Jim,
I take it you are talking about your northern course. Which holes have enhanced chute effects? I guess 2 might and 4 does. Most of the tree lines are on one side, aren't they (8,11,14)? There isn't much of a chute effect on 16 and 17 because the width between the trees is so great.
Let's have an honest discussion here. Do you think that tee lengthening is a huge success? There are some that are excellent but others are very poor.
The 1st tee has been left alone for now. Perhaps it is a budgetary constraint, but that tee is out of context with the natural landforms used by Flynn. It should be lowered and lengthened and hopefully will be at some point.
The 2nd tee was unnecessary for the meager added length. The added danger from slices off the 4th tee and protective tree planting is worrisome. It is on the wrong side of the tree. The key component of the tee shot, the left to right cant of the fairway, has been nullified to a large extent by moving the tee to the right and hitting more into the cant of the fairway rather than with it. This was a big mistake.
For a mere 15 yards of added length the 4th tee is cantilevered into the hillside with big boulders supporting it. Given the front driveway goes right past it and it is fully visible, I think, like the 1st, it lacks the qualities of that portion of the property. Flynn used the natural qualities of the land to make some spectacular natural landform holes. This counterpoint to naturalism for a mere 15 yards is not a success at all.
The 5th hole has been lengthened and I think that is a good thing as it brings the pivotal ridge line turbo boost/anti-turbo boost back into play for stronger players. The tee is propped up in an unnatural way, but without using tons of extra fill to tie in better, I don't see how it could have been avoided. It is not on the correct line of play. It should have been in line with the former back tee box.
The 6th was a well done, low profile tee. I don't know if the hole needed lengthening as I would have liked to keep one of the longer par 3s under 200 yards and thought 191 uphill to that difficult green complex was sufficiently hard.
The 8th tee is fine but you have too many tees now and it looks busy, like you're trying to be all things to all golfers. I think some of the middle tees should have been made smaller and one removed.
The 9th hole is where the club should have added length. Make the long holes even longer and this one could have become even greater with another 20-25 yards. That lengthening makes a lot more sense than the 15 extra yards you got on 2 and 4.
I applaud the construction of the Flynn tee on 10 and while it wasn't built, it was planned to be a 260 yard par 3 in 1926. And finally, 81 years later, the tee is in. It is an excellent tee.
I saw the 11th during construction. I'm sure it looks better grassed, but for visibility's sake, the natural right to left slope was channeled out leaving another overtly man-made feature on a natural landform hole. Granted the greensite is benched into the hillside, but in typical Flynn fashion it looks great and perhaps the great bunker below the green helps obscure the architecture. The new rear 11th tee is propped up too high and too close to the path so that it drops off so steeply that it is unsightly. I'd rather have a blind tee shot using trees in the distance to guide the shot. That would have been more appropriate on a classic era course than the gouging that was done. Maybe if the slope were taken down gradually rather than abruptly it would work better. Or maybe the forward tee could have been lowered sufficiently. An architect would have been a great help in making a better decision.
The 14th tee was very welcome and they did a great job building it. It is a little further back than I thought appropriate given it was going to be in play on a daily basis. It is one of the most difficult par 3s in golf. With a green and shot demand similar to the 3rd at Merion though the approach at Merion is far steeper.
15 has one of the great chutes I've ever seen. Having now seen the 18th at Augusta, the chute on the short 15th at Rolling Green is much more intimidating.
The back tee on 16 is nothing short of excellent.
The back tee on 17 is nothing short of a mess. It should have been close to the natural grade and not propped up 10 feet or so. Trees should have been taken down (wouldn't this help the agronomics on the 16th green?) and the tee moved just to the left along the line of play from the current tee.
The back tee on 18 is terrible. It is placed on the north side of a large tree so I'm sure it will be tough to maintain. The added length creates a strategic disconnect with the turn of the hole, the slope of the fairway and the bunkering. It creates a unity of shot demands and takes away a great deal of strategy. Driver, mid-iron around the corner and mid-iron approach. BORING. The hole would be much better played as a par 4 for stronger golfers from the member tees. Let everyone else play it as a par 5 from the back of the member tees and certainly no farther back than the old back tee.
That's my take on the tees at Rolling Green. Some great successes, some moderate successes and a few failures.