Stop calling it "easy"; start calling it "fun"

[mike_malone]

 I constantly struggle at my club with several members who think our #7 is too easy because it averages that way relative to par. But, in the recent USGA Amateur qualifying it also had a wide dispersion of scores.

    During the Masters telecast they repeatedly said #13 was the second easiest hole. So what? It is certainly one of the best. I think there must be a better measurement of a hole's quality than just how it scores relative to par.

    The opportunity to make a low score which can lead to a nasty result is the defintion of a great hole.

[tonyt]

In the "which tees" thread about Augusta, I said as much just moments ago about those who dismiss the members' tees as the short & easy combination. Of course, by easy they mean relative to the Masters tee. But the word "easy" still seems to stick.

[George Pazin]

I love this sentiment, well done, mayday.

The funny thing is that simply calling #s 13 and 15 par 4s would make them the hardest holes on the course.

[wsmorrison]

First, the 7th hole needs to be considered in the routing progression.  The hole is a par 5 of only 488 yards long with a large drop off the tee (60 feet or so) to a flat landing area with a creek on the left and a creek crossing the fairway at about 320 yards off the tee.  The second fairway (starts too close to the creek by the way) has a strong right to left slope reminiscent of the 5th at Merion.  There is a wonderful green with a large bunker on the left that doesn't pinch in the opening.  A precise approach is required though along the ground (due to slope) or through the air (firmness of green and slope).  This is an excellent half-par hole that follows a difficult 210 yard par 3 and precedes (and this is important) three very difficult holes.  A long (430) uphill par 4, a 620 yard uphill par 5 and a 250 yard uphill par 3.  Even if the hole is easy, which it is not, it works well in the routing progression.  Trees are starting to come down that will restore some angles and with that should come (although I understand it won't be this year--maybe never) the bunker I proposed 4 or 5 years ago and is now part of the consulting architects' plan (Forse and Nagle).  This will ensure the hole is both fun and reasonably challenging given its point in the routing.

[Jim Nugent]

I agree totally about 13 at ANGC.  And I bet Fred Couples in 1998 wish it had been 2nd-easiest for him.  That, plus number nine, cost him the tournament that year.  

[mike_malone]

 Is there a statistical way to make this case? I know there are golf geeks on this site. I think it would have to do with the dispersion of scores .

[Andy Scanlon]

Mayday:

I don't think I'd call #7 "easy" as too many dangers lurk about and I'd be surprised if the members who gripe about it have a scoring average of under 5 on the hole (mine certainly is not).  I do think it is an opportunity for one to stop the bleeding after the difficult 6th and before embarking on a series of brutal holes that will, no doubt, take its toll on one's scorecard and psyche.

[Jason Mandel]

Mayday I think this is a good topic, and I tend to agree with you.

My biggest problem is when members say that a hole is too "easy", its not like they are pros out there and making birdies every time they play it.

In my opinion a golf course is supposed to have some holes that are not as difficult as others, thats part of what builds character.

Recently at WM, we took down about 5-10 trees on the inside of the dog leg of 5, and you should have heard how the members complaining how this would make the whole too "easy".  So we were discussing it in the grille room a couple of weeks ago and my brother, who is the current club champion said "so what if its easy".  I really thought it made a lot of sense, who cares if one shot is a little easier than it used to be.  These members talk like they are tiger and phil, people just need to relax and HAVE FUN!

On a side note of fun, I played West Chester Country Club in the GAP matches yesterday, its a 9 hole that apparently dates back to 1898.  Man, that little course packs in a LOT of fun!  I would add it to the list of hidden gems in this area.  Some of the greens are a little flat for my taste but the course sits on some great land.

Jason

[George Pazin]

Is there a statistical way to make this case? I know there are golf geeks on this site. I think it would have to do with the dispersion of scores .

