News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« on: October 25, 2002, 07:30:11 AM »
You have to hand it to my brother. One down in his match to his then girlfriend, and desperately in need of changing the momentum of the match, he turns to her on the 17th tee at NGLA, drops to a knee, pulls out a ring, and proposes to her.

Unfortunately, his ploy didn't work. She said yes (which was a good thing) but he himself was more rattled by the whole experience and failed to win either of the next two holes, thus losing the match AND picking up a wife  :-/

The point of the story isn't that he should have proposed earlier in the match when it could have had a greater affect or that proposing rarely gets one out of a tight match play situation  ;D but rather that NGLA is a very special place. Of course, this is no news flash; for many who view this site, there is no course they would rather find themselves as it is the perfect blend of challenge and fun.

Cheers,

PS Under the course comment section, Tom Paul detailed some very good observations on NGLA. Unfortunately, Riverfront's course comments now appear at the bottom of the NGLA course profile and I have no idea why. This injustice will be fixed shortly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:10 PM by -1 »

THuckaby2

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2002, 07:41:59 AM »
Truer words have never been spoken, Ran - and as a great Armenian says, there are GHOSTS at that place.  Particularly if one's girlfriend is a golfer, as your brother's was/is, I can think of no better place to propose.

Anyone saying this is the greatest course in the world is going to get no strong argument from me, that's for sure.  For me it vascillates between 1-2-3 depending on what mood I'm in.  NGLA is a very, very special place - the soul of American golf resides there.

Love the new profile....

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2002, 07:56:16 AM »
YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry about that, people, but I have been waiting on pins and needles for word from my pal Dave here as to whether he had seen the light or not.  I really, really, really hoped it was gonna turn out this way, as I would have had to really reconsider my friendship if he still thought NGLA was over-rated to the extent he said before after seeing it.

Dave, I for one can't wait to hear about your adventures, obviously.  Post here or send email.

I haven't had happier news since, well... since I got word I got to see it myself!

Another convert.  Next?

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2002, 07:58:06 AM »
Ran,

Your brother should have called me first.

I've used that ploy on dozens of occassions, but, your brother picked the wrong spot and the wrong time to play his ace.

That maneuver should only be sprung when the opponent has a critical putt of less than six feet.  The ring should be presented such that the glare off the ring from the sunlight shines directly into the recipients eyes.

If the recipient says "yes" then an enormous bear hug of affection, further immobilizes the arms and chest making the putt next to impossible.  This is accompanied by a seven minute kiss, depriving the recipient of any oxygen.  This leads to disorientation, which results with the recipient putting into the adjacent bunker.

Once these procedures have been implemented, not only is the putt missed, but the recipient's play from that point on is painful to witness.

However, you still leave the golf course with something you didn't have when you teed off # 1.......... a wife.

Ran, you captured a good deal of NGLA.  I wish you hadn't run out of film for # 18, but, I'm sure you'll get it the next time you visit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:10 PM by -1 »

JakaB

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2002, 08:02:58 AM »
Why on a private course of great natural beauty is there a directional marker on 16...is it original...and is the course littered with other such distractions...I have heard of warning signs for cars..etc.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2002, 08:18:39 AM »
Oh Dave, I knew you weren't a complete nay-sayer like a certain guy who's left us for Scotland, but still, you did use the "o" word which initially pained me.  It is a very difficult place to explain in words, isn't it?  Redanman did a hell of a job just above me here and thanks, my friend - truer words have never been spoken.  But the intellectual challenge... "ghosts" and the "feeling" that Gib espouses... scenic beauty... historic importance...  roll that all up together and you get something pretty special, don't ya?

I am very glad you "got it", per se.  And as for the expatriate American Aberdourman, he's just being his contrarian self in his assessment of the course.  He'll come around some day... of course by saying that I just assured he never will on this dg....  ;)

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2002, 08:39:57 AM »
More excellent pics as usual, though some of the waste areas looked "manufactured" fronting 17 green.  Is this the case, perhaps they were "replanted" recently?

I was also alarmed by the pics of carts on the course.  Unless those were medical exceptions, I would never believe they'd even be allowed there.

Congrats, Dave (Shivas, while playing here)!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2002, 08:45:18 AM »
Scott - when I was there a year ago, the area fronting 17 was as natural as natural can be.  It's hard to tell from Ran's pic how things are now... perhaps Dave can weigh in on this.  I really doubt they'd plant anything there... that's pretty much how it was a year ago and though it might look manufactured in Ran's pics, I sure didn't get that feeling seeing it in person.

Re carts, wow... you're right... there one is next to 18 tee, in the pic of 17 from far away... I can assure you I sure as heck saw no carts when I was there... interesting.  One has to guess they do have a lot of "seasoned" members so perhaps it's for those types who would rather not walk any more.  This is indeed one of the world's great walking courses.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RT (Guest)

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2002, 08:49:00 AM »
Back in '81 that large ridge was very natural, a sea of hard sand, front right of no. 17 green.  I'll try and dig up a photo.  Some neat little pots after the ridge, again front right of the green.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2002, 09:47:40 AM »
Terrific writeup as usual.

Quote
I've used that ploy on dozens of occassions,

Wow, Patrick, how many times have you proposed?  ;D

Now would be a good time to stop punishing everyone for my shortcomings & go ahead & post the photos of the 1st green.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2002, 10:05:37 AM »
George,

All the photos that I've taken of the first green didn't bring out the humps, bowls and runoffs.

I'm struggling to come up with an idea that would clearly depict what one sees in person.  Perhaps some sort of three dimensional computer generated graphic.  I'm open to any and all suggestions relative to photographing the contouring in a green.  I just don't know how to do it.

When I was a kid, I wanted to believe in Santa Claus.
I dismissed suggestions, hints, and evidence that his existance might be illusory.  Even when told, and presented with the facts and evidence, I was in denial.
So I understand your position relative to the bunkers at Merion and The Berkshire.  I've seen Merion's bunkers eyeball to eyeball, and trust my surgically corrected eyesight.

As to the proposal issue, the outcome of the match often negated the initial response.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

FORTSONATOR

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2002, 04:56:39 PM »
I played there on Monday for the fourth time and it gets better each time.  NGLA is if anything underrated by the world of golf.  Other than on this website how often do you hear about NGLA?  Hardly ever.  Maybe that's a good thing though.  Let's keep this somewhat of a secret to ourselves!

I love NGLA.  

Jeff F.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GPazin

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2002, 01:11:25 PM »
After more thoroughly devouring the course profile, I must say I'm totally confused as to how NGLA didn't win the original Survivor series. Amazing course, unbelievable neighbors, beautiful area to live in. What were the votes thinking? Or maybe it was what were the voters smoking? :)

A few questions:

- Was the lengthening that occurred between opening and the late 30s primarily to combat the rapidly changing ball?

- Have some of the bunkers lost their steepness in their banks? As compared to Fox Chapel when I was there in August, the bunkers in the photos look less dramatic, with some obvious exceptions such as the Road Hole bunkering.

- Does anyone care to speculate why NGLA was not emulated by many of the following architects? Was it simply the tougher is better mentality seemingly established with RTJ altering Oakland Hills?

- How much of NGLA is lost on the common player? By this I mean someone who is not specifically looking for architectural features. I have a friend who has played many great courses around the world and, when I was telling him about this site, I mentioned that NGLA was held in very high regard. He was somewhat surprised, saying that he had played it (in fact, he gave me a ball marker I carry around for inspiration! ) and found it simply a nice old course, but nothing really special. Yet, the only criticism NGLA seems to receive on this site is that it lacks the overtly demanding qualities of a Shinnecock.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gib_Papazian

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2002, 02:06:05 PM »
What follows is a shameless plug:

Clocktower Press.
The Evangelist of Golf.
Author: George Bahto.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2002, 02:12:00 PM »
Scott Burroughs et al:

Plenty of carts at National but most take caddies.

Interesting club rule: "Linksland is fragile - please drive carts only in the fairway."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2002, 02:22:32 PM »
Jeff Fortsonatorzonian.

