[JSlonis]

Tom,

Thankfully for us at Tavistock, our views are shared wholeheartedly by Jim Nagle & Ron Forse.

[Scott_Burroughs]

What a difference when you take the trees out!

Here's #11 at PCC before clearing things out:

and after:


hard to believe it's the same hole...

[TEPaul]

Scott:

Thanks again for those "before and after the trees" photos of the 11th at Philadelphia C.C. It'd be hard to find such a dramatic comparison anywhere! I remember well playing that hole before the tree removal. For some reason some golfers (me included) felt the urge to swing a big draw at that green and as one can see in the first photo the chances of hitting the trees on the right in mid-flight were very good. The hole is a very dramatic change in look now from the tee but the far more dramatic change is when you look back at it behind #16 when playing that hole. Some members of Philly apparently still can't get used to the look coming down #16 as it's looks like both greens are almost "stacked". I wonder if any of the members have actually tried to play from the approach on #16 right on over that green directly onto #11. In a way that'd be like playing from #13 at GCGC directly over that green onto #15 green behind it!

[TEPaul]

Anyway, I think the point of this thread was to show Philadelphia C.C was a very good test for the best in this section in it's Open Championship. As high as some of the scores may have been it didn't seem that anyone had anything legitimate to complain about with perhaps one interesting exception--that being the transitioning of the 6th hole down to a par 4 for the championship making the course play to a par 70 at slightly under 7,000 yds.

There's an interesting historical fact here with transitioning down par 5s to par 4s. In the 1939 Open the USGA decided to transition down to par 4s both #6 and #12, making PCC perhaps the only course to play a US Open at a par below 70.

We do have some architectural and set-up documentation on that 1939 Open. It seems William Flynn was opposed to this transitioning down of those two par 5s. The home pro mentioned at the Open that he didn't think calling #6 a par 4 for the GAP Open was a very good idea either and I agree. He said he thought it felt better as a "go/no go" short par 5 and I feel he's right about that.

The hole at around 490 is really not designed as a long par 4--it's much better as a short par 5 as the green is really elevated from the second shot approach area. All the green-ends of the PCC par 5s are designed as par 5 greens, in my opinion. The greenside bunkering on the other two certainly is (#3 and #12) and again the elevation of #6 makes that hole so too.

But as even Michael Mcdermott (probably the longest in the Open field) said on the 6th hole---"what difference does it make what they call it---call it a par 3 as far as I'm concerned as we're all just trying to play it in as few strokes as possible?" And one of his fellow competitors said "Maybe you guys want to say I made a bogie here, but I feel I made a par". (he was laughing).

It was interesting though, the psychological impact it had!

[T_MacWood]

TE, Wayne and others
What is the general opinion of the restoration work at Spring Mill? Here is an interesting comparison.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The general opinion amongst the membership, tournament players and others regarding the work done at PCC is that it's an overwhelming success.

PCC's super, Mike McNulty, is really good and one of the things he absolutely insisted on was that the bunker surrounds on the course not be touched in the recent restoration.

He did tell me, though, that the only bunker he made a bit of a mistake on was the bunker to the left of the 5th green there. He thought even though it was so close to that pond it didn't need any special drainage considerations.

He said he was wrong about that.

By the way, that tree just to the left of the 5th green is one of the most "strategic" trees I've ever seen on a par 3. I think it may have been a huge question about what to do about it in the restoration but they opted to leave it there, and I couldn't agree more. There's scarely a player who stands on that tee who doesn't thnk hard about that tree!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Were the bunkers at #11 changed at some point...today are they an accurate representation of what Flynn created?

When did PCC change the order of the holes? Why?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Great pictures guys. thanks

[TEPaul]

"TE
Were the bunkers at #11 changed at some point...today are they an accurate representation of what Flynn created?"

I think they are. Maintenance practices may make them look a little different but I think that's the way they were.

"When did PCC change the order of the holes? Why?"

The order of the holes changed when the new clubhouse was built on the other side of the course. That required the club to build a new hole (present #18, original #5). The present #18th is by William Gordon (many year heas foreman for Flynn), I believe.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

I agree whole-heartedly with Tom Paul's response.  I have played the course a few hundred times over the years, my in-laws are 40+ year members, I know many members, and they have a lot of really top flight players both male and female. I don't know anyone who is critical of the work that Ron Forse and his number one man, Jim Nagle did.  Now the multi-million dollar clubhouse renovation is another matter.  In any case, Ron remains the consulting architect for the club and his group along with Mike McNulty, one of the really good superintendents in the district--and as a number on here know, someone who is very approachable, and the rest of the golf professional staff contribute to the great conditions and playability of the course.

