[TEPaul]

This is the title of a Tillinghast article about a particular type of hole Tillie recognized could be considered 'a freak' but nonetheless he could not get it out of his mind consequently causing him to write a relatively comprehensive article about it complete with a drawing.

The reason for its description "cart before the horse" is the hole is quite a long par 4 (400-420 in Tillie's design) that basically requires an accurate placement shot off the tee that must be shorter than a driver or brassie before the approach shot to the green which requires a longer club than the tee shot (hence the cart before the horse). In a real way this design requires a tee shot that mimics an approach shot to a green (for accuracy) before the longer shot to the green that mimics the length of a tee shot.

Tillinghast's rationale for this design is that although he admits it flies in the face of convention (that the long shot should come first) he feels that golf architecture should not always conform to convention.

I mention this article and this design because it was pointed out to me by Jim Sullivan Sr (not JESII) at the Pa Amateur at HVGC last week that the highly controversial 2nd hole on the ultra hard "C" nine at HVGC is essentially a conceptual copy of this Tillinghast hole and design idea (even if the 2nd hole on the "C" nine is in mirror image).

The Tillinghast article ("The Cart Before the Horse) can be found in the book "The Course Beautiful". The article was obviously done by Tillie in some magazine at some point (of which I'm not aware but obviously the Tillinghast Society would be).

William Flynn built HVGC and the 2nd hole on the "C" nine. Was Flynn aware of this Tillinghast concept? It'd be pretty hard to assume he wouldn't have been since they both were from the "Philly School of Architecture" (a small group of basically collaborating architect/friends). Toomey and Flynn's construction arm apparently did occasional work for Tillinghast and his courses such as Sunnehanna. Tillinghast and Flynn also were rubbing shoulders during construction at PVGC from time to time apparently.

The 2nd hole on the "C" nine at HVGC which was rejuvenated approximately ten years ago with the rest of the "C" nine after being obsoleted in the 1930s has indeed proven to be a highly controversial hole and pretty much for the reasons Tillinghast assumed this type of desging might be---eg it completely breaks with convention by requiring something less than a driver before a very long shot to the green.

HVGC (and particularly Jim Sullivan) wants the "C" nine to be more respected. To be more respected, or at least to become less controversial, I think the club and those dedicated to the "C" nine recognize some fix may need to be applied to at least holes #2 and #7 on the "C" nine.

Both holes probably have some EPA restriction limitations of some sort but Jim Sullivan tells me certain fixes may be doable despite that.

What could be done with the 2nd hole on the "C" nine that looks very suspiciously like a Flynn "conceptual copy" of a Tillinghast design idea he labeled "The Cart Before the Horse"?

Wayne and I think it's possible to create a high-risk option on that hole where a good player could potentially drive the ball to the left of the creek for a much shorter approach shot. His only other option, of course, would be to play the "cart before the horse" strategy. We feel if the player at least had that other option it would somewhat ameliorate the resistance to this hole for being so unconventional and perhaps garner more respect for the hole.

To create that higher risk driver option the club would need to perhaps get into a somewhat EPA restricted area and do a bit of cutting on some trees in that restricted area. I do not know yet if some tree cutting in that area could make the fairway to the left of the creek visible from the tee but that would of course be the ideal.

We'll let you know if this type of fix is looked into by HVGC.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  Welcome to the "real world" of golf course design.

I doubt that Flynn's original hole was designed to force a lay-up tee shot; he would have filled in a bit of the wetlands to let people hit driver.  (And maybe the members could hit driver, back when they could only hit a good one 220-240 yards.)  I do remember being told that a little bit of what used to be fairway on one of those holes was now off-limits wetland area.

Getting a wetland permit to alter the hole will not be easy in Pennsylvania.  The only way it will happen legally is if a smart environmental engineer does the asking.

[paul cowley]

....very interesting TomP.
 I use a similar approach to a strait par 4 hole design that I call a foreshortened strategy, and when used right it is one of my favorites....usually it consists of a slightly diagonal crossing hazard in the fairway [water, sometimes sand], the near point out about 230 yds or so and the far point being 290ish... overall length in the 450to 460 yd range.
...you are always trying to sneak up close to the hazard to shorten your second shot or employ some kind of straitforward cape strategy to get it in the farthest corner.
 Club selection and then execution on the tee is key....rarely is it driver/ mid iron from the back tee crowd.

