2Tx2B=4C?

[JAKE master]

Im sure this topic has been discussed somewhere along the line, however, i know my opinion has changed with time and im curious what others thoughts are on the matter.

Im talking about courses with 2 tee boxes and 2 baskets defaulting to a "4 course layout".

Two local courses near me, Maple Hill and Borderlands, have this design and im not convinced its the best idea. On the one hand there is the possibility to have 4 unique lines to shape per fairway. On the other hand theres potential for a complete cluster duck when youre trying to get a round in, especially so if youre unable to see the alternate tee location.

What are your thoughts? Is this type of design beneficial? would you just assume do without this type of design? what is the ideal solution for creating diversity on a course without gumming up pace of play? Are we better off with 1 tee and 2 baskets, or 2 tees and 1 basket, 1 tee and multiple basket sleeves?

 

[whitefedora]

Like all things... it depends. I love the amount of diversity it offers players. Warwick and Maple Hill are great examples of courses that do multiple baskets and tees. They are far enough away from city centers that even when they are crowded, they are not super packed. Now if this course design were in Prospect park in Brooklyn, you might see all kinds of problems(though to be fair, even the object course probably shouldn't be there). Rollin Ridge is a good example of course diversity in a tiny amount of space. They use a very tight amount of great land to its maximum value by having multiple tees and baskets. So available amounts of land and amount of maintenance support can also be a reason to design this way.

I can tell you that with any of those courses if they were designed as multiple sleeves and rotating baskets, I would have been disappointed with certain placements when I went to visit. Much like when I trek all the way out to Tyler and all the pins are in A pin.

So that being said, they both have merits and restrictions. As long as safety is considered in the design, I like to see all the options.

 

[DavidSauls]

Does it matter how much traffic a course gets, or is likely to get?

And can we differentiate between cases where you can see the 2nd tee, and where you can't? In the former case, and where the flow of traffic is essentially the same, I don't see where it would be much of a problem.

Or, at least, a much smaller problem than courses with overlapping layouts, optional alternative holes, and the like.

But I'm just guessing---it's been almost 20 years since I played a course with 2 tees, and 2 baskets in place. Not very common around here.

For what it's worth, for myself, I'd call this a 4-layout course, not a 4-course layout.

 

[whitefedora]

I think in some cases it does matter solely on how much traffic a course gets. Schenley park in Pittsburgh has a sweet blue tee layout that I never play because of course traffic. You can easily see the white tees from every blue tee, but because of how seldom people use them (or know about them) checkers constantly walk right in front of you while playing a blue tee to start the white tee. If the traffic there were not designed for beginners/amateurs and it were further from the city, I bet I could play more blue tee rounds.

 

[JC17393]

From the perspective of tournament play and hosting tournaments, places that have multiple tees and baskets per hole have advantages in that they can change up the layout round to round without moving baskets. From a casual play perspective, I'm not the biggest fan. And that's primarily because of the flow of play.

Even on a not so busy day, there is always a chance of playing a hole where there are two groups teeing off simultaneously from different tees and are unaware of each other (no line of sight between the two tees). It becomes even more problematic if both groups are playing to the same basket.

Maple Hill in particular strikes me as a bit of a nightmare to play casually, even on a mild traffic day. On some holes the different layouts vary enough that two groups playing simultaneously won't cross paths. On others though, tees, fairways and occasionally targets are completely shared between layouts. And that doesn't even take into account the red layout which wanders away from the rest of the course then meanders back again, mostly to avoid the water holes and longest walks. The result is groups playing different layouts at different paces and running into each other more often.

I'm more a fan of one tee, two baskets or two tees, one basket merely for the flow of play. If everyone is following more or less the same path through the course, things seem to work better. Of course, I'm looking at it from a business perspective. I want people to play my course and have fun, not be confused or overwhelmed by things going in all kinds of directions.

 

[Cgkdisc]

All three courses where I have two baskets and two tees were redesigns where we already had an older set of baskets. Rather than scrap or sell the old ones, the ones in good shape were refurbed and used in the new layout to provide options for different skill levels or variety. In some locations, a basket can be cheaper than building concrete pads. So two baskets on a hole can be the less expensive way to provide the alternative skill level layout.

 

[DavidSauls]

Even on a not so busy day, there is always a chance of playing a hole where there are two groups teeing off simultaneously from different tees and are unaware of each other (no line of sight between the two tees). It becomes even more problematic if both groups are playing to the same basket.

.

Admittedly, I have little experience on such courses but wouldn't that require both groups to have finished playing the prior hole at more or less the same time?

Seems that would be a bit unusual (unless 1 basket is a throw or two longer than the other).

 

[JC17393]

Admittedly, I have little experience on such courses but wouldn't that require both groups to have finished playing the prior hole at more or less the same time?

Seems that would be a bit unusual (unless 1 basket is a throw or two longer than the other).

One such instance that I had in mind is on a course where hole 1 has two tees that are separated from each other by dense woods (no seeing each other), and it is conceivable that two groups could leave their cars at more or less the same time, head to different hole 1 tees, and throw without realizing the other was there. Then there's the possibility of a group on round 2 of their day going to one tee from hole 18 while a group just starting their first round is at the other (having come from the parking lot), and their paths will not cross until they get to the middle of fairway 1.

And yes, there are certainly holes where the long basket is so much longer than the short that in the time it takes one group to play past the short basket to the long, a group behind them can play the hole out to the short and meet them at the next tee.

There are also instances where one layout has holes that are exclusive to it. By that I mean that hole 10 is shared by every layout but there are two different hole 11s. Going one way means you play 11 and 12 of that layout, going the other means you only play hole 11 then you both end up at the same tee again which is hole 12 for one layout, hole 13 for another. Eventually you get to another point where the two layouts diverge and the "makeup" hole is involved to get everyone back on in sequence again. If you're not paying close attention, it's easy to get confused, especially when tees have two different numbers assigned to them.

 

[DavidSauls]

Makes sense. I wasn't thinking about Hole 1. As for the rest, I was imagining a course where every hole at 2 tees & 2 baskets in place, but used, for the most part, the same fairway. And assuming the baskets wouldn't be 1 or 2 throws different, for the fact that they both had to be reasonably close to the next set of tees.

I can think of several courses in my region that have overlapping layouts, or optional extra holes inserted in the middle, that can cause problems. One is so lightly played that it rarely does; most of the others, I've played so seldom that I can't attest to how much conflict they actually cause.

 

[philstine]

One such instance that I had in mind is on a course where hole 1 has two tees that are separated from each other by dense woods (no seeing each other), and it is conceivable that two groups could leave their cars at more or less the same time, head to different hole 1 tees, and throw without realizing the other was there. Then there's the possibility of a group on round 2 of their day going to one tee from hole 18 while a group just starting their first round is at the other (having come from the parking lot), and their paths will not cross until they get to the middle of fairway 1.

Not just hole 1. Any course where a slow group of (n ≥ 2) players is playing one layout and a faster group of (≤ n) players who start later is playing the other layout has the potential for both groups to end up playing the same hole at the same time, with neither group knowing the other is there. [E.g. Valley Springs 22, where the red/white fairway (dogleg left) Ts into the blue fairway ~200' forward of the blue tee and neither teepad is not visible from the other due to woods and elevation.] Especially if the slow group pauses from time to time to indulge in "heritage activity."

 

[Karl]

In a perfect world there would be enough land to provide enough courses so that there would only be need for 1T that leads to 1B. Play it, get a score, compare with your buddies (or your score of yesterday, etc.), and go to the next hole. Repeat. BUT there is NOT enough land to have THAT many courses and because we like diversity (call it the ADA of dg'ers coming through big time) designers try 'different things' to offset such - and you come up with the variations mentioned by the OP.
But something which has come up in threads in past years (is appropriate to this web site and one of the reasons that I refuse to 'rate' a course) is the question "What is a 'course'?"

IMO some courses get the benefit of being constructed a certain way (multiple Ts and Bs, etc.) to their advantage to "obtain a higher rating" but are those types one course or multiple courses?

How much of 1 layout needs to be separate from another layout to be a separate course? Or vice versa? And all iterations of such. If you think about it, there are MANY versions of such...and one could ask the "what IS a course?" Q about all of them.

Oddball, but valid, scenario:
#1 You have an 18 hole layout with 1T and 1B per hole. And everyone of them is super.
#2 You also have a 'thing' which has 46Ts and 37Bs juxtaposed over 4 layouts of both similar and crossing fairways, each with 18 'holes' listed on their scorecards. Some combinations are super, most are good, some are 'meh'.

Which scenario is better? Of course the answer depends on personal preference.
My point is that the first is a classic case of "1 course with 1 layout"...and you guys can 'rate' it all you want, but what is the second?

I would argue that the first is better for a big tournament / challenge as when you actually play it for a round, you are subjected to all of its toughness and no fluff; when you play the second, any one 'layout' will be less than the first scenario.

But a LOT of players would argue that #2 is 'better' (more diversity, etc.) - even though they get fluff on even the hardest layout of #2.

Maybe this site will morph into a "dglayoutreview"

Something to ponder....

 

[DavidSauls]

Wait until you own one of those Example #2s, and try to wedge all those combinations into the hole information on this website.

 

[biscoe]

... or have 3 partial courses on a site in various stages of completion where you actually have 5 playable 18 hole layouts patched together ala Frankenstein...

 

[Gblambert]

My course has three tees on every hole, which in our case works really well. I play with my son and his girlfriend a lot and our skill levels vary from newbie to noodle arm geezer (me) to advanced (my son). With three tees, my son plays the blues, I play the whites, and his girlfriend plays the reds. We all have fun because we're playing holes designed for our skill levels.

During tournaments, pros play the blues, ams play the whites, and juniors the reds. The red tees are also fun for ace run, par 2 type mini tournaments.

The key, imho, is to design each tee so that it matches the skill level it's intended for while providing an adequate challenge and a fun throw. I don't care for holes where the tee pads are laid like dominoes down the middle of the fairway. When possible, additional tee pads should be tucked off to the side, but in spots where they can be seen from the other tee pads. Most of the time this can be done with some careful pruning. If you're lucky, the locations for additional tee pads can be just as challenging as the long tees if there's elevation or some well placed trees to work with.