I found what you found, the more I play NGLA the more I discover and the more it appeals to me.  I never tire of it.
And the wind helps me discover features and interesting but prohibited words.

George Pazin,

I've been telling you that for years, when are you going to start listening to me ?   ;D

I think some individuals, irrespective of their playing ability, don't get or appreciate NGLA.  They either don't have the perception or interest, or both.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GPazin

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2002, 07:34:29 PM »
Gib -

I've preordered my copy from Amazon - is it really going to ship 11/1? And is it too early to start pestering you guys about The National School of Design?

Patrick -

As I've mentioned many times of late, your posts are damn good when you're not trying to prove how biased the rest of us are. :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2002, 03:16:32 AM »
Dave Schmidt!

AH-HAH!!

You said every shot at NGLA is a mindblower except the second shot on #9!!

I'll tell you pal--great minds really do think alike!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2002, 04:43:20 AM »
NGLA is, indeed, very special.

Ran, great story about your brother!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2002, 10:16:22 AM »
Dave Schmidt,

You also have to make that evaluation in the context that the 9th hole was the original 18th hole, and as such, sort of anti-climatic.

In Scotland's Gift, a schematic dated 1928 seems to indicate a busier bunker complex adjacent to the 10th tee, making the second shot dicier.

I wonder if George Bahto could comment on the accuracy of that schematic.  George, could you also tell me which was the original tee on # 17, the right or left side tee, thanks.

And now Mr Paul, the $ 64,000 question.

You have stated repeatedly that NGLA should not be touched.
But, what if there was an intent to place bunkers, left and right near the second shot landing Zone, as you have previously suggested.  Would you be in favor of that alteration ?

George Pazin,

Sometimes it takes longer for people heavily involved in a situation to see the light that an outsider sees rather quickly, but you and others are making progress  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:10 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2002, 02:03:14 PM »
Pat:

You're absolutely right I've stated that NGLA should not be touched architecturally!

And I've also stated on here a number of times that I consider ONLY one area of NGLA to be weak architecturally--the second shot on #9!

Does that sound inconsistent? You're darn right it does!

So let me explain why I have said both (which appears inconsistent).

I'll preface my entire explanation by saying that, in my opinion, if any course in America deserves not to be touched at all ever, even if it has an area or two that is weak (to some players), it would probably be NGLA! So if NGLA recognized that the second shot to #9 is weak and still decided never to do anything about it, never to touch the golf course in any way, that would be OK with me!!

The particular reason I said recently that NGLA does not need to be touched is because my response on that was to a recommendation to alter other things--particularly the tee length on #18 (which, as you said would probably require moving the Gate and the drive to make architectural sense)!

I simply think, as I've stated many times, that if the club believes that particular hole really is too reachable by good and strong players and that's a concern to them for some reason, a far better solution to me (than moving the gate, drive and tees) would be to make the hole a par 4 (assuming that they're correct and the hole really is too reachable in two).

All this takes into consideration that NGLA is a very lucky golf course in that they have some available par NUMBERS to play with here! Three par NUMBERS to be exact (since NGLA is a par 73!) on holes #5, #7, #18! And I'm only talking about par numbers now, not holes. But NGLA is doubly lucky, in my opinion because those three par NUMBERS just happen to fall on three par 5s that could easily and effectively be turned into long par 4s without doing a thing to any of them architecturally--not a thing!! In other words all three of those holes could transition perfectly into great long par 4s (by tee marker placement only) which is definitely NOT true of all par 5s or even all the par 5s on NGLA!

#9, it don't really think would transition at all well  into a good long par 4 for a whole host of reasons! So that hole alone  would be the best candidate to remain only a par 5 if some really strong players came to the course!

But with the other three par 5s (#5, #7, #18 ) NGLA has the flexibility (and even the luxury) of calling their course a par 72, 71 or even 70!) by simply calling any or all of those holes par 4s and doing nothing to them architecturally (except adjusting tee markers)! All they'd need to do is set the tee markers correctly and reasonably and have score cards printed for the course of 72, 71 or 70 depending on what the occasion was!

So that's the primary reason I've said that NGLA shouldn't or doesn't need to be touched architecturally! The course's architecture doesn't need it at all, in my opinion, and any concern I can see with the shortness of #5, #7, & #18 can be dealt with simply by dropping their pars individually or collecively! Again, there's no architectural change necessary in that case!!

But the second shot on #9 is entirely different! Again, in my opinion, in the opinions of a few people on this thread, and numerous others I've spoken with over the last few years, that's probably the ONLY real weak shot on the golf course, and always has been!!

So if the club recognizes that and chose to do something about it that would be OK to me too, provided what they did made good strategic and architectural sense!

There was plenty of discussion of what to do architecturally on the second shot on #9 on a thread some months ago on NGLA (It's probably back on page 75 by now).

My feeling was not just to enhance the bunkering on the left near the green (or the right fairway bunker) but to CONNECT in a diagonal bunker scheme the fairway bunker right and the bunkers left near the green!

This would create a line of bunkering across the fairway somewhat like the inline bunker scheme in the middle of #8 (the Bottle Hole). This DAIGONAL bunker scheme could be rather narrow and ideally probably relatively shallow but it would connect the right bunker (maybe 100yds from the green) to the left bunkers (about 10-30 yards from the green) with a diagonal bunker scheme across the fairway.

Of course anyone can easily imagine the interesting strategic problems and solutions this would create for both distance AND direction in choosing to play the second shot over them or short of them in any way, setting up distance and angle options for the third shot.

A recommendation like this I look at as something that alters a classic golf course but only in such a way that if it was not successful or became something that needed to be restored back to the original look of #9 could be done easily without really altering a significant architectural area of the course like an original green or something!

This process is basically the process used to alter historic buildings and such! If alteration is done at all it should be done in such a way that it could be easily removed to restore back to original!!

What I've said about NGLA may sound at first inconsistent but I believe this explanation defines why it may not be as much as imagined!

And like many others I really do believe that the second shot on #9 is the ONLY weak area of the golf course and always has been!


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:10 PM by -1 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2002, 02:15:14 PM »
TEPaul,

Have you seen the schematic, dated 1928 at the back of "Scotland's Gift" ?  If it is accurate, then restoration of the bunker complex adjacent to the 10th tee would address some of your concerns relative to the second shot, while not deviating from the original architecture of the golf course.

Perhaps George Bahto can offer some insight.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2002, 03:55:34 PM »
Pat:

I have not seen it but I would like to! Perhaps, though, I'm not the one who needs to see it! Perhaps those that control NGLA are!

There's something particularly fascinating about schematics, drawings and architectural "iterations" by original architects that were never actually done!

At the very least it can show us today what was in their minds to some extent, although we may never know why a decision was made by them not to do something or to do an alteration or not go with a particular scheme or part of one! If we could actually know some of the reasons for those things it could give a great deal more credence to do some of those things now, in particular cases!

We've seen such things on the original Flynn material we're in possession of on a few courses! It appears Flynn had The Country Club of Cleveland a bit more bunkered up and appearing to play harder in one of his scheme "iterations" immediately preceding his final draft (the final draft being what was constructed obviously).

But it's interesting to consider why he took things out. Perhaps the club needed to economize back then but now that they have plenty of money the reasons why things were done the way they were become far more interesting to them, when considering some of his earlier "iterations".

Very much the same thing on a few holes at Shinnecock. There was almost a "Hell's Half Acre" on #16 with mounds and bunkering in an "iteration" immediately preceding the final one! Why was it altered? Was it considered too difficult in 1930? Would it be too difficult today?

These things where one can see what may have been in an original architect's mind but not done are very interesting to consider today!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2002, 04:07:46 PM »
TEPaul,

The 1928 schematic is subsequent to the final draft and construction of the golf course, so if it is accurate, it depicts the final configuration (plus interim modifications, if any) that could serve as a permanent and absolute guide.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A revised NGLA course profile is posted
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2002, 05:09:12 PM »
Pat:

Does the 1928 schematic replicate the way the second shot area on #9 is now?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back