....oh, and then I usually include a smallish green surrounded by sand.........

[Kyle Harris]

Wow Tom...

I just spoke with Linc Roden TODAY about that very hole (He was out back while I was moving tees). He claims that it was meant as a copy of the 13th hole at Pine Valley, especially with the approach shot.

His rationale of course is that William Flynn built that hole at Pine Valley and then saw potential for it there. Apparently mimicking Crump's method of hitting spoon shots in order get the height of the green right up to the hill.

I belive you may be on to something though, having just reread the Tillie article, I can see many similarities.

Todd Anderson and I spoke of the possible changes to this hole, and he mentioned changing the tee angle to the right and nearer the present C-1 green. I believe that would eliminate the need to remove trees/clear wetlands while providing just enough angle to tempt the better player into clearing the creek.

Of course, the second fairway is mowed pretty far from the creek, so you'd probably have to extend it toward the creek for the shot.

BTW, both Linc and Todd told me that the carry through the fairway is 240 down the left side and the optimum play on the hole was to sling a low hook into the bank and let it run toward the creek.

[TEPaul]

" (And maybe the members could hit driver, back when they could only hit a good one 220-240 yards.)"

TomD:

That's a good point, and undeniable so back in the 1920s. In that way Flynn's #2 "C" nine was probably a departure from Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" (certainly if one compares the relatively straight drawing of Tillie's design to the rather sharp dogleg left #2 "C" nine) design which very well may've had a drive zone that ran out at something lke 175 (and on purpose).

But the point is today, #2 "C" nine is the same basic effect as Tillie's hole because most of these guys hit irons 220-240.

The thing about the drive on #2 "C" nine is distance isn't the point at all---it's all about coming as close to that creek as possible because whether you hit the ball 200 or 250 you're still going to have basically the same length approach shot.

[TEPaul]

"I just spoke with Linc Roden TODAY about that very hole (He was out back while I was moving tees). He claims that it was meant as a copy of the 13th hole at Pine Valley, especially with the approach shot."

Kyle:

I know, I had the same conversation about two weeks ago with Linc about the similarity of #2 "C" nine and PVGC's #13. I don't agree much at all with him on that. The two holes are very different. The only thing I buy about the similarity in those two holes is that the second shot into PVGC's #13 was intended to be very very long as designed (obvoiusly because golfers back then didn't drive it anywhere near as far as they do now) just as the second shot on #2 "C" nine was intended to be very long (like Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept).

But the real difference is most all golfers alway hit driver on #13 until recently. And now that they added about 40 yards to that hole (something Crump intended to do BTW ) they can again.  

In that way alone the holes are very different. Some sort of forced lay-up off the tee was something that was most definitely never intended at PCGC's #13 and another difference is the tee shot fairway is very wide without that much loss of approach shot distance.

[TEPaul]

"A propos the C-2 hole, I really like the mental aspects of the hole asking the player to so precisely place a tee shot to have an appropriatly maximized second.

Hole after hole, this sort of thing?  NO, but as a one-out, it works very well with the concept of mental games played with the player on that nine."

redanman:

Excellent response. That's almost a total match of the very reasons Tillinghast gave for doing such a hole. Obviously he felt it better to buck convention now and again than to always conform to it. On the other hand he did not deny that some would always look at such a hole as 'a freak'.

Now that you seem so in tune with some of Tillinghast's theories and philosophies perhaps this would be a good time for you to review some of the things he said about the use of tress in golf course architecture and golf strategy.

[Kyle Harris]

"I just spoke with Linc Roden TODAY about that very hole (He was out back while I was moving tees). He claims that it was meant as a copy of the 13th hole at Pine Valley, especially with the approach shot."

Kyle:

I know, I had the same conversation about two weeks ago with Linc about the similarity of #2 "C" nine and PVGC's #13. I don't agree much at all with him on that. The two holes are very different. The only thing I buy about the similarity in those two holes is that the second shot into PVGC's #13 was intended to be very very long as designed (obvoiusly because golfers back then didn't drive it anywhere near as far as they do now) just as the second shot on #2 "C" nine was intended to be very long (like Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept).

But the real difference is most all golfers alway hit driver on #13 until recently. And now that they added about 40 yards to that hole (something Crump intended to do BTW ) they can again.  

In that way alone the holes are very different. Some sort of forced lay-up off the tee was something that was most definitely never intended at PCGC's #13 and another difference is the tee shot fairway is very wide without that much loss of approach shot distance.

