[Michael Whitaker]

In the thread "Playing From The Tips" I asked the following question:

Is the reason for different sets of tees:

1) to make the course increasingly more difficult, or

2) to try and give varying skill levels the opportunity for relatively the same experience.

Tom Doak promised to weigh-in after we got some responses. So far, as he predicted, there has been no response.

Let's try again...

[Forrest Richardson]

Variation. Accommodation. Maintenance (to let surface areas rest.)

Also: Because they fit the land. Create a scorecard range. Allow different management set-ups (on weekends a hole may be shortened or lengthened to accommodate pace issues.) Because superintendents add them. Form safety reasons (an adjacent school, e.g., may prompt a "weekday tee".) To mkake courses longer.

[Jim Thompson]

Michael,

Regrettably, I understand one could come to the use of multiple tees to fall into one or both of the reasons you listed.  I contend that the true function of multiple tees or perhaps the best use of multiple tees has been lost in the technological advances of the last 25 years.  In my mind, architects have, in a way, missed the boat (although I don’t think many people even know this boat is available).  All to many tee complexes have been placed in relation to the hole to “get varying levels of golfers to the target area or pivot point”.  This is a result of limiting design of a hole from one or two tee positions.

As an aside, I will say that to design a hole that plays well from more than two of its tee locations is a great accomplishment.  This subject may be the hardest facet of individual hole design.

 How many times in early September have you seen a hole where the landing area is shredded?  This symptom, more than any other, reveals the poorly placed tee pedestals.  In my opinion multiple tee placements should facilitate to their best ability a level of “club equity”.  By this I mean that ideally a given hole should, for instance, play driver – mid iron from its respective tee locations.  To accomplish this the middle tee player needs a linear or distance advantage such that he could out distance the tip player so that his 130 yard seven iron could be played after the tip player hits his 170 yard seven iron.  That is to say that the mid tee player needs more help to in essence out drive the tip player. It requires the area past the traditional primary landing area to be more generous and forgiving – the Lana Turner fairway if you will generous at the bottom for the dub or conservative play, narrowing at the tip players landing zone and opening back up on top for the mid players full / aggressive shot.

This approach allows players of varying levels to enjoy equitable games in the same foursome.  By the way, if a mid tee player moves back due to pride, he’s a sucker and should lose his shirt if a wager is on the line.

This is all a nice theory and having spent the last year and a half dealing with tee locations and construction I can honestly say that making this work in the context of the design of the “rest of the hole” may be one golf’s greatest design challenges.

Just another opinion...

Cheers!

JT

[Michael Whitaker]

Forrest - There are some "technical" items in your response I had not considered as they relate to tees. This is obviously a multifaceted topic and you've made me realize that I did not phrase my question correctly. Let me try again...


Question: Should an architect be truly concerned with trying to provide each primary skill level of golfer the relatively same experience? By primary skill levels I mean the "usual" way courses are divided in the US by offering separate tee boxes. Is there a real goal of trying to have the players playing from the "tips" and those playing from the "white tees," for example, experience the same course... or, is it a course within a course? Can the "real" course only be experienced from the back tees? Are all the other tees just an accommodation to human frailty?

I'm not asking from a technical "slope & rating" point of view... I'm really thinking along the lines of "experience."

[Forrest Richardson]

I design courses from where most people will play the course. This is often the next-to-the-back set of tees. Interestingly, Mr. Nicklaus has also changed his thinking and now does this — his office used to design from the back exclusively.

A "course within a course" is the reality much of the time when you look at various tee sets. This is because you cannot predict the play by a wide range of player types. Also, there are hundreds of other variables. A wet course will punish one type of player moreso than another, wind will punish one type of player above another, etc.

A goal is certainly to offer a set-up which allow and permits as much mix-and-match as is desired. While we may think that allowing competitive play between players is a reality, it often will not be the case. None-the-less, multiple tees do help in this regard. Mostly, I feel, it facilitates variety which is an essential part of the game. No hole ever plays the same as a result of many factors...tees have no right to be "the same" either.

One thing to keep in mind: When a golf course is built it disturbs everything and it looks a mess. I tend to favor more tees than fewer as I know that no one will be quick to go back and tear up the course a few years after. If a tee is mostly unused, well, so-be-it. It can always be abandoned. But to build a new one where none exists? That takes $$$ and time and affects play and revenue and the otherwise peaceful tranquility of the course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Generally, to let one know if they are men, women, seniors, or dreamers.  

