[Kevin R]

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with 13 NOW, the way it is. It is a par 4.5.  That is what it has always been.

Whether you reach it with a long iron or a fairway wood doesn't matter to me.  It's always been reachable.  The only player I recall recently reaching 13 with something other than a long iron is this past year when Phil Mickelson (one of the longest hitters on tour) hit a gargantuan drive with a 3 wood, leaving him a 6 iron into the green. Most players need a stronger club than that.

I gather from your comments that you'd like more players to be forced to play 13 as a 3 shotter, leaving them with a challenging wedge approach.  But that is exactly the way 15 plays.  It is the most challenging wedge shot in golf for those who lay up.  Do they need two holes like that on the back nine?  In my opinion they don't.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I agree, and Tiger flew those bunkers AFTER many holes were lengthened.

My problem with lengthening holes is two-fold.

1) It doesn't work real well, and is a expedient, stop-gap, short-term solution to a bigger problem.

2) Some very good holes get permanently altered and usually F*($ed up in the process.  In the case of ANGC, they are out there regrading fairways to accommodate the new back tees.  

Where does this end?  

I joked last month on another thread that while they are at it, let's just go all the way and suggested a ANGC course that measured out at over 7,600 yards, par 70.

If this is going to be a game of leap frog with the equipment manufacturers, with the ruling bodies sitting impotently on the sidelines, then let's build something that will last the next 20 years.  

Can anyone name one hole on any course that is now a much better hole because it was lengthened?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

One more thought, if I might.

Lengthening our classic courses will inevitably postpone anyone doing anything meaningful about the ball..don't you think?

It's only when we see these courses that have withstood the game's best for decades start falling under an assault of red numbers and absurdly long drives that someone might take notice and decide to rein in the ball.

As long as courses start stretching themselves to 7,300+, par 70, (see Bethpage, Baltusrol, etc), the problem is ignored.  

More the pity that places like Merion, where there is no real acreage to expand, are left in the dust in the new yardage race to keep up with technology.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin R,

The 15th is hardly the most challenging wedge shot in golf for those who lay up.
It's a simple L-wedge or Sand wedge, depending upon what range the player most prefers to come in from.
 
The second shot at # 15 is duck soup if you're laying up, whereas the second shot at # 13 is not without risk, and the player can still be left with an uncomfortale lie, to a not so friendly green.

Until you've stood in the middle of the 13th fairway, with that ball way above your stance, looking at that creek left, bunkers, and reverse sloped green, it's difficult to appreciate how hard the shot is, especially if you're hitting a 3-wood, or very long iron.  Pros recently have been hitting 7, 6, 5, and 4 irons into this green, and bringing them back to longer shots will enhance the playing value of the hole.

Mike, the holes aren't permanently altered at all.  You and I can't even play from the Open tees at TOC unless we sneak on and don't get caught.

With regard to regrading the fairways, I'll have to reserve judgement until I can see the finished product and its impact on the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin R,

Pete Galea posted some pictures on another thread which give you a pretty good idea on the slope in the 13th fairway.

If I recall correctly, the more you got around the corner, the flatter the fairway became, so one was rewarded with less distance to the green and a better stance/lie

With Pros, cracking 3-woods and 6 irons into the green, perhaps lengthening the hole will return it's play as originally intended, unless you're against McK's design principles

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

There was an article in one of the magazines (believe it was Golf) recently that listed a number of new courses that were over 7,500 yards, topping out at about 7,800.

Don't you think this unfortunate trend is only accelerated when prestigious clubs like ANGC just throw up their hands, bring in the dozers, and permanently alter their courses as a means of trying to protect their design integrity from the onslaught of technology?  

That's my only point.  It's sort of like the domino theory.  When a big one falls, the smaller ones fall all the sooner.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

There was an article in one of the magazines (believe it was Golf) recently that listed a number of new courses that were over 7,500 yards, topping out at about 7,800.

Don't you think this unfortunate trend is only accelerated when prestigious clubs like ANGC just throw up their hands, bring in the dozers, and permanently alter their courses as a means of trying to protect their design integrity from the onslaught of technology?  

