bowled over by Rolling Green

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

Mike Cirba is a fellow you ought to meet...and surely not for his golf swing    He is a fine thinker and can see comparisons and contrasts very well.  I like your thoughts as well.

I don't like armchair tinkering with the bones of the golf course.  Moving the tee into the woods on 11 makes little sense to me.  It is a great hole that could be enhanced by a bit of lengthening.  In a way it is fortunate that the lengthening can only come at the tee since the greens and green complexes are so exceptional throughout the course.  My tee proposals are pretty benign.  The other changes such as a bunker on 7 and removal of the  bunker on 13 are not that significant.  Maybe the sum of all the parts is rather different to you.  But I firmly believe in the architectural underpinnings and would rather do nothing than make substanitive changes like Mike considers on 11.

What do you think of ending the fairway on 1 and surrounding the green with rough on all sides save the greenside bunkers on the left as in the Flynn drawing?  It is a little like the bunkerless 12th at Merion West.  It requires an aerial approach (Flynn was a transition architect) and would be very interesting.  I know the club wouldn't go for it but as an academic exercise it is intriguing...well to me at least.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt, I think the opposite of Mike Cirba. In fact, I think he would fit in perfect at Rolling Hills/Fox Chase as the quiet and suspicious member who walks around the place in a full length trench coat mumbling how the bunkers at this place suck, while scoping-out which members wives he wants to "schtupp."

He would be a perfect addition the sequel.

Mike Malone, Yes, I noticed the similarities when picking out the image, and just figured we could say that you had Lasix. It must have been a really botched-up job too.

[mike_malone]

 I agree with you, Wayne. Don't tinker! No armchair architecture. I find that "mining" the master plan and the original plans has the most value. Practically every idea I propose comes from both of these. And I agree about 98% with your architectural report you wrote for the club.


    I classified the #11 tee idea and #18 bunker movement as "speculative" and in someways a stretch . But, I like to get informed opinion on things. This site is one source of some of that. When we face so many physical constraints on the course it makes sense to me to at least consider some options that use the land we have.

   That is why some people think about a new green on #7. It is because the land is there. I find value in those discussions. I am comfortable with Jim Nagle's explanation that it won't work.


      A bunker on # 7 is an idea that seems to be a controversial one.  I find that somewhat inconsistent with your statements. I know your argument there,but think it opens up that can of worms to many things that could be bad. People will just point to the bunker on #7 as the prime example of "toughening up the course".The benefits seem limited and the possible problems, proper placement as the most prominent, seem troublesome. If it really made a great big positive difference I could see the benefit to pursuing it.

    Why not pursue the ideas in the master plan and the original design until they are exhausted ?

[mike_malone]

 
  Dave has an interesting idea considering a tee to the far left.

  Moving the tee into the woods on 11 makes little sense to me.  


        Both statements were made by Wayne today.
 
      I'm confused!

[wsmorrison]

  "Dave has an interesting idea considering a tee to the far left.

  Moving the tee into the woods on 11 makes little sense to me.


        Both statements were made by Wayne today.
 
      I'm confused!"

Yes, you are confused.  We can agree whole-heartedly there.
It is an interesting idea to consider it there, I never did before.  But it makes little sense after further consideration.  Get it?  Probably not.

[Kyle Harris]

 "Dave has an interesting idea considering a tee to the far left.

  Moving the tee into the woods on 11 makes little sense to me.


        Both statements were made by Wayne today.
 
      I'm confused!"

Yes, you are confused.  We can agree whole-heartedly there.
It is an interesting idea to consider it there, I never did before.  But it makes little sense after further consideration.  Get it?  Probably not.

Wayne,

Isn't there already a "left" tee to the left of the dogwood and immediately behind the tenth green?

[mike_malone]

 My interest in the architecture at Rolling Green is almost completely to see it as close to its original design as possible.I think the general membership feels that way as well. The master plan is an effort to support that goal.  The membership enthusiastically supported it when it was presented.
    All the other ideas are very tangential to the main goal. Keep it as pure as possible. It was designed and built great.

   As I said before the only big mistakes were trees planted in the wrong spot.


     I never tire of playing it and think it is the best piece of land for a parkland golf course that I have ever seen.

[wsmorrison]

A chipping area to the right of the 1st green rather than a green surrounded by rough is not as close as possible to the original design.  Granted photographic evidence is not conclusive, but the drawings are.  If you really feel the way you state, the left hollow should have been kept as rough and not made short cut as you championed.

Kyle,

There is a less desirable members' 11th tee to the left of the original tees and just beyond the left rear corner of the 10th green.  It seems that Mike Malone was intrigued by a tee even further left into the tree line and wanted to consider a wholesale change in the hole.  Now that is a departure from this statement made by Mad Mike Malone:

"My interest in the architecture at Rolling Green is almost completely to see it as close to its original design as possible."

He is a man of contradictions...mostly to intelligence and reason  

[Matt Dupre]

Wayne - As to the first, I don't really see a need to do the "rough collar" in front.  The false front does serious damage to shots played short, or shots that are run up inadequately.  Putting rough in front would merely act as velcro for misplayed shots, with a less difficult recovery.  In addition, the hole currently allows a run-up approach, which is rare (and I've had to play my share out of the right and left trees...)

As for new tees, new ones along the line of play, like 4, 8, 11 and 17 are doable, but just not an incredibly high priority.  The bones of the golf course are solid, and more will be added by subtraction (trees) than anything else.

[mike_malone]

I would support the rough on #1 as designed. But I like the current fairway which was recommended by the green chairman, not me.It is better than just more rough. Do the whole thing and I agree.When you actually get involved in things they don't always come out the way you want them. That's life.


     I think it is fairly well recognized at RG that I work to get back to the original design. But I am open to interesting new ideas that others come up with. That is what makes things interesting.


    I haven't come up with an idea on my own to do anything that is not an obvious idea in the original design or a core idea in the master plan. But I like ideas of yours and others that make sense to me based on what I know.



    But if you have an idea and it is contrary to the original design; not part of the early changes made in the 30's; nor part of the master plan;and appears contrary to my best guess of what Flynn might do today I will oppose it.All of these except the last are of equal weight to me. The last is the least reliable.



   

[Joe Hancock]

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would see anything at all that could be changed at RG.

Joe

[mike_malone]

Most people may not guess that Joe Hancock was  admitting that he is not in his right mind.He had several crazy ideas in his one and only walk thru.

  I'm still chewin' on a couple of them.

[Joe Hancock]

If they didn't know by now....

Nice admission of your own, big fella.

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

Thanks for the kind words.

Tommy,

Thanks for providing a more accurate portrait.  

Matt,

Hope to meet you someday.  I agree that lowering the 1st tee would be a good thing but there's just so much macadam around that area I'm not sure about drainage considerations.

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   Imagine no macadam!   The master plan addresses this issue. It recommends the cart path on #2 being moved to the right side of the green. While I hanen't been able to convince people yet I see the path going in front of #3 tee then around to the left side of the tee. It would not be visible from the tee and could be hidden from the drive into the club. We already have a situation on #8 to #9 tee that requires cooperation .

    Then we could add fairway to the back of #2 right up to the #3 tee.


     The cart path to the right of #1 could be combined with #18.


      This would create a classic look to the whole area.


    From what I understand, drainage was a problem for #1 tee in the past. This can be addressed and is in the master plan.





     Excuse me if it appears that I have an answer for everything on this topic. I bore myself half the time. But, when I see things that seem out of place and go to look at our historical information, so wonderfully compiled by Dave Staebler, or the Master Plan, well crafted by Gil Hanse in consultation with the club, I find these ideas.


   Anyone who cares to do the work would come up with the same conclusions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

That all sounds good to me.  As long as someone thinks about where the water will flow during a drencher, it sounds much more aesthetically and functionally superior.

[Adam_Messix]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the "new" 17th tee at RG.  

[mike_malone]

 Again, credit needs to be given to the club for the work done in the last several years getting cart paths out of play.


   #1 eliminated from left of the green--#6 rerouted from across the line of play to along the fenceline--#8 removed right side---#9--back of the green is now around the halfway house--may have been left of #10(not sure)--#11 removed left of green--#15 used to go right along the creek--#18 rerouted into the trees . This is some fine work.

