What year is it??

[Ran Morrissett]

Walton Heath is back to a true heath.

Oakmont hasn't looked or played this well since William Fownes passed away in 1950.

National Golf Links of America is in the best playing condition in decades. Same for Shinnecock Hills (save for the narrowing of the fairways   for the upcoming US Open).

Garden City is one hole away from perfection.

Chicago GC has obtained perfection.

Yes, there have been some heavy   casualities along the way but there is reason for hope: these were the flagship clubs 90 years ago and they are once again setting the standard that other clubs will aspire to ... or at least we can hope so.

Cheers,

[ed_getka]

There are many courses "evolving" back to their glory days, and some are being restored by capable hands. Plainfield is another good example. Pasatiempo is another course moving in the right direction, although the tree issue will never be turned back. The one glaring exception to my mind at Pasa is the bunker work done on #15 a number of years ago. I thought it must have been an in house job it looked so bad (and still does).

It is great to see some progress being made, unfortunately its not happeing at Manor CC apparently

[Jim_Michaels]

Ran,

Don't forget that Maidstone is probably in its best condition in recent memory as well.

[Ran Morrissett]

Ed,

I would say the housing + a lot of play invites the need for trees at Pasa. The old b&w photos when MacKenzie roamed around there are indeed stunning but there is little way to turn the clock back on a course that has houses within the course's interior.

Cheers,

[GeoffreyC]

Yale is not  

[Ran Morrissett]

Jim, I agree  - Maidstone has ALWAYS been perfect. It is one of those rare clubs/courses that never succumbed to the fad du jour. As courses went greener and greener, Maidstone resisted. Same for Fishers.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran;

I notice you failed to mention Merion and their "Back to the Future" efforts at returning the course to 1930.

Oversight, or good intentions poorly executed?

[ed_getka]

Ran,
 I know you are right about the trees at Pasa, but I am always suprised by the number of people who refer to the housing at Pasa. Other than #6 you REALLY have to go off line to get into housing. I hardly notice the housing there other than to think what a great place to live (if money grew on trees ).

[A_Clay_Man]

Ran- Your overall point is being felt by a few new courses too.
Wild Horse jumps to mind instantly, but also a little(ha)course I happened by today, Black Mesa. While it isn't in terrain that promotes walking, the firm and fast nature of the turf, the strategic option filled shot-making decisions of old, are getting a new audience, here in New Mexico.

Look forward, See you soon, Cheers

[THuckaby2]

To Ed G. , re Pasa:

1. What's so bad about the bunkers on 15?  They look pretty damn good to me, and play brutally tough, all of them.

2. You can't hit into houses? Each of these shots has houses very much in danger, not requiring that bad a shot at all to make for damage potential.  In fact, I have SEEN shots hit into the houses in each of these places:

#2 - left of green
#4 - left of green
#5 - left side off tee
#6 - all the way up
#9 - left of 2nd shot, left of green
#10 - entire left side
#13 - right side  for tee shot, 2nd shot
#14 - entire right side
#17 - entire left side

That's a lot of housing in play!  Thus the normal complaints from people.  Hey, it doesn't bother me that much, I've never known the course to be any different and the good way outweighs the bad.  But to deny it exists seems silly.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, yes it is cool that all of these things are going in the "right" direction.  But given all the CCFAD crap still being built, and the horrid overpricing at such... and the way equipment is going... and the awful response of the USGA to it... well... It still remains tough to be all that optomistic about the health of the game.  But thanks for the optomistic look anyway!

TH

[THuckaby2]

Shivas, my good man:

I did mention 13.

I'll grant that saying the houses are in play on 2 stretches things - the trees/bushes protect them.  Nevertheless, one does "feel" the presence of the houses left and long..

I have seen many shots hit the houses left on 4 - remember, that's a wedge in only for very long hitters.  The fairway bunkers right are a popular place for tee shots to end up, and from there, it doesn't take much of a pull (from 160) to hit the houses.  The bounce from the cart path doesn't help the issue also.  I've also seen quite a few greenside bunker shots skulled into the houses.

Can't hit the houses on 5?  Please.  I've seen it done many times.  Pull/hook, bingo.

Same goes for 9.  Second shot pull =bounce off street, into houses.  Those are at least farther away though...

10?  Come on.  Pull/hook on either drive or 2nd and it's house time once again.  The house to the left of the green also gets a lot of action...

14?  Jeez, you don't consider trouble much for a guy who professes to be wild.  The houses are VERY much in play on the right side, all the way up.  I've seen many shots go into backyards there.  The fact that left is absolute jail also makes this pinch in a heck of a lot more than you seem to think...

Funny too, I also disagree with you re 16... there are a LOT of trees protecting the right side before you get to the houses.  9 out of 10 tee shots hit too far right will hit a tree and drop down before they get to the houses.  Oh sure, a ball can go through and go OB, I too have done so... But you are way more likely to hit a tree and stay safe.  Screwed, but safe.

Funny how this lil ole golf course is seen so differently by different people...  

TH

[Mike Benham]

I have seen many shots hit the houses left on 4 - remember, that's a wedge in only for very long hitters.  

Not sure about the wedge part but I hit pull long and left over the fence for a homer in March ...

Funny too, I also disagree with you re 16... there are a LOT of trees protecting the right side before you get to the houses.  9 out of 10 tee shots hit too far right will hit a tree and drop down before they get to the houses.  Oh sure, a ball can go through and go OB, I too have done so... But you are way more likely to hit a tree and stay safe.  Screwed, but safe.

I agree with Shivas on this one ...

And in regards to the houses on #10.  If we look at the pictures on the other thread, you can't see the houses, but if you walk to the right side of the tee box you can.  I don't consider those a problem because the tree is what you play to the right of and you really have to hit a wild hook to hit a shake roof.

Ps:  I also agree with Ed about the bunkers on 15 ...

[THuckaby2]

Again, it's interesting to me how differently respectable minds see this golf course!

I'm gonna stick to my guns somewhat re 16.  I really think the houses are far less in play there than on other holes, just due to the trees knocking down most shots.  But hey, if we want to make this a binary yes/no "are the houses in play", then ok, add this to the yes column.

Re 10, good point.  The big tree on the left will block most tee shots from heading further left, or in the case of a horrid snipe, it'll just end up in the canyon.  Still, I would consider the houses definitely in play for the 2nd shot - I have seen many not so bad pulls end up OB.  So I gotta keep this in the YES column also.... If 16 is, then 10 surely is.

Re 15, I still don't get what the problem is re the bunkers.  Please explain.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

We crossed in cyberspace...

Re 16, you NEVER should have been hitting driver there, my friend - I guess therein lies the problem.  Hell, you're 50-90 yards longer than me, and even I have never hit driver off that tee.  It's just not worth the risk... When a 3wood (for me, 3-4iron for you) can leave you at the top of the hill with a flat lie and 160 or so in, why try to hit the perfectly drawn driver (several years ago for you, 3-wood or even 2iron today) to try and get to the tiny flat spot around the corner, down the hill for the wedge in?  Add in you really don't want a downhill lie to that severely raised green... and well... it really doesn't seem worth the risk to me.

In any case, OK, as I say above, I can punt a little re 16.  YES the houses can be reached.  But if you count 16 a yes, you absolutely have to count 4, 5, 10.

Oh yes, heck yeah 2nd shots can reach the houses on 4.  Remember where the cart path is... It's also very real to blade a SW into the houses from the greenside bunker.  I have seen all of this, and not only by lesser players...  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Oh yes, I do understand that also, Shivas.  When we played it´s not like I had any score to protect either!

So OK, I´m just happy your rational mind understands this, I had no doubt it did.  The fact that you shut if off at will is actually a damn fine quality.  Playing free and easy and NATO is absolutely the most fun way to play this silly game.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Re 15, I still don't get what the problem is re the bunkers.  Please explain.

Visually, I think they are out of place, they are too small and too many of them.    I am not a fan of their flat rectangular shape and depth ...

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Huh.  We're talking #15, the short par 3, correct?

Man I don't remember the bunkers that way at all... in my memory... well... I am really confused now.  I thought there was a huge deep oval-shaped bunker front right, and one or two flatter ones guarding the left.  Damn, I really ought to know this better... But I've only seen the changes a couple times, and the last time was now 5 months ago.  Fill me in a bit on what's there now...

TH

[THuckaby2]

OK, I'm a dork.  Muchas gracias to Mr. Benham for sending me a pic of how the bunkers on 15 look these days... damn it's weird how I glossed right over such, and I have played the course I believe 3 times since this work was done.  Oh well.  In any case, Ed and Mike are right - they really don't seem to me to be an improvement on what was there before.

What did this hole look like originally?

If anyone has an old pic of 15, that would be very cool to see....

TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com

[Kevin_Reilly]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but one of the guys in my group hit it into a yard on 16.  At least that is what we assumed, since we never found the ball after an exhaustive search.

[THuckaby2]

Kevin - hitting straight off 16 tee, into that fortunate (to live there) and unfortunate (to get pelted by golf balls) homeowner is definitely doable.  I've had it happen myself.  My experience there has been that far more shots do hit the trees and fall than run through to that yard.  The trees are pretty thick.

But anyway, as I say, if it's a simple yes/no, then we can put 16 down as a yes!

TH

[Eric Pevoto]

What year is it over the fence at Pasa?

Ran,

Lucky for us, it does seem "fashionable" these days to at least attempt to take courses back to an older feel and playability.  Can't we assume that this is cyclical?  

In ten to twenty years, will these same places be looking to update the master plan so that they can take it back to an aerial or photos from 1960?  

I'm hoping the factors that have brought this current trend to light are not only golfing fashion, but are based on other changes in the industry's technology.  

For instance, I understand that today's sophisticated irrigation systems with multiple rows and computerized operation make it easier to water specific spots for specific times.  This reduces water usage significantly, but does rely on a superintendent who is on top of his game.  My simple guess is that it's long run less expensive than a crew running around with quick couplers. Today's golf courses are spending more money up front for long run gains.

Some on this board rue the use of these multiple row irrigation systems, but my impression is that with a good super they allow for much greater discretion of water use.  Beats the single row and resulting highway hole by a mile.