Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ryan Farrow on August 28, 2006, 02:42:33 AM
-
I picked up "The Course Beautiful" at ASU's library a few days ago (about the only thing the school is good for) and I stumbled upon something that’s worth discussing. The book is nothing more than a bunch of articles thrown together and categorized in some strange fashion but none the less, there are some good excerpts.
The Cart Before the Horse talks about a hole Tillie was thinking about designing. It is basically an approach shot off the tee to a small fairway followed by a drive to the green. He talks about how strange it seems and how it was unlikely that any course or greens committee would approve. The lake in the picture below could also be substituted for any waste area, so don’t get hung up on that.
What do you guys think of this concept? Did he ever get around to completing one or has any other architect?
My sketch of whats in the book:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/lastscan.jpg)
The article ends with this quote:
"Indeed, I should like to have the criticisms and suggestions of every man who reads these lines."
Give em’ Hell!
-
Ryan
In modern parlance this would be the "Moe Norman" hole.
It could be interesting if (as seems to be indicated in the diagram) there was a risky option of a long carry to wedge distnace, and the green was open enough to allow a well-hit and straight off the deck driver to reach the green.
Most punters would hate it, however, since there was only one Moe Norman.......... :'(
-
From what I read in the article carrying the hazard would not be a reasonable option. Lets say for the sake of arguement no mortal man could drive a ball over the hazard. ;D
-
Who's arguing? ;)
OK, if there is no risky option, then the landing area for the "tee" shot has to be subtly complex. Some limited "position A" which will give you a level lie for your 2nd and then graded and increased difficulty for missing positon A.
-
Ryan:
You have to understand that obviously Tillie had a most active mind (seriously) and he came up with all kinds of things---and not just relating to golf course architecture. He was a writer with a most interesting style, he was a caricaturist, a writer of ditties and other funny little stuff and in architecture he came up with all kinds of things----probably a bit like throwing pieces of spaghetti at a wall to see what would stick.
The Cart Before the Horse concept was probably just one of the latter.
I'm pretty sure the Cart Before the Horse concept was never actually done by Tillinghast but it was basically done once by William Flynn---the 2nd hole at the ultra difficult C nine at Huntingdon Valley CC.
That nine was obsoleted in the 1930s and restored sixty years later by Ron Prichard in the 1990s.
That hole was probably highly controversial when it was built and it still is.
I thought that perrhaps originally it had that option of which Rich Goodale speaks but looking at it carefully, I doubt it ever did.
A hole like that (HVGC's C nine #2) falls into the category of what we sometimes call a "shot testing" hole which was a somewhat popular type of design ramification back then. In other words the golfer was required to hit a certain set of shots by design and if he couldn't do it or didn't do it he pretty much got screwed or had to willing give up a shot and try to reach a green in three instead of two. That was basically the optional risk/reward concept of a "shot testing" hole like Tillie's Cart before the Horse design.
-
Ross was interested in a similar concept. From 1910 interview on British architecture:
When he lays out the hole, the constructor casts his eyes over the country and then says to the player: 'There the golf hole, play it any way you please!' As an example, take a hole at North Berwick, where the majority of good golfers play an iron shot first, then a full shot with a wood and then the approach to the green. An American golfer might say that that was all wrong, as the course should call for a full shot first, but upon examination there is no reason why such a theory should prevail, for the British one surely has the real spirit of golf in it when it says that the way to reach this hole is by using the clubs and by taking the route which will get the player to the green in his own way, which should be better for him than anybody else's way.
-
Tom MacWood:
What Ross said in that 1910 British magazine interview seems similar to Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" hole concept but in a fundamental way it really isn't.
In my opinion, what Ross said and what he fundamentally meant to say is basically the essence of all really great golf courses and architecture is that the golf architect has created a situation where any golfer feels he is capable of finding his own best way to his final destination--the hole---eg he feels he can find his own strategies and routes rather than absolutely having to do something or one set of things that has been laid down by the golf course architect that he MUST do. The latter many of us today call architectural shot or design dictation---eg there is one right way to go and the rest is wrong or penalty inheriting.
Interestingly that old fashioned design concept that some of the best golf architects (like Flynn on some courses or Geo Crump) got into that we call "shot-testing" architecture was a severe form of architectural or design strategy dictation. It's only wrinkle, or perhaps saving grace, is that it was understood back then what the risk/reward equation was. And that was to accept the one dimensional super severe design risk or just refuse to accept it and willingly expect to give up a shot and get to the green in one more stroke, with the only expectation being perhaps you could pitch and one putt thereby making up that expected additonal shot for the hole. (There was another nuance to that old fashioned risk/reward equation that was sometimes referred to as "The Tortoise and Hare" analogy ;) ).
Although Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" hole concept is interestingly an upside down form of total shot dictation it is shot or design dictation nevertheless as basiclly most all players are forced to do the very same thing on that type of hole.
In other words, their strategies really aren't their own, they are a set of one dimensional shot requirements laid down by the architect, again, even if in a form basically upside down compared to the way most golf holes are designed.
Again, what Ross was saying and what he clearly meant, in my opinion, is the very essence of all truly good STRATEGIC golf and architecture.
An old Scottish song reminds me of that fundamental strategic essence that any golfer can feel is his own. That song goes;
"Ye take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland before Ye." ;)
That fundamental "player's own" strategic feeling is also the essence of one of strategic architecture's greatest analogies---eg "The Tortoise and the Hare".
That meant that if you played cautiously and willingly expected to give up a stroke on the hole your opponent (the Hare) may play recklessly and give you back that dropped shot or more.
These analogies and design concepts were definitely from the days when a match play mentality reigned in golf and architecture far more than it does now.
-
Tom MacWood, do you suppose Tilly was talking about #9 at North Berwick West? That par 5 has a vexing center bunker with a wall and OB left and deep hay right (where I lost one last time around). I can now see where a long iron off the tee, fairway wood second to the now wide fairway, and pitch third would be the best way to play this hole.
Way to go, Tillie! ;D
-
Thanks for the post Tom, I'd like to hear what Kyle has to say about that hole at HVGC.
-
Bill
Actually that hole at NB was Ross's example. I'm not sure which hole at North Berwick he was talking about but your description sounds like the right one.
-
It's virtually criticized by all as unfair, backwards, ridiculous, too hard, stupid, unplayable and reason enough to not even play that particular nine.
It also provides one of the greatest approach shots I have ever seen, and there is no reason every ability player cannot experience the very same shot.
What percentage of people can actually get in a position off the tee to hit #13 at Augusta in 2?
Same question about #17 at St. Andrews. And #13 at Pine Valley. #2 on the C-nine at HVCC is unique and understandably not unanimously accepted, but I like it pretty well.
-
As a reference, here is an older thread on this topic:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=19200;start=msg340517#msg340517
-
Bill
Actually that hole at NB was Ross's example. I'm not sure which hole at North Berwick he was talking about but your description sounds like the right one.
Whichever, now I have a successful strategy next time I play the hole!
-
Ryan,
I wouldn't call this Tillie's best hole. It might be interesting and unique for those playing it once in a while but for those playing it day in and day out as their home course, it might get old fast. Same would go for Flynn's #2 hole on the C nine. It is far from my favorite. Does this design force a certain shot, I guess it does but I'm not sure how exciting it is? I guess I'd like to see an option or the temptation for golfers to have to contemplate alternative lines of play. This kind of hole is hell for weaker golfers or kids and seniors and a bit boring for better players. They end up in their old divots every day off the tee as there are no angles or preferred positions of play.
Just my opinion,
Mark
-
Tiger Woods decided that a lot of the holes at Hoylake were better approached in "cart before the horse" style (by himself, anyway), and that was great to watch.
To me that is more interesting than the diagram shown. Let the player bomb away with driver into a landing area fraught with difficulty (but not the certainty of water), or let him lay back and attack the green with a longer iron.
I don't think the hole should be as Rich suggests, where the long hitter can carry everything by force. But the other extreme is not right either -- if you really FORCE everyone to lay up in roughly the same spot, you are just giving all the advantage to the better man on the approach.
-
I think TomD has it. As has been pointed out here many times, options are a key to enjoyment - 'forcing' the player to lay up to a spot tends to annoy.
On the other hand, I do wonder if there is a very particular method of making this hole work well... both the tee shot and the approach must be thrilling to play... perhaps the only way is to make the way very clearly 'desirable' rather than forced. Maybe if the landing area were surrounded by extremely undesirable areas... like scrub and sand or marsh - and the second shot took some of the pressure off by offering more forgiveness, but with a thrilling aspect like a severe drop in elevation...
-
Ryan,
Sorry for the delay, just caught this thread now.
(http://static.flickr.com/47/136854135_e67be40fd0_b.jpg)
There's the hole from a Zeus-quivering tee shot. The tee is hard left and a bit behind me in the photo. I took that picture from approx. 200 yards.
From the tee, the left side is obscured by a line of trees that are currently off property. When the hole closed, the township built a pumping station just off the property line that now has an environmental and easement requirement.
In an ideal world, a bunch of those trees would be cut back, and the fairway in the picture would be brought closer to the creek, allowing the creek to function more as a center-line hazard than a lateral hazard. There are some players (I believe Mr. Sullivan included) who have attempted to tee one high and let it fly over the trees to cut the corner in tournament play, with moderate amounts of success.
I love the hole, and serves as a good knockout punch to the first hole's jab on the C-nine.
-
Kyle,
The second hole sure is a knock out punch and the first hole is definitely a jab ;D
-
Kyle,
The second hole sure is a knock out punch and the first hole is definitely a jab ;D
Especially when the easiest hole on the nine follows at the third...
You know, your standard, run-of-the-mill 610 yard Par 5 with a wild green.
-
On closer inspection, Tillie's drawing is a lot like the 18th at High Pointe, except that the High Pointe hole is a short par 5 where only a perfect tee shot is within range of the green in two for long hitters.
And, that hole is nearly unanimously hated by everyone that's played it. So I've done Tillie's experiment, and it is not beloved.
-
Kyle,
I'm a decent golfer (2 or 3 handicap) and I have to say that the C nine was way too much for me. I'm not sure who plays it (and enjoys it) but they must be a much better golfer then I am. I felt bloodied and beaten and couldn't wait to get back over to the other two nines (which I really enjoy). I know it was supposedly built as a "tournament" nine but yikes ???
Don't want to derail this thread so let's get back to Tillie's hole. #2 would basically qualify as a similar one and as I said, I don't really care for it. Maybe if the trees came down and you could add some risk/reward options and it would become much more interesting.
-
I agree with much of what has been said. I still feel there is a way to make the hole work. What I would like to propose is a redan style green and a shifting of the fairway. The point of this is to give the players options. Option 1 is represented as the solid line of play. Here the player could drive the ball into a long iron say a 3-4 iron. The other option is to play the hole much shorter and give that player a better angle into the green. Although this may require a 3 wood or a driver off the deck.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g78/rfarrow22/21212copy.jpg)
Can this work and is it more reasonable than Tillie’s example?
-
I must say I am enjoying this thread. I like Ryan's proposal, and I learned that we have a hole at my home course that could be called a cart before the horse hole. For me, if I work the ball in the proper direction, I very occasionally might hit 4 iron, 5 iron. However, just playing it straight up the middle is 4 iron, 5 wood. It is my favorite hole on the front nine. However, all the rest of my favorite holes are on the back nine.
-
Ryan,
Funny you should design a hole like that. The 11th hole at Lederach by Kelly Blake Moran has a very similar premise.
Here's the tee shot:
(http://static.flickr.com/56/179449026_2912b76c6e_b.jpg)
The hole is out to the left and the best line off the tee is right short of the bunker with a 2-iron or 5-wood. This leaves a mid to short iron into the narrow green.
One can try to cut the corner and get a flip wedge in, but it's not really worth it...
It's been villified by many here, but as I told Kelly the other day: "I wonder why, it's an easy hole if you don't overthink it, just knock 3-wood out past the bunker and then hit your 7 iron to the middle of the green... most of the people complaining are good enough to do that almost on command so what's the problem?"
I tend to like holes like this, especially as a short to mid range hitter.
-
The thing about the whole idea of "cart before horse" is that it takes players outside their box. Better players typically do not like that, and not so great players see it as unnecessary. I have yet to hear a valid criticism (architecturally) of the hole on its own merits.
-
Is it not ok to take players out of the box if you are still giving them options? Yes you take the drive out of their hands but I don't see that as an architectual failure. Anyways these people you talk about might not care if the hole is exceptionaly beautiful. People are suckers for good looking holes.
Anyways, I have a date with Talking Stick North, were see if this minimalism thing is all its cracked up to be.
-
Jes II,
I'm not sure anyone said it was a bad hole? Most just said it was not a great one and explained some of its limitations. Even Kelly's version has some options.
-
Have fun Ryan,
And the answer to your question should be yes.
-
Mark,
You have no idea how many people say it is a terrible hole. One of the worst they have ever seen. I would say the majority of people playing it in it's first five years back said just that. Opinions are beginning to soften however, so that's a good thing.
I'll say this, it certainly is unique.
-
Does anyone have a few more pictures of the examples listed. I'm still a bit unclear on what has already been tried.
-
If I see #10 at Inniscrone in this light it begins to make sense.
-
Ryan,
There are few if any rules in golf course design. If you wanted, you could build a 450 yard hole that zig zags from tee to green three times forcing the golfer to have to hit three 150 yard shots to reach the green. That would be fine. But is it a good hole or a not so good hole? It is personal opinion but to me that example as well as the hole we are talking about here are both not so good holes ;)
Mark
-
Jes II,
I'm not sure anyone said it was a bad hole?
It is personal opinion but to me that example as well as the hole we are talking about here are both not so good holes
So what is the difference between a not so good hole and a bad hole.
The hole now has options, something Tillies example did not have. Which leads me to believe you are completely against what is being proposed. Is not hitting driver off the tee all that bad? If nothing else it adds some variety to the round.
-
Ryan,
I think your second drawing is much better. I misunderstood what hole you were refering to. I'm not so sure someone would lay back with a 5I vs. 3W just so they could hit Driver off the deck with a better angle of play but at least there are some decisions that need to be considered on the tee shot. I find if there are no real problems to solve on a particular shot, in all likelihood it is probably not a very exciting or demanding one.
-
Sully:
Seems to me one of the problems with HVGC's C nine #2 is it probably would be more interesting and acceptable if there ever had been the option to drive it accross and over the creek even if a high risk option.
But it seems the other problem most have with it is the only real idea or concept to it seems to be to get the tee shot as close to the creek as possible and it just doesn't take a very long club to do that considering how the rest of the hole sets up with the LZ on the right side of the creek.
There are a lot of holes where the basic tee shot strategy is to just get the ball as close to the hazard or creek as possible but some of the best of those offer a bit more of a reward for the approach shot if you can get the ball both close to the creek and pretty far out there too.
A good example of the latter would be Raynor's #14 at Fishers Island.
Let's just say it was possible to extend the fairway on #2 another fifty yards out there. If someone then hit a longer club off the tee down there they would then probably be out of angle with the cant and kicker onto that green.
Is there any possibility you and Scott could go out there today and add about fifty more yards down that fairway and then go up to the green and turn it about 15 degrees towards the clubhouse? ;)
-
Tom,
I don't know if the environmentalists allow this, but why not just trim the trees on the left down so that the long hitters can cut the corner. There certainly would be a lot of iffiness to do so even if the fairway were brought back from the green end towards the creek. In any case, all the trees to the left of the creek should be taken out. They serve no purpose at all.
-
Here is a Google Earth photo of the 2nd hole on the C-nine of Huntingdon Valley CC:
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/HVCCc2.jpg)
As you can see the complex of streams makes the landing area difficult even if the trees were trimmed down. I think this is an excellent hole since it is unique and has such an interesting approach shot demand. The green is large with a complexities of slopes. There is a kicker on the right side so that shots can be run onto the green despite the upslope to the green.
The wetland issues prevented any clearing of the trees that encroached during the many decades the course was left alone. Linc Roden, older Jim Sullivan and others were responsible for bringing the course back about 10 years or so ago. There were very few trees on the original iteration of the hole and the waterways were very simple allowing for precise draws to clear the creek.
-
To semi-answer Tom Paul's question, would the hole be better (and better received) if the tee were moved back about 30 yards and moved slightly right so getting the tee shot into the left corner was not quite as awkward?
The architectural answer to the question of "why not just cut down all the trees inside the corner" (replicating what was there 80 years ago) is easy. That would completely 100% neuter the hole. The carry yardages would be anywhere from 225 to about 265 and there would be virtually no risk if you could carry the ball that far. Now all of the sudden you have the top players hitting their drivers to about 75 yards from the green as opposed to trying to figure out how to play a hole they have not seen anything like before. In a time when we all bitch about how far the ball goes, why not have a hole that tests how well the mind works?
In 1927 there was a significant risk/reward to driving it over the creeks because not many people could keep it in the air for 225 yards. Today is a different ball game.
-
I think we're all a little soggy right about now redanman. Scott did have the place humming for about 3 or 4 weeks straight up until this rain started.
Anyway, glad to hear a good player likes the hole, and the nine for that matter. Few and far between.
-
Bill V,
I'm sure your wife enjoys the C nine as much as you do. I'm guessing she plays hole #2 with a 9I off the tee followed by wood to where she can pitch on to the green and try to make a four or five. Sounds like a fun hole to me ;)
By the way, when it rains, turf gets wet. Sounds like even HV is a little soggy! You are not going to diss it because it rained are you ;D
Jes,
The #2 hole on the C nine takes one time around to figure it out. There is no thought involved (that's part of the argument for this style hole being a weak design). As others have said, you layup off the tee close to the stream and then play your 200+ yard approach shot into the green. If you want type approach shot, why not figure out a more creative way to get players into that position in the first place. Seems to me this second shot might make a good par three design?
There are lots of ways to make the #2 hole at HV more interesting but other constraints prevent this. I'm sure it was looked at.
Mark
-
A municipal course in Tucson, Arizona called Silverbell used to have a variation of the cart before the horse hole (I say "used to" because the course was completely redesigned by Ken Kavanaugh a year ago). The fairway shot straight out from the tee about 250 yards. At about 240 from the tee, the hole doglegged left at a 90 degree angle, but in between the fairway and the green was (1) a shallow wash that was basically an unplayable area; (2) a fairly steep hill containing that wash; and (3) a large lake guarding the green short left. The Lake basically prevented taking a driver over the wash from the tee, as a shot clearing the wash would almost inevitably find the lake. And the hill containing the wash made such a tee shot completely blind anyways. So, the only real play was to take a 2 iron from the tee. The tricky part was that the wind constantly blew from the left (and hard), so the further right you drove your ball, the longer the shot into the green (going directly into the wind). But the further left you took it, the more you brought the wash into play. The ideal tee shot was a straight ball or very slight draw that would hang directly over the wash until the wind gently brought it back to to the left edge of the fairway. That would leave a shot of about 140 yards into the green. But even with a 2 iron, that shot took guts. A safe play to the right middle of the fairway would leave between 175 and 200 yards in.
