[Patrick_Mucci]

To the left rear of # 12 green which will serve as A back tee for # 7 and can also be used as an alternate tee for # 13, where it presents a different angle and can employ different hole locations typically not available from the right side due to the slope of the green from the right side.

The old constructed foot pad has been sodded and is now cut to tee height and will be employed this weekend.

I guess the suggestion to change par on # 7 has been rejected and the desire to return the architectural features, namely the  "hotel" bunker complex back into play was deemed more prudent and truer to CBM's intent.

Today one of the fellows I played with, from the former back tee, into the wind, hit driver - 5-iron to 15 feet for eagle.

That won't happen from the new back tee.

And I think it's still practical to introduce another back tee across the service road

[TEPaul]

"Today one of the fellows I played with, from the former back tee, into the wind, hit driver - 5-iron to 15 feet for eagle."


And that is precisely why that hole as it was (the same distance as TOC's Road Hole (before they added a bit more distance and still kept it as a par 4)) should be a par 4 as it template has been for about 25-30 years. That guy should've been putting for a birdie, not an eagle but apparently you haven't quite figured that out yet.

They wouldn't need to make #7 a par 5 for the general membership; they should do it only on a new "Championship Scorecard." Matter of fact, I would like to see them make #18 a par 4 on a Championship scorecard. If they did that they would only be down to a par 71.

Of course they could also make #9 into a par 4 on a Championship Scorecard because these good players today could drive it right over those cross bunkers or even lay up and still hit the green easily. If they did that too they would be down to a par 70 but unfortunately they would be out of par 5s, wouldn't they? That actually might be an intereting statement to make with this massive distance increase with top flight golfers in the last 10-12 years!   

Maidstone has something of the same scorecard lattitude and hole transposition potential. It's a par 72 and on a new Championship Scorecard they should make #15 and #16 par 4s and the championship card would be par 70.

Pat, people like you when asked to add up five 2s never get passed like 6 or 8. It takes people like me to explain to you how to get to 10! 

[JMEvensky]

Sounds like the perfect place to continue your Magical Mystery Tour.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Pat Mucci himself is a Magical Mystery Tour. He emailed me this morning and said he had to go as he had a 7:42 tee time in the NGLA Singles Tournament. Since I don't play in it anymore I hope they have someone up there to lead Patrick to the first tee or he might get lost.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff:

Pat Mucci himself is a Magical Mystery Tour. He emailed me this morning and said he had to go as he had a 7:42 tee time in the NGLA Singles Tournament. Since I don't play in it anymore I hope they have someone up there to lead Patrick to the first tee or he might get lost.

Do they now have a Super,Super Seniors division?

[Sebonac]

The existing seventh tee was also lowered....making the hole play longer from there.  Also...on 16....the "green" tee was removed.  And a new back tee was put in for 16 up the hill and to the left...as you look at 15 green.

[jkinney]

Sebonac - why do we have two separate threads going on this subject ? Your's is the second.

[jkinney]

Sorry, Sebonac, it was Patrick - in his frenzy at the Singles - who started this second thread, repeating much of which had already been reported by your's truly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Today one of the fellows I played with, from the former back tee, into the wind, hit driver - 5-iron to 15 feet for eagle."


And that is precisely why that hole as it was (the same distance as TOC's Road Hole (before they added a bit more distance and still kept it as a par 4)) should be a par 4 as it template has been for about 25-30 years. That guy should've been putting for a birdie, not an eagle but apparently you haven't quite figured that out yet.

TE,

What you haven't figured out yet is that changing par won't bring the "Road Hole" bunker complex back into play, nor will it bring the bowl back into play leaving the golfer a blind second shot

They wouldn't need to make #7 a par 5 for the general membership; they should do it only on a new "Championship Scorecard." Matter of fact, I would like to see them make #18 a par 4 on a Championship scorecard. If they did that they would only be down to a par 71.
Again, you don't get it, changing par won't bring he left side fairway bunker back into play.
A bunker which is a critical design feature of the hole, a feature which dictates the play of the entire hole

Of course they could also make #9 into a par 4 on a Championship Scorecard because these good players today could drive it right over those cross bunkers or even lay up and still hit the green easily. If they did that too they would be down to a par 70 but unfortunately they would be out of par 5s, wouldn't they? That actually might be an intereting statement to make with this massive distance increase with top flight golfers in the last 10-12 years!   

Why don't you OBJECT to all the lengthening that's been going on at Shinnecock ?

Why the double standard ?

Maidstone has something of the same scorecard lattitude and hole transposition potential. It's a par 72 and on a new Championship Scorecard they should make #15 and #16 par 4s and the championship card would be par 70.

Pat, people like you when asked to add up five 2s never get passed like 6 or 8. It takes people like me to explain to you how to get to 10! 

As a Chemical Engineering Major in College, i think you'll find my math skills more than adequate.

As to five "2's", i'll do six "2's".  how's this ?

When will the train be in the station ?
From two to two to two two 

[TEPaul]

"TE,
What you haven't figured out yet is that changing par won't bring the "Road Hole" bunker complex back into play, nor will it bring the bowl back into play leaving the golfer a blind second shot."



No Pat. that is what you haven't figured out yet. For players of championship caliber today those features are not important or strategic, and that is precisely why #7 at NGLA should be a par 4 as its template at TOC has been for 25-30 years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

If you've played the "Road hole" at TOC, you'd know that the RR Shed and Hotel and OB are material factors in the play of the hole.

Moving the tee back brings the "Road Hole" bunker complex back into play.

More importantly, why have you continued to remain silent on Shinnecock's continual lengthening of their course in order to preserve and bring their intended architectural features back into play ?

You want NGLA to remain architecturally static, proposing that they change par rather than lengthen the holes in order to restore the architectural features in play.

 Yet, you hide behind deafening silence at Shinnecock's lengthening of their holes.  Especially # 5 and # 16.

You don't see the colossal hypocrisy in your position.
The contradiction and absurdity

Quite simply you have a double standard based on your self interests, a double standard of convenience.

You want Macdonald's masterpiece, NGLA, to have it's  features become less relevant, architecturally, while supporting Flynn's Shinnecock  lengthening their holes such that their architectural features remain relevant.

There's not a participant or lurker that doesn't see the disingenuousness of your possession 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

If you've played the "Road hole" at TOC, you'd know that the RR Shed and Hotel and OB are material factors in the play of the hole.

Moving the tee back brings the "Road Hole" bunker complex back into play.

More importantly, why have you continued to remain silent on Shinnecock's continual lengthening of their course in order to preserve and bring their intended architectural features back into play ?

You want NGLA to remain architecturally static, proposing that they change par rather than lengthen the holes in order to restore the architectural features in play.

 Yet, you hide behind deafening silence at Shinnecock's lengthening of their holes.  Especially # 5 and # 16.

You don't see the colossal hypocrisy in your position.
The contradiction and absurdity

Quite simply you have a double standard based on your self interests, a double standard of convenience.

You want Macdonald's masterpiece, NGLA, to have it's  features become less relevant, architecturally, while supporting Flynn's Shinnecock  lengthening their holes such that their architectural features remain relevant.

There's not a participant or lurker that doesn't see the disingenuousness of your possession  

?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TE,
What you haven't figured out yet is that changing par won't bring the "Road Hole" bunker complex back into play, nor will it bring the bowl back into play leaving the golfer a blind second shot."



No Pat. that is what you haven't figured out yet. For players of championship caliber today those features are not important or strategic, and that is precisely why #7 at NGLA should be a par 4 as its template at TOC has been for 25-30 years.


That's disingenuous.

The ONLY reason # 17 was changed to a par 4 was because they could NOT lengthen the hole due to property constraints.

You can be rest assured that they would have lengthened it if they could have lengthened it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()