garden city over shinnecock and sebonack

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's funny, you have now taken a page out of Mucci's book by telling me that as a good player I cannot understand the plight of the lesser player.

JESII: I have no sympathy for you if you mis-hit a tee shot 20 yards from the ideal target (which is still left-center on a 50 yard wide fairway) on a 220 yard tee shot and cannot hit a direct unencumbered approach to the pin.

Mucci: Your position is so one dimensional,[size=4x] typical of those who can only view architecture in the context of the best players.[/size]

Why would you expect a 10, 15, 20 or higher handicap to execute such a precise tee and approach shot ?

Especially an approach shot from an awkward sidehill, uphill lie to an elevated green, surrounded by bunkers and closeted by invasive trees.

Try thinking in terms of ALL golfers, not just the better player.  It will expand your horizons and broaden your understanding of architectural intent.

Patrick, I quoted this from our conversation in the thread titled "biased pics of Pine Valley #17". This particular thread ended on May 1 of this year if you'd like to go back and confirm.

JES II,

My comment, which you quoted above, was right on target.  Your view of the situation was clearly one dimensional, completely ignoring those golfers with lesser skills.

When you spoke of a golfer missing the ideal target on his tee shot by a mere 20 yards you ignored the overwhelming majority of golfers who play the game, choosing instead to focus the discussion solely in the context of the expert golfer.

If you'll reread my comment you'll see that I indicated that your perspective ON THE ISSUE AT HAND, was in the extremely narrow context of the expert golfer, and as such, in that discussion, you fell into the category of those who can only view architecture from the perspective of the superior player.

Some people can only view golf and architecture from their OWN perspective.   Others can only view golf and architecture from the superior players perspective.

In the Pine Valley discussion, your comments clearly fell within those categories, hence, I brought to your attention the fact that you too had fallen victim to architectural interpretation and perception through the narrow eyes of the superior golfer.

Perhaps, in the intervening time, you've broadened your horizons and expanded your perspectives, but, at the time of the PV debate, you were guilty of one dimensional thinking.

I never said that ALL good/great players aren't capable of understanding golf and architecture in the context of the mediocre to inferior player, only that for some, it's their typical thinking.  And, in the PV example, you fell into that category.

Again, if you're going to attribute something to me, do it accurately.

OR, do you still feel that a golfer who hits his tee shot 20 yards off the ideal target should be penalized ?[/color]

[Glenn Spencer]

[size=4x]

A retraction is in order.[/color][/size]

Best laugh all day!
 

I don't think I will ever be able to take the club back, I will be chuckling about this for a while.

[JESII]

Pat,

I sure don't think they are entitled to a free and clear approach. If the resulting approach shot from a tee shot missing its target by 20 yards is free and unencumbered the player should feel fortunate. Does that make sense to you?

[JESII]

By the way Pat, you could go back and re-read that thread because I, in no way, view strategy unidimensionally. Yuo went into that conversation with a hard-on for the tree situation down there and I pissed you off because I told you that no approach angles have been comprimised. I never (no matter how many times you say I did) defended the existence of those trees encroaching on and surrounding the bunkers, I simply asked you to cite examples of playing angles lost. You came up with the 50 yard, short side bunker recovery on #12 and the left 10 feet of the 17th fairway. Humorously, the shot on 17 does not allow a low cut into the left quarter of the green. And you argued that it should. Do you stand by that position? If so, there are a hell of alot of trees, bushes and fescues that need to be removed all over the golf courses of this world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I sure don't think they are entitled to a free and clear approach. If the resulting approach shot from a tee shot missing its target by 20 yards is free and unencumbered the player should feel fortunate. Does that make sense to you?

JES II,

Shot patterns are usually a function of handicap, which is a function of one's mental and physical ability.

I don't know that higher handicaps, 10-15-20 should be penalized for having a tee shot variance of 20 yard off the ideal target.

I really don't think they should have an encumbered approach shot because they don't have the ability to execute it.

I believe in marginalization.

That is, that a player holding a 10-15-20 handicap can't be expected to think and execute a shot that would test a 0 handicap, when the 10-15-20 handicap player marginally missed the ideal target with his tee shot.

Asking a 10-15-20 handicap to draw or fade an approach shot around trees from a sidehill-uphill lie is excessive, especially when his tee shot is only 20 yards from the ideal target.
AND, when failure to execute that approach shot will place him in highly penal areas.

It's overwhelmingly penal

To a 10-15-20 handicap player, The sidehill-uphill lie, to what amounts to an island green heavily guarded, with severe slope, is marginally, sufficiently penal for a tee shot 20 yards removed from the ideal target.