That's my only point.  It's sort of like the domino theory.  When a big one falls, the smaller ones fall all the sooner.

[Kevin R]

Patrick, you have a different opinion than I do about the 3rd shot to the 15th hole. If that is a "simple" sand or lob wedge approach then I'd hate to play, but probably would enjoy watching, a more challenging shot from some other course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I do feel it is an unfortunate trend, but that doesn't mean that the tee changes at
# 13 and # 8 aren't valid improvements.

They are after all par 5's.  Par 5's that were almost always reachable, not just with
9 iron second shots.  Tiger Woods hit a 9 iron into # 15.  Now you tell me, was his 9 iron shot easier than Gene Sarazens wood for his double eagle ?  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll take my chances and bet every last dollar I can get my hands on, that every tour player, hitting 10,000 balls will get it SUBSTANTIALLY closer with a 9 iron versus a wood.  I'll also take money on the over/under on the green.  And the resulting average score.

# 8 could use a little more length, and I don't see that as altering the design integrity of the hole.  I also understand they are restoring the 8th fairway bunker.

Getting back to # 13 I think a more accurate shot will now be required off the tee, if the deal goes through.  I think it will put additional pressure on both the decision and execution of the second shot, with far more 3rd shots being pitches instead of putts.

Kevin R,

Despite a slightly downhill, right to left lie, a full L-wedge or Sand Wedge to the 15th green is a fairly benign shot.  Again, do you think Sarazen's wood shot was easier ?
How about Ballesteros hooked 4 iron ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Patrick, you're not following me.  The third shot to the 15th is a difficult shot compared to other shots elsewhere in golf of a similar yardage.  I'm comparing it to the third shot on other par 5s.  

I'm not comparing it to Chip Beck's (abandoned) 3 wood, Sarazen's 4 wood, Ballesteros' 4 iron, Jack's 8 iron (early 60s) or Tiger's pitching wedge (as an amateur).  Those were all second shots to the 15th, which are irrelevant to the discussion of whether the 13th could be improved if its 3rd shot were no longer a trivial matter.

My point is that ANGC already has a par 5 with a demanding 3rd shot (the 15th) so doing the same to 13 is overkill. The key shot on 13 is the second, and it is still a difficult/exciting one, despite the technology advances the last few years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin R,

The key to # 13 is the tee shot, which will have to be better executed in order to set up the second shot.  The tee shot sets up and largely determines how the hole is to be played.  And... If the second shot is laid up, because the tee shot wasn't good enough, it does create a difficult pitch for a third shot.

I don't see the third shot at # 15 as that difficult.  I find a third shot from 60-100 yards off a sloped fairway at # 13 much more difficult, especially if the pin is on the top shelf, or right along the creek.

The tee shot on # 15 is easier, and the lay-up second shot at # 15 is easier.  

The added length at # 13 force better execution, and strategy.

Lastly, have you seen both holes in person ?

[kevin]

Patrick, no I haven't seen the two holes in person, so I'll defer to you there.  But then again I imagine that not many on the DG have stood facing the shot(s) during tournament play. And that's what we are talking about, the difficulty of the shots during the play of the Masters.

I can't recall too many examples of a player finding the drink with his 3rd shot at the 15th.  During next year's tournament, let's keep track of the number of players who make bogey or worse on 13 after a layup, and compare that to the results on 15. That might give us the answer.

[kevin]

Oops...Meant to say: "I can't recall too many examples of a player finding the drink with his 3rd shot at the 13th"....

[jim_lewis]

Kevin:

It is true that during tournament play there are more third shots hit into the water on #15 than #13 primarily because more players go for the  13th green in two than on #15. I suppose that is one reason they want to lenghten #13. However, I can recall that third shots into the creek on 13 was the turning point that led to the eventual loss of the tounament by Fred Couples and Hubert Green. Actually Hubert hit his fourth shot into the creek. After hitting his second shot in, he took a drop, and then dumped his fourth into the creek. He dropped again, hit 6 on the green and made 7. He later lost the tournament by one shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()