We all pretty much hated the hole's design, but in hindsight, it presented a unique challenge.
-
Were the creeks there originally and was the rough just over them part of the original design ? If so, I can see how tree removal would improve the strategy of the hole. Doesn't the bunker complex on the left of the green seem to be designed to test a shot from the left? And what about the slope of the green. Is it more receptive of a shot from the center or right?
-
Jim,
I'm not saying cut the trees down (except for those on the right side of the creek--and path). What I was suggesting is that the tops of the trees be trimmed down 10-20 feet so that the option of trying to carry the corner exists for more than just a handful of bombers that might give it a go today.
As I've said, I like the hole as it is and I don't care if it gets changed or not. It is unique and fun to play as are the other holes on the course. The approach to C-2 green is challenging and can be played several different ways. However, in order to get some state tournaments to use the C-nine, the overwhelming distaste for the hole (interestingly much more so among the better state players) is to give them something that will allow them to consider the C-nine used in tournament play. Right now there is no way that is happening. If the trees are trimmed a bit from the top, the added option might get it done. Like Linc, I sure would like to see the top district players compete on the C-nine and that is my motivation to recommend a small change.
The pattern of creeks is a bit different than construction drawings and might make it difficult to allow. Maybe the course of the creek that runs toward the green end of the hole can be brought closer to the treeline as it shows in the drawings. I don't know. My suggestion is only to try and get the nine in tournament play without disturbing the hole as is for most players.
-
Bill V,
I already said in an earlier post that I am not a good enough player to appreicate it.
I wonder how much play that nine gets at HV compared to the other two nines?
-
Wayne,
We can put the C-nine into tournament play anytime we want. The golf associations agreed that if we wanted to use the C nine in any of the events we host we should do it. We also host the Lynnewood Hall each year with a pretty good field and we could (and in the past did) use the C-nine as part of the tournament make-up. I see many issues that make the c-nine less than ideal for top caliber events and providing an option for players to go over the creeks towards the green with their drive on #2 is not one of them.
My position is this, the approach from 200 yards or so is so strong that we should encourage play from that area instead of other areas (possibly as close as 75 yards from the green). We can encourage play from that 200 yard area better by softening the angle from the tee to that area. As you know it presently requires a bit of a draw to get into the left corner of the fairway, which is where the 200 yard plate is. Another problem many people seem to dislike is the "cart before horse" nature a,d we could lengthen the hole a bit (so long as we also softened the angle) by moving the tee back and right (as you face the hole). I think this is the current best-case-solution to "improve" the hole because players now will have to hit it about 250 to get to the 200 plate (admittedly downhill so playability is a bit less).
The biggest issue I see with that solution is a common sense thought; asking for a 30 yard longer shot reduces accuracy and control and therefore many more players will not actually get their ball into position to go at the green from the 200 yard area.
My defense of the hole is based on one thing and supported by many others. I think the approach shot from 200 yards out is among the greatest inland approach shots in golf and should be experienced by the players that can handle it.
-
I wonder how much play that nine gets at HV compared to the other two nines?
Mark,
Why do you wonder? What diffeerence does it make to you?
-
Is it a question of difficulty/demand? Not in my mind. The real demand and thus difficulty is the ability to hit a long iron or fairway wood to an uphill target with a steep slope and bunkers left but a kicker on the right. It isn't only an approach that needs to be carried the entire way. Once on the green the demand is the green itself. It is difficult...could it be a bit of a reverse #3 green on Merion East? I don't know the HVCC green well enough but that thought just flashed in my head.
The hole is fine by me and is what the architect(s) present (in this particular case Flynn's original design and a restoration by Ron Prichard with modern constraints due to wetland considerations). I play what I'm presented with in the best way I can to make the lowest score I can. That is how I look at golf in general. If the overriding consideration is GIR, then there can be a problem for some people that see things to compartmentalized. If you think of the hole in terms of matchplay, isn't it a more agreeable hole as is?
-
Jim,
Sorry, I didn't see your reply before my last post. Very well said! I agree with you for all points. But my recollection is that the State Amateur (or was it the Open?) was at HVCC last year. Linc and some of us tried to get the C-nine used for the tournament. It seemed the powers that be (club or association, I do not recall) did not want to because of the concerns many have for C2 and to a lesser degree C7. I love the C nine and HVCC. It is a marvelous 27 holes and a design that needs to be seen and studied.
Now as to your suggestion (or whomever's) to move the tee back and to right along the line of play, I think that might make some people feel better about the hole. It will make hitting the current LZ 200 yard approach tough for many golfers, except for the better ones in the district but that might just be the right method to get it in tournament play more. I get excited to play that approach like I do the 5th, 13th and all other holes at Pine Valley, the 11th, 18th and all other approaches at Merion and a bunch of approaches at HVCC (especially 7,9,15,17,C3,C5 and C8).
In any case, you're absolutely right, that 200 yard uphill approach to a difficult green is a wonderous shot.
-
Wayne,
You're memory on that subject is pretty good. Linc was pushing really hard to have the C-nine used, and I can understand his interests. He wanted the tournament to test the best players in the state to the fullest extent Huntingdon Valley could. He takes alot of pride in the difficulty of the course. The Pa Golf Association heard from Linc about that desire and had their own opinion that the C-nine might not be quite ready for prime-time. If the tee shot on #2 was part of their concern they did not mention it to me. Their position however was very clear, Huntingdon Valley has full say on which arrangement is used for the tournament so long as it is the same two nines for the entire tournament.
I think the tee shots on #1, and #7 are the primary candidates for improvement before hosting a significant event on that nine again.
-
Sully:
When I mentioned #2 in a previous post I was talking about the concept not necessarily what could be done on that hole.
Last time I was there I looked at that area left of the creek and there's a bridge and a lot more wetland or whatever it is there than I thought. I doubt anything could be done there anyway for all the other reasons---environmental etc.
But I'm just talking about a concept. If trees could be cleared out and it would only take a 225 yds to carry over, well, that's what architectural hazard features are for----to enhance and perfect options and strategies. So they could be added in to make the carry as long and accurate as need be
My point is on that kind of concept there's nothing wrong with offering a high risk option left of a creek on a hole like that one where the right side fairway can't get closer than about 200 yards from the green.
So what if a big hitter is only 75 yards from a green like that if he has to take a real risk to get there? That's what the risk/reward equations in golf architecture are all about. Make him carry the ball 275 or 280 or whatever and accurately by using high grass, creeks, bunkers or whatever that he'd have to carrry that much distance over to get near the green. The safe play to the right fairway is certainly always available to him as a safe tee shot option.
With any concept on a hole you just need to work it out, figure out if it makes good sense and if one thinks so just get it on the ground correctly so it really does work in play well.
That's what options are all about, and one has to remember an option, like that high risk one, that is there but isn't used at all is generally not a good one, for obvious reasons---eg it's too risky or too tough to tempt anyone.
All I'm trying to figure out is how to increase options if that seems appropriate and for better or worse it seems like too many feel that #2 is sort of one dimensional and in a sort of upside down way---eg lay up off the tee bigtime only to be left with a really long shot in at best.
-
Tom,
And my position is that as soon as the trees left of that creek along the drive come out there is no risk at all. Let's say we are ignoring environmental guidance just for sake of conversation. Once they are gone, or even significantly minimized there is no reason I (a medium length hitter for a scratch) would ever not go that way. Now if you're suggesting taking out the trees only to put in high grass and bunkers up there I have to ask, why?
There's this old theory architects used to employ on occassion called "shot testing" you may have heard....... ;)
-
JES II,
The only reason I was asking about play on that nine was to get a feel for what the HV members think of it? They know it and can appreciate it much better than any of us can. If the members there like it a lot then obviously I am in the minority in my opinion.
Mark
-
Mark,
From what I've seen, the nine gets a lot of play as a overflow nine, especially considering the amount of little tournaments HVCC does during the week. Not sure how much of that is preference.
One thing you can count on is Linc Roden playing it at least twice a week. :)
-
Mark,
Let's be honest about what you were trying to say. You've got some sort of an issue and it comes through in your commentary on here quite clearly. I'm not too concerned about it, but contradicting yourself as you have should be a concern, to you.
It's funny, you say that the hole requires no thought and is therefore a weak design. You also say that the hole, and the nine, are probably to tough for you as a 2 or 3 handicapper. As a 2 or 3 I am surprised you'd be defeated so easily, perhaps the design has something to do with your attitude and therefore your play out there. Should all golf be a happy-go-lucky free for all?
-
"There's this old theory architects used to employ on occassion called "shot testing" you may have heard....... :)
Sully:
I sure have heard that theory and that term. Matter of fact, I may be wrong but I think Wayne and I invented that term for that basic strategy of some of that old architecture that tended to be designed to be ultra difficult. If one can find that term in some of the old magazines and such then we didn't invent it but I doubt anyone will find it.
I don't have any problem at all with that old fashioned architectural style of "shot testing" architecture but some probably do because they don't think it's optional enough. And it really isn't unless one understands how architects back then who created that one dimensional "shot testing" architecture looked at what was meant by "optional". To them that was willingly playing in the expectation of dropping a shot unless it could be made up with a pitch or chip and a one putt.
We don't tend to look at "optional" that way today. We tend to look at it a a number of different routes to the same destination in the same number of shots.
I have no problem with some super "shot testing" courses and architecture. Pine Valley was largely conceived by Crump to be that.
-
JES II,
I'm not sure where I am contradicting myself? If I am, I don't mean to be. I started out this thread by saying to Ryan that I wouldn't call Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse Hole" his best design. I said it might be interesting and unique for those playing it once in a while, but for those playing it day in and day out at their home course, it might get old fast. I said the same would go for Flynn's #2 hole on the C nine. It is far from my favorite (which means I don’t care for it). I said that this design does force a certain shot, but I'm not sure how exciting it is (I'm talking about the tee shot)? I prefer to see options or the temptation for golfers to have to contemplate alternative lines of play. It seems to me the club is thinking along these same lines and is trying to come up with something (is this correct)? This is what I meant in my comment about playing it one time and you have it figured out (there are no options). I also said this kind of hole is hell for weaker golfers or kids and seniors and a bit boring for better players.
In some of the other posts, it seems this hole and others on the C nine have been an issue for hosting tournaments on that nine so I am not the only one that doesn’t care for it. I stated that I'm a decent golfer just to make the point that I still didn’t enjoy the C nine as is. I like tough courses, (just played Winged Foot West from the tips), but I didn’t enjoy the C nine as it had holes that were simply brutal and to me not very rewarding. I hope I am not offending anyone but do you like every nine holes of golf that you play? It didn’t seem like Tom Doak liked the concept of the hole either. Maybe you should argue with him ;) I do love the other two nines. They are two of Flynn’s best and as Wayne knows, I’ve seen a few Flynn courses.
-
The C-nine was designed as a men's championship nine to be paired swith the B-nine. The A-nine was meant to be played in conjunction with the B-nine as a championship course for women (their women's program has always been strong) and likely for juniors as well. The style of design was meant to be one of specific shot testing for the best players in the district. I think the original design and the current iteration function very well in this regard.
Mark, I don't understand what you mean by holes being simply brutal and not very rewarding and thus not enjoyable. Even if the hole is a supreme test, it is just one of 18 holes. Why is the toughness of WFW more appealing to you than the brutality of HVCC? I wish you would explain the differentiation to me, it is not at all clear. To me, the HVCC challenge is appealing and can even be fun in a way. When a shot is demanded, tested if you will, and you pull it off, that is very rewarding. When the shot fails and you recover to match your opponent's score, that too is rewarding. If you foozle the hole, you'll just have to make it up somewhere else. Plenty of holes remain.
I would think you would think deeper than most top amateur and pro players and recognize the added variety of having a hole like this. It wouldn't bother me to play the hole regularly. If you think about Huntingdon Valley, there are a lot of demands on specific shots and every aspect of play, especially precise ball striking off uncommon lies.
I hope you don't use Tom Doak's opinion to bolster your own. I wonder when Tom played the course, it must have been very soon after it opened given the release date of his first edition. The other holes (except for C-6 which the driving range impacted) are exceptional. And I like C-2 and C-7. A longer hitter should complain less about C-7 given today's technologies. The decision making on the tee can be complex for longer hitters.
-
Wayne,
First let me clarify that I love the other two nines at HV. I just was not at all enamored with the C nine. It is very possible that you need to play it many times to appreciate it. In that regard, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. I haven't played too many Flynn nines that I didn't care for so maybe I am missing something with this one.
Starting out with the first hole which if I recall correctly is a tee shot slightly uphill. Don't you need to carry the ball a long way to just get it over the hill and then you are faced with a long forced carry over a hazard (from which there is no chance of recovery) to the green. And this is all just on the first hole. Tough starter! Then you go to the second hole which you have to admit is awkward. It might be different but that doesn't necessarily make it good.
The one hole (is it #7) requires a long carry off the tee or else you have to layup with an iron and play hopscotch to get to the green.
I guess the memorable holes to me were the ones I didn't care for. The others just didn't stand out. I probably need to play it again.
Winged Foot West on the other hand is not terribly exciting or unique off the tee on most of the holes, but the green complexes are simply amazing. That is where the golf course shines. Tillinghast didn't force your hand but at the same time requires every possible shot you can muster.
My reference to Doak was his comment about the cart before the horse hole earlier in this thread (post #14 I believe).
Finally, I said earlier in this thread that I knew the C nine was designed as a championship test. Shouldn't that fact alone imply that it will have limitations for most golfers. I guess I just fit in the group that sees those limitations.
Is that any clearer? It is tough typing thoughts like this as everyone seems to read into what you type differently.
Mark
-
Mark,
I don't think your memory of the holes is very accurate. While there is a strong left to right cant of the fairway on C-1 and the tee box seems elevated, the landing area is at nearly the same level as the tee. The green is only slightly lower than the LZ, maybe by 5 feet. There is no long forced carry. There is a stream about 40 or so yards short of the green but it is not very wide. The hole is a tough starter but it was meant to be played as the 10th hole in a round. The drive requires a draw into the L to R slope or a straight tee shot down the left side of the fairway.
The second hole is only awkward if you like convention. The approach shot is a thrilling one and the green excellent. Playing this shot is well worth whatever negative some might attribute to the tee shot.
The third hole is an excellent par 5 in some ways reminiscent of the 16th at Shinnecock Hills. There was a very strategic tree on the right that balanced the demands with a bunker field on the left so that there wasn't a bail out area.
The par 3 fourth hole is a bit different in appearance today as the lake is gone but it is a good hole.
The fifth hole is an outstanding dogleg left with a steeply sloped L to R green benched into the hillside and fronted by a deep bunker. A well-executed draw with a fairway canted L to R leaves a more lofted shot into the green.
The sixth hole is the weakest on the nine and is not in the original location due to the relocated driving range. Some work on this hole should be considered. I believe that Ron Prichard was not involved in the hole we play today.
The seventh green is in the original location but the approach angle is different as a result of the driving range. The longer hitter can hit driver to the second island fairway but into the wind a fairway wood or long iron to the first island fairway leaves a long shot to the big green with a severe back to front slope.
The eighth hole is a wonderful cape tee shot where the bold line over the bunkers leads to a nice turbo boost and a mid to long iron into a nice green complex with a man-made strategic mound on the right that can be used as a kicker onto the green.
The ninth hole is from an elevated tee to an LZ on a steep uphill climb to a two-tiered steeply back to front green that is mostly hidden. The routing dictated this approach back to the clubhouse. It isn't a great hole but it is a fun approach.
You're right, the fact that this was meant to be a championship test for the highest class of golfers implies that the nine is not ideal for all classes of players. But it is playable if they are playing match play and not playing with GIR and par in mind. If lesser classes of players would take that mindset it wouldn't be regarded as it is. If I can play the nine, you certainly can. Your game is much more predictable than mine. If Pine Valley, Winged Foot West and to a lesser extent Baltusrol Lower were meant to be tough test of golf, just think of HVCC C-nine as a variation on that theme. You may not like it much, I find it hard to believe that its difficulty is at the root of that decision. At least it is not as systematic in its presentation as WFW and is much more interesting than Baltusrol.
-
Wayne,
Excellent points. I do need to get back there again to do it justice. It has been a long time since I was there. Maybe we can go around it together one day. I still have to think long and hard about hole #2 though.
Mark
-
Mark,
Think about it as a three shot hole.
I'm not saying that to be funny, seriously. When thought about in that context there is some risk and some reward on each shot. For a low handicapper, that may just take you further outside the box but, I think you agree, that's not so bad.
And besides, how many holes really offer each individual player an option on the tee about different clubs and different directions after they've played the hole once or twice?
-
I don't think anyone should think of this as their favorite hole in the world, hell it sure isn't mine, but quick judgements in a negative light usually are backed by soft reasoning.
-
JES II,
For a weaker golfer it probably is a three shot hole. I agree. But you said it for me in your quote:
"I don't think anyone should think of this as their favorite hole in the world, hell it sure isn't mine".
I am saying the same thing as you, this sure as hell isn't my favorite hole either ;)
One last question for you - How many courses have you played where you didn't make some kind of judgement (positive or negative) after playing it only one or two times?
My guess is that if I took you to play Cypress Point tomorrow, you would have some "quick" judgements about the place ;D
-
Interesting Mark, that you read anything short of "my favorite hole in the world" equates to your statement of it being a "weak design".
I think if you are going to make strong pronounced negative statements about a hole you should have substantial experience backing up your position, one visit and some word of mouth hardly qualifies.
My guess is that your guess about my opinions of Cypress Point after one trip are based on you feeling it necessary to form a quick opinion of courses, just in case someone asks you what you think. Fortunately I do not have that same dilemna.
-
I want to play it 18 times in a row, Jim. :o
That just may qualify you for immediate admission in the asylum, if not before, very possibly after. 8)
-
JES II,
Does that mean you don't form opinions of things until you experience them numerous times? If so, you in a very small group.
I know a guy who I have a lot of respect for who wrote this book called the Confidential Guide to Golf Courses (many of which he only saw one time and some he didn't even play). I don't agree with all of it but he sure made some strong statements about the courses. And I don't hold that against him either.
It is just as interesting how defensive you are of the hole? Just let it go ;D I've already said I'll come take another look and rethink my position. I am open to change but like most, I do have first impression opinions.
Mark
-
"Mark,
Think about it as a three shot hole.
I'm not saying that to be funny, seriously. When thought about in that context there is some risk and some reward on each shot. For a low handicapper, that may just take you further outside the box but, I think you agree, that's not so bad."
Sully:
Don't you see that is exactly how C's #2 was designed. That's part of it's "concept", perhaps even one half of its strategic concept. That's the conservative option or the conservative strategy to the hole. And that is precisely why the hole is not popular today with some golfers, obviously Mark Fine beinng one of them.
That's the way "shot testing" concepts were in the old days. If one didn't accept the risk of stringing together two of his best shots he wasn't supposed to get there. He had to make it up with a pitch or chip and a one putt or just willing expect to give up a stroke. That was SOP with "shot testing" holes in the old days if you didn't or couldn't answer the "test".
That's the way it was back then when the match play mentality reigned more than today. Today we have much more of a stroke play mentality, and probably largely due to our handicap system and particularly for good players. In their minds GIR is a reality, almost a necessity--a standard so to speak, at least to be able to get hole high with any option. Back in the old days of "shot testing" designs GIR or the ability to get hole high probably wasn't even thought of.
Mark Fine probably should look at #2 as a three shot hole some of the time but obviously that doesn't sit well with him. He's a modern player and options mean various ways to being able to get to the same destination---eg the green or somehow hole high around it.
That's not the way some of those super challenging "shot testing" holes of the C nine were designed---eg the "shot testers" distance-wise. You needed to produce your best two shots or you who had to chip and one putt for the same ball of wax.
-
Funny thing golf.
Had the pleasure to play Huntingdon Valley once, and only once. A 9 and C 9, plus a 'walk' of the B 9. I played poorly (but not as poorly as someone who joined us for the C9 ;)). The 9 that I enjoyed most at Huntingdon Valley, and remember most of - is the C9. The hole on the C9 that I have the most trouble recalling is C9 #6 (I understand why after reading Wayne's comments above). Holes that I had trouble playing (because of poor form) but absolutely loved seeing - C9 1, 2 and 7.
Perhaps the C9 suffers because of its more recent reincarnation (and so it is less revered by long-time golfers - it isn't part of the course that they grew up with), and the fact that the course has 27 holes (so 9 holes are redundant to some).
I think I'll be reviewing my photos of the C9 again tonight. Perhaps the course aerial as well. Happy memories. Strategy and options, golf with choices. Huntingdon Valley.
James B
-
Tom Paul,
Not that my score matters but I did par the #2 hole on the C nine (hit the green in two with a five wood according to the notes on my scorecard). The problem was that I hit 4I off the tee and can't recall feeling tested over that shot? I guess you could try to get close to the creek on the left but the reward of hitting 3I or something into the green vs. 5W for me wasn't worth it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can get much closer than 200 yards or so in? Is that right?
But you are right in that the hole does call for two distinct shots. That backwards style hole I just struggle with a bit. I've never been a layup kind of player. Maybe that is my problem ;D
-
"Tom Paul,
Not that my score matters but I did par the #2 hole on the C nine (hit the green in two with a five wood according to the notes on my scorecard). The problem was that I hit 4I off the tee and can't recall feeling tested over that shot? I guess you could try to get close to the creek on the left but the reward of hitting 3I or something into the green vs. 5W for me wasn't worth it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can get much closer than 200 yards or so in? Is that right?
But you are right in that the hole does call for two distinct shots. That backwards style hole I just struggle with a bit. I've never been a layup kind of player. Maybe that is my problem :)"
Mark:
I don't disagree with anything you say.
But don't forget, this thread is about Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" concept and by Tillinghast's own explanation and description that was intended to be something of an "upside down" concept expermiment where the golfer would basically hit a tee shot something akin to an approach shot off the tee only to be left with an approach shot, at best, something like a drive.
Tillinghast himself said it would probably be controversial and obviously it was and is.
Don't forget, the analogy to HVGC's C nine #2 to Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" concept is mine, not HVGC's or anyone else's I'm aware of.
(Sully, when I saw you and your Dad last year at the State Amateur at HVGC I mentioned how I felt C's #2 was basically very similar to Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept and I told him I'd make Tillie's article on it available to him.)
Linc Roden thinks the concept of HVGC's C nine #2 is similar to PVGC's #13. I doubt he's heard of Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept which Flynn appears to have used with this hole. I definitely do not see C Nine's #2 being similar to PVGC's #13, other that the second shot at PVGC's #13 was supposed to be very long, at best (originally).
I'm fascinated by this particular hole because it is something of a "Cart Before the Horse" concept and it definitely is a "shot testing" hole which was a type of design of an era, in my opinion.
For better or for worse the hole is very interesting to me for that reason alone.
You may feel otherwise, and there's little question you have a lot of company. ;)
-
Tom,
In my discussions with Linc, he's made it somewhat clear that the comparisons with Pine Valley's 13th hole only lie in how they were created (with the architect hitting shot after shot to get the height of the green and the trajectory required right).
Linc is of the thought that Flynn spent time hitting Spoon shots from where the appropriate landing area on C-2 is and also that Crump (or perhaps Tillie?) was doing the same on the 13th at Pine Valley.
How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?
-
How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?
And more importantly, did they communicate more than Wayne currently communicates with Flynn? ;D
-
I heard that Flynn has SKYPE, especially for that reason!
-
"How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?"
Kyle:
I have no idea.
To be honest, I'm not sure Tillinghast communicated all that well sometimes.
It seems he recommended what he said was a competent architect (Flynn) to do work at Philly Country in the 1930s perhaps not realizing Flynn designed and built that golf course.
And then in the 1920s Tillinghast advertized the Cascades as one of his courses that had hosted a USGA Womens Amateur Championship apparently not realizing that golf course was designed and built by Flynn too. ;)
In my opinion, Tillinghast was probably in the top 2-3 architects ever but it seems pretty safe to say in many ways he was an usually complex man, and architect.
But due to their proximity as well as a few other things (partiularly around PVGC) I'd say it's not all that hard to see what may've been some Tillinghast architectural influence on Flynn.
There seems little question Flynn used a par 5 bunker scheme that apparently derived from Tillinghast's mind and frankly I see a lot of similarities in some of their green shapes.
Was Flynn aware of this "Cart Before the Horse" concept that Tillinghast developed and wrote about? Good question. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
-
Not that it pinpoints the time Tillinghast thoght of the "Cart before the Horse" type of hole, but when did Tillinghast write about the concept? Huntingdon Valley was open for play in 1927 and likely under construction a year or more before hand. There is no date on the routing maps or individual hole drawings but they could date to 1925 for that is when Philadelphia Country Club drawings were made and it too opened in 1927. So Flynn's concept can be fairly closely dated.
As far as we have determined, there exists no written communication between Tillinghast and Flynn. Flynn redesigned a significant amount of Philadelphia Cricket Club (12 holes, but 9 with significant changes) within 4 years of its opening. Flynn also proposed significant redesigns of Sunnehanna some of which were implemented (money was a factor). Maybe the letter suggesting Flynn for the 1939 work at Phila Country Club without recognizing him as the original architect is an artifact of some kind of memory lapse or a disorder. Perhaps he didn't like Flynn. He must have respected him because he wrote a recommendation. We just speculate what may be behind the behavior. The reason Tillinghast took credit for a design by Flynn that he had nothing at all to do with remains a mystery.
-
I have to say this has been an interesting thread. Maybe Philip will chime in, but I agree with Wayne and Tom in that I don't think Tillie and Flynn communicated too much. But I don't think that either of these guys treated anyone else any different. They were all doing their own thing but at the same time there were similarities in their work.
Tom it is interesting that you see green similarities between these two. I would have suggested that Flynn's greens were mostly more subtle in contour compared to many of Tillies. The Black is one glaring exception but those greens don't have any contour period ;D They are pancakes.
I was also thinking about the "shot testing" concept as some call it. Aren't essentially all holes shot testing? I was trying to come up with holes that would not be? For example, aren't all par threes shot testing? They are probably the best example of where the architect has complete control of what he wants the golfer to do.
Finally, can you think of any "par three" holes that would be considered "cart before the horse" type holes? Now that would be pretty out of the box thinking. It would surely be different but I'm not sure I'd call it a good golf hole :o
-
Tom Paul,
Not that my score matters but I did par the #2 hole on the C nine (hit the green in two with a five wood according to the notes on my scorecard). The problem was that I hit 4I off the tee and can't recall feeling tested over that shot? I guess you could try to get close to the creek on the left but the reward of hitting 3I or something into the green vs. 5W for me wasn't worth it.[/color] Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can get much closer than 200 yards or so in? Is that right?
But you are right in that the hole does call for two distinct shots. That backwards style hole I just struggle with a bit. I've never been a layup kind of player. Maybe that is my problem ;D
I highlighted your most recent, and glaring contradiction. The notion that there are no options and rewards for certain risks on the hole seems to have gone up in smoke.
Now that you've described it that way, I think it may actually be a better hole than I previously thought. I never thought the risk reward equation on the tee shot still gave the player the option of hitting the green in two after the conservative line off the tee. I figured you could try to hug it along the left corner off the tee with the hopes of reaching the green in regulation, albeit with a tremendous approach from 200 or so up the hill. Or take a conservative line off the tee into the middle of a very wide driving area and play from 220 or more (off a slight to severe downslope) and play it as a three shot hole, with more options as to aggressiveness from that point.
As to your recent question about a "cart before the horse" par three, I'll assume you're kidding because if not you're ass is really showing.
-
JES II,
I tried to imply in my tee shot description that there really wasn't a reward for getting closer to the creek. I must have failed in the way I explained it. Club difference is minimal at best. Might want to read it again.
You are correct in that I am mostly joking about a cart before the horse par three hole. But then again, why is this concept any more out of the box than the #2 hole? You told me in your one quote that you wanted me to think about the #2 hole as a three shot hole. Why can't you think of my suggestion as a "two shot" hole? Please explain the difference.
I think the course I proposed taking you to play might even have one of those holes - #16 at Cypress Point. I've played it numerous times with decent golfers who were forced to layup because they could not reach the green in one shot. I'm sure this happens often for golfers who can't carry the ball 230 yards in the air (longer when the wind it up).
-
In the "cart before the horse" scenario, the whole implication of CART before HORSE is that the hole is played in reverse order with respect to standardized club selection. Now are you suggesting that #16 at CPC can be played with just a short pitch (the typical second shot on a missed green par three) and then a full blooded second. I was under the impression that you would hit a 180, or so, shot and then a 50 yard, or so, pitch. If it's the way you describe I really do not understand how anyone would ever lay up.
JES II,
I tried to imply in my tee shot description that there really wasn't a reward for getting closer to the creek. I must have failed in the way I explained it. Club difference is minimal at best. Might want to read it again.
Oh no, I read it clearly a couple of times before responding. What you said was "for me it wasn't worth it". Big difference, you see, because for me it is worth it. I am pretty confident I am going to get it on the green from the 200 plate, but not nearly so confident from the 220 area off a downslope. The challenge around the green is such that missing the green makes 4 difficult at best. That makes the risk off the tee worth it for me. And remember, the key is that we are using the term FOR ME because that implies options and we have therefore made a decision.
-
"I was also thinking about the "shot testing" concept as some call it. Aren't essentially all holes shot testing? I was trying to come up with holes that would not be? For example, aren't all par threes shot testing? They are probably the best example of where the architect has complete control of what he wants the golfer to do.
Finally, can you think of any "par three" holes that would be considered "cart before the horse" type holes? Now that would be pretty out of the box thinking. It would surely be different but I'm not sure I'd call it a good golf hole"
Mark,
You are either thinking too hard or not hard enough, it is hard to tell ;)
When you think of the sort of design that Flynn and a few others (Crump, Wilson and Tillinghast in some cases) that Tom (he came up with the idea and coined the phrase) and I call "shot testing" you should think about specific shot testing. Flynn wanted you to hit specific shots to achieve the best score possible. Huntingdon Valley is a fabulous example where this philosophy is readily apparent, if you look with an expert eye. How many times does he require a fade off a draw lie (especially if 2 and 3 greens had the left fall-offs returned) and other specific shots that you had to hit in order to get birdie and even par? He asked for specific shaped shots, trajectories and other demands--sometimes with or counter to the topography of landing zones. I'm sure in all your travels and studies you will begin to recognize what we mean.
As to the cart before the horse in par 3s, pass the stuff you are obviously smoking. You've had enough 8)
-
Wayne, Tom & Mark,
As far as how much communication there was between Tilly & Flynn, no one can say. I believe that there was more than some think yet less than others.
Both men were all over the country during these years and yet I wouldn't be surprised if they met and shared memories and caught up with each other's lives when they met at tournaments.
Whatever the case, we'll never know.
There is something that I think needs clarifying. I believe that Wayne & Tom have misunderstood what Tilly wrote when he recommended
Wayne, "Maybe the letter suggesting Flynn for the 1939 work at Phila Country Club without recognizing him as the original architect is an artifact of some kind of memory lapse or a disorder..."
Tom, "It seems he recommended what he said was a competent architect (Flynn) to do work at Philly Country in the 1930s perhaps not realizing Flynn designed and built that golf course..."
On what basis do you guys state that Tilly didn't realize that Flynn was the designer of the course? Of course he was familiar with Flynn's work. PCC was a favorite club (old & new) of his going back to his earliest of days.
On 9/21/35 he wrote a cover letter to his daily report outlining his visit to the PCC at Bala. He was "requested to select the better of two routes and design of the first hole, which I did. I examined all parts of the new course, where any problems existed and gave them opinions. Where several problems, involving major construction, were evident I suggested that they retain William Flynn, a local golf course architect and construction man. However I gave them suggestions and told the committee that I would be glad to confer with Flynn at any time..."
When you read this it must be remembered who he is writing it to. This was to be read by George Jacobus and several others at the PGA. He wrote it in this manner because this occurred a little more than a month after his work for the PGA began and it was most important that the rules that were set up be followed closely. When major work was recommended, they had agreed that "a local architect" will be recommended.
That his use of this phrase in the letter was more than coincidental can be seen by what followed "at any time..." He wrote, "...being as helpful as possible as is consistent with the aims and operation of our P.G.A. service."
Also, as this was what he sent to the PGA, it isn't what he said to Ed Dudley (President of the Philadelphia Section of the PGA), H.E. Farnham (superintendent of both the old and new courses) and D.W. Bell (Chairman of the Green Committe). All three of these men knew Tilly personally for many years and Flynn as well. He certainly would not have told them to "retain William Flynn" by calling him merely, "a local golf course architect and construction man."
No, he simply wrote a brief and formal letter mentioning a recommendation. You would find by reading all of his letters from the PGA Tour that his writing style in them became greatly "relaxed" and informal as his travels went on. Originally they had thought that it would only last for 2-3 months, not the 26 months that he lasted. For those who know and those who don't, the Tillinghast association is working very hard on our website with the goal of eventually having all of Tilly's writings (among other things) available through it for anyone to read, research and enjoy. This includes scanned copies of the PGA Tour letters. We are getting very close to where we can say to all, come and take a look!
Wayne, you also asked, "Not that it pinpoints the time Tillinghast thoght of the "Cart before the Horse" type of hole, but when did Tillinghast write about the concept?"
It was part of the "Our Green Committee" page in the June, 1919, issue of Golf Illustrated.
-
Phil,
I haven't looked at most of the Tillinghast letters to the PGA so I was only basing my interpretation on the one letter I've seen by Tillinghast regarding Flynn and PCC.
I think it is odd that he recommended Flynn while including a description of him as "a local golf course architect and construction man" but not including that he was their original architect and ongoing consulting architect. You have a much greater perspective on this, but still it is of interest.
Why was he recommending an architect to the club when he was already the consulting architect? Was he overstating his importance or need at PCC to the PGA? They had their man, and it was Flynn; who would go on to make substantial changes to the golf course for the 1939 Open.
The only thing I know that Tillinghast recommended and was done is the practice hole between the current 13th and 14th holes.
Thank you for pointing out the article where Tillinghast first mentions the cart before the horse. We know Flynn built one. Did Tillinghast?
-
Wayne, you asked, "We know Flynn built one. Did Tillinghast?"
I don't know of any, although that doesn't mean he didn't. If he did, it probably wouldn't be recognized as such today if it still existed in its original form.
Do I think he did? My opinion is no, he didn't. The reason is the nature of the article. This was athought exercise of his, something that he would do from time-to-time in print.
He wrote, "It is not because the hole is different from any which I have seen that causes me to hesitate in presenting it for your consideration (for I glory in seeing any hole which is original yet sound), but rather because, in one vital essential, it flies deliberately into the face of golf conventions..."
This thought experiment came about because he asked himself this question, "Simply because it is customary to whale into a drive from a teeing ground, do we find any reason why a player should not be called on to use another club with all the precision of placing his ball in a fairway as he would use in playing a tee-shot to a green?"
He was thinking of this tee shot as if it were a par-three!
He recognized that this hole design was controversial, impractical and be the cause of much debate. In fact he even said in the article that, "I doubt very much if I would deliberately manufacture a hole of this description."
The last paragraph of the article would certainly show why he would have deeply approved of this discussion on GCA.
"As I said almost in the beginning, this hole is open to debate and the comments of the readers of this article will be most welcome. Indeed, I should like to have the criticisms and suggestions of every man who reads these lines."
-
JES II,
I have to say I've had a good time sparing with you ;D
You have to remember, when the wind is blowing in off the ocean at #16 at Cypress, it is almost a two shot hole for most. Actually it's a two shot hole for most in benign conditions. The average golfer doesn't carry the ball 230 yards (even though most think they do). There are more balls in the ocean there than sea shells.
Wayne,
Don't kid yourself, Flynn didn't hold a monopoly on those type of holes/shots. I think Tillie, Thomas, Ross, and every other good architect wanted golfers to hit specific shots in certain situations to get the best score possible. It doesn't take an expert to figure that out ;) How many good golf courses/holes have you played where this is not the case?
Bill V and others,
What is wrong with designing a hole that requires a precise short iron of say 90 to 100 yards followed by a 140 or 150 yard shot? Maybe the reason the hole must be played that way is because of a stand of trees that blocks a direct path to the green (an severe elbow type hole) . Seems to me that would fit the cart before the horse concept?
I am not advocating this two shot par three concept, I am just pointing out a "different" kind of hole that would require "shot testing". Tell me why it wouldn't?
Forrest just built a par two hole. Is that too much out of the box thinking?
-
Mark,
You just described a shorter version of the "cart before the horse" par four.
-
Philip,
Well stated!
Everyone else,
This has been a good healthy discussion. Everyone has been civil and had some fun with it. I'd like to see more of these on GCA. If so, I, along with many others might try to contribute more (time permitting).
-
JES II,
Why do you call it a par four? It would be under 250 yards. Is there a rule I am missing?
-
And again, about CPC, when laying up, is your first shot closely representative of a standard secong shot on a long par three? And is the second shot closely representative of your first on a long par three? If so then we've got something, otherwise I'd have to say you've entirely missed the concept of "CART BEFORE HORSE".
You see it goes like this, in days of old people used something called a cart to carry large items in. They would then strap the cart to a horse that would pull it to where they needed their goods delivered. If you put the cart in front of the horse it just don't make sense...it's backwards. Kind of like hitting a 4 iron off the tee and a 5 wood into the green.
-
JES II,
Why do you call it a par four? It would be under 250 yards. Is there a rule I am missing?
OK, good point, let's call it a two shot hole. I call it that because you describe it with terms like "requires a precise short iron" and "must be played that way". This implies that two well played shots by a good player will reach the green. What say you?
-
JES II,
I guess I was expanding my definition with the #16 at Cypress. The idea being that here is a "par three" that can't be reached by most in one shot. In fact, you have to play substantially away from the target (you basically hit two full wedges) to get to the green. I just played the hole twice in June and my one playing partner (a 10 handicap) hit wedge wedge to reach the wind was up. The father of the one member we play with always plays the hole that way. He can't reach in one any more.
-
I have to run. Catch up later!
-
I can't say I've ever heard of a golfer that couldn't hit their driver as far as they can hit two of their wedges. Especially when you consider the route taken with the wedges in this example. You sure you got those clubs right ???? And assuming you do have them right, you sure he's not just making a decision to take the conservative route and make a four? He's probably deposited his fair share of pellets over the years.
When you try to expand this way you get stuck because there is an incredibly large percentage of golfers that cannot reach a 400 yard hole in two, or any hole in "regulation" for that matter and the "cart before the horse" hole is not backwards for them, it's just a long hole. They have 240 yards or so before running out of room on #C2 at Huntingdon Valley. The trouble for them on this particular hole is they frequently cannot get to the corner of the dogleg (about 190 or 200) to have an opportunity to advance their second shots over the creek to the approach area at the bottom of the hill. I have a solution for that problem that does not comprimise the current integrity (not that many think it has any worth protecting) of the hole, from a shot-testing perspective, but no action as yet.
-
"Wayne,
Don't kid yourself, Flynn didn't hold a monopoly on those type of holes/shots. I think Tillie, Thomas, Ross, and every other good architect wanted golfers to hit specific shots in certain situations to get the best score possible. It doesn't take an expert to figure that out How many good golf courses/holes have you played where this is not the case? "
Now Mark, where did I say that Flynn had a monopoly on shot testing? I even mentioned three other practioners.
I have played many courses that do not require specific shot testing. A course without angles, without strategic placement of bunkers and hazards, without proper use of terrain features, without green designs that influence play back to the tee and other factors has little chance to have specific shot tests. In fact, the type of shot testing I am talking about at Pine Valley, Huntingdon Valley, Merion and elsewhere are not found most everywhere. You say good golf courses have them. I don't know what you mean by good golf courses. To me, there are thousands of good golf courses, many of which do not have shot testing. Do you think they do? It would appear so.
Two wedges to a par 3 is not the cart before the horse. A short tee shot followed by a long approach is a cart before the horse type hole. At least as I consider it. I'll have to read Tillinghast's entire article to see what he meant.
-
JES II,
Here is a photo I dug out from the left landing area on #16.
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c43/mkfine/P6130023.jpg)
I guess the idea for hitting wedge is that if you are going to layup, then layup. There is more area to play safe to by hitting well left (toward an old Cypress Tree). If you try a longer carry you can easily run through the fairway and into the ocean on the other side. Also, some like to hit a full shot into the green rather than from 60 or 70 yards.
Trust me, even good players struggle to reach this green in one shot. Go play it and then tell me what you think. If the wind is up and you played smart (most don't), you play the hole like Bobby Jones said he used to play the island green par three at East Lake - "with an old ball" ;D
I remember the first time I played the hole. I looked at my caddie and said, "You realize I am not leaving this tee until I knock one over the water onto the green or else run out of balls, which ever comes first". I hit driver that day, first one went right into the ice plant by the cliff, second landed just left of the green but caroomed down onto the beach, and the third finally ended up on the front right portion of the green. I managed to two putt from there for a par "for my third ball" ;D
-
Wayne,
JES II figured out what I meant with the two shot hole. See his comments.
Does Yale have shot testing? How about Oakmont, what about Olympic with all the side hill lies to angled greens, what about Fenway or Plainfield or Fox Chapel, or Cypress or Pebble Beach or Cog Hill #2 or Winged Foot West or Harbour Town or Royce Brook West (just to name a few I've seen this year that I think do).
Does anyone else beg to differ with what I am getting at? What would George Thomas or any of the other great architects say about their golf courses? Philip did most of Tillies courses require shot testing?
By the way, I am not even going to begin to mention all the British Isles courses. You can have every kind of shot imaginable on a single hole due to the nature of links golf. You want to get "shot tested" play over there.
-
Could C-2 even be considered "Cart Before the Horse?"
How different are the distances on the tee shot and approach?
I think it may be stretching things a bit especially considering the distances the ball was going during Flynn's time.
Linc Roden's interview even mentions that the club selection on C-2 in 1928 would be Driver off the tee and full wood into the green. That Hogan would hit 3 wood and then 4 wood, and that a certain GCA poster involved in this discussion hit 3-iron and then 4-iron.
Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse with this discussion?
-
And you wait until post number one freakin hundred to bring that out of your arsenal Kyle, what the ****? ;D
Seriously, my play of that hole from the current back tee with relatively firm conditions would be to hit a 210 or so tee shot. This would be my expected yardage on flat normal conditions. On this particular hole that should mean 220 or 225 in actual yards. That should get me pretty close to the 200 yard plate; although depending on my success in hugging the corner I would be anywhere from 190 to about 220 from the center of the green. Let's say I am at the 200 plate. From there I have a shot equivalent of about 220 to get to the center of the green based on the elevation increase. Unlike most every hole at HVCC, this one really does not offer a running approach to reach the green due to the severity of the incline to the green. It's all fairway, it's just too steep to think you could run the ball up.
Now back to Mark's idea. If you are telling me there is a guy that can hit a pitching wedge over to the left off the tee on #16 at CPC into a position that he can hit another pitching wedge ontl the green, I am telling you that very same guy has the length to reach the green with one of his woods. He is simply making the decision to lay up and ha prefers to lay well back. Those are decisions to get in the hole in the fewest strokes. Sure there are plenty of people that cannot reach that green off the tee (probably 90% of all golfers), but they cannot hit a wedge at a wide angle as a lay up club and then hit the same club into the green. Geometry and common sense make this pretty hard to argue. Let's say it's 200 yards to carry the ball to the green on a straight line. What is the total yardage covered by traveling the route you are talking about? If the guy goes at a right angle he'd have to hit his wedges 140 yards. So let's just say he goes at a little closer angle and only needs to hit each shot 120 yards. Any guy that can hit his wedge 120 yards can sure hit another club 200 yards, he just chooses not to on #16 at CPC.
Remember, I'm not arguing that the hole is easily reachable or anything even remotely close to those lines. I am saying your argument is totally and completely empty. I could care less if you like or dislike #2 on the C-nine at HVCC, and I could certainly not give a damn if you come back, see the hole and have a different or reinforced opinion of the hole. My position is that if you are going to come on here and give a strong negative analysis of a hole you'd better come with more ammo than you brought to this conversation. You repeatedly tried to lay your failing position at the feet of Tom Doak and his feelings on this hole (and hole principle) and his Confidential Guide. When Tom came out with the Confidential Guide it was unique. Controversial, but unique. Right now you are trying to be controversial but you've failed on the unique.
Question: Do you think Tom would write that book again if he knew then what he knows now?
-
And by the way Mark, you clearly do not have this shot testing idea down yet. When Wayne and Tom talk about it they refer to the concept of putting each player into the same situation on a particular hole and letting them try to perform. On #2 at HVCC C-nine its that 200 yard shot up the hill. On #7 at Pine Valley it's the ability to complete about 400 yards in two shots, with the second shot carrying to the 400 yard mark as opposed to running out to that point. On some holes you need to hit a cut from a hook lie to have any chance of holding the green. This is shot testing. Playing a links course and strugling with the different shots that are needed is not.
-
Fair points Jim. Good to get your insight as I tend to play the hole a bit more conservatively (5-wood and then 5-wood, using the right-side plateau to get myself a level lie and "hoping" that if the balls rolls left, it's firm enough to get to the bottom). It takes the creek out of play for me, as well.
That's another interesting aspect of the hole that REALLY can affect play if the course isn't as firm as usual, and that is the steep right to left slope that runs along the center line of the tee side fairway.
Here's Ran's view looking back from the landing zone to the tee:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000000671.jpg)
There is ample room on the left side of the picture to hold a shot up top (which would be the right-side of the hole from the tee).
-
Jim,
Thanks for putting into better words what I was trying to get Mark to understand. As you know, it isn't about how difficult golf courses are but rather the specific shot demands required of all golfers.
-
Wayne,
No matter how many times I try to post a photo I mess it up. I just emailed you the photo of Crump at Pine Valley taken by Tilly. In it he is hitting off bare soil that appears to still need shaping.
Do you know if this is an example of him "shot testing" at Pine Valley? If so, do you think you can post it?
-
Here's the photo you sent me:
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/CrumpPV.jpg)
This is an example of shot testing prior to the hole design in the design process.
Shot testing as Tom and I use the term and as Jim Sullivan understands it is different. The type of shot testing we feel that was designed into golf courses is where specific shots are dictated to achieve the best score possible.
For an extreme example consider the case where an architect has a landing zone on a fairway that slopes left to right so that for right-handed players it is a draw lie. Suppose the green complex (slopes, bunkers and other hazards) requires a fade to hold the green or position the ball on the correct portion of the green to have a chance at birdie or a good chance at par. This is a case where the architect tests by dictating a certain shot, in this case a fade off of a draw lie, the ability to hit a specific shot on demand which all golfers are faced or they must make up with a great recovery or putt.
-
Phil:
"Shot testing" the way I use it is two distinct things.
First, back in the old days with some architects the way they generated design ideas was to hit lots of shots on the property. Apparently Crump and his foreman Jim Govan who was a really good player from St Andrews hit shots constantly and for years at PV to determine shot values, green sites, bunker placements etc.
Secondly, "shot testing" in a design or strategic sense on a course is a concept that requires the player do something specific or a couple of things in tandem on a hole to succeed. JES used the best example of "shot-testing" of the 7th hole at PVGC. Back in that day a very good player basically had to hit his best drive and best brassie to clear "Hell's Half Acre". If he couldn't do that or didn't do that he couldn't expect to hit that par 5 in THREE shots.
Tillinghast described that concept in detail in his article "The Three Shotter". That's a perfect example of a "shot-testing" design.
The photo, by the way, is Crump in the right side massive sand area right of #6 fairway before it was finalized.
-
JES II,
You are showing your lack of understanding of the #16 hole at Cypress Point. Best to play it than make your comments. One more point to help educate you. If a golfer hits two wedge shots of 115 yards (assuming little roll) doesn't that equal 230 yards of carry. The average golfer does not carry his driver 230 yards in the air (sorry JES II, that is a fact). However, these same players can often hit a wedge 115 yards. Play the hole, then comment.
I'm afraid you are the one that doesn't understand this term "shot testing" or maybe its that you have your own definition.
Tom Paul says "shot testing" in a design or strategic sense on a course is a concept that requires the player do something specific". You say it is about putting each player into the same position on a particular hole. The only holes I know where the player is put into the same position to play a hole is on par three holes. Why would any par three not require some kind of shot testing? Please educate me? The architect picks the location from where the golfer is to play, orients the target and the hazards so everyone comes at it from the same angle of approach, and essentially challenges the player to do something specific to succeed on the hole. What am I missing? Please explain? Is #16 at Cypress Point not a shot testing hole? Is #17 at the TPC of Sawgrass not a shot testing hole? Is the local muni's 130 yard hole with a bunkers surrounding the front not a shot testing hole?
Moreover, does a "dogleg left" par four hole fit the term for "shot testing"? If not why not?
To go back to the #2 hole, on your approach shot on #2, the architect doesn't tell you that you have to hit a low running draw into the green for your second. You might use that shot to run it on or you might hit a high soft cut shot depending on conditions and your preferred ball flight. You also told me that the distance in might vary from 200 to 220 (off a downhill lie) and that this was a big difference for you. Seems to me not every golfer is in the same position on the approach so does that negate the shot testing of the hole? I don't think so.
By the way, I didn't even know what Tom Doak said about this in the Confidential Guide. When I referred to Tom Doak's opinion about the cart before the horse hole it was from one of his earlier posts on this thread. Tom said:
"Tiger Woods decided that a lot of the holes at Hoylake were better approached in "cart before the horse" style (by himself, anyway), and that was great to watch.
To me that is more interesting than the diagram shown. Let the player bomb away with driver into a landing area fraught with difficulty (but not the certainty of water), or let him lay back and attack the green with a longer iron.
I don't think the hole should be as Rich suggests, where the long hitter can carry everything by force. But the other extreme is not right either -- if you really FORCE everyone to lay up in roughly the same spot, you are just giving all the advantage to the better man on the approach.
By the way, are any of the Hoylake holes shot testing holes? If Tiger turned them into cart before the horse holes as Tom suggests, wouldn't they then qualify in some way? If not please tell me why?
-
Who are some other famous shot testers?
I'll start: Old Tom Morris, HS Colt, Herbert Leeds, WC Fownes, Donald Ross, Johnny Low, Walter Travis, Marion Hollins, Bobby Jones and Lewis Lapham.
-
Mark, you asked, "By the way, are any of the Hoylake holes shot testing holes? If Tiger turned them into cart before the horse holes as Tom suggests, wouldn't they then qualify in some way? If not please tell me why?"
No they wouldn't and the reason is a simple one. By defin ition, and this was defined by Tilly in his thought experiment, the player is forced to hit his tee shot to a specific location that would preclude choice. No driver. Not hitting a driver, as in the case of Tiger at Hoylake, was an option he chose while others chose others.
It is the choice that precludes most holes from being a "cart before the horse" type of hole.
That is also the reason why par-threes aren't either, even though CP as you cited is a great hole that can be played short left and then another pitch in to the green.
Tilly's idea was for a two-shotter (par-4) only, and with the 2nd shot having to be a long one. His idea was a hole without options that could only be parred with very well-played and exact shots properly struck.
The reason he believed that this type of hole would rarely be built and that he probably never would build one was because there could be no options available to the player for either tee or approach shots.
By the way, what has also been missed is his description of the fairway landing area from the tee would place it on "a plateau." He seems to be implying an uphill and maybe even a blind tee shot as well.
-
Philip,
Thanks for the summary. When I was talking about "shot testing" I wasn't only referring to cart before the horse holes. I was referring to Tom's definition and I guess Wayne's and JES II's. They used #7 par five hole at Pine Valley as an example of a great shot testing hole. That is clearly not a cart before the horse hole but it is a shot testing hole. Given that example, why would par three holes not be shot testing? That was the point I was driving at.
Maybe where things got confusing was with #16 at Cypress and refering to it as potentially a cart before the horse style hole. It could be played that way but you are correct it would not qualify by Tillies definition as cart before the horse. The other example I gave of the par two hole was just a radical extension of the cart before the horse concept (applied to a par three).
-
Does anyone else think this is like explaining calculus to Larry the Cable Guy?
Let's talk about CPC 16 first Mark since you brought it into this discuaaion and I am making no specific hole comments, but rather working off the clear physical elements of the hole.
Are you suggesting that the actual yardage of the hole is 230 and not 200? Assuming that is why you used that number, are you then suggesting that someone can hit two consecutive 115 yard shots to cover that 230 yards? Have you ever heard of Pythagoras?
I am keeping this hole in the conversation because I think you reach to try to make a point. I think you exaggerate. I don't think there is a guy on the planet that can hit two pitching wedges to that hole that could not hit a wood directly to it. You tried to explain this hole as one that takes options out of some players hands, and I don't think you can support that position.
Now back to the "cart before the horse" idea. Of course par threes are a form of shot testing. What takes the idea outside of the box is the notion of putting people in a like situation on two-shot holes. As you may have observed, on most every two-shot hole on the planet, as soon as the players (a group that is) tee off they are off on their own playing the hole however they can. They lose each other. The "cart before the horse hole", that does not offer an alternative option off the tee, gathers everyone into the same area and asks them to hit a shot. Can you get your hands around that? Can you explain how it does that?
-
I think PhilY did an excellent job of describing what "shot testing" was in the minds of some of those early designers such as Crump.
It's a little off the subject, but this thing we sometimes hear called "using every club in your bag" was something Crump was dedicatedly trying to do at PV with his hole by hole design at PV. He wasn't only doing that there generally but he had a prescription laid out for precisely where he wanted various club usage to occur in the best of circumstances.
Another thing we probably tend to forget today compared to the way they played golf back then---and designed---is even the very good player back then hit driver a lot more than most good players do today. Back then even par 3 holes were designed where the very good players expected to hit driver, and a very well executed one at that. That is definitely "shot testing" design and the idea of a good player needing to hit a driver to a long par 3 today virtually doesn't exist, but it did back then in that "shot testing" era.
Furthermore, back then the fixation on GIR didn't exist to the extent it does today.
Today many golfers consider chipping and pitching in the hope of one putting for par something of a "recovery" mode. Back then chipping or pitching in the hope of one putting was considered far more of a bona fide golf strategy albeit a conservative one (perhaps to avoid the high risks of some "shot testing" strategies). It was a lot of what the old "tortoise and hare" analogy was built on.
But in the mind of a designer like George Crump the most complete examples of real "shot testing" would be the 7th hole of PV where even a good player had to string together his two longest clubs (ie a good drive and a good brassie) just to clear HHA, or on #15 the concept (not actually completed in Crump's lifetime) was that the good player had to string together his three longest shots just to reach the green in three. Or even the 4th hole where the good player was not expected to hit less than a brassie approach to that green from the top of the hill.
These concepts on those holes (and others) at PV are not speculation. What those concepts were intended to be and to call for were written.
-
Tom,
re: #4 at Pine Valley, do you think it was in fact accomplished? The full extent of shot testing that is. I might have my numbers a bit off, but I think it's only about 230 or 240 from the back tee on #4 to get over the hill. That was not exactly unattainable, even 80 years ago, was it?
#7 seems to be the ultimate example of this concept to me.
Are there any modern forms of "shot-testing"?
-
Jim,
I've been using the measuring tool on Google Earth (tools drop-down menu at top left) and it is only about 225 to clear the top of the hill. Of course it probably plays like 240 because of the uphill nature of the tee shot (I gotta check my geometry).
By the way, that tool is awesome! I was using it for Huntingdon Valley and Merion this weekend. Your yardages on C-2 were right on.
-
I can tell you this, approaching #4 from the top of the hill would be an absolutely awesome shot.
They might have to put in bullet-proof windows on the pro shop and clubhouse if they ever got back to demanding that shot.
Another thing, this thread has really energized me to look into the best way to get the most out of that hole, #2 on the C-nine. A couple of small things might be able to be done to make the hole more palateable for a wider spectrum of players.
-
The first hole at Royal Cinque Ports, Deal is a very good example. The best way to par that hole is (in my experience) to hit a 150-160 yard tee shot and then cut a long iron over the burn and onto the green.
-
Rich,
Is a longer tee shot a viable option? Or are the risks much greater than the reward?