Wouldn't you agree ?

[JESII]

But then Patrick, how would that particular hole penalize you (a long time low handicapper) if you miss your tee shot by 20 yards on a 225 yard shot? You know the green and have the ability to keep the ball below the hole on demand.

[JESII]

And perhaps most importantly, the fairway is about 60 yards wide and the ideal is left center so the player has 55 yards to the right of this particular drive (35 right of ideal) that is still in the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

By the way Pat, you could go back and re-read that thread because I, in no way, view strategy unidimensionally.

I can only rely on the words you typed, in determining your position.

Yuo went into that conversation with a hard-on for the tree situation down there and I pissed you off because I told you that no approach angles have been comprimised.

Not at all.
You just weren't familiar with the fact that one could stand in the 17th fairway and have their approach to the left side hole location totally blocked by invasive tree growth

I never (no matter how many times you say I did) defended the existence of those trees encroaching on and surrounding the bunkers,

Then why champion their continued existance on the left side of # 17 green ?

I simply asked you to cite examples of playing angles lost. You came up with the 50 yard, short side bunker recovery on #12 and the left 10 feet of the 17th fairway.

A quick review of aerial photos circa 1925-1938 shows that those shots were unencumbered by trees and shrubs.
Why wouldn't you advocate a restoration that restores those lines of play ?

Humorously, the shot on 17 does not allow a low cut into the left quarter of the green. And you argued that it should. Do you stand by that position?

I don't believe that I ever advocated a "LOW" approach shot.
That would be almost impossible given the uphill nature of the lie on the approach shot.

If so, there are a hell of alot of trees, bushes and fescues that need to be removed all over the golf courses of this world.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and an advocate of the removal of trees, bushes and fescues not originally intended for golf courses.

One look at GCGC and NGLA should reinforce the beneficial nature of such removal.

Look at page 66 in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design"

It's a picture taken in 1925, years after the golf course opened.   It clearly shows an unencumbered route from the left side of the fairway to the 17th green at PV, which is what I championed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But then Patrick, how would that particular hole penalize you (a long time low handicapper) if you miss your tee shot by 20 yards on a 225 yard shot? You know the green and have the ability to keep the ball below the hole on demand.

The fairway slopes get steeper as you move toward the outer and upper boundaries.  That's the genius of marginal penalties.

With a small, highly sloped island green surrounded by disaster, approached from sidehill-uphill lies that get steeper as the golfer deviates from the ideal line of play, tee shots hit off line pay a penalty.

I&B that makes balls go straighter and longer is thwarting the genius of the design.

[JESII]

Pat,

When last we discussed this you said you were going to be down there soon and would take pictures to clarify. Where are they?

If I&B is thwarting the genius of this design, then the shot that ends up in the area we are talking about is even worse than it was when Crump built the hole.

I almost understand your comments about marginality, but Pine Valley does not have a whole hell of alot of it built in, does it? For the most part you are either in the fairway with a good opportunity to play the hole or you are in the sandy areas which generally mean you're fighting for your life.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When last we discussed this you said you were going to be down there soon and would take pictures to clarify. Where are they?

I was supposed to be there on monday and tuesday, but, a more important issue, requiring my presence in NYC took precedence.

If I&B is thwarting the genius of this design, then the shot that ends up in the area we are talking about is even worse than it was when Crump built the hole.

With today's equipment 225 yards is more easily reachable than it was for the golfers of the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, not to mention earlier golfer's.

I almost understand your comments about marginality, but Pine Valley does not have a whole hell of alot of it built in, does it? For the most part you are either in the fairway with a good opportunity to play the hole or you are in the sandy areas which generally mean you're fighting for your life.

I see the line of demarcation as being far more subtle than fairway versus sandy areas.

Just because a fairway is generous doesn't mean that the strategic opportunities are equal from all parts of the fairway.

Fairway slopes and angles of attack can vary thus creating preferential LZ's.

I know that I'd rather attack # 16 green from the far right side of the fairway, hitting away from the water, as opposed to attacking it from the far left of the fairway, hitting toward the water.

I think this exercise can be repeated on almost every hole.

On # 12 even the kicker for the Buffalo Bills and Florida State Seminoles wouldn't mind being "wide right"

Do you really want to be in the far left of the fairway on # 11 with your view of the green obscured ?  Or would you prefer another LZ from which to hit your approach ?

Wide fairways tend to lull golfers to sleep, allowing them to think that anywhere in the fairway is great, when in fact, position is a critical factor.

If I were to offer one suggestion for modern day architects it would be to repeat the process of presenting prefered angles of attack on wide fairways.

I think the degree to which the angle is prefered is what makes for great holes