Looks very much like the 13th at Royal Aberdour.  Was Flynn ever in West Fife?

PS--we still play our version as a "par" 4.  You Philly guys must really be studs........

Noel:

Actually George Thomas's ideas about designing more holes in the "half par" range was in close inter-relationship with his idea on putts as "half-strokes".

Some may've thought Thomas didn't like putting but it really wasn't that at all. He believed that if golf had half strokes for putts it'd allow architects to more easily design holes in the half par range as they then wouldn't need to be so closely bunkered to put the necessary demand on good players and would consequently cost less to built and maintain.

You can see in a very real way Thomas's ideas on the half-stroke" for putts gave an advantage to the better player over the handicap player compared to the way golf is played as in a certain sense it took some of the luck out of the game when a handicap player chips or pitches and one putts for half against a good player who has played the hole with ideal shots in regulation par.

Generally, Mike Malone thinks that the original design by Flynn was best and should not be tampered with.  I strongly disagree and feel that Flynn was making changes over time on a number of courses, such as Merion, Philadelphia Country, Cascades, Rolling Green and others.  Flynn changed the bunkering at Rolling Green over time.  Now, Mike would have you believe that with all these changes he did not add a bunker on 7 so, in his mind, he clearly did not intend to do it--there must have been a reason for Flynn not to.  Well, I disagree.  Flynn died nearly 60 years ago and he more than most would've welcomed change.  Flynn remodeled some of the great courses in America (Pine Valley, Shinnecock, and The Country Club in Brookline); nothing was sacred to him.  He predicted much of what has taken place with B&I and the athletic ability of golfers today and would want to keep pace.  My suggestion to place a bunker on 7 reminiscent of the bunker on 5 at Merion is not to emulate Merion for emulation sake but to refine a great hole at Rolling Green.  Harkening the design to Merion, in my feeling, helps to sell the concept to the membership.  Yet,the 5th at Merion is one of the great holes in golf and there's nothing wrong with taking a page from that design sheet.  Take the trees down, remove the cart path and put in a bunker.  If it works great, as I suspect it will, keep it.  If not take it out and the trees will still be gone.  The fact that a number of architects and enthusiasts agree with me is satisfying.

"The reason the trees  need to come out is that they should never have been planted."

Mike, I know you are capable of a better explanation than this.  I know it must sound like a BillV quote to people in the treehouse, but I assure you they are 2 different people  

I'm afraid I've mentioned it before on this site.  Glencorse Golf Club on the southern outskirts of Edinburgh at Penicuik has eight par three os which only one is under 200 yards.  The longest is 236 yards.  Its opener is 225 yards.

The par-3 7th at my home course, Tedesco, is listed on the card at 239.  It is downhill to a very small green surrounded by two large bunkers, with a pond down the entire left side, and a busy street over the lefthand greenside bunker.  This hole is what I would call a par 3.5, as one day I played it last year, the back tees were way back, and the pin was on the back of the green, and I calculated the distance to 261, the longest par-3 I've ever played.

Honorable mention: No. 3 at Myopia is 253, which sometimes plays longer than No. 6, a par 4 listed at 260 on the card.

--Brad

It does seem odd that as longer and longer courses are being built to accommodate modern distances, the long par 3 is not getting longer.

In fact, compared to Golden Age models, long part 3's have gotten (a) shorter in absolute yards and (b) vastly shorter after adjusting for modern equipment.
 

Bob

the 5th at Rolling Green..from the right appraoch angle.

"I would like to add fairway to the back of #5 at RG;this is not Flynn,but I believe it is fine with his point of view"

Mike, what point of view are you referring to?  I think it is a fairly good idea, but certainly not because of any connection to Flynn's preferences or intents.  It creates an interesting result if you don't control your distance into this relatively short hole.  In my opinion, this is one of the very best greens and green complexes on the golf course and doesn't need a chipping area.  The front and rear angle of the green to the fairway line is superb as is the bunkering.  Frankly, I don't think Flynn ever used them on the sides or rear of any greens.

As for only relying on the ground topography at the green end of #7; it is awfully good ground for golf.  I don't think you could practically convince the general membership of that partly because mishit or topped shots would are more accepted under the scenario you prefer and also because most of the membership doesn't "get it."  For good players, with a bunker in the location I suggested, their second shot into the green should have some added intimidation or shot requirement.  For higher handicappers or those coming out of the rough (on 2nd or 3rd shots), there should be something to think about on the 3rd shot.  It doesn't take away the possibility of most shots from the hillside to the short right of the green.  It makes some of the pitches onto the green more intense and doesn't have any effect on most of them.  You like variety, what's wrong with hitting out of a bunker over canted ground with the green falling away from you?  It adds to the additional variety there will be with the trees removed.

Noel,
Mysterious last post.  Very succinct  

Ahh, that's better!

Looking at the 9th hole original plan, it appears that some strategy has been lost, based on the absence of the right sided bunker at 200 yds and the right-sided "rough gulley" at 350 yds?

Also on the plan, the point to point line indicates a drive distance of 245 yds and a second shot of 200 yds to allow a pitch from 110 yds. So it was envisaged as a true 3-shotter back in the day.

Wayne

I posted a thread on the course:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=13751;start=msg235143#msg235143

 To say adding fairway to the back of #5 would be consistent with Flynn's point of view may require  an "either or " comparison. For instance,I believe he would oppose planting an evergreen tree right behind that green because it would not afford a recovery shot,but, adding something that would create an interesting recovery shot that also would add variety to the shots around the course would be consistent. I guess I could imagine Flynn responding to today's lush turf around greens by using fairway length grass.
    This would be "trying to think what he would he would do today". I am comfortable with us disagreeing about "what he might do".But,the opposition I usually encounter is"I don't care what he would do".

   Doug,

       The interesting thing about the shot to #5 is that my fairway proposal would almost never come into play when hitting from the preferred angle.It would usually come into play for shots from the right rough. Presently there are some evergreen trees short and right that impede some of those shots.Of course,I want to get rid of those trees,but realize that players hit higher shots nowadays and the existing bunkers and tilt of the green may not be sufficient. So, I ask"what can be done that allows a shot but creates a penalty for a mishit while still allowing a recovery----voila!-fairway on the downslope would do it.

   more later--someone just came in my office

Let's see what we're looking at here, shall we?....



Ok...back to work.