I sense it would be a real architectural creative exercise to try to design a course with a single tee area per hole.  

I also sense that multiple tees are very often built to cover design flaws, routing problems, or inherent site limitations.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think often it is just to appeal to as many golfers as possible.  For example, a private club that is trying to sell memberships and only has two sets of tees may intimidate the high handicapper.  By having 4 or 5 sets of tees, they can accomodate golfers of all skill levels.  

Courses that really don't care about this such as Pine Valley just set up one set of tees and you can play from there or not at all.  

Standing on the back tees and looking out and seeing 3 or 4 additional tee boxes really takes away from the look of the course, in my opinion.  A modern course which has done a good job with the tee situation is Chechesse Creek, very simple tee boxes.

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, Mike, at par-3 holes of moderate to short length a single tee area works well. Many architects create multiple tees at such holes, although they work as one — all from "about" the same yardage.

But...to do so on other holes is not usually practical. A golfer* who strikes the ball 165 yards off the tee is playing a par-5 -6, -7, or -8 depending on how far away the green is set.

I do not feel multiple tees are use to cover "design flaws", whatever you deem these to be. Nor are they akin to fixing a routing problem. Perhaps, yes, they might overcome a site restriction.

(*The average player of lesser skill; a 30+ handicapper)

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

Well, we didn't get too many responses, did we?  Maybe I can generate a few more after my input.

I think multiple tees are the architect's attempt to try to be all things to all people.  It doesn't work any better in golf design than it does in politics.  The result is a watered-down design which doesn't stand for anything.

If you think about it, the majority of the great courses in the world were designed originally with a single tee in mind:  all the British links and a lot of the Golden Age courses.  Some of them may have provided two sets of markers, but the ladies' tees were mostly afterthoughts.

Mike Cirba hit the nail on the head -- it would be a much more creative exercise to design a course with one tee and make it interesting for all levels of players.  Such a concept would inspire multiple routes of play.  Jim Urbina calls this his "bunker for every player" theory.  He came up with it the night after I took him to play The Old Course.

Modern architects try to do it the other way around:  they come up with a simple concept for a hole, and then try to use the tees to make that concept work for all ranges of player.  How many times have you seen this really work well?  The main thing it does is segregate the players into castes, with "blue tee" players automatically superior to "white tee" players.  This is the subliminal reason good players can't stand to move up a tee; many of them can see the merits of a short course as long as there's not another set of tees behind them.

The only good purpose of multiple tees in the modern era is the notion that they will keep the cost of golf course construction down, because you can start the fairway at the forward tees instead of dragging it all the way back.  But the effect has been the opposite.  The courses haven't gotten too much shorter from the front tees, so there's still just as much fairway and just as much cost.  BUT the back tees are way further back, necessitating more real estate, longer cart paths, and other cost increases.  Multiple tees have enabled long hitters to ruin the game:  they've made it about power instead of finesse.

I could go on, but I'll wait for a response.  Thanks for asking!

[DMoriarty]

Geez Tom, we should flatter you more often, you are on a roll.
_______________

Multiple tees are an achitect's crutch.  They are built to fool the lesser player into thinking he is playing the same course as the better player; while simultaneously bolstering the longer hitter's ego, reinforcing that he is superior to the rest.  
____________________

Forrest,

We've had this discussion before, but I still see a couple of problems with your "multiple tees create variety argument"

First, courses rarely use tees to create variety as you suggest.  

Second, it seems it would be more interesting and challenging if the variety came in the hole instead of from the tee.  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom Doak beat me to the punch.  I think that the attempt to "equal the experience is fruitless."
Why don't we have lower baskets for the shorter players in basketball.  Certainly the fact that taller people have an edge is a flaw in the game, one that rulemakers are always working to adjust.....3 seconds in the lane, 3 pt shots, etc.
Yet is more satisfying in the game than watching some 5 foot 11 inch player drive and score on the big guy?