 

[Karl]

Ps to my 12:32 pm post earlier...
#1 is whatever course you think is "the cat's meow"
#2 is none other than the very, VERY highly regarded (but dangerous in a few spots as alluded to by previously posters) Maple Hill.
Not 'Maple Hill Gold' which has 3 other configurations overlayed (somewhat / sometimes) on it, but 'Maple Hill'...whatever that means (as a course / layout / configuration / etc.).
See my point now?

 

[DavidSauls]

Probably varies from course to course. I haven't played Maple Hill.....though you're clearly right about it being highly regarded.

I'm co-owner of a private course with multiple overlapping layouts. But we rarely have enough players to have any safety or conflict issues, and of course at tournaments we only use one layout per round. We didn't build it this way to boost ratings---we did it because we keep finding cool holes (at least, to our taste), and want to play them.

We consider it one course, and list it as such, but as I said earlier, it's tricky fitting it into this website, which presumes a more standard arrangement.

 

[tallpaul]

The owner at Rollin' Ridge was originally hesitant to install multiple permanent basket positions, for the reasons cited (in addition to wondering if player's would "get it"). ...3 tees and three permanent baskets on most holes; though a few only have two tees at present...

However, it's worked like a dream; and a big draw is that it accommodates a large variety of skill sets...and/or allows one to play skill set desired for a particular day. It has worked fantastically at the Ridge. A small disclaimer would perhaps be that with it being a private course; and pay to play (albeit only $5); player's tend to play with a degree of respect for each other.

There are not many places where one would be unaware someone was on a different tee; same hole.

Like anything, the execution of the whole probably makes a big difference. There are a lot of subtle design items within' the Ridge complex, that make it function well.

*Having reread the original post; the Ridge is only listed as one course. I was addressing feasibility of multiple set ups within one course; not "how it's listed."*

 

[Billipo]

I never understood the resistance to multiple permanent pins on a hole when multiple tees are so common an accepted.

I think a two tee, two pin senerio would be awesome if used to accommodate player skill levels. Tees create distance, pins create short game challenge.

It is much easier to create added difficulty while conserving course space with a second pin placement then just adding a longer tee. Yet it is seldom seen.

I think key is color coding baskets.

One of my designs has a few holes with multiple permanent pins. Works this way.... single target (standard target), multiple targets then short is orange and long is blue.

 

[DavidSauls]

Probably varies from course to course. I haven't played Maple Hill.....though you're clearly right about it being highly regarded.

I'm co-owner of a private course with multiple overlapping layouts. But we rarely have enough players to have any safety or conflict issues, and of course at tournaments we only use one layout per round. We didn't build it this way to boost ratings---we did it because we keep finding cool holes (at least, to our taste), and want to play them.

We consider it one course, and list it as such, but as I said earlier, it's tricky fitting it into this website, which presumes a more standard arrangement.

An anecdotal footnote.

The numbers on Stoney Hill are: 2 18-hole overlapping layouts, 32 holes (4 shared on both layouts), 28 baskets (4 shared on both layouts, approached from different directions), 3 shared tees (same tee to different baskets). Plus 3 hybrid layouts, 24 or 27 holes, with segments of the 2 main layouts.

And so lightly played that we might go months without having 2 groups on the property at the same time. While at tournament time, we bag, rope off, or move baskets to avoid any confusion.

So two days ago there were 2 groups, playing 27 holes and starting an hour apart. And we ended up throwing to the same basket, from different directions, the same time.

Then yesterday, there were 2 individuals playing---one playing his 23rd hole, one playing his 1st---throwing to the same basket at the same time.

Which is a reminder that designers need to account for and plan for worst-case scenarios---traffic flows, bad shots, and the rest. In our case, it doesn't really matter---such conflicts happen so seldom that we'll live with them, for the benefits. But a similar layout on a course that's even just fairly lightly used might be questionable.

As well as a reminder that there is no one answer.

 

[JC17393]

I never understood the resistance to multiple permanent pins on a hole when multiple tees are so common an accepted.

I think a two tee, two pin senerio would be awesome if used to accommodate player skill levels. Tees create distance, pins create short game challenge.

It is much easier to create added difficulty while conserving course space with a second pin placement then just adding a longer tee. Yet it is seldom seen.

I think key is color coding baskets.

One of my designs has a few holes with multiple permanent pins. Works this way.... single target (standard target), multiple targets then short is orange and long is blue.

As with anything, the general concept isn't necessarily objectionable. It depends entirely on execution. Courses with a two tee, two permanent basket set-up can work well if designed thoughtfully AND everyone playing is aware of the multiple set-ups and understands how they work. That's the troublesome part though...even with a good design, players are a wildcard.

But even independent of execution, the biggest reason that more courses go the multiple tee, one target route rather than multiple targets is cost. Whether it's rubber, concrete, or natural, tees can be installed for no more than about a third of the cost of a quality target. And when you're talking parks that have concrete readily available to them (and perhaps cheaper than retail) but not targets, that carries the day.