7th NGLA - The ideal green complex to approach

[TEPaul]

"Don't believe a shorter #7 is a good par 4, I'm afraid.  Green complex not receptive to long approach and front right pin is absurd enough from 20 yards let alone 200."

Chip:

Are you saying then that #17 TOC is not a good par 4 for strong players? I don't think its green is all that receptive to an approach from 200yds either. So what? That's most of the interest of the hole, don't you think--ie, how to try hard to make 4 without making worse than a 5?  NGLA's #7 is basically a copy of #17 TOC--so what's the difference if NGLA's was a par 4 too for very good players?

All I'm proposing here is that NGLA make #7 a par 4 on an alternate card when very good players play the course--it can remain a par 5 for the rest of the players. It's a simple solution and would cost very little--no more than it costs to print a set of alternate cards. I suggest that the alternate NGLA card be a par 71 or even a par 70--including #5 as a long par 4 for strong players.

The benefits are basically that it doesn't alter the golf course and it makes those holes what they really are--very good demanding long par 4 holes for good players.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

The angle of attack is so different, so comparing # 17 to # 7 may not be a good idea, or a valid comparison.

The configuration and orientation of the green is different, and that difference would make it a bad par 4 when compared to # 17.

[ForkaB]

Pat and Tom

Good double act showing why "par" is an irrelevant concept.

chipoat

Hackers like you and me never go long.

Mike C

I posted on my numerous Valentine's Day weekend walks along TOC at about the same time that you were going through your period of existential angst.  The new bunker sucks, but it will evolve.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

I find #7 at NGLA to be a more difficult green complex than the original.  The original is also a touch shorter.

For whatever reason, TOC's Road Hole seems a more reasonable par 4 to me - I've played it 6 or 7 times and National's somewhat more often.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

When's the last time you were hitting 5 & 6 irons into # 7 green at NGLA for your second shot from an angle equivalent to the far far right rough ?

They are different holes and play vastly different.

As Chipoat said, approaching # 7 green from 20 yards is difficult, from 200 it would be impossible.

[TEPaul]

Pat & Chip:

That's interesting that you think #17 TOC is easier to approach as a par 4 than NGLA's #7 would be as a par 4. I certainly know #7 but I've never seen #17 TOC in person or played it---only seen it on TV. So would you explain why #17 is easier to approach, how it's orientation is different from #7, presumably making it easier to approach? I thought both of them were basically on the same angle or orientation or are you saying #17 TOC is at an easier angle to approach in two? It certainly doesn't seem to be from what I've seen in a number of Opens. It would also be helpful if you'd tell me if you've ever seen a golfer actually fly a ball in two onto TOC's #17 and holding it on the green, particularly the front right section.

Frankly, I really couldn't imagine any golfer actually flying a second shot onto the front section of NGLA's front right section but so what? There are other options to getting a ball on there in two.

The important things to keep in mind here are--

1. TOC's #17 has apparently transitoned from a par 5 to a par 4 successfully, and,

2. If nothing is done to holes like these two it really isn't particularly logical to assume they should be played differently despite which par they are. The fundamental idea on any golf hole is to attempt to play it in as few shots as possible always weighing the risks of making a higher or much higher number in attempting to do so.

Fundamentally in golf if a hole is within reach of two shots it could logically be called a par 4---perhaps a very demanding one but a par 4 nontheless. Things such as statistically high GIR in two really doesn't necessarily have that much to do with it--and TOC's #17 seems to prove that theory in spades. That's why I think NGLA's #7 could transition from 5 to 4 (only for good players--ie, the alternate card) the same way that TOC's #17 did.

And if they did that at NGLA I can guarantee that hole will get a ton more respect and a better reputation as a demanding hole than it has heretofore enjoyed. And the very reason that would be true is simply because the hole would then be able to play a bit of a psychological mind game on many players--players such as yourselves.

[TEPaul]

"As Chipoat said, approaching # 7 green from 20 yards is difficult, from 200 it would be impossible."

Pat:

And you think #17 TOC is easier to approch from 200 yds out (or less dangerous to approach)? Tell me why and let's see if others agree who know both those holes. It's certainly hard for me to imagine just what #17 is like to approach since I've never been there. However, everything I've ever seen from #17 including a lot of pro tournaments it would seem to be incredibly hard to approach in two. And if that happens to be true the point is #17 has and is setting a very interesting standard as a very demanding par 4--a standard NGLA's #7 could logically follow since it's basically a copy of #17---same name and all!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

This is why it is so important to see and evaluate a course firsthand.

You've drawn a conclusion based on limited if not erroneous information, because you want your conclusion to be valid.

The sharp elevation at the green is missing at TOC and the green is at a far more benign angle of attack and not nearly as narrow in the front right, almost the reverse green configuration as # 7 widens out toward the back, where # 17 narrows toward the back.

I also believe that the 17th plays about 460 yards from the tips.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Having played them both, I can vouch that Patrick has described the differences between the 2 green complexes superbly.

I will add that you can also drive the ball a bit farther right at TOC thus making the angle of attack even less problematic.

While the Road Bunker is certainly no bargain (and probably more penal than its NGLA near-twin), the worst danger on the original is to be up against the wall across the road.

The original is just an easier green to approach from just about anywhere except across the road.

If I can do it, it can't be that problematic.

[TEPaul]

Pat & Chip:

Well then, seeing as I've never laid eyes on TOC's #17 and so can't compare the two greens and the shot values of the approaches to them I'd have to accept your conclusions--providing others are in some kind of agreement with you.

However, if that's so the two of you should accept another logical conclusion.

That is if you ever begin to argue, for whatever reason, that NGLA's #7 is too easy as a par 5--because it can be successfully hit in two shots and birdied too often you should then seriously consider the logic of dropping its par to 4 rather than adding 20-30 yards of tee length onto it and continuing to insist it should be a par 5 for very good players.

You've apparently already argued succsessfully that due to it's extremely difficult green, green-end, orientation, angle, whatever, #7 is just too hard to make a 4 on as it now is from 200 yds or 20 yds, so how could you then propose that it should be made even harder? And furthermore, why would you even want to do that? And if you did argue for that it would seem to me you're both trying to argue both sides of the same coin!

[GeoffreyC]

Here is the roadhole at TOC.  I think the front right is raised quite a bit.  Flying a ball directly onto that green seems like suicide.  I don't remember #7 green at NGLA well enough to comment but perhaps someone might want to comment on differneces in angle of attack and upslope leading into the green.  Thanks

[Mike_Cirba]

Does this help?

[Mike_Cirba]

p.s.

For anyone who hasn't visited the course profile on NGLA here for some time, Ran has evidently added some TREMENDOUS pictures!!!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Is there no merit to the architects original intent, that the hole should be played as a three shotter ?

If there is merit to that, then wouldn't it seem more logical to add a little length in pursuit of that intent, rather than shorten the hole and make it a par 4 contrary to that intent ?

[TEPaul]

"Is there no merit to the architects original intent, that the hole should be played as a three shotter ?
If there is merit to that, then wouldn't it seem more logical to add a little length in pursuit of that intent, rather than shorten the hole and make it a par 4 contrary to that intent?"

Pat:

I don't believe that. I think it's far more sympathetic and preservationist to the golf course to leave the hole and the golf course the way Macdonald designed it and not add tee length to that hole.

I would prefer the club leave the hole and the par the way it is now but if they're going to start to consider #7 to be a weak par 5 or a weak hole for some reason, as evidentially you must be to recommend adding yardage I would prefer to see them simply call it a par 4 and leave the hole alone.

Calling the hole a par 4 on an alternate card and a par 5 on the regular card does nothing to the hole except change the perception of it--not the hole itself. Shortening the hole as you call it is nothing more than setting back tee markers on existing tees wherever seems reasonable on any day---there is nothing architectural involved in doing that.

If for some reason that doesn't work they can simply throw away those alternate cards. This would be a much simpler, less costly and less invasive process to the architecture of NGLA than adding a new tee where it was never planned by Macdonald.

The thought of adding 50-60 yards to #18 by moving the driveway and Macdonald's gates is far more invasive to the golf course though.

But again, if someone thinks there's something wrong with #7 right now for strong golfers I think the best idea is to not add tee yardage and just call it a par 4 on an alternate card. That does absolutely nothing to the golf course itself--and that's the point!

Additionally it doesn't seem that TOC or its design intent or the Road Hole or its design intent has been compromised in any way by having the par dropped on that hole from 5 to 4. If anything it has unquestionably strengthened the reputation of #17 or the perception of it. And I believe the same would be true for NGLA's #7 and also #5!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

The yardage on the two holes is significantly different so you can't compare the two.

In addition, many other features are different, such as the angle of the green, configuration of the green, elevation of the green, etc., etc..

To endorse your theory is to deny the existance of elasticity.

[Charles_P.]

I'll quote C.B. himself to try to address Geoffrey Childs' question (from "Scotland's Gift, pp.191-2):

"The seventeenth or Road hole at St. Andrews was, of course, easy to duplicate, but I determined that the station-master's garden should not be out of bounds as that is a forced situation, so I made it a great expanse of bunkers and mounds, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot capable of making any distance.  When it came to building the green, the size and bunkering were identical duplications with two exceptions.  The sharp juttings of the bank running up to the green I made less unfair by smoothing the juttings off somewhat.  I had read many criticisms of this flukey approach and agreed with them.  Where the road with its mud, ditches, and walk are on the right of the green at St, Andrews, I built a formidable sand-bunker running the entire length of the green with a five to six foot face; therefore giving a player, unfortunate enough to get in, an honest golfing shot."

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying here about NGLA's #7. My definite preference would be that the club just leave #7 alone and that it remain what it's always been, a 478 yd par 5 from the championship tee markers.

But recently some recommendations seem to have been made regarding some changes to the golf course. I have no idea where those recommended changes are coming from--from within the club, from Rees Jones, from the superintendent or from you or someone else.

Some of the recommended changes look to be restorations of what Macdonald had at NGLA or intended to have and other recommended changes seem to be nothing of the kind. I think with a golf course as significanct, as historic, and seminal to American architecture as NGLA is it's extremely important that anyone involved in recommending changes to that course know and understand the difference.

Again, some of the apparent recommended changes listed on another thread on this website recently look to be restorations and other changes such as adding significant tee length to #18, #7 and #5 are in no way anything that Macdonald conceived of that I'm aware of. I think you must know that--I'm certain the golf club knows that.

You speak of elasticity. That's a real and useful luxury to have on a course and a routing and on certain holes. In some cases it can be done very simply such as #8 and in other cases it cannot be done simply at all. I've never really analyzed any of those holes that closely to imagine the addition of added tee length but my memory of #5, #7 and #18 is that it could not be done easily at all--and I have looked at each of those holes with that in mind.  My sense is on #5 the topography is not really conducive to going back with tee length--that the ground is lower back there. I believe the same is somewhat true with #7 and going back there to the extent of 20-30yds would really jumble things up with #12 green anyway.

Other recommended changes to the present course such as restoring the tee angles on #8 and #12, restoring green space to #13, removing trees behind #18 appear to me to be unquestionably a restoration of things that once were. The others mentioned above are definitely not and one certainly wonders how well they could be done in any case. That alone could be a very good reason why Macdonald may never have considered them!

Have you actually stood behind #5 and #7 and analyzed carefully the potential problems involved in adding that kind of tee length to those two holes?

So my point with #7 is to leave it the way it is including the par, but if for some reason the club thinks #7 has become a weak and reachable hole by strong players in two shots due to technology my preference then would be to logically drop the par of the hole and simply leave the hole alone!

If that's what the senitment now is with #7--ie that it's too reachable in two shots by strong players then commonsense and logic would indicate it isn't much different than a par 4 for strong players.

One cannot logically argue that the hole is too reachable in two shots for strong players and at the same time also argue that it's not reachable in two shots by strong players because it's almost impossible for strong players to gain the green in two shots! That's simply arguing both sides of the very same coin. Heads and tails are not the same and #7 has either become too reachable by strong players or it hasn't. If it hasn't I say leave the hole and its par as it's always been and if it has become too reachable by strong players in two I say call it what it has really become then--basically a par 4 and leave the golf hole's architecture alone.

I'm not the one proposing change to the architecture of #7--you are by recommending adding 20-30 yds to the hole or else you're endosing something the club is thinking of doing that way. I just don't agree with that. So it seems to be you who's trying to make a change fit into your conclusion and not me--ideally I'm saying leave everything about the hole as it's always been.

And again, I've never seen TOC's Road hole but the greens don't look all that different to me as you suggest. And if you read C.B. Macdonald's own thoughts on the comparison of the two greens in the post above you can see that he didn't believe the greens were that different (he said it was easy to copy TOC's Road hole green--except that it seems he felt that #17 was apparently more difficult--even unfair for some shots for a few reasons). And if one looks at the comparative drawings of both holes and greens in Geo Bahto's new book (assuming the drawings are correct and representative) you can see it appears that #17 TOC's green actually appears to be at a greater angle off the axis of the beeline to the hole than #7.

The front section of #17 may be bigger but apparently Macdonald felt the immediate rise onto the front section of #17 was too steep to copy exactly at #7 and anyone who has read about #7 NGLA and Macdonald's adjustments to the front rise knows that Macdonald intentionally softened the original steep upslope on #7.

So I'm not recommended that NGLA's #7 be reduced from a par 5 to a par 4 for no reason---all I'm doing is suggesting if the club is recommending changing that hole by trying to add 20-30 yards to it--which may be hard to do for a number of reasons because they believe the hole has now become too reachable in two by strong players a far better and less architecturally invasive solution would be to simply call the hole a par 4 on an alternate card--to be used by good players only.

And when you talk about a significant difference in distance between TOC's #17 and NGLA's #7 it appears to be 461 for the former and 478 for the latter. I don't call that all that significant when all you have to do to make them absolutely the same yardage is plant the back tee markers on #7 app 17 yards in front of the present tips. Do you really think planting tee markers at the same yardage is some kind of big deal?

[ForkaB]

Pat Mucci and chipoat.  It seems that McD has contradicted your assessment of the relative difficulty of the apporaches to #17 TOC and #7 NGLA.  Much as I hate to admit it, the CB is right, this time, at least......

I think that Tom Watson would also concur with our assessment............

[TEPaul]

"Much as I hate to admit it, the Dr. is right, this time, at least......"

Rich:

Are you actually questioning Alister Mackenzie on architecture again? Amazing! I think the man's architecture has pretty much proven his opinion on things to do with architecture generally correct so why would you hate to admit that he might be right?

I was once put in my place for mentioning to Betty Jameson, a two time US Open winner and strong disciple of Tommy Armour's teaching methods that in my opinion golfers should not play the ball as far back in the stance as Armour recommended. Betty said; "Tommy, I think Tommy Armour knew a bit more about the golf swing than you do." She was right and I learned a good lesson early on.

And I would say the same about what you know about architecture compared to Alister MaKenzie. So again, why is it that you hate to admit that he may be right about architecture? Have you done a course somewhere that's better than Cypress Point that we should know about?

[ForkaB]

Tom

I was a stupid in my pervious post and referred to McDonald as MacKenzie.  Not a hard thing to do.  All dead Scottish GCA's look alike, don't they?  I've amended the erroneous post.

As to your specfic questions, given my humble admission of error, they are irelevant.  I will answer one of them, however.  I have not, YET, designed a course equal to Cypress Point.  But, there is still time!

[Mike_Cirba]

I also think it's obvious from the comparative pics of the front sections of both greens that the one at NGLA is not nearly as dramatically upsloped as the one at TOC.

Glad CB agrees with me.

[GeoffreyC]

Charles P - thanks for the reminder about CB's comments on NGLA

Why doesn't NGLA just print cards like Sand Hills?  Put the yardages on them- thats all- no par and no handicaps.  #7 would be a 478 yard golf hole- period.

[ForkaB]

Geoff

That is far too intelligent a suggestion to ever be adopted.

[TEPaul]

"All dead Scottish GCA's look alike, don't they?  I've amended the erroneous post.
As to your specfic questions, given my humble admission of error, they are irelevant.  I will answer one of them, however.  I have not, YET, designed a course equal to Cypress Point.  But, there is still time!"

MacK or MacD--it's really of no matter as both were heavy-weight architects with super reputations and products. So instead of asking you if you have something as good as Cypress somewhere we don't know about just interchange NGLA for Cypress--so, again, why do you hate to admit either of them are right about architecture?

As far as all dead Scots looking alike---yeah, right. They probably look as alike to you as the holes on their courses  which must be part and parcel of your feeling that a hole is a hole is a hole. It sounds to me that you must be thinking of Gertrude Stein instead of Mackenzie or Macdonald!