Is # 13 at NGLA CBM's ultimate .....

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Transitioning # 18 to a par 4 does NOTHING to the play of the hole.

Changing par from 5 to 4 doesn't restore the design intent of having the golfer interface with the left side fairway bunker complex, which is a critical factor or component in the play of the hole.

One day you'll come to your senses about # 7 and # 18.
I just hope it's in my lifetime.

I shouldn't able to fly the "hotel" bunker complex with impunity and be hitting 4 and 5 irons into # 7, and better players shouldn't be hitting much shorter clubs.

The same applies to # 18.
A carry over the left side fairway bunker complex leaves the better players with long to medium irons into that green.

In an ideal world, the gates would be moved.

Absent Stan Druckenmiller donating the cost to do so, ala Oakmont's bridge, the next best thing is to merely create a tee in the shadow of the exit gate.  This tee would be for the better, younger players who would still challenge the left side fairway bunker complex.

# 7 is currently 478 from the back tee.
# 18 is currently 502 from the back tee.

Both holes NEED additional length in order to have them play as CBM intended.

Please have Wayne explain this to you.

Did Shinnecock lengthen # 16 ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Transitioning # 18 to a par 4 does NOTHING to the play of the hole.

Changing par from 5 to 4 doesn't restore the design intent of having the golfer interface with the left side fairway bunker complex, which is a critical factor or component in the play of the hole.

One day you'll come to your senses about # 7 and # 18.
I just hope it's in my lifetime.

I shouldn't able to fly the "hotel" bunker complex with impunity and be hitting 4 and 5 irons into # 7, and better players shouldn't be hitting much shorter clubs.

The same applies to # 18.
A carry over the left side fairway bunker complex leaves the better players with long to medium irons into that green."




Patrick:

Look Pal, what you need to do one of these days is begin to open up your mind and stop thinking so completely one dimensionally!!

Of course turning NGLA's #7 or #18 or #5 into par 4s does not get good and elite players to INTERFACE with the architecture and strategies that Macdonald designed on those holes as par 5s.

But my salient point that you either have no real answer for or have a bullshit answer for is even if one adds 50 yards to the tees of those holes all that's accomplished is to get today's good and elite players back into dealing with Macdonald's architecture on their tee shots.

What you don't recognize or won't admit to is what about from there on? What about on the second half of those holes and the interfacing of that architecture strategically the way Macdonald originally intended?

Even you know that's a basic "no can do" in today's reality with these good and elite players for the simple reason they probably hit the rest of their bag proportionally farther compared to Macdonald's time than they do their drivers compared to Macdonald's time.

And what is your answer and response when I mention this obvious drawback in your endeavor to recreate the INTERFACING of Macdonald's architecture and original strategies for these good and elite players today??

You say bullshit stuff like "something is better than nothing" or "half a loaf is better than none".

That's not a adequate answer at all. Frankly, it's architectural bullshit.

Now let's look at those holes if they were simply transitioned to par 4s. Let's, for once, try to look at those holes in "whole hole" strategies rather than in your one-dimensional "single shot increments".

You said yourself that the good and elite player would then be hitting mid to long irons into those holes.

Now, Patrick, you tell me----what in the holy hell is wrong with THAT?? The fact that those holes are now called par 4s would essentially demand that in the minds of good and long players!!

What is wrong with demanding that the good and elite player hit mid to long irons into THOSE greens?

They are both designed beautifully to offer a HUGE AMOUNT of strategic consequence for those shot demands and shot values just as TOC's Road Hole has BEEN DOING for some years now as a PAR 4 (transitioned down from an original par 5).

Nobody seems to say that TOC's Road Hole is now an architectural failure because it no longer allows good and elite players to INTERFACE with Allan Robertson's or Old Tom Morris's original architecture and strategies as a PAR 5.

Matter of fact, I'd say TOC's #17 probably has greater respect in golf and in the world of architecture since it has become a par 4 for good and elite players compared to when it was a par 5.

What you need to do is begin to analyze "whole hole" strategies in the contexts of today's reality and in the context of what today's good and elite players DO ON ENTIRE holes and not just on tee shots and parts of holes such as their first halves.

Not to mention the fact that my recommendations costs basically nothing and they create some wonderful new "whole hole" demands and strategies.

The fact is, to do what I recommend would basically only require telling Bill Sallinetti to set the tee markers appropriately and asking the pro shot to spit a scorecard out of the computer calling the course a par 72, 71 or even par 70!!

Make that request and the entire thing could be done in less than an hour.

You need to open your mind on the potential of existing architecture in today's world and give it up on this half-assed tee shot INTERFACING BS of yours by adding 50+ yards everywhere.  

Doing things like that costs a lot and the best it can ever do it recreate original shot values on a part of a golf hole.

Furthermore, you also need to take another look at how hypocritical you've been in much of your logic on #18 over the years.

Do you deny that you told me that our pal Terry McBride once said that only an idiot would try to take his tee shot over that large left bunker on #18?? Terry was long too, I know, I've played with him.

So, maybe now these good and elite players today are longer than Terry was, maybe a lot longer. So you set the tee markers on that hole as a par 4 where basically they're TEMPTED to HAVE to take it over that bunker to reach that green in regulation two shots as a par 4.

You tell me, Patrick, what's wrong with that from an architectural and strategic perspective??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Of course turning NGLA's #7 or #18 or #5 into par 4s does [size=4x] NOT [/size] get good and elite players to INTERFACE with the architecture and strategies that Macdonald designed on those holes as par 5s.

But my salient point that you either have no real answer for or have a bullshit answer for is even if one adds 50 yards to the tees of those holes all that's accomplished is to get today's good and elite players back into dealing with Macdonald's architecture on their tee shots.

I tried to explain this to you earlier, and will again attempt what appears to be a futile effort.

You've agreed that extending the tee back will replicate what CBM envisioned with respect to interfacing the golfer with the architecture, on the tee shot, which is significant, ESPECIALLY FOR ERRANT TEE SHOTS.  The golfer will now have to contend with the features in the intended DZ.

With respect to the second shot from the intended DZ, the better player is now faced with the IDENTICAL visual, the one CBM intended for him to see.  So, in that sense, one aspect of the second or approach shot is restored.

From 50 yards back, even today's modern golfer won't be hitting medium to short irons into # 7 and # 18, especially when you consider the prevailing wind out of the South or Southeast.

What would happen is that the greens wouldn't be easily reached or accessible, thus leaving the golfer with a dicey approach shot from a greater distance.  Today he has a recovery shot from right around the green.  Moving the tee back 50 yards takes the green out of reach in two, or makes reaching it require a very long club.  If the green can't be reached in two, the third shot approach remains a very dicey shot from 20, 30, 40 and 50 or more yards.

While you won't achieve a perfect congruency, you'll achieve a similar or marginally acceptable relationship between the drive, second shot and approach shot.

This arrangement or interconnection of the shots is clearly, far more in harmony with CBM's design intent than the interconnection of shots under today's short configuration.[/color]

What you don't recognize or won't admit to is what about from there on? What about on the second half of those holes and the interfacing of that architecture strategically the way Macdonald originally intended?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I explained that in great detail in another post and cited a short version in my above response.[/color]

Even you know that's a basic "no can do" in today's reality with these good and elite players for the simple reason they probably hit the rest of their bag proportionally farther compared to Macdonald's time than they do their drivers compared to Macdonald's time.

I disagree with that, but, relativity is not relevant with respect to this issue.  What you fail to discern is not the overall distance the ball goes, but, the CARRY distance.
That's the critical factor when it comes to the fairway bunker complexes on # 7 and # 18.

What's relevant is returning the tee shot, exactly as CBM intended and returning the second and approach shots in an incrementally beneficial context.[/color]

And what is your answer and response when I mention this obvious drawback in your endeavor to recreate the INTERFACING of Macdonald's architecture and original strategies for these good and elite players today??

I"ve explained it over and over.
You either didn't read my previous explanation or have forgotten it.[/color]

You say bullshit stuff like "something is better than nothing" or "half a loaf is better than none".

That's not B.S., that's reality.
While you can't achieve a "perfect restoration of the shot values and the integration of the second and approach shot, you can achieve an incrementally beneficial restoration that provides a strong degree of those values[/color]

That's not a adequate answer at all. Frankly, it's architectural bullshit.

Then why was Flynn an advocate of elasticity through additional tee length  ?  And, why has virtually every club undertaken that process including NGLA over the years ?

Have you not played from the back tees on # 8, # 12 and
# 14 recently ?

If ONLY the tee shot was replicated (which I don't agree with) why did they lengthen those holes ?[/color]

Now let's look at those holes if they were simply transitioned to par 4s. Let's, for once, try to look at those holes in "whole hole" strategies rather than in your one-dimensional "single shot increments".

Transition those holes to par 4's and you've lost most if not all of the shot values and interfacing with the architecture as CBM intended.  It's that simple, you're allowing the design integrity to become obsolete.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You said yourself that the good and elite player would then be hitting mid to long irons into those holes.

Now, Patrick, you tell me----what in the holy hell is wrong with THAT?? The fact that those holes are now called par 4s would essentially demand that in the minds of good and long players!!

Plenty,

MacDonald was clear in his intent when he built the "hotel" bunker complex.

He wanted it to be an integral part of the hole and he wanted anyone who ventured into it to be confronted with a difficult extraction, one that would put pressure on the golfer, pressure that would make a par difficult and a bogie or more highly likely.

When you permit golfers to ignore that feature you destroy the design intent and integrity of the hole.

Moving the tee back 30 to 50 yards brings the "hotel" bunker complex back into play.  It makes the golfer think about giving that feature a wide berth or challenging it.

CBM created numerous bunkers left of the DZ and the terrain in the DZ has a nice roll that blinds the green from below it.

Now, consider the driving accuracy of the best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pros.  The best of them only hit 70-75 % of the fairways, the average is probably in the 50-60 % range.

Now take the better amateur or the long ball hitter.

If they only hit 50-60 % of the fairways, then CBM's "hotel" bunker complex will come into play for a great number of them.  

And, CBM would get his wish:
I quote:
"...So I made a GREAT EXPANSE of BUNKERS AND MOUNDS, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot capable of making any distance."

He couldn't be clearer.

Hitting into that complex was a design intent.
Hitting out and getting a fair degree of distance was prevented by the design of the bunkers and steep mounds.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

THUS, the golfer was faced with a very difficult third shot, one that might not reach the green, leaving the golfer with a very dicey recovery.

The "HOTEL" bunker complex is the ARCHITECTURAL LINCH PIN of the hole.

Allowing it to be ignored, overflown like the Maginot Line is contrary to everything that CBM wrote and put into the ground.

But, you, for the sake of convenience, and for some stupidly defiant reason, don't care about what CBM intended and stated, you're willing to let a spectacular feature become a vistigal organ, one without function.

And, what's really mind boggling is that all that's needed to restore CBM's written intent, is the creation of a tee that will preserve all that CBM intended, designed and built[/color]

What is wrong with demanding that the good and elite player hit mid to long irons into THOSE greens?

I'm doing that now and I'm far from the elite player who blows it 50 yards by me.[/color]

They are both designed beautifully to offer a HUGE AMOUNT of strategic consequence for those shot demands and shot values just as TOC's Road Hole has BEEN DOING for some years now as a PAR 4 (transitioned down from an original par 5).

Perhaps you missed the out-of-bounds which runs along the entire right side of # 17 at TOC.

