The proof is in the pudding/tasting, new tee/s

[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently I played NGLA with some nice fellows, one of whom was on his college golf team.

I would hit a good drive and he would drive it 50 yards by me, mostly in the air.

On # 7 and # 18 he hit driver 6 iron.
On # 18 from the back tee he was 50 yards past the left side fairway bunker.

We finished 18 holes and I suggested that we play a few more holes, which we did.

On # 18 I suggested that we tee off from a strip of grass back by the gate.
It's about 50 yards behind the current back tee.

This young man hit a tremendous drive, one that he said, he "killed", right into the left side fairway bunker.
From there, he barely got out, leaving him a 230+, uphill, 3rd shot into the green.

Merely changing par on the hole defeats the purpose of the architectural features CBM crafted.
Moving the tee back, brings them ALL into play, on the drive, second and approach shot.

On the 13th hole we teed the ball up from left of the 12th green, a shot to the center of the green of about 175-180.
The hole was cut far left, behind the left side bunker.  Playing about 165.  It was a fabulous approach shot, replicating the approach on # 7 at TOC.

What's interesting is that there's a heavily constructed footpad left of the 12th green that had to be put there for a reason.
The logical reason is a footpad for a tee for # 13.

What's really interesting is that that location is directly behind the current 7th tee by a good 20 yards or more, thus, creating a new tee there would serve to make # 7 longer, bringing the hotel bunker complex back into play for the longer hitter, and, that same tee could be used for # 13.

If you haven't played # 13 from left of the 12th green, nor # 18 from that strip of grass directly behind the 18th tee, you should look at it on "Google Earth" or view it in person if you ever get the opportunity.

There's no doubt that all three holes would be enhanced by those tees.

[John Moore II]

Pat-Your comments reflect exactly what I had said in a thread a while back: Do clubs want to keep with the architects original design or the architects original intent. In most cases, those vary quite a bit. Which theory does NGLA adhere to?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-Your comments reflect exactly what I had said in a thread a while back: Do clubs want to keep with the architects original design or the architects original intent. In most cases, those vary quite a bit. Which theory does NGLA adhere to?  

JKM, you'd have to ask them.
I'm not so sure that clubs adhere to black & white theories.
There's vascillation on every decision at most clubs.

But, you have to remember, # 7 and # 18 play at 478 and 502, hardly beefy par 5's by anyone's standards today.

The 5th hole, another par 5 at only 478 has been converted to a par 4 for tournament play.
I don't know if it also plays as a 4 for membership play.
I didn't hit a great drive on # 5, into the wind, and still knocked it on the green in two.

From my perspective, not the club's perspective, it makes all the sense in the world to take # 18 tee back 50 yards, since at 552, it's not ridiculously long, yet it returns the critical and complex bunker patterns back into play on every shot.

The same can be said for # 7.

With the Walker Cup coming in 2013, it makes all the sense in the world to me, since the best golfers from the U.S. and the U.K. will be playing the course competitively, and those great features that CBM crafted shouldn't be ignore and obsoleted, they should be returned to play, and it's as easy as just creating a few new tee complexes.

[John Moore II]

Pat-My final question up there was meant somewhat rhetorically, but it still stands. The principle of what I said still stands and is a real dilemma for many classic courses. That concept is a good part of the reason that ANGC makes so many changes to retain original intent in most cases and other courses have done limited lengthening/'recreation' work.

[Tim Bert]

There's no doubt that all three holes would be enhanced by those tees.

Patrick - Would going further back enhance the hole for all players or just the elite?  Do the holes still play with the original intent for a good number of the golfer at the club that don't crush it off the tee?  I know nothing about the membership, so I have no idea if it is full of stronger players, or what the mix is like there.

I'm all for adding new tees where they make sense and fit the course, as long as reasonable member tees remain in place for the folks that don't have the 'A' game you are referencing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-My final question up there was meant somewhat rhetorically, but it still stands. The principle of what I said still stands and is a real dilemma for many classic courses. That concept is a good part of the reason that ANGC makes so many changes to retain original intent in most cases and other courses have done limited lengthening/'recreation' work.

