NGLA to be lengthened?

[John_Lovito]

I heard from a good source that NGLA will be lengthened about 300 yards and some greens enlarged.   Having only played it once, I am not that familiar with the course.  For those that are (and assuming the information is accurate), where do you think the yardage will be added?  From what I understand, part of the motivation is that NGLA will be hosting the Walker Cup in a few years.

[Chris_Clouser]

If this is true, who would do the work?  Rees?

Perhaps the warnings of Geoff S. were true...

[Nigel_Walton]

Why would one need to lengthen a golf course to host a match play event? If several of National's three shotters are short by modern standards, does that not make them still excellent match play holes?

[THuckaby2]

OK people, do we need any more signs that Armageddon is near?

Cubs and Red Sox on the verge of a world series...

NGLA to be lengthened....

I'm off to make peace with the Lord.

TH

[John_Lovito]

Tom,

Tom,

I hear you.  I have joked to my friends for years that Armageddon will take place during game seven Cubs-Red Sox, two out bases loaded with the score tied.  As much as it pains me, for the good of the human race and my golf game, I will root for the Yankees beginning tomorrow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Lovito,

I believe that I indicated in previous posts that NGLA would be adding some length.

I don't know why you and Chris Clouser find this alarming, they've done it before and noone complained.

And, as best as I can tell, everybody who plays NGLA raves about NGLA, so the length they previously added must have been for the good, and enhanced the playing value.

Holes like # 8 and # 15 can use some more addtional length as could a number of others.

With respect to the greens, they too were previously enlarged and I didn't hear anyone complain about it.
I also don't hear any complaints from those who play NGLA with respect to the size of the greens.

Haven't recommendations to enlarge # 13 been floating around for years ?

Chris Clouser,

What specific warnings did Geoff Shackelford provide ?

Is NGLA now playing better then it has in the last 20 years ?

Why didn't anyone mention the tree clearing program, or is it possible that Rees might be involved with that ?

NGLA is presently in good hands.

[John_Lovito]

Patrick,

I never indicated in my post that I was alarmed with the possibility of added length.  As I stated earlier, I am not familiar enough with NGLA to have an opinion one way or the other. I was just curious about what holes were the most logical candidates to be lengthened.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Nigel Walton makes the point that there is no reason to lengthen a course simply for a matchplay event, and Ganton was in no way altered this year, retaining its two short par 5s, yet it still provided a good Walker Cup.  From the back plates Nairn (which hosted the 1999 match) does have two par 5s, the 7th and 18th, at about 550 yards, but for the Walker Cup the 7th was reduced to a 487-yard par 4, and I was told that they didn't use the back plates on 18, either, because the trees either side restricted the players' ability to shape the tee shot.  They only need to turn a couple of par 5s into par 4s and it would become a challenging par 71.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Rowlinson,

NGLA has been adding length over the years and noone complained about the process or the results.

All of a sudden it's an issue

NGLA needs added length in order to retain certain shot values and preserve the architectural intent.

Golfers are free to play from whatever tees they select.

There are no forced marches.

[JakaB]

How is what Eckstein just implied about RJ and the ignorance of the current NGLA membership any different than what rpurd said about RP and GCGC...who you gonna pray to Eckstein...why not just go with WWPD.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B,

I'm with you on that.

It's one of the most absurd suggestions that I've ever heard.

The Yale golf course is owned by an institution, NGLA by its members.

Almost everyone acknowledges that the membership at NGLA has done a spectacular job to date.

For the last ten years I haven't heard one outside complaint about the lengthening of the golf course that has taken place.
Most are totally unaware of tees that were lengthened, which would seem to indicate that NGLA knows how to lengthen a hole without adversely affecting the hole, and/or that those critics don't have the eye to notice the adjustment.

Now, all of the arm chair architects are suddenly critics and experts, but, there's only one problem.

Not one of them knows what's going on.
Not one of them can offer a single specific, regarding changes.
Nor can they offer why it was okay to lengthen holes in the past, but not currently.

They might as well bay at the moon.

[ed_getka]

IMHO Patrick stated the most valid point regarding lengthening of NGLA. To preserve architectural intent. I would become more worried if someone came in to redesign the holes. From what I've gathered the super and his assistants are very well-versed on the history of NGLA and have the support of the membership in the work they have been doing.

[JakaB]

Estein,

I love MacWood...but putting him in charge of NGLA would be like putting me in charge of Sara Lee.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eckstein,

Has NGLA chosen a consulting architect, wisely, in the past ?

Who would head your panel, acting as chairman ?
Who would have the ability to break a tie on a vote ?

In your travels, have you noticed many statues or monuments commemorating a panel or a committee ?

Or, have you noticed statues of men of vision and action, leading the charge ?

A committee is usually the worst form of golf club governance.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm among those not aware of any plans that may exist for NGLA. As such, I'd like to come at this from a more general point of view and then maybe you can tie it back to NGLA.

You mention that the course has been lengthened in the past and nobody complained, presumably because a consensus of opinion emerged that no significant damage was done to the course and maybe even something positive was accomplished.

But, you then suggest that because it was successfully done in the past, presumably it can be done again in the future. To which I reply, maybe. That's because I don't view all projects to lengthen a golf hole as necessarily the same.

Let's take the recent lengthening of Oakmont for illustration purposes, specifically holes #4 and the famous #15. During my examination of the course, I found something very different had occurred: on #15 one could barely notice any change as the new tee fit seamlessly into the landscape. Obviously, we can't say the same about #4.

Beyond the aesthetics, there would appear to be a significant difference from a cost point of view with the new tee at #15 most likely costing almost nothing and that at #4 costing quite a bit, I would guess.

Granted, one may argue the economics are nobody's business but the club itself. But, I reserve the right to disagree. Where clubs are force to spend loads of money to retain shot values, we need to look carefully whether the entire exercise - the ongoing pursuit of absolute length - makes sense.

I'm of the opinion that leading clubs such as NGLA should set an example for the rest of the golf industry. Of course, in many ways it already has. But, can you tell me what the nature of the lengthening will be? In general terms - I don't expect specifics - does the work involve moving significant quantities of dirt and/or expense a la the Oakmont (#4) example I cited?

P.S. Can a fine club carefully manage change? I believe it can be done, witness Ballybunion, for example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Are you positive that your source didn't confuse Shinnecock's lengthening with anything contemplated at NGLA ?

I don't believe that cost at clubs like NGLA, PV, ANGC is an issue.  If the membership can afford it, what difference do the incremental dollars make ?

I can't relate what Oakmont did to their course, I can only view potential changes to NGLA in the context of NGLA.

What I really don't understand about you query is the concern regarding the amounts of dirt moved.
What difference do the cubic yards make if the desired result is achieved ?

Over the years, nobody has complained about the vast amount of earthmoving required to construct some of the greens and tees, why the sudden concern today ?

NGLA was and remains an earthmoving marvel.

As long as the contemplated changes retain the design integrity of the golf course, who cares how it's done or how much it costs ?

[TEPaul]

Let's not lose our heads here at the mere mention of tee lengthening. Pat's got a point that it's been done before and who's complaining now about what was done in the past?

Tim Weiman makes the real point here, though--ie if the club decides to add length where and how are they going to do it?

For those who know the golf course well the best and most instructive discussion to have on here is not whether NGLA's membership are idiots or not, or whether or not Rees Jones will be involved but what exactly it would mean in the context of any hole to try to add a total of 300 yards to the course. 300 yards is a considerable amount of length! So where and how exactly would they do that and what would it all mean to any and every hole? That's the question for discussion, in my book.

The most positive and productive discussion to have is one that ticks through the holes of NGLA and discusses not just where length may or may not be needed and how much but what it entails to various holes AND PARTICULARLY how lengthening one hole may impact some other hole.

My general feeling is it's not that offensive if a hole can be lengthened in such a way that it continues to make sense and ALSO that doing tee lengthening on a hole DOES NOT screw up another hole or something else about the course that doesn't need to be screwed with! At the very least a golf course like NGLA does not need to start rearranging things about their holes from existing tees through greens and with greens! The course is famous and respected enough to not have that happen to it!

Elasticity is a fairly well known architectural technique that generally involved original foresight in routing and hole design. The fact of the matter, is, unfortunately, some holes just don't have elasticity without doing something really aweful to that hole or generally another hole contiguous!

I heard that somebody at NGLA wanted to lengthen #3 and perhaps make it a par 5 or a really long par 4! Well how would that get done if you went far enough back to get that kind of length on #3? The suggestion I heard would be to remove the bowl on the right of #2 fairway and fill it in and use that area.

That right there would be one of the most destructive and counter-productive architectural ideas I've every heard of! To make one hole much longer you'd be stripping another hole (behind it) of something that makes #2 wonderful (the bowl).

That's the kind of productive discussion to have on here. Just go through every hole and discuss--ie does that hole need lengthening and why? Is there some other better fix such as dropping some pars down to 4? What would it look like if you added lots of tee length to some holes, etc? How would it impact other holes etc?

If someone else doesn't start the discussion in a little while I'll start a hole by hole discussion of NGLA to talk about what it would mean to any hole---is there a better way--does it need it--what would it do to other holes etc?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

All fair questions.

First, let me be clear I have no "source" on any potential changes at NGLA, nor the slightest clue what the club may be contemplating. I can only engage in a theoretical discussion.

As for the membership at NGLA, PV or ANGC, I won't shed any tears over what modifications to the golf course may be costing them. They are big boys, obviously.

But, believing such clubs do set an example others feel pressured to follow, I am inclined to wonder about the downside of what they are doing. Specifically, I wonder if fine clubs pursuing additional length - especially when it is widely publicized as in the case of Augusta - serves only to fuel the golf technology arms race and make the game more expensive.

My understanding of the history of NGLA suggests you are correct: it was and remains an earth moving marvel. But, I also wonder about Mackenzie's principal of "finality". Doesn't the endless pursuit of additional length undermine any prospect for "finality"? Is that really the direction we should be taking the game?

Pat, we are into philosophy as much as golf architecture. I believe the essence of the game is the balance between player skill, equipment technology and the configuration of the playing field. Moreover, I believe achieving this balance at the lowest possible cost should be a priority.

Anyway, if changes are made, I hope nothing is lost architecturally.

Tom Paul:

Nice post. You did better than I focusing on architectural matters! I look forward to your hole by hole analysis.

[TEPaul]

#1--they just added to it and don't need any more. From the new tips it's a good hole for anyone and even for long hitters it's an excellent high risk driveable deal.

#2--Basically just can't go back anymore--the land falls off sharpely behind the present tips making any lengthening dicey to impossible.

#3--if you could get some additional length it wouldn't be much before starting to jumble with #2 or WORSE (taking out #2's bowl!).

#4--you could get some more by rerouting the cart path--behind the tee.

#5--not much before the land falls off and you start to jumble with #4. This hole could transition to a really good and challenging par 4 without doing a single thing to it. Matter of fact, the center bunker scheme would be an awesome feature to challenge long hitters. Perhaps it should even be extended some towards the tee to make the distance differential even greater!!

#6--just forget it--doesn't need length.

#7--basically the same as #5--you'd start to jumble with #12 pretty quick and this hole can transtion to a great par 4 at exactly same length as TOC's #17 without doing a single thing to it.

#8--now here's a very interesting situation!! I'd hate to see them go back on the right because even if the land was conducive you'd have to lose that really beautiful tree which does something for #8 and also for #7. You can't go back to the right of the tree without screwing with the angle of the tee shot--a bad idea! The tree is going to go someday and that'd be the only time to consider lengthening on the right on #8. But lengthening on the other side of #7--on the LEFT--now that could be very interesting and also apparenty right along with something Macdonald planned. Frankly, you could make an awesome melded tee with #12 tee on the left side of #11 and get plenty of additional length. A lot of trees would have to come down to open this line up--but so what? They may start to do some of that anyway! This could be a wonderful alternative angle coming right down the middle of "The Bottle Hole's" center bunkerline scheme.
 
#9--I just can't see how they could get length here. They'd have to go behind #8 green and that could jumble things, plus it might be lower but this could be possible. I hate to say it but if they did anything at all to NGLA architecturally the second shot area of this hole is about the only place I think it should be done--maybe the only semi-uninteresting part of any hole on the course.

Back nine later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I'm not an advocate on awarding work, strictly on the basis of being the lowest bidder.  I think quality comes at a price.

I have every confidence that whatever NGLA chooses to do, they will do it properly.

TEPaul,

We agree on this subject and have had lengthy, personal, discussions on a hole by hole basis in the past.

I'm disturbed by the notion that someone throws out a statement, without any supporting information, and those responding accept that statement as gospel, and follow with a critical feeding frenzy, including the questioning of the capability of the membership at NGLA, which has a track record of having done a fine job in the past.

It's just plain irresponsible.

Even the 300 yard figures seems questionable to me.
I have heard, from members of Shinnecock, that they had lengthened their course by approximately 300 yards, so I have to wonder where Tim obtained that figure, which translates to 20 yards per hole, excluding the par 3's, two of which can't be lengthened and the remaining par 3 is doubtful to be lengthened.

And, why not focus on the positives that have been accomplished by current management, and the positives that are presently underway and contemplated, instead of taking potshots at speculative or phantom issues ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I haven't heard "300 yards" from any source other than John Lovito who initiated this thread. I know nothing!

Pat Mucci:

I would not advocate NGLA awarding work simply based on who was the low bidder. My comments were directed to the broader golf industry issue of costs associated with the golf technology arms race.

[TEPaul]

Don't know that Shinnecock has been lengthened by 300 yards but could find out soon. Shinnecock, though, did have "planned elasticity" as far as I'm concerned.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eckstein,

What if the choice in the past is the same as the current choice ?  Wouldn't that represent desireable continuity ??

No club would create, retain and accept the decisions of an outside panel composed of non-members.  To think otherwise is dilusional.

What if there is conflicting advice from the panel,
that the panel is divided on a number of critical issues ??

Your suggestion is probably well intended, but extremely naive.

The Capital Building was not created as a monument, commemorating any one, or group, of individual/s.

What evidence do you have that would suggest that NGLA is moving in the wrong direction, architecturally ?

[TEPaul]

#10--could probably stand some lengthening but to do that the half-way house would probably have to be moved out of the way. Is that worth it? The hole plays well as it is though into the wind even for long hitters.

#11--could use lengthening but there's no elasticity. This is a hole that probably works better as a club choice on the tee anyway! If someone thinks golfers like Walker Cuppers are so long they might drive it over the berm and road--let them try--they'll screw up more than they'll gain anything by that.

#12--could actually be lengthened a little on the right but restoring the old left tee option and melding it with a left tee on #8 would be a very interesting idea to look into (bringing the bunkering on the left into play as it was originally designed with the option of going right of it OR left of it into #7 fairway with probably a totally blind shot to #12 green!?). There's no real blindness with golfers coming up #7 (we checked that) and the thought of that being dangerous is  more smoke than fire (particularly in something like the Walker Cup)!

#13--can't be lengthened without jumbling with the approach to #12--something it already does  a little. The green here may be expanded on the right.

#14--may be lengthened some--I don't know exactly how but I guess it's possible.

#15--this hole could use more length but I frankly never really did look behind the present tip tee to see what the story is.

#16--could use lengthening but the right is not possible (without jumbling with #15) and frankly I never looked behind the left tee (one I've never played). I don't think the left tee is the original and probably isn't as interesting an angle (over the bunker as is the right tee) anyway.

#17--could use lengthening but I don't think there's much room behind the tips--frankly never really looked. The driveable option for long hitters from the left here is pretty fascinating and for something like the Walker Cup my recommendation might be to look into shrinking and narrowing the fairway area some left and short of the green and left of the high cross hazards in front of the green! That would have the effect of tempting long hitters to try to carry the high cross hazard instead of going left of it and looking right at the green with a simple pitch or chip! It may even be worth looking into using the right and shorter tees on this hole with the Walker Cup. This might then be something along the lines of the exceptionally brilliant and highly optional and strategic #14 Ganton from the tee!! #17 NGLA is truly a neat hole but for men from the left I can't see that the entire right side of the hole on the tee shot from the left makes any sense at all--I've never seen any man go down the right of this hole from the left risking the bunker scheme in the middle. But from the shorter right tees a whole bunch of options may come into play--ie going down the right short, going down the left short or going right over the high cross hazards in front of the green. There's a ton of possiblilities to look into on this hole without doing a thing to it architecturally (except possibly shrinking in fairway a bit on the long left in one iteration).

#18---the suggestion has been made to move Macdonald's gates and the driveway north enough to accomodate about 50+ yards behind the present tips and to the right and behind #17 green. This could be done but again is it worth it and what will it really accomplish? What it probably would accomplish is a situation for really long hitters where a decision to fly the crucial drive bunker on the left becomes really dicey but still tempting and which would bring the decision to play right of it much more into balance with long hitters' choice of carrying the left bunker! Playing the hole with less than a driver in Macdonald's less aggressive "tacking" strategy would probably be used far more with and additional 50+ yards on this hole! The reason they'd play the hole right off the tee with less than a driver is the land falls off to the right rather steeply and a driver doesn't work particularly well on that line. I think a much more reasonable thing to try (for a time anyway and much less expensive) for long hitters and good player situations (like the Walker Cup) would be to play the hole as a ver long finishing par 4! This might take the drive bunker left out of the equation but it would put strong demand (and decision making bigtime) back into the second shot to the green which is uphill and very dangerous right! There're plenty of high demand/high risk second shot finishing par 4s in this world and this could very well be one of them. It may require putting the tee blocks up some to make this idea work well. The effect of this par 4 iteration would clearly be to shift decision making away from the tee shot somewhat and load the decision making far more onto the combined drive/approach strategy but particularly the approach shot! When one thinks about it this would not be a bad idea at all to experiment with! And the added good news is you don't have to do one single thing to the architecture of NGLA to accomplish it!!

[T_MacWood]

Eckstein
Thanks for dragging my evidently not-so-good name into this.