#2 NGLA

[Sebonac]

I have a question for you folks out there....I have always felt that NGLA deserves to have a long par 3....something like #2 at Shinnecock...200+ yards....perhaps uphill...where you need maybe a 2-iron or a 5-wood.....I have also thought it a shame that NGLA only has three par threes.....As most courses have four.....and par three are fun....Finally I feel that perhaps the one whole that has not kept up with the times at NGLA is #2....with technology these days....players are throwing the ball onto the green regularly.....the bail out on the right is almost forgotten...and the penal aspect of going too far on the right into the heather has been taken away as the club has chopped that heather down....

So how about this....I know this might be considered heresy...but how about moving the green 40 yards closer to the tee....to the top of the hill....and create a long uphill par three there...of course you would have to rework the bunkering....but you could have a dramatic 215 shot that right now is missing from the other par threes....Redan, Short and Eden.....

[Biarritz]

There is no doubt that the second at NGLA is weak. I don't know if the topography would make a good Biarritz hole or not. I think that the 2nd would be a spectacular Biarritz if it were possible.

[Charles_P.]

So how about this....I know this might be considered heresy...

I say heresy!  Yes, you would have the test that a long par 3 provides, but you'd be giving up one of the most fun and distinctive holes on the course.  I agree that technology has changed the way golfers approach this hole -- some of the strategic decisions that had to be made in prior (shorter) generations are irrelevant -- but a stern 215 yard par 3 would be out of character with the rest of the course.  I think the kind of test you're looking for was meant to be posed by the Redan 4th, back when it was considered a long one-shotter, rather than the medium (relative) length it plays today.

Also, don't underestimate how this hole plays for the double-digit handicap.  Even though it is a short hole, it still looks fearsome and I see the right hand collection area get alot of action.

[THuckaby2]

I'm with Charles P here 100% - I believe #2 might be my favorite hole on the course, which if you think about it is a very tall statement.  I just find genius there all over... and while it sure as heck is easier to reach the green with today's equipment, it still isn't an easy shot for the vast majority of players... I also really think having a driveable par 4 adds to the experience, and this hole fits right in at NGLA.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sebonic,

Heresy ? No, HERESY,

What were you thinking or drinking ?

You are hereby placed on double secret probation.

[TEPaul]

Oh my God, DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION! The fellow must have really crossed the line this time!

[Jeff Fortson]

#2 is far from being weak in my opinion.  I was playing it a couple weeks ago into a 25-30mph wind and it was definitely not "weak".  The first time you make 6 there you may rethink the term "weak".  I know it seems harmless and is drivable with no wind but it still offers many challenges around the green.  Birdie here is not a breeze and a par isn't a bad score.  

Heresy!  for even thinking of changing a hole on CB Mac's finest design!

Sorry for the zealotry.

Jeff F.

[Sebonac]

I agree....For a high handicapper it is an intimidating hole....especially when the rough is kept high in front of the tee...and I do like the green...it is often a good test to have to run the ball across the large green with a chip without sending it over.....much of this could be accomplished with a one-shotter....

Also....as stated...Redan is no longer a true long iron play unless they put the red tees all the way back....and the wind is blowing....still it is never a wood....

One of the qualities of a great course is that it forces you to pull all or most of your clubs out of the bag during the round...for most players #1 is a sand wedge/lob wedge second shot....and so is #2.....

Also, many a time....you play the exact same iron from on #4 Redan as you do on the par 3 #13 Eden....a long par three at two would take the wedge second shot out of play for one less par 4...right now the wedge can realistically come into play on the second shot of a par 4 at NGLA on six times....even more for some big hitters....my option would break this up and add to the mixture of the par 3's....

Sometimes you have to be willing to think outside the box.... Heresy...harrummmpppphhh

[Jeff Fortson]

Heres how I played NGLA 2 weeks ago.  This is a way to see what clubs I hit.

#1 Driver, LW   Par
#2 Driver, PW   Double Bogey
#3 Driver, 4-iron   Par
#4 8-iron   Par
#5 Driver, 3-wood, SW   Par
#6 PW   Birdie
#7 Driver, 5-wood, SW   Birdie
#8 Driver, 6-iron   Par
#9 Driver, 5-iron, 9-iron   Par
#10 Driver, PW   Par
#11 3-wood, 9-iron   Par
#12 Driver, 7-iron   Par
#13 8-iron   Par
#14 3-wood, 9-iron   Par
#15 Driver, 9-iron   Par
#16 Driver, 8-iron   Par
#17 Driver, Wedge   Par
#18 Driver, 3-iron, 7-iron   Par

Totals:
Driver - 13
3-wood - 3
5-wood - 1
3-iron - 1
4-iron - 1
5-iron - 1
6-iron - 1
7-iron - 2
8-iron - 2
9-iron - 4
PW - 3
SW - 2
LW - 1

Well, I used every club in my bag.  You're argument about not having a long par three I can't make a case for because there isn't one there.  But, if CB Mac figured there wasn't a good enough location for a biarritz or long par 3 then why should WE think there is one.  I happen to think that a course doesn't need a long par 3 to round out it's depth as a great or challenging course.  Redan and Short don't need length, they're difficult on their own.  

True, NGLA and many other great classic courses are seeing more wedges than 3-irons but that doesn't mean par 4's need to be made par 3's.  Especially ones designed by the Mac.

Jeff F.
          

[Sebonac]

So you did use the same club on 4 and 13....also...I think Redan and Short are awesome...no need for more length....

[Sebonac]

Also....let's look at your approaches to the par 4's...
LW, PW, 4, 6,PW,9,7,9,9,8,W....

Except for one whole...you were hitting pretty short irons into most every green....Which is fun....but it would not hurt to hit some more long irons into greens.....the new long par three #2 would add that....

[Jeff Fortson]

You're right, putting in a long par three would add one extra long iron shot.  But I wouldn't change one of the best holes anywhere just to add a long iron shot to the course.  If you could guarantee me that CB Mac would come back and design this "long par 3" then I would be disappointed to lose such a good par four but I would accept it because it's his design.  

This search for making courses par 70-72 and adding more long iron shots ends up resulting in destroyed masterpieces.

I use this analogy often but I think it works.....

'Just because I don't like the painting "Mona Lisa" doesn't mean I have the right to paint a mustache on her.'

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Fortson:

Nice round--certainly looks like you can really play! The ground must have been firm, the wind near to your back playing #4 and #13 or the tees must not have been all the way back on those holes because #4 can play to an actual of close to 200yds and I don't see anyone hitting an 8 iron to that particular hole without some or all of those factors! #4 can be a long iron in certain wind conditons for sure! If I were to guess the wind must have been at your back on #10 or at least quartering off your left shoulder!

The idea about actually redesigning #2 is a poor idea as you sense but an interesting one in theory, I suppose. By counting up the clubs someone uses and using that as a reason to redesign a hole to get some overall formulaic on one of the world's most unformulaic designs is barking up the wrong tree to me as it seems to you.

As a hole (#2 as a par 3) to be done somewhere else with a similar landform would be interesting though--but I do not see a Biarritz working well on that particular type of landform!

[Jeff Fortson]

TEPaul,

Thanks.  I can scrap it around here and there.  As for the wind, yes, it was helping and pushing lefton #4 and the pin was 15 feet off the front edge.  I left it short and hit an amazing chip to 3 feet and canned it.  On #10 it was downwind.  So on Short and Eden the wind was virtually the same as Redan.  I loved making birdies back to back on Short and St Andrews.  The wind was probably blowing 20mph consistantly.  Coming back on the inward nine downwind was actually tougher than coming out into it.  You have to be much more creative with approaches.  I love this course and could talk about it forever.  I took pictures of every hole there and will post them as soon as I get them developed.  

CB Mac was a genius.

Jeff F.  

[TEPaul]

JeffF:

If you had to be creative on the downwind holes the course must be really bouncing and rolling these days. If it is doing that these days (really doing that) and you've played the course when it's NOT doing that tell everyone on here what an incredible difference it makes for cool golf on that particular course. NGLA really fast is when and where the whole idea of the "ideal maintenance meld" came to me.

If it was really bouncing and rolling (primarily talking about "through the green") tells these boys I ain't lying about how ideal the "ideal maintenance meld" can be.

Of course, to be really ideal the greens have to be firm enough too to just "dent" not "pitch mark" and it helps if the speeds are about 11. They told me 12 but I didn't believe it! No way they could have been that fast on some of those greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I'm curious about you selection of a 5 iron for your second shot at # 9, followed by a 9 iron.  Why not a wood second ?

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick,

I hit my drive down the left and it almost went in the bunkers down there.  I caught a terrible lie in the rough and had to muscle out a mid iron to advance it.  I was afraid of not getting it over the little rise in land going back up to the second fairway.

Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

That swale leading to the bunkers gets more than its fair share of ball, and results in some ugly lies.

Nice round.

I could play # 6, # 8, and # 18 forever as the only par 3, par 4 and par 5 in the world.

[TEPaul]

I did say I thought it was not a good idea to even talk about changing a hole at NGLA and certainly not by talking about moving #2's green back and making it a par 3.

But I do think and have said it before that the second shot landing area at NGLA's #9 really does need something. As it is now it's just too bland by a mile with probably 200yds of a big wide fairway melding right in at grade to a big wide green opening and a very long green on a relatively short par 5 by today's standard.

For starter a really good probably quite narrow and diagonal bunker scheme should connect the sides of that fairway from maybe 140 on the right to less than a hundred on the left. And maybe a little something somehow for the strong player good in two on this hole!

Pat Mucci is right to ask Jeff Fortson why he didn't hit a 3 wood for his second shot. Jeff had a bad lie near the blind left bunkers on his tee shot but if he hadn't there really is nothing at all to think about or worry about on that second shot.

It really needs something to make the player think on that shot--actually it's just screaming for something to create something in the way of option or strategy!!

Hate to say it about an architectural labratory like NGLA but everyone knows the only true weak link on that course is #9 and it's the compeletly wide open second shot that's most of the reason!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I agree with you, and am a little surprised that this hole doesn't have more in the way of bunkers for the second shot, especially when you consider that this was the original 18th hole.

Look at the current 18th hole and the awesome challenge to the second shot, presented by the bunkering left and cliff to the right.  On the other hand, # 5 and # 7 don't really present any real demands on the second shot, being fairly wide open as well.

There is some bunkering right and left on # 9, but they seem to be a little out of play.

With # 9 being the third soft par 5 in a five hole stretch, you would think more challenge would be offered to the second shot.

Perhaps a NGLA expert can tell us more.

I'd be curious

[Sebonac]

If the fairways are sped up and firmed up again as apparently they will be this summer....and as they have not been, for the most part, for quite some time....Jeff's ball would have probably made it into those bunkers on the left off of his drive....making it a more challenging second shot just because of that...

Also, the left bunker about 60 yds short of the green on the left would receive more shots...if the ball kept on rolling on the hard fairways the way they used to....

#9 also has an interesting quirk....if you land the ball in front of the green.....trying to run it in....the ball often just stops....it is very soft right there....but if you land it on the green....especially down wind...it is easy to roll it to the back of the green or off....

#9 is strong enough....not many people get there in two.....and the green is subtle, but quite difficult....long putts are very hard to read on that hole...there are little knobs where the hole can be placed that can make lags tough....

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Once again I hate to even think about changes of any kind to NGLA much less recommend them but there are some extremely interesting possibilities on that course with all their par 5s and with the course par itself (73) and the majority of them could be handled in a very intersting non-architectural way.

Again, I think the second shot on #9 NGLA is just screaming to be enhanced architecturally to make it far more interesting, mulit-optional and strategic. But I would make the case that the other holes you mention #5 & #7 don't need anything architecturally.

I think NGLA has the unique opportunity to toughen the course if they thought that necessary for a particular event simply by changing the par on either #5, #7 or even #18 if need be! This is a zero cost option (except to have alternate cards printed).

I don't believe either #5 or #7 need any architectural enhancement on their second shots, here's why:

#5 plays fine as is for the members as a par 5. The second shot here is blind and aim in this particular case (due to the blind shot) is its own unique RISK/reward! With this blindness and it's relatively complex aiming factors (sort of skyline), I've noticed that players not totally familiar with the hole tend to go too far left with well executed shots on this second shot really creating problems for them in recovery. So the second shot here needs nothing and other than its blindness should have nothing more in the second shot landing area.

To toughen #5 for something like the NGLA Singles Tourney this hole should be played slightly forward and become a par 4 period-nothing more done to it. This would make NGLA a par 72.

#7 needs nothing more at all architecturally on the second shot since the green and it's orientation/upslople/shape are all the architecture, options/strategy etc this hole needs!! It's probably ten times more difficult to properly execute a second shot to the green on this hole that has the kind of reward that a second shot to #9 has. And the reason is the latter things explained about the green itself (which #9 green has none of).

In other words although #7 is actually shorter than #9 the green on #7 is such (compared to #9) that strategically the green and green-end and its severe complexity "talks back" to the player considering going for it in two about ten times more than #9 does architecturally and strategically. In a sense the meat of the options on #7 going for the green is a wide spectrum "golfers's choice" of both direction, aim and accessibility to the green all complicated by the "road" hole bunker and other greenside architectural features and design.

Again, in a nutshell #7's green and green-end "talks back" bigtime to the golfer going for it while #9 green-end is basically a "green light special" that doesn't so much as whisper any kind of problem to the golfer going in two!

For a real group of high caliber players however #7 could actually be made into a par 4 too only by the card and as such would actually become the same set of perception problems and its "Father", the 17th at TOC.  This would then make NGLA a par 71. And if the tour players happened to show up #18 could also be designated a par 4 on the card with nothing other done to it. This would make NGLA a par 70! for them! This would leave a course with one par 5 and not a great one, but so what--there's always been a lot about NGLA that's unique and different anyway. MacDonald himself would probably go for this interesting mix of shifting total par since he was into all kinds of weird things himself like floating balls and half-strokes for putts!

But what to do with the second shot on #9? I looked carefully at it a year ago on this area and this is what I would do. Connect the right side bunker (that's out about 140) with a narrow bunker scheme (reminiscent of the look of the center scheme bunkers on the bottle hole) that snakes across the fairway in a convex line (to the player back at his second shot) and connects to the bunker on the left side of the fairway that's app. 100yd out).

That would give the player the option of laying up in front of this scheme or carrying it with ever increasing distance requirement to the left side vs the shorter right carry across the bunker scheme.

And then to complicate matters for the really long player with the fire-power to get the ball to the green in two perhaps a bunker could be added to the rightside very near the green "eating into' the right side of the fairway enough at the green creating the ideal strategic "stagger" with the end of the left side connection of the diagonal scheme farther back!!

It would make me very nervous as to what kind of bunker to add near the green on the right but as this hole's second half is basically extremely low profile something should be found on the course in look and shape to match the low profile character here. Maybe some of the "safety bunkers" to the right of #15 could be matched by flipping their shape around somehow or perhaps a bit of a "coffin" shape idea emanating out of the actual right greenside bunker that's alrieady there and supports the right side of the green as you can see that side was build up from natural grade by Raynor/MacDonald. The idea of something subtely "coffin like" in form would seem perfect to fit the low profile lines of the second half of this hole and also to be something that would be more in a player's mind than in his sight!!

The whole idea of the recommendation makes me nervous but in a strict strategic "work-up" I think it makes a ton of strategic sense and would give this sole unencumbered area of NGLA's only weak spot some real meaning and teeth!

[Sebonac]

The club has often talked about #5 and #7 as Par 4's.....That would mean....3 par 3's, 2 par 5's and the rest par 4's....hhhmmm that is a lot of par 4's....but hey...#7 is really a par 4 1/2...just like the original Road Hole....There is actually quite a lot of room to pull the tee back on 7...(one of the few places on the course where you have such room....You could stretch the tee back 15 yards or so as a possibility (while leaving the rest of the tee intact for most play).  This would make it more treacherous for the long hitters to cut off too  much on the right hand side....and it would extend their second shot into that green....if they can still reasonably get there in two...

[Sebonac]

Huh?

[Adam_Messix]

Sebonac-

There's a pretty good course over in Scotland in some ancient town that has only two par 3's and two par 5's and no one has seemed to have a problem with it.

The second hole at National is a tremendous short par 4 because the topography within 100 yards of the green is fantastic.  A well struck drive on the correct line will be handsomely rewarded.  A well struck drive on an incorrect line to the right can give you a horriffic next shot...blind, up hill to a green that goes away from you.  The true sign of a great short par 4 is that our group made a 3, a 5, and a 6 on the second and all three drives were within 50 yards of the green.

I agree with Tom Paul that the only thing that really needs to be done at National is to have a tournament card with 5, 7, and 18 as par 4s and the course at par 70.