JKM,

You seem to labor under the impression that there's a "collective" thought process or perceptions about a golf course, it's features and play.

In my limited experience, save for dictatorships, almost every issue has multiple war camps.
That one view may win out is not indicative that there's unanimous agreement.

Within a membership there are elements that "get it" and elements that don't "get it"
However, just because an element gets it on one issue, doesn't mean they get it on another.
The elements are amorphous , not rigid, thus there's no monolithic view with respect to all elements

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's no doubt that all three holes would be enhanced by those tees.

Patrick - Would going further back enhance the hole for all players or just the elite?

That's too extreme of a spectrum.
Certainly it's not going to enhance the hole for the 30 handicap who finds it challenging enough.

But, it will enhance the hole for those who correctly play from the red tee markers and probably for those playing the green.

Do the holes still play with the original intent for a good number of the golfer at the club that don't crush it off the tee? 


Another extreme.
But, no, the holes do NOT play with the original intent for those correctly playing the red tee markers.
Did you read the part of my post where I stated that the hole played 478 yards ?
In 1928 it played at 480 yards.
You tell me, are things different 82 years later ?

In 1928, # 18 played at 482, today it's 502, again, 82 years later, do you think it's playing as originally intended ?

I know nothing about the membership, so I have no idea if it is full of stronger players, or what the mix is like there.

I haven't analyzed the handicap sheets at NGLA, but, they do host a significant amateur tournament, that attracts a field with high caliber players from across the country.

It's a GOLF club, no pool, no tennis courts, no paddle courts, just a spectacular golf course maintained at fast and firm conditions when Mother Nature permits.

I'm all for adding new tees where they make sense and fit the course, as long as reasonable member tees remain in place for the folks that don't have the 'A' game you are referencing.

Thanks,  I know how to differentiate the levels of play between the golfing elements within membership.
Do you think that the "A" game in 1928 is commensurate with the "A" game today ?
The "B" game today ?
The "C" game today ?
Especially in the context of distance off the tee for all factions ?

[Tim Bert]

Patrick

If you added the tees you recommended would you then move the member tee to the location of the current tips, or leave as is?  Just trying to understand what you think the ighr solution is for the B and C player.

Also, you mentioned something about par changing. Was this historically a par 5 and switched to a par 4?  And while I am one tha doesn't think par really matters all that much, if you did move the B and C player back to the current tips, would you consider it a 4 or a 5 for them?

Thanks for taking the time to provide some additional context for those of us that aren't as familiar with the course setup.

[John Moore II]

Pat-My final question up there was meant somewhat rhetorically, but it still stands. The principle of what I said still stands and is a real dilemma for many classic courses. That concept is a good part of the reason that ANGC makes so many changes to retain original intent in most cases and other courses have done limited lengthening/'recreation' work.

JKM,

You seem to labor under the impression that there's a "collective" thought process or perceptions about a golf course, it's features and play.

In my limited experience, save for dictatorships, almost every issue has multiple war camps.
That one view may win out is not indicative that there's unanimous agreement.

Within a membership there are elements that "get it" and elements that don't "get it"
However, just because an element gets it on one issue, doesn't mean they get it on another.
The elements are amorphous , not rigid, thus there's no monolithic view with respect to all elements

Pat-You are correct, there are those that don't get it. Those don't care about architects original intent or architects original design. So, I guess thats a third group of members. No, I don't think there is a collective thought process, far from it. I am simply saying that if a club wishes to remain true to its history and not simply change stuff on the course at random (which, given they own the property, I feel is certainly within their rights) then the club must determine if it wishes to remain true to original intent or pure, original layout.

[John Mayhugh]

On the 13th hole we teed the ball up from left of the 12th green, a shot to the center of the green of about 175-180.
The hole was cut far left, behind the left side bunker.  Playing about 165.  It was a fabulous approach shot, replicating the approach on # 7 at TOC.

What's interesting is that there's a heavily constructed footpad left of the 12th green that had to be put there for a reason.
The logical reason is a footpad for a tee for # 13.

Yeah, the look is a bit different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John, thanks for the pictures.
When we most recently played # 13, the hole was cut behind the left bunker when you play from the left side of # 12.

Play from the right side called for a nice draw on an iron hit at the center of the green,
Three of us hit it 25, 15 and 10 feet, one was long left, but, from the left side, it was more than challenging as both of us hit really good irons that came up just short of the hole location, in that bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

The dilema that I've seen arise, time and time again, is as follows.

A leadership group gets it, makes prudent changes/restorations.

Then, they fall out of power and a new group with a different thought process comes in and modifies the course.

Years go by and another group that gets it comes in to power.
They undo the previous alterations.

Then another group comes into power and so on and so on.

Without a dictatorship or oligarchy, it's difficult to maintain meaningful continuity over the years.

So, even if a club gets it today, 5 years from now they could have the exact opposite views.

Clubs need less democracy.

[Dan Herrmann]

You know what's really sad?  We had the USGA/R&A out last year to test 'reduced flight' balls.  They worked pretty well, cutting about 15% off a tee shot and 3-5% on a PW.

Just introducing this dimple-caused rollback would solve all these issues.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

What happened to the Ohio State Golf Association experiment with a rolled back ball ?

[John Moore II]

JKM,

The dilema that I've seen arise, time and time again, is as follows.

A leadership group gets it, makes prudent changes/restorations.

Then, they fall out of power and a new group with a different thought process comes in and modifies the course.

Years go by and another group that gets it comes in to power.
They undo the previous alterations.

Then another group comes into power and so on and so on.

Without a dictatorship or oligarchy, it's difficult to maintain meaningful continuity over the years.

So, even if a club gets it today, 5 years from now they could have the exact opposite views.

Clubs need less democracy.

In your years of experience playing NGLA, do you think what you describe above to be the case there?

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - the obvious question: if that young fellow had killed his drive on the 18th but managed to avoid the left-side fairway bunker, would he have played the rest of the hole the way it was originally intended to play? Do you see what I mean? NGLA could move the tee back fifty yards, but the issue still remains, ie for his second shot into a Par 5, that young college player would still be hitting, if not a 6 iron then a 5 or a 4 iron, more than 6O-70%  of the time, every time he hit the fairway.  The extra distances that today's players are hitting it can be mitigated off the tee, but not on the second/approach shots.

No?

Peter

[John Mayhugh]

John, thanks for the pictures.
When we most recently played # 13, the hole was cut behind the left bunker when you play from the left side of # 12.

Play from the right side called for a nice draw on an iron hit at the center of the green,
Three of us hit it 25, 15 and 10 feet, one was long left, but, from the left side, it was more than challenging as both of us hit really good irons that came up just short of the hole location, in that bunker.

It's a much better Eden from that angle.  I didn't play a shot from there, but Tiger Bernhardt couldn't resist.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

The dilema that I've seen arise, time and time again, is as follows.

A leadership group gets it, makes prudent changes/restorations.

Then, they fall out of power and a new group with a different thought process comes in and modifies the course.

Years go by and another group that gets it comes in to power.
They undo the previous alterations.

Then another group comes into power and so on and so on.

Without a dictatorship or oligarchy, it's difficult to maintain meaningful continuity over the years.

So, even if a club gets it today, 5 years from now they could have the exact opposite views.

Clubs need less democracy.

In your years of experience playing NGLA, do you think what you describe above to be the case there?

There's a different dynamic at NGLA and I won't delve into it.

Let's just say that the good news is that the club, starting with Karl Olsen, began to recapture and preserve lost features and use the built in elasticity to meet the modern challenges.  That appears to be an ongoing process with Bill Salinetti.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - the obvious question: if that young fellow had killed his drive on the 18th but managed to avoid the left-side fairway bunker, would he have played the rest of the hole the way it was originally intended to play?

Yes

Do you see what I mean?

Yes

NGLA could move the tee back fifty yards, but the issue still remains, ie for his second shot into a Par 5, that young college player would still be hitting, if not a 6 iron then a 5 or a 4 iron, more than 6O-70%  of the time, every time he hit the fairway. 

NO WAY,

It's 267 from the top of that bunker to the center of the green, off an uphill lie into a prevailing wind to an elevated green that's BLIND, with disaster lurking right, long and left.

The extra distances that today's players are hitting it can be mitigated off the tee, but not on the second/approach shots.
There's NO mitigation on that approach, it's exceptionally dicey.

I don't have much fear of contradiction on this issue ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I've been reading your posts for several years now. It was from YOU that I first learned about the challenge of keeping the great old courses relevant in the face of modern technology.  It was from YOU that I learned that, while moving tees back could restore relevance to the original landing zone/driving zone for today's top golfers, doing so would not change the fact that today's top golfers would still be hitting their second/approach shots in with much shorter clubs than originally intended.  On this thread you seem to have a different perspective. That's fine -- I see that you're proud and excited about your insight re the 18th at NGLA. But I tried to ask what I thought a legitimate and honest question. If you want to deal with it with a snide and dismissive remark pointing out that I haven't played NGLA, that's your prerogative.  But note: from your description, the college golfer had a 6 iron left the first time; but if after moving back fifty yards he hit his drive into the fairway, he'd be left with 267 yards, uphill, into the prevailing wind.

Peter 

[Steve Kline]

If you don't think college players are capable of hitting their 6 iron 210 yards you haven't played with one lately. These kids are ridiculously long with every club in the bag. The last college level tournament I played in (SE Amateur about three years ago at the age of 32) I felt like I could hit it as far as the average woman next to those kids. Heck - even in the Mid-Am four years ago I think I was the shortest distance player I saw and my average drive is 270 and a 6 iron goes 170. For some reason the technology has affected my game as I hit it virtually the same distance I did in college 15 years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I've been reading your posts for several years now. It was from YOU that I first learned about the challenge of keeping the great old courses relevant in the face of modern technology.  It was from YOU that I learned that, while moving tees back could restore relevance to the original landing zone/driving zone for today's top golfers, doing so would not change the fact that today's top golfers would still be hitting their second/approach shots in with much shorter clubs than originally intended. 

Nothing I've posted on THIS thread changes any of that.

You're missing the critical issue, no one can duplicate approaches given modern technology, but, you can improve them in a restorative context by adding length at the tee.

The choice is simple, don't challenge the golfer on the tee shot and approach, or do as intended, and challenge them on the tee shot and approach.

On this thread you seem to have a different perspective.

Not at all, you just don't grasp the situation because you're not familiar with the hole

hat's fine --

I see that you're proud and excited about your insight re the 18th at NGLA.
But I tried to ask what I thought a legitimate and honest question.
If you want to deal with it with a snide and dismissive remark pointing out that I haven't played NGLA, that's your prerogative. 

There was a reason for that.
You implied that I hadn't done my due diligence and hadn't thought this out.

But note: from your description, the college golfer had a 6 iron left the first time; but if after moving back fifty yards he hit his drive into the fairway, he'd be left with 267 yards, uphill, into the prevailing wind.

So ?
If you were familiar with the lay of the land you'd understand the shot one faces from 267, and it isn't a feathered six iron.

Peter 

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you don't think college players are capable of hitting their 6 iron 210 yards you haven't played with one lately.

You must not be reading my posts carefully enough.

But, hitting a normal 210 yard six iron, uphill from an uphill lie, into the prevailing wind, would leave him 57 to 100 yards short of the green

These kids are ridiculously long with every club in the bag. The last college level tournament I played in (SE Amateur about three years ago at the age of 32) I felt like I could hit it as far as the average woman next to those kids. Heck - even in the Mid-Am four years ago I think I was the shortest distance player I saw and my average drive is 270 and a 6 iron goes 170. For some reason the technology has affected my game as I hit it virtually the same distance I did in college 15 years ago.

I know how long they are, I play with them casually and in events, that's why I suggested moving the tee back 50 yards on # 18