The pitfalls of lengthening

[Craig_Rokke]

I drove by a course today, one of those really short (approx.
5800 yds) older courses, and couldn't help but notice a newly-
formed and very prominent berm in the middle of the course.
My guess is that it was a new tee box. It was built on a fairly
severe downslope, propping up this apparent new teeing ground so that it overlooked a longer fairway.

Aesthetically, from a drive-by standpoint, I thought it did not integrate well with the course. It was plainly visible from a number of holes, one whose fairway closely ran in back of and perpendicular to this new mound of dirt. The back end of the tee box had to have risen close to a story-and-a-half above
the prevailing terrain. If it was indeed a new tee-box, I have to ask myself if another 40 or 50 yards is really worth a look
that isn't particularly cohesive?

What are some of the common lengthening pitfalls courses are falling into these days in their attempts to keep up with the
distance game?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

Dramatically altering the intended angles of attack, the strategy of the drive and the potential loss of features or desired results in the drive zone.

Lengthening should be studied on a hole by hole basis before the spades are in the ground.

[TEPaul]

The worst lengthening ideas I've heard recently are Pat Mucci's ideas for lengthening hole #5 at NGLA--basically a topographical "no can do" and lengthening #18 by moving the driveway and C.B Macdonald's gates to make room for maybe fifty more yards!  



PS;

If the club agrees with Pat and does something like that I think they should at least consider going whole HOG and putting a small tee in the entrance area before the gates and letting long hitters and pros see if they could either hook one through the "in" gate or fade one through the "out" gate and over that really tough carry bunker out there on the left! Who knows if they did that Matt Ward may even label #18 a really great driving hole!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How could you leave out my idea to lengthen # 7 by going back 20-30 yards.

After review of # 5, I'd tend to agree that the topography doesn't lend itself well to lengthening.

I still like moving the gates, but, shifting the tee slightly to the right is acceptable, but the tee would have to remain close to the road.

[Eric Pevoto]

Craig,

Know it; seen it.  It is an impressive amount of dirt.  With a little vegetation and growth, the "knob" might not look so out of place, but right now looks pretty peculiar.  

It seems odd that a course that short would chase more yardage.  It's not as if they will ever reach "championship" length.  Why even try?

Happy Turkey Day!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
How could you leave out my idea to lengthen # 7 by going back 20-30 yards."

Pat:

How could I leave that out? Do you want ten seconds and one guess to answer that on your own? OK, you got it!


BEEEP--10 seconds is up. I left that out because that isn't one of the worst lengthening ideas I've heard recently. It's not exactly one of the best because it's not all that simple to do without a bit of jumbling but it's not the worst either. I still think calling that hole a par 4 for special occasions is a far better idea. If its prototype (TOC's #17) can do it and remain world famous and as respected as it is NGLA's #7 can do it too! They are the same length you know?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You just want every single thing your way. There's no "give" in you at all. I've offered all kinds of interesting compromises on NGLA's #18 including one you just stole from me but it's not surprising that you won't go for my latest of a patch tee in the entrance area before you come through the gates. How can you say it wouldn't be interesting and challenging to have to hit a fade or hook through the "in" or "out" openings in C.B's gate? That could add up to about 75+ yds to that hole and the club probably wouldn't have to consider more length there if they did that until at least 2010! You just have no ability to think adventurously and outside the box, do you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What you and everybody else miss when simply championing the reduction in par from 5 to 4 is the inherent loss in the tee shot strategy that doesn't get restored siimply by changing par on the hole.

In order to return the railroad shed bunkers on # 7 back into play, and restore the intended strategy on the drive, the tee must be moved back, and it is rather uncomplicated and simple to accomplish.

[TEPaul]

"What you and everybody else miss when simply championing the reduction in par from 5 to 4 is the inherent loss in the tee shot strategy that doesn't get restored siimply by changing par on the hole."

Pat:

I'm not missing that at all--I'm well aware of that and you do have a point there. But how did TOC's #17 deal with that? As that hole is the same length as NGLA's #7 the point of the transition from the par 5 to 4 on both holes would be to put more pressure and more temptation on the second shot anyway--not the drive. If TOC's #17 wanted to remain as a par 5 they would've had to find even more tee length than their present 476yd--the same length as NGLA's #7. TOC's #17 did it successfully by dropping from a par 5 to a par 4 and NGLA can do the same. NGLA doesn't even have to wonder how well it will work--they have a prototype as they've always had!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the railroad sheds proximity to the tee, the hotel and out of bounds preserves forever the intended strategy off the tee.  These features don't exist at NGLA.  I also feel that the 17th at TOC is a little more of a dogleg then # 7 at NGLA.

Lastly, I think the green angles are different, and that makes all the difference in the world on the approach shot.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

There's apparently no end to the things you'll think of. Nevertheless I can guarantee that for special occasions (really good players and a separate card for them) both #5 and also #7 at NGLA can work just fine as demanding par 4s.

#7 is not EXACTLY the same as TOC's #17--it doesn't have to be and you don't need to try to make it be. Anyone can tell #7 will work as a demanding par 4 for real good players. I've seen plenty play it--I know what I'm talking about. Adding 20-30 yards to the hole won't hurt the hole although it would jumble things a bit but dropping the par to 4 won't hurt it either--it won't do a thing to it except make it more psychologically demanding. For real good players NGLA doesn't need to be a par 73 anyway--it would be far more respected by really good players as a par 71 or even a 70 and nothing would have to be done to it except plant the tee markers and have another scorecard!

But you'll apparently never get it until that's done. In the meantime I hope they don't add a bunch of unnecessary tee length yardage. On those holes they don't need it---there's a much better, much cheaper and more effective option.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Dropping the par from 5 to 4 doesn't change the play of the hole one iota, nor does it return the lost strategy and demand off the tee.

Moving the tee back accomplishes both.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Dropping the par from 5 to 4 doesn't change the play of the hole one iota, nor does it return the lost strategy and demand off the tee."

Pat:

Would you say the same thing about TOC's #17?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What you're missing is that the strategy off the tee at # 17 at TOC hasn't been lost due to the severe vertical nature of the hazard/obstacle and its proximity to the tee.  

A configuration that # 7 at NGLA doesn't enjoy.