Winged Foot West - 12th hole lengthened

[Nigel_Walton]

I have not been to Winged Foot in many years. When last I saw the 12th, it was a somewhat reachable par 5 in the 1997 US PGA that played in a treacherous fashion, given the nature of the green complex.  I heard recently that the hole was lengthened by more than 100 yards. Is that so? Does that not alter the strategic aspect of the hole in a fairly negative fashion?

Winged Foot West is one of the best parkland courses in the world. But I must take exception to this change, if it turns out to be true. Does this lengthening make any sense to those of you who are familiar with the work?

[AWTillinghast]

At 640 yards, the new tee makes this hole a definite 3 shot hole.  Certainly not as exciting, but if their goal was to make it virtually unreachable in 2, then they have succeeded.

Personally, I think the logic of this new tee is flawed.  They wanted to bring the cross bunker back into play, but it was never out of play.  Yes, if a long knocker hit a great tee shot it was (isn't that a nice reward?), but it was in a perfect place to impact both recovery shots and 2nd shots from shorter tee shots.  And isn't that green complex itself a great defense against long iron and metal wood approaches?  Also, the new tee pretty much takes the mound in the middle of the fairway on the tee shot out of play, which helped to make this tee shot challenging, and turns the cross bunker into nothing more than the end of the defined layup area.

I suspect we will see almost everybody, if not everybody, just lay up in 2 behind the cross bunker that they were trying to bring back into play, which would invalidate the logic for this new tee in my opinion.  Perhaps with the distance that the current ball is going a new tee in the 575 yard range would make more sense, but at 640 yards this is all about length for the sake of length and clearly not an attempt to keep up with technology and have the hole play as it was originallly intended.   Of course, I would know since I built the darn thing in the first place!  

[david h. carroll]

AWT--I am so happy there is no land available for us to change your two wonderful par 5's at Five Farms!!

[Adam_Messix]

There are two new tees on #12 at Winged Foot West.  A back tee was built at 641 yards and a forward tee at approx. 590 yards.  This is in addition to new tees being added to holes #2,4 (addition),8,9,14, and 18.  

[peter_mcknight]

Adam...

How far back are the 2d, 4th, 8th, 9th, 14th and 18th's new back tees (approximately)?  The WFGC 2004 Amateur website has the 2d back 30 yards, but makes no mention of the 4th, 8th, 9th, 14th and 18th.

Also, were there not rumours that the 16th and 17th would be extended to somewhere between 470 and 485 apiece?

P

[rgkeller]

And the ridiculousness of all this will be evident when the wind conditions are right and several collegians hit the 12th in two anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nigel & AWT,

Would you describe the fairway conditions in the drive zone from the old and new tees ?

Could it be that the new drive zone contouring will present far more problems then the old, flat drive zone ?

[Adam_Messix]

Peter-

These are approximate yardages given to us by our caddie during my recent visit:

2    455 yards
4    470 yards
8    469 yards
9    510 yards
12  641 yards
14  450 yards
18  480 yards -- the right hand fairway bunker was moved more into the landing area and enlarged as well.

They also pushed back the tees on #4, 5, 17 and 18 on the East course as well.  I think the tees on 4 and 18 were used in the DL III/Justin Leonard Shell's Match while 5 and 17 are recent.  17 will play in the neighborhood of 235 yards.  

Winged Foot has given their membership a listing of the new championship yardages for each hole, so someone out there may know exactly what the yardages are.

Although I have been questioned about this before, the only way to lengthen 16 would be to change the angle of the hole as going straight back from the current tee would push directly into the property line.  There has been nothing done to 17 either and it doesn't appear as if they are going to prior to the Amateur at least.  I think it's going to require some dirt to get the tee at the same height as the current tee.  

Patrick--

I can tell you that if the USGA gets the desired hard and fast fairway conditions that the fairway slope on 12 will DEFINITELY be a factor.  They actually moved the fairway closer to the tee to avoid some of the issues that occured on #10 at Bethpage.  The best way to describe the landing zone for the drive is to say that there are several folds in the fairway and a general tilt from left to right.  With the recently regrassed roughs, it should bounce balls into some deep stuff on the right.  It's still a bit tough to come up with a final conclusion as to what will happen as it was still a partial construction zone when I last saw it.  

[Neil Regan]

Some slighly more accurate yardages:

Winged Foot West
 8th 475 yards
12th 640 tip, 600 front of back tee, any yardage from 640 to 470
14th 465 tip
16th still 470
17th no change, no plans
18th c460 tip

Total yardage can be about 7300

Winged Foot East
Some tees were extended after the 1997 PGA; only the 17th has been extended this year. Some other tees were just widened, slightly re-directed, or otherwise fixed.
4th c610 yds from across the road
5th c415 (was 380), 260yds to the turn in the fairway
7th 470yds (original tee 1923, never (?) used, the mound was always there)
10th 385yds if teeing from the 2nd tee
17th 235yds

Total yardage almost 7000

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Messix,

That's what I found when I examined the 12th fairway, a far more difficult fairway contour in the drive zone for the longer player.

I don't see a problem.  Winged Foot has always been a long golf course when # 9 and # 16 are converted to par 4's.

With the best players in the world, the PGA Tour player driving in excess of 300 yards, what does a 470 yard hole play at for them, driver, 8-iron

This isn't for member play, so I don't see the fuss.

# 12 will present a genuine 3 shot par 5 for the pro's, isn't that what par 5's are for ?

[Jeff_Lewis]

No, Patrick, that is not correct. Not even close. Are 13 and 15 at Augusta not fantastic holes precisely because they are played as three-shotters only part of the time?

[Matt_Ward]

As a big fan of WF I have to wonder what's all the fuss about?

Here you have a course (the West) that until the 1984 US Open no person had broken 280 for four rounds of championship golf.

Even when you factor in Davis Love III's wining total of 269 during the '97 PGA you still have a course that has held up superbly against the best of the best.

When you have tough driving holes and then couple that with pear shaped greens which have bunkers pushed tight to the putting surfaces I just have to wonder what all the fear about the course being "inadequate" is about.

[Steve Lapper]

The issue, I suspect. boils down to a few critical desires for those members of Winged Foot who continue to seek prestigious tournaments from the USGA and PGA.
 
A member friend described the dilemma well when he said he thought it was just a matter of time before the USGA limited Open and their major venues to those tracks that have enough length to offset the distances achieved by technology. Once the course was committed to the new irrigation system and the intense deforestation, adding the new tees became an incremental cost.

The club continues to desire to host major type events and wants to claim its spot on the Open rota and felt it had to do this sooner or later. Post Bethpage, the NY interests knew they would have to make those changes in order to remain considered. With BB, Shinnecock and Baltusrol all vying for an Open...this became a no-brainer.

"Inadequacy" was not the issue...staying ahead of the curve was.

[Matt_Ward]

slapper:

What "curve" are you referring to?

Just because other sites "compete" for events the proof of the pudding for WF is clear to me -- the West has held it's head high and I for one don't want to see the course "improved" for some unspecified reason that the past record does not support.

How does the addition of a 640 yard hole add anything to the course? I would also say people need to examine th ehole-by-hole averages from the '97 PGA and see how "poorly" the West performed. I have no issue when clubs seek to bolster themselves because a past record indicates such "improvement" is needed. However, that's not the case with WF / West in my mind.

If any club is in need of protecting it's future situation it's Baltusrol which lucked out in having TCC drop out of the '05 PGA. How the Lower fares when the PGA is played there will speak volumes on whether the Lower is relevant for future championship play IMHO.

[Steve Lapper]

Matt,

    I am neither defending nor justifying the memberships' decision(s). I, like you, am not sure the course was "improved" by adding those boxes although it can always be argued that tee elasticity anywhere can represent some form of "improvement."

   Unfortunately, past records (like those disclaimers found in the securities world) are not indicative of future performance.
I simply made my post to help this thread understand just what the thought process was by the members who made the decision.

   As for the "curve," isn't clear enough to you that every "classic" clourse that competes for the major rota has an alteration curve designed to compensate for ball & club technology? Like it or not, (and it has been argued to near death here in the treehouse) that is a fact today that just won't disappear. Frankly, I agree with those who lay the blame at the feet of those here in Far Hills for not meeting the challenge head on.

Baltusrol is. like you say, in need  of protecting its future. Frankly I think it will shine, but not overwhelm for the PGA.

[Matt_Ward]

slapper:

Winged Foot West doesn't need to protect itself from adding length -- you have some of the most demanding greens to hit among all of the major championship sites in America. I've been to a range of events at WF since the '74 Open and the courses there have held themselves very well.

If anyone takes the time to analyze the '97 PGA you will find that one man, Davis Love III, was the only competitor to thoroughly outshine the layout. This was a first.

The West mandates consistent driving and solid iron play. You also must navigate the slippery slopes.

There are clearly other courses that need to "improve" and deal with the "curve" you indicated. Winged Foot West doesn't need the added "virtues" of man's hand to go beyond what it has always done so well -- identify quality champions.

P.S. Having a 640-yard par-5 12th is really idiotic in my mind. Let the boys have a go at the green in two blows if they play two superior shots. Does anyone think the hole gave away eagles from past majors? I have not seen any proof that the hole was "soft."

Winged Foot, like Oakmont, has held up very well over the course of time. Anyone believing vast "improvements" are needed is really ignorant of history. Slapper -- past performance doesn't guarantee future success -- don't doubt that axiom, but let's not forget the Missouri approach to things -- show me how the course is weak and I'll be glad to listen to the arguments that such "improvements" are truly needed.

[Steve Lapper]

Matty Boy,

   Nobody, nor I, ever said WFW was "weak" or needed" the extra yardage. The greens, like Oakmont, defend themselves quite ably. The membership, at the very least, perceived the need to address the "curve" and make the "improvements."'

    They are a proactive lot that cherishes their place in the USGA rota for major tournaments. They count on the revenue and income generated to make the place require low dues.

    I don't understand the "need" for a 640yd hole there, but one exists now and will make all the old cards collectibles, much the same for all the pre 2000 golf equipment. Go figure!

[Jeff_Lewis]

Winged Foot is the best golf club in the US, IMHO, all things considered. I LOVE the place.  But, perish the thought, I find myself agreeing with you Matt Ward.  Must be a first.  Lengthening this hole to this extent is troubling.

WHEN will the governing authorities perform a service to the game and ease the pressure on these wonderful layouts to "keep up" with the present.  It is the present that should be trying to keep up with Winged Foot, Oakmont, Merion, etc. etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Lewis,

Haven't both # 13 and # 15 at ANGC been lengthened ??
Haven't both holes been lengthened to the maximum amount the property will allow
If there was more room behind the 13th and 15th tees is there any doubt that those holes would be lengthened more ?

Don't both holes at ANGC have significant water hazards that severely penalize those who attempt and fail at hitting the green in two ?

No such hazards exist at Winged Foot ?

You can't equate the holes, they are configured so differently, their inherent strategies are different, and # 13 and # 15 were designed from the get go as reachable par 5's, that wasn't the case at # 12 at WFW.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Believe it or not, Patrick, I am aware that 12 at WFW has no water hazard.

Risk/reward and decision-making can exist with or without water. Do I hit driver and risk a bunker that I may or may not clear so that I can get home in two? Is that another example of risk/reward? I think so, and it doesn't involve any water at all, imagine that.

If there is nothing to gain as far as reward on a shot on any hole, whatever its length or par, than it is unlikely that a player will consider taking a risk, and in my mind, without any question whatsoever, holes that ask players to make risk/reward decisions are inherently superior to ones that do not.

Par 5s that are utterly unreachable do not necessarily lack decision-making. 6 at Loch Lomond is a very interesting hole because a central hazard puts decision making into the 2nd shot, as far as where one lays up. But generally, par 5s that involve three INTERESTING shots are almost nonexistent. Whereas par 5s that involve interesting decisions off the tee and about reaching in two are considerably more common.

As you can see from my little motto, it is not about women's health issues, it is about golf. I am PRO-CHOICES. I want holes that make the player think. Changing this hole in the manner that has been described is likely to lead to the following sequence of shots: 1) Hit something that definitely won't reach the fairway bunkers. 2) Hit something that doesn't bring other trouble into play 3) Hit short irons. The new hole is much more likely to dictate play. By my definition, if that is the end result, the hole is worse.

Golf is played against the other player(s). Holes that force players to make choices and consider risks do a better job of identifying the better player.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Lewis,

Yes, but the degree of risk/reward is magnified by the presence of water hazards, something you forgot to factor into the decision making process.

Do you really feel that bunkers pose a risk to the PGA Tour player ?

Do you feel that water hazards pose the same risk, or a substantially greater risk ?

And, if the club used to approach the green is an 8 iron, would you say that the risk becomes greater when the club used to approach the same green is a 4-iron

Added length will restore the design integrity and strategy.

Even I am fairly adept at bunker recovery.  Unfortunately,
I haven't mastered recovery from water hazards yet,
but, I'm working on it.

A major point of adding length is returning the options intended.  Hitting driver, 6 irons or less into a par 5 doesn't present much of an option, and not much risk.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I think I made my point. I have  nothing to add, Pat.

[GeoffreyC]

Jeff

"WHEN will the governing authorities perform a service to the game and ease the pressure on these wonderful layouts to "keep up" with the present.  It is the present that should be trying to keep up with Winged Foot, Oakmont, Merion, etc. etc. "

That's one of the best lines written here in a while.

[Nigel_Walton]

Sometimes GCA feels a bit like having Question Time without the Prime Minister's being present. How do we encourage USGA officials to participate in the dialogue so that we can understand their thought process on failing to control technology, as well as lengthening the classic courses? What we have here is just so much speculation.

[Matt_Ward]

I believe it's important for people to see the flip side of this debate. Too often the whole aspect is dumped into the USGA's corner. Might it be possible that folks at WF really believed they needed to make changes to the West?

I'm not privy to the internal discussions and I have to wonder if the final product being prepared is a joint product of both the USGA and WF.

What many people don't realize is that when you have a course of such supreme character (i.e. WF / West, Oakmont, Shinnecock, etc, etc) the inherent greatness is there and has been there from one generation to the next. If anyone bothered to review the scores and the stroke average per hole you would find the course has stood the test of time rather well. Let's also not forget that among the real heavyweight courses in the USA that can host major event the dynamic nature of the putting greens is still present.

I personally believe many clubs have a bit of an inferiority complex because they see other clubs making changes (not necessarily improvements mind you) and therefore they submit to the pressure to do "something."

For the 12th at WF / West to be reduced to three boring position shots at 640 yards is really unfortunate. The former 12th hole gave players the option to push the pedal for a potential eagle or birdie. The previous hole had character because the scoring / strategic options were in full bloom. It shall indeed be missed.