News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bay Hill No. 16
« on: March 15, 2007, 10:33:16 AM »
It's playing as a par-4 this year, at the Arnie Invite.

Apparently, Arnie felt the need to "protect par" -- so he's taken a guts/glory par-5 and changed it to a manhood-busting par-4.

Obviously, changing the par doesn't change the hole, inherently. But it changes its *flavor* utterly!

Isn't this a textbook example of the need to roll back the ball -- so people can stop foolin' around with their golf courses (and their scorecards?)?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 10:48:14 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2007, 10:36:02 AM »
Dan,

I think it's more an example of poor perspective.

With this hole, or the US Open preparations, and other course and par altering modifications, why not just let the best players in the world do what they do. Is 12 under so unacceptable as compared to manufacturing 4 under?
Logged

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2007, 10:40:55 AM »
Do you think Bay Hill is trying out to have the US Open...

I could sound good for the USGA to go at Arnie's place for the Open... unless it's too damn hot in florida
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2007, 10:42:20 AM »
JES II --

I agree.

But I don't see how that poor perspective will ever change.

Easier to change the ball than outlaw vanity.

DK
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 10:42:56 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2007, 10:43:43 AM »
Philippe,

I personally do not think Bay Hill wold try to host a US Open. The climate being the #1 reason, as you suggest. If I implied any connection to the USGA in my response it was unintended.
Logged

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2007, 10:51:28 AM »
Dan,

Can't disagree, other than to say...why outlaw a piece of equipment that becomes deleterious to the game in the hands of a very small number of people?

My position on course changes as a result of longer players today is that the club does so at its own risk. I don't see the need.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2007, 10:59:07 AM »
Quote from: JES II on March 15, 2007, 10:51:28 AM
Dan,

Can't disagree, other than to say...why outlaw a piece of equipment that becomes deleterious to the game in the hands of a very small number of people?

Because sooner or later, it becomes deleterious to the rest of us, too!

We're discussing this among my Fantasy Golf group, too -- and you know what the remedy proposed there is? Narrower fairways and thicker rough. No surprise.

If the Tour goes to narrower fairways and thicker rough for their televised events, course owners and green committee-members and lower-handicap club players will get the idea that, hey, if that's what the Tour is doing, that's what we should be doing, too.

And I happen to think that narrower fairways and thicker rough are both prescriptions for less interesting (and extremely less fun) golf, for all of us.

Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Powell Arms

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2007, 11:03:36 AM »
Below is a link to nice article with quotes from Arnie and a few others, which I found on Geoff Shackleford's website.  

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/NEWS/703140479/1002/SPORTS

I love the quote from Ben Crenshaw.  "You still add up your score at the end of the round. And they're still going to give the trophy away to the guy with the lowest score."
Logged
PowellArms@gmail.com
@PWArms

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2007, 11:07:38 AM »
Dan,

Do you really feel equipment technology will eventually hurt the game for a significant percentage of its players? Not talking cost, just the actual challenge of the game.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2007, 11:29:50 AM »
Quote from: JES II on March 15, 2007, 11:07:38 AM
Dan,

Do you really feel equipment technology will eventually hurt the game for a significant percentage of its players? Not talking cost, just the actual challenge of the game.

JES II --

No, I don't. Not at all.

You're misunderstanding me.

I think that, just as the Supreme Court follows the election returns ("Mr. Dooley"?), Golf follows the PGA Tour (and the USGA, and Augusta National).

Please re-read my last post.

Dan
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 11:44:16 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2007, 11:47:48 AM »
Got it.

I think educating the world of how interesting the game can be with wide fairways.
Logged

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2007, 12:09:21 PM »
Dan, I don't really like Bay Hill much.  As for 16, I think the hole is more interesting when you have to play the second to the green.  Depending upon wind and yardage, this could make it quite interesting.

The hole is least interesting into a breeze so it mandates a layup.

Think #7 at Hazeltine with a crazy green.  Is it better with the tee up?
Logged

Doug Sobieski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2007, 12:29:03 PM »
Quote from: John_Conley on March 15, 2007, 12:09:21 PM
As for 16, I think the hole is more interesting when you have to play the second to the green.  Depending upon wind and yardage, this could make it quite interesting.

The hole is least interesting into a breeze so it mandates a layup.


John:

I agree. At its par 5 length, the layup is a really short iron. Does anyone enjoy playing driver, PW, SW to a green?

I hope people don't forget that the hole only became a par 5 in 1990 (same with #4). Prior to that, it was considered one of the best par 4's on the course. In today's tournament configuration, 16 is not that much different than the 1989 version.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2007, 12:39:10 PM »
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I don't remember anyone laying up (even from the cart path on the right! Floppy!) unless he was forced to by the position of his tee ball.

That won't change this year.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 12:39:44 PM by Dan Kelly »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bay Hill No. 16
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2007, 10:32:37 PM »
Quote from: Dan Kelly on March 15, 2007, 12:39:10 PM
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I don't remember anyone laying up (even from the cart path on the right! Floppy!) unless he was forced to by the position of his tee ball.

That won't change this year.

I've been out there where group after group had to lay up and only a few people could reach.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back