[Patrick_Mucci]

The best players in the Met area don't break par at their home courses in 36 holes of medal play and it has nothing to do with distance, it is because of 11-12 green speeds.  

You're out of touch with reality.
Tell me what clubs in the Met area have had their greens putting at 11-12 this summer ?

The idea that distance is the enemy to enjoyable golf is myopic at best.  

It clearly is.
Let me put you at the tips at Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Bethpage, Sebonack, Atlantic, Friar's Head and Baltusrol day in and day out and then tell me how much you enjoyed yourself

You don't have to play the tips but it's nice to have 4 par 4s that are a driver-long iron for a long hitter.

But, this thread is about the tips.

There is nothing wrong with adding length for championship tees so long as the hole is not totured in the process . . .

Yes there is if there's nothing to gain but length.

AS YOU KNOW, the problem is not adding length it's getting 18 handicaps to play the correct set of tees (which should   be 6,000 yds).

18 handicaps aren't playing the tips. Nor is 95-99 % of the membership, which is the issue

[Patrick_Mucci]

Length, lack of length, trying to attract younger members, what a lot of crock. Can you imagine a club where the cut to qualify for the scratch championship was 169, would be interested in lengthening the course...horse feathers.

I would bet that most contributors to this forum could not break 80 on a 6100 yard course on their best day.

Bob,

Exactly.

I know of a club where 170 can't be broken from the tips in qualifying for the club championship, yet, the club is considering adding 200 yards.

For what ?  Or, for whom ? Certainly not the members.

[TEPaul]

Let me get something straight here before this site begins to lose credibility.

Pat Mucci is suggesting it's OK if he suggests that NGLA add length which even includes his suggestion that Macdonald's gate and the driveway be moved and 50 yards added to the 18th hole and yardage be added to the 7th hole to restore the way those holes were intended by CB to be played but he feels that other clubs should not suggest tee length additions because not enough members could play them??? Not to mention the fact that Pat Mucci has been crowing about the senior golfers he knows that now drive the ball 300 yards.  

This is just about the definition of contradiction or hypocricy, or both, and no amount of rationalization is going to avoid that fact.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci is suggesting it's OK if he suggests that NGLA add length which even includes his suggestion that Macdonald's gate and the driveway be moved and 50 yards added to the 18th hole and yardage be added to the 7th hole to restore the way those holes were intended by CB to be played but he feels that other clubs should not suggest tee length additions because not enough members could play them???

You just don't get it.

MacDonald's gates were not part of the original golf course.
They were added subequent to the completion of the golf course, hence their location, from an architectural perspective, is immaterial.

Their current location prevents the needed elasticity with respect to returning the critical left side fairway bunker into play.

# 18 is a 502 yard par 5 from the "tips"

Your vision is either blurred or short sided.
It the gates weren't there, we both know that the tee would have been extended already.  The fact that they're there doesn't negate the architectural need to extend the tee in order to restore the intended strategy.

As to # 7, a 478 yard par 5 from the "tips", the "hotel" bunker complex has lost its ability to interface with more and more golfers.  Extending the tee back brings the "hotel" bunker complex back into play, just as CBM intended.

The same situation occured at # 8 with the centerline bunker complex.

While 220 carries by even the best players might have been rare in 1911, they're common place today by a broad spectrum of golfers.

Not to mention the fact that Pat Mucci has been crowing about the senior golfers he knows that now drive the ball 300 yards.  

I haven't been crowing, just stating the facts.

Unbridled technology presents a number of problems for every architect in business today, and it's causing golf course after golf course to alter their fields of play.

BUT, this thread isn't focused upon adding length for the purpose of returning architectural features back into play.  It's about adding length for the purpose of creating a more intimidating scorecard.  As an example, one course I know of has a 600 yard par 5 that NO members play from.  Yet, there's a desire to lengthen the hole by 50 yards.  WHY ?

Why spend money to create a tee that NOONE will play from ?

This is just about the definition of contradiction or hypocricy, or both, and no amount of rationalization is going to avoid that fact.

It's so difficult to explain the nuances, the subtleties and the distinctions to you.  You want to wrap the issue in one blanket, place it in one general category, when in fact, there are meaningful distinctions and sub-categories.

But, that doesn't surprise me.
That you can't understand the need to extend the 7th tee at NGLA says it all.

P.S.

Would you say that some of the best amateurs in the country play NGLA every year ?  That it hosts a prominent amateur tournament ?

[Mike_Golden]

Patrick, I limit myself to responding to one of your threads per year for exactly what always happens-you pose questions, you get answers, and then you tell each responder that we don't know what we're talking about.

Why don't you just post an essay regarding the subject so we can be educated?  It would be much less painful.

I'll see you next year...

[Mike_Golden]

Length, lack of length, trying to attract younger members, what a lot of crock. Can you imagine a club where the cut to qualify for the scratch championship was 169, would be interested in lengthening the course...horse feathers.

I would bet that most contributors to this forum could not break 80 on a 6100 yard course on their best day.

Bob

Bob, I don't know of a single course where the cut would be 169 and the membership would be interested in lengthening it-at Lake Merced, the cut is normally around 165-170 but there have never been any discussion that I know of to lengthen it beyond the current 6900 yards.  And the reason for the high scores isn't so much length, it's where the pins are located during qualifying.  I've shot as low as 161 in qualifying a few years ago and we actually had a 65 in the second qualifying round in 2003 by the eventual club champion, Jon Cook. I've never seen Lake Merced referred to as an easy course, even in US Open Sectional Qualifying where the pin locations are kept fairly easy because of the need to get in 36 holes in the day.

Regarding your claim that most in this forum couldn't break 80 on their best day on a 6100 yard course, I would respectfully disagree with you on that.  I've seen some very good play over the years at various GCA events and with other GCA members individually.

[Pat Howard]

Why does anyone respond to these threads? They're not even fun to read and any response you give is chastised and belittled. I can't wait to see this one torn up with BOLD BLACK LETTERING!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Golden & Pat Howard,

In a quick review of the last fifteen (15) pages of threads I didn't notice one single thread that was started by either one of you.

Instead of whining, why don't both of you start some interesting threads.  That way you could contribute something besides complaints.

I also noticed that neither of you have contributed a dime to this site.

If you're not going to contribute by starting interesting topics, why don't you contribute by sending Ran some money.

[TEPaul]

"I said:

"Pat Mucci is suggesting it's OK if he suggests that NGLA add length which even includes his suggestion that Macdonald's gate and the driveway be moved and 50 yards added to the 18th hole and yardage be added to the 7th hole to restore the way those holes were intended by CB to be played but he feels that other clubs should not suggest tee length additions because not enough members could play them???"

Patrick responds"

"You just don't get it.

MacDonald's gates were not part of the original golf course.
They were added subequent to the completion of the golf course, hence their location, from an architectural perspective, is immaterial.

Their current location prevents the needed elasticity with respect to returning the critical left side fairway bunker into play.

# 18 is a 502 yard par 5 from the "tips""

Do you guys believe the total lack of logic of this guy??  

Hey Pat, the property behind Merion's 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th tees were not part of the original golf course either, so with your logic maybe they should add about 500 yards to the course and it wouldn't be consider obsolete by anyone anymore.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The property behind # 18 tee was and remains National's.

Adding tee length in order to return architectural features into play is consistent with the theory of elasticity.  I believe Flynn was a believer in elasticity, incorporating it into his designs.  Or did Flynn just recommend changing par on the scorecard, making par 4's par 3's and par 5's par 4's ?

Spending the members money on adding length to tees that noone plays is foolhardy at best.

It's a scorecard mentality associated with having the biggest and baddest course in the neighborhood, having little to do with architectural intent.

Please call Wayne Morrisson and have him explain it to you.

[Mike_Golden]

Mike Golden & Pat Howard,

In a quick review of the last fifteen (15) pages of threads I didn't notice one single thread that was started by either one of you.

Instead of whining, why don't both of you start some interesting threads.  That way you could contribute something besides complaints.

I also noticed that neither of you have contributed a dime to this site.

If you're not going to contribute by starting interesting topics, why don't you contribute by sending Ran some money.

You know, Patrick, for someone who is allegedly a good guy you are absolutely the biggest egotistic know it all I've ever encountered.  In answer to your question about my lack of contributions, I supported a prior website (www.Traditionalgolf.com) for 2 years and never asked anyone for a cent.  I've also hosted numerous GCAers at my golf clubs and never asked someone for a cent.

Go fuck yourself.  And I'll enjoy being thrown off this site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Golden & Pat Howard,

In a quick review of the last fifteen (15) pages of threads I didn't notice one single thread that was started by either one of you.

Instead of whining, why don't both of you start some interesting threads.  That way you could contribute something besides complaints.

I also noticed that neither of you have contributed a dime to this site.

If you're not going to contribute by starting interesting topics, why don't you contribute by sending Ran some money.

You know, Patrick, for someone who is allegedly a good guy you are absolutely the biggest egotistic know it all I've ever encountered.

You started it pal.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.  

In answer to your question about my lack of contributions, I supported a prior website (www.Traditionalgolf.com) for 2 years and never asked anyone for a cent.  

