Sets of tees, how many are too many?

[Rob Marshall]

Played a course in Naples today. 7 sets of tees:
6582
6368
6044
5689
5352
5077
4484


There were usually 3 or 4 tee boxes not large on each hole. On some holes there were tee markers 3 yards from each other. It just looked cluttered. I personally thought it looked terrible.

[Ken Moum]

Played a course in Naples today. 7 sets of tees:
6582
6368
6044
5689
5352
5077
4484


There were usually 3 or 4 tee boxes not large on each hole. On some holes there were tee markers 3 yards from each other. It just looked cluttered. I personally thought it looked terrible.

Of course it did.



As a ludicrously short hitter who plays a lot of golf with his spouse, who is also a short hitter, I am a huge supporter of multiple tee options.  But when courses have several sets of markers within a 10- to 15-yard space it just looks stupid.


With some forethought a course like that should be trying for something like 4500, 5000, 5500, 6000 and 6500, Or even 4500 5200, 5900 and 6600.


In the situation you describe, someone simply isn't being logical.  Having just returned from 9 weeks in Scotland, I can tell you it's pretty common there for tee options to make zero sense.


Tain, for instance, has the 13th with three sets covering ~15 yards, then a red tee 180 yards down the fairway.  Conversely, on 17, which cries out for a good forward tee, has all four sets  of 187, 208, 211, and 215.


Now, I have no intention being too critical of Tain, I love the place, and give them all credit for making an effort.  And... some of their new tees are truly excellent, #8 and #16 in particular, where they eliminate at tough carry for weaker players.


Golspie, where I am a member, and where I LOVE to play, has a couple of similarly pointless forward tees. 


I think that unless you can separate tee sets by ~400 yards over 18 holes, adding more options is silly.


Where I play here in AZ, we have 4796, 5350, 6034 and 6653.  There's no place where the markers are bunched up.


There are also combo tees at 6400, 5600, 5100, and set that adds eight very short tees to get to 4410.

[Jim Hoak]

Use combo tees as an alternative to many tee boxes, if it really seems necessary to offer so many options.  Clutter is a real issue!

[Joe Hancock]

I started a thread awhile back that stated topography ought to have some say so in this discussion. Even though there was little further discussion, I still feel this is true. A flat golf course in Naples can support as many tees as the designer wants; a hilly course in another locale is a whole different animal.

[Chris Hughes]

I started a thread awhile back that stated topography ought to have some say so in this discussion. Even though there was little further discussion, I still feel this is true. A flat golf course in Naples can support as many tees as the designer wants; a hilly course in another locale is a whole different animal.

Ever played The Bridge located on the old Bridgehampton Race Circuit?


Wow!

[Sean_A]

Generally speaking, more than three tee sets is not necessary if courses are more targeted to a demographic, some of which overlap. It’s difficult to properly get a 2000 yard spread with a max of 7000 without creating an awkward walk or an out and out cart course. Designers will say everything is doable and desirable. It’s not.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

They put out TWO tee markers per hole at Sedge Valley for our preview round, and I loved it (although it seemed like they set it up a bit shorter because of that).


We really intend four options there - two main tees (which they’ll move around over 3-4 tee pads), plus an unmarked very short set at ~4000 yards, plus “the tips” (unmarked) for anyone who insists on playing it over 6000 yards 

[Adam Lawrence]

Other than visual clutter, the real problem with large numbers of tees is that they make walking less likely. It is well known that short transitions from greens to tees is essential for a good walking course. But you can't have short transitions for everyone if the tees for one hole are spread out over 200+ yards.

[Mark Stewart]

I'm based in the Southern United States where most of my rounds are played in carts.


I've observed that many golfers are comfortable playing a relative set of tees, ie the next to the back, the middle tees etc. I have friends that will play the next to the back tee at 6400 yards but not a back tee at 6200 yards.


I've also observed that many men will quit golf before playing the "ladies"/most forward tee. Psychologically, multiple tees are needed to "frame" things for a large part of the golfing public.

[Rob Marshall]

Interesting, Listening to Jeff's show last week he and Brian Mannzella talked about the benefit of playing really short tees once in a while. I'm going to give that a try when out playing late in the day or with older players. Has to help the wedge game for sure.

[Cliff Hamm]

3 or 4 tee markers on each hole does not seem absurd.  Forward, senior, men, low handicap. 7 options I assume is due to playing combo/hybrid tees.  Do not see the problem.

[Rob Marshall]

3 or 4 tee markers on each hole does not seem absurd.  Forward, senior, men, low handicap. 7 options I assume is due to playing combo/hybrid tees.  Do not see the problem.

Nope, 7 sets tee markers on each hole. Some only 3 or 4 yards apart. 3 or 4 average size to small tee boxes on each hole.

[Cliff Hamm]

Should have said 3 or 4 tee boxes, not markers, does not seem absurd…so, when u do combo tees you might end up with 7 markers but still only 3 or 4 actual tee boxes.  Is that accurate?


For example, might have a combo tee that mixes the men’s and seniors.  One half the time tee off from men’s other half from seniors. This is extremely common in SouthWest Florida.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Sean, in that I have always said we could bifurcate courses, not equipment, if only owners would realize that catering to the top <1% who want to play over 7K isn't necessary for most courses.  I don't know how it would happen.  Would state or local golf associations step in to help determine which "championship" courses would be downsized?  I believe many residential courses would be heroes by giving up back tees for gardens, dog parks, or tot lots.


However, there are those who still push the "We need 7K" narrative, despite some recent data that shows 91% of men prefer to play 6300 yards, or less.


In those cases, if form follows function, 6 or 7 tee markers (perhaps some combined as in the example of senior men not wanting to play from the red markers, but may play 5 yards back with their own white markers) makes some sense.  Looking at drive distance data, they pretty well congregate around 6 distances (7 if you count juniors that hit it 100 yards or so, max)


If the goal is (and what business owner wouldn't want this?) to make the greatest number of players happy, providing a course with optional lengths at their comfort level makes sense.  Obviously, tees in almost all senses are typically under thought out, particularly forward tees, but that is changing.  Some architects do better - Fazio would split forward tees wider outside the line of sight from the back tees and hide them with gentle grading.  Art Hills always put a small roll at the back of mid and forward tees to try to hide them as well.  Better and more design thought is generally needed.


However, in the scheme of things, basically, course owners and architects will ask longer tee players to put up with some bad views as the price of sharing the course with the lesser talented.  In golf, and maybe US society, the idea of sacrificing something not essential to you for the common good seems to be in decline.


Lastly, yes, it can cause more walking to tees, but does it increase walking overall?  And, as tees expanded, in new routings, I always tried to make the most used tees the shortest walk from the previous green.  And, shorter tees also cause 8-10 fewer "unnecessary" shots by average players, so it probably all averages out, time-wise.  I agree that it probably leads to more cart use, but that boat has sailed at most places anyway.


I am not the biggest fan of most combo tees, as they usually take the short tee on the longer holes and long tee on shorter holes, so every hole plays a similar yardage in most cases, and the advantage of reachable greens is offset somewhat by using similar clubs each time.


I also agree with Joe that obviously, topography supersedes pure math in tee design, much like fw bunker placement.  It is not necessary for EVERY tee on every hole to be a perfect percentage of the back tee length.

[Rob Marshall]

Should have said 3 or 4 tee boxes, not markers, does not seem absurd…so, when u do combo tees you might end up with 7 markers but still only 3 or 4 actual tee boxes.  Is that accurate?


For example, might have a combo tee that mixes the men’s and seniors.  One half the time tee off from men’s other half from seniors. This is extremely common in SouthWest Florida.

Cliff, to me combo tees are when you play the whites on the 1st hole the blues on the 2nd hole and so on. This is just 7 different tee markers. Back was C then 1 thru 6. I don't consider that combo tees but its all semantics I guess. I play a decent amount of golf in Southwest Florida and I've never seen 7 sets of tee markers but I may just not be on the same courses. I'm down close to Marco. The course I'm referring to is Royal Palm.

[Tom_Doak]

If the goal is (and what business owner wouldn't want this?) to make the greatest number of players happy, providing a course with optional lengths at their comfort level makes sense.

I had a good conversation with Michael Keiser about The Lido today, and it was nice to finally hear him come around to disagreeing with your opinion of the goal of every business owner.


He said that 30% of the Sand Valley guests who play Lido dislike it and say they would never play it again; 20% aren't sure how they feel but want to give it another shot; and the other 50% love it.  And Michael said that while that might not be the best business model for the first 18 holes at a resort, that a 50% success rate of people wanting to come back again was plenty to keep the golf course very busy for years to come.


