[Bill_Coggins]

Chip, et al...

I have to agree with your concept and disagree with Mark and and Rich.

Last time out, I tried to play strategy on the first three holes... couldn't hit an iron to save my life.  After that I just pulled out the driver and plunked it 300-320.  "Perfect" every time.  Good thing I didn't need to think about the holes.  This is the way I played as a kid.  Driver and half-wedge all day long.

I have come across holes that are better played with some thought.  Full driver leaves you right in front, but 30 feet below the green, a 3 iron leaves you with a 9 in, and level shot.  I like them much more than the driver/wedge holes.

Because one CAN hit it long with accuracy, shouldn't mean that is the best way to play the hole.  This should be a thinking man's game, not a strong man's game.

[ChipOat]

Rich Goodale

At the risk of sounding like a nag, it appears you're entirely comfortable with a hole that is designed such that the long straight hitter ALSO gets a better angle of attack than our poor guy who flushes it off the tee about the same distance as you bunt your 1 iron.  I have chosen to coin this condition "design advantage for the longer hitter" with the full realization that about a zillion other people have already called it the same thing before I got sucked into this thread.  I'm inferring from your earlier posts that you believe the guy who knocked it over the corner of the trouble has successfully played a "riskier" shot and is, therefore, entitled to the fruits of his labors.

This may be the source of our difference as I don't believe the longer hitter has (necessarily) executed a relatively more difficult shot - he's hit the same shot longer than Mr. Cashmere Insert because he can!  (The same reason a dog licks.....).  Now, if landing areas are more narrow further out yadda yadda yadda then your point is well taken.  However, none of the examples I've cited make it more difficult for Old Thunder Buns to find his ball.  In fact, the landing area is often wider!

Erego, I dissent.

GeoffreyC

Thanks for putting up that graphic!

Although I'm no practicing architect, it seems to me that a "reversed #17 doesn't entirely "take away the incentive", as you suggested, to go left so much as it reduces the obvious benefit of doing so.  That's it!  That's what I like!!  That's one of the 2 points I was trying to make on my first post!!!

Bill Coggins

Thanks for your support.  Every piece of ground probably offers the opportunity for at least one "in your face" hole that requires a heroic shot or two where the strong man has the clear edge.  Most of those holes, though, are pretty much straight-away where the angle of attack is the same for all after the tee shot.  Great par 4 finishing holes usually fit this description, I think.

Let's keep building those holes, too.  As you (and I) say, though, limit Mr. Big to his fair advantage and make him think a little on the other holes.

Cheers

[SPDB]

Chip,

I was thinking of your musings on Merion last night and it occurred to me that you are eminently correct. It has always struck me that in designing the course, Wilson really laid out the holes where playing close to the hazards really set up the best angles or positions from which to play your next shot. Much in the same way that you cite FI #14, the same could be said about a handful of holes at Merion. This was Wilson's main substitute for the room and length he lacked. I do think some of the aggressive mowing for the 81 open took away some of these routes. Doak noted this in the Confidential Guide. The one example I'm thinking of is on 14 where aiming for the right bunker would have provided the best line into the hole (and the shorter hitter option), but with the fairway narrowed, that bunker rarely comes into play.

Bill Spellman -
I was thinking about what you said - taking a personal inventory of your game when negotiating drives where you need to bite off the hazard. This has occurred to me at the 6th @ Pine Valley. I can't tell you the thoughts that go through my head standing on the tee - "maybe i'll play short, but I really didn't hit that two iron well on 5," or "maybe i'll go for it, because i really nailed that drive on 4, and right in the correct spot." Nor do I think this is coincidental.

We think about strategy as being something absolute (longer, shorter routes), rather than thinking about it on a relative basis focusing on the player and his round up to the point where he is forced to make up his mind.

[Rich_Goodale]

Chip

If I didn't mention the "narrowing" concept, I was remiss.  I'm not advocating the "250-yard carry into an open field or wimp out 45 degrees right or left" school of architecture.  The risk I am thinking about in the risk/reward calculation involves the requirement for accuracy too.  Think of the 14th at Dornoch.  There is a channel to the left that can take you to within 120 yards of the green if you hit it hard and on the button and get the right bounces off hte humps in the fairway.  If you miss a few degrees right, however, you are up againt the bank at 280 from the tee, and if you miss it a couple of degrees left you land in the soft dunesland and your ball goes nowhere.  Alternatively you can hit your 250-260 yard shot to the middle of the fiarway and have one of the most challenging and fascinating shots in all of golfdom.

Actually, the 120 yard shot ain't easy either......

[Dan Kelly]

Not that anyone needs my view on this, but here it is:

Chipoat, who admires "subtle strategic holes that require precision and thought regardless of wind and the players' length," and Bill Coggins, who says that golf should be "a thinking man's game, not a strong man's game," have said my mouthful for me.

Which is not to say that ALL holes should fail to reward accurate length. Some should. But they don't ALL need to. They don't even MOSTLY need to. I think Chipoat is right that some holes should, in fact, reward the shorter tee ball, provided it's properly placed.

Call me a short hitter (I'm not, really), but I personally find the greatest pleasure in holes requiring deft touch and thoughtful placement from tee to green. I know that driver/3-wood par-4s are part of the game, and always should be (that's what the pro game is missing), but the courses that have one long par-4 after another and a bunch of 200-yard par-3s (US Open-style courses) just aren't much fun, if you ask me.

[Rich_Goodale]

Dan

I'm all for everything that you and Chip and Bill are for.  Don't quite know how I managed to put myself in the hole of chief advocate of the 800-pound gorillas out there.

In can imagine the holes Chip talks about, and have played many of them.  All I'm really trying to say is that if one of these holes has a "position A" which is 230 yards to the left and an inferior  "position B" which is 270 yards to the left, can't the strong player just hit his 2-iron or whatever to position A, and still be better off than the weaker player because he will be using less club to get to the green from that place?  If this is the case, I think this sort of hole is weaker and less interesting than a similar hole where "position B" was more desirable but very risky to get to.  Am I still missing the subtleties of the counter-argument?

Cheers

Rich

[Jeff_McDowell]

GeoffreyC,

That's what I was thinking. As I was typing the post, I realized that this change would essentially make the hole a dogleg left instead of right.

[Dan Kelly]

Rich -- I'm finally seeing what you're saying: that even on the holes Chip and the rest of us are endorsing, the long hitter will still have an advantage. Fine. Correct. Nothing we can do about that.

(The phrase "bunt 1-iron" must've thrown me off the trail. I've hit some pretty nice 1-irons, but I sure can't "bunt" them out there 230.)

My counter-argument (my argument for SOME holes where Position A is shorter off the tee than Position B) is this: It's good to have some holes where brains may prevail over brawn. And I think we've all seen abundant evidence that a lot of 800-pound gorillas will NEVER figure out that shorter can be better.

Which is not to argue that the type of hole you outline (where Position A is long and risky) is a bad idea. Of course it's not. It's a good idea. But I don't think it's the only good idea.

(As to how you got into "the hole of chief advocate of the 800-pound gorillas out there"? I don't know -- but they make some pretty big holes. Watch your step!)

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Yes you are missing some of the subtleties of the other argument.

You know from experience as well as I do that a golfer who can hit the ball 270yds may do so even if he knows that shot might be risky and even if he knows his next shot might be riskier than hitting a drive 230yds with a next shot from a greater distance that might be LESS risky!

Why is that? Because the additional 40yds is very alluring! Face it, hitting the ball far is one of the more alluring elements in golf and the way various golfers look at the risk/reward factors of options varies as much as their physical capabilities! The way golfers look at various options and combinations of them is anything but consistent! There is nothing black or white about all this!

This is the tortoise and hare analogy in effect. The clever designer understands this as well as we do and mostly much better! There is something very sublime about this delicate balancing of risk/reward factors across the spectrums of options as single shots or combinations of them! It all boils down to a designer pitting brawn against brains and the balancing of risk/reward factors of options he provides to do so.

The designer knows a few things for sure. 1/ The Hare can do anything the tortoise can (if he uses his head) but that the tortoiese cannot do anything the hare can (hit it as far). This is a lot of what Chip Oat is saying, I think!

Everything sort of boils down to the way various golfers weigh capability against temptation. It's sort of like what Oscar Wilde liked to say: "I can resist anything except temptation!"

Clever designer understand this well!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom Dan and Chip

I think we are agreeing on all of this.  As to why people seem to be on my case these days, it is NOT becuase I am paranoid!  No, it is a curious phenomenon that while I'm trying to be all sweetness and light, others are taking up my cudgel and using it on me.  What sad iorny......and, OUCG......

I still think Hunter's quote is fantastic.  It tells us that great golf hole continuously teach us something about themselves and our games--if we are willing to learn.  Not bad for an old dead guy.....

PS--my paranoia is NOT increaseddue to the fact that this is the 3rd time I've tried to post this post.  Is it a case of 2 Doyens opposing each other, like powerful magnets?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark and Chipoat,

First, great thread and discussion.  The kind I, at least, look for on this site.  As someone noted on the "prevailing wind" thread, many here do not appear to feel comfortable enough to discuss specific holes or concepts, but get into a pissing contest (I imagine the prevailing wind knowledge WOULD come in handy there) about specific architects, etc.  

Chip (if I may call you that)

I believe Mr. Doak in anatomy of a golf course states your position.  Pete Dye agrees with you, too.  He and I discussed this at length one morning, and (as of 1995) he said he had started bunkering "inside"-"inside" to counteract the good players distance and control, leaving the open route for the shorter hitter.

I call the inside-outside bunkering shown in the photo at the top of the thread the "position paradox" bunkering, where the golfer really, really (insert your own number of really's here) wants to/needs to carry the bunker off the tee to complete the hole successfully.  While I think it is the purest form of strategy, I agree that it does give the long hitter too much of an advantage.  As you point out, he already has an advantage.  And when the average golfer asks "what if I can't carry the bunker?" I have never found the answer "You're screwed" to sit well to the inquirer.

This is the probably reason for the "demise of the carry bunker" in modern architecture relative to its use in the golden age.  We have generally moved to the "inside"-"inside" bunkering to provide a "golfers choice" hole, with two equally valid options, based on the strengths of the player's game.  

There are a few other factors to consider.....I agree with what Tom Doak said here once about "good players being too conservative, and average players being too aggressive" and think it factors into the design equation. The odd part is that Paul Pro would more likely than not play a conservative tee shot safely wide of the bunker he could carry with all but his worst shot, and Andy ametuer would likely attempt an unlikely carry!  However, a few of these per round are lots of fun for Andy.

The approach shot is influenced by more than the bunker position.  As one pro told me, "Average golfers look at the surrounding hazards, pros look at the green contours in planning approach shots." Facing major upslope of the green to one side or the other is a bigger factor to better players.

If, in the first photo, the basic slope of the green drains to the fairway approach, that helps stop the shot.  If it drains towards the bunker, the golfer coming over the bunker gets some backstop help, and if capable, would club up about half a club and hit for more backspin to take the bunker out of play.  The golfer coming from the left has an opening, and perhaps needs to use it, because he has less back to front slope to help his shot. He can hit with more spin to stop the shot, or with a soft spin below the hole, using the front of the green - not an option when coming from the right - leaving a better chance for an uphill putt.

The pro would also look at any contour "spikes" coming in from the side of the green that may deflect a good shot away.  A spike on the left would probably send him right off the tee, one right, would send him left.

Again, the architect has the choice of "loading up" all these factors to favor the carry, load them up in favor of playing conservatively, or mix and match them to get what Jeremy Glenn once referred to as "random strategy".

I think the Leven hole is best reserved for downwind situations, as it makes the tee shot carry more tempting, and the frontal opening perhaps more necessary to stop the shot, as downwinds take spin off the ball.  The inside-inside is great, IMHO, for long 4's into the wind, its a great test for the good player, or it forces him into an even longer - or perhaps his only - long iron shot of the round.  Mr. short guy probably lays up in front and avoids the hazards with perhaps a half decent chance of halving the hole.

Of course, the land also dictates which is used, and in a general sense, there is no reason both couldn't and shouldn't exist, perhaps even on the same golf course.  

[Bill_Spellman]

SPDB

Well designed courses require a particular " method of play" that is always flexible. I believe that the architect designs in much the same way. In other words, the architect say that a particular approach will yield the OPPORTUNITY for success, given the remainder of shots be properly excecuted. If you err with one of your shots, then depending on the mistake, the consequences could be difficult to overcome, save the miraculous recovery or putt.  

When approaching a round of golf, doesn't it make sense to have a plan of attack for the day? Just as in battle, plans are sometimes changed and dictaded by the enemy( in this case the course) or the way that you feel, maybe the wind direction is uncomfortable or maybe you put on the wrong jockey shorts. Seriously, anything can cause you to be uncomfortable with the shot required. Now the key is finding a club and swing that is comfortable. Gary Palyer won the '62 PGA at Aronomink using a 4 wood from the tee because he could drive it past the right fairway bunkers, but not reach the left side bunkers. At that time I believe Aronomink was a 7000 yard par 70, and at that time, that was very long. His strategy worked, but I wonder if he deviated from it due to unforseen circumstances.

The great courses will do that-require a strategy going in, but ask you to make adjustments as you go along.

[Rich_Goodale]

Jeff

You say:

"And when the average golfer asks "what if I can't carry the bunker?" I have never found the answer "You're screwed" to sit well to the inquirer."

Because it does not "sit well" does not mean it is an invalid answer.  That's why good golf holes accommodate players of varying ability and their alternative strategies.

To me, at least, "You're/I'm Screwed" is a very, very valid statment in sports.  It is what:

--The manager says to a weak batter who has to face Pedro Martinez at the peak of his form

--You or I would feel trying to return a serve from Pete Sampras (or even Venus Williams

--John Stockton says when he finds himself in the paint with Shaq

One of the great beauties of golf is that EVEN WHEN WE ARE SCREWED, WE CAN STILL FIND A WAY TO PLAY THE HOLE!!!!

Surely, successful and insightful architects like yourself and Pete Dye understand this very, very (insert your favourite number of "very"s) well.......

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

Interesting about your "inside"-"inside" remark and strategy (and Dye's too). I assume what you mean by that is bunkering the  inside on the tee shot and the same side by the green.

Donald Ross, I think, wrote that in his opinion that was not a good idea! He said it "loaded up one side" unnecessarily and likely made strategy a bit too obvious or maybe what some call dictating play. Something like that seems to create a bit of "reverse dogleg" effect where the better play might be to the outside of the dogleg for all.

We have a hole like that at Gulph Mills that has moved over the years from a dogleg left to a slight dogleg right now. The original hole had an enormous berm (7ft high) to carry on the inside of the left dogleg. Some committee person put his own bunker on the outside of the left dogleg (on the right side) in the 1930s obviously to catch the majority of the tee shots on the outside steering well away from the berm on the inside. In 1965 RTJ turned the hole into a slight dogleg right, left the committee add-on bunker on the right, took out the enormous berm and put two bunkers on the outside where the berm had been.

But the hole has always been beautifully bunkered up by the green on the right side! So now the hole may be tweaked to more of a dogleg right than in the last 35 years and Gil wants to move that bunker on the right upfield about ten yards and remove the RTJ bunkering that is on the left (outside of the now right dogleg).

I say just take the right side committee add-on bunker out and basically have no bunkering at all on the tee shot. I say even widen the fairway through where the old committee bunker is now after its removal.

Golfers will stand on the tee and see that the shortest tee shot is up the right side and is completely unencumbered so that should be the way most unthinking golfers go--basically the shortest distance. BUT, the bunkering on the right up by the green will be very hard to effectively carry from the rightside and the best play will actually be to the outside of the dogleg on the left (to get in position to avoid the right greenside bunkering)--making the best way to play the hole a "reverse dogleg"! The play up the left side is effective longer anyway made more so be a rise accross the fairway in the LZ.

So to me this is better and very early Rossian too. Basically the hole gives you no indication what to do on the tee shot and most golfers will just take the shortest route up the right and realize that have just put themselves in trouble for their approach!!

I really like this because it is so early Ross--which just suckered the golfer into a false sense of security with a great big wide unencumbered fairway. All the challenge is on the second shot by that right fairway bunker! This is more evidence of Ross being one of the best and certainly subtlest "approach shot architects"!

And I really like this because the entire strategy of the hole revolves around only one bunker and the one up to the right of the green and very effectively so! This forces a player to really pay attention and think ahead to the second shot only when on the tee because the tee shot appears to have no meaning at all!!

How many players will think ahead to the second shot with no strategic indication at all on the tee shot? I submit there are numerous members who may never figure it out! They will be making more bogies with two reasonable shots than they can ever understand!

I love stuff like that!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Don't get on Jeff Brauer for suggesting it's not a good idea to say "You're screwed!"

There was a time, not that long ago, Jeff was terrorized at a hockey game by an irate 800lb gorrilla golfer of one of his courses, and saying to the gorrilla "you're screwed" didn't seem real appropriate at the time.

Plus Jeff is bigger than you are and if it's not appropriate for him to suggest "you're screwed" it shouldn't be for you either, unless you want to get pounded by 800lbs gorillas and Jeff Brauer too!

I don't want you to take this personally now and go getting parnoid on me!

Oh, by the way, I see you're now a Doyen! Congratulations! But you're just a little bitty Doyen in short pants compared to a wise old Doyen like me. And remember I'm so far ahead of you it won't be likely you'll ever see my taillights! Of course that doesn't apply on the golf course!

[Dan Kelly]

Let me add a wrinkle.

Anyone know of any holes where Position A is not only considerably shorter off the tee than Position B, but is also considerably riskier to reach?

What do you think of that combo, Doyen Paranoid ... um, Goodale?

I can think of only one, off the top of my head, and it's a GREAT hole. It has NO history, but a very impressive pedigree.

Take a look at it. It's Hole No. 1 on Jeremy Glenn's Reverse Old Course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly Moran's 6th hole at Hawk Pointe is a cool wrinkle on what we're talking about.  It's about 330 yards, and just this side of undriveable for almost anyone.

The green is similar to the 16th at North Berwick, except it's not set on a diagonal.  Think a sideways Biarritz, on steroids.  

You drive slightly uphill to a flat landing spot about 220 yards from the tee, with bunkers on the left side of the fairway and a wooded area on the right.  This spot is ideal, though not apparent.  It also happens to be the toughest place to hit.

Beyond the top of the hill the fairway widens considerably, and sweeps downhill to the green.  Almost everyone loads up off the tee, and with the downsloping fairway, gets within 75 yards of the green.  

What do they find?  A half or 3/4 shot, from a downhill, sidehill lie, to a pin location almost always on the very shallow, steeply uphill left or right quadrants of the green.  At that point, "you're screwed".  Incidentally, the left and right quadrants are fronted by deep bunkers, and although you can play one up the middle, it goes against impulse from that short distance.  And, if you do, you are left with a putt that you'll three-jack at least half the time.

You sit there and look backwards....back to the top of the hill, wishing you were a full iron shot from a flat lie because you now know that there is no other way to fly the ball to the hole locations and stop it.  

Now, we're talking!

[Rich_Goodale]

Hey guys, this is good stuff!  I think a Goodale, Paul, Cirba, Kelly 4-some could be in order some day...

And, TEP, you are very, very (insert the proper number of "verys" here) close to 500 posts.  My mind boggles to see what sort of title Ran will bestow on you on that most solemn day......

Please try to remember us little people......even those of us who are mini-doyens......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich and TEPaul,

I said that the Rossian, or general Golden Age charm is probably the strongest strategy.  However, there are reasons not to use it all the time.  One is that each hole should be different in concept.  Another is to favor certain types of play throughout the round.

Its similar to when Bush and Gore debated in the election, for example.  I don't have the transcripts, or anything, but I guarantee you both said "It's good for America" at some point. What they meant was "It's (insert as many reallys as you want here) good for my biggest donors.  In golf architecture, and in politics, there are no absolutes, just winners and losers for funding, power etc.

The "inside - Outside" hazards of the Leven hole are really (insert your.....oh, never mind) good for the long player.  Should the designer choose, he may favor that on a few holes, but should also find ways to favor the players who rely on accuracy and skillful recovery on other holes.  I side with Chipoats, in that of 18 holes, I would favor length on only 3-5, not an even 6-6-6 split, figuring that length was, in many ways, its own reward in the form of shorter shots, and an implied greater accuracy by virtue of using a shorter iron.

Perhaps I was generalizing a bit too much about all us architects taking out carry bunkers, but that's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. And, as far as the You're Screwed remark, (1 - I am sure there are plenty of players out there mentally saying I screwed them!  and 2) - Just trying to inject some humor and entertainment in the discussion.  Perhaps I am the only one who thinks the sound of that is funny, but imagine yourself at a grand opening, watching your owner thrash about on one of his brand new holes.  "Why can't I play this hole, Jeff? At least I have my answer ready!

But as I mentally flesh out a hole, I have got to consider the various constituencies, and there are sure a lot more average players than good ones showing up a your course on any given day.  Choosing the multiple options that allow each a way to play the hole is a must.  Playing a long iron over bunkers to a green is just a tough, tough shot for most.

I always have believed that if the golfer makes that decision, rather than have the architect dictate it, he finds he is clever.  If the architect does dictate, well then he just screwed the golfer. Thinking back to the MacKenzie Lido hole, I wonder how many people then - or now - would actally stand on a tee and pick a route guaranteeing they couldn't get home in par figures?  I think most people hit the tee shot, and if anywhere in the fairway, think they deserve a shot at the green.  Even the hackers! What's the phrase - "I didn't come out here to lay up"
 
Perhaps the question is best answered by going back to Mark's original Bobby Jones quote ....."there are two ways of WIDENING the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one". That is the view of a very good player.

The question is, do we want to widen the gap on all holes, or just make tee shots or equal length, but different sides of the fairway "equal but different" in the type of shot required to attain the green?  If you say, let players with all kinds of different shot pattern a chance to get to the green, you design one way.  If you want to reward a particular type of tee shot, ie long, you design another.

there have been supporters of both positions on this thread.  I would support either in particular circumstances, and both on the same course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Rememeber now, I have only been to Gulph Mills once.  I am guessing your description is either 11 or 13?  Of course, last time I guessed 3, and you were talking about 5.

Your 11th, which has the zig-zag fairway Ross liked, but which I think was renovated was one of my favorites.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I frankly enjoy all these strategic examples. I love Chip's idea about not always rewarding length and not always rewarding the center of the fairway when not flirting with a hazard. But also enjoy Mark Fine's and Rich's more orthodox stratagies, as well as the Bauer/Dye and Paul/Ross examples and many others. The point is they are all valid, but following anyone or even two of these recipes and the resulting designs would become more formumatic then they need be. In my mind variety is the key and the more you mix and match these strategies, the more interesting and less predicatable the design will be. Also nearly all these strategies have included some kind of hazard, I think one of the best ways to make the long hitter think (or throw him off a bit) is by way of severe, or not so severe, contours or undulations -- which may not be blatently visable or obvious when contemplating a shot. I also believe if you have an interesting property to work that the land might simply suggest many of these differing strategies -- in other words by randomly placing bunkers on a given hole where the ground suggests they might look natural, that one of these strategies may reveal itself.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

You've got both a good memory and good taste! The hole I mentioned is #13 and #11 is a Perry Maxwell's 1930s redesign from a 229yd uphill par 3 to a 325yds par 4!

Tom MacW:

I hear you on not ever getting formulaic! Basically, I believe you just have to look at any hole and just see what it can give you strategically and make the design really play into that.

On hole #13, that I talked about, I see that as a sort of a unique opportunity to do one of the neatest things a hole can do, and that is to have a single feature, in this case an apparently insignificant little greenside bunker radiate really effective strategy all the way back to the tee all by itself!! If done correctly it can to that all by itself!!

On the tee shot there would then seem to be no strategy at all. But there is! And it all revolves around that one bunker at greenside right! This forces golfers to look past the tee shot for strategic indication! It forces them to realize they should plan shots when no planning seems necessary on the first shot!

How can you get better than that? As Behr said: it forces the golfer to plan not for an immediate liability but for some future liability! You can't get better than that! In a nutshell that's what strategy is all about! #13 could become a great wakeup call to what strategy is really all about!

[ChipOat]

To All

You guys have put some great stuff up in the last 12 hours and I have meetings all day.  Please don't abandon this thread over the weekend as I still want to play.

SPDB

1) I'll put up a post re: #8 at Rockaway - see that thread.

2) You hit 2 iron on the 5th at Pine Valley??

Rich Goodale

Re: that 4 ball you suggested a few posts back.  No way you guys play that round in less than 6 hours unless you confine all golf architecture talk to the bar and the lunch/dinner table!

Cheers

[Rich_Goodale]

Chip

Get on out there and keep this economy moving!  We'll keep the thread going for you.

As for that "dream team" 4-ball, I can vouch for the speed of Paul and Cirba and myself.  Tom is the only one of us who talks at all about GCA while on the course, but he does so in Trevino fashion, in the middle of his swing so that it does not at all hold up play.  In fact, it is quite a special pleasure to see him walk up to a ball and soon later notice that somewhere in between "line of charm....." and "maintenance meld....." he has actually stuck his 6-iron to 3 feet.  If he is your partner, of course.  Mike and I promise not to bore you in the bar for more than an hour with the story about how we both drove to within a few yards of Hogan's marker on the 18th at Merion and then both hit OUR 1-irons onto the green....  As for Dan Kelly, I don't know, but as he's from Minnesota, where the golfing season is between Independence Day and Labor Day, I'm sure he'll do anything we want him to do if we can just get him a game.....

Cheers

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich,

And, of course we won't tell them that we were playing from the NEW, 490 yard tee on 18 at Merion either...not from 458 like that wussy Bantam Ben.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()