Rolling Green - Thoughts

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

18 is a par 4 from the tips, par 5 for the other tees.  Tips (blues) are in front of whites.  I guess they wouldn't be the "tips" on this hole.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I really like what you say about Rolling Green and I sure do agree about Flynn's overall routing ability and the fact that he tried almost anything in routing and hole concepts in a routing application. I couldn't think of a hole where he turned dead left at a hole's midsection but one of the original holes on Seaview's Pines course he appears to have done that.

I also very much agree with what you say about the last two holes at Rolling green. If either one is a candidate for reduction to a par 4, #17 would appear to be the best. The basic landform of #17 would work so much better as a par 4 particularly the mid-section of the hole.

On the other side of the coin the midsection of #18 is extremely cumbersome as a par 4 for all kinds of reasons and that hole would work much better just the way it is.

If a golfer really wanted to gamble with a drive to set up a reasonable approach to that green he probably would have to pull off a sort of one dimensional specialty shot on the tee! And as such that would seem to me to work best as a "golfer's choice" on a reachable par 5 instead of the far more necessary play a par 4 would be perceived as calling for. But who really knows what Flynn would recommend since he appears to have demanded plenty of one dimensional super high demand shots on some of his holes, that is if the golfer really wanted a particular number or really minded probably dropping a stroke for a safer play!

And if Rolling green goes the really firm and fast route "through the green" the cumbersome mid-section of #18 (as a par 4) would only be exacerbated!

[Mike_Cirba]

Scott,

Are you sure?  The scorecard doesn't reflect that change and our host talked about it in future tense.  Perhaps I was just overly excited after hitting one of my few fairways.

Tom,

I completely agree about the complications in the drive zone on 18 that would make it sort of awkward for a par four, particularly if firm and fast conditions prevailed.  There is a LOT of side-slope to that fairway, and the fairway bunker positioning would probably ensure that a LOT of balls found the left rough.

However, I can think of few courses where generally firm and fast conditions would make a course play several shots more difficult than Rolling Green.  I would imagine they could really "turn up the lights" on the architectural features, given the rolling property, use of slopes around greensites, and the difficulties of the greens themselves.  Under softer conditions, it's a much more manageable course.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

I played there less than two weeks ago, so it's pretty fresh in my mind  .  Yes, 18 was a par 4 from the blues, which were ahead of the whites, which was a par 5.  About 484 from blues, 505 from whites.

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Although I recognize most people have a problem with a hole with quite a bit of slope going one way and the hole going the other way I really don't. But at least that kind of hole like 18 needs some width (not tree lined).

I haven't been to Rolling Green for many months but they could make that 18th hole drive work and be interesting theoretically, I suppose, but they would probably need to take a ton of trees out on the right and way down the line too and there are some big ones on that hillside. And maybe some out on the left side too.

It would just be so much easier and less costly to make #17 the par 4.

[mike_malone]

Scott
 We  (ou club)seem to be confused about whether  #18 is a 4 or a 5.Yesterday i think it was a 5,because the tees were all the back.

Mr Cirba and Paul
 How about the size ,shape, entrance to #17 and#18?Ifind your comments about the drive interesting,but i think  #18 is more of a par 4 entrance at the  green for long approach.
 All of this is related to recent threads about "Lowering Par for Classic courses".I am at a loss to think what difference it makes what the par is

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

To some of us who discuss various aspects of golf and design maybe par doesn't make a difference in some sense but we all should recognize it definitely makes a difference to the vast majority of golfers and for various reasons like rating and handicapping, I'm sure.

You have a good point if reducing #17 to a par 4 (although probably shortening it) as to how the green front would suit the hole as a long par 4! I can't at the moment remember exactly what the green front opening looks like but if you did make it a par 4 clearly that should be tweaked for a par 4 type approach.

Being probably a Flynn original hole that would take some thought and should be carefully conceived and done but that really wouldn't be a problem to get right.

[Mike_Cirba]

mayday;

Looked at under the cold light of reality, par is just a theortical measure and you're correct, the fact that so many place a real playing value on it is sort of absurd and illogical.

However, we all know that par influences the psychology of those who play the game, and I'm no exception.  It's dumb, yes, and Tillinghast called the phenomenon "the tyrrany of par" to try to explain why so many golfers would feel compelled to attempt hitting a long approach shot over a creek on a par four, while they'd mostly be happy to lay up if you called the same hole a par five.  Torresdale-Frankford's 8th hole at 475 par four is a classic example.  

However, that being said, I'd still choose to play 17 as a par four before doing anything at all to change 18 into a sidehill, uphill par four, especially if material changes are being considered.  

While 18 may have a larger green and green opening, I don't think there is anything too inherently severe with 17's green cmoplex that would preclude making it a four.  As we discussed, it plays subtly uphill, with sort of a "lip" just short that might act to kill approaches that hit into it.  However, I can imagine that if conditions were firm, a ball landing short of that lip could easily climb it onto the surface.  The green itself has an interesting right to left cant, and sort of fades away to the back left.  

Yesterday, from the right rough at about 185, I was able to fly a five iron onto the left side of the green and hold the shot.  (too bad it was my 3rd ), so I don't believe the green is too demanding for length of shot.  In fact, with a right hand hole location, the hole would have sort of a neat balance, calling for a controlled draw from the tee and a controlled fade into the slope to get near the hole on the second.  I sort of like it.      

[mike_malone]

Some members have suggested that they wish #18 were  a par 4 for all .They think that it might then  be the #4 hdcp. on back instead of #6 now.Question----Does  difficulty making par for all determine hdcp,status or difference between par and bogey golfers' performance on the hole?
  We were supposed to have the Pa.Amateur(or Open)last year before we closed the course.I was looking forward to  see how they finished on #17 and#18.I see these as holes that seem easy to par or birdie as par 5"s,but you can screw up as well.I think low hdcpers. are stressed to get there in two and that is when they get  in trouble.So i would basically leave these holes as is and just play them

[Dave_Miller]

Mayday:
I have only played Rolling Green once since 1978 (June 10 this year) so I do not have a lot of rounds on RG to make great comment, however I think 17 & 18 are fine as is.  Flynn has done wonders with the topography available and I doubt if he assigned par to either hole.  But I would not make any changes to 18 just to make it a Par 4.  The day I played in my foursome, where the handicaps ranged 6 to 16, there was one birdie. The 16 Hdcp.  There were no pars and three bogeys.  
Anyone who touches this wonderful golf course for the sake of Par should receive a lifetime ban from the game of golf and be forced to play the Ocean Course at Kiaweh from the tips as a 40 HDCP for all eternity.

Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[mike_malone]

A friend  had a double eagle at Huntingdon Valley(front nine par 5--i think#7).Don't think he bought drinks for  house or got plate for his locker.But obviously harder than a hole-in-one.What's that all about?
 Golf is a funny game.What is interesting is that with all this talk about technology,the original design ,with early  modifications,of Rolling Green can stand up to almost any golfer and still be a blast.
 As Mike Cirba said it is the challenge that provides the fun,not the punishment.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

To answer your question about handicp allocation. The way you asked it is it the difficulty of making par for all or is it the difference between par and bogie golfers performance on a hole?

Basically it's the latter! Many people don't seem to understand this and think that the lower handicap holes on the course should be the most difficult holes for all to make par!

That's not necessarily so and theoretically the low handicap holes are supposed to be the holes on the course where the bogie golfer most needs shots from a par player.

Occasionally you get a very long par 4, for instance, that most assume should be a very low handicap hole but the thinking is the par player might struggle to make par consistently on that hole but even a bogie player might be expected to make bogie with relative ease so there's less reason on that hole for the par player to give the bogie player a stroke.

So I think you can see how it is and is supposed to be. As an example, one of the most interesting #1 handicap holes I've seen is #4 Stonewall. For a good player it seems and is relatively easy but not for the bogie golfer. It's not a long hole either just complicated and dangerous, just where a bogie golfer needs a stroke from a par player.

[Willie_Dow]

Dave,

Kittansett shows Flynn at his most thoughtful input, in my mind.  8000 yards, yes, in this day his thinking might still be available?
Those new back tees are awesome, and there is room to spare!
Every tee box, which could be drawn back on the same line of site is still there.  
His thinking was so out of sight it is beyond my imagination.

Willie

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
 exactly as i thought.So it makes no difference whether it's apar 4 or 5 because it does not change how the bogie versus par golfer score on the hole.

another thought----the original plans of Flynn for our par 3 tenth from back tees show 260 YDS.Wow---he only built it as 235.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

#10 designed at 260 from the tips?? I know the hole well. If that's a fact--and I'm sure it is that would without question put that hole at the outside edge in distance for a par 3 of anything designed anywhere in that era--without question. With the lay of the land that would effectively play even longer!

Flynn and some of his concepts are really starting to super fascinate me! Some of his ideas are futuristic, some radical, some really brilliant but some are going to be hard for some of these guys on here to swallow!

Some of Flynn's ideas on what's considered "classic" strategy on here is going to have to be reinterpreted or reintroduced. Clearly things like GIR were not even in the same ballpark to Flynn as they are to modern golfers or even good architectural analysts! If you apply a GIR context to some of Flynn's design ideas, like that par 3 even Tiger might have to think about taking off a headcover!

[wsmorrison]

Tom Paul rightly states that Flynn's vision, designs, and  design intentions (those not materialized) necessitate that the term "classic architect of the golden age" as applied to Flynn may need to be reanalyzed.  The more we study newly discovered archival materials and those previously available (which are sometimes misread or content overlooked) relating to Flynn's career, the more Tom and I are amazed by his capacity to brilliantly rout courses and design outstanding holes within the routing context.  His courses are fun to play (even though difficult at times), wonderfully designed, and beautiful to look at (though not contrived).  

Flynn's use of tee sites and green sites often create beautiful views of the surrounding area with the demands of the holes evident.  Other times, Flynn was a master of deception with an evident knowledge of visual perception and an ability to fool the eye.  

A golfer's focus, especially in competition, is tee to green and the task at hand.  The visual appreciation of the course and its surrounds is nearly always lost on the competitive golfer during his/her round.  However, for the non-competitive golfer on a Flynn course, there are many beautiful views tee to green and from green to tee as well (one is often rewarded if he/she would look back and around the green sites.  Mike C--as you stated Flynn was so great at using high spots for his tees and greens in the Northeast where elevation changes can create such views).

Willie D-
I understand that all of Flynn's hole design intentions at Kittansett were not enacted, was the routing completely intact as planned by Flynn?  The "elasticity," as TEP calls it, that you describe which enables evolutionary growth there clearly displays Flynn's vision of the future golfer and his equipment and their impact on the design built in for the present and future of the course.

While Flynn built courses where he incorporates strategic designs for the various levels of golfers' abilities, his championship courses seem to have had altogether different demands.  One of many interesting topics that are developing as we understand more about the man and his work.  As a golf course architect, Flynn is difficult to compartmentalize.  He was great at classical design but often broke into new ground in innovative ways.  If he would have lived longer and designed more (like many in his day the depression hit hard in terms of output lost) he could have dominated modern design. As it was, dominance seems to have defaulted to RTJ.  It is interesting to imagine what a difference this might have made.

What a great story Tom and I hope to tell in our book project on the courses of William Flynn.  Thanks to the many that are helping with their insightful commments and research assistance.  Mayday--your enthusiasm is great!  You and Dave S. at RGGC have been a big help.  Mike C--look forward to getting together with you again soon and sharing some of your resource materials.  Craig--your work with federal sources is of great importance.  Scott and Dave--thanks for the comments, hope to meet sometime.  Geoff and Dan--what can I say, we'd be stumbling around in the dark without your considerable help.  Anyone with info or ability to help, please do.  And lastly, Tom--what a great preasure and a plivledge it is to work with you!  I cannot imagine a better partner in this endeavor.

PS:  As to Rolling Green:  I am partial to lowering the tee box on 1 (as it once was) and 17 (in order to improve the tee shot and leave it a par 5, albeit it a slightly harder one).  I like 18 as a strong finish and believe it is fine as a 485 yard par 4 for "par golfers" and 465 yards par 4 from the whites (might need a new tee behind forward tee) and leave it a par 5 for seniors and women.  I think we should build that 260 yard tee on 10 and a new back tee on 16 (175 yards)so that the club selection is not the same as on 3 even though the yardages are different (3 downhill and 16 slightly uphill).  I would change the chipping area on 1 right of green back to rough.  I like chipping areas a lot, I just don't think it works there.  I would remove two fir trees that block line to 12 green at the corner, the secondary tree line on 7 on the right short of the green and move the fairway to the right with path further up the hill, and just maybe some trees beyond the right fairway bunker complex on 18 to add an alternative to the loooong hitters of today and of tomorrow.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps more than any golf architect, past or present, William Flynn seems to have been most cognizant that he was building courses as much for golfers of the future than those of his present time.  He seemed to be acutely insightful as to how the game would evolve, and even attempted to drive some of those changes through his design ideas.

Wayne, looking forward to getting together again very soon.  

[mike_malone]

As i walked  the course today,i thought about #7,#17,and#18.Each is less than 500 yds.They just fit in as those distances in the case of 17 and 18.Was Flynn even concerned with 4 versus 5 or thinking that the puzzle required those lengths.If RG had a par of seventy with  no  par  assigned per hole ,it would be assumed that 4 was likely  on one of these holes each day.Which one?It depends on the wind,the roll,and your game that day.
 The designed 260 yd.hole begs the question---What is the par ?Maybe Flynn just got frustrated with  the Quakers and said "Fugetaboutit".(More likely they realized that more room was needed between #18 green and back of #10 tee for access to shed)
 this thread is now just using RG as a case study to uncover the thinking of Flynn.That is more valuable than an analysis of the ranking of the course

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Looking at some of the holes like #7, #10, #17, #18 and trying to imagine what Flynn was thinking about them as to their par number could be a bit tricky--that is if we assume at all that Flynn looked at par much like we do today. I really don't think he did.

I  don't think any of the architects back then looked at par like we do today. They thought about it, sure, but to a much less exact degree probably because a par number did not have some of the necessary importance attached to it that it does today. I'm quite certain he didn't look at Rolling Green in the context of a very good player making a 4 on #7 one day, for instance, due to wind conditions and a higher number on say #17 because it went the other way--with the thought that somehow this would logically add up to a 70 by a good player playing a good round!

Back then there was no such thing as "course rating" (which relies on par) no such thing as "slope" but the real key could be the handicapping system and process. I'm not real certain how it was done back then but I think it's clear it wasn't done much like it is today and that could be the real key to a vastly different perspective of both total course and individual hole par numbers between today and Flynn's time.

I'm beginning to think that it's our reliance today on the "gross score" mentality that's given rise to concern about a total par number and obviously for that you need exact par numbers on the holes. Again, I think the real reason for this current reliance on both hole and a total course par number is due to the handicapping system today!

I don't think Flynn looked at holes (or courses) like that. Flynn (like many of the others back then) looked at holes as individualized "shot" challenges (probably solely in a match play context)--a series of almost required "shot tests", in fact.

He very much visualized a very good player (one he did occasionally refer to as a "par player"), for instance, having to hit his best drive and best brassie to gain the green, as an example. But despite this I don't think he looked at that fact in the context of par of a particular number, he just looked at it as a test of various types of clubs and shots.

With a hole like #10 he would have definitely looked at gaining the green from the tee on that hole as a test (or requirment) of the best tee shot with a driver from the best player. For others they had to get there probably with a chip or pitch following their best drive.

Or looked at it another way--the concept of GIR (greens in regulation) clearly did not exist in Flynn's mentality--certainly nothing like it does to us today.

So although some of those early designers may have given a course and its holes par numbers they clearly didn't attach anything like the importance to them that we do today.

That could also be why they did actually talk about a hole as a par 4 1/2. Think about what that really meant. Obviously, you can't make a 4 1/2 on a hole so all they meant, I think, is the hole really didn't have a par at all since that wasn't very important and that any golfer could think of it as a 4 or a 5 if he wanted to--particularly as the idea was to play it as best as you could.

To me it had to be looked at that way because certainly no one has ever scored a 4 1/2 on a hole and none of us have seen a total course par listed as something like 70 1/2!

Again, to Flynn, designating a hole like #10 at 260yds as a 3 may have been true to some extent but it was clearly a 3 that required what he called "high class play" from the best type of player and probably not to be considered a general occurence.

And I would leave this whole idea of par to Flynn with his own quote in a letter in 1929;

"The primary object in the design of the holes is to offer an incentive and provide a reward for high class play and by high class play is meant the best of which any individual is himself capable."

[Dave_Miller]

To Scott Burroughs:

Scott:  I just checked the scorecard I picked up at Rolling Green on June 10.  It does not show 18 as a par 4 from any of the tees.
Is there a separate scorecard for the "tips".

Cheers
Dave

[wsmorrison]

Dave,

The scorecards you saw were from 2001 if it has the 75th anniversary logo on it.  The club has been experimenting with 18 as a par 4 evident when the blues (our back tees) are in front of the whites.  The currently used scorecards do not yet reflect the club's 18 trending to a par 4 as it has not been determined to stay with the concept.  

I am in favor of the hole being a identified as a par 4 for both the blues and the whites.  The blues at about 485 and the whites around 460.  For those unfamiliar with the hole, it is a downhill tee shot with a right to left slope to the fairway with sufficient room on the left if you hit left inside the bunker complex on the right.  There are some interesting contours in the fairway around the landing area.  The hole then turns right and uphill to a large green site with a sizeable opening for running shots if so desired.

[Dave_Miller]

WS:
Thanks, the scorecard I have does have the 75th Anniversary logo on it.
B

[chairman]

mayday,

It sounds as though the regrassing of the greens may have had additional benefits if trees were removed to improve sunlight and circulation.  Sure sounds like a win/win situation to me!  Great to hear!  

And yes, I would agree from what I've seen that the period from say 1960 to 1980 involved more tree-planting than any other time in golf history.  It used to be a badge of honor for someone to say "my course is TIGHT", as if having bowling alleys for golf holes was a desirable thing.  I believe it was due to this macho "difficulty" factor as much as any desire for "beautification", per se.  

dear paul
agree with you re flynn and trees and thus strongly disagree with mayday.  but then, if i had mayday's game, i would try to remove all obstructions that were remotely in play.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ah Chairman,

Nothing like the old anonymous cheap shot into the boards...

Perhaps you can tell us specifically why tree plantings such as those on the right hillside on 7, or the inside corner of 12 are so appealing.  We'd love to hear why Flynn-created options should be eliminated or impinged.  

[chairman]

dear mike,
i am not anonymous, i am the chairman, and i authorized your complimentary visit to rolling green.  i understand that you had trouble with your wedge game, and limped in with an 85.  that's okay.
i welcome all comments about the golf course because unlike mayday, i am open to suggestions.  i also try to respond to suggestions with facts rather than with verbal judo phrases such as "you don't understand" or "come on".  despite mayday's communicative defects, i count him as one of my crew, play golf with him often, and discuss the golf course with him constantly.
re my theory on the course and trees:
the routing is excellent.  however, because flynn is unavailable and his writings are sketchy, we don't know what he would do with the course today.  thus, i look at the playability of the hole.  number seven is a short par five. last night, i hit driver and seven iron on the green in two.  the trees which are short and to the right of the green put at least some constraints on the second shot.  the hole is just too easy without the trees.  it's easy with the trees once you get your tee shot in play. everyone would blow their second shots right to avoid the greenside bunker, and they could get their second shots pin high.  the next line of trees, which mayday calls the primary line of trees, is totally out of play for any shot except a strong shank which only mayday can hit.  
my goal is to install back tees on sixteen and two.  what do you think?