Is the point of moving tees up/back to keep the distanct to the hole location?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Sorry if this seems dumb, I just had a strange thought. Is the point of moving the tees forward/backward to maintain the same distance to the hole as the hole is moved forward/backward on the green? I've always thought it was odd that holes have singular distances on the scorecard, when they obviously vary with the teeing location, but it just dawned on me that a course might try do this exactly to keep the distance the same depending on where the hole is placed.

Does anyone adjust their tees this way, and/or, should people adjust their tees this way?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Measured distance is expected to be from a fixed point to a fixed point. So from a single point on the tee to the middle of the green. It’s generally understood that the playing distance on any given day will not aligned with the published measured distance.


This is why Augusta uses distances rounded to 5s or 0s as there is variation in the day to day distance.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Measured distance is expected to be from a fixed point to a fixed point. So from a single point on the tee to the middle of the green. It’s generally understood that the playing distance on any given day will not aligned with the published measured distance.


This is why Augusta uses distances rounded to 5s or 0s as there is variation in the day to day distance.

That's what I always assumed, it just hit me that I might be wrong. Thanks for responding.

[JohnVDB]

I don’t know if they still do it, but it seemed that Bandon Dunes would do this. When the hole was on the front, the tees were on the back and vice versa, keeping the distance very similar to the card.  It seemed silly to me.


I also get upset by courses that mindlessly go front-middle-back with the hole locations all the way around the course.  I remember playing Pacific Dunes and they would do this. It meant that all the par 5s had hole locations in the same relative positions (e.g., all front or all back).

[Tim_Weiman]

From what saw recently watching college kids play at Old Barnwell and Palmetto, I am not sure any of this matters, at least not for them. They never hit any shot without first using a range finder.


Tim

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside, avoiding searching for lost balls and speed of play should have a lot to do with this kind of thing. And on a local day-bye-day basis too. Alas these days other factors like measured courses, the WHS etc seem to have undue influence. Seems there’s reasons these days why tees can’t be moved up for unusual weather, win, ground conditions etc. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

I don’t know if they still do it, but it seemed that Bandon Dunes would do this. When the hole was on the front, the tees were on the back and vice versa, keeping the distance very similar to the card.  It seemed silly to me.

I also get upset by courses that mindlessly go front-middle-back with the hole locations all the way around the course.  I remember playing Pacific Dunes and they would do this. It meant that all the par 5s had hole locations in the same relative positions (e.g., all front or all back).

Management company at work, there.


The point of having a big tee is to spread out the wear and tear, but some courses do try to move the tee markers in conjunction with the hole locations.  Again, that's corporate management at its most pointless [or, occasionally, an anal retentive green chairman telling the superintendent what to do].

[Simon Barrington]

Sorry if this seems dumb, I just had a strange thought. Is the point of moving the tees forward/backward to maintain the same distance to the hole as the hole is moved forward/backward on the green? I've always thought it was odd that holes have singular distances on the scorecard, when they obviously vary with the teeing location, but it just dawned on me that a course might try do this exactly to keep the distance the same depending on where the hole is placed.

Does anyone adjust their tees this way, and/or, should people adjust their tees this way?

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

[Pete Lavallee]

My local muni Coronado religiously puts the tees forward when the pin is back and back when the pin is forward. We have suggested that they do the opposite so you would play different clubs instead of the same one every time. Needless to say it fell on deaf ears. With the PCC adjustment it really shouldn’t matter where the tees are placed in relation to the hole location but old habits die hard. I’d really prefer a little more variety in the setup.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

My understanding is that teeing areas that contain multiple tees are subdivided and the middle distance for that tee is used for scorecard and rating distance.
So if a runway tee is 40 yards long and contains blue and white tees then the back 20 yards are the blue teeing area and the front 20 yards are the white teeing area.  If the front of the tee was 350 yards from the centre of the green then the white tee scorecard distance would be 360 yards and the blue scorecard distance would be 380 yards.
In this way you could make your course longer by adding an additional teeing deck.  If you added green tees between the white and blue then you would lengthen your course from the blue tees and shorten it from the white tees, at least on the scorecard.

[Tom_Doak]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

[Craig Sweet]

We moved the tee markers to spread out wear and tear....Except for par 3's....We tried to vary the length from tee to pin so each par 3 played at a different distance.

[Simon Barrington]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

The ridiculously complicated WHS system (measured course every day of the season for general play cards which are largely played outside of the rules anyway) forces unnecessary complexity and rigidity upon green crews, who should be focused primarily on agronomy.


The natural evolution of tee design then becomes, wider (double, or triple width on par 3s) shorter tee boxes to spread wear via constrained rotation but still comply.


In the UK Distance Points are right at the back of the tees (the former system required 4 yards from the back minimum, 6 yards if there was a barrier behind) as there was a race for distance from the 1985 CONGU Handicapping System.
The longer the course the higher the (SSS) rating so all clubs chased yardage where it was available, meaningfully changing a great deal of holes and the rythmn and balance of courses, not for the better.


Few UK courses have any space left for further tee extensions which are still sought (but in reality not needed) to try and counter the distance of elite players (a very small proportion of players, by definition).
Hopefully #rollback and its successors on club technology will stall this activity, but let's believe that when we see it.


More matchplay please, less counting and statistically manipulating decimals!

[Simon Barrington]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

My understanding is that teeing areas that contain multiple tees are subdivided and the middle distance for that tee is used for scorecard and rating distance.
So if a runway tee is 40 yards long and contains blue and white tees then the back 20 yards are the blue teeing area and the front 20 yards are the white teeing area.  If the front of the tee was 350 yards from the centre of the green then the white tee scorecard distance would be 360 yards and the blue scorecard distance would be 380 yards.
In this way you could make your course longer by adding an additional teeing deck.  If you added green tees between the white and blue then you would lengthen your course from the blue tees and shorten it from the white tees, at least on the scorecard.

That is also true, but if one has a teeing ground that is larger than required the costs of maintaining unuseable teeing standard areas between sections for aethestic (regardless of your preference in design) reasons becomes prohibitive as Clubs (at all levels) are increasingly aware of costs.

[Thomas Dai]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.
The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

The ridiculously complicated WHS system (measured course every day of the season for general play cards which are largely played outside of the rules anyway) forces unnecessary complexity and rigidity upon green crews, who should be focused primarily on agronomy.
The natural evolution of tee design then becomes, wider (double, or triple width on par 3s) shorter tee boxes to spread wear via constrained rotation but still comply.
In the UK Distance Points are right at the back of the tees (the former system required 4 yards from the back minimum, 6 yards if there was a barrier behind) as there was a race for distance from the 1985 CONGU Handicapping System.
The longer the course the higher the (SSS) rating so all clubs chased yardage where it was available, meaningfully changing a great deal of holes and the rythmn and balance of courses, not for the better.
Few UK courses have any space left for further tee extensions which are still sought (but in reality not needed) to try and counter the distance of elite players (a very small proportion of players, by definition).
Hopefully #rollback and its successors on club technology will stall this activity, but let's believe that when we see it.
More matchplay please, less counting and statistically manipulating decimals!

Well said Simon.
The WHS and all the malarkey that goes with it hasn’t made the game better, in particular its implications for course maintenance on a 365 days per year basis.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.
The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

The ridiculously complicated WHS system (measured course every day of the season for general play cards which are largely played outside of the rules anyway) forces unnecessary complexity and rigidity upon green crews, who should be focused primarily on agronomy.
The natural evolution of tee design then becomes, wider (double, or triple width on par 3s) shorter tee boxes to spread wear via constrained rotation but still comply.
In the UK Distance Points are right at the back of the tees (the former system required 4 yards from the back minimum, 6 yards if there was a barrier behind) as there was a race for distance from the 1985 CONGU Handicapping System.
The longer the course the higher the (SSS) rating so all clubs chased yardage where it was available, meaningfully changing a great deal of holes and the rythmn and balance of courses, not for the better.
Few UK courses have any space left for further tee extensions which are still sought (but in reality not needed) to try and counter the distance of elite players (a very small proportion of players, by definition).
Hopefully #rollback and its successors on club technology will stall this activity, but let's believe that when we see it.
More matchplay please, less counting and statistically manipulating decimals!

