[mike_malone]

 What a day to play golf here in Philly..40-50 MPH winds--How often do  you get a chance to play in that?Amazingly only about 5 other people at my club felt the same way this afternoon..What? Are these guys crazy?


   Our #17 is an under 500 yard par 5.Many people say we need to lengthen it.But relative to the recent thread about hitting longer clubs to holes,i thought if we add too much length the net result for good players will be LAYING UP.


    Thus we take that 3 or 4 wood or 4 or 5 iron (for our best players )out of their hands and replace it with a wedge.


  A short par 5 can evolve into a long par four with the change in technology.So, just play the hole and forget about par and it becomes more challenging to execute the shot.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

But, what has become of the architect's strategic intent on the tee shot ?

Why would someone who has just hit a 300 yard drive lay up ?

Wouldn't they just hit a 4-5-6 iron into the green from 200 yards out ?

Lengthening the tee to bring the intended architectual features back into the field of play makes all the sense in the world, and accomplishes what the architect originally intended.

[Joe Hancock]

Depending on the elements of the hole, the hole of sufficient length that tempts the player to reach the green in two should also allow the player to post a higher number. If I am forced to lay up, and leave a short wedge into the green, I am much more likely to eliminate a big number. Original intent might or might not be worth keeping.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

JHancock,

That may be one of the most dangerous statements I've ever heard, and the enactment of that philosophy, the reason that many clubs are pursuing restorations.

Shame on you Joe.  

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Which statement?  

Joe

[mike_malone]

Pat
   I think holes can evolve.For many of these classic courses a new strategy can be created.The trick is to judge whether it would be the one the designer would do today.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

As ususal, I don't know what you're trying to say  .  This is what you did say:

"For many of these classic courses a new strategy can be created.The trick is to judge whether it would be the one the designer would do today."

Are you saying that the new strategy comes from holes evolving?  Holes don't evolve, people change them or change the par on the scorecard as you touched on in your opening discussion.  Or are you saying that holes can be changed to create new strategy?

Since you also said:

"The trick is to judge whether it would be the one the designer would do today."

You open up a whole can of worms there.  Nobody can know what the designer would do today.  I think many that do consider golf architecture tend to over-think what golf designers were doing in them olden days.  To try and think as they would 70 years later is a bit difficult.  Where an architect spent a great deal of time on site during construction or tinkered with the design over many years you can have a fair measure of certainty what the guy was thinking.  There should be a carefully considered approach to change.  If an architect was not on site, or not on site much and the detail work was done by a construction crew, there is not much to go on.  There ought to be more license to try something better.

The Golden Age guys were not infallible.  You can  improve a design that no longer works, within some sympathetic framework is best.  

As to the 17th hole at Rolling Green, I think you're missing some of the equation.  For those that don't know, it is a sharp dogleg left 460-470 yards from the middle tee (a good 3 wood can go through the fairway) and 475-485 yards from the back tee (a good drive can go through the fairway).  The very good player can hit a high demand draw uphill to a very narrow landing area pinched by a bunker on the left and trees on the right or throttle back off the tee as most do and play conservatively.  For such a short par 5, I don't like this very much.  

I think it better to lower the back tee and move it back and to the left along the line of play.  A number of trees would need to come down to open up this angle (that wouldn't be too bad as it would bound to help air circulation and perhaps sun on the 16th green).  This change would create more decisions and still maintain high shot demands.  By lowering the tee and changing the angle, you effectively make the first shot farther than the indicated yardage increase and as full as you like.  Yet a well struck drive can still be drawn around the corner to a small landing area, although only by a really good and long ball striker where he is rewarded with a chance to get on the green in 2.  Driver is an option for everyone playing the back tee.  

I think the middle tee might be lowered and moved left (the whole tee is rather built up on a downslope from the 7th tee down past the 16th green) and the tee a bit more natural in appearance.  On windy days especially like yesterday (and this morning) play can be moved up to the front of the middle tee and you would have elasticity in how the hole plays relative to wind conditions.

