[Patrick_Mucci]

alignment, where should it be on a hole with a centerline bunker feature ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Make it round and then it don't matter

[Jeff Bergeron]

Right at it!

[Daniel Jones]

At my course the tee on the 6th hole points directly at an oak tree on the right side of the fairway. Where do you think the majority of my drives end up? Yes, I'm the moron that hit it there knowing full well the tee points that way, but that doesn't stop me from blaming it each time. So the long answer to your short question is the same as Jeff's... right at it.

[Paul Gray]

Yep, straight down the middle. The player should start the hole in neutral, so to speak. Everything which then happens is down to the individual.

[Joe Hancock]

Gosh....

Wouldn't topography have a lot to do with this? Is this hypothetical hole on flat Florida ground? Does the wind blow at all in this generality? How firm or soft is this mythical golf course?

See, the answer is simple, just like the....

[Carl Johnson]

Pat, I'm a moron.  "Tee alignment?"  Are you talking about the mowed pad (best I can come up with) or more narrowly the teeing ground, or whatever per the rule book, defined by the markers and club lengths, yada, yada?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I'm a moron.
 
Carl,
 
No need to repeat what I've known for years.
 
 "Tee alignment?"  Are you talking about the mowed pad (best I can come up with) or more narrowly the teeing ground, or whatever per the rule book, defined by the markers and club lengths, yada, yada?
 
I was referencing the foot pad, the entire area designated as the tee, not the markers or intended area as defined by the markers.
 
Sometimes the mowed area is misaligned in terms of the footpad.
 
But, it's the foundation of the tee that I was referencing.

[Ronald Montesano]

No ironclad alignment. Ross often aligned the tee away from fairway center. The person who drops the tee markers can align "the golfer" whichever way she/he chooses.

[Phil Young]

Tilly quite often had tees pointing toward fairway/rough lines. That never stopped anyone from AIMING down the middle of the fairway rather than  where the tee pointed... or at the centerline bunker if that is your desire...

[Carl Johnson]

From my point of view the existence of a center line bunker should be immaterial in tee alignment.  In all cases the tee should aim (the longer direction) in the general direction of the fairway, but not necessarily down the center line.

[Mark Pritchett]

It should vary, like most other things in golf design. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anyone believe that misaligned tees are readily accepted by the golfer ?
 
Or, are they viewed as out of kilter and in need of realignment ?

[Mark Pavy]

Misaligned straight lines in a golfers periphery can certainly throw off ones spatial perception.

[Phil Young]

Pat,

Sorry, but I don't accept the premise that a tee that points to a fairway/rough line is misaligned. Next you'll blame the imperfect placement of the two tee markers at less than perpendicular to the tee by that day's grounds crew to be a misalignment unfairly punishing the undeserving golfer as it makes him stand at an off-center angle.

At what point does the player become responsible for properly aligning and aiming himself to his intended landing area for the shot he chooses to play?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Sorry, but I don't accept the premise that a tee that points to a fairway/rough line is misaligned. Next you'll blame the imperfect placement of the two tee markers at less than perpendicular to the tee by that day's grounds crew to be a misalignment unfairly punishing the undeserving golfer as it makes him stand at an off-center angle.
 
If you disagree, why are 95+ % of the tees aligned to the fairway or center point of the DZ.
 
The placement of the tee markers is done by the maintenance crew who don't seek perfection in the performance of their task.


At what point does the player become responsible for properly aligning and aiming himself to his intended landing area for the shot he chooses to play?
 
Actually, every time, but visuals are often hard to overcome.
Especially when you have a large swath of land, from which the golfer has to tee off, aligned off the fairway/green.
 
Out of curiosity, how many tees did AWT or any other architect align away from the green on a par 3 ?
 
Why did AWT align the enormous majority of his tees to the fairway ?

[Phil Young]

Pat, on what do you base your claim that 95+% of tees are aligned to the "fairway or center point of the DZ?"

[Kyle Harris]

I have proposed, and will continue to do so when given the opportunity, to reduce the amount of tee markers to one and re-write the rules stating that the ball must be teed anywhere within two club-lengths of the tee marker. This simplifies tee setup. This allows usage of the entire area intended to be tee and places the onus of aim upon the golfer, where such onus belongs.

The idea that a maintenance practice, i.e., e.g. the mowing line of the edge of the tee space, should somehow align a golfer is Mucci-level-esque Moronic. Capital M. Different golfers have different targets based on their different skill sets.

[Adam Clayman]

Sometimes the mowed area is misaligned in terms of the footpad.

Sometimes the guy building the teeing ground, missed the mark of the architect's instructions.

95% of golfers don't notice that the teeing ground is aiming them away from the line of instinct, until it's pointed out to them.

I think it's great, no matter how or why it happened. Separates the aware from the asleep.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, on what do you base your claim that 95+% of tees are aligned to the "fairway or center point of the DZ?"
 
60+ years of field experience combined with discussions on the subject with architects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have proposed, and will continue to do so when given the opportunity, to reduce the amount of tee markers to one and re-write the rules stating that the ball must be teed anywhere within two club-lengths of the tee marker. This simplifies tee setup. This allows usage of the entire area intended to be tee and places the onus of aim upon the golfer, where such onus belongs.

The primary problem with your one tee marker and within two club lengths is "wear and tear".
 
You of all people should know that.
 
Especially when working at a club that doesn't allow carts at certain times of year for "wear and tear" concerns

The idea that a maintenance practice, i.e., e.g. the mowing line of the edge of the tee space, should somehow align a golfer is Mucci-level-esque Moronic. Capital M. Different golfers have different targets based on their different skill sets.
 
The mowing lines follow the footpad lines and the foot pads are aligned to the fairway DZ.
 
Again, you of all people should know that.
 
A narrow tee will not allow those different golfers, with those different skill sets, to optimize their angle of attack into their intended target.
 
Must I educate everyone ?

[Kyle Harris]

I have proposed, and will continue to do so when given the opportunity, to reduce the amount of tee markers to one and re-write the rules stating that the ball must be teed anywhere within two club-lengths of the tee marker. This simplifies tee setup. This allows usage of the entire area intended to be tee and places the onus of aim upon the golfer, where such onus belongs.

The primary problem with your one tee marker and within two club lengths is "wear and tear".
 
You of all people should know that.
 
Especially when working at a club that doesn't allow carts at certain times of year for "wear and tear" concerns

The idea that a maintenance practice, i.e., e.g. the mowing line of the edge of the tee space, should somehow align a golfer is Mucci-level-esque Moronic. Capital M. Different golfers have different targets based on their different skill sets.
 
The mowing lines follow the footpad lines and the foot pads are aligned to the fairway DZ.
 
Again, you of all people should know that.
 
A narrow tee will not allow those different golfers, with those different skill sets, to optimize their angle of attack into their intended target.
 
Must I educate everyone ?

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

The advantage of the one tee-marker is that it allows for use of areas not otherwise usable by fitting the square peg of the teeing ground into the round hole of the teeing area, so to speak. Even square tees have null space near the backs and corners that rarely can effectively be used. With one marker, placing the marker on light days of play in the corners and edges pushes play to these areas, allowing the middles to be utilized for busier days.

Now, for some math: the defined area of a two tee-marker setup is obviously two club-lengths behind a line drawn between the tee markers. Assuming an average tee marker width of 20 feet (7 paces, much wider and things begin to look very strange/it becomes very difficult to discern the front of the teeing ground) and an average driver length of 45 inches we have a defined teeing ground of 168 square feet. You, as most people surely notice, also understand that it is rare that wear and tear is spread evenly throughout the tee box. In fact, most of the divots are within one club-length of the front of the teeing ground and that is generous, so a two tee-marker setup effectively have 80 square feet of space used.

One tee marker, and two club lengths of radius, gives us an area of just under 200 square feet, most of which is more likely to be used. Even assuming most people will tee off in the area in front of the marker, we still have more usable space for the teeing ground.

So no, the practical application of math does not support your claim.

As for the edges, my statement still stands. Tee boxes lines have no bearing on how a golfer aims. Golfers are responsible for how they align themselves.

The best tee boxes follow the aboriginal contour or are blending in such that no edge or line jumps out at the golfer. If the golf course is reliant on tee box alignment, there are likely bigger architectural issues.

[Andrew Simpson]

Pat,

The advantage of the one tee-marker is that it allows for use of areas not otherwise usable by fitting the square peg of the teeing ground into the round hole of the teeing area, so to speak. Even square tees have null space near the backs and corners that rarely can effectively be used. With one marker, placing the marker on light days of play in the corners and edges pushes play to these areas, allowing the middles to be utilized for busier days.

Now, for some math: the defined area of a two tee-marker setup is obviously two club-lengths behind a line drawn between the tee markers. Assuming an average tee marker width of 20 feet (7 paces, much wider and things begin to look very strange/it becomes very difficult to discern the front of the teeing ground) and an average driver length of 45 inches we have a defined teeing ground of 168 square feet. You, as most people surely notice, also understand that it is rare that wear and tear is spread evenly throughout the tee box. In fact, most of the divots are within one club-length of the front of the teeing ground and that is generous, so a two tee-marker setup effectively have 80 square feet of space used.

One tee marker, and two club lengths of radius, gives us an area of just under 200 square feet, most of which is more likely to be used. Even assuming most people will tee off in the area in front of the marker, we still have more usable space for the teeing ground.

So no, the practical application of math does not support your claim.

As for the edges, my statement still stands. Tee boxes lines have no bearing on how a golfer aims. Golfers are responsible for how they align themselves.

The best tee boxes follow the aboriginal contour or are blending in such that no edge or line jumps out at the golfer. If the golf course is reliant on tee box alignment, there are likely bigger architectural issues.

I'm not aware of previous discussions on this one marker idea so pardon me if I'm going over old ground. Surely the 2 club radius leaves more unusable area on a square/rectangular tee as the radius misses the corners. I'd also think that people wouldn't want to measure 2 clubs and default to a single club roughly which due to the square rule would reduce the 200 feet to 50, thus well below the 80 on the 2 marker system. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in feeling that playing from in front of the marker was fundamentally wrong so the area would then be down to 25 sq feet!
 On the original point I would have the markers perpendicular to the fairway centre and leave it to the golfer to narrow down the line or distance to avoid the central bunker.
 I feel the big issue with markers not being aligned is when they point right of the line and when a player sets up to hit on the line it looks as though it is forward of the marker so they have to step away, check the position, before setting up again causing delays.

[David Lott]

hee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()