At Riviera the 4th hole is 234 yards.  Thomas had an area on the right which one could run the ball on for the shorter players.  Today with kikuyu, it is unlikely.  So the seniors just lay-up, 7 iron, wedge, hopefully one putt.  Think of their satisfaction if they make 3 and the long bomber puts it on and two putts.  Think how satisfying it is for the dub to put it on in 3 on a par 4, one putt and tie a strong player who puts it on in two and two putts, maybe with a stroke, wins the hole.  Maybe, just maybe someone will build a cross bunker, the strong player is happy because he can carry it, the dub lays it short but still manages to make his par.  Wow satisfaction is different, but is still satisfying to both players.  This is why the 16th at Cypress is so great, two ways of making par.  
Our efforts to make so many things equal in life can end up reducing quality but making it convenient.  We go for convenience because it is the "feel good way to go."
The best designers can design a course that is interesting for all levels of play from the same tee.  Disappointedly an era that apparently is lost.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

I gather that you don't hit the ball very long.

Please, you and Jim design such a "bunker for every player" course so that I can see how it is done.  Based on my one time around TOC, it is not one.  Playing at 6200-6500 yards, guys like Brad Swanson or Matt Ward would eat it up.  Without a bunch of "unfair" hazards, I just don't think that it is possible.

I can think of several reasons why a one-size-fits-all concept doesn't work in golf today, and why multiple tees are a better solution.  At the top of the list are variety, economy, and turf conditions.  At least, I was told in Scotland that the reason that they normally play the up tees is to give the championship tees some time to rest.  Why so much emphasis on conformity?  Why such pessimism on the status of the game in this country?

[Forrest Richardson]

I don't often disagree with Tom D., but I do with many of his points.

Mutliple tees can be an interesting aspect to a course when they are appropriately positioned and finished. I do agree that the obligatory 4-5 tees strung out in a row is too often used without regard for strategy or thought — but this should not mean we bypass the concept when it can add variety, or when other factors may call for such a design approach.

It is often the case that numerous tees is an approach to "be all things to all people"...a trap of sorts. Again, this misuse should not kill the variation or benefit that separate tees can add to the right hole and the right type of golf course.

To the comment that "courses rarely use tees to create variety as you suggest"...may I remind us that many great design features have been mismanaged by poor or uneducated management. My recommendation is not to toss aside ideas because management might abuse or ignore them — the physical world endures longer than the management world.

I believe many here are simply awe struck by the classic nature of single tees. "Because it was done this way at such-and-such, well, it must be THE way to do it..."

I do believe in the ideal that a great design can be reached by providing a single tee — but only in the right condition on the right golf hole. This "right" condition needs to involve more than a site and design approach. It must extend to the type of play, intensity of play, variation of play, etc. My opinion is that this condition is in the minority.

[Lou_Duran]

Lynn,

It is precisely the idea that we shouldn't try to make things the same and "fair" for everyone that argues for multiple tees.  We are all blessed with different abilities.  You would not enjoy a game of one-on-one with me on a standard court because of the obvious differences in our abilities.  You would score at will and I would never get a shot-off.

Handicaps and multiple tees allow golfers of wideley varying abilities to compete with each other, and, in most cases, enjoy the experience.  If you do not like the back markers, why do you think that guys like Ward, Swanson, or Schmidt should like the front ones?  It seems that those who advocate single or limited tees are really demanding shorter courses with multiple hazards in areas that they can't reach.  So if Ward hits his pedestrian 300 yard drivet he has to play sideways to the fairway from out of a footprint in the bunker, and Moriarty can bunt a driver 230 and hit his wedge or 9 iron to the green.

A sure way to kill the game is to take the driver out of the better golfer's hand.  So, since no system is perfect, what's wrong with playing the course however it suits our game?  Why must we do it one way?  Why can't we all just get along?  

David Moriarty,

You say to Forrest,

"First, courses rarely use tees to create variety as you suggest."  Please refer to Tom Doak's suggestion to me on the back tees thread.  At OSU-Scarlet, during the NCAA tournaments, they will often move the tees up on the difficult par-5 12 to tempt going for the green on two, and move it back on 14 to make the drive more difficult.  Courses with multiple tees with knowledgeable, attentive superintendents will move the tees and pin positions in concert with the weather, turf conditions, and nature of the golf being played.

BTW, does having small greens with fewer pin positions not lead to less variety?

You also say to Forrest, "Second, it seems it would be more interesting and challenging if the variety came in the hole instead of from the tee."   Is the tee not an integral part of the hole?  I personally believe that the tee shot and the putt are the most important shots on a hole, and I get much more excitement hitting my driver like Tiger, Bernhardt not Woods, most of the time than having to lay-up with a mid-iron or a hybrid metal.  But that is just me, and probably the vast majority of players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

I think the demographic or variety of those who play golf today is much more divergent then it was 40-60-80 years ago.

Couples golf was almost non-existent 40 years ago, and women's golf was in its infancy.

Multiple tees shouldn't be looked at solely in the context of distance.   Angles of attack should be considered as well.

As Tom Doak indicated, in light of the growing popularity with the game over the last 40 years there has been an attempt to cater to that broadened demographic.

One only has to look at resort and residential communities in Florida, California and Arizona to understand the need to cater to golfers of differing abilities.

Do you think that Pine Valley would be a couples golf destination ?

But, the most important factor may be that the power base at most clubs has transitioned from the original monarchies and oligargies to democracies, and that transition alone has caused clubs to attempt to have the golf course appeal to ALL of their members. Hence, the onslaught of multiple tees.

Dictators work best at golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Lynn:  Thanks for your support.  Your examples are right on, but you left out the times when the long bombers dump it in the bunker, make five, and lose to the guy who laid up.  This is what makes golf great ... just not for the long bomber.

Lou:  Nope, I've certainly never been accused of being a long hitter.  That's why I try to make courses that will be interesting for everyone else, too.  The thing is, I want the long hitter to have to play well to succeed ... I don't want him to just win because of his length.  In theory one tee should play right into your hands, if you're the better golfer, but it won't, because if there's only one tee per hole then we're not going to design 18 holes where length is the most important factor; we'd keep length in a more reasonable perspective.

Forrest:  Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the gumption to build a course with only one tee per hole.  (I did build one with no tees, but that's another story.)  I do consult at one -- Garden City Golf Club basically has only one tee per hole, with a couple of exceptions -- and that helped my thinking a lot.

Typically, I build anywhere from two to five teeing grounds per hole, and I build them for variety's sake (different angles, or bringing different hazards into play, though I prefer to think of it as that instead of trying to bring the same hazard into play for everybody).  The most I can remember building on a single hole is eight tees; a couple of them are unknown to the everyday players there.  

I'd prefer the management only put out two sets of markers, and let the really good players go where they wanted to, but I'll settle for three; when they insist on five like Cape Kidnappers I just shrug.  It's their course.

You did bring up one other aspect of this -- "the right condition of the right hole."  A lot of architects suggest they are building multiple tees so that it's possible to keep the shot values of a hole the same when the wind turns around 180 degrees.  Likewise, I've seen several superintendents bitched out by management for setting up the course poorly because the wind was strong.

The Scots approach to this is much simpler.  One tee marker, and God's will.  The course isn't supposed to be the same every day, that would be boring.  Most days this hole is going to play like a par four, but when it's into the wind a lot of you can't get there and you'll have to adapt.  Either that, or you can stand there and whinge about it and blame somebody else (architect or superintendent) ... and lose the hole, genius.

[T_MacWood]

Garden City is often cited by those who advocate the single tee, but ironically Travis redesigned the course with multiple tees.

[DMoriarty]

Lynn,

It is precisely the idea that we shouldn't try to make things the same and "fair" for everyone that argues for multiple tees.  We are all blessed with different abilities.  You would not enjoy a game of one-on-one with me on a standard court because of the obvious differences in our abilities.  You would score at will and I would never get a shot-off.

Handicaps and multiple tees allow golfers of wideley varying abilities to compete with each other, and, in most cases, enjoy the experience.

I dont know if Lynn does, but I certainly dont follow you here.  First,  we have a handicap system so that people of differing abilities can compete with each other and enjoy the experience.  I see Lynn give strokes and beat longer players from a variety of tees on a regular basis.  Second, this idea that multiple tees exist for the enjoyment of the better, longer player is a bit narrow dont you think?  Surely there is more to enjoying the game than whacking a driver and putting.  If not, then why not adjourn to the putting green and practice tee?  

I doubt Lynn is advocating that matt and shivas should never get to hit driver.  My guess is that Lynn would much rather wax Matt and/or Shivas from any tee they chose, so long as Lynn's 230-260 yard drive had a place to land.  

 

Courses with multiple tees with knowledgeable, attentive superintendents will move the tees and pin positions in concert with the weather, turf conditions, and nature of the golf being played.

They may do this for a tournament, but supers rarely bother for day to day play.  Except for turf management.  

BTW, does having small greens with fewer pin positions not lead to less variety?

Yes.  Often it does, unless the small greens have some feature that makes them interesting from a variety of angles and distances.  

Is the tee not an integral part of the hole?  I personally believe that the tee shot and the putt are the most important shots on a hole, and I get much more excitement hitting my driver like Tiger, Bernhardt not Woods, most of the time than having to lay-up with a mid-iron or a hybrid metal.  But that is just me, and probably the vast majority of players.

Yes the tee is an integral part of the hole, but I am not so sure a bunch of tees are quite so integral.   And again, you make this strange assumption that without multiple tees the long hitter will suffer.   Why not flip it on its head?  Maybe the shorter hitter will just have to hit more shots?  Isnt this another equally possible result?   You guys and your drivers! I just dont get it.  If your driver is so exciting, then why not join the senior division of the LDA, and leave the golf to the rest of us?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Garden City is often cited by those who advocate the single tee, but ironically Travis redesigned the course with multiple tees.

None of the schematics hanging in the clubhouse from 1899 and early dates reflect multiple tees.

On what holes did these multilple tees exist ?

Are you refering to tee markers, or separate tee structures ?
And did they maintain the angle of attack or present alternate angles of attack off the tee ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat {LIRR, Hambone, Len Itnes}
I know multiple tee boxes existed (separate tees) on 9, 11, 15 and 17 (Travis described building sperate tees on these holes). A schematic from the early 50's shows multiple tees on 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13.  Most of these tees created a different angle.

Travis wrote a long article describing many of his alterations:
 "On several of the holes, there are two or more tees, to suit ordinary, every-day play, and wind conditions." ~~ 1909

In response to critical letter written by a member (he thought the changes made the course too difficult):
"It must not be forgotten that 50 per cent of the holes have duplex tees, separated by from 10 to 40 yards, and that there is a club rule to the effect that the green (forward) indicate the regular course, the white ones (back) being place merely for the convenience of such players as may wish to use them. The holes so provided assume an entirely different complexion from the regular tees." ~~ 1910

Travis often designed two, three or even four tees per hole.

[Doug Siebert]

If you want to "make the course increasingly more difficult" from the further back tees (especially the tips) I have no problem with that.  That can be a reasonable goal, but just adding x yards won't do it, it needs to make the whole strategy be more difficult.  I've seen it done, but usually it is just where the land and routing allows it, so most of the time it is just more difficult because it is longer and you can't carry bunker x or water hazard y any longer.  I love a course where you see back tees play from completely different places, like the 15th at Muirfield as a good example with the regular tees back left of the previous green and the championship tees short right probably 100 yards away and set off at a 30 degree angle from the next fairway.  I can understand that it could slow things down, especially if you want to play multiple tees within one group, unless they are smart about it.

I believe that you can give varying skill levels the opportunity for relatively the same experience, but it has to be over the course of a round, not on every hole.  Unless you design a dead straight hole with hazards until you get to the green, I don't see how you could serve people who drive anywhere from 160 to 320 the same experience.  And nevermind that a par 4 that's a drive and and a wedge for each doesn't play the same.  People who drive 160 aren't playing darts with their wedges like people who drive that.

But I do see it as doable to design courses so that overall, the players have something like the same experience.  Maybe due to the land, one par 3 plays pretty much 150 for everywhere, so it is really long for the short hitters and a wedge for the longer hitters.  You might make up for it with another par 3 that's 80 yards from the short tees and 250 from the tips.  Make seem a bit odd when you look at it on the card, and be much harder to plan and route, but if that was your goal, I don't think it would be unachieveable.  Whether its desireable is another matter!

[Tom_Doak]

The famous "waste bunkers" at the TPC at Sawgrass and elsewhere were Pete Dye's attempt to make the driving challenge the same for everyone, no matter how far they hit it or what tees they were playing from.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat {LIRR, Hambone, Len Itnes}

Yes, I did post as Len Itnes, (Sentinel backwards) to bait the trap and catch the rat.  I also told Ran and others about it so that it wasn't anonymous.  But, the betting window is still open on the others in case you're feeling lucky today.