I feel like if we'd put a bunch more tees out there and eliminated some cross bunkers in order to get everyone to like it, that a lot fewer players would love it, because it would just be like everything everyone else builds.  Conventional wisdom may produce very good results, but I believe it's often a hindrance to doing something great.

[jeffwarne]

If the goal is (and what business owner wouldn't want this?) to make the greatest number of players happy, providing a course with optional lengths at their comfort level makes sense.

I feel like if we'd put a bunch more tees out there and eliminated some cross bunkers in order to get everyone to like it, that a lot fewer players would love it, because it would just be like everything everyone else builds.  Conventional wisdom may produce very good results, but I believe it's often a hindrance to doing something great.

Gold.(I shouldn't even try to add to that...but)


There were revered courses in the previous Golden Age that had to be played in different ways by different players.
Only recently have we assumed that every course and every hole should be playable with a similar strategy and scale by every player via many stes of tees(rarely actually possible unless you're going to vary fairway size,hazard size and depth, rough height, even cup size for EACH player based on their clubhead speed, which greatly affects not only distance, but height, spin,accuracy and recovery ability.)
It amazes me to see more and more sets of tees going in on 120 year old courses that have forever been revered as they were.(In some cases I get it-some I don't)
We all want to play more golf, but when we're asked to it seems some revolt
Some courses are built to attempt to cater to every type of player, and some are not, hoping their appeal is so great to those who love it that that's enough.
Sounds like The Lido taps that market.


I recently played an event at a top 20 course where myself and my 70 year old(Highly skilled) partner had our tees moved up 10-25 yards on every hole. All that did was give us a downhill lie on every teeing area(in addition to demeaning the win .
It's OK with me for my far younger opponent to hit it miles by me.I therefore need to improve other skills,thinking and strategy, which will merely enhance the win just as I did when I came into the game as a short hitting 11 year old.


All of that said, I don't mind a wider spread between tees when landforms and terrain allow. Example a 250 tee, a 350 and a 450 tee, and players simply mix and match for variety and /or ability.
My beef is the clutter and maintenance of 330,340, 350,370,390,410, 420, 440 tees(each wanting their own trash can,etc. etc., or worse yet multiple blocks 5 yards apart on the small pad(but not pushed together). ughhhhh
Guess what, according to many, that's "too" short for the elites and "too" long for the low speed woman/jr. so what's the point?

[Mark_Fine]

How many tees does Sebonack have?  How many tees does Congaree have?  The answer is infinite!  They can put as many or as few markers out there as they want.  This leads to all kinds of options and so much more variety and interest for a wide range of golfers.  Frankly the primary reason to have formal tees is for handicap purposes but that is changing fast with new GPS technology as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If the goal is (and what business owner wouldn't want this?) to make the greatest number of players happy, providing a course with optional lengths at their comfort level makes sense.

I had a good conversation with Michael Keiser about The Lido today, and it was nice to finally hear him come around to disagreeing with your opinion of the goal of every business owner.


He said that 30% of the Sand Valley guests who play Lido dislike it and say they would never play it again; 20% aren't sure how they feel but want to give it another shot; and the other 50% love it.  And Michael said that while that might not be the best business model for the first 18 holes at a resort, that a 50% success rate of people wanting to come back again was plenty to keep the golf course very busy for years to come.


I feel like if we'd put a bunch more tees out there and eliminated some cross bunkers in order to get everyone to like it, that a lot fewer players would love it, because it would just be like everything everyone else builds.  Conventional wisdom may produce very good results, but I believe it's often a hindrance to doing something great.

Tom,


MK is not your typical golf course owner, and Lido/Sand Valley is not the same as a local course.  It makes perfect sense to have one course that plays shorter, is more unique, etc.  Again, most owners of local courses, and apparently from your comments, even Mike, tend to be afraid of ignoring any segment of golfers.


I agree with you and the old design saying that "the more specific a design idea is, the more likely it is to be popular."  The corollary is that things get lost in a design that tries to appeal to everyone equally.  And yet........

[Matt Schoolfield]

I've thought about this one over the last couple days and I really can't decide about how I feel on the subject. The tees exist as one of the only hard constraints the designer can put on the player. I figure we must break down what we mean then by "tees" because I think there is a conflation of sorts, and I typically bring it up in these threads, but I've never been satisfied with my own view. 

I see different "tees" can effect at least three different qualities of the course.

1. Length: the typical meaning we use when we talk about tees is the delta in tee shot length. I don't want to waste too much time here, as we all know this meaning. The one point that I think matters here more than anything is that, excluding one-shot holes, there will always be a challenge in effecting second (and third) shots due to the inability to scale a landing zone equally among players. That is, to effectively give players of different length a comparable second shot (driver then wedge, say), the landing zone must be a strip, and not a spot (because the length of the wedge should be shorter for the shorter player). I'm not saying that it's not doable, I'm just saying that it creates a limitation on how much a designer can have the hole play the same for players of different distances.

2. Required Skill: this is typically conflated with length (I will obviously never stop arguing against this). Tees that force players to make more challenging shots (even from the same length) will add enjoyment for some and effect pace of play, etc. A tee that tests movement in the air is effectively equivalent to a forced carry, where players who do not have that shot must lay up, even from the same distance.

3. Course Layout: this one is where we get into real theory. George Thomas' "course within a course" and simply having two layouts and pars for a course of different tees. This one stands out for me as I am a member at a course where we have nine holes and two vastly different tees to create a full eighteen. Beyond this, I would go as far to say that even a reversible golf course is effectively just same course with an extra set of tees. 

Thus, I'm not entirely sure how to judge "how many is too many" when I'm not entirely sure how to frame it. Is The Loop two different courses with three sets of tees, or is it one wildly interesting course with six sets of tees? Would aesthetics improve if we simply reduced the number of marked tees per day, but still offered different lengths every other day? What if we just had scorecards that were cleaner, and only had one or two sets of tees. The aesthetics of the tees will definitely bump up against the functionality. Still, I think my bigger concern would be whether the course has pointless sets of tees (say, too many length options). If each set of tees is functionally interesting (some length variance, skill variances, or different course layouts), then I'd say they make the course better.

[Tom_Doak]

I just feel like the premise that clients want every player to have the same experience is missing the point.


Mark Fine often asks about the "architect's intent".  My intent is to build some long holes that some players can reach in two shots under some conditions, and some players are better off playing as a three-shooter.  I don't intend for everyone to have the same experience; I am happy for the best solution to depend on the player and on the day.


With this as my intent, it does not take six sets of tees to achieve!

[Mark_Fine]

I’m not sure an architect can design/build a course, regardless of how many tees it has, that gives every golfer the same experience. However, golf and golf courses are unique. They are for example, unlike a baseball park where home plate is fixed and the outfield fences are permanent.  Most players will never experience the thrill of hitting a ball over the fence for a home run because they simply can’t do it.  In golf, by having the ability to start golfers at different points, we can give almost any player at least the chance of making a hole in one or a birdie or a par or even a bogie,….


As Tom said, architects have certain design intent on every hole.  By definition isn’t that what good design/design in general all about? I have always believed this and strive to try to understand and figure out what the architect was intending as best I can.  Design intent of course varies depending on the player, the weather, the course conditions, etc.  What is a carry bunker for some might be an aiming target for others who know they could never reach it. Others might know they have to circumvent their way around it.  Again this all can change depending on the player and the conditions of the day.


But I go back to a course like Sebonack which has no formal tees other than for scorecard/handicap purposes; this provides so much flexibility of experiences for a wide range of players and abilities and conditions.  Why shouldn’t more courses offer this kind of experience?  Frankly it is possible on any golf course.  You can’t on any baseball field! 


Maybe the solution will one day be to avoid building formal tees.  Let the head pro decide each day where they set the markers/how many or for that matter, let each group of players decide.  Nah that would be too radical 

[Niall C]

Maybe the solution will one day be to avoid building formal tees.  Let the head pro decide each day where they set the markers/how many or for that matter, let each group of players decide.  Nah that would be too radical 

...and why not go to Top Golf and you can have a burger and a beer at the same time ?


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
Many golfers are going to Top Golf.  It’s fun. 


Honestly who cares if there are more starting points for holes on golf courses.  I think most golf architect’s egos can handle it. 


What I do think is silly is when there are three sets of markers each say five yards apart.  Makes little sense.   

[Niall C]

Who said anything about ego ? The issue is multiple tee boxes and tee markers littering a course unnecessarily.


Niall