one has drawn is American Baseball at the college and professional levels, and the metal vs. wood bat.


Remember Karsten Solheim? There are 50 of him now.

[Jeff Schley]

The one parallel that no one has drawn is American Baseball at the college and professional levels, and the metal vs. wood bat.

The metal bat was an innovation to save cost for youth-college leagues as breaking wood bats was expensive. Metal bats originally weren't great, but they became lethal in the 80's-90's getting up to 2 3/4 inch barrels and -5 oz length/weight differential. Anyone remember the Easton Black Magic?  I believe now they are limited to -3 with a max 2 5/8 barrel.
The equalizer in the late 60's for baseball which was very pronounced in regards to the pitcher vs. batter was lowering the mound after Bob Gibson's historic 1968 season which saw TERRIBLE offense across the entire league.  So they lowered the mound from 15 to 10 inches, and shrunk the strike zone (in the rulebook) from shoulders to knees which is crazy, down to armpits to top of knees. It worked too as game scoring went up over a run a game maybe run and a half, can't remember but it was very significant.
So it isn't unique in sports to change rules and dimensions.  Three point line moving back, the lane used to be smaller and they widened it. Dunking was even outlawed in college for several years.

The issue with golf, and our concern here, is that classic courses are needing multi-million dollar changes and it isn't for the members.  If you want to host an event you got to stretch your courses legs and make it longer. That all takes money now, but also adds to the maintenance costs as well. Not sustainable and why rolling back the equipment for pros is needed IMO.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The issue with golf, and our concern here, is that classic courses are needing multi-million dollar changes and it isn't for the members.  If you want to host an event you got to stretch your courses legs and make it longer. That all takes money now, but also adds to the maintenance costs as well. Not sustainable and why rolling back the equipment for pros is needed IMO.

So people freely choosing of their own volition to cater to 0.001% of golfers and spend money on golf course architects is a bad thing?

The Tour is ripping up Harbour Town right now. It’s soft, which helps. But it’s still entertaining.

[Thomas Dai]

The elite pro game is somewhat different in that such players generally know where their shots are going and very wide misses are comparatively rare although sometimes blips on their radar do occur.
However, there are plenty of big, strong amateurs and lessor pros who also hit the ball miles .... but their envelope of shot is much, much wider. These are literally, the dangerous ones. And there are more and more of them appearing every day.
Plus there is the bigger picture position best summed-up in Mike Cirba’s famous quote -
“ A game dependent on so much of the earth’s acreage on a shrinking planet with finite resources is inevitably going to be on the wrong side of history and a game where the balls and implements aren’t effectively controlled within certain parameters befitting the challenge is similarly going to become antiquated, much as that may seem counter-intuitive.”
atb

[jeffwarne]

Ronald


I've a better idea. Rather than have umpteen tees to suit every ability, why not design the course so that it is playable and interesting for every level of player playing off the same tee. That's largely what they did back in the good old days. That way you do get to play the same course as the pro's but obviously nowhere near as well.


Niall

This

[Pete_Pittock]

Instead of a ban on tees, consider limiting club loft to between 9 and 55 degrees (except for the putter).


What will be the new word, since teeing ground would no longer be descriptive?

[Sean_A]

Instead of a ban on tees, consider limiting club loft to between 9 and 55 degrees (except for the putter).

I would go much deeper for elite golfers. 8 clubs between 15 and 50 for elite golfers. Maybe even no tee as well...what the hell... I am not elite 😎

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Golfers have more money than brains.

[Jeff Schley]

The issue with golf, and our concern here, is that classic courses are needing multi-million dollar changes and it isn't for the members.  If you want to host an event you got to stretch your courses legs and make it longer. That all takes money now, but also adds to the maintenance costs as well. Not sustainable and why rolling back the equipment for pros is needed IMO.

So people freely choosing of their own volition to cater to 0.001% of golfers and spend money on golf course architects is a bad thing?

The Tour is ripping up Harbour Town right now. It’s soft, which helps. But it’s still entertaining.

It is the chicken or the egg theory.  Would so many courses feel the pressure to make changes if distances weren't so great nowadays in the hopes of hosting an event, let alone a major?  If distance was rolled back, there wouldn't be the need to make so many changes to layouts that exist. The work by GCA's would largely just be restoration work, not "open doctor" work.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It is the chicken or the egg theory.  Would so many courses feel the pressure to make changes if distances weren't so great nowadays in the hopes of hosting an event, let alone a major?  If distance was rolled back, there wouldn't be the need to make so many changes to layouts that exist. The work by GCA's would largely just be restoration work, not "open doctor" work.

"So many" has never really been documented. I think the number of clubs spending a good amount of money to "lengthen" is smaller than many/most imagine, and those doing so in the hopes of attracting a PGA Tour event or a major are much smaller still.

And again, why do you and others care so much about the PGA Tour? Most golf played around the country isn't by PGA Tour players. 6500 yards is still more than enough for 95% of golfers. And for the 5%, they have many courses at > 6500 yards to enjoy.

The back tees at the course I play most often are 6804. Almost nobody plays them. A few play one tee up. Most play two tees up at 6052.

But everyone's just going to repeat themselves (I'm including myself) here, so I'm going to try to limit my posts to those I've already made. I see no reason to change. If there was one aspect that would carry weight with me, it would be the environmental aspect for all golf courses. What the PGA Tour does or wants or what private people do with their money carries virtually no weight with me, and unless you've been priced out of a club that chased a PGA Tour event or something, I don't know why it carries weight with most everyone else, either.

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps in such interviews the publisher should disclaim that

(A) the interviewee is paid by the manufacturers to pooh-pooh any talk of rollback, and

(B) so is the interviewer, via advertising dollars

Absolutely! We all know biases exist only on that "bad" side of the discussion.

 

Erik:


Yeah, but that don't put my side of the argument on TV or in the magazines for public consumption.  Only two guys discussing the other side.  If they have an architect on, it's one who sees both sides, as he makes $$$ Open doctoring.


For that matter, they don't put your side of the argument on display, either.  Mostly, I've done as you suggest and just ignored the pro tour throughout my career, except for a couple of clients who insisted.  But golf.com is more interested in what Tiger Woods ate for breakfast than in golf architecture, so they ate definitely not telling readers to ignore the Tour pros.


McCord said he loves to see guys bomb it over all the fairway bunkers at 320 yards and make them obsolete.  I guess he doesn't understand what they were built for in the first place?

[Ulrich Mayring]

If you ban tees the driver goes out of the bag (bad for manufacturers) and soon the Pros are hitting 3 wood off the deck 300 yards. Face it, the only way a pro will hit his tee shot as far as I do is when you force him to take 7 iron.

There's only one way we can ever play the same course without compromising routing quality and that is if his clubs fly the ball as far as mine. The only solution seems to me to give the Pro a very bad ball.

[David_Tepper]

And, as fate would have it, Dallas Golf is having a sale on TeeLess drivers!

 Looking for a way to make the game of golf easier? The TeeLess driver is here to help! It offers more consistency and distance off the tee for golfers who are not scratch handicaps. The TeeLess driver is so friendly to hit off the ground, you really don't even need a tee.

https://www.dallasgolf.com/drivers/?_bc_fsnf=1&brand=167&utm_source=Dallas+Golf+Deals+%26+More&utm_campaign=4d0c5a82e8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_02_27_04_27_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_63557da25b-4d0c5a82e8-186198481&mc_cid=4d0c5a82e8&mc_eid=a88a8dc136