No surprise there.  Too bad.  Well, in any event, I'll be playing that strategy on a regular basis  

My opinion:  On a very short par five, "feeding the ball onto the geeen" shouldn't be an option.  If you're going to hit the green in two, hit the green with a great shot.  If you miss slightly, you're penalized.  On a two shot par 5, risk/reward is the key!

Jim,

I have to run out for awhile, but, I wanted to address the above remark.

# 5 at NGLA, Hogback, is the hole you describe above.

A  hole that measures 478 from the back tee.

The green is usually blind to the golfer

The hole has several "spines" that affect play.
One of them is along the right side of the hole in the area where second shots will land.

For those who can't carry their second shot to the green, the use of the left side of the right side spine allows a "turbo boost" that feeds ball properly flighted to the green.

Balls hit left, or in the center which run left due to the slope of the fairway usually end up in a bunker or hollow with an uncomfortable approach.

Since the hole plays into the wind most of the time, the clever use of the spine is an asset to the golfer who can hit a decent drive into the wind and then flight their ball with a draw to run off the spine and near or on the green.

Why remove that feature ?

It's fun and it's challenging.

JC:

Mayday's idea for #7 was to simply remove those trees on the right (which has been done) and to just use that ground in there short and right of the green as a bounce in kicker to the green. There's nothing wrong with any of that at all. The idea of a diagonal bunker in one of those swales short and slightly right of the green was merely to strengthen the shot value of that second shot bounce in option of the better and longer player. In an architectural and strategic sense it's merely a matter of deciding whether that "good golfing ground" short and right should be somewhat "guarded" (by a bunker) or if it should remain completely "unguarded".  Personally, I think guarding it makes the hole both more interesting and stronger as it is and always will be a short par 5.

But the trick is to "guard" that area just in the right place. The last thing one would want to do is to guard that area so close to the green that the option of just carrying the bunker is shut down unnecessarily because there's no room over the bunker for at least a 20 yard bounce and run in shot to work effectively. And if the bunker is too far back it just begins to lose its strategic shot value effectiveness and the option of laying up in front of it would begin to lose its usefulness and equilibrium with the more aggressive option of carrying the bunker.

Tom,

   Another problem with the bunker placement is how close to the center of the fairway should it be placed? If it interferes with running shots HIT FROM THE FAIRWAY, then the hole is RUINED!. If the fairway is expanded to the right and the bunker is to be "in place of the trees",as the consultants recommend then it really is  a useless expenditure; it becomes cosmetic.Are we to put a bunker in the rough? Silly!


   I wish I knew if Flynn grappled with these ideas when he designed the hole but  all we have is his decision--NO BUNKER!

    How wide should this bunker be? How deep ? How long?


    The effort to build the perfect bunker is doomed because it's a STUPID IDEA!

That particular bunker position would seem to fit with many others I know of on Flynn courses...for what it's worth I think it would help the strength of the hole without representing a "gimmicky" type change. 30 - 40 yards from the front edge of the green to the nearest edge of the bunker would seem appropriate...


Jim Coleman, or even Wayne or anyone,

Are you certain that the bunkert on #5 at Merion is 50 yards short of the green? I would have guessed 20 - 30 between the two closest edges...

Wayne will probably have his kid do it...

So do #'s 6 and 12...

I don't know, the approach to #15 fits but he did not put one there...Mike would say he did so for variety's sake as opposed to what might be better for the hole...

"OK Let's make it like every other hole everywhere. How boring is that? "

How is it like every hole everywhere?  Stop going to such extremes if you wish to make a point.  And stop being so brief in your replies.  There's too little substance and insight.

"For those who say it "strenghtens" the hole, what does that "mean?"

What does it mean to you?  I think Tom explained it adequately that you wouldn't need to ask.  Why don't you explain why the bunker is not good for the hole.  I will ask that you not mention that Flynn didn't build it since we've established you are not wedded to sticking to a snapshot version of the course when Flynn died.  Second, please do not fall back on the variety question.  There's nothing like the topography on the second half of the 7th at RGGC anywhere else on the course and there would be no bunkers like it either.  

You have to admit that the course does suffer from bunkering problems (right and left green end bunkers on 8 for instance) and high leading edges that hide bunkers.  Yet it still has some excellent bunkers but overall the bunkering is far short of the restored bunkering at Philadelphia Country Club which were modeled off the RGGC bunkers and others.  I'd like to see some of the bunkers that were divided decades ago returned to single larger bunkers.  The scale of them would complement the scale of the holes with continued tree removal.

I think the 7th hole would be enhanced with a bunker addition--it will add interesting shots and precision for all classes of golfers on a regular (but not necessarily everyday basis) and also demand more precision on a short downhill par 5.  Call it strengthened if you will, especially once all the evergreen trees along the right are removed.  The fact that 2 were removed and 2 left shows the difficulties inherent in decisions by committee.  Adhere to advice of the expert architectural consultants, that's what they're paid for and what they are eminently qualified to do.

I like your general definition of strengthening a hole, Jim.  As you say, it also pertains specifically to RGGC 7.

Two of the four evergreen trees on the right short of the green have been removed.  I think there is an ongoing tree removal process but I cannot understand why all four trees weren't removed.  The hardwood, the last tree on the right, even with the middle of the green, should be removed as well.  

Mike,

I'll try to follow you, but it won't be easy.  

What slope of the hill kicks balls away on 13?  The slope up to the green?  That just stops balls.  The slope on the right above the green?  If it weren't rough, it would kick balls onto the green.  By the way, I'd take that bunker out completely as it was wrongly put in.  If kept, it would be better as Flynn had it, lower in the hill and turned 180*.  But as it is, I think it would be better out altogether.  The slope on the right of the green?  That does deflect balls away from the green but the green is missed regardless and that is a good thing and obviously in the architect's mind when he conceived the green site.

In any case, the proposed bunker is not a greenside bunker but is a fairway bunker well short of the green.  You are not comparing like holes at all.

I don't think there is any way you can determine what Flynn was thinking.  You can make empirical observations about Flynn's designs but that's about all.  If you cannot grasp that Flynn was prone to making changes at his courses (OK, he didn't make one here) and that he would consider a broad range of factors 80 years later in a more open mind than you do, I think you are mistaken.

What is obscure about the slope to the right of the green on 7 that some people wouldn't understand?  How is there no way to control the ball and where is all the randomness?  It is in rough right now and needs to be returned to fairway height as I mentioned many posts ago.  The crapshoot you speak of is not something I think of after studying the grounds on that side of the hole.

A bunker would lessen the mental test?  Preposterous.  Nobody mentioned that the bunker was meant for a mishit drive.  It was discussed what the ramifications are with a mishit drive, as well as other scenarios.  Holes don't play one way because our results differ from day to day.  We aren't Hogan landing the ball within a few feet of prior shots all the time.  Our own randomness is a factor and this needs to be expressed in hole designs.

I don't miss the left greenside bunker in an analysis.  What gives you that idea?  It is obvious I understand the design features a lot better than you do based upon your posts and previous discussions.  The point in Flynn placing the green where he did (you wanted to move it 50 yards down and 30 yards to the right) is to utilize the ground contours.  The area is not flat, the green slopes right to left.  Times have changed and a bunker is better today than it would have been 80 years ago.  That shouldn't be too hard to consider.  I think the greenside bunker should be pinched in a little more than it is and reconfigured as it was originally designed and built.  It is a poor derivation of its former self as is the case with too many bunkers at RGGC.  It is a major flaw at this time.

If you like that last hardwood tree, why would you want to see the fairway returned around the right side of the green?  I think it is less onerous than the evergreens because it is even with the green and not in front and it is not an evergreen.  But it is still a dumb tree.  You like it and it isn't Flynn.  What's that all about?  You can't have it both ways when you use original Flynn as a be all and end all standard.

"BTW the eminently qualified architect wanted to keep the last evergreen ; I suggested to him that "Flynn was rolling over in his grave" and he changed his mind."

Are you sure about that?  In any case, just because you had one good idea (even if it is evident) doesn't mean you're on a roll and have other good ideas  

Please don't tell me about Ran's opinion of RGGC when he and I played it.  You want to make more significant changes to the course (moving 2 fairways) so don't act like you are some steward of William Flynn's design.  The course has a long way to go to become close to his original design.  While the greens are very close, except that atrocious 16th, there is a lot that needs to be done in terms of trees and bunkers.  A fixed point in time as it relates to a design isn't necessarily ideal, especially when considered 80 years later.  Come on, that is utter nonsense.  And to say building a new bunker would open Pandora's Box?  That too is crap.  You want to make more significant changes and accept ones already made.  Pandora's Box is opened when committees decide things without a complete understanding and when they compromise architects' suggestions.

I go out in the field and discuss work with architects a fair amount.  I think members add a lot to the discussions because of their greater familiarity and play experience.  But the wrong advice can be given as well.  The consulting architects should listen, but as Flynn suggested, after a while, they have to be left on their own to utilize their expertise and experience.

Remember, a bunker is not permanent architecture.  A golf course isn't a monument either and you shouldn't continuously think of it as one, except when you don't as it relates to your own ideas  

 Jim ,


  If a hole at Huntingdon Valley had been screwed up for forty years and it finally could be restored wouldn't you want to see it play the way it was designed before suggesting other changes ?

  I think that Corey's observation and "The Knucklehead's" latest opus are instructive when it comes to hiring consultants.  These guys are no different than the hundreds of experts I have hired for litigation.  They won't lie for you, but you can usually get them to say what you want if you're reasonable.  Malone allegedy talked the consultant into keeping a tree.  I assure you that, given the chance, I could talk that consultant into removing the tree and putting in a bunker tweny yards short of the green (as Tom Paul advocates).  And I have no doubt Wayne could convince him to leave (or keep) the tree and place the bunker 50 yds short.  If the consultant only heard one opinion (assuming it was reasonable, and I'll posit that we are all being reasonable here), that opinion would find its way into his report.  The question is what the consultant would advocate if he heard the three of us argue the points at the same time and had to choose one and piss off the other two.  I'm afraid he'd take the "middle ground" as a safe choice.  Yes, I'm cynical;but I think I'm also right. Needless to say, no architect would agree with me.