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

« **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2006, 09:44:48 PM »

Pat, The source was named. He was the superintendant there for years, and is now a course owner. Are you actually saying his memory is flawed? I suppose It's possible his memory is flawed, since it's been over ten years since the course opened. Corey was there during construction. But I'm sure you know when you are hitting up or downhill, especially after your ten rounds there.

Just for grins, I'll start with Number 5. You think it's downhill?but is it?.

15 is not downhill either.

10?

It is much easier to count the dowhill holes, don't you think?

These examples were the first one's out of Corey's mouth.

« **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2006, 10:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 02, 2006, 09:44:48 PM

Pat, The source was named. He was the superintendant there for years, and is now a course owner. Are you actually saying his memory is flawed?

Yes.[/color]

I suppose It's possible his memory is flawed, since it's been over ten years since the course opened.

Ten years is a long time.[/color]

Corey was there during construction.

Again, that's a long time ago.[/color]

But I'm sure you know when you are hitting up or downhill, especially after your ten rounds there.

It doesn't take me that long to figure out.

I ask you again.

Be specific, what fairway sits above the tee ?
We know about # 2 and # 9.
What other fairways sit above the tee ?[/color]

Just for grins, I'll start with Number 5. You think it's downhill?but is it?.

Yes, just take a look at the pictures taken from the fairway back up to the tee behind the 4th green.[/color]

15 is not downhill either.

It sure is[/color]

10?

You must be kidding[/color]

It is much easier to count the dowhill holes, don't you think?
I cited the holes where the fairway lies below the level of the tee, how much clearer can I be ?[/color]

These examples were the first one's out of Corey's mouth.

Then perhaps he should have given it some thought before he answered. [/color]

« **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2006, 11:28:32 PM »

Pat, you are a tough nut to crack. It has been too long since I played there!

I'll give you this, 10's right side FW is significantly lower than the tee. But, the left side is about even to slightly higher. 10 LZ is so wide that it must have a 20ft diff in ele from high left to down rt. And, there are others like that with high and low sides of FWs.

One interesting architectural feature is that the native grass and ground between Tee and FW are almost all down into a gully or depression before rising into the first LZs in FWs. That gives one the idea that they are constantly hiking off tees uphill into FWs. I believe 12 LZ is slightly higher. I'd throw 8 tee up the left side is also slightly higher than the tee. But, 15 seems beyond debate that it is higher.

Pat, do you get fooled often by putts breaking up hill?

Corey only took care of the course for some 8+ years. Maybe all that loneliness and isolation skewered his perceptions of reality... but I kind of doubt it.

« **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2006, 12:04:17 AM »

It's been six years and I have never seen Pat admit he is wrong.

Thanx anyway Dick.

« **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2006, 12:05:20 AM »

RJ,

When the second shot to # 10 is blind, from down past the right side fairway bunker, and you have to up, hit over the ridge, that DZ is WELL below the 10th tee.

Perhaps you were overserved at Ben's porch after the first nine.

Likewise # 8, # 12 and # 15 are all downhill, with # 8 being close to level

If you were hitting uphill from the tee, wouldn't the green be blind if the approach was downhill ?

With respect to being fooled by putts,..... grain, grain alcohol and TEPaul have a lot to do with that.

« **Reply #30 on:** May 03, 2006, 12:18:31 AM »

Pat, just curious... When you are going out for a big evening there in the big apple, and you are headed into Manhattan, do you say I'm going downtown or uptown?

« **Reply #31 on:** May 03, 2006, 12:26:55 AM »

RJ,

Shame on you.

Have you never heard of Washington Heights ?

Named after Fort Washington, the HIGHEST POINT IN MANHATTAN.

For you out of towners, look at where the George WASHINGTON Bridge connects NJ to NY, that's part of the Washington Heights section of Manhattan, in the northern part of Manhattan.

Washington Heigts is definitely ..... uptown.

« **Reply #32 on:** May 03, 2006, 02:36:56 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman 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.

This thread has left me scratching my head.

Hmmmmm.

Do you also think this is what also ran through the heads of the "ground-breaking " crew of Seth Raynor and CB MacDonald when they arrived at the proposed 17th tee of NGLA in 1909?

I can just hear it. "Geez, Charlie. This downhill vista is just TOO darn beautiful. We're not about this, are we?"

Or Marion Hollins exclaiming to MacKenzie at the proposed 17th tee at Cypress point, "Maybe we should route the hole away from the shoreline. Doctor, we musn't leave the impression we are all about fluff."

« **Reply #33 on:** May 03, 2006, 07:29:37 PM »

Gene Greco,

I'm with you.

As I said, a good to great hole that also happens to have a marvelous vista is an asset, not a liability that needs to be removed from the golf course.

« **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2006, 07:55:56 PM »

I'm taking one more crack at this. Above somewhere it is reported that a decision was made sometime after opening to abandon the upper tee. That means it was originally there. It means that whatever Dan and Dave were "about", they built it on directions and according to the original plan. It would seem that DY and probably after some discussion with Ben and Bill decided to close it down, strip the sod and have Corey place it in some problem spot.

I'm pretty sure Dan has no reservations about incorporating a grand "vista" tee or greensite where ever he can place one that makes good golf sense. I have heard him speak with great anticipation at the prospect of doing a course on Paul H.'s land where there are high points that you can see for many miles into the sand hills. When we walked the land I was interested in, looking for routing ideas, he certainly didn't have any reservations about some of the key spots with amazing long views both east and west. I'm pretty sure Dan likes the long views with his golf as much as the next guy.

What Dan don't like is rooflines in the view!

Pat, if I ever get a chance to go with you to SHGC, I'm going to insist you let me go in the group ahead. I'm going to leave you my hand held eye piece level siting scope. I'm going to go out to a logical LZ and hold a bulls eye. You then can see what's up... so to speak.

« **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2006, 08:15:43 PM »

RJ,

I'll bring my transit, you bring the cash

« **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2006, 08:27:54 PM »

I was sent an email this morning from someone else who was around during those early years and he relayed information that he says came staright from Bill Coore.

Quote

You are dead on with regard to that tee. It was initially put there because that's where the crew used to sit on that hill and have lunch. They thought the view was beautiful and put the tee there.

_____________we played the tee added so much enjoyment to the round. It was a bitch of a hole from that tee because you always had some kind of wind to deal with. Actually hit driver on the hole one time since the wind was blowing so hard back into your face.

The tee was abandoned due to difficulties in maintaining it and C&C never intended that to be the permanent tee. Bill Coore said that the lower tee affords a player to still get the ball on the green without having to fly that front bunker. There is section to the right of that bunker where a player can fly the ball to or run it up. As you will notice, there aren't any holes on the course where you have to fly a ball over a bunker to get on the green. The only one that is close is number eight and you can either go to the left or right of the bunker to get the ball on. Coore also felt that the lower tee on 17 avoided some of the wind issues since it was harder to play a shot from that upper tee.

« **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2006, 08:30:02 PM »

Maybe it wasn't about the view, but difficulty for difficulty's sake?

Hmmmmmm

« **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2006, 08:58:47 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 03, 2006, 08:27:54 PM

It was a bitch of a hole from that tee because you always had some kind of wind to deal with....

The tee was abandoned due to difficulties in maintaining it....

Coore also felt that the lower tee on 17 avoided some of the wind issues since it was harder to play a shot from that upper tee.

Indeed, these were the reasons I heard the tee was abandoned.

And I was there, too, at the time.

Lugging a mower to that tee must have been a nightmare for the member of the ground crew (probably the newest employee

) chosen for the task. Equally as frustrating to this individual would have been, once reaching the tee and out of breath, the discovery that virtually no one was playing the hole from there as evidenced by the lack of divots.

And maybe, just maybe, the thought processes were: There already is one mighty, butt-kicking par 3 on the backside (#13). Why not throw in a touch of poetry to keep the ebb and flow of the course in perfect harmony?

Seems like the same reasons to me so why create all the drama?

« **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:17:11 PM »

Gene,

I am glad someone has finally mentioned #13. For all its show and beauty (#17), I think as far as pure difficulty #13 has got it beat. It is, I think, just as intimidating from the tee.

I played six different rounds and always found #17 a very attractive hole, but always fared better in the end than I did on #13. #13 I found to be a much more difficult green to land. First you have the added distance. Then you have the false front dropping into a virtual abyss. Then you have the green sloping off to the back so that if you cannot hit both long AND high, your long shot will likely result in a chip or your short shot will dribble down into the valley.

I love #13 for its difficulty, I love #17 for its beauty. I never got to try the old tee location but would like to just to marry the two, difficulty and beauty.

« **Reply #40 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:27:28 PM »

Indeed, Paul.

I always compare #13 at Sand Hills to another formidable par three which is equally heroic and penal - the legendary 5th at Pine Valley.

A little later on in the round at each course the golfer has his/her chance at redemption by playing holes with seemingly similar shot values - the 17th at SH and the 10th at PV.

Thus, balance is beautifully preserved at each course.

« **Reply #41 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:38:25 PM »

Gene,

I had never actually thought of it in that way, a chance at redemption. That is poetry my man... shear poetry.

« **Reply #42 on:** May 03, 2006, 09:45:59 PM »

Paul:

Sand Hills and Pine Valley are, to say the least, inspirational.

« **Reply #43 on:** May 03, 2006, 10:39:18 PM »

Paul Payne,

I loved # 13 from the first time I played it.
Another of many skyline greens at SH.

Gene Greco,

I believe there's a trail behind the upper 17th tee whereby maintainance equipment would access that tee.

« **Reply #44 on:** May 03, 2006, 10:42:06 PM »

Gene, Do you know about the Faldo story?

« **Reply #45 on:** May 03, 2006, 11:25:43 PM »

Adam, now you are just teasing us!

Come on, out with it!

Also, I believe SH would be a lesser golf course with another longish (180+) par three, particularly into the wind as 17 aims. To have the quintessential balanced course, you need a shortish par 3. It actually serves just as important of a function of a balance to the rythm of the course when winds are calm and you can hit your 145-50 club as if the winds are strong and you need to hit subtantially more up hill and drawing. It is a great hole even from the forward 120ish tees where you have to take on the left front bunker. They shouldn'd all be long ball buster par 3s.

« **Reply #46 on:** May 03, 2006, 11:54:13 PM »

I suppose it was a few years back, Nick had missed the cut at The International, so he came over to SH. First time out he shot a 66. Here's the kicker... he aces the 13th with the greens toughest pin position.

« **Reply #47 on:** May 04, 2006, 08:53:26 AM »

Yes, Adam, I have.

And the "you're away" story.

Maybe you ought to see if "The Voice of the Sand Hills" needs a new editor.

They're located in Tryon, the little town halfway between North Platte and Mullen which you can't miss because there's a huge billboard of a smiling Jack Nicklaus with the blurb "THERE'S A BEAR LOOSE IN THE SAND HILLS."

« **Reply #48 on:** May 04, 2006, 09:33:59 AM »

Regarding Faldo's ace. As many here know, Sand Hills has Polaroids of everyone who has made a hole-in-one at the course; the photos are on a bulletin board inside Ben's Porch.

Anyway, I was looking at the photos and thought I recognized Nick Faldo. I asked the woman who works at Ben's Porch about it, and she said that, indeed, it was him.

Then she said: "After his round, he came in here as excited as anyone I've ever seen."

« **Reply #49 on:** May 04, 2006, 11:15:00 AM »

Gene,
No I never heard the "you're away story.

I did hear about C&C's first look at the property and what Bill said to Dick when they first met.

I suppose I wouldnt have to get all this shit wrong if others were more forthcoming.

News:

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

RJ_Daley

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci

Gene Greco

Patrick_Mucci

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

A_Clay_Man

Gene Greco

Paul Payne

Gene Greco

Paul Payne

Gene Greco

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

RJ_Daley

A_Clay_Man

Gene Greco

Larry_Keltto

A_Clay_Man