You're not going to like this, Mike, but some years ago, Tom Paul suggested that a wide dispersion of scores was a good indicator of the quality of a golf hole. Someone, I think Bob Crosby, actually came up with something he called the Tom Paul Number for a hole, and I think he computed the values for several of the holes at ANGC. Not surprisingly, 13 & 15 scored very well in Tom Paul values.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
   

     I think we should honor the original design at Rolling Green unless there is a very good reason for change. A major reason for the uniqueness of #7 is the lack of a bunker on the right. When I hear that HV #7 has a bunker in a similar spot and also #5 at Merion I feel that is even more reason to NOT have a bunker here. You speak of the variety of the course and where the hole falls in the round. What about the fact that we already have three par fives with bunkers short of the greens? Didn't Flynn write that he preferred to use the land as is for his first option? This seems an obvoius example where the land provides sufficient interest . If there are no bunkers or trees on that right side than there will be no visual clues to help your aiming of that blind shot. That is an essential element of the fun of that hole as well as its uniqueness.

    There are many wonderful benefits I expect to see after the trees are gone and the fairway is expanded and the appproach is maintained as firm as possible. If I am wrong than we can put a silly bunker in there. But let's play it as intended for awhile to convince people of the brilliance of the original design.


   This hole works best using the simplicity of what nature left there. Putting in a bunker makes it like other holes in many places. Why have a hole like so many others? Great holes are usually unique not copies.


  This goes to the heart of my thread. The diagonal nature of Rae's Creek as it relates to the green and the slope of the fairway on that dogleg makes the hole distinctive to see and play.

    #7 at Rolling Green can only attain greatness by staying distinctive .


   I don't want people to say #7 reminds them of #5 at Merion; I want them to see it as the equal of #5 but different.

   I think that Forse and Nagle are professional enough to rethink their recommendation. I can assure you I will try.

[mike_malone]

 George,


    I don't mind at all that Tom Paul had the idea. I usually agree with him. In fact, I was stunned that a man of his intellect would recommend a bunker on #7 at Rolling Green. I think I have worn him down with enough persistence and information that he no longer feels strongly about that idea.

   But I'm not so sure I can convince Wayne. I think he has fallen in love with the idea. I don't know why it is so hard to just do what Flynn did here. It actually doesn't take much to come to that opinion. The tough part is to hold on to one's opinion under the assault of so many others.

[mike_malone]

 Jason,



   The second hole at West Chester is fabulous. I love the ditch that runs across that hole.

[wsmorrison]

I am not going to convince you so I won't try.  You've vasilated on this issue and now you're back on the side of no bunker.  Frankly, I don't care to convince you since it will be a short while before you change your mind again.  I'll simply state my thought process.  

I start with what would make the hole play best for all classes of player.  Clearly taking the trees down on both fairways and removing the cartpath along the right side of the second fairway would create better angles and lead to greater thought by the golfer in how to play the hole to the best of their abilities while exposing great topography.  But having a bunker short of the green on the right solves a lot of strategic equations for different classes of golfer.

I next take into account the realities of golf today.  Technology and player athleticism and skill have changed dramatically.  You don't seem to take this into account in your ultra-purism.  That's OK, there's room for that side of the argument.  I do think that given how different shot capabilities are that is reasonable to suggest architectural changes 80 years later.  It can be done wrong and that's why some would rather do nothing than something.  Clearly that is understandable.  But given that Flynn did these sorts of things on other holes, it is not such a stretch to do it at RGGC's 7th.  It was meant to be a championship course and it should be retained as one.  This is one reason why the fairway should start 20-30 yards on the other side of the crossing creek and not right away.  Topped shots that pop over the creek should not run so far down the second fairway.

I then consider how to get the membership to agree to taking down all the trees on the right side of the second fairway.  Too many good players say what you said on this topic, that the hole will play to easy.  In order to get them to go along with taking the trees out, it is best to give them something to latch onto...namely a bunker that will require precise ground or aerial approaches.  The right to left slope is a very interesting natural feature.  But too many indifferent shots are rewarded on the hole-both second (start of fairway) and third (treeless fairway and openess of green).  It is a short hole in today's world and would be of greater interest (fun) and challenge with the bunker.  

"I think that Forse and Nagle are professional enough to rethink their recommendation. I can assure you I will try."

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever written; so that is saying a lot.  Maybe their skill and expertise was in full play when they made their professional decision.  What makes you think they didn't think long and hard about a bunker there before they endorsed it?  What makes you think that in their minds they didn't consider the idea from all perspectives that they need to rethink it?  Do you think you know better than they do?  Granted you've played the course A LOT, but they are very talented and are professionals.  I give them a lot more credit than you do for their thought processes.  Maybe you think they should change their minds because it doesn't jive with your own.  Why don't you gather their thoughts and see what next steps might entail?  

What are you assuring me you will try?  To rethink your recommendation?  That would be an interesting exercise if done correctly.

[wsmorrison]

"...I was stunned that a man of his intellect would recommend a bunker on #7 at Rolling Green. I think I have worn him down with enough persistence and information that he no longer feels strongly about that idea."

What in the hell gives you that idea?  You don't know Tom very well if you think your efforts would wear him down and get him to change his mind.  He may not want to argue the matter with you but that has little to do with the merits of your argument.

"But I'm not so sure I can convince Wayne. I think he has fallen in love with the idea. I don't know why it is so hard to just do what Flynn did here. It actually doesn't take much to come to that opinion."

I fall in love with people, not golf designs.  You don't know why it is hard to do just what Flynn did 80 years ago and that is a fundamental flaw in your ability to analyze golf architecture.  I don't think he was infallable and I don't think he got it right at RGGC 7 given the state of golf today.  That is the missing part of your equation.  These classic architects would laugh at your insistance that the golf courses should be preserved.  Many of the best golf courses underwent changes throughout the lifetime of their architects.  Do you think we'd enjoy playing Merion East in its first 1912 iteration?  Do you think Shinneocock Hills, Pinehurst #2, NGLA or Cascades and others should have been preserved as they were in the beginning.  That is such a ill-conceived notion that I will not pursue it further with you.

"The tough part is to hold on to one's opinion under the assault of so many others."

Stop making yourself out to be a victim.  You want Tom Paul, Ron Forse and Jim Nagle to change their opinions under your assualts.  Yet you cry foul when you believe it is done to you.  That is an example of your weak logic.  Let the merits of the architectural concept speak for itself.  I am not going to fight for it.  There are other things in life worth fighting for.  A bunker on the 7th at RGGC isn't one of them.

Present a big picture of the two approaches to the seventh and let people decide.  You already know a great number of architects and GCA types have seen the course and the hole.  Why don't you poll them and see what others think?  And you could ask your friends and other members at RGGC and see what they think.  That should be an interesting compilation.

[wsmorrison]

"I don't want people to say #7 reminds them of #5 at Merion; I want them to see it as the equal of #5 but different."

Mike, people will be so far removed from saying either one of the above statments if things are done according to your wishes.

[mike_malone]

 It amazes me that you would take into account what the members want  in your argument for a bunker on #7. Those who want to replace the trees with a bunker are going to make a great hole just like so many other holes in so many other places and will give up the uniqueness. They think "this hole needs something".

    I have never wanted a bunker on #7.However, I have stood aside to get rid of the trees. But as I see the results of our recent tree removal I become more convinced we should honor the original design.


  There is so much randomness in the original design on this hole. Any changes that reduce that randomness lessen the thrill of the hole.  So, you are right that sometimes you get the lucky bounce. Sounds like the kind of hole you love.


       I just think that if you see that Flynn did put bunkers in similar places on other courses and not here that it was a conscious decision to not have a bunker here. He put bunkers short of the other par fives; he did it in other places . That sounds like a powerful argument for leaving this hole the way he did it.


   You also don't seem to fully realize the problem of the exact placement of this proposed bunker. If it is in the area where balls tend to roll now it will DRAMATICALLY change the hole. If it is off the line of play it becomes eye candy or some visual clue that also hurts the hole's uniqueness. I wonder if Flynn struggled with these ideas and decided that a bunker was not a good idea here.


    The hole can handle technology changes better with no bunker since there will be no necessity to adjust the bunker placement for future changes in technology. Changing a great hole because of technology doesn't seem consistent with your values to me. Why bother going there.

   I think Forse and Nagle are not doctrinaire. They are open to the possibilty of a different way. That sounds professional to me.

[mike_malone]

 Me , assault Tom Paul ? I'm not the one who wants to beat him up in that diner

    Wayne,

    I don't feel victimized. I love being in the minority.


   But, I am glad that you have said that Flynn made a mistake on #7 given the state of golf today(whatever that means!). Now I know I am on the right track.


   

[George Pazin]

Any chance you guys have an overhead of #7, or maybe a diagram?

[wsmorrison]

"I just think that if you see that Flynn did put bunkers in similar places on other course and not here that it was a conscious decision to not have a bunker here. He put bunkers short of the other par fives; he did it in other places . That sounds like a powerful argument for leaving this hole the way he did it.

You overthink and overanalyze what Flynn would or would not do.  You have no idea what he would do to a hole 80 years after it was constructed and more than 50 years after he died.  Neither do I.  We do know that when allowed, he made changes to a great many courses.  We also know that he was sensitive to technological impacts on the game.  We also know that classic era architects did not treat earlier efforts with the overblown sense of awe and purity that many do today.  They didn't think anything sacrosanct.  Flynn was greatly influenced by Crump and Wilson.  Both tinkered for years.  Granted they were amateurs and that was to be expected but it is something Flynn, Ross, Macdonald and others did as well.  So change in and of itself should not be tossed aside.

"You also don't seem to fully realize the problem of the exact placement of this proposed bunker. If it is in the area where balls tend to roll now it will DRAMATICALLY change the hole. If it is off the line of play it becomes eye candy or some visual clue that also hurts the hole's uniqueness. I wonder if Flynn struggled with these ideas and decided that a bunker was not a good idea here."

I know the hole is changed if a bunker is put in and I know it would be a dramatic change for many situations.  That's why it is a great idea.  It certainly wouldn't be eye candy and it would be internal to the fairway.  Your wonderment at Flynn's struggles with the idea is misplaced and a waste of time.  Is it a good idea or not today?  That is the question.

I am now finished with this subject matter.  Anything more would be a futile exercise.

"But, I am glad that you have said that Flynn made a mistake on #7 given the state of golf today(whatever that means!). Now I know I am on the right track."

If you don't know what that means, how do you know you're on the right track?  

[ChasLawler]

Any chance you guys have an overhead of #7, or maybe a diagram?

This helps a little.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/mhcrollinggreen.html

[mike_malone]

 George,

   There are original designs, aerial photos from several time periods and Hanse master plan ideas available but I am not capable of posting them.

[mike_malone]

Cabell,

   These photos need updating.

    The trees in the left side landing area have been substantially removed. This has opened up the creek on the left . The first evergreen on the right in the landing area is gone. Why the second one is still there is beyond me. But watch for future developments.

 The third photo which is from the back of the green is most revealing. The two evergreens short of the green are gone. You can see a cart path which will become an eyesore once the other evergreens are gone.

   The tree line beyond the cartpath is way up the hill and was planted after the 1939 photos. It is well out of play.

   

  What I think is happening here is that many people think too many balls will roll down to the green. This is not true. As you move up that hill balls run parallel or away from the green.

   If fairway goes back up to the cart path where it used to be the thrill of a rolling ball over that hill will be fully restored.


  As a response to changing technology (see, I know about that!) the fairway should go around the back of the green. Let's see how well the modern golfer can control the roll!!

[mike_malone]

 BTW I love the shadow pointing at the offending trees in that last photo.

[ChasLawler]

Where exactly is this bunker being proposed?

I'm visualizing a bunker of roughly 600-800 sf placed about 80 yards short of the green…hugging the right side (Uphill side) of the fairway?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I constantly struggle at my club with several members who think our #7 is too easy because it averages that way relative to par. But, in the recent USGA Amateur qualifying it also had a wide dispersion of scores.

During the Masters telecast they repeatedly said #13 was the second easiest hole. So what? It is certainly one of the best.

I think there must be a better measurement of a hole's quality than just how it scores relative to par.

Not when you're conducting a Major Championship at stroke play, and the hole has water off the tee, on the second and third shots.[/color]

The opportunity to make a low score which can lead to a nasty result is the defintion of a great hole.

The stroke average tells the tale.

There are 18 holes.
One will usually play the easiest and one the hardest.
It's just a statistical classification.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags: