[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's always fun joking around with you but on this thread I really am serious.

I'm going to use GCGC's #12 green restoration as an example. I realize you and maybe even a majority of the membership might advocate the restoration of #12 green to the unique and probably radical concept, specs and dimensions it used to be!

I'm sure too that you must have done some in depth research about how that green may play and need to be maintained! If you haven't done those two things in depth you may be nuts to be proposing what you are.

You know that really good in-depth research is necessary of course but I was thinking about another kind of research!

Have you ever actually researched why the hole was redesigned in the first place? Do you know exactly why and all the reasons that happened and if so what were they?

If you don't know why it got redesigned in the first place aren't you potentially running the risk of recreating a problem that once occured for reasons you should know!

We thought about restoring the original 9th green at GMGC but it was originally way up on a ridge, so high in fact that it was obvious that weaker players could scarcely get their balls up there, back then or now. The green was moved and redesigned for a very good reason, in other words!

So certainly if we wanted to restore it we could run the risk of recreating that same problem if we did away with the one we have that's lower.

But if we wanted to recreate that green up there someday we could reasonably do that by leaving the green below for those that needed that one to have a reasonable chance on #9. At first the members said you can't have two greens on one hole but then very quickly they remembered PVGC's #8 and #9.

So I'm wondering--do you know the story behind the redesign of GCGC's #12? Do you know the whole story or are you just making assumptions?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Your mention of the 2 greens on Gulph Mills 9th hole is similar to the 18th at Manufacturers, where both the lower and upper greens are always maintained.

Most prefer the lower, if only because they then get the trolley ride back up to the clubhouse.  Wayne and I were VERY tempted to play to the upper, despite the 90 degree day, just because it looked to be fun....I hit a good drive and had about 200 yards up an insurmountable hill, but it would have been a blast to try it.

In the end, we opted for the lower, because we were unclear as to what the club would have preferred and didn't want to do anything out of bounds, so to speak.

Ok...now back to your restoration thread.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

The upper green at Manny's is a lot of fun but it can be pretty intense in some conditons--not unlike the upper plateau of Manny's #9 green, one of the most intense pinnable green areas in Philly! But the good news is it is doable (#9 back tier that is)--but has to be done very, very, very carefully when they're running some fast greenspeeds! But that back tier on #9 is the kind of thing that probably at minimum at least one guy in every group is going to have a train wreck!

[Dave_Miller]

Tom:
You make a very good point.  In doing the restoration at Charles River we knew the 18th hole had been redesigned from a 370 yard dogleg left, with a pond at the dogleg, to the 435 yard hole we have today.

The redesign was done by Donald Ross within a couple of years of opening the Club.

In doing the restoration consideration (albeit brief) was given to restoring the dogleg left over the pond.

Substantial research by Paul Murphy found that the hole was redesigned because the pond kept flooding out and making the hole unplayable.

Having an understanding of why the change was made initially is a good idea.  

In our situation we would not have gone back to the old 18th hole design, in any case, as the hole is currently a very strong, par 4, finishing hole.  Among the better in New England.  But knowing why the change was made, how it was done and who designed it, etc. was an absolutely worthwhile process.

It also adds a little to the history of the Club.

Best,
Dave

[R.E. Search]

Nothing to say on this one Patrick Mucci? Share your facts with us, please!!!

[RESearch]

TE,

Perhaps Patrick is saving his reply for an In My Opinion piece? This could be the first posting he doesn't reply to!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE

[TEPaul]

R.E.

I doubt that! Don't worry, he'll be on this one too and then I'll just have to spend the time to correct his muddled thinking again!

And this kind of thing will go on and on here at Golfclubatlas unless or until Chip Oat and the site give me the one thing I really need--"the Mucci Muzzle"!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()