bowled over by Rolling Green

[Andy Scanlon]

Wayne:

Though I am not as "in tune" with the intentions of the powers-that-be as Mayday, I have not heard of any pending changes to the golf course and I am not aware that any have occurred since the latest round of tree removal over the winter.  It appears to me that Charile has focused on the turf and has done a wonderful job in that regard.  The problem greens in the past (3, 12, 16) have rebounded very well as a result of Charlie's efforts.

[wsmorrison]

Glad to hear of his successes with the problem turf.  I hope the course is nice and dry when nature allows.  Knowing Charlie a little bit, I'm sure it is.

Andy,

You're wrong about Mike Malone being "in tune" with the powers that be at Rolling Green.  Mike Malone believes he is channeling William Flynn and tuning him in very clearly.  He's telling everyone over there that he knows what Flynn would do and understands his intent.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid  

If Mike Malone thinks the best players would be hitting 2 iron or a wood from a tee on the rise above the cartpath, he needs to fine tune his radio to Flynn some.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

      I won't speak to proposed changes on this board. But as to new ideas, Dave Staebler has gotten me thinking about using the area to the left of #10 green in the trees for new #11 tees. There are many benefits to this idea. One being "elasticity" for the future. Another being the creation of a diagonal fairway approach that eliminates the turboboost currently available to the longer hitters. This also would move the line of general play (if the middle tees went there as well)away from #9 so that more evergreens could be removed. It may mean rethinking the leftside bunker which could become useless. It does change the original angle of play but recovers the original landing zone.


     Stretch your mind on #18. If we move the fairway well to the left before the dogleg and take the triple bunker complex on the right and make it somewhat similar to Phila. CC #3 we can keep the par five. Imagine one bunker just to the left of the current three, then the other two farther down the ridge taking away that turboboost currently available. Big hitters could try to go between the trees on the right and the bunkers but the carry over the rough would be substantial.
  I think the fairway used to be more left here.

      This would be an adjustment of existing features, not an addition which I oppose as unnecessary meddling.

    These are speculative ideas but make use of the current land and some connection to Flynn principles.

   What do you think?


   I agree with your comments about #17 tee. The "elasticity" option was not used and the possibility to have a more uphill teeshot was lost.

    Less grumbling about #5 trees has happened than a little bit of an adjustment period to the replacement on #4. Some still want trees in the landing area.


     When I spoke to someone about celebrating Flynn on our 80th anniversary by cutting out a small tee at 260 on #10 I was told by a former board member " Just don't use Wayne's name". I'm sure he was only kidding!

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,


    I think you may be a bit jealous of my special relationship with Flynn.  I'm sorry about that.I realize it must be frustrating to have done years of research for a book and be usurped by a numbnut who just channels the guy. I even put in a good word for you and Tom on occasion. But what do I say to his constant question  "Where the hell is my book?"

[Andy Scanlon]

      I won't speak to proposed changes on this board. But as to new ideas, Dave Staebler has gotten me thinking about using the area to the left of #10 green in the trees for new #11 tees.

mike:

If we do this, aren't we in danger of having members attacked and killed by the savage family of foxes that live in the trees to the left of the 10th green?  You're foursome could turn into a threesome in the blink of an eye...

[mike_malone]

 Andy,

    That would make the course play harder. Actually, my guess is that the foxes live to the left of #5.

[wsmorrison]

Are you sure you don't want to talk about proposed changes?  It seemed like you just did.  Since I discussed my own ideas that I presented to RGGC, I am not sure why you are not comfortable talking about them on this forum.  But thanks for addressing them anyway  

Dave has an interesting idea considering a tee to the far left.  I don't know where he's thinking of putting a tee to the left of 10 green, but a fair number of shots are pulled left of the green.  If it is left and beyond the green in the current treeline, that makes a bit of sense.  I never liked the angle of the left members' tee and prefer a back tee to the right and beyond 10 green.  The evergreens should come out no matter where the tees are so I don't see the connect you mention.  I would think the left fairway bunker would come into play more with a left tee, but I don't know the specifics.  It would definitely mean getting those three trees to the left of the bunker out.

I don't need to stretch my mind about 18.  I would have to stretch logic and architectural principles to accept your take on the hole though.  I don't see your points at all, especially temptation to go between your revised bunker scheme and the trees on the right.  Also, why should long hitters be denied a turbo boost.  You're not trying to make things more fair are you?  Being a shortish hitter yourself, what is your rationale for doing so?

As for fairways, they were more to the left and to the right.  The fairways were between 50 and 60 yards wide.  In general, they narrowed from both sides.

You like to use Flynn's intent and a connection to his principles.  It sounds good but I don't see you giving much evidence for it even if you could ascertain his specific intent here and there.  For every one of his general principles, there are exceptions.  He wasn't as compartmentalized or dogmatic as you think.  Honestly, he'd have a good laugh at how much people over-analyze the things he was doing and come up with a dogmatic philosophy.  

As for the 260 tee on 10.  I wish it would get done.  I don't think the former board member was kidding when he said not to use my name.  I am anathema.  It is only my idea to put it in, it was Flynn's idea in the first place.  Given what the amateurs were hitting off the back tee, you'd think the club would jump at the idea--80th anniversary or not.  Get it done!

[wsmorrison]

"But what do I say to his constant question  'Where the hell is my book?'"

Tell him you're wasting my time forcing me to write rebuttals to your knuckleheaded ideas on GCA  

I can't help it if the book is essentially complete and they want it released during the holiday season 2007.  Tell him you'll channel him the manuscript.

As to being jealous of your special relationship with Flynn.  Hardly.  I did spend thousands of hours researching and writing a book on him, but it is complete.  It did give me insights into Flynn's genius and I hold him in the highest regard as one of the greatest American architects.  Hopefully the book will persuade others, even those that don't know his work very well.  

I've moved on to another project that I am really excited about.  But also am immersed in a real job, so my time is taken.  I'll leave it to you to be the high priestess of Flynn  

[Andy Scanlon]

Andy,

    That would make the course play harder. Actually, my guess is that the foxes live to the left of #5.

As long as it makes the rating and slope increase, I am all for it.  I believe there are two families (is that the correct term?) of foxes -- one lives off of 5 and the other in the trees between 9 fairway and 10 green/11 tee.

[mike_malone]

 Wow! I finally learned something !

[mike_malone]

  Speaking of access, if anyone is interested in playing RG please contact me. It is a true joy to share it.


    Expect for Sat. evening when I have my seance with Mr. Flynn.

[Andy Scanlon]

Same standing offer for me...of course, I, unlike Mayday, can't commune with the dead so I may not be as interesting of a playing partner

[D_Malley]

no question RG is one of the best in the philly area, and could be even better with some tree mgt.  love the par 3's especially.  have not played there in about a year and a half, one thing i do remember is that there seemed to be alot of repitition in the second shots to the par 4's.  maybe it was just the day i played it or the position of my drives, but it seemed like on many holes i would always be left with 140-150 yard uphill approach shot to the green.  anyone else have similar experience?

[mike_malone]

 The only par fours you can have 140-150 uphill second shots are #1-#4-#8-#11-#12-#15.

      #8 tee should be moved back so that the second shot is much longer. #12 is a mishit for anyone under a 20 hdcp.

   


   #4 -it is hard to end up at 140-150 because the downslope starts there; generally one is 150-160 or rolls on to 125-130. But, on both #4 and #11 we should try to get more good players ending up on the downslopes for uphill second shots.

    #15 is a very different 140-150 yards since it is dramatically uphill.


      But, I would agree that on #1-#2-#4-#5-#11-#13 that the fairway tends to be on a downslope at this point.


    The course was not  designed for these holes to play this way. We need to analyze how to  make better use of the excellent ground to get closer to the original second shots .

[wsmorrison]

I wrote a My Home Course piece on Rolling Green GC several years ago while still a member.  Check it out in the menu to the left.  While there have been a number of changes since then, it is a good introduction to the course.  

At some point I may do another for the second of my new home courses.

[wsmorrison]

"...one thing i do remember is that there seemed to be alot of repitition in the second shots to the par 4's.  maybe it was just the day i played it or the position of my drives, but it seemed like on many holes i would always be left with 140-150 yard uphill approach shot to the green.  anyone else have similar experience?"

George,

What tees did you play?  How far do you carry your drives (if you were using driver)?  Were the conditions firm and fast or soft?  The landing areas can vary a lot on a course like that, especially with so many uphill approaches.

[D_Malley]

we played the back tees, and the conditions were i think relativly soft.  i usually carry my driver about 265-285.  

[D_Malley]

it just seemed like i had the 7 or 8 iron in on many par 4's and it was often a similar looking uphill approach.  

i am not totally sure if it was playing fast or soft that day. it could have been playing fast which made my drives roll into the bottom of some of the fairways of the holes which go down hill off the tee and have an uphill approach.

[mike_malone]

 I can see how you got that feeling and I appreciate your comments. It points out the need to get the landing area shots closer to the original design. It also shows why the course needs to be firm. If it were firmer you would have ended up in more varied places.

[Mike_Cirba]

Since I'm friends with a bunch of you guys former and current at RG, let me go on record as saying I don't think I would touch a thing beyond continued tree removal, not that anyone cares.  

In some places, if it's possible to extend a tee backwards along the same line as the original tee then I can somewhat understand those who cry out for more distance, but guys...the course is freakin' tough enough.  The greens and terrain more than provide enough inherent challenge and if it gets running firm and fast it's a bear.  

Having said that, I can't think of too many places where additional elasticity could be provided.  No way for 1, 2, 3, (maybe a few on 4), 5, 6, 7, (8 possible, but don't know where the property line ends), 9, (10, I'm all for the 260 Flynn tee), 11, 12, (13 would only work with moving a LOT of dirt), (14 might be able to be extended to the point where people would hyperventilate), 15, (16 could be moved back to mid-iron range), HATE the new tee on 17, and 18.  

[wsmorrison]

Actually, if the tees were put in that I suggested much of this issue of similar approaches would be ameliorated.  Green slopes and bunkering along with pin positions should provide more variety than the same 7 or 8 iron approach all day long.

Racetrack George hits it about the same as I do (though probably straighter).  I think the softer it is (and it has been that way for the most part during my years as a member) the more varied the distances because of ground movement.  With the course firm and fast, it might lead to even more similarities in distance.  Let's think about it in calm and dry conditions:

1 (slight uphill) is a 9 iron or PW
2 (level) is anywhere from a 5 to 8 iron
4 (uphill) is 9 iron
5 (level) is PW to SW
7 (level) is 7-wood in 2 shots
8 (big uphill) is 6-8 iron
9 (uphill) is 7-PW for third depending on preceding lies in fairway
11 (uphill) is 8 iron
12 (uphill) is PW-LW
13 (even to slighly downhill) is 8 iron
15 (uphill) 9 iron
17 (gradual uphill) 3 or 7 wood in 2 or SW 3rd
18 (uphill) 7 wood/3 or 4 iron approach in 2 (it should be par 4 from 480)

[Kyle Harris]

This similarity in distance thing seems to be a fall back criticism for a lot of courses, Rolling Green among them apparently. I don't think there's much basis based on my two visits to the place. I'll ahve to take Mayday up on his offer to hone that opinion, I suppose.  

That being said, Rolling Green still offers plenty of rigid flexibility in regard to setup. All these proposed changes are a bit disturbing to me and I wonder if they're not simply coming out of a desire to feel like one is doing something in lieu of actually improving the golf course.

It's a lot to place on a new super trying to establish a program (especially one that appears to be successful in its infancy). Why not give the guy a chance to get the place playing better as is?

I think the numbers lie a bit, and like other Flynns in the area, one is not simply hitting a club a distance.

Wayne's analysis to me shows a lot of room for manuever, especially with the shorter iron approach holes. Any sort of wind or a variance in lie changes this.

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

     For me it is more about maximizing the ground that is already there and trying to eliminate some of the advantages that big hitters get beyond their ability to hit a good shot.



      #1 tee---Here it is mostly about returning the tee back down to the ground to give players the image "I'm about to play a great classic course". We can also gain some yardage.
        #4--- If we move towards the entrance of the club and down the hill somewhat we gain future elasticity and create a real chance that good players land on the downslope with an uphill shot if they mishit their drive. This makes more sense to me than just going straight back because it falls off pretty drastically .

        #8---  I agree with those who say we need to do what we can to recover the original intent here. Players are supposed to be hitting from short of the creek. This is fairly easy for the great majority of players.

     #9----Again, why play the middle tees from the same place as 1926. If we take the forward middle tee and flip it back up the hill we get a little closer.

     #11- If we think about the area left of #10 green the options open up . It does involve potential changes to the original hole so it needs to be studied extensively.


      #14---Let's see big hitters somewhat closer to the original idea. The land is there and it gives more space for the middle tee.

     

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,

  What I see doing would take 10 to 15 years. Certainly not overnight.



    The membership of RG has done a fabulous job of maintaining the original routing, much of the original features such as bunkering and green size. This is an incredible achievement. That's why it is so easy to harp on the trees planted in the 70's. It seems to be the only glaring error and is easily rectified.

[Matt Dupre]

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Mike Cirba, but I like the way he thinks.  The continued tree removal and Charlie Carr's emphasis on firm conditions will keep RG a stern test for 99% of those who play it.  Adding length for length's sake is a waste of dollars, especially since we won't be hosting anything more than the occasional USGA qualifier in the foreseeable future.

That being said, there's discussion about going back to the old tee profile on the first hole, lowering it and moving it back right. And that's primarily because the existing tee looks so out of place with the rest of the golf course.

Wayne - George said he played from the backs.  I can't imagine that those approach shots are consistent with the back tees - more like the whites.  
Firmer conditions might contribute to more variation in approach distances due to more emphasis on placement of the tee shot in the fairway - then you're going to get similar approaches on 4, 11, 12, and 15 (and that's look, not necessarily distance).

I'm continually amazed by the amount of armchair architecture that RG is subjected to.  Kind of reminds me of my brother's first wife - "Oh, he's great but think how much better he'll be after I set to working on him..."