An Old Guard member of the club, wish I could remember who, told me that the course was played so that either the 7th, 17th, or 18th was rotated as a par 4 (for vairety and depending on conditions I assume) and the overall par was 70.  Currently from the back tees we play 7 and 17 as 5 pars and the 18th is a par 4 (par 70) and 18 is a par 5 from members tees (overall par 71).  

I agree that par is just a number but it does impact strategy and results.  As a relatively easy par 5, there is little demand off the tee and even the second shot on 18.  As a par 4, the demands on each shot is racheted up.  If it is played as a par 5 from the member tees, it should be all the way back to the unused back tee or moved forward and made a par 4 for members.

[wsmorrison]

redanman,

To clarify my position on trees; while some tend to make blanket statements about tree removal and its universal good, I am not in that camp.  I think the use of trees in strategy can be perfectly appropriate on parkland courses and result in excellent golf.  They wouldn't be parklands without the trees and they needn't be on the periphery.  Specimen trees open to view and trees in clumps not rows are fine within golf courses where it provides strategy and a measure of safety though not absolute.  Where trees deny strategy or adversely effect agronomics--outta here!  There are a number around the 17th tee at RGGC that removed will strengthen agronomics and improve play by allowing an alternative tee location.  However, many that haven't been to RGGC lately, have missed a number of trees that have come down with great success, most noteworthy on the great short par 4 12th where the firs immediately on the backside of the right fairway bunkers are gone (one or two more further towards the green need to go) and a number of trees to the left and behind the green are also gone.  redanman, you'd be quite pleased with these results.  I'll try to take pictures on sunday and maybe Craig Disher can post before and afters.

[wsmorrison]

What do you think about a lowered and shifted tee on 17?  To me, taking those trees out on the left around the tee adds immediate agronomic benefits and playability benefits if the tees are moved in 3 dimensions.  Which trees on the right are you talking about as being superfluous and ugly?  Around the tee, before the turn, or after the turn?

[wsmorrison]

The fairway bunkers on 17 are on the left.  When you said you didn't like the combination of bunkers and trees on the right, are you refering to 12?  If so, I strongly agree and am happy to say they are gone.

[Craig Disher]

This view of #12 is from Wayne's My Home Course review. It's a great description of RGGC and well illustrated. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is from the middle of the fairway, about 130-140 yards out. Clearly, approaching from the right side is affected by the trees - all of which were added in the last 30-40 years. How about that big pine to the left-rear of the green? Removing it would give a better view of the historic home and also help get some sunlight on the green. Too controversial?



I'll bring my camera Sunday and take a picture from the identical spot. We can also do a study of 17.

[wsmorrison]

Craig,
That big pine on the left, as well as many others are gone, as are many trees on the slope behind the green towards 8 fairway.  If the shot you just posted was from 40 yards back towards the tee, you'd better see the egregious firs that are on the rightmost part of this photo.  They, too, are gone!  Warren Savini is doing a wonderful job throughout the course.  Glad you'll have your camera, Craig.  Don't use up all your film/disk earlier in the day  .  Weather should be fine!

[Jim_Coleman]

   This idea of moving #17 tee back and to the left at RG has been kicked around for years.  Thank God it's been resisted.  If done, we would have a mini version of Philmont North #9 - probably the worst hole Flynn ever built.  You would create a driver - 7 iron- 7 iron crescent hole.  The Hanse master plan had a good suggestion for 17, but the board rejected it and censored it from the final draft.  Hanse suggested we build a new green, fifty yards behind the present green.  I believe the board rejected it out of conservatism, but the proposed green might create a danger from tee shots off #5.  In any event, the idea of moving the tee back and LEFT is brutal.  Back and right (i.e. towards #7) might be possible, though.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Good points.  I know you've given a lot of considerate thought to these issues.  

If the tee is lowered to the left in a location just next to the present tee, the angle would not be nearly so oppressive as it is at 9 Philmont North.  One thing it does is make it a bit more difficult for someone that cuts/fades the ball and I know that would impact you.  You are a consistant ball striker and you have a cut.  Since I don't know what direction my ball goes, it doesn't matter as much.  

There certainly is room to move the tee back right but to me it reduces the shot testing value of the tee shot for a wider range of players.  For those spraying it right, the 6th tee would be a problem.

If the green were moved back 50 yards it might bring stray shots from 5 into play.  Wouldn't it also create a potential hazard for those on the 18th tee, especially if the back tee was used as a par 5 for members tees?  With the majority of the hole downhill, why aren't the member's tees on the back tee box?

[wsmorrison]

Regarding RGGC #12; the photo that Craig posted:

There is a dip that can barely be discerned (accounts for the strange look of the mowing pattern).  This is where a stream runs under the fairway and exits onto the 8th creating an island fairway.  Warren is bringing the creek on the right closer to the fairway!  A lot of good stuff going on there.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Wayne:
         I couldn't agree with you more on #18 tee.  We should play the white tee where the blue used to be, and build another blue tee 15 yards back of that (by the sprinkler computer box).  Playing the blue tee up and calling it a par four is silly to me.  Playing the blues where they've been playing them this year is really dumb.  Why not just call it a par 3 and really make it hard?  And if you move the blue tee up to the red tees, you've taken the right bunkers out of play for the good players (who are, after all, the who will be playing the blue tee).  I'd rather see the hole lengthened as much as possible (again, making sure it's safe from 5th tee tee shots).  I see no reason to shorten a course that, if anything, desperately needs length.  The better players are now hitting nine irons or less into 1,4,5,11,12, and 15 and 7 or less into 2,8 and 13 - from the blues.  The next big job we have at RG is to add at least 200 yards to the course.  If Merion, Philly Country, Cricket, etc. can do it, so can we.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I'd like to show you an architectural analysis that I did that includes a plan to add 220 yards to the course so that from the back tees it would play at 6850 par 70 (you'd probably think it should be par 71).  I'll be at the club on Sunday.  If you like, I can leave a copy in your locker or hook up with you.  I'm playing with guests but will be there around 12-12:30.  I'd appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Wayne

[TEPaul]

I think one should be very careful when adding length to tees or altering the angle of tees on any hole. There're a number of factors that need to be considered really carefully. Too many people try to add length to holes that just don't have the type of ground, the room or other factors that're conducive to additional length or altered angles. To do that kind of thing you need to be really comprehensive in considering just what it is you may be getting and what you may be complicating.

I'd basically never recommend moving a green on a course like RGCC. On this subject I guess I'd have to say I do disagree with my good friend Gil Hanse. The subject came up on a hole at GMGC and I very much disagree on that one.

Only add tee length or alter it if it makes real sense to the hole even if that "sense" is not totally in-line with original intent.

A good compromise for really long players if tee length can't be added is to do something in the present LZ of these long players that has very little impact for other skill levels. That actually seems to be something that can be done quite easily on many holes because that "something" is generally too far out for the tee shots of less skilled players and short enough not to compromise a reasonable second shot for them!

But one of the most interesting things to do on some of these older and shorter par 5s is to consider transitioning them to par 4s without doing anything to them. To do that successfully a number of factors have to fall into place and figuring out if they do just requires basically looking at how the tee shots are affected from what are now the tips and trying to preserve that tee shot risk/reward. Presumably if members and such think some of these older and shorter par 5s really are too short for today's good players than nothing probably needs to be done to them on the second shot because the thinking is that they're too regularly reached in two by the good drives and good second shots of good players anyway!! And that latter fact is what a long tough par 4 is all about!!

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul

    I think just looking at #17 and #18 at RG fits what you are saying.We have added trees on the right and a bunker left in the landing area for many good shots on #17.These are not in the original design,but i think they work.Because the land slopes down toward the green after the bunker good players get seduced to go through this 14 yard opening.The green has a small opening and is raised so it is not an easy 200
+ approach.I would like to see the tee lowered so the hill on the drive catches more balls.I just think if the tee were moved back too much most would just layup short of this opening.

  #18 has a wide landing area and a much larger entrance to the green.It works better as a .par 4 than #17.
To move the tee back here would also reduce the number of those going for it at around 180-200 yards and increase the number of drive,8 iron ,wedges.

   Wayne

   The evolution i speak of is that as driving distance has changed approaches have become different.We see 150 yard approaches  instead of 200 now on many par 4's.But that becomes balanced by shorter par 5's becoming the long iron shots.As long as the overall course still demands varied clubs and different types of approaches(air/ground) i am happy.

  As for what Flynn would do today,i agree we do not know for sure but through a study of what he said and did we can come closer than those who do not try at all.
 

 Craig
    Take some pictures of #7 from the tee and by the green also.

[mike_malone]

 redanman
   No evidence of right fairway bunker on #17

[Craig Disher]

Compare the photo of Rolling Green's #12 above to this view taken earlier today. After significant tree removal, not only is the line of play more open, there is a feeling of space that wasn't there before, especially on the green. I also have a view from the tee which I'll post which shows the trees that were cut just to the right of this picture.

[mike_malone]

 Take the 2 evergreens on right of green out,move cartpath downhill--back to the past---recover the hazard originally desisned---missing the green to the right.

    ISN'T THIS OBVIOUS!!!!

[Jim_Coleman]

Wayne:
     Didn't see your reply until now, so didn't know to hook up with you (are you still allowed to say this to another man?) Sunday.  I too have ideas for stretching Rolling Green.
     As for whether stretching is a good idea (as questioned by your co-author), I think it is the only serious way to deal with the new equipment.  Calling something a par four accomplishes nothing.  Take a look at what Merion is doing.  I'm sure it will be controversial, but I'm also quite sure it's the only way to modernize.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Let's meet then to discuss our armchair plans for the golf course.  Tom Paul has given a great deal of thought to this and most subjects relating to golf.  His point is that where the hazards and features of the holes set up for the hole as a par 4 then the change from a par 5 on the scorecard is all you need to do.  Flexibility in teeing ground facilitates this.  Where this is not possible, the alternatives are lengthening from the tee (assuming you don't want to move the green) to retain par 5 or moving the hazards so that changing to a par 4 would be feasible.  Obviously the last two scenarios are more difficult to get right since they involve physical changes.  All you have to do is print new scorecards should the first method prove poorly conceived.  

On RGGC #18, I think it works best as a par 4 from the member's tee and as a par 5 from the back tee.  This is based upon where a drive would land in relation to the turn and the bunkers from proficient players likely to play the two tees.  I do agree that there may be room to go back a little on the par 5 tee.

You have to be careful not to upset the balance of other holes.  As an example of really messing this up I offer the 14th at the Cascades.  Although always a par 4, the hole was lengthened by moving the green.  This bad decision impacted the par 3 15th since the tee had to be moved.  Both holes were compromised by the unwise and poorly thought out plan.  Interestingly, it was the 15th that suffered the most.

Craig,

You are absolutely right, the open feeling you get in the fairway and especially on the green is a great improvement and will prove significant agronomically.  I think the two evergreens short and right of the right greenside bunker need to go as well as that tight cluster of 3 evergreens on the left at the base of the hill rising to the green.  I think some fast growing pines were planted near the maintenance facility to hide it.

Trees taken down throughout the course are opening expansive vistas that show the great ground movement, provide light and air, and recovering strategic intent.

redanman,

Blanket statements about trees (maybe it was on another thread), where you are the general of generalizing, cannot be taken too seriously.  Mackenzie and Flynn have written about their usefulness in golf architecture.  Although I can't speak to Mackenzie, I have seen examples with Flynn.  I don't understand your hatred of trees.  Did you fall out of one as a child?

[Jim_Coleman]

Wayne,
    By the way, your co-author is incorrect when he worries about losing original built in risks by adding length.  If we are adding length to counteract new equipment, then the original design tests will be kept if length as added.  If an original fairway bunker was 270 off the tee 50 years ago, then it should be 310 off the tee today.  You can either move the bunker or the tee.  The tee is the better alternative, as doing so preserves the intefgrity of the next shot.  Same for doglegs.  If you used to have to carry a ball 270 to reach a dogleg, now you should have to carry it 310.  The only way to accomplish that is to move the tee. If #17 at Merion used to be a three wood shot in 1925, then it should be 275 yards today.  And it will be!  I don't really understand Senior Paul's point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()