Genius at work

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

How are you qualified, or how would you be in a position to evaluate any answer that Jason would provide ?

[mike_malone]

 My reason for attempting to figure out "original intent" is to give us a framework within which to make intelligent decisions about the course we play.Without some framework that requires one to do research to support their viewpoint,we are left with choas and anarchy.If everyone's opinion is equal and any point of view is fine then it comes down to who has the power.
      Mr.Coleman gives a good example---he says we should have trees to punish a bad shot ,one that affords little recovery---does it make a difference that Flynn specifically had THE OPPOSITE view.Flynn states his distaste for no chance for recovery--and designed courses that way.He was clear about where to PLANT trees---out of play,backdrop,shade,separate holes---HE EVEN PLANTED TREES ON #7 THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH HIS WRITINGS.Anyone is free to interpret what Flynn intended,but not free to talk out of their .....

     I also wonder why those who say courses are too short say add trees.I can agree to added length,but planting trees in the most interesting places to hit the ball is a mistake for THIS PARTICULAR COURSE DESIGNED BY THIS PARTICULAR GUY.

      I believe the long term financial strength of the club depends on staying as close as possible to Flynn's intent.I welcome disagreement if anyone has some facts and research to back up their statements.

[mike_malone]

 I might add that as a Quaker i never believed war in Iraq would be good for us or them.

[George Pazin]

Just to clarify, I found Mr. Coleman's thoughts on why he feels the trees are important interesting and thought provoking, but his rebuttal more discussion squelching.

Ideally the green complex could defend on its own, but with technology the way it is, maybe not. I'd be interested in hearing mayday and Wayne's views on whether or not they feel the course would be easier without trees.

I'm not interested in hearing anyone's opinions on the war in Iraq (at least via this site).

[mike_malone]

 George
   I think it is impossible to argue that a course is harder without evergreens that allow little or no recovery.But planting trees like this are sort of the easy way out to increase challenge.It is much more difficult to attempt to design a response to technology that does not mar the original ideas.I believe this can be done.I have offered to discuss with Mr.Coleman how we could "make the course harder" without obliterating Flynn's work.I welcome anyone's interest in researching this,since i do not have many of the answers.

[George Pazin]

Mayday -

I think in a very obvious way, planting trees makes a course superficially harder. But it also makes the obvious play much clearer and probably encourages more conservative play, which ultimately could result in lower scores. Having no clear obvious play could lead to bigger numbers, or least encourage more aggressive play, which could also lead to bigger numbers.

Your ideas seem pretty reasonable to me, but I'm just basing them on what I'm reading, since I haven't seen the holes in question. None of this stuff is written in stone, obviously, but I generally side with redanman in distaste for trees on a golf course.

[mike_malone]

 George
      I wouldn't want to try your argument in our grill room,not that i disagree.It is just  too subtle.I find that the general membership believes our course's greatness comes from the designer's work on a very good piece of property.However,most are not aware of what that means specifically.For instance,i often hear people say"Flynn didn't believe in such and such".When i ask the person"where did you get that idea?",it usually leads to some response unrelated to the issue.
    BTW-the offending trees are visible in My Home Course section of GCA.

       The trees i am talking about are ugly,hurt the growth of grass,can cause harm from hitting a root,cut right through the line of play and are planted in an unimaginative row.There is no reason for them,but because they do knock down wayward shots they have a following.

      Does it make sense to do research to uncover as best as possible what Flynn intended with all the limitations that entails  or just take anyone's idea of what seems right?

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

With a bunker right on #7 I think we're just talking strategy and strategic ramification here. I do understand the idea of not putting in anything out of the ordinary on a Flynn course and so if you or the club want to return that area on the right to the way Flynn designed it I certainly have no problem with that. That is good ground to use for golf there as it slopes at the green. I just feel that a bunker well placed and well designed in there would make the hole better. But again, I certainly have no issue at all with returning a Flynn hole to the way he designed and built it.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I'm gonna take a Mucciesque stand here.  While some of your reasoning is well considered and your passion evident, I think it is impossible for Flynn to be "revealed" to you or anyone but especially given the limited amount of information you have been exposed to to date.  You haven't seen enough Flynn courses to make an informed decsion.  It is good that you recognize the problems on #7 but simplistic and an easy way out to consider that the return to the original plan is the best way to go about changing the flawed setup of the current 7th.  You seem fixated on the course today being returned to this design based upon Flynn's drawing and aerial photographs--the as built.  Maybe you've thought this through the many different outcomes and think the original the best.  But it shouldn't be based on incomplete research and a default to Flynn's decisions of nearly 80 years ago.  We don't know what influenced his efforts and we don't know for certain what is intent was.  It may be that the drawings Tom and I have at our disposal and copies of which you've seen are not the final iteration of his plans.  But we do have a number of aerial photographs from 1926, 1928, 1937, 1939, and later from the Hagley, National Archives, and other sources that give us a good idea of what was there, although the construction era photographic evidence is not that strong.  There is only one photograph from 1926 and one from 1928.  Yet RGGC clearly has more photographic evidence than most clubs.  This is overall a good thing but not if it leads to a fixed mind set that this is how the golf course must be.  You yourself have accepted other changes from Flynn's as built at RGGC so that hurdle has been cleared.  Only by studying the entire body of Flynn's work can you have hopes of a foundation for best understanding Flynn's design efforts.  

That being said, the main point remains what is the best way to set up the hole today with today's balls, implements, and players being so different from 1926.  Granted Flynn saw the problems that B&I would cause in the 1920s or earlier, but I don't think he anticipated the agronomic improvements and increased swing speeds, and optimization.  Todays grass strains, mowing heights, and modern maintenance abilities would astound all the architects of the Golden Age.  

The 7th would no doubt be a fine hole if returned to the original design but it would not realize its full potential.  A right side bunker 25-30 yards short of the green would add complexity to the decision making tree of golfers of all abilities going back to the tee shot.  It should be in a position to allow a fairly high demand run-up shot (where Flynn's greens allow run-ups they are not typically very wide open) yet it should be a bunker that can be challenged with an aerial shot over the bunker that feeds onto the green like Merion #5.  Thus the bunker would be an indirect tax and one of great sophistication.  Yet the fairway needs to be expanded and trees removed.  The details of design needs to be right (location, dimensions, and depth).  That is not too difficult a task if planned by the right architect and built accordingly.  Ron Forse, currently consulting at RGGC, is capable of doing a great job of designing such a bunker and a good shaper will execute it properly.  And guess what?  The increased strategic effect will be stunning.  Will it be good without it with tree removal and widened fairway?  Yes of course.  Can it be better?  Absolutely.  Plenty of highly regarded people think so and the results in my opinion will make it realize its fullest potential.  My guess is that it is going to happen--the bunker will be put in.  If it is and you honestly think it is not an improvement on the original design (although you would not have ever played it that way), I'll buy you a dinner of your choice!

[Jim_Coleman]

     Like Clinton, I feel every attack must be met with a response.  (Obviously I like political anologies.  But please calm down; I'm just trying to add a little humor to the discussion.  If I've failed; at least I tried.)
     Obviously, I think "resistance to scoring" is an important part of golf course architecture.  I guess I'm not alone.  The dummies at Augusta have been planting trees (#'s 11 and 15) to toughen things up lately too.  
   I'm a very ordinary 7 handicap.  20 years ago at the four pars at RG I hit 5 iron into 1, 5 wood into 2, 6 iron into 4, 7 iron into 5, five wood into 6 (a par 3), 5 wood into 8, five iron into 11, wedge into 12, 5 wood into 13, and 7 wood into 15.  I SUSPECT THIS IS HOW FLYNN DESIGNED THE HOLES TO BE PLAYED!  Now I hit 9 iron into 1, 8 iron into 2, wedge into 4, wedge into 5, six iron into 6, eight iron into eight, nine iron into 11, wedge into 12, eight iron into 13, and 7 iron into 15.  I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT WHAT FLYNN INTENDED.
     30-40 years ago, a few pine trees were planted to the right side of four so a big slice would not leave an open shot, to the right side of five so a big slice would not leave a wide open shot, to the right side of seven (a 475 yard par 5) so a big or small slice would not leave an open shot, and to the right of 12 (a 350 yard par 4) so a small slice would not leave an open shot.  THESE TREES (ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY AESTHETICALLY UNAPPEALING) DO PUT A PREMIUM ON ACCURATE DRIVING.  Is that so bad?  
    Your choices aren't limited by the addition of the trees; they're different.  With the trees, you can try to hit over or around them to get to the green, or you can go sideways.  Without them, you have one choice - hit for the green with an unobstructed shot.
    As for whether PV is obsolete at 6,600 yards, it may be.  But if it's not, the last time I played there and missed almost any fairway, I was hitting out sideways, not going for the green.
     For those of you who have never played RG, don't get the wrong impression about the trees we're talking about.  This isn't White Manor or Overbrook where there are hundreds of bad pines choking the course.  This is 15 or so now mature pines that eliminate easy bail outs.  Yes they're ugly, and it's ashame they aren't oaks; but they aren't.  And the course is better because of them.  If we take them down and replace them with another challenge (like the proposed bunker on 7), ok.  But to take them down for the sanctity of Flynn's memory, no thank you.  And I truly believe Flynn would say no thank you too.  He wanted to build a championship course, not 18 postcards.
     Prettier doesn't mean better, any more than harder necessarily means better.  But, at least in my opinion, when a course gets too easy, it loses its charm.  Denuding RG may turn it into a prettier course to photograph; it will not turn it into a more satisfying course to play.  

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

You see that---Wayne's willing to buy you a nice dinner of your choice over that bunker! So what's it gonna be, Pal? Are you going to stop putting up a fuss here and have a nice dinner with Wayne and me or are Wayne, Ron Forse and me going to have to put you on the inside of that booth and work you over until you agree to that bunker on #7? You better make up your mind soon---Friday night is getting closer!

[mike_malone]

 I was  just trying to get Wayne to open up,which he did quite nicely.

   Mr.Coleman
        Your solution is simple----add distance.I can tell you with 100% certainty that Flynn would not agree with those evergreens.So,let us start to find a basis of agreement,not friction.Let you and me move forward on the back tees.

[Jim_Coleman]

Mayday:
    Would McKenzie like Augusta today?  Does Augusta care.    
     The fact that you can tell me "with 100% certainty" that Flynn wouldn't like the 15 or so trees about which we are talking is all the ammunition I need to have you committed.
    Again, calm down.  I'm only half kidding.

[wsmorrison]

Jim Coleman,

You state:

"I hit 9 iron into 1, 8 iron into 2, wedge into 4, wedge into 5, six iron into 6, eight iron into eight, nine iron into 11, wedge into 12, eight iron into 13, and 7 iron into 15.  I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT WHAT FLYNN INTENDED."


If these are your approach shots today, why aren't you playing from the back tees tomorrow?  The above distances you site of your approach shots clearly show that technology and your skills dictate that you play from the back tees.  How much has your handicap come down since you are now hitting much more lofted clubs into the greens compared to yesteryear?

If you think a course needs to have some amelioration of design to make it harder and penalize off-line shots, I think there is a better way and that is to cut down the offending trees (evergreens mostly), widen the fairways, and deepen the rough.  This must be done in conjunction with a proper maintenance practice (Tom Paul's maintenance meld) that allows firm and fast through the green to provide a bit of uncertainty and a reward to proper shots and a greater penalty to mishits (balls will wander wider).  Then with the greens firm (ball lightly dents) and the best green speeds given for this particular course, balls will not hit and stick and the course will play just fine.  Tell me, Jim.  Who is shooting really low on this course in tournament conditions?  I agree whole-heartedly that pretty is not an aim unto itself.  But there are more than just 15 offending trees on the course.  Many along the periphery of holes (evergreens between 9 and 12, 9 and 11, and other internal hole boundaries) block views of outstanding ground and do not provide the safety that most assume.  It is far better to have lines of sight opened up for aesthetics and safety.  The USGA now espouses that aware golfers given open views have a better margin of safety than a false sense of security provided by trees.  These trees need to go.  Air circulation, better turf, and beautiful views will all be accomplished to the betterment of the course and the enjoyment of the golfers.

However, Jim, when it comes to Mike Malone, I agree with you 100%    He needs to be committed.  If he comes to dinner on Friday and still feels the way he does, why then Tom, Ron, and I will beat the crap out of the Quaker, make him pay for dinner, and then have him driven directly to the wacky ward to be released only on sundays with supervision to attend his meetings

[mike_malone]

 Wayne
     That is exactly what i was going to say to Jim-go back and play the blues.Now if i were committed who would take up the job of listening to Flynn? Think about that for awhile!!!