Who cares what you did for Traditionalgolf.com.
What have you done for Golfclubatlas.com ?
To date, nothing, either in the way of starting interesting topics or contributing funds to support the site.

I've also hosted numerous GCAers at my golf clubs and never asked someone for a cent.

Big deal, so have others, including myself, many, many times.


Go **** yourself.  And I'll enjoy being thrown off this site.


Nobody would notice, because to date, you haven't contributed anything. so take a hike, you won't be missed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Why are clubs with typical memberships, where the best players at the club can't break par qualifying for the club championship, seeking to lengthen their golf courses ?

With apologies to Letterman, because:

10. they're tring to attract younger, lower handicap players.

9.   they're suffering penile envy; my par 5's are longer than your par 5's.

8.    their egos need stroking from their course ratings.

7.    their grandchhildren are being groomed for the Tour and need a course to challenge them.

6.    it's obvious that the architect left land behind some of the current tees to provide elasticity and intended it to be used in 2006.

5.   that drunken, golden age architect just didn't understand that the aging membership in 2006 would be driving the ball 300 yards.

4.   they've got money burning a hole in their pockets that needs to be ploughed back into the course.

3.   you can never tell when the Tour will want to stop by and have a tournament at your course.

2.   they're stupid and/or senile.

1.   they've heard there's new technology around the corner that'll allow them to drive the ball 320 yards and they want to be prepared.

BUT, this thread isn't focused upon adding length for the purpose of returning architectural features back into play.  It's about adding length for the purpose of creating a more intimidating scorecard.  As an example, one course I know of has a 600 yard par 5 that NO members play from.  Yet, there's a desire to lengthen the hole by 50 yards.  WHY ?

How would we know?  Which course is it?  Which hole?  Since you know of it, why do the members say they want to do it?  Or pick one of the 10 reasons above.

[Gib_Papazian]

Thanks to Mike Beham for sending me the thread that started this ridiculous cat fight.

Look you two, it seems to me that everybody is pretending they do not understand the opposing point of view - and Tom (P.) is fanning the flames because pulling Mucci's chain is one of his amusments.

Mucci is right, it is appropriate in some cases to lengthen holes to bring particularly interesting hazards and strategies back into play for bombers.

Golden is right that there are some clubs who have trouble attracting members because the track is considered "short and sporty."

Shelly is right that the younger demographic - if that is who we are building the new tees to accommodate - tend to play them more often than we think.

Mucci is right that length for the sake of length - in a sensible world - is indefensible.

Sir Bob is right because . . . . well, because he is Sir Bob.

Now, how about if Mucci calls Mike Golden - I am friends with both of you two fighting cocks - and patch things up.

You are both extremely bright and wonderful playing companions.    


Pat Howard,

In answer to your query: We respond because this is as much an intellectual exercise and an exploration of golf architecture.

[tonyt]

they're suffering penile envy; my par 5's are longer than your par 5's.

BINGO!

Card length and in some instances, specific hole lengths on the card are the prime motivators. In other words, the factors often have nothing to do with the actual golf course

Occasionally here in Australia when a regional club is renovating or upgrading the course (often doing a good job and for all the right reasons), they also look at what is the longest course in their district and ensure that their new model will exceed it in card length. No thought given to whether it is a better result than if they were doing same but blind to whether it was or wasn't going to result in that result on the card.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Thanks for your efforts,

I have no problem calling Mike Golden.

What do you want me to call him ?  

His phone # would help, I'm me.

[Chris Cupit]

I own a private golf course a recently invested over $3M that in part lengthened the course.  It was an investment that will pay off and it has to do with people's perceptions not any reality.

Prior to the renovation our back tee length was 6576.
We had hosted 16 US Senior Open qualifiers and the lowest score ever in all those years was -5, 67.

In 2004 we hosted US Open local and 71 advanced to sectionals.

The course was plenty hard and only 10% of the better players ever played from the tips.

BUT, in renovating it was the perception that 6500 is not "up to date" that mattered.  I sell the memberships at my course and I can assure you one of the first questions is "what is the length from the tips".  The ones that come and play recognize that is plays a lot longer than its yardage but they don't like the fact that their home course is a "short" course.

The new back tees are over 7000 and maybe 10 players have any business back there--but it is a source of pride to the rest of the members that their course is longer and harder!?

I was willing to spend the money because while I think that perception is warped, it is one that sells memberships.  We were not quite at capacity before the renovation and when the plans were unveiled and people liked what they saw, we went to having a waiting list that continued during construction and until today.

Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings, but LENGTH MATTERS

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Chris,

That would seem to confirm my belief with respect to the negative impact that Televised PGA Tour events have had on local golf courses.

Think of this in any other context.

You do something that only affects one half of one percent of the golfers, yet, the entire membership and prospective members view it as an improvement to the course.

Would I like to be able to do that in my business.

You're correct, perception is reality for some.
Unfortunately, you had to spend 3,000,000 to get there.

Will competing local clubs see what you've done and enter the distance race ?

Will they too embark upon a "perceived" improvement program, creating a new cycle of "perceived" needs on the part of all clubs in the area ?

Talk about whipped cream on S___.

Perhaps its part of the "my course is bigger and better than your course" syndrome.

[TEPaul]

I'm really pissed at myself for not noticing this thread in the last month and a half or so. Mike Golden told Pat Mucci to go F.... himself?!?

COOL

The thing that never ceases to fascinate me about this website is how often so many otherwise intelligent people keep suggesting this would be a far better site if we were somehow more civil to one another.

I just can't imagine a better prescription for boredom and mediocrity than that.  

[Bill_McBride]

Unfortunately we haven't seen much of Mike Golden around here since then, either.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm really pissed at myself for not noticing this thread in the last month and a half or so. Mike Golden told Pat Mucci to go F.... himself?!?

COOL

The thing that never ceases to fascinate me about this website is how often so many otherwise intelligent people keep suggesting this would be a far better site if we were somehow more civil to one another.

I just can't imagine a better prescription for boredom and mediocrity than that.  

Tom,

The thread title is self-explanatory.   I'm surprised it's taken you this long to get up to speed here.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
The thread title is self-explanatory.  I'm surprised it's taken you this long to get up to speed here."  

Mike:

I know. I guess I must have been somewhere else fighting other battles with people who live in Ivory Towers.    

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,

That would seem to confirm my belief with respect to the negative impact that Televised PGA Tour events have had on local golf courses.

Think of this in any other context.

You do something that only affects one half of one percent of the golfers, yet, the entire membership and prospective members view it as an improvement to the course.

Would I like to be able to do that in my business.

You're correct, perception is reality for some.
Unfortunately, you had to spend 3,000,000 to get there.

Will competing local clubs see what you've done and enter the distance race ?

Will they too embark upon a "perceived" improvement program, creating a new cycle of "perceived" needs on the part of all clubs in the area ?

Talk about whipped cream on S___.

Perhaps its part of the "my course is bigger and better than your course" syndrome.

Pat,

I hear you and believe me I agree that some of what I do is just stupid, but it is "working" in the sense that that is what the golf market says it wants.  If you can't beat 'em...

The $3M in fairness, was not just for the length.  We had a 33 year old irrigation system, pencross greens (filled with poa) from 1979 and cart paths that were knocking the dentures out of my seniors!  As part of the re-do I had the opportunity to add length and I did.  (I actually shortened the tees for both my seniors and ladies).  

I had many of my ladies "insulted" (I swear that is what one lady said) for making my most forward tee 5103!.  I have 5 rated ladies courses--5103,5412,5775,6077 and 6429 and yet they act like I have insulted them with new tees!  They used to have one rated tee--5376

Today was the first weekend we have been open since the project started and I chuckled to watch the guys play the tips in November.  The old tips were 6576 and new tips are 7005--a huge increase.

After 4 1/2 hours they were all smiles after shooting 10 strokes above their handicaps and wearing out their 4-woods

I do think many just wanted to see the "whole course" and then will move to a length that is appropriate.  There is a perverse pride in length though.  I actually shortened a couple of holes, one from 322 to 295 to make it driveable and during construction I had numerous people wonder aloud if that wouldn't "jeopordize" the magic 7000 number.  I actually discussed NOT wanting to be 7000 with the architect Michael Riley and when I print scorecards, I might fudge and "shorten" the course to just under 7000.  That will piss off the scratch group!!

You are dead on about the pernicious influence of television (the Masters effect).  I also have the "resort course effect".  My course is modestly priced and when my members come back from vacation golf (or golf at a high end private they played) they always have suggestions about some little thing we could do to "improve".  I particualrly like when a member asks why we can't have x or y since the other club they just played provides it "for free".  (They don't always get that higher dues, more "free" stuff equation).

I swear to you, there is a new product out that uses a block of ice and a fan to "air condition" the golf carts  Just what golf needs--people more comfortable lounging in the carts!!

I'd love to find the inventor and kick him in the nuts


 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Chris,

This brings up an interesting question, which I shall pose in a seperate thread.

Do golfers know what's best for the game ?

Or is their vision solely in the context of their own games ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()