    We just need to keep going .


   But when push comes to shove we seem to do the right thing.

[Mike_Cirba]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the "new" 17th tee at RG.  

Adam,

Did you miss above where I mentioned that I "HATE the new 17th tee"?  

[mike_malone]

 #17 tee is a vast improvement over the old "banana" formation we had before.


   If those who wanted something different had gotten involved in the decisionmaking the result may have been different.

[Mike_Cirba]

#17 tee is a vast improvement over the old "banana" formation we had before.


   If those who wanted something different had gotten involved in the decisionmaking the result may have been different.

Mike,

I'm not sure there is a good answer there that I like.

So many people think it's too easy as a par five, yet's what wrong with a par 4.5?   So, you can move the tee back and left but does it really make it a better hole or does it just make the tee shot more awkward and prevent guys from taking the daring route and slinging it left?

To me, the idea that RG finished with two fairly birdieable par fives was part of it's charm.   Lord knows Flynn beat the sh*t out of us for most of the preceding 16 holes!  

The 18th doesn't work well as a par four, either.  Once again, it's awkward and requires a drive to areas most can't reach to have a reasonable second shot, so I always loved how from the back tee, if you hit a great drive, you did have a chance to go for it, and a possible eagle finish.

Now, it's just another boring long slog.   ooooo...the course is tougher...ooooo  

Now that I've managed to upset both you and Wayne I'll quit while I'm behind.    

[mike_malone]

 Mike,


   I think we should do whatever is reasonable to keep 17 and 18 as 4.5 pars. So many times I have seen people come to those holes needing to go 4-4 and forcing their drives into spots that lead to 6-6.


     A lower more modest tee would have been my preference on 17 but it wasn't going to happen.


    BTW the recent aerials Wayne found give some great angles on #17. It makes me think the bunker at 70 yards is supposed to be more into the fairway. There were trees between the green and #18 tee.!!! This combination makes #17 very different from #7. This hole was not designed to favor the running shot but to force the aerial one. So, it becomes another reason not to change the concept of #7, but to tweak #17 to increase the challenge for the approach.



      The reason some of us are considering widening 18 to the left is because it seems consistent with the way the land pushes shots over there.  It enables a mishit to just keep getting farther from the hole. This is so much more a pleasant result . There used to be evergreens there as well. Thanks to whomever for removing them. Moving left makes the hole play longer without adding distance.


    I love the finish at RG. After 13-14-15, our Amen corner, you walk to 16 thinking "I'm going low on the next three!".

    But you need to hit the shots and the consequences for a mishit or an overly aggressive shot while not disastrous can be very frustrating. You realize you can't blame it on anybody but yourself!

[wsmorrison]

Mike Malone thinks the new 17th tee is a vast improvement?  Oh my, that is a scary thought.  Mike, you are being a knucklehead again.

Mike Cirba, unlike the other Mike, knows of what he speaks.  OK, leave 17 alone if you have to, but that tee looks bad and plays about as bad.  You have to really smoke one to get beyond the upslope and have a reasonable shot at going for the green in two.  Most players would hit into the slope and have little to no roll.  It would be easier to do so and test a shaped shot to do so from a lower left tee and the tee would not look modern and out of place being 10 feet higher than the surrounding grade.  Not only that, but you'd have to take down a bunch of stupid trees that would help circulation and light on 16 green.

18 as a par 4 is only for championship players that can hit downhill to a position to go for the large green in two.  I have always maintained that it should be a par 5 for members from the current white tees and give them a chance at eagle or birdie.  But as a par 5 from that new back tee is a serious mistake and disconnects the landing area and topography that make the hole work.

I'm not upset by what you have to say.  That other Mike, jeez he is a knucklehead

I cannot appeal to Mike Malone's golf architecture knowledge, there is little or no evidence to date that it even exists.  But you, Mike, surely there is some merit in what I say.  Remember--a par 4 for state/club champion quality amateurs.  Par 5 for everyone else from the 485 tees.

[mike_malone]

 OK Wayne, I give up. I'm going to tell the powers that be at RG that we should put a bunker in on #7 and make #18 a par four and that these are YOUR ideas!

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,

You bail out on the good ideas soooo easily!

Joe