Required reading ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am going to ask you nicely to actually respond to the point of my previous post. i.e. you articulated a very narrow criterion for deciding which holes are eligible for lengthening.

All in an effort to recapture the strategy/challenge of a golf hole that is either gone for good (your opinion from other threads on equipment/distance) or, more accurately, never went anywhere for 99% of golfers.

Care to expand?

Yes,

First, it would be helpful if you read Brad's article.

It would provide a foundation, and an understanding of some of the length issues that exist at clubs today.

Many clubs are involved in a race, either in keeping up with the Jones's or with an obsession with the scorecard.

There are relationships that exist on every hole, from tee through green.  One could say that play and/or playability is manifested through architectural intent.  That's to say that the architect intended for a golfer to interface with the features he created.

When those features are removed from the interfacing process, one must question... why, and then one must ask, what can be done to restore the design integrity vis a vis the interrelationship of the component features, such that the design integrity is returned, and intended playability restored.

At a recent charity outing, an 18 handicap won the long drive contest with a rather prodigious drive, hence, when some declare that higher handicaps don't interface with the same architectural features that the lower handicaps interface with, that's not an accurate statement.

Over 18 holes, Architects forge a tactical challenge that doesn't favor one type of golfer over another.  And, in most cases, multiple tees tend to equalize the play of a hole.

When one examines a hole and finds that neither the component features nor the interrelationships and interfacing with the golfer, aren't functioning as intended, one must seek a practical solution to restore the imbalance that's been created.

Most holes aren't lengthened at their mid-section or at the green end.

The room for "elasticity", a concept designed to restore continued interfacing, was mostly created at the tee end.
And thus, by forfeiture, that's where the majority of lengthening takes place.

That's not to say that bunkers and other features can't be expanded, repositioned, added or deleted, but, in most cases, the most practical, and cheapest method of correcting the imbalance is at the tee end.

When a golf course decides to add length for the primary or sole purpose of increasing it's slope, or overall yardage, the architectural integrity of many holes is usually sacrificed in pursuit of the ultimate goal..... yardage.

What Brad, myself and others have said is:
Look and think before you leap.

Study the hole, it's architectural components, the design integrity and intent, and the playability pre and post lengthening.

In some cases adding length produces positive results.
In other cases it produces negative results.
Adding yardage, for the sole purpose of increasing a course's slope or scorecard is a process which usually results in the disfiguration of a hole and destruction of the design integrity.

TEPaul, in his remarks and attempted refutation of my comments, cited # 7 and # 18 at NGLA.
In response, and in reinforcement of my position, I cited # 2, # 8 and # 14, which had all been lengthened with POSITIVE results, which is what I contend would happen on # 7 and
# 18

TEPaul suffers from a quick trigger finger.
He's able to take it out of his rear end and type before he understands what he's been reading.

He, George Bahto and myself spent a fair amount of time on site in October of 2003 discussing some of the issues mentioned above.

He tends to disagree with me on principle.
It's only after hours of re-examination and self medication that he figures out that we're actually on the same wave length 98 % of the time.

[Anthony Butler]

I can't find this article online.

can someone post a link?

Not sure of the specific arguments pro and con lenghtening holes at NLGA.  I'm told it doesn't get quite as much wind as Maidstone... but the thing that makes it tough with seaside courses is that playing conditions change so radically with the strength and direction of the wind. There's a 535 yd par 5 at NSWGC I've hit with a driver and 3/4 lob wedge. When the wind turn around, it's a driver, 3 wood and 5 iron... all of which have to be nutted. When the hole plays this long, the next par 4 (410yds uphill) is a 3 wood/sandwedge. Forget about the length of each hole (you'd need a tee in the middle of a rifle range and one on a boat to 'retain' the challenge of each hole downwind), how the heck do you position hazards on holes like that? Maybe that's why there are no fairway bunkers on either hole.  

Most seaside courses in the US rarely experience these extremes, but I played on the Monterey Peninsula enough to know that the hazards in play, and the line of play can change completely depending on the weather. In those cases the real architectural challenge is the routing to ensure there is a variety of shots for each wind direction as you go around the course. Mackenzie was a genius at this--CPC, Pasatiempo, RM and NSWGC all show how carefully he considered the prevailing weather conditions before deciding on the routing. I have never been to Crystal Downs so have no idea what kind of wind they get off the lake, but I'd bet it displays the same kind of thought.

I'm anxious to play Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach next time I am in Australia to see how Tom Doak has dealt with the challenge of extremely windy locations.  I guess Sebonack is the same deal, but anyone I know who could scrape up the entrance fee isn't into golf...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony Butler,

Some courses are subject to prevaiing winds and as such they're taken into account when designing the holes.

I'd say that NGLA, Southampton, Shinnecock and Sebonack fall into that category.

The features in the DZ on holes # 2, # 8 and # 14 at NGLA ceased interfacing with the golfer, hence, length was added at the tee to return them into play.  It was highly effective.

The same has now happened at # 7 and # 18.
The features in the DZ have diminished their ability to interface with the golfer, hence, added length at the tee would return them into play.

# 7 and # 18 are par 5's.
The additional length at the tee would alter play on these holes to the extent that the tactical challenge would be returned as intended.  But, it's not just on the drive.
The added length, and the play of the drive will impact the second and approach shots because they would be played differently, from different distances and more importantly from different angles.

Returning those intended angles into play makes these holes more appealing and more challenging at the same time.

One would be required to tack their way up the fairway to the green instead of ignoring the features and taking the straightest line from tee to green.

TEPaul is a man of limited vision.
That's why he has a guide dog named "Coorshaw"

[Anthony Butler]

Tacking? It's too windy if you're thinking of doing that on a golf course...

Coorshaw? You should never give a domestic animal a name that sounds like something your cell-mate wants to do to you.

The other thing about using defined fairway bunkers as hazards or to define lines of play on very windy courses... You can't really use them on long par 4s or par 5–if you can use anything more than an 8 iron out of them, they're too shallow to keep any sand in them.

To keep sand in the greenside bunkers at New South Wales GC they have systematically installed revetted walls which eliminates any possibility of the flash-faced Mackenzie 'look'. In a bid to return some Mackenzie to the course, they are knocking some of the bush back and re-establishing the sandy waste areas off the fairways that was indicated on the original routing and started to disappear in the 50s and 60s. This will provide more challenge on several of the holes that have been criticised by Michael Clayton and others for not penalizing errant tee-shots. Also, a large waste area provides the flexibility needed when the wind can make a 50-60yd difference on the tee-shots on some holes.

They wont be doing anything on 7, 13, or 14 because the maintenance crew doesn't fancy disturbing a colony of deadly brown snakes that have taken up residence in this area of the course.