CBM clearly stated that he didn't want to introduce OB to the 7th hole at NGLA, choosing instead an expansive bunker complex, meant to be the critical feature, along with the green, for interfacing with the golfer.[/color]

Nobody seems to say that TOC's Road Hole is now an architectural failure because it no longer allows good and elite players to INTERFACE with Allan Robertson's or Old Tom Morris's original architecture and strategies as a PAR 5.

See my comments above[/color]

Matter of fact, I'd say TOC's #17 probably has greater respect in golf and in the world of architecture since it has become a par 4 for good and elite players compared to when it was a par 5.

See my comments above[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

What you need to do is begin to analyze "whole hole" strategies in the contexts of today's reality and in the context of what today's good and elite players DO ON ENTIRE holes and not just on tee shots and parts of holes such as their first halves.

Then why did Shinnecock lengthen # 16 ?[/color]

Not to mention the fact that my recommendations costs basically nothing and they create some wonderful new "whole hole" demands and strategies.

You have no concept of integration and interfacing as it relates to the architectural features and the play of the hole, choosing instead to allow wonderful features, critical to the play of the hole, to become obsolete.[/color]

The fact is, to do what I recommend would basically only require telling Bill Sallinetti to set the tee markers appropriately and asking the pro shot to spit a scorecard out of the computer calling the course a par 72, 71 or even par 70!!

Yes, but, you've accomplished nothing.
You've allowed the architecture and its purpose, inherent in the play of the hole, to be lost forever.[/color]

Make that request and the entire thing could be done in less than an hour.

So can the demolition of many great structures
You just don't get it.
You'd rather do what's convenient than what's architecturally prudent.[/color]

You need to open your mind on the potential of existing architecture in today's world and give it up on this half-assed tee shot INTERFACING BS of yours by adding 50+ yards everywhere.  

Not everywhere, but, where it makes architectural sense, like at # 7 and # 18.

Didn't they do the same thing at # 16 at Shinnecock ?[/color]

Doing things like that costs a lot and the best it can ever do it recreate original shot values on a part of a golf hole.

That's where you're wrong.
The cost is minimal, the benefit maximal.
And, it's not just the tee shot that benefits, the second, the approach, recovery and putts benefit as well.[/color]

Furthermore, you also need to take another look at how hypocritical you've been in much of your logic on #18 over the years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've been unwaiveringly consistent.[/color]

Do you deny that you told me that our pal Terry McBride once said that only an idiot would try to take his tee shot over that large left bunker on #18??
Terry was long too, I know, I've played with him.

NO, that's not what Terry said, and he repeated his two rules to two new golfers at NGLA just this past weekend.

Terry's rules are:
Rule # 1   Don't hit it into the left side fairway bunker.
Rule # 2   Go back and reread rule # 1.

That bunker complex is also the architectural linch pin to that hole.  It is THE factor that determines play from the tee and afterward.  You just don't understand that.

Terry's comments were made years ago, before the better golfers began bombing it over that complex at will[/color]

So, maybe now these good and elite players today are longer than Terry was, maybe a lot longer. So you set the tee markers on that hole as a par 4 where basically they're TEMPTED to HAVE to take it over that bunker to reach that green in regulation two shots as a par 4.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it's no longer a temptation, it's a clear mandate with very little fear of consequence.

I want to return that fear and that consequence to the better player as CBM intended, and that's accomplished by extending the tee.[/color]

You tell me, Patrick, what's wrong with that from an architectural and strategic perspective??  


See my above comments.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"With respect to the second shot from the intended DZ, the better player is now faced with the IDENTICAL visual, the one CBM intended for him to see.  So, in that sense, one aspect of the second or approach shot is restored."

Patrick:

The better player is now faced with the IDENTICAL VISUAL on second shots???

Pat, that's nice to hear but this is not about some photographic outing it's about the shot values and strategies used by these good players today on the second half of holes even if they're back in Macdonald's old tee shot LZs compared to the second half of hole's shot values and strategies of Macdonald's time.

You simply cannot recreate those old second half shot values and strategies of Macdonald's with the second shot strategies and shot values of these long players today.

There's no point discussing this with you anymore. With respect to your analysis of second shot strategies for these good players today you either don't know what you're talking about or your unnecessarily rationalizing so as not to admit the errors in your thinking.

I don't mind tee lengthing on some holes if it gets these long players back to interfacing with tee shot architecture, but don't try to tell me that doing that is going to recreate original second shot strategies and shot values for these good long players today----it just isn't---I see this every time I officiate Class A state tournaments today.

I would not mind getting long players on #7 and #18 back to dealing with the bunker mimic of the TOC hotel on #7 and dealing with the big left bunker on #18 but once they've dealt with that do not tell me the second shot strategies and shot values on the second half of either of those holes for these good long players today are even remotely the same as in Macdonald's time. They simply aren't---not even close!

To say something like that is either total ignorance on your part about how far and how high these good players hit their utility clubs, long or medium irons or else it's just total rationalization on your part.

Frankly, the reality of this has been completely borne out today by the fact that the new R&A/USGA length definition and standard for long par 4s has now increased to over 500 yards in numerous cases.

So, you can keep on avoiding reality and rationalizing that second shot values can be even remotely restored but it will never make your argument even close to credible.

The good and long player is back to IDENTICAL second shots VISUALS!!???

That's about the funniest thing I've heard to date. I hope they bring their cameras so they can take a photo of what it looked like for Macdonald when he hit his second shot with his brassie somewhere short of those greens before they pull out something like a utility club  or a 3-4 iron and hit it right onto those greens!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

"With respect to the second shot from the intended DZ, the better player is now faced with the IDENTICAL visual, the one CBM intended for him to see.  So, in that sense, one aspect of the second or approach shot is restored."

Patrick:

The better player is now faced with the IDENTICAL VISUAL on second shots???

Pat, that's nice to hear but this is not about some photographic outing it's about the shot values and strategies used by these good players today on the second half of holes even if they're back in Macdonald's old tee shot LZs compared to the second half of hole's shot values and strategies of Macdonald's time.

You simply cannot recreate those old second half shot values and strategies of Macdonald's with the second shot strategies and shot values of these long players today.

Of course you can.

And, you can do it by extending the tee back such that drives end up IN the "Hotel" bunker complex, and are therefore faced with the IDENTICAL shot as described by CBM in his writings.[/color]

There's no point discussing this with you anymore. With respect to your analysis of second shot strategies for these good players today you either don't know what you're talking about or your unnecessarily rationalizing so as not to admit the errors in your thinking.

I just spent four days playing with these good players at NGLA and I can assure you that I know what I'm talking about.[/color]

I don't mind tee lengthing on some holes if it gets these long players back to interfacing with tee shot architecture, but don't try to tell me that doing that is going to recreate original second shot strategies and shot values for these good long players today----it just isn't---I see this every time I officiate Class A state tournaments today.

If you read my comments with any degree of comprehension you would see that I stated that you can't replicate, EXACTLY, the second and third shot in SOME instances, but, that you can gain an incremental replication.

And, if the golfer hits their drive in the bunker, then you HAVE replicated the second shot.[/color]

I would not mind getting long players on #7 and #18 back to dealing with the bunker mimic of the TOC hotel on #7 and dealing with the big left bunker on #18 but once they've dealt with that do not tell me the second shot strategies and shot values on the second half of either of those holes for these good long players today are even remotely the same as in Macdonald's time. They simply aren't---not even close!


YES, they are, because the DZ has the contouring CBM intended them to hit off of, whereas, over the bunkers its flat.

And, the second shot would be blind, as CBM intended.

So, a great deal of the second shot could be replicated.
You just don't know that because you're unfamiliar with the terrain in the DZ.

The same applies to # 18 where the terrain next to the left side fairway bunker is steeply sloped in two directions.[/color]

To say something like that is either total ignorance on your part about how far and how high these good players hit their utility clubs, long or medium irons or else it's just total rationalization on your part.

I watched some of them for four days this past weekend, so, I'm familiar with their games and I'm familiar with what they'd face with tees back 50 yards on those two holes.

But, why wouldn't you want them to interface with the features that are the architectural linch pin for those two holes ?  And why wouldn't you want them to face more demanding second shots, 50 yards further back from where they normally hit it  ?   And, why wouldn't you want them to face dicey approach shots ?

You're just being stubbornly resistant to a good idea.
But, I understand that.[/color]

Frankly, the reality of this has been completely borne out today by the fact that the new R&A/USGA length definition and standard for long par 4s has now increased to over 500 yards in numerous cases.

Why have you repeatedly avoided answering the question about the lengthening of # 16 at Shinnecock ?[/color]

So, you can keep on avoiding reality and rationalizing that second shot values can be even remotely restored but it will never make your argument even close to credible.

Then why did Shinnecock lengthen the par 5 16th hole instead of just changing par ?

ANSWER THAT QUESTION [/color]

The good and long player is back to IDENTICAL second shots VISUALS!!???

How can he be when he's in the bunker or 50 yards behind where he normally hits his second shot from, on land that presents slope and a blind shot.

You're just not familiar with the terrain.[/color]

That's about the funniest thing I've heard to date. I hope they bring their cameras so they can take a photo of what it looked like for Macdonald when he hit his second shot with his brassie somewhere short of those greens before they pull out something like a utility club  or a 3-4 iron and hit it right onto those greens!    

They won't be doing that from those bunkers and they won't be doing that on a blind shot to those greens from an awkward sloping lie 50 yards further back.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Of course you can.
And, you can do it by extending the tee back such that drives end up IN the "Hotel" bunker complex, and are therefore faced with the IDENTICAL shot as described by CBM in his writings."


Patrick:

That's perhaps the stupidest deflection I've seen or heard to date.

What about all the other shots from these good players today that DO NOT land in those bunkers?  

Furthermore, there's no question at all that most of these players today could hit a ball about 5 times higher and about twice as far out of those bunkers or any other bunker than the best player of Macdonald's day could.

There's no real reason to carry on this discussion. Your argument has no basis at all in reality and therefore no credibility at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Of course you can.
And, you can do it by extending the tee back such that drives end up IN the "Hotel" bunker complex, and are therefore faced with the IDENTICAL shot as described by CBM in his writings."


Patrick:

That's perhaps the stupidest deflection I've seen or heard to date.

What about all the other shots from these good players today that DO NOT land in those bunkers?  

That's why I cited the PGA Tour statistics on fairways hit in regulation.

And, good amateurs are not as accurate as PGA Tour Pros.

If you were familiar with the hole you would understand the dogleg nature of the hole from the tee, courtesy of the "hotel" bunker complex.

If it was difficult to carry, golfers would have to be more accurate, something we know isn't so easy, especially with a wind in your face.[/color]

Furthermore, there's no question at all that most of these players today could hit a ball about 5 times higher and about twice as far out of those bunkers or any other bunker than the best player of Macdonald's day could.

That's not true.

From 50 yards back, carries would have to be in the 260 to 290 range, into a pretty good damp wind just to get over all of the right side bunkers.  And, if they go left, they've got a myriad of pot bunkers to contend with.

Couple that with driving accuracy of about 50 % and you have a dynamic architectural feature to contend with, versus one that's ignored today.[/color]

There's no real reason to carry on this discussion. Your argument has no basis at all in reality and therefore no credibility at all.

My argument is based on facts, accurate linear measurements, a thorough understanding of the terrain, wind, elements and geometric like logic, yours is based on stubborn resistance absent any substance.[/color]