[mike_malone]

 MacKenzie would cringe at Augusta.I don't care what they do to Augusta;they have lost touch with their roots.I do care what is done at RG,since i believe the members still care about the original designer;they just don't know much about him.
     There are many on the ground things we can do to make the course tougher that don't ruin the turf,take the fun out of the game, and hide the course. One simple example would be to create fairway on the back right side of #5.This should go some 30 yards down the hill.Then when you hit that slice again to the area where i have cut down those trees you will need to deal with that.There are many places where increasing the size of the fairways would toughen the course,because they on slopes.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,
You mean Flynn won't talk to you in the wacky ward?  Why he may talk to you more than he does now, you may even begin to see him.  

[mike_malone]

 Yes but i won't have anyone to talk to. Or d ;Do you think i can get on GCA in the looney bin? I guess so because it is obvious some residents are on this site now.Calling Mr. Coleman--time for your meds.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Wayne:
       I don't disagree with anything you said.  Take trees out that block site lines .  But don't take the trees out that defend the course (#'s 4,5,7,12,15,17 and 18).  This is a parkland course, not a heathland course.
    And, by the way, I was talking about blue tees.

    Redanman:
       There's a big difference between 6,600 and 7,500 yards. (900 yards, to be exact - or 50 yards per hole.  I know math too.)  That's not what I favor.  But we need something to defend these old courses.  Merion uses impossible rough (and now an additional 500 yards); Augusta added rough, length and trees; Oakmont added length and rough - while removing trees; etc.  The geniouses on this thread would simply remove trees from RG, open up clear shots from badly struck tee shots, and masterbate with each other about what a wonderful Flynn reconstruction they have accomplished.  In the meantime, Rolling Green's course rating will drop to 69.5 from the whites,  70.2 from the blues; the slope will drop to 123; and everyone's scores will drop by 1 1/2 shots per round.  I think that stinks.  Sorry.

[wsmorrison]

"i believe the members still care about the original designer;they just don't know much about him."

I disagree, I don't think the membership cares that much about Flynn.  But you are surely right they don't know much about him.  A lack of knowledge is a fundamental problem at RGGC and they are not alone.

[mike_malone]

 Mr. Coleman
     You keep bringing out that strawman of "we want a beautiful course".That is not my goal,although i think removing stupid trees does achieve that as a byproduct.The real issue is adapting to changing conditions without overturning tradition.I believe this can be done ,but not unless we are willing to do some work that is outside of our personal experience.
  Your concern for the shortening of the course based on new technology is not addressed by adding trees ,but tees.Can you imagine other solutions to the problem?In order to see other possibilities it may be necessary to learn something.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,
I hesitate to disagree with your own game, but I find it hard to believe you hit those approach shots from the back tees with the clubs you state.  I challenge you to hit the green on 13 with an 8 iron from the end of the fairway (an excellent drive for a national amateur from the back tee even though there's a steep fall-off such that all would avoid and would throttle back if necessary).  I further challenge that there is absolutely no way on earth (even with a 50 mph wind at your back) that you are hitting an 8 iron into 8 from the back tee.  Your other club selections are nearly equally implausible.  If you are in fact correct, I think you've visited the BALCO lab recently and worked with Barry Bonds' trainers!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

I believe in putting a premium on driving accuracy.

I just think you have to be careful in the way you undertake accomplishing that goal, and trees are often, neither the intelligent, nor the best, long term answer.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne
     Mr. Coleman is ungodly long.

[wsmorrison]

Further, Jim, I think you should look at my proposal for new tee lengths (I think I'm wrong on my proposed tee on 11 by the way) and those of Gil Hanse and Ron Forse.  I agree there is room for lengthening while still  maintaining the design integrity.  I don't agree that 18 needs to be lengthened as a par 5, it should play as a par 4 from medal tees and the member's tees should be on the back tier and play as a 5.  I don't think as some do that 7 should be a par 4.  Because of its location preceeding a tough stretch 8,9,and 10--it should be a par 5 where you can score low but with the changes Gil, Ron, and I suggest, it will improve the hole and provide a wide scoring spectrum for all players.  There's lots of methods to do what you want, that is make the course play as the championship course Flynn intended.  I agree with your goal but not your means.  Get rid of the confining and strategic limiting trees and reap the benefits if in conjunction with a proper remodeling of some holes and integrate the architecture with the right maintenance practices--the maintenance meld according to TEP.

[Tags:]

Tags: