Pine Valley #4

[wsmorrison]

You make a good point, Sully.  I worry about how the shorter scratch golfer can compete with the longer scratch golfer (my affinity for Tom Paul may cloud my judgment) in competition.  But length is a skill and it should be rewarded.  Hey, they can always build the tee and if it doesn't work, abandon it.  It isn't like they're changing the architecture.  Do you think a new back tee would require that the fairway be cleared along the left to expose the bunkers currently within the extended tree line?

[JESII]

Wayne,

I'll stand by my position from other PV / Tree questions by saying that I don't think Crump intended his bunkers to be recovered from the way people think of recovering from them today...I think removing the trees at PV to the outer edges of the bunkering all the way around the course would be visually amazing but would do next to nothing with regards to a strategic approach to any of the holes. On #4 I think a drive into what is now trees that could be advanced to the green would be against the design intent of Pine Valley.

[Mike_Cirba]

For one of the longest hitters the game has ever known...5 wood goes 185...and distance really didn't change all that much for decades and yet someone comes along and is 20% longer 10 years later...

what'cha smokin'?

Jim,

I just typed a lengthy response and then lost it because I hadn't yet signed in when I tried to post.  

I'm heading out now, but what i don't understand is why you won't accept what Tom Paul says, what I say, what Linc Roden quoted or experienced in his long golf career, or even what Hogan himself wrote?   Why would any of those people minimize how far the ball travelled back then?

And yes, Nicklaus was much longer than Hogan, and much longer than virtually everyone else when he came on tour.   He was John Daly with self-discipline and determination.

[archie_struthers]

 

I love the idea of the new tee....think that it will work fine for the tournaments...as long as the new bunkers are removed...nuff said!  

[archie_struthers]

 

ps Wayne as to scoring...typically kept during tournaments #4 has always been middle of the pack in difficulty ...except when the pin was back right!

typically # 1....5  and often #8 played the hardest when I was there

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Archie.  I didn't suspect that the hole played easy.  I guess the options on the second shot from the top of the ridge with a new back tee would outweigh the options on the tee from the present back tee.  Sully won me over and given that you think so too, I'm convinced.  Not that that matters for anything  

[Phil Benedict]

Mike,

Don't you hate it when you lose a long post because you've been logged out?  

I could hit a 1-iron 220 in the '70's with old technology and I'm a hack and always have been.  Just doesn't ring true to me that Hogan was that short, and I don't mean to question your veracity at all.  Certainly before the accident he was considered a long hitter by contemporary standards.  And his irons had more loft than modern blades.  But 155 with a five-iron?  That's LPGA distance.

[JESII]

Mike C,

I do accept what you wrote (and TEP and Mr. Roden have supported) about Hogan's yardages...what you have failed to pick up or address is that I also think Hogan could hit any one of those clubs 30 yards longer or shorter with nearly equal control...I think this for two reasons...he is regarded as one of the premier ball strikers of all time...distance control (through trajectory) is the highest test of ball striking...he would have many, many different yardages and shots with each club.

Why do you think he is locked in to 195 with a one iron and that's it?

I also think that type of ball control, or rather club control, was dictated by the equipment of the day.

Balata balls were easy to impart spin to which implies that they could easily be over spun...real good players that were real hard hitters (HOGAN) would have more control over the ball by trying to hit it softly.

Polyurethane covered balls are difficult to impart spin to which means that they are only fully exploited by those real good, hard hitting players (FLOGGERS). This means you lose control of the ball by underspinning it (knuckleballs and fairway fliers...) so you see very few finesse shots by the guys today...do you agree?

[Mike_Cirba]

"Here, in any event, is how I chart my range with the various clubs under normal playing conditions:

Sand Wedge - Up to 80 yards
Pitching Wedge - 80 to 105 yards
9-iron - 105 to 135 yards
8-iron - 130 to 145 yards
7-iron - 140 to 155 yards
6-iron - 155 to 170 yards
5-iron - 170 to 185 yards
4-iron - 185 to 200 yards
3-iron - 195 to 210 yards
2-iron - 205 to 220 yards
1-iron - 215 to 235 yards
3-wood - 235 yards and up
Driver - 250 yards and up

Jack Nicklaus - 1969 "The Greatest Game of All""


When Jack Nicklaus came on tour, his combination of power and accuracy were unprecedented, leading Bobby Jones to remark "he plays a game I am unfamiliar with".

