[Matt_Ward]

Geeze Adam -- my idea on lessening the rough element at WF must have struck a cord with you.

Like minds can think alike.

[Matt_Ward]

VK:

My real issue with WF/W is when #9 and #16 are converted to par-4 holes -- the par-5 remaining one are quite ordinary. Before you jump in and say, well -- what about the 12th? The 12th was so weak that they had to extend it to 630 yards just to get more length nto the equation. I liked the former one because getting home in two could happen. In neither situation with the 5th and 12th -- do the par-5's really add much to the luster when playing the West. If anything -- the collective par-4' and par-3 holes at the West are the storyline. If the West had at least one stellar par-5 the collective nature fo the course would be even greater because of it.

[V. Kmetz]

Matt,

I agree, if we are thinking about the traditional ideas of par.  I still however, always look at a hole as a solution of "4" and a course of 18 holes a test of level 4s (or 72).  In that model, the so-called Par 3s take care of the "weakness" of all four Members' Par 5s.

Does it change the essence of what you are saying?  No, WFW (and East's) absence of a superb three shot hole is notable.  12W and 4E comes closest and you're dead on by saying they had to manufacture the 12W continued "closeness" with more distance.

Lastly, we have to get away from - and this was somethign of the point of my original post - of thinking of the WF courses as measured by the Opens, the Amateurs and the elite players.  When we consider average players and total architectural interest and enjoyment, these Par 5s strengthen considerably.

cheers

vk

[Matt_Ward]

VK:

Have you or anyone else thought of what a composite WF would be ?

I don't see it happening but given your knowledge of the place -- which is so refreshing -- because WF, as a whole, gets so little love and attention when compared to other layout in the NYC metro area.

I don't doubt your last comment -- the average Joe and Jane have a tough enough time just putting the tee in the ground.

My point was that when held to the highest standard of design quality -- the par-5 side at WF/W is just so-so at best -- yes, your idea of playing holes at "level 4s" would apply but the really great golf courses have at least one true par-5 that really adds something to the table. WF/W does so inspite of that limitation.

[George Pazin]

Many thanks, vk.

[V. Kmetz]

Matt,

I'm trying to find a thread we particpated in last autumn/summer about a true composite course.  At that time, the best I could come up with was something that still had us going from 13W green to 17E tee, I seemed to remember that got shut down by posters as too awkward/long a walk.

Also, on the admittted plainess of the Par 5s...if we think of the Par 5s in the everyman model, then I think WF holds up just fine.  We're forgetting the severity of the greens on all eight Par 5s on the property and how much fun and playing interest they hold for an everyman player, no matter what score he is going for.

When we are considering elite players and national championships, I would ask if there is a Par 5 in any major championship rota that averages more than 5?  I can't think of one, here or in GB/europe. We would have to make a three shot hole about 700 yards and well-hazarded to make the elites fight for a card par, so it seems kind of silly to hold a three shot hole to universal standard, though again, I am not contesting the essential agreement - that WF's three shotters are its weakest link.

If 5 or 16 had a pond or a gigantic cross bunker at 290, it would sexy up and change this value, but for me and my about -to-enter double digit HCP, all is fine as is. 

cheers

vk

[Ash Towe]

Adam,

Thanks for your comments re returning fairways to their normal width.

Hope our paths cross again.

[Matt_Ward]

VK:

The issue for WF/W is that judgement of the course is not made solely by the "everyman model." The holes are just inferior to what one plays throughout the round. You mistated my original comment -- I don't wish WF/W to have a must three-shot hole but it does need something of a risk / reward par-5 hole that goes far beyond the lame 5th hole. If you wish for a superb three-shot hole look at the 18th at The Champ at PGA National. Just a fine hole.

WF/W has great par-3 and par-4 holes -- blessed with those demanding pear-shaped greens with all their delicious contours.

I am reminded of what was said about Nicklaus -- believe it was by Trevino. Said the Bear was blessed by The Almighty to have all elements of the golf game -- save for the wedge. For WF/W it has it all save for the par-5 dimension.

Unfortunately, so much of the talk about WF is its demands -- glad to see from your posts that you have artfully debunked that.

[V. Kmetz]

Matt,

Understood, I acknowledge what your saying.

cheers

vk

[Jim Nugent]

When we are considering elite players and national championships, I would ask if there is a Par 5 in any major championship rota that averages more than 5?

POI: pretty sure #14 at Pebble last year averaged over 5.4 in the Open.  At the time I wondered if it was the hardest par 5 ever in modern majors.  #18 also averaged over 5, IIRC. 

[V. Kmetz]

That sounds right to me too, I hadn't thought of PB.

I love both of those holes, but even so, look what it takes to produce those numbers on those holes...on 14, a green that is essentially a tiny shaved pyramid, tilted to the right.  Fun to watch the various humiliations, but made artifically MORE hard by an Open prep. And #18 only has the Pacific Ocean involved in two shots, perhaps three if the drive goes in the drink.

Both Holes make one miss potentially a double 7 or higher...the incidence of the big numbers.

Still, even with those qualifiers, I am interested to know if there's other regularly over par Par 5s in elite playings of the classic championship courses.  My guess is that Par 5s, in any large sample of such a group, play at about 4.75-4.85.

cheers

vk

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()