The Missing Link - Long Par-3's on Private but not on Public Courses ?

[Adam_Messix]

Matt & George--

I guess that I am going to have to remove all of my experiences with long par three bottlenecks from my memory, not only from playing but also from the Host Professional perspective.  

As far as drivable par fours and reachable par fives go, it is very rare that all four players have to wait to hit the lengthy approach shot usually involving a hazard.  Some players will lay up and in many cases will play before the "aggressive" player despite not being away.  

Oh well, back to the game.....

[Garland Bayley]

Here is what AWT writes in Gleanings from the Wayside.

Discussing par 3s, "These should be stand-outs, altogether imposing and inspiring. Consequently the green itself and its immediate surroundings provide all the character that such a hole has. Nothing other than these has any real value in the case of the hole which should be played with an iron."

This shows he feels the holes should not require the driver or fairway wood. Earlier in the chapter he had put the limit for par 3s at 195 yards. Later he writes the following.

"So we find that the green itself reflects all the greatness of the one-shotter, and when the design of any green that is to take a long from the tee is considered, it must of necessity be a rather open and spread-out affair, gradually losing distinctive character as the length of the shot increases."

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, there's nothing dumbed down about the 8th, in spite of whatever you may have read. It's a very interesting par 3 1/2.

Nothing George? Look back at the Oakmont threads and see the report of Jack Snyder dumbing down the 8th green because of the difficulty of its length.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I think the best way to address your argument about long par threes is the way Mr. Pazin put it.

As for long par 3s in general, I would argue that there is a huge difference between being tested driving the ball, and being tested approaching the green, so I don't see your "14 driving holes is enough" argument.

And for the record, I hit three wood to a back pin the only time I ever played the tips at #9 at Chambers.  Granted, it was into the wind, and a decent one at that, but I wouldnt consider myself a short hitter.  Generally I hit my 3-wood around 240 yards, and thus I think that #9 at Chambers can play as a long par-3.  That being said, I have played the whites (or teal?) and hit wedge from 172, downwind.  So perhaps it is both a long and a short par-3, depending on the wind.

#17 would a better example.
At 220 and uphill from the back tees, its no gimme.  I hit 3-wood there as well.  It's a great hole.

Jordan,

I guess you need to talk to Brad Klein. He wrote his review criticizing Chambers Bay for having no long par 3s, yet here you describe them as if they are monsters.

I would suggest that the par 3s at Chambers Bay fit AWT's idea of length very well. The back tees you discuss are intended for the very best players, who would not be using woods on them under calm conditions.

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

While I respect Brad's opinions very much, it is obvious that #17 is a long par-3.

At 217, uphill, the hole plays at least 225 yards, plus a false front.  Given the constant strong winds at Chambers, there will most certainly be times when a wood is required on that hole.  Even in calm conditions, a hybrid will most likely be needed.  That hole is a long par-3, and theres no getting around it.

[Steve Lapper]

Matt & George--

I guess that I am going to have to remove all of my experiences with long par three bottlenecks from my memory, not only from playing but also from the Host Professional perspective.  

As far as drivable par fours and reachable par fives go, it is very rare that all four players have to wait to hit the lengthy approach shot usually involving a hazard.  Some players will lay up and in many cases will play before the "aggressive" player despite not being away.  

Oh well, back to the game.....

Adam:

  A simple reminder from here in the Garden State. Long ago, we were told to simply "buck up" and take our "learning" from the unassailable and all-mighty wizard.  Our experiences or wisdom of witness don't count for much when the great one expounds his opinion. We just must be dreaming when we come to a tee box with multiple groups engaged in silent steaming. Surely, some fault for this does belong to management, but difficult architecture when inherent to a lengthy single-shotter, plays no role in backing up the pace....what part of that don't we, and others, get? There, I feel so much better for having been told my eyes must be deceiving me!!

PS.....Today's NY Post has a report that WF has overwhelmingly voted AGAINST hosting the 2015 Open and goes on to accuse the USGA of offering less $$ than for the 2006 Open....a pair of new trends???

 

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

Love the sarcasm.

There's more than "some" fault at management's door. Wake up my good man.

Management at most public facilities only talks the talk abo slow play. They are folks chiefly responsible for seeing to it that players are advised and stressed concerning the importance in maintaining the pace. In terms of overall weight -- management is 95% of the equation in my book.

The architecture of the course plays a minor role in my book. I've played courses with low slopes and low cr's and they creep and crawl no matter if the course was changed overnight and had bunkers and H20's all over the place. If management were as quick to observe playing conditions as they often are in taking the plastic from players when paying to play then matters might be different.

Management, at the sheer bulk of public / resort courses I have ever played, only pays lip service to getting players around. Those holes / situations which are inherently demanding at any particular course cane be monitored if management took the TIME & EFFORT to have staff on-hand to keep things moving. Few, if any, do that from my personal experiences.

The idea that long par-3's are the heart and soul tied to slow play is truly amusing.

Once you allow the inmates to run the asylum all hell breaks loose. Of course - what the hell do I know when compared to others. I stand before thee and bow.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Come play the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes at University Ridge near Madison, WI -- I'll be your host -- and try to convince me that architecture has little (5 percent) to do with slow play. A daily bottleneck when the course is anything but deserted, and it's pretty clear poor architecture and routing has a lot to do with the slow pace of play at this RTJJr. course.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Read my point.

If management really UNDERSTANDS their own FACILITY they should have personnel on-hand to make sure that the daily situation you outlined doesn't happen over and over and over again.

When management takes a no involvement role you get the back-ups again and again.

Most slow play is caused by inertia of the staff. Many places don't have real effective rangers -- either they get old guys like Buddy Ebsen types who are busy looking for balls or keeping their eyes on the gal wearing the bikini at the pool next door to the course.

If management has been explained the issue at your course or anywhere else for that matter -- do they bother to get off their collective butts and do something about it?

Try the tortoise game approach in many places in the UK and Ireland and they will give a quick rebuke. Let me also point out that a place like Portrush / Dunluce is loaded with plenty of hay-like rough and narrow fairways and the pace of play still gets around in a brisk manner.

Phil, I don't doubt architecture / routing may have more than 5% of an issue. So sue me if my percentage is not a bit higher.

But it's being a bit much on your part to think that management at most USA places is really doing their utmost to deal with the slow pokes who do the same thing over and over again.

Management has the keys to any place -- they set the tone or fail to set the tone by their actions. The players are like cattle -- they can be rounded up and moved if management has the cowboys who will give those fat steers a good swift kick to get moving. For many management groups the idea is a simple one -- be fast to collect the Master / Visa Card at the pay window -- the rest is simply a talking point.

[Adam_Messix]

I have to agree with Matt on his point about Management. However, it's a Catch 22 for the Ownership/Management, they don't want to peeve the slow group while trying to prod them along and also keep things moving so the faster groups aren't in for a five + hour round.  

It's tough to hire people to do the kind of job needed to keep play moving at a golf course.  The individual has to be diplomatic, yet forceful.  Retired golf pros are good at this, but the last place many of them want to be is working at a golf course after their careers.  

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

I understand the tough aspect in handling customer service. If some guy comes to the pay window with 20-30 players it can be a tough thing to remind these guys that slow play will not be tolerated. No doubt plenty of owners / management groups take the position that if you piss the guy off he can take his group the next day and play at the competition and not be hassled.

But thing of the reverse message if nothing is done with slow play. The regulars -- the people who pay the freight and are your daily revenue source -- will slowly, but ever more so, leave and go elsewhere. I left Bethpage Black a number of years ago when it became apparent that management was sitting on their butts and allowing six hour golf to be the norm.

When you say it's tough to hire people -- I can understand that -- I used to be a ranger years and years ago at a public facility in my neck of the woods in NJ. The "connected" groups that were able to do whatever they pleased -- other non-connected groups (women and juniors) often got harrassed when playing in order to demonstrate that management really cared about slow play.

It's possible retired pros can be effective. Getting retired cops might be even better. But you need to have people who can show COURTESY AND SUSTAINED commitement.

As I said before -- most players are like cattle -- they will wander off and do their own thing unless you have some well-trained cowboys to bring the back on point.

Getting personnel situated at the predictable slow play check points is a real plus. It would not hurt management that slow groups are denied prime tee times for repeated offenses.

[Garland Bayley]

... Personal experiences are the more truest indicators ...

When you say the hole is "dumbed down" -- I wonder if your own assessment follows that same grain.  

#8

The trouble with "personal experiences" is that they are a small snapshot in time. Take a look at the hole Ran would have played (on the right) and compare it to what Fownes created (on the left). Now tell me that removing the bunker in the center of the fairway on the line to the green is not dumbing down the hole!

That goes for you too Mr. George Pazin. (Hope I am not the source of the migraine headaches.)  

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Thanks for the photos.

Couple of missing items in your post.

The max length of the hole in 1937 is vastly different than what is there today in 2007 -- I believe in 1937 the hole at max played roughly 233 yards -- today's version can reach 300 yards if a rear pin placement is used. The added length today more than makes up for the loss of the bunker you referenced.

One other thing, if memory serves, the teeing areas have been slightly angled a bit further to the left so that hitting over a broader area of the mega bunker on the left is more likely needed.

On a related point -- I believe the mega bunker was also deepened a bit more from its original time - especially for the '07 Open. The back right bunker with the current version is also another demanding aspect for those overshooting the target on that side. Ditto the middle placement bunker to the green's right side.

Likely, no one on this board can speak directly to the nature of the hole in its earliest form.

Garland, you make it sound like the latest version of the par-3 8th is some form of a routine par hole. It's not. Of course, you would not know that -- you've never played it and can only speculate from inserting photos without some personal testimonial.  

[George Pazin]

One man's dumbing down is another's idea of more options, something the few (uneducated) critics have decried about Oakmont.

My point is that it is a wonderful hole as is. It may have been better in the past, I have no idea, but it is damn good as is. You seem unwilling to accept that, in spite of numerous people who've played it speaking well of it, and in spite of the challenge it provided the pros last June.

Migraines are unrelated, btw.

 

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland, you make it sound like the latest version of the par-3 8th is some form of a routine par hole. It's not. Of course, you would not know that -- you've never played it and can only speculate from inserting photos without some personal testimonial.  

At no time did I write anything that indicated it was "a routine par hole".

And, Oh, by the way, in 1938 they weren't using ProV1s, graphite shafts, and titanium drivers with faces having a spring-like effect. But since you weren't there, you wouldn't know that, now would you.

[Garland Bayley]

...
My point is that it is a wonderful hole as is. It may have been better in the past, I have no idea, but it is damn good as is. You seem unwilling to accept that...

At no point did I do anything other than compare it to the other holes at Oakmont using AWTs criteria that would argue that, for example, #6 is a better par 3, and that extraordinary lengthening of a one-shotter necessitates taking away from the features that make one-shotters special.

#6

[Phil McDade]

Phil:

Read my point.

If management really UNDERSTANDS their own FACILITY they should have personnel on-hand to make sure that the daily situation you outlined doesn't happen over and over and over again.

When management takes a no involvement role you get the back-ups again and again.

Most slow play is caused by inertia of the staff. Many places don't have real effective rangers -- either they get old guys like Buddy Ebsen types who are busy looking for balls or keeping their eyes on the gal wearing the bikini at the pool next door to the course.

If management has been explained the issue at your course or anywhere else for that matter -- do they bother to get off their collective butts and do something about it?

Try the tortoise game approach in many places in the UK and Ireland and they will give a quick rebuke. Let me also point out that a place like Portrush / Dunluce is loaded with plenty of hay-like rough and narrow fairways and the pace of play still gets around in a brisk manner.

Phil, I don't doubt architecture / routing may have more than 5% of an issue. So sue me if my percentage is not a bit higher.

But it's being a bit much on your part to think that management at most USA places is really doing their utmost to deal with the slow pokes who do the same thing over and over again.

Management has the keys to any place -- they set the tone or fail to set the tone by their actions. The players are like cattle -- they can be rounded up and moved if management has the cowboys who will give those fat steers a good swift kick to get moving. For many management groups the idea is a simple one -- be fast to collect the Master / Visa Card at the pay window -- the rest is simply a talking point.

Matt:

I never said management at most places in this country are doing the utmost to keep players on pace. I haven't been to most of this country's courses, so I wouldn't know.

I do know this: At one of Wisconsin's highest-profile and well-regarded (by rankings, articles, others) courses (URidge outside Madison), the design of the course has a lot to do with pace of play issues. Management doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, I'll grant you -- they usually have rangers at the beginnings of the bottleneck (the par 3 3rd hole) who do little to keep things moving. But I think you let course designers/architects off the hook with the broadside that design/routing have little if anything to do with pace of play issues.

You're right about golf in the UK -- of the few courses I've played there, none have the pace-of-play issues that I and others have experienced at URidge. None of them, however, had any of the goofy and ill-thought-out design/routing problems of URidge's front nine.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

I can appreciate what you say and I didn't say routing / hole design has NO ROLE in slow play. The issue is far broader than your experience at one single facility. I also believe that the solutions I suggested can be helpful at just about any facility.

What I did say -- and will say again and again for the hard of hearing / understanding -- is how little management does at USA clubs in regards to slow play. They have the keys to course and like I said previously -- after staff runs quickly to get your Visa / Mastercard number they ignore the real issues that transpire on the course.

Most design / routing issues can be handled by a proactive response from management. Management should know all the potential spots where slow play usually occurs. Management should hire and orientate staff to deal with these issues in a courteous and consistent manner. The players of the course are like cattle - they will wander and they will do what they can get away with -- if management does nothing more than pay lip service.

It might be helpful to find out if management really understands the nature of the facility they have in Wisconsin and implement a consistent plan of action that deals with what is happening. If management is now placing staff at a par-3 hole and nothing is done -- then the patrons should indicate that to management and get them moving with a more active response. If all else fails -- patrons can simply vote with their feet and pocket books and go elsewhere to play where these issues are dealt with more seriously.

[Phil McDade]

Phil:

 If management is now placing staff at a par-3 hole and nothing is done -- then the patrons should indicate that to management and get them moving with a more active response. If all else fails -- patrons can simply vote with their feet and pocket books and go elsewhere to play where these issues are dealt with more seriously.

Matt:

I've done the former, to no avail. So I've resorted to the latter. I was all set to return this fall, when friends said the pace of play had improved, until GCA poster Brad Swanson weighed in and said the opening pace at URidge was still intolerable. It's a disappointment, as there are parts of the course I really do enjoy, particularly sections of the back nine. I plan to make an effort to get out there this coming spring, but I'm not optimistic. The sad thing is that URidge probably won't fix it, because it's clearly the highest-profile course in the immediate area, and with its ties to Bucky, holds a certain cache with the golfing public around here.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

I feel your pain -- sorry for the Bill Clinton response (tis the political season !).

The same thing you see happening has caused me to abandon my lifelong love affair with Bethpage Black because of a similar response there.

Little is done and I have no desire to play six hour rounds which go on and on and on and on.

Let me just say this regarding what is happening with
URidge -- it might be helpful to forward a letter signed by people who feel the same way you do. Sometimes -- although it's hard to fathom -- management can be literally clueless. I also can't see why management would not do something positive to keep playing moving but ignorance -- like stupidity -- can be bliss.