[Patrick_Mucci]

JJ,
 
Thanks.
 
Mark Chaplin,
 
So we should cease discussing any golf course where we've been a guest ?  ?  ?
 
We shouldn't comment on our likes and dislikes, nor offer suggestions or raise points for discussion.
 
If that's your view, close down this site.
 
If it wasn't for my comments regarding the back tier on # 11 at NGLA, it might still be rough.
 
And, if it wasn't for my comments regarding my theory on CBM crafting # 13 at NGLA to play as # 7 and # 11 at TOC play, the new tee on # 13 wouldn't have been used in the Walker Cup and subsequently.
 
What you don't understand is:  without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
 
Other clubs have implemented suggestions that I've made over the years.
 
Perhaps your views on golf courses and architecture aren't well thought of, mine are.

[Mark_Fine]

I agree with Pat, we have to be able to be critical of golf architecture (on a site like this).  It is a forum to create debate.  Having said that, I do disagree with Pat about shortening the 14th hole at PV.  He is falling into the trap that many golfers do in that he might be looking at architecture from the perspective of only his own game (despite saying he is worried about other golfers).  If I am not mistaken, #14 can play a lot shorter than 187 “IF YOU PLAY THE TEES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR GAME”.  As I said in my post, the one player in my group hit a little knock down 6I from 220+ yards to 10 feet and could have hit 7I if he wanted to.  Pine Valley was designed as a "penal" golf course.  The hole is fine from further back as long as you don’t lose sight of the water (and aesthetically I personally don't like staircased tee boxes). 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,
 
Where I disagree with you is in the relationship between the length of the hole and the consequences for  failure to hit the green.
 
# 14 is almost the ultimate in pass/fail architecture.
 
For every golfer who hit it 5 feet on # 14, I can cite 20 who missed the green.
 
The margin for error is amongst the slimmest in golf.
 
If you and others think the hole is at a reasonable distance at 187, ask yourselves this question.
 
If there wasn't a drop area, what would you think ?
 
As to my game, I've played PV from 1964 to current date, so there's a reasonable spectrum of how the hole integrates with a plus handicap to when I couldn't break 100 on a regular golf course.

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

Would the length of the hole be such a problem if you bit it longer and straighter?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Sounds like you want to make the hole more "fair"     Pine Valley's design had little to do with making the game fair.  It was designed as a penal test of golf and NOT designed for the average golfer.  You of all people who played there so much should know this. 


By the way, stand on the 16th tee at Cypress Point with a stiff wind in your face and tell me which shot you would prefer to have?  Are you going to argue for a shorter tee there as well?  They are both tough holes - deal with them 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Mark Fine,
 
Where I disagree with you is in the relationship between the length of the hole and the consequences for  failure to hit the green.
 
# 14 is almost the ultimate in pass/fail architecture.
 
For every golfer who hit it 5 feet on # 14, I can cite 20 who missed the green.
 
The margin for error is amongst the slimmest in golf.
 
If you and others think the hole is at a reasonable distance at 187, ask yourselves this question.
 
If there wasn't a drop area, what would you think ?
 
As to my game, I've played PV from 1964 to current date, so there's a reasonable spectrum of how the hole integrates with a plus handicap to when I couldn't break 100 on a regular golf course.
 
 
1964  How old are you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Would the length of the hole be such a problem if you bit it longer and straighter?


No.

I'm a fairly straight striker of the ball, but I could always use more distance.


Would you answer the question above ?

How would you feel if # 17 at TPC Sawgrass played at 200+ ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Sounds like you want to make the hole more "fair"     


Not at all.

Prudent, not "fair"

I notice that you avoided answering the drop zone question.
Why is that ?


Pine Valley's design had little to do with making the game fair. 


Neither does my premise.


It was designed as a penal test of golf and NOT designed for the average golfer.  You of all people who played there so much should know this. 


I do, but this isn't about "fairness", so, I'll ask you again, "If there was NO drop area, do you still think the hole should play at 187 and 220 ?

By the way, stand on the 16th tee at Cypress Point with a stiff wind in your face and tell me which shot you would prefer to have? 




There's NO comparison, # 16 at CPC has a generous bail out area to the left, a wide fairway where the golfer can play safe.

No such luxury exists at # 14 at PV, it's pure pass/fail with water just about everywhere.

On my last play on # 16 I hit driver on the green and missed my birdie putt


Are you going to argue for a shorter tee there as well? 


No, because with the generous bail out fairway on # 16 at CPC you don't need one.


They are both tough holes - deal with them 


I do, and enjoy the challenge, to a degree.

When you have water and/or dense woods guarding a relatively small target, 187 and 220 become excessive distances, and without a drop area, a concession to the unreasonable challenge presented, golfers

1. wouldn't finish the hole
2. Have to send in for more ammo
3. Would create 6 hour rounds.

So ask yourself, if a par 3 creates all of the above, is it too long ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I can't think of any hole (#14 at Pine Valley included) where I ever thought about the drop area??  It never enters my mind.  I presume the drop on #14 is down on the short tee 100 yards or so from the green?  I am not sure why it matters? 

PV was designed as penal.  I actually think the hole is easier than for example #6 at East Lake which is an island green of well over 200 yards completely exposed to the wind!  Bobby Jones was once asked how he played the hole and he said, "With an old ball"!

Maybe the same tactic should be taken on #14 at PV! 

[BCrosby]

When Bob Jones played the 6th at East Lake it was more like 150 yards downhill.


A testing hole, but nothing like the 215 yard hole today created by a new 'Tour Championship' tee installed a few years ago.


Bob 

[Mark_Fine]

Bob,
You are correct.  My main point was that it is still a more intimidating hole at 215 yards than #14 at PV at a similar yardage. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,


Is RTJ the typical golfer who plays PV ?


Is his game the benchmark we should use when analyzing courses/holes/features ?


If you didn't have a drop area rounds would take 6 hours or longer

[JESII]

Not match play rounds Pat...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim, so you don't post your match play scores for handicap purposes ?  ?  ?



Not match play rounds Pat...

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
There are lots of holes at courses all over that need drop areas.  So what!   You can only post a max score for stroke play handicaps so pick up when you hit that number and move on.   Where is the drop area on #18 if you lose your ball because you can't make the 260 yard carry from the back tee?  I don't really want to debate this too but if you can't handle #14 from the back you shouldn't be playing those tees.  With no wind it is really only about a 190-200 yard shot.  Yes it is hard - deal with it

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
There are lots of holes at courses all over that need drop areas.  So what!
 
The "so what" is that many, if not most of those drop areas were created because it couldn't be established where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, and if it could, "relief" didn't provide a viable alternative.
 
You can only post a max score for stroke play handicaps so pick up when you hit that number and move on. 
 
That's a relatively recent addition to the handicapping guidelines.
 
And, if you're playing an opponent in match play, as Jim suggests, and he hits five balls into the water and you've hit four and are teeing up your fifth, tell me what good "equitable stroke control" does for your play on that hole, in terms of score and time to play ?
 
Where is the drop area on #18 if you lose your ball because you can't make the 260 yard carry from the back tee?
 
1.   There is no water between the tee and fairway on # 18.
2.   If you can't make the carry from the back tee, you shouldn't be playing from the
      back tee.  But, you should have figured that out on # 4.
 
I don't really want to debate this too but if you can't handle #14 from the back you shouldn't be playing those tees. 
 
With no wind it is really only about a 190-200 yard shot.
 
ONLY 200, with NO margin for error to a green 29 yards deep and 24 yard across ?
 
Yes it is hard
 
Unreasonably hard.
 
 
- deal with it
 
I have been, for 50+ years, it's the others I'm worried about.
 

[archie_struthers]

 




I'm with Mucci on this one . The hole just doesn't fit the eye near as well from the new  back tees.. The other back tees are fine and for me only #4 is too long to play. One of the beauties about Pine Valley is that it's not just a long slog on every hole.


The shot just doesn't look right to me from the back , and golf is about aesthetics also . Lehigh has a wonderful long drop shot par three that works well, which Mark is quite familiar with. I prefer fourteen from the shorter distance. I like balance in the distances , 5 is 240 , 3 is 195 , 14 at 175 is just about right .

[Mark_Fine]

Should #5 be shortened too?  You guys know the saying - "Only God can make a par on #5"!   

Again #14 at 215 yards or so is very hard but it is a beautiful downhill shot and as long as the view of the water is not lost from the tee, it is an exciting do or die golf hole!  Nothing more thrilling than hitting that green (a lot like #16 at Cypress)!

[SPDB]

Let's just be clear here, 14 cannot be shortened (at least not at considerable expense). Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the gist of what Pat is saying here is that Rick or Charley (or whomever is responsible for locating tees on a daily basis) should put the regular markers in the front teeing ground and the back markers on the middle teeing ground - that would seem to be the only available option to address Pat's quarrel. I don't understand the logic of this and the limitations on the flexibility of Rick/Charley. What's more, I don't understand what relevance the drop area has as to whether its a reasonable distance at 187. Even assuming there were not a drop area, if you put one in the water from 187-220, wouldn't you be able to drop from the eminently reasonable distance of 165?


Additionally, if the 14th were as unreasonably hard as you posit, wouldn't the rating and handicap of the hole be higher than 16?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's just be clear here, 14 cannot be shortened (at least not at considerable expense).
 
Yes it can, and at very little expense.
There are three top tees on # 14
1.    162-175
2.    185-200
3.    212-224
 
Play from 162-175 is the most reasonable for the greatest number of golfers.
 
185-200 goes over the threshold of reasonable for most golfers.
 
212-224 speaks for itself.

 
Adding a forward tee wouldn't be expensive, especially not for PV
 
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the gist of what Pat is saying here is that Rick or Charley (or whomever is responsible for locating tees on a daily basis) should put the regular markers in the front teeing ground and the back markers on the middle teeing ground - that would seem to be the only available option to address Pat's quarrel.
 
It's not the only option, just one of a few.
 
I don't understand the logic of this and the limitations on the flexibility of Rick/Charley.
 
It's got nothing to do with Rick/Charley.
It's got to do with the golfers who play the course.
 
What's more, I don't understand what relevance the drop area has as to whether its a reasonable distance at 187.
 
You don't ?
 
Without the drop area, golfers could run out of golf balls on that tee from 187 and rounds could be extended by an hour or two at the end of the day.
 
Try playing and finishing that hole from 187 without a drop area.
 
Even assuming there were not a drop area, if you put one in the water from 187-220, wouldn't you be able to drop from the eminently reasonable distance of 165?
 
NO.  Read rule 26-1 then get back to us.

Additionally, if the 14th were as unreasonably hard as you posit, wouldn't the rating and handicap of the hole be higher than 16?
 
Holes aren't rated based upon difficulty.
You need to read the rating/handicap manual.

[JESII]

Mark

Why is the visibility of the water so vital?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Should #5 be shortened too?  You guys know the saying - "Only God can make a par on #5"!   
 
Mark,
 
NO, # 5 has more than ample fairway short of the green, probably 30-40 yards of fairway.
 
And, from the front of the back tee to carry the cross road it's about a 160 yard carry.

Again #14 at 215 yards or so is very hard but it is a beautiful downhill shot and as long as the view of the water is not lost from the tee, it is an exciting do or die golf hole!  Nothing more thrilling than hitting that green (a lot like #16 at Cypress)!
 
The problem is that the probability of hitting that green is very low, and a miss usually finds a watery grave.
 
Even Archie Struthers, who has vast experience caddying and playing PV thinks the hole from 220+ is over the top.
 
It's nothing more than a concession to the "protect par" mentality.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I am sure you know that part of the beauty and intimidation of the hole is seeing the water.  If you can't see the hazard, it plays less on your mind. 

Pat,
I think you are too concerned about making the hole "fair"  ???Would you be happier if the hole were only 120 yards long.  How exciting would that be to find the green with your tee shot?

The course was not designed for the average golfer.  The longer tee restores some of the design intent from the 1920's for the best players. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I think you are too concerned about making the hole "fair" 


Mark,

I've been a competitive golfer for 50+ years and don't have much interest in fairness.  I do however, have an interest in the presentation of a reasonable challenge.

As I stated, absent a drop zone, would you feel the same way ?



Would you be happier if the hole were only 120 yards long.  How exciting would that be to find the green with your tee shot?


Mark,

I think C.B. Macdonald, Seth Raynor and Charles Banks would be very excited. 

Their "short" holes remain every bit as challenging today as they were decades ago.

Or is it your opinion that the 6th hole at NGLA should be lengthened to 224 in order to provide a challenge for the modern day golfer.   Ditto # 16 at Sleepy Hollow and # 11 at Westhampton.   How about # 10 at Pine Valley ?  Shouldn't that be lengthened as well ?

The course was not designed for the average golfer. 
The longer tee restores some of the design intent from the 1920's for the best players.


What about the 1920 design intent at # 10 at PV ?
Shouldn't that hole be significantly lengthened to restore some of the design intent from 1920 ?


.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Neither of us are going to win this debate but it has been fun.  I will tell you that I am one to discourage and/or think carefully about adding new back tees when I am asked to add them on courses I work on.  On a typical golf course, statistics say that less than 5% of golfers use the back tees.  More time and money should be spent getting the middle and forward tees right (where 95% of golfers play) than than adding back tees.


So I am in your camp that many back tees are a waste of resources, can be a real eye sore, can change or ruin original design intent, and often only add to maintenance costs, etc. to cater to a very small group of golfers. 


However, at Pine Valley there are some back tees that make sense and I can live with (I don't care for #4) because the course was designed to be HARD! As such PV gets a pass including the 220 tee on #14 


Remember it is not like it is now a driver!  It is a 7I to 5I for a good player back there.  If they can't handle that, too bad! Crump would probably like that!
Mark


By the way, the Devil's Asshole would get more action and command even more respect if the hole were a touch longer.  Crump would probably like that!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()