[wsmorrison]

"The information about how far woods were hit around that time also convinces  me that an unimpeded runup is the shot called for on this hole."

There may be some hope for you with a statement like this.  However, the intended run-up shot has been compromised by technology.  A long hitting low handicapper on RGGC #7 is hitting driver followed by an aerial 6 iron or 3 wood tee shot followed by a 4 iron.  A  medium length hitter is hitting driver/3 wood.  Give them something to contemplate on the second shot, not just a straightforward low running shot over admittedly interesting ground.  The passage of getting the trees out require some other feature or the "The hole will be too easy" brigade will keep things status quo.  The majority of players don't get anywhere near where a bunker would be (25-30 yards short of the green) in 2 shots.  There 3rd or 4th shot would be from around 100-120 yards and they likely would not be in line with the bunker given the cant of the fairway.  Their aerial shot would not be impeded by the bunker but would rather fly over it.

Remember, I am not advocating a bunker in the rough but in the fairway with fairway behind it.  At one point I thought a small portion of the bunker could be in the rough and fairway behind it.  Yet, in either case there would still be plenty of room to maneuver a shot around the bunker and feed onto the green.  It just presents a challenge needed with today's balls and implements as well as the abilities of a large segment of golfers and the way the hole is actually played by the spectrum of golfers.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

This bunker or no bunker thing on #7 seems to be something that can't be agreed upon over there and so I'll offer a compromise. How about a very large sandbox on wheels 25 yards short and right of #7 green and when Mayday reaches the 6th green maintenance will come out and move it out of play for him. When he reaches the 8th tee they can wheel it back into position again. The only other alternative would be for you and me to take him out to a local diner next weekend, put him on the inside of a booth and pummel the lights out of him if he refuses to relent on this issue. If he relents and then changes his mind again as he's apparently done in the last 24 hours I'm afraid we'll just have to do away with him altogether.

[Mark_Fine]

I don't have time to jump into this thread but one thing you will find that was reasonably consistent among many of the early architects is that they didn't care too much about what par was or what was "fair".  If the hole was 260, golfers could call par what ever they wanted.  Emil Loeffler designed a similar length hole at Bucknell and no one knows for sure "what par for the hole was".  No one really cares either.  For most golfers back then, even with firm turf, it was a two shot hole to get to the green.  The architect just felt that length hole worked in the routing and built it.  Many scorecards had a "par" figure on them but that was because the clubs wanted it.  Guys like Ross never assigned a par to their holes.  

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Did Loeffler (or McGlynn) and Flynn write about the concept of par?

I have to disagree with you regarding Ross and many of the early architects. The majority sought ballance, variety and holes of 'good length'. They may not have referred to holes by a par number, but they did refer to holes as one-shot, two-shot and long holes.

What is the reason why architects didn't design many holes in the 260 yard range?

[wsmorrison]

Tom Paul,

You have the wisdom of King Solomon and that decision shall be called the Malone Compromise.  As another Biblical king said, "So shall it be written, so shall it be done."  I am waxing Biblical because I'm skipping Sunday services to hit the golf course....70 degrees out here in the land of Flynn.

Tom MacWood,

Flynn wrote about hole length in addition to course length; at length in fact    Mark is agreement with Flynn with regard to length of holes in a routing.  Here are some quotes from Flynn's August, 1927 Green Section article:

"It should be the aim of the architect to lay out his course in such a way as to get the proper length holes at the proper places.  

Actual yardage, however, is not the determining factor in this or that type of hole for a 430-yard hole down hill may very easily be a drive and mashie niblic while a hole reversed on similar ground might be two full wood shots.

Again the question of the ball has a great bearing on what type a certain length hole will be.  Time was, and not so many years ago, when a hole of 400 yards long on average ground was a good two-shot hole for the star players; now, the same hole is perhaps a drive and spade for the better class golfers.

In view of this the architect of today plans his full two-shot holes from 440 to 500 yards, depending on the character of the land and if the distance to be obtained with the ball continues to increase it will be necessary to increase the length of all holes on golf courses accordingly if the same standards of play are to be maintained.

All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem.  A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill.

If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8,000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out."

In Flynn's October, 1927 article, he states a formulaic standard for the average good course of 6,200 to 6,600 yards.  This is evidence of Flynn's scientific approach to golf design.  His list of holes include:

"....there would be say four short holes ranging from the mashie to the full wood shot.

One real three-shotter not merely a hole somewhere over 500 yards.

Two drive and full wood shots holes, one with a big carry on the drive as the premium with an easy entrance to the green, the other with accuracy on the drive but with the premium on a big carry for the second shot.

One drive and high spoon shot, accuracy off the tee and carry to the green.

One drive and full cleek shot to narrow entrance and slightly terraced green.

One drive and high midiron carry to green.

Two drive and full midiron run to green with narrow entrance.

One drive and high mashie iron carry to green.

One drive and mashie to narrow entrance

One drive and mashie all carry to green.

One drive and mashie niblic to island green.

One drive and run up on narrow terraced green straight way.

One drive and runup, elbow or cape type with premium on length of drive.

The above list is not at all arbitrary but covers generally the possibilities in an eighteen-hole layout."

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
What is the difference between a one-shot hole, a short hole and a par-3?

[wsmorrison]

"What is the difference between a one-shot hole, a short hole and a par-3?"

Not a thing that I can think of.  A short hole may be short relative to par, but I think in the Flynn quotes above he was specifically referring to par 3s.  Why do you ask?

"Why many architects did not design holes in the 260 yard range ."  I think that is a great question, Tom.  If par didn't matter, there surely would've been some interesting holes in on or about that distance in terms of match play.  It demonstrates how ballsy Flynn was in planning one when the concept of par was becoming more and more prevalent.

[T_MacWood]

Mark said architects didn't care much about par, but there is a relationship between holes of 'good length' and par, that is my point. Holes of awkward length, for example a 260 yard hole, fall in the no-man-land of extremely long par-3 (one-shot hole) and super short par-4 (two-shot hole).

[TEPaul]

"Guys like Ross never assigned a par to their holes. "

Mark:

I'm not so sure that would be accurate to say. It's probably not worthwhile looking in "Golf Has Never Failed Me" to determine that. It appears in that book that Ross does mention par but one never knows what really are Ross's words in that book and what appears to be Ross's words but are actually Ron Whitten's. That's one of the problems I have with that book---eg most take it to be Ross's words but according to the Introduction that's apparently not always the case.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
All I am saying is that Par was more a "subjective" thing then a hard and fast concept.  Research all you want about Ross (maybe Brad or Michael Fay will take a moment to chime in) but as far as I know, Ross never assigned par to his holes.  

Though it was rare, a one shot hole didn't automatically mean it was a par three.  Some short holes that could easily be reached by most golfers in one shot were expected by the architect to take four shots before the ball was holed out.  What par would you call a hole like that?  The key was whether or not it was an interesting hole.

Tom,
Unfortunately, Loeffler and McGlynn wrote little to nothing about their design philosophies.
Mark
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Some short holes that could easily be reached by most golfers in one shot were expected by the architect to take four shots before the ball was holed out.  What par would you call a hole like that?"

Mark:

I'm not aware of a so-called short hole (where most golfers could reach it in one shot) where any architect said something like that, are you?

The closest thing I can think of is the short 4th at Ross's Misquamicut but it is now and has always been a par 4.

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Have you read any of Loeffler and McGlynn's thoughts on golf architecture?

Par designation was very common in American golf during the 1920's. It was very common in the UK as well, although there were still a number of courses that preferred listing bogey (which was usually eight or so strokes above par). I'm not sure how an architect operating in the 1920's wouldn't be consiously aware of par, and know how each of his individual holes would be listed.

Are you concluding Ross never assigned par figures to his holes based upon some of the plans you have seen? Who assigned par to the holes at Pinehurst? (par was clearly listed on Ross' redesigned #2 prior to the PGA)

From a 1919 article in which Ross criticized the craze for length: "The number of really fine three-shot holes in this country can be counted on your fingers, while there are hundreds of splendid one and two shot holes." Ross (and most architects) attempted to ballance the number of one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes. I don't believe there is a significant difference between three-shot hole and a par-5, a two-shot hole and.....

In the late 1920's Rolling Green was listed as par-72...does that mean the 10th was listed as a par-4?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I would be interested to know what scorecard you are referring to when you say that Rolling Green was a par 72 in the 1920s.  The Delaware County Times had an extensive section on the opening of Rolling Green on August 31, 1926.  It lists the par as 71 and the 10th was a par 3.  The yardage and pars are listed as follows:
1   382 par 4    
2   415 par 4
3   154 par 3
4   360 par 4
5   366 par 4
6   184 par 3
7   485 par 5
8   433 par 4
9   600 par 5
10  245 par 3  "This is a one-shotter.  If you make it in par you must have a wonderful drive or an excellent chip-shot.  The green is very well taken care of as regards the traps, and a slight rise to the rear.  It requires some poke, and is a very good test of golf, from the par 3 standpoint."
11  408 par 4
12  343 par 4
13  423 par 4
14  198 par 3
15  354 par 4
16  128 par 3
17  450 par 5  (a right angle dogleg)
18  478 par 5

An October 8, 1935 scoreecard from the Ralph A. Kennedy collection of scorecards at the USGA shows Rolling Green to be nearly the same yardages and the exact par.  Kennedy shot a 102.  His average score on the 100 or so other scorecards I have is in the mid to upper 80s.

[T_MacWood]

Golfers Yearbook 1929
Rolling Green 6410 yards par-72

[wsmorrison]

It would seem that the Golfers Yearbook is in error.  Maybe they couldn't believe that the 10th hole was a par 3!

[mike_malone]

Wayne,
  The mid-hdcper still enjoys that shot on #7.It may be necessary to do something to get the big hitters to layup,if we are not willing to move the green back.I belive we should preserve the play to the hole.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
It could be the Golfers Yearbook is in error, my experience has been it is very accurate. It contains the address, yardage, par, etc. of every golf course in America (as far as I know), that's a lot of info and perhaps they did make a mistake.  I assume the information was supplied by the club. Do you know if the 10th hole ever played longer than 245 yards?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Regarding Loeffler and McGlynn, I've studied 15 or so of the courses credited to these guys and talked with several of those club's historians.  I've also spent quite a bit of time visiting Oakmont and talking with guys like John Zimmer and Jack Snyder (who's dad worked with Loeffler at Oakmont).  John was quite helpful as was Jack.  I have three or four books that talk about Loeffler and I also did research on him at Golf House.  I have a number of old aerials of some of these courses and old course photos.  I've also talked to a gentleman who's grandmother was Dutch's sister and got some good info. on him.  I think Dutch had quite a bit more influence on Oakmont than some people give him credit for.  He and William Fownes really made that golf course into the special design that it is.  

Tom (or somebody) please post an old sketch by Ross that had par listed by him?  Good luck  

Tom Paul,
The short hole that always comes to mind to me was the old #17 green at LACC.  Thomas writes about it in Golf Architecture in America.  Depending on the conditions, I'm not sure what the "par" of that little 120 yard hole would be  

Mark

[wsmorrison]

What shot by mid-handicappers on 7 are you talking about?  There is no way the green should be moved; it is a great green just where it is.  Besides, according to your logic, if Flynn came back and didn't move the green then we shouldn't either.  I don't know what goes through your mind, Mike.  Are you upset that the Eagles lost so badly?  People much smarter about golf architecture than you or I spoke to you at length about moving the green.  I'm telling you, don't think too much.  You'll get hurt.  If you don't blow a gasket thinking about the 7th hole, then you'll be hurt by a bad ass Marine named Tom Paul.  Tom's having a portable sand trap made just for you in case you change your mind again  

"I belive we should preserve the play to the hole."

Too late for that, Mike.  The R7 driver and Pro V1x has seen to that!

"It may be necessary to do something to get the big hitters to layup..."

Exactly.  Now just listen to Tom Paul and I and concentrate on keeping 18 a par 4, will you?  You are an active politico at the club--this and evergreen removal is where you can do the most good.  As for me, I can't get anything done; most members want me to leave!

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

To my knowledge and that of anyone I've spoken to, the 10th never had scorecard yardage of more than 245--the very back of the tee box is a bit more than 245.  It is my suggestion to the club that a new championship tee box be put in that pays tribute to Flynn's initial plan for the hole and the front portion of that tee box be 260 yards.  It'll be cheap and noteworthy.

[T_MacWood]

Mark
What do you base your opinion about Ross not caring much about par...his hole plans? It is an interesting theory, but I don't believe its based upon anything Ross wrote or said.

I wonder who assigned par to the holes at Pinehurst...perhaps his idiot brother Aeneus? It seems to me he was referring to par-3's, par-4s and par-5s when he writes of one-shot holes, two-shot holes and three-shot holes...then again you may a different theory about that too.

Have you read any articles written by or about Loeffler and McGlynn's design philosophies? I recall reading an article regarding some interesting work they were doing in Texas....have you seen it?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Loeffler designed Willow Springs CC in Texas in 1924.  I know very little about it other than in the history book of Williams CC (a 1931 Loeffler design in West Virginia), Loeffler supposedly stated that Willow Springs was the second best golf course he designed.  It surprised me a bit as Emil was very busy at Oakmont both as Superintendent and as the Golf Pro and I'd be shocked if he spent much time in Texas.  He never gave up those positions while out designing golf courses with McGlynn.  

There is very little written about Loeffler's "design" philosophies.  If you have come across something, I'd love to hear about it.  He was a relatively quite man and not very outspoken.  

How much Ross cared about par is speculation.  What really is par anyway?   It is somewhat relative.  I just don't think it was a high priority for him.  Sure he aimed to design his hole and his courses to certain lengths but I believe he was more concerned about the types of holes and their character more so than what par figure they had placed on them.  Otherwise he would have listed it.  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Mark
I believe they were involved with more than 15 courses; they also designed Woodlands in San Antonio and remodeled Wykagyl in NY. I'm not sure how you conclude what Loeffler thought about the concept of par if you haven't read any of his thoughts or ideas.

As said the new and improved #2 had par designations on the hole plans, as did Ross's plan for Inverness. I agree par is realtive--the major consideration of most of these guys was to get holes of the proper distances for the sake a variety and ballance. They all tried to get 4 or 5 short holes (par-3s), 2 to 4 long holes (par-5s) and a variety of two-shot holes (par-4s). They knew when they designed a hole what the par would be, it was a standard set by the USGA.

If you take your theory literally we'd find golf courses with 7 or 8 par-3's and 7 or 8 par-5's.

An exception regarding par: Woking was famous in the UK for not listing par or bogey. They only had medal play one day a year.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark/Tom;

I played Willow Springs in San Antonio a few years back.  I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss and I find it difficult to believe it's the second best course Loeffler designed.  Interestingly, the info I have from C&W is that Loeffler/McGlynn designed it in 1924 and John Bredemus made changes a year later...strange.

I do remember the 18th being a tough, cool, uphill par three, but much of it is quite forgettable.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I didn't conclude anything about what Loeffler thought about par??  I just mentioned about a hole he did at Bucknell of the length we were discussing and no one was sure of its "par".  Look again at the post.  

Many of Loeffler's courses have been altered significantly.  He often got tough pieces of property to work on and very limited budgets.  It wouldn't surprise me Mike about his course in TX.  If you study some old aerials and photos and talk with those who knew the man or have written about him, he was heavily influenced by his tenure at Oakmont.  I guess that is not surprising.  Unfortunately, he really wasn't given the time, sites and budget to really implement (in a grand way) what he knew.  That said, there are some really cool greens and design features still out there of his, but you have to look for them.  

How many Courses did Ross design?  What % had par stated on his designs?  Not sure what else there is to say.  If you are suggesting that just because the USGA was going to give each of his holes a par figure that Ross agreed with it, that is your opinion.  I've played Ross courses where there are back to back 440-460 yard holes and I'm honestly not sure which one he would have said was a par five or a par four.  Maybe he left that up to the USGA to decide.  Maybe he didn't care
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()