Tom,

I was also under the impression that the approach to 13 at PVGC was meant to emulate the redan approach as much as possible, whereas the green on 2-C seems much more attackable, with the right side bail out area to be used by crafty golfers who may not hit the shot as high. That green is eminently holdable with a well struck long iron.

I commented to both Todd and Linc today that the opening stretch of the C-9 seemed tailored to match play. Both holes would probably be considered Par 4.5s in their day and both holes have an enumerable amount of options available to the crafty player. These holes don't favor brawn over brains by any stretch - it would just seem that a lot of golfers complaining about them (and the C-Nine in general) could use a lesson in using the terrain to its fullest effect.

[TEPaul]

"I was also under the impression that the approach to 13 at PVGC was meant to emulate the redan approach as much as possible,"

Kyle:

I'm not sure I'd say that. I'd say the #13 green and green-end is just a pretty unique discovered arrangement. Few know this I'm sure but Crump intended to make some changes to that hole in both the first half of the hole and the second half by the green. He didn't live to do that though.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Having only seen pictures, I can speculate, but does anyone know the nature of the changes?

Is the green a fall-away?

[TEPaul]

"Is the green a fall-away?"

It tilts quite a lot from right to left. The run-in to it comes from the right to middle and casts the ball right to left. The long bunker complex along the left beginning over 1oo yards from the green covers the entire left side really well.

Crump wanted to put a huge bunker into the upslope of what's now known as Holeman's Hollow and he also wanted to cover most of the front with a bunker so the player would have to make the choice to go right to the green or lay-up well right.

Crump also cleared approximately 50 yards deep all along the left side of the hole. He wanted the flag to be visible from the tee which was intended to basically be sort of a ramp off the 12th green and perhaps quite close to where the present new back tee is now.

[JESII]

Crump also cleared approximately 50 yards deep all along the left side of the hole. He wanted the flag to be visible from the tee which was intended to basically be sort of a ramp off the 12th green and perhaps quite close to where the present new back tee is now.

Ala #18 at Pebble?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Looking at the aerial of 13 at PVGC, do you think that would qualify as the type of hole Tillie described? Having never been there, it looks like the fairway cuts off abrupty in the landing area, forcing a decision off the tee and then a long sweeping shot in.

[JESII]

One thing to consider about the 2nd on the C-nine at HVCC is that there were no trees inside the corner 75 years ago. If you could hit the ball 240 in the air you could drive it to about 140, and another 30 yards could get you 60 yards closer. Trouble is not many people could carry the ball that far in those days.

Today, there are many people with ideas to 'fix' the hole but few of them keep the integrity of the approach from 190-210 (which I believe is one of the best Par-4 approaches in golf).

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,

You're right of course. Frankly, I don't think the hole needs to be changes at all. Both times I played it in High School I was able to beat my opponent with my mind and putting myself in the position such that he felt obligated to bite off more than he could chew. Two strategic bogies, but A LOT of fun.

Can't wait to play it again with my better ballstriking.

[JESII]

All I would do is make it a bit easier to get to that 200 yard area (removing some of the trees along the left) and drain the small area at about 100 from the green and extend the fairway all the way to the creek. This second move would help the people that can't get around the corner from the tee. As it is they really get screwed after hitting their tee shot just a touch too short to where they can't see the green and approach area.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,

I'll have to take a look at that tomorrow, my memory isn't quite that specific. Though both changes seem within reason.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Under ordinary circumstances what do you tee off with on #2 "C" nine from the tips and what club do you ordinarily hit for your approach from the ideal landing area?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Looking at the aerial of 13 at PVGC, do you think that would qualify as the type of hole Tillie described? Having never been there, it looks like the fairway cuts off abrupty in the landing area, forcing a decision off the tee and then a long sweeping shot in."

Kyle:

Assuming #2 "C" nine IS a hole that was designed around the concept of Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Hores" hole, I don't think PVGC's #13 is like it at all, and for the reasons I gave above----eg PVGC's #13 was clearly designed as a driver hole and today with the added tee length it certainly can be. From the tips today it takes a carry of 265+ to carry Holman's Hollow on the left and there is probably 50 or more yards over it on the left side of the fairway and more room than that on the right side of the fairway. If a long player today was to go all the way to the end of the fairway on the left he probably wouldn't have much more than a 7 iron left in.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()