[George_Bahto]

Tom: restoration is not going on - it is sort of rediscovery and what to do about it - some of the things Macdonald had on the course were for second shots - now they are relevent on the drive. Long ball hitters, at times, are in CB's second shot strategies.

Tom, what did you mean by ... "There's sort of a known formula or prescription for how to do that" .... who made this formula and what is it?

Adding tees may (MAY) be the answer in a couple areas - there are a number of areas where people have talked about adding new tees that make no sense to ME. .... why? .... because they change the intended (by Mr. Macdonald) line of play - as you said, this is his course and he spend so much time refining it - they have to ("should" would be more proper) be very careful about what they (everyone) do here.

The key is understanding the intended strategies - sounds simple enough but it really is not - they are complex.

Also National should not be geared to the long "bombers" of today - certainly the big hitters should have their problems on the course ..... aren't firm fairways and firm greens the answer more than just lengthening holes.

Macdonald's fairways, when firm, are a problem to all players - especially the long hitter. Tom, you yourself told me a story a couple years back when during the "Singles" a couple of guys in your group were complaining they were getting into hazards when they thought they hit the proper drive? Well that is what Charlie was after - those rolling (hah??), lumpy mounds and folds in the fairways were intended to deflect your ball all over the place - this is one of most overlooked strategies of his (then throw in the wind factor).

At Lido he distinctly wanted the fairways to bound into different direction on each hole.

Firm and fast will protect the course.

Those abandoned bunkers: they should be relevant to the intended play but some of them even if they are not, should restored for esthetic and historical reasons - believe me, someone will get in them .......... and anyhow, what's a few more bunkers when there are well over 350 bunkers now - I think Karl once told me there were about 366 bunkers - that was about 2 years ago.

If the "long boys", as they were called by Macdonald, have trouble with the National being too short and easy to score on (hah) - go next door to Shinny.

With this great fairway expansion they are embarking on I think a lot of people will be surprised at the many new angle of play there will into the green complexes. I think Bill told me they were now at 42-acres of fairway - I love fairway expansion. Then you have the collarless greens with very short cropped turf running you right off the greens and often into greenside hazards. Firm those greens up and take the target golf out of the game there and you will have your hands full.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeB:

I'll tell you what I mean when I said this, particularly the last two sentences;

"Should NGLA be treated now as a bit of a "museum" by the club and others? If any golf course in America should be it would likely be NGLA. But that doesn't mean that the course must not stay relevant to today's game. It just becomes a matter of how! That latter thought should only be done, in my opinion, in a non-invasive way or a way that basically conforms to the prinicple of altering historic buildings or golf architecture. There's sort of a known formula or perscription for how to do that. It should be followed if anything is done to NGLA."

In historic building restoration or alteration of any kind the thought or principle is if anything is done to an historic building, for instance, that it should be done in such a way that it can be very easily undone or restored to orginal if need be!

That same thought should be applied to a course of the historic architectural significance of NGLA if there is ever the thought to doing things to the course to keep it's architecture and ALL it's strategies relevant in today's world of golf.

Tee addition and lengthening to me is the most non-invasive type of alteration to a golf course BUT, PROVIDED certain things exist to do it non-invasively!! That right there is a complex and important thing to consider. Basically almost perfect elasticity conditions should already exist to add length. The laundry list of what that is all about can be gone into some other time.

But when you get into the mid-bodies of golf holes things get far trickier and more complex and invasive and potentially invasive. And when you get to the greens and green ends trickier and more invasive and potentially invasive still.

I see no reason whatsorever why anyone would EVER think to consider changes to original MacDonald greens and green-ends at NGLA unless something is simply not working at all or else research can show it's history which may be indicative of something (for instance some change may not have been Macdonald but someone else).

I'll give you an example of that at NGLA, and perhaps you'd know more about it than I do. The back of the 1st green apparently had it's contours including that back ridge and back left bowl done rather recently by Karl Olsen. If that pinnable area is not working well for some reason it might be a candidate to be put right or put better depending on what the problem may be---IF IN FACT there is one.

Two other examples at NGLA, in my opinion, that're perhaps even trickier are the tee shot carry bunker on the left on #10 fairway bunker. That bunker is simply not particularly relevant in its yardage placement or no longer possesses the intended strategy that C.B. must have intended for it. Although I can't find my NGLA yardage book right, we were out there on Monday looking at its yardage and I believe that bunker probably does not have much strategic value for any level of golfer given the tee box arrangement on that hole. Frankly if someone wanted to play in front of it there's not enough room and there's tons of room over it! It's basically too short off the tee for everyone. That bunker, particularly due to the sourronding topography (flat) is probably a good candidate to be moved non-invasively at least 20-25yds downfield and brought back into strategic relevance. That would give any level of golfer plenty of room in front of it, right of it and past it to deal with it strategically. Applying the historic building principle to this particular bunker and this particular situation it becomes a question of could that bunker be be moved easily for a variety of techinical and strategic reasons and be exactly recreated in every way and if for what ever reason that alteration was not successful could it be put back where it was non-invasively! The answer, in my opinion, is yes.

This situation is completely different in many ways than trying, for instance, to move downfield the all important tee shot carry bunker on #18 fairway left (if it was felt that was no longer strategically relevant) because the topography simply does not present itself on #18 to any form of alteration or movement of that bunker. Not only is that bunker in an ideal location topographically (up into that upslope) but everything about the surrounding topography (before, to the right and over it left, straight and long) combines to make the import of that bunker everything it is from the tee in a strategic context. Everything in that area combines uniquely to create a very interesting and unified strategic situation particularly topographically. But the same is not the situation on that carry bunker on #10--it would be far easier and non-invasive to the overall unified strategy of that hole to move it.

The other even tricker area is the second half on #9. Basically that's the only true weak strategic spot on NGLA because that second half fairway area is basically devoid of strategic considerations and it's not that hard, in my opinion, to do something really interesting there that would fit in extremely well to all that NGLA is!

Those are some examples. If the club for some reason decided to never do another thing to NGLA (except rediscover it as you said) that would be fine with me. But if they did decide to do things there I feel there are ways to do that and definitely ways NOT to do it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Some of the fairway bunkers that you feel are out of  play today, are only out of play if the wind isn't in your face.

#9 is a mystery to me.

Look at how hard the golf course started, and look at how weak # 9 is as the finishing hole.  Something is missing, whether it's the extension of the green back into the fairway, removed bunkers or some other features, it just seems like such a weak hole, especially in light of its placement on the play of the golf course, and, the genius of the other holes.

Perhaps George can shed some light on the old 18th hole.
Like you, I'm puzzled.

George Bahto,

I would think that any lengthening should retain the angles of attack, and critical features in play.  But, NGLA is very unique.
Other holes have had their tee angles moved, and yet the genius of the design and playability values have been maintained.

#8, # 12 and # 16 come to mind.

What other holes could tolerate altered tee angles without detracting from the design and strategic play of the golf course ?

I would think that # 18 would suffer dramatically if the tee were moved to the other side of the road.

My non-vote says, move the gates.  

[George_Bahto]

Patrick #9: the original 18th, now #9, is a supposed to be representation of the Long hole at St Andrews, their 14th, but for a number of reasons, it lacks any punch.

What was supposed to be the Hell's Bunker complex that is supposed to be in the second shot landing area is not right. First the major hazard (the big hollow) is off to the left, not across the fairway. What is across the fairway is way to short of the 2nd shot landing area .... so something is really fishy here.

Was it just a bad design from the git-go? Looks like it to me.

I just checked that original blueprint Ii have and the placement is bad there also (too short), I also have n early "working copy" of Macdonald's and again, the Hell Bunker hazard is short of the "proper" strategy.

Look at the foldout drawing of the course in Scotland's Gift - bad placement of that hazard there also.

I really don't have much of a problem with the placement of the bunker in the drive zone - as you said when the wind is up, you're in trouble with it. It's the second shot landing area that has the problem.

Most of their versions of the "Long" strategy are not properly reflective of 14-St Andrews ..... except for one place................. the Long Hole at Lido. There it was placed right on yardage (for that day) and unlike the 14th St Andrews where you had an option of playing to the adjacent fairway, at Lido, NO WAY.  I think there is a comparison drawing of those strategies in The Evangelist of Golf.

I don't understand how CB would have gotten that key hole wrong. All my info has the 2nd shot hazard yardage way too short.

On most versions they built, the bunkers were there, sort of off fairway, guiding you to the green - not challenging you at all.

[George_Bahto]

Patrick: tee shot angles on 8 and 12:

The original tee on 8 was to the LEFT of 7-green.

The entire strategy of hole 12 has been lost. The original intent was to drive diagonally over that beautiful set of bunkers (arguably the best set of bunkers on the course)that are now  along the left of the 12th fairway, to a fairway that was both canted off to the right and was full of rolls and folds that shunted you down into that bunker complex on the right that is about 275 off the tee. From there you had a carry to the green that was completely over hazard and waste areas.

There is a tee-box that should be replaced. Trouble is you're going to kill someone coming down hole 7 - obviously why it was changed. The hole plays super from that tee  - try it! ..... now you are playing right at the bunkers along the left of the fairway.

We discussed that for a while when I was there.

From the present tee you play right up the slot between hazards left and right - the diagonal off the tee is lost.

From the old plan I had I found that original 12th tee box about 4 years ago. Then after I spoke to a few of the older guys they remembered you couldn't keep the ball on 12-fairway and they sort of remembered the tee being to the right of 11-green where I told them it was.

If you look on the big model down at the barn you'll see the original tee.

And some of the green was shortened on the right too.

The diagonal hazard is the continuous thread that runs through the National.

[TEPaul]

George & Pat:

On the second shot on #9 there's no mystery to me. It's simply a big flat basically wide open fairway that need more to it. You're not kidding that the diagonal feature is a big theme at NGLA and that's exactly what the second shot on #9 needs--a really good diagonal.

Again, putting in a diagonal bunker scheme there is basically a non-invasive thing to do in the sense of the "historic building restoration" principle I spoke of yesterday. If a bunker scheme was put in there in that flat fairway (unlike the highly topographical unified bunker on #18) and it didn't work it could very simply be removed and returned exactly as it is now. If a good and strategic bunker scheme was used there, though, of course it would work well and would not need to ever be removed.

Just go out and look at that area next time you're there. What it needs and would work just beautifully strategically is to snake a narrow diagonal bunker scheme across that fairway beginning from the bunker mound on the right side that's face is 148yd out and connecting it to the bunker on the left about 50yds out. It doesn't take much imagination to understand the interesting strategy that would create on the second shot!!

As to what the scheme would actually look like I'd try to mimic some of what is already out there, perhaps mimicing some of the highly interesting formations on the Bottle hole's centerline scheme which contain some low profile bunkering along with the one that has the face on the side. The beginning of the center fairway bunker on #5 which is long and narrow coming back inline at the tee is another one that could be mimiced in a diagonal on #9 as this scheme when connected would create a diagonal running approximately 90 or so yards.

Obviously the play would be to go short left of it, long left of it, over it short right or over it long right or just over it. With the the flag visible from the tee or off the tee shot obviously that would have something to do with the choice of how to deal with this center diagonal bunker scheme on the second shot.

Forget the Hell bunker scheme on #14 at TOC, particularly as Macdonald obviously used that for whatever reason on the tee shot or first half on this hole. This hole doesn't have to duplicate something at TOC on it's second shot strategy it can be it's own thing and this to me is excellent 2nd shot strategic ramifications and would work really well on this hole and it's flat topography.

[TEPaul]

As to restoring the left tee on #12 that would be a good idea too but if it was additional length you're looking for there that would require a good bit of fill as adding enough length there gets into an area that falls off quite a bit towards the road. And at the present level of where that tee used to be there is no blindness on #7 fairway--we checked it with someone standing out there even behind the bunker left off #7.

The really interesting place where tee length might be used very non-invasively is behind and actually to the right of the present back tee on #16!! That gets into a brushy area but the grade is good and it's far enough removed from the line on #15 to be of no jumbling problem whatsoever. And it sets up even more interesting on that high carry bunker and the topography of the fairway than the present back right tee does.

[TEPaul]

As for the diagonal bunker fairway left on #10, it's just too short now from any of the appropriate tees. Sure into a strong wind it may be somewhat of a concern but if moved 20-25 yards downfield it would have a good deal more meaning to that basically immense fairway. Into a strong wind if moved 20-25 yds down field the play would probably be to play short of it or right of it. No wind or downwind in it's altered postion it would become more of a consideration which now it has none at all except to a shot that's basically very poorly struck!!

[TEPaul]

Patrick, on #5 there's no possility at all of extending tee length there without really creating a monstorous situation or something abominably ugly. The ground there is just not in the slightest bit conducive to that and if anything was done there it would require massive amounts of fill and really look awful!

There's a good place to pick up some tee length on #7 by going to the right behind the present tee and away from the 12th green back near the road. That is a good spot and would create and even more interesting tee shot diagonal on the fairway and right bunkering but it should not be even remotely considered, in my opinion, because it would create a perfect backdrop behind of golfers teeing off on #7 for golfers teeing off on #6. That is done a good deal in Europe and Gil and C&C do that sometimes on really long holes but I sure wouldn't recommend doing that to a short hole as great as #6 is!

Something like that is a good example of something that would work well on one hole (the hole in question--#7) but would be very invasive to #6. That's a perfect example of not doing something that would work well on one hole if it screws up in any way or is invasive to another hole!!

[Adam_Messix]

George and/or Tom--

There appears to have been an addition of about 6 feet of green space onto the front of the 18th green at National this year.  Was it added because that is where the original green dimensions were or was it to allow for a nice front hole location around that little knob on the front center/left?

Our caddie pointed out to us that there was/is an abandoned tee further up the hill on the 15th hole.  Is that an original tee or was it added in later years and was abandoned because of excessive difficulty issues?  Or is the caddie wrong about there ever being a tee there?  

As an aside, Thank you George for posting the aerial picture of the National.  It really provides an appreciation for the grand scale of the course.  

[TEPaul]

Adam;

They just added approximately 2500+ sf onto the front of #18 green just by transitioning it down. Was it original greenspace? I believe so but one would have to carefully scale off of an old aerial to be sure. Perhaps George knows. The point is it will work great basically creating THREE very subtle sort of rolling tiers!

As for an obsoleted back tee on #15, I have no idea. They've reclaimed some more greenspace on #10 and also on the back of the redan and were reclaiming a bit more on the back of #15 green when we shook hands and took off the other day.

[TEPaul]

I think George put it very nicely and accurately on this thread about what all is going on with the club and Salleneti and Burrows these days at NGLA. It's sort of a process of "rediscovery"--it's fascinating, admirable and it's going to show and continue to pay dividends in play!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With regard to a new back tee on # 5, think of the tee structure in the context of the back tee on # 2.
The next time you're at NGLA go to the back of # 2 tee, look around, and you'll get an idea of the massive fillwork required to build it.  Artificial tee complexes are not foreign to NGLA and are more the rule then the exception.  Just take a look at
# 1 tee and it becomes obvious.  I find nothing wrong with manufacturing tees at NGLA as long as the strategy of the hole is preserved.

With respect to the bunker on # 10, that is only out of play to the longer ball hitter.  Medium and short hitters will find it during the course of play, and as such, the bunker should not be touched/moved.  What should occur is adding a back tee.
There is plenty of room to add a back tee, and moving the small halfway shack is an easy task.  The shack is presently in a dangerous location to begin with, so an additional benefit is gained.

With respect to # 9, it seems difficult to believe that a man so creative in designing the other holes could present such a bland design as his finishing hole, a hole that should have contained more dramatic features.  The current 18th certain fulfills that mandate.

Tom, I would be very careful about introducing specific features not intended by CBM.  I understand the diagonal theme at NGLA, but if CBM's intentions were to replicate
the 14th at TOC, shouldn't that be the overriding theme, versus the introduction of diagonal bunker designs.

IF, and it's a big IF, IF there is an intention to improve that hole, shouldn't CBM's intent for that hole be the prevailing theme, resulting in the adaptation of the 14th hole features ?

George Bahto,

Do we know for certain that CBM designed NGLA with the current 9th as the intended 18th ?

Is it possible that he designed the golf course by designing the 18 best holes he could find/construct on the property, and that he and others determined where play would commence from, as an afterthought ?

Are there any documents that deal with questions on the location of the club house prior to the building of the golf course ?  In other words, which came first, the club house location, or the golf course ?

[George_Bahto]

The original routing started on present 10 - yes, he had the present the 9th  as his 18th  - I have all sorts of written and graphic documentation on that.

For all these proposed new tee-boxes that you fellas are talking about and the different angles and additional hazards not original to Charlie's - I would NEVER even think about it.

You leave this course alone and if you lengthen a hole by building a new tee (if there is room), you keep the EXACT line of play as he intended it to be.

If you move even one bunker of his to another position, you're nuts.

It's interesting to talk about it I suppose but as far as doing it - no way.

Respect what he put forth NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO, have fun playing and if someone can blow over a bunker - great, blow over it - good for you.

Leave this thing alone! Just rediscover and reclaim his original work and TRY to understand what he was up to.

There's still years of work there to refine HIS golf course .......  and remember the scariest thing of all ..... HE IS WATCHING!

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

Despite your desire, the 16th tee was moved to the left of
#15 green and the hole has more then survived from the addition of that tee and the angle it presents on the drive.

That may be related to the spine like nature of the fairway  and the bowls that fall from the spine.

Like wise, # 12 and # 8 have more then survived dramatic shifts in their tees.

I've never advocated altering the anlges of attack, but length can be added without compromising the angles, on # 10 and other holes.

Only the totally irresponsible TEPaul wants to move bunkers.

Getting back to the question on #9, why do you think CBM failed to replicate the hole as intended ?

[SPDB]

Lost in George Bahto's photos are the dramatic elevation changes, air density and the WIND, important elements in the play of the golf course.

Pat,
I agree with every one of your assertions. However, can you explain to me what "air density" means, vis-a-vis the playability of the course?

Just curious. Reading it, I was befuddled.

[TEPaul]

"IF, and it's a big IF, IF there is an intention to improve that hole, shouldn't CBM's intent for that hole be the prevailing theme, resulting in the adaptation of the 14th hole features?"

Patrick:

Yes, I sure do believe, as you say, that C.B.'s intentions should be the prevailing theme for whatever is done there if his intentions are knowable but what are you suggesting that another #14 TOC Hell bunker feature be put on the second half of #9 when apparently Macdonald designed some adaptation of that Hell bunker scheme on the first half of #9?

All I can say about that thought is for you to clear your throat a few times and repeat after me about ten times, and quite loudly, the word--"redundant!"    

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I was going to use "barometric pressure" and "relative humidity" and, instead opted for "air density".

As you know, when playing courses near large bodies of water, there are days when the air is heavy, or dense, and the flight of the ball is affected.

Fog and fog like conditions are also not uncommon.

These conditions affect both the air and the ground, ergo, the play of the golf course.

I hope I've cleared up my clumsy phrase.

[TEPaul]

George:

For you're edification and piece of mind, I'd repeat, I wouldn't advocate doing anything to NGLA physically. Whatever I mentioned about tee length additions is merely what I think would be invasive to the course or not.

As far as any alteration in the name of length I've already said a bunch of times the only thing that's necessary to preserve the perception of the challenge of that course for real quality players is to print up a bunch of alternate scorecards that call it a par 72, par 71 or a par 70 and do nothing at all to the golf course. You want to talk non-invasive, you can't get any more non-invasive than that plus the course is lucky to have up to three holes that could transition down in par really well for real high quality golfers without doing a single thing to them!

Incidentally, the same is true of Maidstone and the fortunate thing is Maidstone has two shots to use, and NGLA is even more fortunate to have three shots to use.

Courses such as Pine Valley and Merion have no shots to use and furthermore they don't even have the types of par 5s that would work if they did have shots to use! But NGLA and Maidstone have both!

I wouldn't touch NGLA with the exception of the second half of #9! That's just a really mundane to weak section of a hole and frankly the only one on NGLA. Something needs to be done there to make it both more interesting and challenging.

I have to believe that you must have something in all that old material you have from C.B. Macdonald that addresses that situation on the second half of #9 and if you don't have anything or can't find it just make that diagonal bunker scheme I mentioned and say it's from C.B!  

I think NGLA probably does deserve some kind of museum status architecturally and be completely preserved, at least because it's so architecturally and historically significant but I draw the line on the second half of #9. That needs to be made better and it should be made better!

[SPDB]

you have, and have also described the allure of seaside golf.

Do you think NGLA has any unique or distinguishing qualities in this respect, as opposed/compared to, for examples, Maidstone (immediate comparison), or Newport?

Or, some desert courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I think the elevation changes at NGLA are far more dramatic then those at Maidstone.

I think that NGLA's routing pattern is different from that at either Maidstone or Newport.

[TEPaul]

Yes, Maidstone does have distinguishing features that NGLA does not have. If you're a homosexual golfer you have the occasional opportunity of enjoying peering down on the beach below from #9 tee and seeing homosexuals in various courses of action and if you're a heterosexual golfer you have the occassional opportunity of enjoying peering down from #15 tee to the beach below and seeing nubile young women in various stages of undress! I don't think NGLA has that.

And at Maidstone I might guess that 10% of the times I've been there I've come accross the still beautiful Dina Merrill riding her bicycle somewhere down #15 or across the bridge to #16. NGLA doesn't have that either! NGLA did have C.B's famous hen house nearby but that went with him!

[SPDB]

Pat - you misunderstood my question. I'm talking only about the "air density"

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

AHA, now I understand.

I would imagine that the larger the body of water, and the proximity of the golf course to it, will determine the "air density" factor.

It is my understanding that there is a shift in the winds at Newport, as the land heats up during the day, and that the breezes shift toward the ocean.

NGLA and Maidstone sit on narrow strips of land surrounded by larger bodies of water on both sides, so perhaps there might be a difference, if one chose to study it.

You may want to remind TEPaul of what you were thinking of, as well.  He seems to be off on a different tangent, the nubile factor.

[SPDB]

Pat - I prefer to deal only with hopeful causes.  

Having attended 4 years of high school on Aquidneck Island, I can tell you that it has its own weather system, unique from LI. Every morning is foggy, with some moisture/precipitation which yields to sun ~ noon. It is more pronounced in the off season.

I've never really thought about it in relation to the play of Newport, though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()