Jump to content
IGNORED

A couple of rules questions regarding tee boxes


Note: This thread is 5239 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

#1: If the teeing area is defined as a rectangular area, two club lengths in depth, but the course is set up with no more than 1 club length between the tee markers and the back of the tee box, do you have an option to go further back or are you simply stuck complaining to the golf course superintendent?

#2: If the tee markers are 12 inches long from front to back, does the teeing ground start at the back, middle, or front of those markers?
In the Bag:
TaylorMade R11TP Driver
TaylorMade R11TP 3 wood (15.5)
Mizuno MP 63 3-PW
Vokey 52Vokey 56TAD MOORE Pro1P

Ok...nevermind regarding #2. Clear on that one now.
In the Bag:
TaylorMade R11TP Driver
TaylorMade R11TP 3 wood (15.5)
Mizuno MP 63 3-PW
Vokey 52Vokey 56TAD MOORE Pro1P

  • Administrator
  Wine&Poker said:
#1: If the teeing area is defined as a rectangular area, two club lengths in depth, but the course is set up with no more than 1 club length between the tee markers and the back of the tee box, do you have an option to go further back or are you simply stuck complaining to the golf course superintendent?

You can still tee up two clublengths back. In the rough. It's up to you.

No, it's not cool and if it happens a lot I'd mention it to someone, but... eh.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  iacas said:
You can still tee up two clublengths back. In the rough. It's up to you.

Or have a severe uphill lie!

Cobra LTDx 10.5* | Rad Tour 16.5* | Dark Speed 21* | Titleist U500 4i | T100 5-P | Vokey SM7 50/8* F, 54/10* S, SM8 58/10* S | Scotty Cameron Squareback 1 | Vice Pro+


  Wine&Poker said:
#1: If the teeing area is defined as a rectangular area, two club lengths in depth, but the course is set up with no more than 1 club length between the tee markers and the back of the tee box, do you have an option to go further back or are you simply stuck complaining to the golf course superintendent?

Sometimes it's simple ignorance on the part of the worker setting the course in the morning, other times it's poor design, creating a tee box which doesn't have enough usable space.

I see this done most often on courses or on holes where they simply failed to make the tee box large enough to support the traffic - that is to allow one area to heal before it has to be used again. This is particularly true of holes where an iron is expected to be the most common tee club. Because of the tendency of players to use only the 1 foot or so right at the markers, there can be about a 5 or 6 foot area at the back of the box which never sees a divot, so they just decide that the way to get maximum use is to move the markers farther back. Most players never notice because they never tee up the ball anyplace except right between the markers. This punishes the player who uses the entire teeing ground to maximize his shot options, but any course which does this is more concerned with maximum utilization (or in some cases the worker who sets the markers is just as ignorant as many players are) than they are with the comfort of the few players who might take advantage of the 2 clublengths. This seems to be what I've noticed anyway... I don't see it a lot though. My home course seems to do a pretty good job, and a couple of times when I have had an issue I've actually moved the markers up a few feet, then informed the shop staff. Our tee boxes are generally large enough that turf recovery isn't a problem, but we don't always do the best job of training a new guy on the mowers. They teach him how to mow, but not how to reset the markers.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 5239 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,312 6/6* ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 🟨⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 back in Phew land….
    • You are not wrong. The shaft and the head together both contribute to the performance of the club. I'd also suggest that they contribute in different amounts depending upon whether we are comparing a driver, an iron or a wedge. (We could argue all day about how much is the head and how much is the shaft... and I would enjoy the argument.) Having said that, in order for a youtuber or anyone else for that matter to completely optimize the club and then hit it in comparison to another completely optimized club is all but impossible. Just one of the many reasons why all club tests should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.  Not only that but even in robot testing there are variables that are outside the areas of control. I've personally been lucky enough to witness robot testing first had. It's fascinating how non-repeatable the results can be. Let me elaborate. With an 7 or 8 iron the robot can land balls over and over again in an area the size of a kiddie pool. However, when the testers moved away from a 7 or 8 iron, the results got less and less precise. Interestingly it didn't matter if they went up or down the bag. With the robot hitting short pitches and even chips, relatively, more variation than full short iron shots. Similarly, long drives with the robot created more variation as well. This is without the effects of wind, variations in the surface and texture of where the ball lands etc...  In addition, this doesn't take into account possible bias, either consciously or unconsciously of the tester. The testers I got to witness (these happened to by Taylormade guys, but I'm sure it doesn't matter), confessed that they could influence the results if they wanted to. They could take two clubs and make either of them "win" with robot testing if they wanted to. They made to the point to illustrate that in their job they had to constantly make sure they were fighting bias and/or putting in double checks, but never-the-less when I now read about any testing saying X club is 7 yards longer, I think back to their statement.  So, if it's that difficult to get really good results out of a robot imagine how difficult it is to get quantifiable results out of a human swinging a club.  Here's a fun test to try. Hit your driver 10 times on a launch monitor and gather the data (You can do 20 or 30 swings it doesn't matter). Now group the data into 2 sets, the odd numbered swings and the even numbered swings. Look at your two data sets. I guarantee that one data set will look "better" than the other. Even though, it's the same person swinging the same club on the same day. But if you just happened to be testing a driver against your driver on that day, Even if you gather your data by switching back and forth between the two drivers you may get misleading results. I've done this test a few times in my life and it's interesting to see how the "odd numbered me" or the "even numbered me" always produces different results, sometimes one will win by a large margin.  In summary, I too enjoy watching reviews of the new clubs that come out, especially drivers. But it is information not data. 
    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟦🟦🟦 ⬛🟦🟦🟦⬛ 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧  
    • Something I’ve been thinking about. I watch a lot of club tests, retired and get up way too early, and there’s something I think in my opinion might be being done wrong. They might pick several drivers, could be something different, and use the same shaft so things will be equal. In my mind a shaft might be good in one club and not in another. Learned the hard way, had my best ever driver at the time, G410, and kept hearing about how great the G425 MAX was. Since I sometimes have trouble finding senior shafts we traded heads and the 410 shaft never seemed to work out in the 425 head for me. Wasn’t as straight or as long so I have moved on. Don’t think everyone was wrong about the G425, just think that combination maybe didn’t work for me.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...