[JESII]

Tom,

And my position is that as soon as the trees left of that creek along the drive come out there is no risk at all. Let's say we are ignoring environmental guidance just for sake of conversation. Once they are gone, or even significantly minimized there is no reason I (a medium length hitter for a scratch) would ever not go that way. Now if you're suggesting taking out the trees only to put in high grass and bunkers up there I have to ask, why?

There's this old theory architects used to employ on occassion called "shot testing" you may have heard.......

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
The only reason I was asking about play on that nine was to get a feel for what the HV members think of it?  They know it and can appreciate it much better than any of us can.  If the members there like it a lot then obviously I am in the minority in my opinion.  
Mark

[Kyle Harris]

Mark,

From what I've seen, the nine gets a lot of play as a overflow nine, especially considering the amount of little tournaments HVCC does during the week. Not sure how much of that is preference.

One thing you can count on is Linc Roden playing it at least twice a week.  

[JESII]

Mark,

Let's be honest about what you were trying to say. You've got some sort of an issue and it comes through in your commentary on here quite clearly. I'm not too concerned about it, but contradicting yourself as you have should be a concern, to you.

It's funny, you say that the hole requires no thought and is therefore a weak design. You also say that the hole, and the nine, are probably to tough for you as a 2 or 3 handicapper. As a 2 or 3 I am surprised you'd be defeated so easily, perhaps the design has something to do with your attitude and therefore your play out there. Should all golf be a happy-go-lucky free for all?

[TEPaul]

"There's this old theory architects used to employ on occassion called "shot testing" you may have heard.......  

Sully:

I sure have heard that theory and that term. Matter of fact, I may be wrong but I think Wayne and I invented that term for that basic strategy of some of that old architecture that tended to be designed to be ultra difficult. If one can find that term in some of the old magazines and such then we didn't invent it but I doubt anyone will find it.

I don't have any problem at all with that old fashioned architectural style of "shot testing" architecture but some probably do because they don't think it's optional enough. And it really isn't unless one understands how architects back then who created that one dimensional "shot testing" architecture looked at what was meant by "optional". To them that was willingly playing in the expectation of dropping a shot unless it could be made up with a pitch or chip and a one putt.

We don't tend to look at "optional" that way today. We tend to look at it a a number of different routes to the same destination in the same number of shots.

I have no problem with some super "shot testing" courses and architecture. Pine Valley was largely conceived by Crump to be that.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
I'm not sure where I am contradicting myself?  If I am, I don't mean to be.  I started out this thread by saying to Ryan that I wouldn't call Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse Hole" his best design.  I said it might be interesting and unique for those playing it once in a while, but for those playing it day in and day out at their home course, it might get old fast.  I said the same would go for Flynn's #2 hole on the C nine.  It is far from my favorite (which means I don’t care for it).  I said that this design does force a certain shot, but I'm not sure how exciting it is (I'm talking about the tee shot)?  I prefer to see options or the temptation for golfers to have to contemplate alternative lines of play.  It seems to me the club is thinking along these same lines and is trying to come up with something (is this correct)?  This is what I meant in my comment about playing it one time and you have it figured out (there are no options).  I also said this kind of hole is hell for weaker golfers or kids and seniors and a bit boring for better players.  

In some of the other posts, it seems this hole and others on the C nine have been an issue for hosting tournaments on that nine so I am not the only one that doesn’t care for it.  I stated that I'm a decent golfer just to make the point that I still didn’t enjoy the C nine as is.   I like tough courses, (just played Winged Foot West from the tips), but I didn’t enjoy the C nine as it had holes that were simply brutal and to me not very rewarding.  I hope I am not offending anyone but do you like every nine holes of golf that you play?  It didn’t seem like Tom Doak liked the concept of the hole either.  Maybe you should argue with him    I do love the other two nines.  They are two of Flynn’s best and as Wayne knows, I’ve seen a few Flynn courses.  

[wsmorrison]

The C-nine was designed as a men's championship nine to be paired swith the B-nine.  The A-nine was meant to be played in conjunction with the B-nine as a championship course for women (their women's program has always been strong) and likely for juniors as well.  The style of design was meant to be one of specific shot testing for the best players in the district.  I think the original design and the current iteration function very well in this regard.

Mark,  I don't understand what you mean by holes being simply brutal and not very rewarding and thus not enjoyable.  Even if the hole is a supreme test, it is just one of 18 holes.  Why is the toughness of WFW more appealing to you than the brutality of HVCC?  I wish you would explain the differentiation to me, it is not at all clear.  To me, the HVCC challenge is appealing and can even be fun in a way.  When a shot is demanded, tested if you will, and you pull it off, that is very rewarding.  When the shot fails and you recover to match your opponent's score, that too is rewarding.  If you foozle the hole, you'll just have to make it up somewhere else.  Plenty of holes remain.

I would think you would think deeper than most top amateur and pro players and recognize the added variety of having a hole like this.  It wouldn't bother me to play the hole regularly.  If you think about Huntingdon Valley, there are a lot of demands on specific shots and every aspect of play, especially precise ball striking off uncommon lies.

I hope you don't use Tom Doak's opinion to bolster your own.  I wonder when Tom played the course, it must have been very soon after it opened given the release date of his first edition.  The other holes (except for C-6 which the driving range impacted) are exceptional.  And I like C-2 and C-7.  A longer hitter should complain less about C-7 given today's technologies.  The decision making on the tee can be complex for longer hitters.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
First let me clarify that I love the other two nines at HV.  I just was not at all enamored with the C nine.  It is very possible that you need to play it many times to appreciate it.  In that regard, I will give it the benefit of the doubt.  I haven't played too many Flynn nines that I didn't care for so maybe I am missing something with this one.  

Starting out with the first hole which if I recall correctly is a tee shot slightly uphill.  Don't you need to carry the ball a long way to just get it over the hill and then you are faced with a long forced carry over a hazard (from which there is no chance of recovery) to the green.  And this is all just on the first hole.  Tough starter!  Then you go to the second hole which you have to admit is awkward.  It might be different but that doesn't necessarily make it good.  

The one hole (is it #7) requires a long carry off the tee or else you have to layup with an iron and play hopscotch to get to the green.  

I guess the memorable holes to me were the ones I didn't care for.  The others just didn't stand out.  I probably need to play it again.  

Winged Foot West on the other hand is not terribly exciting or unique off the tee on most of the holes, but the green complexes are simply amazing.  That is where the golf course shines.  Tillinghast didn't force your hand but at the same time requires every possible shot you can muster.  

My reference to Doak was his comment about the cart before the horse hole earlier in this thread (post #14 I believe).  

Finally, I said earlier in this thread that I knew the C nine was designed as a championship test.  Shouldn't that fact alone imply that it will have limitations for most golfers.  I guess I just fit in the group that sees those limitations.  

Is that any clearer?  It is tough typing thoughts like this as everyone seems to read into what you type differently.
Mark  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

I don't think your memory of the holes is very accurate.  While there is a strong left to right cant of the fairway on C-1 and the tee box seems elevated, the landing area is at nearly the same level as the tee.  The green is only slightly lower than the LZ, maybe by 5 feet.  There is no long forced carry.  There is a stream about 40 or so yards short of the green but it is not very wide.  The hole is a tough starter but it was meant to be played as the 10th hole in a round.  The drive requires a draw into the L to R slope or a straight tee shot down the left side of the fairway.

The second hole is only awkward if you like convention.  The approach shot is a thrilling one and the green excellent.  Playing this shot is well worth whatever negative some might attribute to the tee shot.

The third hole is an excellent par 5 in some ways reminiscent of the 16th at Shinnecock Hills.  There was a very strategic tree on the right that balanced the demands with a bunker field on the left so that there wasn't a bail out area.

The par 3 fourth hole is a bit different in appearance today as the lake is gone but it is a good hole.

The fifth hole is an outstanding dogleg left with a steeply sloped L to R green benched into the hillside and fronted by a deep bunker.  A well-executed draw with a fairway canted L to R  leaves a more lofted shot into the green.

The sixth hole is the weakest on the nine and is not in the original location due to the relocated driving range.  Some work on this hole should be considered.  I believe that Ron Prichard was not involved in the hole we play today.

The seventh green is in the original location but the approach angle is different as a result of the driving range.  The longer hitter can hit driver to the second island fairway but into the wind a fairway wood or long iron to the first island fairway leaves a long shot to the big green with a severe back to front slope.

The eighth hole is a wonderful cape tee shot where the bold line over the bunkers leads to a nice turbo boost and a mid to long iron into a nice green complex with a man-made strategic mound on the right that can be used as a kicker onto the green.

The ninth hole is from an elevated tee to an LZ on a steep uphill climb to a two-tiered steeply back to front green that is mostly hidden.  The routing dictated this approach back to the clubhouse.  It isn't a great hole but it is a fun approach.

You're right, the fact that this was meant to be a championship test for the highest class of golfers implies that the nine is not ideal for all classes of players.  But it is playable if they are playing match play and not playing with GIR and par in mind.  If lesser classes of players would take that mindset it wouldn't be regarded as it is.  If I can play the nine, you certainly can.  Your game is much more predictable than mine.  If Pine Valley, Winged Foot West and to a lesser extent Baltusrol Lower were meant to be tough test of golf, just think of HVCC C-nine as a variation on that theme.  You may not like it much, I find it hard to believe that its difficulty is at the root of that decision.  At least it is not as systematic in its presentation as WFW and is much more interesting than Baltusrol.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Excellent points.  I do need to get back there again to do it justice.  It has been a long time since I was there.  Maybe we can go around it together one day.  I still have to think long and hard about hole #2 though.
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

Think about it as a three shot hole.

I'm not saying that to be funny, seriously. When thought about in that context there is some risk and some reward on each shot. For a low handicapper, that may just take you further outside the box but, I think you agree, that's not so bad.

And besides, how many holes really offer each individual player an option on the tee about different clubs and different directions after they've played the hole once or twice?

[JESII]

I don't think anyone should think of this as their favorite hole in the world, hell it sure isn't mine, but quick judgements in a negative light usually are backed by soft reasoning.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
For a weaker golfer it probably is a three shot hole.  I agree.  But you said it for me in your quote:

"I don't think anyone should think of this as their favorite hole in the world, hell it sure isn't mine".

I am saying the same thing as you, this sure as hell isn't my favorite hole either  

One last question for you - How many courses have you played where you didn't make some kind of judgement (positive or negative) after playing it only one or two times?

My guess is that if I took you to play Cypress Point tomorrow, you would have some "quick" judgements about the place  

[JESII]

Interesting Mark, that you read anything short of "my favorite hole in the world" equates to your statement of it being a "weak design".

I think if you are going to make strong pronounced negative statements about a hole you should have substantial experience backing up your position, one visit and some word of mouth hardly qualifies.

My guess is that your guess about my opinions of Cypress Point after one trip are based on you feeling it necessary to form a quick opinion of courses, just in case someone asks you what you think. Fortunately I do not have that same dilemna.

[JESII]

I want to play it 18 times in a row, Jim.  

That just may qualify you for immediate admission in the asylum, if not before, very possibly after.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
Does that mean you don't form opinions of things until you experience them numerous times?  If so, you in a very small group.  

I know a guy who I have a lot of respect for who wrote this book called the Confidential Guide to Golf Courses (many of which he only saw one time and some he didn't even play).  I don't agree with all of it but he sure made some strong statements about the courses.  And I don't hold that against him either.  

It is just as interesting how defensive you are of the hole?  Just let it go    I've already said I'll come take another look and rethink my position.  I am open to change but like most, I do have first impression opinions.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Mark,
Think about it as a three shot hole.
I'm not saying that to be funny, seriously. When thought about in that context there is some risk and some reward on each shot. For a low handicapper, that may just take you further outside the box but, I think you agree, that's not so bad."

Sully:

Don't you see that is exactly how C's #2 was designed. That's part of it's "concept", perhaps even one half of its strategic concept. That's the conservative option or the conservative strategy to the hole. And that is precisely why the hole is not popular today with some golfers, obviously Mark Fine beinng one of them.

That's the way "shot testing" concepts were in the old days. If one didn't accept the risk of stringing together two of his best shots he wasn't supposed to get there. He had to make it up with a pitch or chip and a one putt or just willing expect to give up a stroke. That was SOP with "shot testing" holes in the old days if you didn't or couldn't answer the "test".

That's the way it was back then when the match play mentality reigned more than today. Today we have much more of a stroke play mentality, and probably largely due to our handicap system and particularly for good players. In their minds GIR is a reality, almost a necessity--a standard so to speak, at least to be able to get hole high with any option. Back in the old days of "shot testing" designs GIR or the ability to get hole high probably wasn't even thought of.

Mark Fine probably should look at #2 as a three shot hole some of the time but obviously that doesn't sit well with him. He's a modern player and options mean various ways to being able to get to the same destination---eg the green or somehow hole high around it.

That's not the way some of those super challenging "shot testing" holes of the C nine were designed---eg the "shot testers" distance-wise. You needed to produce your best two shots or you who had to chip and one putt for the same ball of wax.

[James Bennett]

Funny thing golf.

Had the pleasure to play Huntingdon Valley once, and only once.  A 9 and C 9, plus a 'walk' of the B 9.  I played poorly (but not as poorly as someone who joined us for the C9 ).  The 9 that I enjoyed most at Huntingdon Valley, and remember most of - is the C9.  The hole on the C9 that I have the most trouble recalling is C9 #6 (I understand why after reading Wayne's comments above).  Holes that I had trouble playing (because of poor form) but absolutely loved seeing - C9 1, 2 and 7.  

Perhaps the C9 suffers because of its more recent reincarnation (and so it is less revered by long-time golfers - it isn't part of the course that they grew up with), and the fact that the course has 27 holes (so 9 holes are redundant to some).

I think I'll be reviewing my photos of the C9 again tonight. Perhaps the course aerial as well. Happy memories.  Strategy and options, golf with choices.  Huntingdon Valley.

James B

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
Not that my score matters but I did par the #2 hole on the C nine (hit the green in two with a five wood according to the notes on my scorecard).  The problem was that I hit 4I off the tee and can't recall feeling tested over that shot?  I guess you could try to get close to the creek on the left but the reward of hitting 3I or something into the green vs. 5W for me wasn't worth it.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can get much closer than 200 yards or so in?  Is that right?  

But you are right in that the hole does call for two distinct shots.  That backwards style hole I just struggle with a bit.  I've never been a layup kind of player.  Maybe that is my problem  

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
Not that my score matters but I did par the #2 hole on the C nine (hit the green in two with a five wood according to the notes on my scorecard).  The problem was that I hit 4I off the tee and can't recall feeling tested over that shot?  I guess you could try to get close to the creek on the left but the reward of hitting 3I or something into the green vs. 5W for me wasn't worth it.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can get much closer than 200 yards or so in?  Is that right?  
But you are right in that the hole does call for two distinct shots.  That backwards style hole I just struggle with a bit.  I've never been a layup kind of player.  Maybe that is my problem   "

Mark:

I don't disagree with anything you say.

But don't forget, this thread is about Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" concept and by Tillinghast's own explanation and description that was intended to be something of an "upside down" concept expermiment where the golfer would basically hit a tee shot something akin to an approach shot off the tee only to be left with an approach shot, at best, something like a drive.

Tillinghast himself said it would probably be controversial and obviously it was and is.

Don't forget, the analogy to HVGC's C nine #2 to Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" concept is mine, not HVGC's or anyone else's I'm aware of.

(Sully, when I saw you and your Dad last year at the State Amateur at HVGC I mentioned how I felt C's #2 was basically very similar to Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept and I told him I'd make Tillie's article on it available to him.)

Linc Roden thinks the concept of HVGC's C nine #2 is similar to PVGC's #13. I doubt he's heard of Tillie's "Cart Before the Horse" concept which Flynn appears to have used with this hole. I definitely do not see C Nine's #2 being similar to PVGC's #13, other that the second shot at PVGC's #13 was supposed to be very long, at best (originally).

I'm fascinated by this particular hole because it is something of a "Cart Before the Horse" concept and it definitely is a "shot testing" hole which was a type of design of an era, in my opinion.

For better or for worse the hole is very interesting to me for that reason alone.

You may feel otherwise, and there's little question you have a lot of company.  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

In my discussions with Linc, he's made it somewhat clear that the comparisons with Pine Valley's 13th hole only lie in how they were created (with the architect hitting shot after shot to get the height of the green and the trajectory required right).

Linc is of the thought that Flynn spent time hitting Spoon shots from where the appropriate landing area on C-2 is and also that Crump (or perhaps Tillie?) was doing the same on the 13th at Pine Valley.

How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?

[JESII]

How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?

And more importantly, did they communicate more than Wayne currently communicates with Flynn?

[James Bennett]

I heard that Flynn has SKYPE, especially for that reason!

[TEPaul]

"How much communication existed between Tillie and Flynn?"

Kyle:

I have no idea.

To be honest, I'm not sure Tillinghast communicated all that well sometimes.

It seems he recommended what he said was a competent architect (Flynn) to do work at Philly Country in the 1930s perhaps not realizing Flynn designed and built that golf course.

And then in the 1920s Tillinghast advertized the Cascades as one of his courses that had hosted a USGA Womens Amateur Championship apparently not realizing that golf course was designed and built by Flynn too.

In my opinion, Tillinghast was probably in the top 2-3 architects ever but it seems pretty safe to say in many ways he was an usually complex man, and architect.

But due to their proximity as well as a few other things (partiularly around PVGC) I'd say it's not all that hard to see what may've been some Tillinghast architectural influence on Flynn.

There seems little question Flynn used a par 5 bunker scheme that apparently derived from Tillinghast's mind and frankly I see a lot of similarities in some of their green shapes.

Was Flynn aware of this "Cart Before the Horse" concept that Tillinghast developed and wrote about? Good question. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

[wsmorrison]

Not that it pinpoints the time Tillinghast thoght of the "Cart before the Horse" type of hole, but when did Tillinghast write about the concept?  Huntingdon Valley was open for play in 1927 and likely under construction a year or more before hand.  There is no date on the routing maps or individual hole drawings but they could date to 1925 for that is when Philadelphia Country Club drawings were made and it too opened in 1927.  So Flynn's concept can be fairly closely dated.

As far as we have determined, there exists no written communication between Tillinghast and Flynn.  Flynn redesigned a significant amount of Philadelphia Cricket Club (12 holes, but 9 with significant changes) within 4 years of its opening.  Flynn also proposed significant redesigns of Sunnehanna some of which were implemented (money was a factor).  Maybe the letter suggesting Flynn for the 1939 work at Phila Country Club without recognizing him as the original architect is an artifact of some kind of memory lapse or a disorder.  Perhaps he didn't like Flynn.  He must have respected him because he wrote a recommendation.  We just speculate what may be behind the behavior.  The reason Tillinghast took credit for a design by Flynn that he had nothing at all to do with remains a mystery.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()