I know multiple tee boxes existed (separate tees) on 9, 11, 15 and 17 (Travis described building sperate tees on these holes). Where did he build them, where were they located ?

A schematic from the early 50's shows multiple tees on 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13.  Most of these tees created a different angle.

# 4 still has a seperate tee, which is caused by a road that runs through it.  But, I'm curious about the others, since the 1936 aerial doesn't reflect multiple tees.  What is the origin of the schematic from the early 50"s that reflects this, where did it appear, can we be sure that it is an authentic representation, and who created the schematic ?  Can you post it ?

Travis wrote a long article describing many of his alterations:
 "On several of the holes, there are two or more tees, to suit ordinary, every-day play, and wind conditions." ~~ 1909

Travis proposed and wrote of many alterations at GCGC, but not all of them were implemented.  Are you sure that he meant seperate tee structures, and not seperate tee markers ?

In response to critical letter written by a member (he thought the changes made the course too difficult):
"It must not be forgotten that 50 per cent of the holes have duplex tees, separated by from 10 to 40 yards, and that there is a club rule to the effect that the green (forward) indicate the regular course, the white ones (back) being place merely for the convenience of such players as may wish to use them. The holes so provided assume an entirely different complexion from the regular tees." ~~ 1910

Are you positive that this wasn't a reference to the tee markers ?  GCGC's tees can be rather long, and I would think that he was referencing tee markers and not seperate tee structures.

Another factor is that many of GCGC's tees are perfectly blended into the terrain, with no elevation, no construction, so this reference to building seems contradictory, especially in light of the ground level and aerial photos taken circa 1936 which don't depict multiple tees.

Travis often designed two, three or even four tees per hole.

There is no evidence of this at GCGC unless you're referencing tee markers.

It is also interesting to note that Travis was one of the earliest proponents of moving bunkers to the outer lanes of play and lining the fairways with bunkers that would catch the stray hitter, the errant shot.  What a Travesty  

[Forrest Richardson]

I appreciate all of these comments. It goes to prove that designing golf courses is a one-of-a-kind discipline that demands hands-on and a "never-give-in-to-sameness" conviction.

I have played wonderful courses in the UK where there was only one tee to be found...and it not much of a tee at that!. I've also enjoyed "modern" courses with numerous tees set in that tried and true fashion — a string of pearls.

I suspect Desmond is looking down on this wishing for a PC. If one were to be had he would sure write something along these lines:

"Well, if it's one tee you want why don't you all do yourselves a favor a look at my creation from 1975 — one tee at a pleasant par-3 — it snakes from 230 yards all the way to the green like an uncoiled ship's rope. I told the shaper I wanted him to be able to run a tractor from back to front and that
he must face every direction along the way..."

[T_MacWood]

Pat {LIRR, Hambone, Len Itnes}

That's ironic, I thought you found anonymous posts cowardly. I didn't know you were trying to trap a Rat....I had thought it was a (may I say pathetic) attempt to support your sinking ship at NGLA (it seems TE and George didn't exactly concur with your thoughts....but perhaps I am mistaken or they have poor memories).

May I suggest you try to track down the articles in which Travis described his many changes...not his proposed changes, but the changes he implemented.

You should look a little more closely at the aerials from 1938 and 1947...the tees are there. Unfortunately I can't post the 1950 map...Ran has seen it, Tommy has a copy...perhaps if you are nice, Tommy (the Rat) will post it.

If you look at the aerial of the 12th (1936) in the most recent club history you will see two separate tees on the 13th. Can you post that picture again?

"It is also interesting to note that Travis was one of the earliest proponents of moving bunkers to the outer lanes of play and lining the fairways with bunkers that would catch the stray hitter, the errant shot."
I believe you may be referring to Travis's removing the center of a number of cop bunkers (crossing bunkers) at GCGC...in effect creating two bunkers on the phalanx. Travis was an advocate of a number of strategic schemes for bunkers. He is mistakenly thought to be a proponent of penal designs....Ian Andrews has studied many of Travis's designs and he agrees Travis has been given a bad rap on that count.

The architectural history of GCGC is fascinating...I would strongly recommend you look into it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()