The real reason the back teeing ground on 17 at Sand Hills was removed

« **on:** May 01, 2006, 06:45:54 PM »

I tried to search for the other threads on this subject but alas, to no avail. So here goes...

One of my first authentic stories from the region involves the 17th at Sand Hills.
According to my source, this was the spot the "boys' would sit, have lunch, and contemplate thangs.
One day, Dan is sitting there having lunch and he turns to Dave and says "we aren't about this".
Now, I know what he meant as soon as I heard it. Do you?

« **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2006, 10:22:32 PM »

Adam,

If the tee hadn't been abandoned, and classified as a double diamond, I don't think anyone would have objected.

Having gone up top a few times, and having played it once, I think it was abandoned, not removed, because it was too hard of a hole from that location, for the GREAT majority of golfers who play the golf course.

The tee shot is so visually intimidating, and that's on a calm day. With a good wind up, irrespective of the direction, the hole takes on exponentially difficult qualities.

Playing from up there could only serve to slow down play and ruin rounds as the players neared the finish.

It might be a tee worth keeping for a few calm days, or a double diamond tee, but, I think they made the right choice in placing the tee at its current location.

But, the view is worth the climb, just take a club or two with you for the snakes.

P.S. I can't help thinking that my match with Ran would have
turned out differently had we played from there.

« **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:40:59 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 01, 2006, 06:45:54 PM

One day, Dan is sitting there having lunch and he turns to Dave and says "we aren't about this".
Now, I know what he meant as soon as I heard it. Do you?

Having played my three rounds at Sand Hills from that tee, in stiff winds, and having totaled approximately 16 shots on No. 17, I'm pretty sure I know what he meant.

But I agree with Patrick (I think): I would NEVER have abandoned that tee. It was a horribly difficult hole from back there -- but what's wrong with that?

« **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:52:45 AM »

Pat & Dan,

The playability of the teeing ground probably wasn't the issue for Mr. Proctor. (can we change his name to doctor?)
If we put ourselves in their shoes, at the time of construction, we can appreciate what visionaries this team and crew were and are.
Vistas, while often staunchly defended here, by many archies, had no place in the repetoire of the ground breaking crew. IMO, That's why the comment was made.

Afterall, Abandoning a back tee has likely rarely ever been done. Can anyone cite any examples?

Also, thinking about how changes happen, they just don't occur overnight. The groundwork has to be laid. Proctor's comments and sentiments about GCA, were the impetus for the abandoning, not the playability.

« **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:56:30 AM »

It really wouldn't take much effort if the urge ever strikes the club to reinstate the tee as a double diamond.

Just sprinkle some seed and presto, it's done.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2006, 10:02:20 AM »

Adam - interesting thought, but lots of great vistas remain... #2 green looking outward...rather nice vista off the back of that... #3 tee... #13 green...#16 tee... The list goes on and on.

I suppose they didn't want such an OBVIOUS vista-producing spot as the upper tee at 17? So maybe it's a case of not wanting to go overboard. But are you sure vistas "have no place in the repetoire?? If so, they failed pretty miserably in their efforts to eradicate them.

TH

« **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2006, 10:55:34 AM »

Quote

One day, Dan is sitting there having lunch and he turns to Dave and says "we aren't about this".

Adam, that is a pretty skimpy quote and this almost sounds like a propetical story. Maybe it was so breezy that day, Dan's ham flew out of his sandwich...

« **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:09:17 AM »

And then there's the issue of a military entrenchment. Hardly strategic if there's an ability to attack from higher ground. Is there?

« **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:15:40 AM »

I like that better than the anti-vista idea. Yep, nearly all other shots go from low ground to high ground -attacking the forts, as it were.

TH

« **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:17:07 AM »

You've convinced me now, Adam.

I have NO idea what, if anything, he was thinking -- propetical (?) or otherwise!

Smileys all around, boys.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:19:00 AM »

I had a long discussion with Dan about finishes uphill or down. I like rising last holes. He favors downhill finishes very highly. So Sand Hills rise up to 18 is against his grain.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:32:55 AM »

Tom Huckaby,

I'm with you.

Just because a good or great hole has a fabulous vista, that's NO reason to abandon it.

One play of # 4 at Hidden Creek would seem to confirm that.

I don't buy Adam's premise.

And, if you look carefully at Sand Hills, almost every tee provides a terrrific vista.

In fact, with few exceptions, the golf course plays consistently from high tee to lower fairway.

« **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:34:42 AM »

Patrick - I'm just glad you notice such things.

TH

« **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:05:26 PM »

I love Dan Proctor and the sentiment sounds honest.

But, honestly, to imply there is nothing about Sand Hills which qualifies as "eye candy" would be a bit misleading, too.

« **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:37:37 PM »

Well, I just got the full skinny on the whole abandon tee deal/

Pat Mucci is seriously in error if he thinks the members had any say in the abandoning of that teeing ground.

As it turns out, when it came down to it, the decision was a C&C decision. It was determined that the angle was wrong for that hole, and Corey was told to abandon the tee either after the first or second season. He scalped the grass and placed it elsewhere.

Also, for clarification, there are very few raised teeing grounds at SH. Raised being much above the level of the fairway. Sure, you might think you are on a raised knob, but a large part of the genius of the design was to only allow the golfer a glimpse at a small section of fairway. Only to have the golfer realize how much room there actually was once they arrived to the LZ. On one hole the knob was raised six inches to allow for that view. I believe that was the second hole.

BTW, Nowhere in my post did I say there aren't great views off the teeing grounds @ SH. But, that's like saying there aren't great views from the Hancock building, idn't it?

« **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:45:51 PM »

Adam:

Concur with how the tee boxes work at SH in general - yes, you do get very few large looks at the fairway. But that being said, you are raised enough vis a vis the surrounding landscape that I'd say Patrick is correct - almost every tee provides a terrific vista.

So methinks they accomplished all ends there... strategic and aesthetic.

That's why it's the best course on this planet.

« **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:56:27 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 02, 2006, 11:32:55 AM

In fact, with few exceptions, the golf course plays consistently from high tee to lower fairway.

This is not a fact. Period!

« **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2006, 07:01:12 PM »

Hmmmmm... it's gonna depend on how high is high.

I just went through it hole by hole and I have it at 9 yes, 9 no. So it does seem Patrick exaggerated a bit. But we still love him.

« **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2006, 07:04:30 PM »

Quote

In fact, with few exceptions, the golf course plays consistently from high tee to lower fairway.

I don't think so, Pat. 2 to FW, 9, 10 left FW is high rt low, 12 slightly higher LZ, 13 skyline green, 15, 17 to G, 18 roughly even to LZ then up to G.

« **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:08:17 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 02, 2006, 06:37:37 PM

Pat Mucci is seriously in error if he thinks the members had any say in the abandoning of that teeing ground.
Adam, Where did I EVER say that the MEMBERS had a say in that decision ?

Could you cite where I made that claim ?

You need to read and/or type more carefully[/color]

As it turns out, when it came down to it, the decision was a C&C decision. It was determined that the angle was wrong for that hole, and Corey was told to abandon the tee either after the first or second season. He scalped the grass and placed it elsewhere.

Also, for clarification, there are very few raised teeing grounds at SH. Raised being much above the level of the fairway.

Baloney.

# 1, # 4, # 5, # 10, # 11, # 12, # 14, # 15, # 16 and # 18 all play to fairways lower than the tees.
That's ten out of fourteen.

Your memory is failing.[/color]

Sure, you might think you are on a raised knob, but a large part of the genius of the design was to only allow the golfer a glimpse at a small section of fairway. Only to have the golfer realize how much room there actually was once they arrived to the LZ. On one hole the knob was raised six inches to allow for that view. I believe that was the second hole.

You need to get back to Sand Hills as your recollection is flawed.[/color]

BTW, Nowhere in my post did I say there aren't great views off the teeing grounds @ SH. But, that's like saying there aren't great views from the Hancock building, idn't it?
No, it's not.
Your entire premise was based on the view from # 17.
Don't try to change it at this late date.[/color]

« **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:10:58 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 02, 2006, 06:56:27 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 02, 2006, 11:32:55 AM
In fact, with few exceptions, the golf course plays consistently from high tee to lower fairway.

This is not a fact. Period!

It sure is, ten out of 14 fairways are below the tee on the par 4's and par 5's.

On the par 3's 3 and 6 are downhill.
# 13 is uphill and # 17 is about even if you play the lower tee.
If you played the original tee it too was downhill.

Your memory is flawed[/color]

« **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:12:52 PM »

This illustrates part of the genius in the design. The ability to make you think you were hitting downhill all day, when in reality, it is only high tee to low fw, on a few holes. I'll admit that if I had to recall from memory, the way Pat has, I would've remembered it the same way he does. But now I have the answer man, less than two miles away and I read that last quote directly to him and he was emphatic about it's inaccuracy.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:13:32 PM »

you may want to change that last post Pat.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:16:11 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on May 02, 2006, 07:04:30 PM

Quote
In fact, with few exceptions, the golf course plays consistently from high tee to lower fairway.

I don't think so, Pat.
2 to FW, 9,
10 left FW is high rt low,
12 slightly higher LZ,
13 skyline green,
15,
17 to G,
18 roughly even to LZ then up to G.

RJ,

I originally excluded the par 3's.
If you include them, including the original tee on # 17, three out of four of them play downhill.

On the par 4's and 5's 10 out of 14 play to fairways below the tee level.

# 10 fairway is WELL below the tee.
# 12 fairway is below the tee
# 15 fairway is below the tee
# 18 fairway is WELL below the tee.

I could probably throw in # 8 and make it 11 out of 14.

How long has it been since you've been there ? [/color]

« **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:20:20 PM »

Adam,

There's nothing about my post that I want to change, and an anonymous source won't alter my perceptions.

I might not have the best vision, but, I know when I'm hitting uphill or downhill.

Why don't you point out exactly where the fairways that I mentioned are above the tee.

I've conceded # 2 and # 9 which were amongst the exceptions mentioned in my original comments.

Please keep the discussion in the context of the Double Diamond and Diamond tees, not the forward tees.

News:

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Dan Kelly

A_Clay_Man

Gene Greco

Tom Huckaby

RJ_Daley

A_Clay_Man

Tom Huckaby

Dan Kelly

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Tom_Doak

A_Clay_Man

Tom Huckaby

A_Clay_Man

Tom Huckaby

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci