Preserve the threeshotness!!!

[mike_malone]

There seems to be a movement to turn all these short par fives into par fours or to create penalties that take the fun out of them in an effort to make" five" a harder score to achieve.

      Joe Hancock walked my home course and suggested that we move the  bunker complex at the corner of a right dogleg into the center of the fairway. This would eliminate the present turboboost one gets from hitting it in the center/right of the fairway and replace it with a choice to thread it between the bunkers and the trees at the corner of the dogleg or layup. It could also become a test of one's ability to drive over the bunker.

    I won't say it is the right thing to do at this course, but I see it as a creative way to preserve the threeshotness of a shorter par five.

     I also thought today that when fairway is extended beyond a short threeshotter that requires a runup shot that you are giving the player two chances to be thirty yards from the green--short and long.


   How else can we creatively save these threeshotters from penal additions or forcing a par change on the hole when it was DESIGNED as a threeshotter?

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,

I don't know if many of my ideas hit the mark, but if they spur on creative thoughts then I'm happy to contribute!

Joe

[wsmorrison]

If you are referring to the 18th at Rolling Green.  It is best played as a par 4 for low handicap players from the current men's tee and as a par 5 from the former back tee for everyone else.  The tee that was put in has no merit to it at all.  You really do not understand golf strategy if you think otherwise.  

I wish I was there the day Joe and his boys showed up, so I can only surmise that Joe Hancock was trying to figure out a way to make it an interesting par 5.  It cannot nor should be done.  In today's era it is best as a finishing par 4 for low handicap players.  Why was it set up this way in Amateur qualifying?

The lengthening on 2 and 18, and to a lesser extent 6, are examples of lengthening for lengthening sake alone.  It looks good on the scorecard but has a detrimental effect on the playing of the hole.  Added yardage could have and should have been achieved elsewhere where it fit strategy and made sense for low handicap players.  That you don't understand this is an outstanding example of your limitations in understanding golf course architecture.

You keep bringing up 7 and 18 at Rolling Green.  I try to defend a different approach and you accuse me of falling in love with a concept.  Stop repeating the same story over and over again.  You seem to be the one with all the emotional investment.  By the way, my own sense of the course is not diminished because of my change in status at the club.  I still have a high regard for the course and will continue my research efforts and report same to Charlie and to David.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Being a shorter hitter I can understand and appreciate interest being added to a shortish par 5 to make it a three shotter, but often times (or unless done correctly)these efforts just make it more target style golf which is not as fun for me.  If the hole really stands out as a good long par 4 that under the correct conditions (firmess, and one choosing the right tees) one can manage with good shots, I don't understand why there is a need to change.

My comments here are just my own belief and I have no knowledge of Rolling Green, but from my perspective it isn't a requirement that I or anyone else should be able to reach every par 4 in two shots all the time.      

[PThomas]

the 700 yd par 5 will be upon us soon in more frequency, I bet....since the technology isn't being controlled, I'd love to see the pros play one

avg 280 drive
2nd 250 yds
a third from 200

= 730 yds!  make em hit three good long shots in a row!

[Joe Hancock]

Wayne,

Obviously, in a first time walk-through there can only be reactionary observations. Without any study or intense consideration for how the hole was originally intended to be executed, I merely made a reactionary observation considering the proximity of the fairway bunker complex and the right tree line. It was almost entierly from a visual perspective that I wondered aloud what the hole would be like if that bunker complex was more of a centerline hazard, rather than a dogleg corner hazard that was abutted by trees.

I find your stance interesting in that you would rather leave things alone and let technology and the modern swing dictate the play of the hole. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as I don't have anywhere near the historical and playability perspective that you have.

So, generally speaking...do you disagree with Mayday that holes that were intended to be three shotters should not be preserved?

Thanks, and I'll get your way again soon...I promise!

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

the 700 yd par 5 will be upon us soon in more frequency, I bet....since the technology isn't being controlled, I'd love to see the pros play one

avg 280 drive
2nd 250 yds
a third from 200

= 730 yds!  make em hit three good long shots in a row!

Paul,

I hate to say it, but that sentiment about how the pro's play is responsible for more butchered achitecture than anything else that happens on courses...except tree planting programs!

Rolling Green is a terrific members course from what I saw....adding a bunch of length because of the pro's 280 yd average off the tee would be a bad move. If a few guys at the club are super long, so be it. They too will one day grow old and need a reasonable length course to enjoy.

Joe

[PThomas]

Hi Joe:

perhpaps I should have been clearer:  I meant I would like to see such a hole ONLY a course or two on Tour...om my God no, I don't want to see a lot of them on courses I play!

[wsmorrison]

Joe,

You asked some great questions.  Before I answer them, I want you to know that I was not questioning your reactionary observation.  I think that method of inquiry is very important to determining an informed decision and would result in a less than proper decision making process without it.  I know that your one time through (and I don't even know if you played it) is not meant to be taken as an authoritative opinion after careful analysis.  Only Mike Malone likes to use such a cursory analysis if it fits his narrow predetermined mindset  

First of all, the hole was not meant to be a three shotter.  Of course, given the spectrum of playing abilities in a golf club, it would be for a representative segment of the playing population.  However, Flynn had 3 short par 5s on the course and an Old Guard member told me that one of the three on any given day (of 7,17 and 18) would play as a par 4.  At 485 from the original back tee with the first 60% of the hole downhill, this was not a dictated three shots to the green by any means, even in 1926 with the firmness of the fairways.  Remember, this is a course where Flynn designed a 260 yard uphill par 3!  So any premise by Malone that this was meant to be a three shotter is false.

Given the routing progression along with the difficulty and  par distribution. 7 is best as a risk/reward par 5 given its place between the difficult 6th and the very difficult 8-10 holes.  17 is a sharp dogleg left with a gradual uphill to a severely sloped green.  The dogleg nature makes the hole play a bit harder than the yardage indicates.  The new back tee, although it should have been built on grade and slightly left with the intervening trees taken down (for improved agronomics on 16 green and 17 tees), would have made the hole play longer and create more of a shot shaping demand for a chance to go at the green in two shots.  18 as the finishing hole  plays best today given physical abilities and technological impacts is best as a par 4 for low handicappers playing in tournaments.  The green is very large and accepts long shots.  The back tee that was put in takes all strategy and interest away.  Hit driver, 7 iron around the corner and 7 iron onto the green.  BORING in its unity of play.

I don't advocate a universal position of leaving things alone at all.  It is a case by case study.  Only Malone simplifies things to its extreme and uses purity as a defense.  And I do not advocate leaving things alone.  I advocate changing par from 5 to 4.  What is par anyway?  The likely score of a scratch golfer, right?  Well scratch golfers are closer to 4 than to 5.  Given its place in the routing as a finishing hole, I think it better to round down rather than up.  I'd like to see the Am qualifying scoring but I am certain that scratch players are closer to a 4 average than 5.  The results from qualifying might be skewed because the greens were in horrendous condition and putting was probably not indicative of reliable performance.

I do agree that holes that were intended to be three shotters should try to be preserved where there is room to move tees back and the move makes sense.  Given that the hole was not meant to be a three shotter for low handicappers, the downhill nature of the tee shot, the dogleg with a secondary tree line and the uphill nature of the approach to the green, the 18th at RGGC is not one of them.  

But if it works within the framework of the hole and grounds for golf, then yes, I would like to keep true three shott par 5s around.  I think the need for having at least one hole on a championship course a real three-shotter where you have to "ring the bell" with three successive shots is very important.  Good thing RGGC has the wonderful 9th that fits that bill very well indeed.  I'd add 25 more yards to that hole by the way.  Move the storm shelter and move the tee back.  That is a better thought out addition of length.

Hope to see you out this way again on your next visit.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

   I attempted to make this thread generic. I think that we can find non penal ways to strengthen these old gems.

      BTW what makes you think the 260 yard hole was to be a par three? Was "par" on the design?

   "The hole was not meant to be a three shotter" I will just leave that to stand without comment.

     Dave,

    Your concern is mine as well. Too often we just junk up the hole to make it harder to make a five. The appeal of Joe's idea was the creation of options. Also, it is a way that challenges the low handicapper while rarely affecting the high handicapper. Too many of the penal attempts just mess with everyboby.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

When you mention a specific hole and use the observations of someone who has seen the hole once (and not played it, right?) then you open yourself up to specific criticism.  Sorry you don't feel that way.  

My previous reply covered specifics and in general.  

There is a way to strengthen these old gems without architectural changes.  One is to lower par where it is reasonable.  That is not penal since everyone plays it the same way.  The other method is to apply ideal maintenance practices.  Firm and fast is the first thing I'd do before raising the rough or going overboard on green speed.  Some might feel that firm and fast through the green is penal, I don't.  I think it absolutely necessary to retain interest 80 years later.

"BTW what makes you think the 260 yard hole was to be a par three? Was "par" on the design?"  

What do you think it was meant to be on a championhsip course without irrigation that is ideally set up for a low running draw?  In the context of shot testing and this being a championship course there is no way it was a par 4.  The Flynn drawings we have do not indicate par.  The opening day scorecard does.  What do you think?

"The hole was not meant to be a three shotter" I will just leave that to stand without comment."

I have a 740 word reply and this is your rebuttal?  Weak is too weak a term.  How was the hole dictated to be a three shotter for all classes of golfers?  As I said in my post, it was for a representative sample of a golf club membership but not for everyone.  What's wrong with you?

Honestly, you have no defense for your position that the new tee is a good one and the hole plays better from there.  I think it is because you are far more likely to get a 5 than a 4.

Now I know why you gave yourself the nickname is Mayday  It is because after a moment or two of debating something with you people are crying for rescue  

[Joe Hancock]

There is a way to strengthen these old gems without architectural changes.  One is to lower par where it is reasonable.

Wayne,

I'm struggling with this, and I realize it isn't on topic, but what the heck....

If, by chance one day I come back to the course and the new scorecards arrive and #18 is listed as  par 4 and that is all that has changed...how in the world has the hole been strengthened? I mean, really...maybe my handicap changes, but in reality it is a paper change, nothing else. The only thing that has changed is perception....not that there is anything wrong with that.

Joe

[redanman]

mayday

move the bunkers to the middle of the fairway and take out 100 trees at the corner of the forest so that there is an option to go to the right of the bunker complex.  That would be really cool.

Also, make it a par 3 (three) (sic) to make it really really really really hard!

[wsmorrison]

Joe,

You're right.  It is a perception change but that brings the mind into the equation.  And you know what could happen then  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mayday, et. al.,

Newport and Winged Foot West typically alter par on their scorecards.

# 1 and # 12 at Newport play as par 4/5's and # 9 and # 16 at Winged Foot play as par 4/5's.

However, for the GREAT majority of golfers, par 5's still play as three shotters.

So why would you propose architecturally altering a golf course, other then lengthening it, to accomodate less then one tenth of one percent of the golfers who play it ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

It is another in a long line of Maloneisms  

[Kyle Harris]

Par 4 or Par 5 - regardless of the tee location.

On a hole like 18 at Rolling Green, I am trying to figure out a way to make a 4 anyway.

We call it scoring.

[Tony Ristola]

Joe, you're right.

I'd just leave the hole. Most par-5's are 3-shotters for the membership, even the shortest ones.
Make it a par-4 from the Back tees, and a par-5 for the members.
Par is meaningless.
Changing par is a psychological ploy, nothing more really.
It's still the same hole. The only changes are on paper and between the ears.

If you want to preserve the 3-shot par-5 for the experts, then more length will be needed.
But is it worth it?

[Joe Hancock]

If you want to preserve the 3-shot par-5 for the experts, then more length will be needed.
But is it worth it?

Tony,

I think this is what Mayday was addressing with the example of my comment concerning #18 @ RGGC. He was saying that by moving the bunker complex, one could potentially avoid the dreaded "distance addition" and still preserve(or restore?) the threshotness of the hole.

I made the comment initially, but I don't have the intimacy with the course to know whether it was actually a good idea or not. Mayday, Wayne and many others know the hole and the course well enough to make that call.

It's been good discussion. Not only that, it isn't a speculative thread about ANGC!

Joe

[mike_malone]

 If a hole is straight away with an inviting green then I can see changing the par because the best golfers hit it farther now. The #17 at Scotland Run approaches 500 yards from the back but was built as a four. I can see that. It is just long!

    But where there are features like doglegs ,  difficult terrain  , natural obstructions by the green like hills trees or water then   it is better to keep the threeshotness with some creativity.

   How often do you see places adding a line of trees to increase the penal nature of the hole while eliminating strategy?


    I would like to see more examples presented where this has been accomplished.

   While I don't mind being  criticized by Wayne it was not my intent to turn this into a discussion of one hole. Besides the more he writes the deeper he gets into a hole!

    There must be numerous examples.

    I think possibly of #2 at Royal Portrush. While my recollection is not exact I believe there are difficult undulations just short of that green which would make people scream if it were a par four that required most to get on that green in two but becomes a real challenge for the better player.


    I also spoke of adding fairway in back of holes that call for a runup. It seems to me that creates an island green which can be devilish to stay on.



   You guys(even you Wayne) are the architectural junkies. What neat things have you seen?

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
   I totally agree that we shouldn't change these holes for such a small percentage of players.


   But do you think 20% 30% is a good figure to consider change?

    And isn't it more worthwhile when it challenges or adds strategic options to the better player without affecting the lesser player?

   Do those courses move the tees up when they go to a par four versus five ? Or are they just goofy?