Mike McNulty has also done a terrific job in maintaining the club's archives.  Between the collection of drawings and aerial photos that he assembled (Hagley photos and others), there is a wealth of evidence for Ron and Jim to consider for their work.  My thoughts are that their work is outstanding.

Now Tom, as to the photo of the the 5th green with the original fronting bunker now a bulkhead, well that pond floods fairly regularly and the front of the green started to collapse.  That is why many years ago the pilings were put in.  Nobody likes them and I can tell you with certainty that Mike McNulty would love to have that bunker put back in.  It was reminiscent of the bunker fronting the 14th at Pine Valley, well at least in that the sand went right down to the water.  But it was causing the green to erode and this is the solution the club went with a while back and continue with today.  I don't know when that large tongue was put in the front left bunker, I rather like the look of the earlier version.  There are 2 not original tongues in the right greenside bunker on 14 that look quite a bit worse than this one, not from the fairway--you only see the first one, but in the bunker or to the right of the green.  This is knit-picking because the return to size of many of the Flynn bunkers and the look of the surrounds is superb, probably the best of any of the Philly area Flynn parkland courses.  The added tee length works very well and does not at all come across as stretching the course too much.  

Philadelphia Country Club is a fine Flynn design in wonderful playing conditions.  Yes, the 18th hole went from a really great hole 5th hole to a mediocre 18th when they moved the clubhouse but otherwise the course is very close to its Flynn (and a bit of Maxwell on the greens) roots.

[Mike_Trenham]

Also, how big a difference is there really between most of the local pro's in the area and some of the better GAP players, I, for one don't really think there is too much of a difference at all.  There are a few pros in the area that really play golf a lot, but as most of the pros will tell you their real job is on the lesson tee and in the pro shop, while a lot of these amateurs pretty much have jobs that allow them to let golf take a priority in the summer.

Jason

Please explain why then are the amatures not winning each year?  Also what exactly is the Amatures record in the Ping Challenge Cup even though a few of the better pros skip this event each year, especially when there is an event that day with a cash prize available.  If the amatures are so much better why does the GAP (run by amatures) only provide them 15 spots.  The pros are much better.  Two of the four amatures (Hyndman & Sigel) that have one this event are in the pantheon of Mid-Amatures on a International scale!  This is why Chris Lange will probably consider this win one of his top achievements.  Chris is a great guy and I am happy for him.  He is now certainly in the pantheon on a local level.

[Jason Mandel]

Mike,

First, I never said the Amateurs were so much better, I simply asked the question how big a difference there was between the better amateurs in the area and the professionals.  

I believe only 15 spots are afforded to the Amateurs is because this event is really supposed to be for Pro's, hence the size of the purse.  It really gives some of the pro's a chance to pick up a decent paycheck.  The event really is not "open" as it proclaims itself to be.  I think one of the reasons so few amateurs have won the event is because qualifying for the amateurs is so difficult.  While the pros play in a qualifier and maybe have to shoot a 76 or 77 on a course that is set up for normal play, the amateurs have to qualify for about 10 spots, since 5 are exempt I believe, while trying to qualify for match play of the Philadelphia Amateur.  This year I think 145, or +2 is what it took to qualify on a 7200 yard cricket club.  

I think it says a lot that out of the top ten players, 3 of them are amateurs, considering they make up such a small part of the field.   I'm not saying its the case with the top shelf pros in the area, but their are a lot of pros out there that are professional in name only, and they will as much as admit that.  At my own club, I would take the top 4 amateurs against the 4 professionals that work at the club every day of the week.  

Chris Lange is an outstanding golfer, and his history speaks for itslef.  What I said wasn't said to diminish his accomplishment, but brutal honesty that I really don't think that at least in our section, there is that much of a difference between a large part of the amateurs and professionals in the area.  

I would take guys like   Michael McDermott, Jamie Slonis, Chris Lange, Chet Walsh  and Buddy Marucci in his hey day to go up against the top pro's in the area and take my chances.  

99% of the professionals that play in these events in the section are CLUB pro's.  What makes them such a better player.  Half of them are giving lessons all week or working the shop the other half of the week, or making sure that their members are happy.  I think it is a credit to them that they are as good as they are with as little time as most of them have to play.  

Jason Mandel

[TEPaul]

I surely don't think one can say that the top amateur contingent in the Philadelphia district is or has been better than the contingent of the best local pros. The long Philadelphia Open record just doesn't show that.

What it does show is occasionally the top amateurs in this district can give the local pros a run for their money and have from time to time. Lange is one of those amateurs. In any era it's not uncommon for one of the top amateurs to step in there and take the Philly Open. Mike Brown did it in 1997 in a rain shortened Philly Open. Actually two years ago Lange had the Open right in his grasp with only three holes to go at PVGC and sort of gave it away. He also lost out in an 18 hole play-off in the Philly Open to Sigel about ten years ago at Philmont.

Jay Sigel won the Philly Open something like six times and he by no means played in it every year. But of course Sigel could be fairly considered to be the second best amateur in American golf history given his amazing career record on a local, national and international level (before he became a senior pro). In a win/participation percentage Sigel probably dominated the city and state Open like no pro ever has.

I doubt it would surprise anyone that much if a handful of local amateurs won the Philly Open. That could include such as Mcdermott for sure and some such as Slonis and a few others.

But the strength of the pro contingent around here is a whole lot deeper than the amateur contingent--and the record of the Ping Challenge matches shows that pretty clearly! It's not that often either that a good contingent of local amateurs and pros tee it up against each other anyway.

The point I was trying to make on this thread is it seems the local class A amateurs around here play courses with set-ups that are probably more demanding than those the local pros play in their local circuit. And I think that's precisely what Philly C.C showed the other day!

That's what Jamie Slonis seemed to indicate in this thread. He's be one who'd  know best--as he's one of the best local amateurs in the district right now and he used to be a local pro and obviously knows what their local circuit is like! The thing I thought was interesting, though, was how many local pros were complaining how hard Philly C.C was but I just didn't hear any of that from the amateur contingent. That led me to believe they're simply more used to it!

[wsmorrison]

I mentioned Tom Paul's observation about the overwhelming majority of the griping after the Philadelphia Open came from the pro ranks to Pete Trenham, longtime fixture in Philadelphia Professional ranks at St. Davids, a chronicler of the local PGA history, and the father of our fellow GCAer.  Pete's reply was that pros are so forbidden to complain about their own clubs that when they go elsewhere the floodgates tend to open up.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That's interesting what Pete Trenham said. But I don't know, things must be changing. Philly C.C. head pro (who played in the Open) was rightfully proud of the course but was not shy about saying he thought the 6th would've been more interesting if they called it a par 5 on the GAP card (instead of dropping it to a par 4 on the GAP tournament card).

And at my club, GMGC, our former pro, Terry Hertzog (one of the real premier players in the state) who left this year was very vocal and helpful with his architectural opinions on our course.

And our new head pro, Tom Gilbert, is equally as opinionated and helpful about our arcitecture and course. The assistant pro, Tom Cecil is super good on architecture and surely offers his opinions on anything and everything, thankfully!

But Philly C.C did it right---their restoration is an overwhelming success, everyone thought so. The pins were just tough in the Open, but not unfair, the course was maxed out and there was some grain in those A-1 greens that definitely threw many off on speed.

Lange's victory was actually pretty interesting.Talk about putting yourself in a position to win. In the middle of his second round last nine (36 holes) he had a five shot lead and actually bogied three out of the last four holes.

[Mike_Trenham]

TEPaul

Patrick is completely wrong you are a smart chap.  I could not agree more.  BTW the members at these courses that host the amature events don't know what they are doing and often push the envelope to far I know people that are reluctant to return to certain invitationals for just this reason.

TEPaul & Wayne

I always caddied for Dad in the Philly Open.  He loved giving the needle to his members and others that were often involved in the administration of the tournament.  I am sure it was nice for a change to turn the tables on his own members.  One year I remember well we had a top 10 finish with solid play after a bad start, the amature in our group struggled all day and finished with the same score his name Jay Sigel.  

Most local pros are reluctant to vocally complain about any facet of one of their own events as the clubs and sponsors are truely appreciated, however the Philly Open is a GAP event so it is open season.  BTW this is also the case for the PGA tour at the Majors, hard for the Tour to fine a player for making less than favorable comments about an event not run by the Tour.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul
Patrick is completely wrong you are a smart chap."

Mike:

Let's not be too hard on the poor wretch---he's not completely wrong--he's only wrong about 98% of the time.

[Jason Mandel]

Congratulations to Pete Oakley for winning the Brittish Senior Open.  Oakley, who has played in the section for years certainly proves how good some of the pro's are in our section.  

Jason

[TEPaul]

Did Oakley win? I missed it all--damn! Wouldn't you say that ultra-course manager Pete Oakley winning the British Senior Open is somewhat akin to Todd Hamilton winning the British Open? I would!

I fully expect Matt Ward to come on here and state this is proof positive that his opinion Portrush is a good course but the fairways are too narrow is correct!

Just watch!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()