Is # 13 at NGLA CBM's ultimate .....

« **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2007, 09:40:27 PM »

"Have you never heard of the phrase, "half a loaf is better than none"?"

I most certainly have and the last thing any of those NGLA par 5s need is Patrick Mucci the half baked baker.

"Let's face it, you're an obstructionist and I'm a problem solver."

I say leave the holes alone and just go with what is undoubtedly the "whole hole" reality for these long players today which is unquestionably that distance-wise they can reach them in two shots just like a long par 4 in the old days. And if adding 50 yards of tee length puts these long players right back in Macdonald's original tee shot LZ there's not a thing that can be done on the second half of those holes about that reality.

The proof is that TOC's #17 (Road Hole) has done just fine for a number of years as a par 4. It's curious why you don't acknowledge that.

When it comes to recommending that the architecture of NGLA be left alone I doubt many would call me an obstructionist. What you are, however, with your half-baked and architecturally ineffective ideas is an architectural destructionist.

« **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2007, 09:57:28 PM »

Patrick:

You don't understand any of this.

The discussion about NGLA's #7 or #5 or even #18 has no real correlation to NGLA's #8 or Pine Valley's #4, 9, 13, 16 or 18. Those holes are all par 4s and always have been.

NLGA's #5, #7 and #18 are par 5s and for the long player they just aren't that anymore and adding 50 yards to them isn't going to change that. They'd be reached with regularity anyway.

This is not the case with PVGC's #7. Probably not more than a dozen people have hit that green in two in its history. Consequently there is no similarity with that par 5 compared to up to three of NGLA.

The same is true of Maidstone's #15 and #16. That club should just print up an alternate scorecard for that course for good players listing the course as a par 70 instead of a par 72.

As I'm sure you know last fall NGLA did drop the par on #5 to a par 4. I have no idea whose idea that was but as you know I've been recommending that on here for a few years now. Maybe they noticed that. I just don't think they need to drop the par on that hole for everyone because for most members and players from the tees always used that hole does play like a short par 5.

For good long players it's not much more than a good drive and a mid-iron. That sounds more like a par 4, don't you think?

« **Reply #27 on:** June 21, 2007, 09:39:05 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 20, 2007, 09:57:28 PM

Patrick:

You don't understand any of this.

The discussion about NGLA's #7 or #5 or even #18 has no real correlation to NGLA's #8 or Pine Valley's #4, 9, 13, 16 or 18. Those holes are all par 4s and always have been.

Of course there's a correlation, especially in the context of the "whole" versus the "partial" restoration of archtictural values on any given hole as a result of extending the tee to replicate interfacing with the intended drive[/color]

NLGA's #5, #7 and #18 are par 5s and for the long player they just aren't that anymore and adding 50 yards to them isn't going to change that. They'd be reached with regularity anyway.

You didn't seem to mind when Pine Valley lengthened # 7, a par 5 ?

It's not an issue of them being reached with regularity, it's an issue of bringing the architectural features back into play with the tee shot.

When that's done, the holes play dramatically different because the long hitter can no longer ignore the bunker complexes in the DZ, he must contend with them.[/color]

This is not the case with PVGC's #7. Probably not more than a dozen people have hit that green in two in its history.

That's not the issue.
The issue is, why did Pine Valley lengthen # 7.
Answer, to discourage play from the tee with a 4-iron, to make the drive as challenging as it was meant to be.[/color]

Consequently there is no similarity with that par 5 compared to up to three of NGLA.

Yes there is.
Both #7 at PV and # 5 at NGLA have built in distance inhibitors off the tee in the form of cross bunkering.[/color]

The same is true of Maidstone's #15 and #16. That club should just print up an alternate scorecard for that course for good players listing the course as a par 70 instead of a par 72.

As I'm sure you know last fall NGLA did drop the par on #5 to a par 4. I have no idea whose idea that was but as you know I've been recommending that on here for a few years now. Maybe they noticed that. I just don't think they need to drop the par on that hole for everyone because for most members and players from the tees always used that hole does play like a short par 5.

Hole # 5 isn't the issue.

And, as we both know, if hole # 5 had the appropriate terrain at the tee end, it too would be lengthened.

But, it doesn't. But, # 7 clearly does and # 18 could, if the gates were moved.[/color]

For good long players it's not much more than a good drive and a mid-iron. That sounds more like a par 4, don't you think?

NO, into a prevailing wind from the south I haven't seen many people hit a 4-iron, and I play the majority of my golf there with good, long players, like Terry McBride.[/color]

« **Reply #28 on:** June 21, 2007, 09:42:33 AM »

TEPaul,

Your own man, FLYNN was a strong advocate of elasticity vis a vis extending tees.

Have Wayne explain that philosophy to you and how it's been successfully undertaken for years at Shinnecock and NGLA.

Why do you want to suddenly stop that process on # 7 and # 18 at NGLA when the holes and the play of the holes will clearly benefit from extending the tees ?

« **Reply #29 on:** June 21, 2007, 10:04:08 AM »

I didn't think Shinnecock went nuts stretching holes like some other courses.

« **Reply #30 on:** June 24, 2007, 05:30:05 PM »

Quote from: Jim Franklin on June 21, 2007, 10:04:08 AM

I didn't think Shinnecock went nuts stretching holes like some other courses.

Jim,

They sure did, especially since they began preparing for the U.S. Open in 1986.

« **Reply #31 on:** June 24, 2007, 05:43:56 PM »

TEPaul,

I measured the distance from the back of the current back tee to the gates. It's 53 yards, which means that you could go 50 yards back, on the same line, without moving the gates.

It would be a great back tee for the better players
These young kids are hitting the ball a mile, and a championship tee would return the left side bunker complex into play for them.

With respect to # 13, some members indicated that CBM and SR never built a great Eden hole, and that play from the footpad/tee to the left of # 12 green would be a very good Eden hole.

What's interesting is the cupping areas that would be available for play from that angle and the bunkers that would have to be carried.

In addition, it's obvious that a man made footpad was created that extends to the left and well beyond the built up footpad specifically for # 12 green.

I think CBM intended play from that position, it's a natural.
The angle, the replication, the built up footpad, etc., etc..

The next time I'm there, I"m going to try to play # 13 from that angle. Other members told me that they liked the concept and tried playing from that spot and were pleased with the results.

The next time you're there, take a look at it, or better yet, play it.

As to # 7, the "hotel" bunker complex has become irrelevant off the drive.

The solution would be to lower the current tee, and build a championship tee a good 30 yards back on the extended man made footpad that presently exists in that location.

This would make the "hotel" bunker complex a factor off the drive again.

It returns the feature into play.

It would interface with the golfer as CBM intended.

The hole locations at NGLA this week were simply mind boggling, frightening to approach, frightening to recover to and frightening to putt to.

I think I learned a few new ways to play more than a few shots.

It is extremely special.

« **Reply #32 on:** June 24, 2007, 08:00:54 PM »

"TEPaul,
I measured the distance from the back of the current back tee to the gates. It's 53 yards, which means that you could go 50 yards back, on the same line, without moving the gates."

Well, I'm very glad to hear that as moving Macdonald's Gate and the driveway to put in a back tee is just plain foolish in my opinion as you certainly know.

« **Reply #33 on:** June 24, 2007, 08:08:53 PM »

BY THE WAY, GOLFCLUBATLASERS, Pat Mucci shot a 75 in qualifying this weekend in the National Singles Tournament.

That score was apparently one of the best of the qualifying field and is pretty mind-boggling given what the set-up and conditions apparently were.

So even if Patrick is wrong about 97% of the time about the things he says on here he definitely has to be one of the best of my acquaintence in using his knowledge and understanding of golf course architecture to manage his way around a tournament set-up to the max on a course like NGLA.

Congratulations Pat.

You must all congratulate Patrick for this ultra impressive feat or you will be considered rude louts!!

« **Reply #34 on:** June 24, 2007, 10:17:33 PM »

TEPaul,

One of the things that helped me was my trusty old 2-iron.

I was able to keep it down on the deck, under the wind on a few holes, like # 10 and # 16.

I knew it would be an interesting day when my tee shot ended up in the bank above the right side fairway bunker.

I hit a shot 20 feet above the pin and breathed a sigh of relieve, then, I hit the putt too hard, but, it went in.
That green scares me every time I play it, especially in medal play with competitive hole locations.

But, the best was on the 15th hole.
The pin was top center, not far from the steep dropoff behind the green. I hit a poor drive in the right side of the fairway.
I was trying to hit a low hooked 2-iron that would carry the fairway bunkers, land on the downslope of the fairway and run up onto the green. Unfortunately I overcooked it left.
We couldn't find the ball, I was about to return to declare a lost ball when Terry found the ball inside the front left side of the bunker, but not in the sand. I tried to play a low punch run up, but hit it a little too firm and it ran over the green down the steep slope where it was miraculously stopped by a rake above the bunker. I removed the rake and the ball stayed put. I then holed the shot out. I could put 1,000 balls there and not get within 5 feet. So I went from a 7 or 9 to a par 4. On the next hole I hit a 2-iron 1 1/2 feet from the hole for a 3.

I won the Senior Medal for 50 and over.
Terry had 76 with a double bogey on # 1.
He played off with Bobby Stuart and won on the 2nd hole.

As good as my par was on # 15, Bobby Stuart made one of the greatest pars I've ever seen in my life on # 1 this morning.

I was on the second tee waiting to hit my drive.

His drive on # 1 was hooked and he hit the road, bounced into the parking lot, hit a few cars and ended up in the parking lot, on the macadam, by the steps closest to # 18, 80 yards from the green.

His swing toward the hole was interfered with by the steps and there were 50 cars directly in his line anywhere toward the green.

The road, hedges,parking lot and cars are considered and integral part of the golf course.

He couldn't go directly at the hole due to a tree.

He hit an absolutely incredible shot off the road, over the cars, right and just short of the green. He putted up and made a 5 footer for par. It was one of the greatest pars I've ever seen in my life.

My car and my opponents car were in the parking lot.
We were going to move our cars had they been in his line.
But, since we got there early we were parked closer to the clubhouse.

We thought that he'd do at least $ 5,000 in windshield damage alone.

Terry hit the fairway, then the green, then hit his approach putt 6 inches and only got a half. It was amazing.

« **Reply #35 on:** June 25, 2007, 09:19:46 AM »

Congrats Pat, that is a terrific round. I played with Bob the week before and he was getting ready for that event and hitting the ball well. If you ever look at his driver, he wears out a little spot right in the center. That sounded like a pretty terrific par on #1. Yours wasn't too shabby either.

« **Reply #36 on:** June 25, 2007, 09:30:00 AM »

Patrick:

Interesting story about that parking lot shot.

I still feel it's pointless to move the driveway and Macdonald's Gate to make room for tee lengthening on #18 but I now firmly believe the parking lot should definitely be moved. Maybe they could put it over on the other side of the pro shop and cart barn and next to Sebonak.

By the way, Patrick, if you hit your ball into that big convex sand mound fronting #17, do you know how that lie is handled in the Rules or Local Rules? Is that area considered to be a hazard (bunker) or is it treated as "through the green"?

« **Reply #37 on:** June 25, 2007, 12:56:27 PM »

TEPaul,

There are a number of convex bunkers around the golf course.
# 8 has one to the right in the DZ.

They're treated as hazards.

Creating a new tee, approximately 50 yards behind the current back tee on # 18 makes sense for the new generation of golfers who hit the ball incredible distances.

It would preserve the angle of attack and bring the DZ features meant to interface with the golfer back into play.

It's a win -win situation and the cost to do so is minimal.

The same applies to # 7.

Added distance comes with F&F conditions, therefore, new back tees need to be installed to preserve the intent of the design, assuring that the archtictural features, as intended by CBM, interface with the better golfer

« **Reply #38 on:** June 25, 2007, 02:18:38 PM »

"There are a number of convex bunkers around the golf course.
# 8 has one to the right in the DZ."

I believe that would be to the right of the DZ on #9 Patrick.

For God Sakes man, you just played the golf course and I still have to correct you?? You're hopeless.

« **Reply #39 on:** June 25, 2007, 02:21:57 PM »

"It would preserve the angle of attack and bring the DZ features meant to interface with the golfer back into play.
It's a win -win situation and the cost to do so is minimal."

Well, thank God you've finally seen the stupidity of your years-long recommendation to move Macdonald's Gate and the driveway. This only goes to show that if some club was actually willing to listen to your recommendations they should probably wait about ten years first for you to come to your senses.

« **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2007, 04:34:39 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 25, 2007, 02:18:38 PM

"There are a number of convex bunkers around the golf course. # 8 has one to the right in the DZ."

I believe that would be to the right of the DZ on #9 Patrick.

NO, it's on the RIGHT side of # 8.
My opponent had to play from it, so I'm very familiar with it.

The convex feature on # 9 is in the MIDDLE of the fairway, NOT the right side.

It would help if you could differentiate your left from your right, but, I know that's too much to expect. [/color]

For God Sakes man, you just played the golf course and I still have to correct you ??

Now I know why you're confused about the tees on # 7, # 12 and # 18, you can't recall one hole from the other.[/color]

You're hopeless.

On some matters, perhaps, but, not when it comes to NGLA.[/color]

« **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2007, 05:01:45 PM »

Pat:

There is a convex sand bunker on the right side of hole #9. It's always been there. I'm not talking about the big cross bunkering on #9. In any case you answered my question about whether they're played as a hazard or through the green.

« **Reply #42 on:** June 25, 2007, 05:10:12 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 25, 2007, 02:21:57 PM

"It would preserve the angle of attack and bring the DZ features meant to interface with the golfer back into play.
It's a win -win situation and the cost to do so is minimal."

Well, thank God you've finally seen the stupidity of your years-long recommendation to move Macdonald's Gate and the driveway.

When I was driving on the Montauk Highway I stopped into the Southampton Cemetery and had a nice long chat with CBM. He indicated that if he were still active at NGLA, that he'd move the gates to the NorthEast, immediately, without the need for discussion and/or committee meetings.

But, given his limited involvement, and, a less than perfect world, compromises must be made, thus, as a first step, he agrees that a new tee should be constructed within the shadow of the gates, as I suggested.[/color]

This only goes to show that if some club was actually willing to listen to your recommendations they should probably wait about ten years first for you to come to your senses.

Like the restoration of the back of # 11 green, the front of
# 10 green and the expansion, all the way to the right side bunker on # 13 green.

Or, the mowing of the right side spine just short of # 5 green that would feed errant balls into a bunker that you never knew existed ?

Let's hope that the footpad to the left of # 12 green is made into a tee for the 13th hole, sooner than 10 years.

As you know, or maybe you don't, CBM, SR and CB never built great replicas of the Eden Hole, which is interesting given that GCGC's Eden Hole is pretty good, if not excellent.

Placing a tee on the existing artificially constructed foot pad to the left of # 12 allows the 13th green to function like the green that serves the 7th and 11th holes at TOC.

It's my belief that CBM designed it that way.

His last words to me, as I left the cemetery, were, "tell that Philadelphia blockhead to listen to you when it comes to NGLA, and to stay off the Montauk Highway,"

Rumor has it that an order of protection has been issued against you and especially Wayno with respect to visiting his plot.

On Wayne's last visit, Wayno told the officer who escorted him off the site that he just wanted to pour 100 year old Scottish whisky on CBM's grave. To which the officer replied, "yeah, but, you can't run it through your kidneys first."

Wayne was heard to mutter something about "template designers" as he was escorted from the property. [/color]

« **Reply #43 on:** June 25, 2007, 05:23:18 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 25, 2007, 05:01:45 PM

There is a convex sand bunker on the right side of hole #9. It's always been there. I'm not talking about the big cross bunkering on #9.

TEPaul,

There is NO convex bunker on the right side of # 9.
It's at the end of the fairway off the tee and not to the right of # 9 fairway.

Take a look at the hole on Google Earth to get a sense of it's location.[/color]

In any case you answered my question about whether they're played as a hazard or through the green.

There are a number of those features at GCGC.
Given the alleged "collaboration" in the early stages at NGLA, CBM's memberships and familiarity with GCGC, it wouldn't surprise me if the convex bunkers at NGLA were replicas of those found at GCGC.[/color]

« **Reply #44 on:** June 25, 2007, 05:28:36 PM »

TEPaul,

With respect to the 13th green at NGLA, MacDonald himself stated that he built the 13th green "IDENTICALLY" with the green at St Andrews.

That's important.

It's important because it means that the green was intentionally designed such that it could accept approaches from the angles replicated by the 7th and the 11th at TOC.

This makes sense and it may explain the existing artificial footpad to the left of the 12th green.

There's little doubt in my mind that the hole is designed such that it can be played from both angles.

I believe that NGLA should place a tee at that location.

« **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2007, 05:35:43 PM »

TEPaul,

MacDonald's own words would seem to demand that a new back tee be created on # 7.

He intended the golfer to interface with what he calls the "Station-Master's garden, but, he determined that it shouldn't be out-of-bounds, so he created a great expanse of bunkers and mounds, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot making any distance.

He NEVER intended that complex to be avoided, as is the case today.

When I discussed this with him over the weekend, he insisted that a DUAL tee on the existing artificial footpad presently adjacent to the 12th green could serve both # 7 and # 13.

Or, a seperate, alternate tee could be constructed back by or across the road to the MB.

« **Reply #46 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:21:00 PM »

"It's important because it means that the green was intentionally designed such that it could accept approaches from the angles replicated by the 7th and the 11th at TOC."

Patrick:

Macdonald said he intentionally designed NGLA's 13th green to replicate the 7th AND 11th green at TOC??

Where did he say that?

Now you think a tee ought to be melded for #7 and #13??

Maybe you should just stop thinking about redesigning NGLA Patrick.

« **Reply #47 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:53:42 PM »

Pat -
How much usable land, if any, is there adjacent to the gate (without altering the bunker that surrounds the 17th)? I thought the bunker went pretty much to the driveway, but not sure if it also went to the gate.

Also, in addition to "interfacing" with the bunkers in the DZ, won't the player also potentially be interfacing with golfers on the 17th green? And, more importantly, won't players approaching the 17th potentially be interfacing with players on that added 18th tee?

I think its a good i dea if feasible, but I'm trying to look at reasons why it might not.

« **Reply #48 on:** June 26, 2007, 09:16:57 AM »

Quote from: SBerry on June 25, 2007, 11:53:42 PM

Pat -
How much usable land, if any, is there adjacent to the gate (without altering the bunker that surrounds the 17th)?

There's enough for a back tee[/color]

I thought the bunker went pretty much to the driveway, but not sure if it also went to the gate.

It doesn't go all the way to the gate.
There's room for a nice back tee in that corner[/color]

Also, in addition to "interfacing" with the bunkers in the DZ, won't the player also potentially be interfacing with golfers on the 17th green?

Not at all.

Does that happen at # 5 tee ?# 8 tee ? # 9 tee ? # 10 tee,
# 12 tee ?, it does a little on # 13 tee. And, what about the current 18th tee ?[/color]

And, more importantly, won't players approaching the 17th potentially be interfacing with players on that added 18th tee?

NO, just the opposite, they'll interface less than they do now.

Why are you choosing to forget how the golfers come into contact with one another on the present configuration ?[/color]

I think its a good i dea if feasible, but I'm trying to look at reasons why it might not.

Ah, the obstructionist view, the TEPaul school of thought.[/color]

« **Reply #49 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:16:25 PM »

"Ah, the obstructionist view, the TEPaul school of thought."

Patrick:

Not at all. I looked in that corner to the left of the Gate (on entering) years ago. There is some room in there, and yes the sensation would be that you are sort of hitting back over the back of the 17th green.

S Berry asked if that would be dangerous. Not really, since it would be very infrequent that golfers would be on or near the 17th green when players are teeing off from back there.

My victory is that after all these years I have FINALLY got you to come to the realization that Macdonald's Gate and the driveway don't need to be moved.

A tee 50 yards back may be useful but even for long hitters it may take the option of a drive over the left bunker out of function and that would not be a good thinga at all as that's one great high risk option.

There's a lot the club can do with that hole without doing anything to it. Transitioning it into a par 4 from the appropriate tee for the elite player would make the hole one of the strongest finishers in existence.

Don't worry about it, Pat, I certainly wouldn't expect you to grasp any of this.

News:

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Franklin

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Jim Franklin

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul