6,750 yards ? Back tees? What in earth are you talking about ? Can I respectfully suggest that you give your imagination a rest and simply go back and read what I've written and have a think about it. You still might not agree but at least you'd have a better comprehension of what I'm saying.
I don't need to go back and re-read what you've written. I know what you've said. But what the heck, let's do it.
So beginners and weaker golfers should play from shorter tees?
YES! Beginners and weaker players should, if they wish, play from the shorter tees.
Why not simply design the hole in such a way that it is interesting for both the tiger and the rabbit playing off the same tee.
Ostensibly, given the previous sentence, you think people should play the "tiger" tees, because you don't think they should be playing from shorter tees. Hence, the "back" tees (though 6750 is often not even the "back" tees).
That's what the golden age architects were really about, not frilly edged bunkers and the like.
You haven't supported that at all.
It does occur to me that if it wasn't for the preponderance of courses with golf carts we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Or that.
After all, who wants to walk 100 to 150 yards down a hole to get to their tee when they could be playing golf?
Walking is still walking. It matters not if you've hit a golf shot before walking or not. And in fact for those walking, they can often leave their push cart if the hole goes back the other way some ways and reduce the distance they have to push it.
You're surely having a laugh ? You can't get your head round players of different abilities being able to play from the same tee and still have fun and find the golf interesting ? Seriously ?
I can fully understand that Erik and AG aren't able to get it but you're a GCA ffs. What kind of holes have you been designing all your career ? 
Again, you've not supported your claims here at all, then you attack (lightly) a current GCA.
I wonder, what is more vain, continuing to play from the same tees as you get older and can't hit the ball as far, or moving to forward tees so you can still get your "regulation par" ?
The "shorter tee slander" continues. The handicap system can account for it, and it's not fun to keep having to hit multiple fairway woods, etc. in a row just to get near the green. Should someone who used to play from 6750
never move up?
My objection to this whole notion of move forward is two-fold. Firstly the idea that a player would walk a large proportion of the course without playing it is simply absurd. Particularly if it is so that they can play to "par".
So you've never moved up? And why is what's absurd to you be absurd to all?
I've played golf the past few days in Southern Pines/Pinehurst with a friend. He's 42, I'm 44. He's a worse player than I, and plays a tee or occasionally two tees forward. He did so at Sand Valley last year, too. Why? Because it's more enjoyable to him. He doesn't need to hit clubs as long into the greens. He still doesn't reach par fives in two. He sometimes still has a hybrid to a par four.
So what's so absurd about it? He played today at Mid-Pines from 6150 or so. What's so absurd?
Oh, and I played Southern Pines with… AG Crockett, too. He and my friend played the same tees. Should they have played the tees I played? Why? Several of the hazards would have been completely out of play for them. Their tee shot would land and roll out short of them, and their second shots would carry them without getting to the green, and then they'd have a pitch shot or something. What's so great about that?
The second issue I have is the notion that the scratch golfer and the hacker can't play off the same tee and both find it fun and challenging.
The hacker playing off the back tees (6750, perhaps?) finds it TOO challenging. It's boring to have to hit fairway woods into par fours. It's boring to have a fairway bunker never come into play because it's nowhere near their landing zone 50 yards back of the tees they typically play for how far they hit the ball.
That's not being said but that's what I think's implied. It's like the GCA can't be arsed to design a hole that works with the different standard of player playing from the same tee but instead sticks in numerous tee boxes. I wonder if it isn't just a crutch for shite architecture.
Please design a 575-yard par five that's interesting to a person who hits the ball 85 yards in the air on the tee shot and, the rare times they catch their 7-wood pretty well, goes 70 yards in the air. Oh, and you can't just add stuff all over the place to add "interest" because that is also going to add cost.
Sorry gents, I've been posted missing the last few days while I was away enjoying myself but I see that Garland and Sean picked up the cudgels in my absence.
If Garland is on your side, you're probably on the wrong side.
There might be 35,000 courses in the world but I don't think you'd get much work in the UK, can't speak about elsewhere. For sure not all the holes over here are brilliant but the vast majority can be enjoyed by players of different abilities playing off the same tee. The key to that is making them playable, and the key to making them playable IMO is to avoid forced carries.
Ah, so this is just a jingoistic dick measuring contest, eh, Niall?
I can't recall who it is on this site but someone has the tagline which quotes Donald Ross as saying something along the lines of "there's the golf hole play it as you like".
Does that not include playing from whatever distance will make the hole interesting to you?
I'm pretty sure what Ross meant was there is the tee and there is the hole, find your own way. I very much doubt he meant that the golfer wander down the fairway until they find a place where they fancy teeing it up.
BUt you have no idea.
I suggest you re-read what I said in that light and you will see it wasn't me who was attempting the shaming.
Weird how many people are "mis-reading" what you write. Maybe you're not very good at getting your point across? Or maybe, just maybe… you're not making any sense. And sensible people disagree.
Actually the really "old way" of designing holes was to not have some sort of designated landing area for drives but rather to design holes which allowed for drives landing in different places to allow for different standards of players. In fact they still have quite a lot of those courses over here.
How many women played back then? How about juniors, with "UK Kids Golf" clubs? Heck, Niall, what was the average life expectancy back then?
If everyone dies around the age of 50, and golf is a game played only by well-to-do men, you can narrow down your distances and design a course for a pretty small range of players. That doesn't make it "right," that only makes it unadapted. We can grow, change, and improve. Longleaf does those things.
Absolutely, a hole might be no fun at all for one standard of player compared to another when playing from the same tee. But what does that tell you about the architecture?
Most likely… it tells you almost nothing.
Okay, I have to get ready for dinner. I suggest nobody's really mis-read your posts. You're just nuts.