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.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Elasticity.
« on: December 29, 2006, 06:14:19 PM »
What do todays architects think of the concept?

Do todays rankers think a bit more fore-thought 90 years ago would have resulted in a signifacantly different ranking list today?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2006, 06:23:07 PM »
JES II,

90 years ago, the acquisition of the parcel of land came first, and architecture second.

That being the case, many courses became land locked with respect to elasticity.

One of the factors driving up the costs of golf today is the land requirement, especially if the property has some internal or permitting issues.

Most of the 90 year old courses have employed elasticity in a negative sense, having contracted their fairway widths, which is another application of elasticity.

Most "classic" designers understood the concept and allowed for it when the land permited.

Friar's Head has already employed the concept and I'm sure other contemporary courses have done the same
« Last Edit: December 29, 2006, 06:24:20 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2006, 08:08:22 PM »
The thing about you Patrick, is you need to understand better when a hole does not possess elasticity. Your suggestion to move Macdonald's Gate and the drive into NGLA to add 50 or so yards to #18 is perhaps one of the biggest travesties imaginable as an architectural suggestion.

There's no way to minimize the stupidity of that suggestion, to deflect it or to weasel out of it. You made the moronic suggestion and you will have to live with it. You should say you were grossly mistaken, say you're sorry and apologize to NGLA and the rest of us right now.

Anything less is totally unacceptable.

Happy New Year, you, you, you, you mush for brains!

:)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2006, 08:11:21 PM by TEPaul »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2006, 12:04:00 PM »
I would be surprised if many modern designers are really consciously allowing for future back tees in their work today.  

I think most of us are putting the tees back as far as it is practical to do so given the constraints of the property and the topography and environmental issues.  If we see a spot to put in a tee 20 yards further back then we think is necessary, such as the sixth at Sebonack, we build it now, rationalizing that

a)  it's cheaper and less disruptive just to build it now, or
b)  we'd better build it now before they want to call that area a wetland, or
c)  we don't even want to build it but our client insists on it (Mr. Nicklaus did not want that tee at Sebonack, Mr. Pascucci did, and we thought it was pointless to argue with him about it since nobody had to play it if they didn't want to)

That is one reason courses today are 7500 yards long even though so few players can actually play them from that distance ... the tees are being built for the future rather than the present.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2006, 01:56:45 PM »

The thing about you Patrick, is you need to understand better when a hole does not possess elasticity. Your suggestion to move Macdonald's Gate and the drive into NGLA to add 50 or so yards to #18 is perhaps one of the biggest travesties imaginable as an architectural suggestion.

There's no way to minimize the stupidity of that suggestion, to deflect it or to weasel out of it. You made the moronic suggestion and you will have to live with it. You should say you were grossly mistaken, say you're sorry and apologize to NGLA and the rest of us right now.

Anything less is totally unacceptable.

Happy New Year, you, you, you, you mush for brains!

:)

One day, hopefully, you'll see the error of your ways and the merits to the concept.

The roadway and gates can be easily moved 50 or more feet.
Moving them has NO impact on the club and permits the enhancing of the hole.

Remember, those gates weren't there when the golf course opened.  They were added later.

Moving them north allows you to bring the tee almost straight back, which preserves the angle of attack to the fairway and the critical bunkering scheme.

It brings that bunkering back into play.

That bunkering is THE critical feature on the drive.

It would make the hole play longer than its current 502 from the back tees, thus restoring the features in the LZ on the second shot and increasing the mental pressure on the golfer.

It would also make the third shot more challenging.
Yes, even 20 yards makes that third shot more challenging, espcially since it would bring the left side bunker, 67 yards from the green, more into play, which in turn, narrows the landing area for ones second shot since the steep falloff presents the right side hazard, creating a bottleneck effect.

Hole # 2 has been lengthened, as has # 8 and many others.
Recently # 12 and # 14 have been lengthened.
All to return the architectural features in the DZ back into play, and, to restore elements of the approach shot.

Only you remain in the dark on this issue.

Lengthening # 7 and # 18, RESTORES the architectural features meant to integrate with the golfer's game, BACK INTO PLAY.

That you haven't come to grips with that concept and its merits is truely mind boggling.

I've made my New Year's resolution.
It's to try to educate you to the point where you see and understand these concepts.

See, see the ball, be, be the ball.
See, see your future, see yourself teeing off # 7 and having the "Hotel" bunker scheme affecting your play.

See yourself teeing off # 18 with the gates and road slightly north and that big cross bunker genuinely challenging your play.

If you can see that, then you'll be the better architectural student that I know you can be.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2006, 06:49:26 PM »
Gentlemen:

Mr. Paul suggests 50 YARDS is unreasonable and would ruin the hole; Mr. Mucci suggests 50 "or more" FEET is acceptable and preferable.

Which is it?

Scott Szabo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2006, 08:46:37 PM »
Patrick and Tom,

The back and forth between the two of you is getting quite comical - thanks for the humor!

By the way, you two aren't brothers, are you ;)

"So your man hit it into a fairway bunker, hit the wrong side of the green, and couldn't hit a hybrid off a sidehill lie to take advantage of his length? We apologize for testing him so thoroughly." - Tom Doak, 6/29/10

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2006, 02:38:18 PM »
Why is Tigers new course is 7700 Yards long how many people will play it like that

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2006, 05:23:55 PM »
I think people like the idea of 7700 yards rather than the reality. We have one thats 7600 and we play a tourney once a year at that, everyone loves it but, and its a big but, once a year only. We have a pro tourney annually and they play the course at 7300, about half of the back tees are disregarded. Tom is right when he says its more a case of put the tee in now because its cheaper and easier now and it might be needed at some stage.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Elasticity.
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2006, 05:31:09 PM »
Matthew:

I hear that everyone in Dubai is a really long hitter.  Plus it's at least three feet above sea level.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back