Do you think Bobby Jones was referring to Jack's chipping ability?   No, he was talking about Jack's combination of at the time Herculean length (he consistently out-drove the other top players by 15-30 yards) and accuracy, combined with great self discipline and determination.

In his prime, Jack was averaging about 275 yards off the tee.


Jim,

I sort of agree with what you are saying about the lack of finesse shots today, but I do have to ask this;

If Ben Hogan had such variability in length with his clubs as a supreme shotmaker, why when he had 210 downhill to the 18th green at Merion did he debate between straight-out 1 or 2 iron, or a cut 4-wood?

Why didn't he just go right for the wicker with a 4 or 5-iron??  

[archie_struthers]

 

Just a thought....but couldn't the height of cut at Merion back in 1950 make hitting the tee shot to the bottom of the hill much different?

Also ...I'm guessing that although I'm not quite on the same page with JES as to Hogan's hitting irons radically different yardage with similar control...Certainly he had the ability to hit the driver 25-30 yards further when he wanted to.

Perhaps he hit a controlled tee shot that fateful day..rather than juice one onto a hanging lie.....those more familiar with Merion circa 1950 can opine

[JESII]

archie,

Just think about a couple of approach shots at Pine Valley...From 120 to the pin on #2 to a middle right pin with the green soft but very fast - what club do you hit? It could be a half 8 iron if you're real good, a 3/4 nine iron if you're medium good or a full pitching wedge if you're no good. Hogan could control the half 8 iron better than you or I could so he would hit that because it had the least likelyhodd of spinning back very far...

Approach to #4 from 155 front and a middle pin with a real firm fast green...the the most controlled shot will be the one with the most spin. It could be a full blooded eight iron that lands between the front apron and the pin, or a 3/4 seven iron that lands just short of the front apron or a half six iron that has to land well short of the green to have a chance of stopping.

Every good player has a distance they prefer to hit each club...the difference between the great and the very good ball strikers is their accuracy and control when hitting shots from other than ideal distances. Also, that "ideal distance" thing is not their maximum distance...the really good hitters have a wide range from maximum to ideal to minimum controllable.

[archie_struthers]

 

Certainly the shot on #4 from the bottom of the hill is interesting...for me it's usyually a skip eight iron with lots of spin (or at least that's the idea) given the cant of the green.

Go too high and you either stay on front or release off the hill to the very back...as you know better than short ..nuking anything there doesn't work for most people

that's why the shot is plenty interesting...even with the turbo boost  to the bottom  it's no gimme (take out the new traps LOL!)

Back to Hogan....Nicklaus et al....they all could hit their irons almost as far as they want to a point...my problem is with the idea they could do it with the same amount of control...they couldn't  ...everyone has an optimum speed....everyone


Back to Merion #18....in 1950...a big drive from Hogan...does it get a hanging lie about 165-180 out?

[JESII]

Somebody posted on this thread that Hogan hit a 5 iron in the playoff...are we to assume he did it from 155?

[Mike_Cirba]

Somebody posted on this thread that Hogan hit a 5 iron in the playoff...are we to assume he did it from 155?

No, but it's reasonable to think that perhaps he was juiced up on the last hole and possibly caught the downslope and cranked one out there about 280-290.

That would have left a downhill approach of about 168-178 yards.  That would be a 9-iron for Tiger Woods!

 

In either case, I think the question remains;

How far would the 18th at Merion need to be for Tiger Woods to reach it in two with a Driver/2-iron?  

Or, if Tiger crushes his drive onto the downhill slope, Hoganesque-style during the juiced up finale to a US Open victory, how far would 18 at Merion need to be for Tiger Woods to reach in two with Driver/5-iron?  

I'm willing to be the 18th green would need to be moved all the way down #1 to near where the original "Alps" green was.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully...

Arggh...I did it again...I typed up a sh*tload of stuff only to lose it because I hadn't logged in.

Anyway, the upshot is that I quoted Nicklaus's description of his play on the 429 yard par four 18th hole at Muirfield in 1966 (with the "small ball" which played about a full club longer (you needed less club)) in a medium crosswind.

He hit a 1-iron from the tee 221 yards, followed by a 208 yard 3-iron into the green.  

How far has that tee been moved back these days?

[JESII]

Mike,

How does that relate to his 1 iron from 235 at Baltusrol in, I believe, 1967?


And the question does not remain "How far would the 18th at Merion need to be for Tiger Woods to reach it in two with a Driver/2-iron?"[/i]

The question remains...what's the deal with the new tee proposal on #4 at Pine Valley? Archie has taken the position that the new bunker(s) in the right rough are a negative. I can only picture one bunker, but my opinion is that it/they are in a position that could not possibly be the target for someone from the tee...and the reward paid for the risk taken is non-existent as a shot aimed 20 yards left of there and hit at it's target will end up in virtually the same position...at the bottom of the hill with a mid-iron to the green.

A new tee as discussed would also add a shot to the TEST that is Pine Valley that does not currently exist...the forced high fade with the driver...there are a few suggested fades like 6 and 16, but no requirement...

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

How does that relate to his 1 iron from 235 at Baltusrol in, I believe, 1967?

Jim,

"I took out my 1-iron.  By my calculations I was some 230 yards from the green, all carry and slightly against the wind.  I didn't know if I could fly a 1-iron that distance, but that was the club I wanted to play.  I have a great deal of confidence in it - much more than I have in my 3-wood - and I felt certain I could carry the ball far enough to at least clear the hillside bunker and that I could hit it straight enough to stay out of the bunkers to the left of the green. "

"As a left to right player I was in luck here, for the ideal way to play the shot was to bring it in from the left; both the landing area before the green and the green itself fall off to the right."

"I doubt I have ever hit a better 1-iron.  I know I never hit a longer one. It carried the bunker, landed a few feet short of the green, hopped onto the green, and finished 22 feet from the cup."  - Jack Nicklaus


This, from the acknowledged longest player in the game in his prime.  

Jim, whether I agree with you that the new back tee on the 4th will improve the hole (I don't think I do), the fact remains that the supposed reason(s) for the change are built on a faulty premise.

The fact is, the hole will never play for today's top players like it did in the teens, 20s, 40s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, nor will any other vintage hole.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You're right, this thread is about a new 4th tee and not about the distance Hogan or Nicklaus hit various clubs somewhere else.

I think this has been an excellent discussion on what would occur playability-wise with a new tee on #4 simply because there've been enough contributors on this thread that know the nuances of #4 really well both now and through the years.

My take on it all is simply that putting a new tee in where proposed is not necessarily just right or wrong but that it is one of those things that can be pretty tricky to get exactly what the club and designers may be expecting to accomplish in the over-all. I even wonder what-all they are expecting to accomplish in the over-all.

I agree with Archie about that new bunker on the right. With the new tee I think it's unnecessary. Frankly, I've always thought it was unnecessary anyway.

Before it existed that tee shot really close down the right side was a really cool one in my book. The reason being it was one of those highly deceptive shots that players who really knew that hole could play while others who didn't know the hole so well would think that line was just too far right and into the junk and bunkering on the right (one cannot see that stuff from the tee).

There used to be a scraggly lone pine down the right side on top of the hill. I don't believe it's there anymore. It may've been directly on that line the new bunker is now in. It used to be the aiming point in the old days for the aggressive line and I just thought that was a really interesting speed slot but you had to hit it far enough on that far right line or the ball would hang up on the top.

You also keep saying that the new tee positon will require some kind of fade. It may but that will probably be determined by how many or how few trees they decide to remove all down the right side for that new tee. If they remove a ton of them I doubt a fade would be a necessity---eg just hit it hard and straight on a pretty aggressive right line.

In any case, this new tee may work well or it may not because there's a ton of stuff to consider on this particular hole and they have to be aware of it all and get it all right in how it might all work together.

In my opinion, the ideal result will be to actually increase tee shot options and do nothing to limit them or make the tee shot more one dimensional.

But one thing is for sure, and that is with an additional app 50 yards on this hole there will be a whole lot more good players hitting their approaches from the top of the fairway and after-all that seems to be exactly what the likes of Crump and Fownes wanted and recommended.

[JESII]

That is what I think is noteworthy about the proposal...I'll have a 3 iron in my hand alot more than a 9 iron in the future, and that's a good thing...

One problem though...are those windows along the clubhouse breakable? That area will get a bit more attention during back tee competitions now.


TEP,

The reason the tee shot will require a fade is due to the land movement over to the left there that you so often speak of...a running draw will run right off that fairway over there.

Also, I think I have a different understanding, as compared to yours and Archie's, as to where that new bunker on the right is...I might be wrong, but I picture it off to the right of the line of that old scraggly pine tree you mention. Again, maybe I am wrong, but I think I've hit a couple of drives there that were right of that tree by a fair bit and still missed the bunker to its left...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: