[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,
 
By his written words !
 
 To me, it's just trivial aesthetics. I'm far more interested in what follows than the little bit of ground where I put a tee peg in the earth.

[Bill_McBride]

[/color]By his written word.
"To me, it's just trivial aesthetics. I'm far more interested in what follows than the little bit of ground where I put a tee peg in the earth."


 

I was thinking perhaps you knew his handicap. 

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

If we stood on a tee that only afforded 10 feet of width variability, which would you prefer to challenge(or not) with your known shot shape: Out of bounds, water, or trees?

I am sure trees would be the least preferable, because they protrude from the ground, sometimes at great heights. Water and OOB, not so much.

To me, vegetation is the main variable when discussing runway tees and their potential to dictate strategy.

[Pete_Pittock]

No.
When I established my handicap in the early 1970s it was at an RTJ course in Portland. It had aircraft carrier tees and only one hole was bound on both sides by trees, but I never had any problem because the "chute" was 40 yds wide and 100 yds long.

Outside of maybe Sahalee the narrowest chute I played was the 15th at Pebble Beach with a small (rectangular?) tee pad.
(I played from the tips because they only had the black markers out, in between rounds of the 1969 California Amateur, which was won by Forest Fezler.

So whether its a one long tee, or separate tee areas, it depends on the trees

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If we stood on a tee that only afforded 10 feet of width variability, which would you prefer to challenge(or not) with your known shot shape: Out of bounds, water, or trees?

I am sure trees would be the least preferable, because they protrude from the ground, sometimes at great heights. Water and OOB, not so much.

Joe,
 
Actually, it's the exact opposite.
 
1   OB
2   Water
3   Trees.
 
I've found it very difficult to make birdies and pars after driving OUT-of-Bounds or into a water hazard.

To me, vegetation is the main variable when discussing runway tees and their potential to dictate strategy.
 
Certainly you can't ignore the impediments above ground, and their impact on the flight of the ball, but, the penalty for OB and H20 are more severe.

[Phil Young]

Pat,

It's YOU who has to rethink their answer...

You specifically mentioned the impact of trees/vegetation narrowing the space through which a drive would be hit... THAT is what I was directly referring to. Remove that and it doesn't matter in the least where the tee is placed in relation to the fairway/rough line as the player can aim it wherever it bests suits his natural ball flight!

A long, narrow tee isn't the problem as you pose it, the problem were the trees/vegetation impacting the area through which the drive was hit. In fact, a long, narrow tee that is lined up in the center and toward the center of the fairway will still be impacted by trees/vegetation that are too close to the sides of the tee and the area through which the drive is immediately hit, making it "unfair" in your words for those whose ball flight is predominantly not straight...

So again, in your example it is a tree/vegetation issue and not a tee shape one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It's YOU who has to rethink their answer...
 
Not at all

You specifically mentioned the impact of trees/vegetation narrowing the space through which a drive would be hit... THAT is what I was directly referring to. Remove that and it doesn't matter in the least where the tee is placed in relation to the fairway/rough line as the player can aim it wherever it bests suits his natural ball flight!
 
So you would remove all of the trees at Ridgewood, Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge and Fenway ?  ?  ?
 
Perhaps you need to rethink your position.
 
AWT designed those holes within the corridors of trees.
If he wanted them removed, he would have done so at the inception.

A long, narrow tee isn't the problem as you pose it, the problem were the trees/vegetation impacting the area through which the drive was hit.
 
How can you ignore Out-of-Bounds and water hazards.
 
In fact, a long, narrow tee that is lined up in the center and toward the center of the fairway will still be impacted by trees/vegetation that are too close to the sides of the tee and the area through which the drive is immediately hit, making it "unfair" in your words for those whose ball flight is predominantly not straight...
 
That's part of my point, I'm glad that you finally agree.

So again, in your example it is a tree/vegetation issue and not a tee shape one.

Not true, the long tee exacerbates the problem by creating a narrower playing corridor.
Unless you're playing in the desert.
 
A wide tee eliminates that problem because it allows the golfer to maximize his angle of attack, dependent upon his ball flight.  Something he can't do on a long narrow tee.
 
You and others continue to miss the point.
 
The point being that long narrow tees limit the golfers ability to optimize his angles of attack and play of the hole, based upon his ball flight.
 
Your position makes the absurd premise that the golfer has carte blanche in terms of the lack of impeding features he has to contend with from the tee.

[Niall C]

Don't agree. For one thing the tee markers restrict where you can tee up anyway, and secondly what's the point of the architect posing a particular problem for the golfer to overcome if he can simply pick his ball up and circumvent that problem ? I mean to say, would you move your ball twenty yards to the side on a fairway because it would help you avoid a bunker ?


Niall,

Then I take it that you'd advocate for returning to the rule which forced the golfer to tee up within one or two club lengths of the previous hole/cup ?

The architect must forge a tactical challenge that favors no one golfer.
Since golfers have vastly different flight patterns why would want to penalize a golfer with a pronounced ball flight by forcing him to tee off within the confines of a narrow tee that presents architectural features that conflict with his ball flight ?

You get to choose where you wish to tee up your ball, you don't get to choose it's location once it's put into play.  Thus, your analogy is...... Moronic


Niall

Patrick

If you don't mind me saying you're distinctly off colour with this post, and I'm not referring to the insipid green colour that the new site is producing. Nowhere did I say or infer that we go back to teeing it up within a set distance of the last hole so that is quite a moronic statement for you to make. Secondly your suggestion that the architect must forge a tactical challenge that favours no one golfer, is even more moronic than your first statement. Name me an architect that hasn't designed a hole with a tee shot that favours either the long hitter or the player with a certain natural ball flight. If you don't happen to be one of those favoured golfers then you do the best you can, thats golf. In the specific example you cite the non-favoured golfer would obviously tee it up as far away from the trees as the tee markers allowed unless of course he was a moron.

Now having said all that I'm pleased to tell you Patrick that you have graduated from being a moron to being a junior numpty. With a bit more practice I feel certain you could become a fully qualified numpty. Just keep up the good work 

Niall 

[Phil Young]

Nice try Pat. I'm the one arguing that I haven't any problem with the tee angle or narrowness nor do I have any problems with tight corridors caused by trees and haven't said anything whatsoever about that.

It is, in fact, YOU that did. In your second post on this thread YOU wrote, "Picture if you will, a golfer who hits a pronounced tee shot, consistently. It doesn't matter if it's a hook or a slice. If that golfer is forced to hit from a narrow tee and the playing corridor he must navigate has trees to the side of the fairway that he must aim toward to compensate for his ball flight, he's inherently going to end up in the opposite rough. That's a consequence a golfer shouldn't be subjected to."

That is why I disagree with the basic premise of your question.

Secondly, a long, narrow tee does not, as YOU put it, "limit the golfers ability to optimize his angles of attack and play of the hole, based upon his ball flight." For you then define HOW this situation happens in that you blame it on the "impeding features he has to contend with from the tee," citing that I have some strange belief that the player has some sort of "carte blanche" allowing him to chose these or not.

That is absolutely absurd on its face and was never implied in what I stated whatsoever.

Question, if there is a long, narrow tee on a hole and there isn't a single tree, bush or even high grass for the first 300 yards into the fairway and the rough along side it, is the player limited in any way whatsoever as to where he will aim and the type of shot he will attempt to play. Of course not. Therefor the problem that you are attempting to describe isn't caused by the tee and it shape and length, rather its is the fault of other aspects of the hole such as trees, etc... which greatly narrow the playing corridor.

If your original question was 'Are long, narrow tees which have trees close by and extending out toward the fairway in a manner that directly narrows the drive for the player a good design?" I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you that it is a very poor design. Unfortunately that isn't what you asked...

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

I am not going to have an argument with you about a subject which, if we're both honest, we probably generally agree upon.

My point is really quite simple: tee width can be a significant aid to the golfer but the lack of width, by way of it placing more emphasis on the golfer creating the desired width for second shots, has it's own significance to strategy.

Given that you and I agree that, so long as options remain, the golfer is then responsible for adapting to the circumstances he or she finds, I struggle to believe that you can really pick a fight with me over this one.

Well, truth be told, I can well believe you can find a fight with a paper bag but you understand my sentiment, I'm sure! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not an over riding factor, but the modern need for cart paths tends to widen the corridor at the tee.  I also think that, in general, we have become more award of the need to get sunlight into tees for best growth and to maintain the higher maintenance standards now required by golfers.

I usually my paths on the south side (or east side on NS holes) to sort of naturally let the clearing do double duty.  Or, I have done some contouring around tees for the same reason, usually on the south side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nice try Pat. I'm the one arguing that I haven't any problem with the tee angle or narrowness nor do I have any problems with tight corridors caused by trees and haven't said anything whatsoever about that.

It is, in fact, YOU that did. In your second post on this thread YOU wrote, "Picture if you will, a golfer who hits a pronounced tee shot, consistently. It doesn't matter if it's a hook or a slice. If that golfer is forced to hit from a narrow tee and the playing corridor he must navigate has trees to the side of the fairway that he must aim toward to compensate for his ball flight, he's inherently going to end up in the opposite rough. That's a consequence a golfer shouldn't be subjected to."
 
That was one example.
A hint should have been when I stated, "picture if you will...."

That is why I disagree with the basic premise of your question.

Which is ?
Secondly, a long, narrow tee does not, as YOU put it, "limit the golfers ability to optimize his angles of attack and play of the hole, based upon his ball flight."
 
You'd have to be a moron not to understand that tee width expands the golfer's options and abilities to maximize the angles of attack based upon his ball flight.
 
Since you're an AWT expert, tell me how the golfer who hits a big draw will play the 6th hole at Baltusrol Lower from a narrow back tee.
 
Ditto the golfer who hits a big fade on # 15.
 
Then look at the 12th tee lower and see how the golfer has more than ample room, vis a vis a wide tee, to maximize his angles of attack into the green, depending upon his ball flight.
 
For you then define HOW this situation happens in that you blame it on the "impeding features he has to contend with from the tee," citing that I have some strange belief that the player has some sort of "carte blanche" allowing him to chose these or not.
 
Since you didn't have any concept of the totality of the impediments that the golfer faces, I thought it necessary to explain them to you.
 
To cite another example, the 6th hole at Preakness Hills, a 230+ yard par 3 with trees left, a lateral water hazard and out-of-bounds right.
 
The golfer who hits a pronounced draw/fade will be disadvantaged with long narrow tees, versus a wide tee.
 
Tell me that you understand ball flight and the consequences that the features of a hole present.


That is absolutely absurd on its face and was never implied in what I stated whatsoever.

Question, if there is a long, narrow tee on a hole and there isn't a single tree, bush or even high grass for the first 300 yards into the fairway and the rough along side it, is the player limited in any way whatsoever as to where he will aim and the type of shot he will attempt to play. Of course not.
 
Not true, there could be OB, water hazards, bunkers, the slope of the land and a number of individual or collective features.
 
When's the last time you played a hole with NO feature between the tee and the DZ ?
 
Therefor the problem that you are attempting to describe isn't caused by the tee and it shape and length, rather its is the fault of other aspects of the hole such as trees, etc... which greatly narrow the playing corridor.
 
The problem is inherently in the tee.
 
A wide tee equals angular options based upon the golfer's ball flight.
A narrow tee limits those angular options.
 
That's basic common sense.

If your original question was 'Are long, narrow tees which have trees close by and extending out toward the fairway in a manner that directly narrows the drive for the player a good design?" I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you that it is a very poor design.
 
And that situation is very, very common.
 
Unfortunately that isn't what you asked...
 
It's not unfortunate in the least.
 
For some reason you're unable to grasp the fact that there may be bunkers and other features between the tee and the targeted DZ or green, features which can be better dealt with if the golfer was provided a wide tee versus a narrow tee.
 
Tell me you understand angles of attack and the golfers desire to avoid features that are hazardous to his score.

[Paul Gray]

Bill,


I had no idea what all that 'you stink' stuff was about either but thanks for the support. It was duly noted and appreciated. I assumed it was lighthearted and took it in good spirit. I also thought it was a handicap reference. I think he knows me to be a 3 handicap, although that's actually now a 4. 

[archie_struthers]

 




Pat , I'm all for free form tee boxes , and prefer wide ones aesthetically over the RTJ runways.


However , we consistently debate just how much fairness is needed to assure either a big hooker or slicer doesn't have to alter his favorite shot to avoid some trees. The  14th at Greate Bay is a good example of this as the championship tee doesn't fit the eye of a golfer who hooks all his tee shots . Invariably two of our better players that play in our Monday game  from all the way back complain to me . They know I'm not too worried and it has become a bit of a fun repartee. They are both plus handicaps . 


I'm thinking that at the highest level the golfer should be able to move the ball either way in a pinch. Don't  think your daily tees need to,be difficult in this way but for the expert , spin it or hit it straight .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that those who hook the ball are much more concerned about the tight tree lined tee shot than those who fade.  Not 100% sure why, other than the old idea that a hook can get away from you a lot faster.

[archie_struthers]

 




Jeff , perhaps because most slicers can hit it quite high , and hit it over most trees .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Archie,
That might be true. The low, running beauty duck hook is a very popular shot in Texas.

I also thought, perhaps snidely, that more better players hit draw, and more good players complain. Not perhaps because they are more whiny in general, but because they understand when something in the architecture stops them from hitting their shot.

Of course, it brings up the old question of whether architecture ought to let everyone hit their preferred shot on every hole, or whether forcing one (or more)  hook and one fade per round is acceptable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,
 
I don't think you can cater to every golfer's ball flight on every hole.
 
If we agree that one of the architect's missions is to forge a tactical challenge that favors no particular golfer, then I think you have to look at that mission, not in the context of a given hole, but, in the context of all 18 holes.
 
One hole might favor a golfer who draws the ball, another a golfer who fades the ball, but, overall, the tactical challenge should balance out.
 
I also believe that the old architects felt that a slice/fade was an inferior, if not a mishit golf shot, with a draw being the reflection of a better swing and better shot.
 
As you indicated, that low draw was a great drive before the advent of soft fairways.
 
Many years ago I marveled at the drives of a good southern golfer (NC) who hit a low draw that ran forever on firm fairways.
 
The prefered flight of the ball changed as conditions changed.
 
Now, howitzer like drives are the only way to get distance.
 
Trees aren't the only impediment to scoring.
 
Bunker position in the DZ can also be an impediment, along with OB and H2O.
 
If every golfer was forced to tee off from a 1 to 2 yard wide area, the mid to high handicap golfer would suffer.
 
But, with 20 yard wide tees, the golfer can choose where the optimal teeing spot for his game is located.
 
From a spot closest to the right side of the tee, with trees to the right, a slicer has to aim far to the left, but, if there's OB or H2O to the left, he's cooked.
But, with wide tees, he can tee up to the far left and aim to the center or even right side of the fairway in order to avoid the severest consequences.
 
Width off the tee and at the tee make for a far more enjoyable game for the mediocre to poor golfer.
 
Archie,
 
I've never like free form tees, just a personal perspective.
 
Paul Gray,
 
My comment was in jest, Bill just likes to snipe whenever he can.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Generally I agree, but complaints limit my true forced (vs optinal) fade and draw to one each per course, certainly no more than one per nine each.  Golfers do like it when it is their choice of shot, not the architects.

BTW, the average tee marker width is about 5 yards wide, not 2-3.  On busy courses, there are some different thoughts from the maintenance perspective.  Some supers react to extra play by setting markers 7-10 yards apart to spread wear, others prefer more intensive damage to a more limited area.  So, maintenance regimen plays a part in how much width is allowed.

That said, I let the topo of the tee area dictate general shape, but in my playbook, the ideal is to find a few that are wider than they are long.  Even then, there is some maintenance math to do, since long and narrow rectangles work best to spread tees back and forward to allow recovery time than wide and shallow ones.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()