Well said Simon.
The WHS and all the malarkey that goes with it hasn’t made the game better, in particular its implications for course maintenance on a 365 days per year basis.
Atb

WHS has succeeded in slowing the game down in the UK. Tons of people want to record their scores and hole out in friendly games. Maybe once Brits can pick up and accept it’s ok things might change. For now, WHS has been a disaster IMO. People (younger generations) talk more about their index than anything else .

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

It’s the result of Dean Knuth’s attempt to turn all of amateur golf into a controlled experiment.


Out of spite I use the previous hole location to dictate the next teeing area’s location, as was done when you teed off within two club-lengths of the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

It’s the result of Dean Knuth USGA’s attempt to turn all of amateur golf into a controlled experiment monopoly.


Out of spite I use the previous hole location to dictate the next teeing area’s location, as was done when you teed off within two club-lengths of the hole.

Fixed that first part for you, but the second part is pretty funny.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I heard many club golfers advocate for the same yardage every day.   Their basic reason was that they wouldn't have to think, they wanted to just mindlessly pull the same club every time, as if wind, angle and lie would allow that to happen without question.


I guess they zoned out when I spoke about strategy......

[Rob Marshall]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

In theory you would put six back, six middle, and six front so that the course plays the slope and rating (greens and tees). I guess it would all average out if one day the course played easier than the rating and another day played harder. I fail to see what that has to do with the "USGA monopoly on the handicap system"? Could you elaborate on that?

[Kyle Harris]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

In theory you would put six back, six middle, and six front so that the course plays the slope and rating (greens and tees). I guess it would all average out if one day the course played easier than the rating and another day played harder. I fail to see what that has to do with the "USGA monopoly on the handicap system"? Could you elaborate on that?

I don't see any local association events using your Grint Tour handicap.

[Sean_A]

Out of spite I use the previous hole location to dictate the next teeing area’s location, as was done when you teed off within two club-lengths of the hole.

Seems a reasonable first choice option.


Ciao

[Enno Gerdes]

Apparently the WHS insists upon total yardage across the measured course to be limited to within 100 yards of the measured distance.
This is causing some clubs not to utilise the full extent of their teeing grounds in rotations to comply, and concentrating wear & tear.

The card & pencil mentality imposing too far and may lead to tees being built on the future as only 14 yards long, so goodbye to RTJ's "Runway" tees over time.

This is true, but lots of clubs violate the rule with impunity.  Resort courses in particular almost never have the tees as far back as the scorecard says and the course rating posits.  It's all baloney, but it's all so that the USGA has a monopoly on the handicap system.

In theory you would put six back, six middle, and six front so that the course plays the slope and rating (greens and tees). I guess it would all average out if one day the course played easier than the rating and another day played harder. I fail to see what that has to do with the "USGA monopoly on the handicap system"? Could you elaborate on that?

I was also under the impression that the usual practice is to have 6 tees each back, middle and front, and 6 flags each back, middle and front. This allows for a good variety of lengths per hole, while keeping the overall length of the course about the same and reducing wear and tear on greens and tees. Seems reasonable enough to me. 

[Simon Barrington]

I was also under the impression that the usual practice is to have 6 tees each back, middle and front, and 6 flags each back, middle and front. This allows for a good variety of lengths per hole, while keeping the overall length of the course about the same and reducing wear and tear on greens and tees. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Sounds simple and reasonable, yes.

But it also exposes the complexity of course set-up (even if ignoring the crazy WHS's prescriptive nature).

Course managers also need to add in the other dimension in regard to pin-positions too (6 Right, 6 Left, 6 Centre) as well as account for disease spots, wear and tear from foot traffic, and dampness. There need to be high point options for inclement weather too. Nevermind golfers not repairing pitchmarks on greens & divots on tees!
 
All this on a 365 Days of golf demand basis....the average member/visitor grossly underestimates the challenge daily set-up is and are far too prone to complain (and the lax WHS gives them a hugely over-inflated view of their golfing ability, which really doesn't help).


Tournament set-up is another thing altogether, and has even more layers of complexity.


For architects, it just emphasises the need to provide maximum variety and options, and most modern good GCAs understand that really well.