Quick Post: Little Tigers & Big Rabbits

Why do we conflate distance and skill with our tee boxes?

Lately the articles here have been extremely focused on programming, so I thought I’d write something quick about an interesting concept for tees that I’ve been thinking about.

I was recently in a discussion about whether or not doglegs are obsolete. The argument presented is that, with distance perpetually growing, it’s effectively impossible for a dogleg design to achieve its intended goal.

Now, I basically tried to dodge the question in my response. Instead of arguing about doglegs, I offered an alternative design I’d previously worked on — one that is proportional at different distances. That alternative looks like this:

With this design, no matter how far each player hits their drive, the hole can play exactly the same way. The real benefit here though, is that it theoretically allows infinite expansion to accommodate greater distance over time.

I thought this was quite clever and was pleased with myself. That is, until one of the other forum users responded with:

The problem with your sketch is that there are two components of driving the ball: carry distance and consistency.

The Tour pros’ advantage is really the latter. They know within a couple of yards how far they can carry their tee shot, and do so with 99% consistency. They know if they can carry a 40-foot tree 312 yards from the tee, because they know their trajectory precisely.

The average golfer is nowhere near in that regard. Even if you give an average woman golfer a 40-yard carry, she will have a 20% fail rate, just through intimidation. That’s why you generally find that architects will soften the angle of the dogleg as the tees move forward.

Yes, I could immediately see this criticism was correct, but also that it shouldn’t necessarily be correct in every case. Even if the average woman golfer will struggle with a 40-yard carry, there are a good number women golfers are quite gifted. And even though these skilled women are quite consistent, many of them will still struggle to play the ball the same distances as the men.

So, yes, distance off the tee correlates with our expectations for consistency. And, yes, the longest players off the tee tend to be more consistent. This, however, absolutely does not mean that every player’s consistency scales to their distance. No, that only happens on average and perhaps we should not design for that average.

Tees For Each Metric

I think it would be interesting to push back on this distance-consistency conflation. If we assessed each of these attributes separately, we would end up with four different types of players, and we could accommodate all of them with four different types of tees. I’ve tried to communicate the purpose of each tee using Bernard Darwin’s terms for players of different skill levels: tigers and rabbits.¹

The same design, but with an alternative route for inconsistent players.

• Big tiger tee (darker blue tee)

  • For highly consistent, longer hitters.

  • High rating

  • Extremely high slope

• Little tiger tee (lighter blue tee):

  • For highly consistent players who play shorter distances.

  • Medium rating

  • High slope

• Big rabbit tee (white tee):

  • For longer players, with softened features for less consistent play.

  • High rating

  • Low slope

• Little rabbit tee (red tee):

  • For most shorter players, beginners and folks who have difficulty getting the ball in the air.

  • Low rating

  • Extremely Low slope

Note here that we’ve kept our distances exactly proportional. For both sets of tiger tees the hole should play exactly the same, just at different distances. Meanwhile, we offer “softened angles” for the less consistent players, but these tees remain the same length. This should increase enjoyment, improve pace, and let each player take on the most appropriate challenge for their abilities, while still allowing strategic decision making.

I think it would work.

Some Questions Remain

I know there will be objections. I can immediately think of a few.

This design does increase the amount of land needed significantly.

I agree.

It will be difficult to develop “little tiger tees” for every hole, because much of the challenge on many golf holes is simply distance.

I agree here as well, though I’ve been working on other layouts.

A straighter hole concept. Here, a ridgeline forces tigers toward the bunker while rabbits can away from the bunker off the tee.

I honestly think the biggest potential objection is:

Are there even enough “little tigers” to justify their own set of tees?

I don’t know the answer to this. I know technology has led to plenty of “big rabbits,” but that same technology has also made it easier for the “little tigers” to hit the ball higher and farther. Still, I do see great players at my club who are unable to play the ball very far.

Par three holes seem to be optimal for this type of design. Here, our par three forces tigers to contend with both sets of bunkers. For rabbits, they can have a more favorable approach and the green contour is helpful in their direction.

In the end, I honestly haven’t entirely thought this one through. Still, I think it’s interesting and I’ve come up a few designs. So, I’ll leave this as a “quick post” for now. If I find myself consistently coming up with more hole ideas that incorporate a “little tiger” / “big rabbit” dynamic, then maybe write about the topic further. Right now, I’ll just leave it as something to think about.

1. Darwin does not have much sympathy for the average golfer:

I find that I have forgotten to explain exactly who the two parties are. Perhaps it is superfluous. The rabbits are, of course, the great body of golfers who are rather fat and rather old, and do not hit the ball very far or very straight. The tigers are the select few who do not suffer from these disadvantages.

Darwin, Bernard. “Golfing Tigers and Rabbits.” Vanity Fair, July 1929, pp. 70–71, 92. The Complete Vanity Fair Archive. Accessed 28 June, 2026.