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.[/color]  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  

I highlighted your most recent, and glaring contradiction. The notion that there are no options and rewards for certain risks on the hole seems to have gone up in smoke.

Now that you've described it that way, I think it may actually be a better hole than I previously thought. I never thought the risk reward equation on the tee shot still gave the player the option of hitting the green in two after the conservative line off the tee. I figured you could try to hug it along the left corner off the tee with the hopes of reaching the green in regulation, albeit with a tremendous approach from 200 or so up the hill. Or take a conservative line off the tee into the middle of a very wide driving area and play from 220 or more (off a slight to severe downslope) and play it as a three shot hole, with more options as to aggressiveness from that point.

As to your recent question about a "cart before the horse" par three, I'll assume you're kidding because if not you're ass is really showing.

In the "cart before the horse" scenario, the whole implication of CART before HORSE is that the hole is played in reverse order with respect to standardized club selection. Now are you suggesting that #16 at CPC can be played with just a short pitch (the typical second shot on a missed green par three) and then a full blooded second. I was under the impression that you would hit a 180, or so, shot and then a 50 yard, or so, pitch. If it's the way you describe I really do not understand how anyone would ever lay up.

JES II,
I tried to imply in my tee shot description that there really wasn't a reward for getting closer to the creek.  I must have failed in the way I explained it.  Club difference is minimal at best.  Might want to read it again.

Oh no, I read it clearly a couple of times before responding. What you said was "for me it wasn't worth it". Big difference, you see, because for me it is worth it. I am pretty confident I am going to get it on the green from the 200 plate, but not nearly so confident from the 220 area off a downslope. The challenge around the green is such that missing the green makes 4 difficult at best. That makes the risk off the tee worth it for me. And remember, the key is that we are using the term FOR ME because that implies options and we have therefore made a decision.

Wayne, Tom & Mark,

As far as how much communication there was between Tilly & Flynn, no one can say. I believe that there was more than some think yet less than others.

Both men were all over the country during these years and yet I wouldn't be surprised if they met and shared memories and caught up with each other's lives when they met at tournaments.

Whatever the case, we'll never know.

There is something that I think needs clarifying. I believe that Wayne & Tom have misunderstood what Tilly wrote when he recommended

Wayne, "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..."  

Tom, "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..."

On what basis do you guys state that Tilly didn't realize that Flynn was the designer of the course? Of course he was familiar with Flynn's work. PCC was a favorite club (old & new) of his going back to his earliest of days.

On 9/21/35 he wrote a cover letter to his daily report outlining his visit to the PCC at Bala. He was "requested to select the better of two routes and design of the first hole, which I did. I examined all parts of the new course, where any problems existed and gave them opinions. Where several problems, involving major construction, were evident I suggested that they retain William Flynn, a local golf course architect and construction man. However I gave them suggestions and told the committee that I would be glad to confer with Flynn at any time..."

When you read this it must be remembered who he is writing it to. This was to be read by George Jacobus and several others at the PGA. He wrote it in this manner because this occurred a little more than a month after his work for the PGA began and it was most important that the rules that were set up be followed closely. When major work was recommended, they had agreed that "a local architect" will be recommended.

That his use of this phrase in the letter was more than coincidental can be seen by what followed "at any time..." He wrote, "...being as helpful as possible as is consistent with the aims and operation of our P.G.A. service."

Also, as this was what he sent to the PGA, it isn't what he said to Ed Dudley (President of the Philadelphia Section of the PGA), H.E. Farnham (superintendent of both the old and new courses) and D.W. Bell (Chairman of the Green Committe). All three of these men knew Tilly personally for many years and Flynn as well. He certainly would not have told them to "retain William Flynn" by calling him merely, "a local golf course architect and construction man."

No, he simply wrote a brief and formal letter mentioning a recommendation. You would find by reading all of his letters from the PGA Tour that his writing style in them became greatly "relaxed" and informal as his travels went on. Originally they had thought that it would only last for 2-3 months, not the 26 months that he lasted. For those who know and those who don't, the Tillinghast association is working very hard on our website with the goal of eventually having all of Tilly's writings (among other things) available through it for anyone to read, research and enjoy. This includes scanned copies of the PGA Tour letters. We are getting very close to where we can say to all, come and take a look!

Wayne, you also asked, "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?"

It was part of the "Our Green Committee" page in the June, 1919, issue of Golf Illustrated.

Wayne, you asked, "We know Flynn built one.  Did Tillinghast?"

I don't know of any, although that doesn't mean he didn't. If he did, it probably wouldn't be recognized as such today if it still existed in its original form.

Do I think he did? My opinion is no, he didn't. The reason is the nature of the article. This was athought exercise of his, something that he would do from time-to-time in print.

He wrote, "It is not because the hole is different from any which I have seen that causes me to hesitate in presenting it for your consideration (for I glory in seeing any hole which is original yet sound), but rather because, in one vital essential, it flies deliberately into the face of golf conventions..."

This thought experiment came about because he asked himself this question, "Simply because it is customary to whale into a drive from a teeing ground, do we find any reason why a player should not be called on to use another club with all the precision of placing his ball in a fairway as he would use in playing a tee-shot to a green?"

He was thinking of this tee shot as if it were a par-three!

He recognized that this hole design was controversial, impractical and be the cause of much debate. In fact he even said in the article that, "I doubt very much if I would deliberately manufacture a hole of this description."

The last paragraph of the article would certainly show why he would have deeply approved of this discussion on GCA.

"As I said almost in the beginning, this hole is open to debate and the comments of the readers of this article will be most welcome. Indeed, I should like to have the criticisms and suggestions of every man who reads these lines."

Mark,

You just described a shorter version of the "cart before the horse" par four.

JES II,
Why do you call it a par four?  It would be under 250 yards.  Is there a rule I am missing?

JES II,
Why do you call it a par four?  It would be under 250 yards.  Is there a rule I am missing?

OK, good point, let's call it a two shot hole. I call it that because you describe it with terms like "requires a precise short iron" and "must be played that way". This implies that two well played shots by a good player will reach the green. What say you?

I have to run.  Catch up later!

"Wayne,
Don't kid yourself, Flynn didn't hold a monopoly on those type of holes/shots.  I think Tillie, Thomas, Ross, and every other good architect wanted golfers to hit specific shots in certain situations to get the best score possible.  It doesn't take an expert to figure that out    How many good golf courses/holes have you played where this is not the case?  "

Now Mark, where did I say that Flynn had a monopoly on shot testing?  I even mentioned three other practioners.  

I have played many courses that do not require specific shot testing.  A course without angles, without strategic placement of bunkers and hazards, without proper use of terrain features, without green designs that influence play back to the tee and other factors has little chance to have specific shot tests.  In fact, the type of shot testing I am talking about at Pine Valley, Huntingdon Valley, Merion and elsewhere are not found most everywhere.  You say good golf courses have them.  I don't know what you mean by good golf courses.  To me, there are thousands of good golf courses, many of which do not have shot testing.  Do you think they do?  It would appear so.

Two wedges to a par 3 is not the cart before the horse.  A short tee shot followed by a long approach is a cart before the horse type hole.  At least as I consider it.  I'll have to read Tillinghast's entire article to see what he meant.

Wayne,
JES II figured out what I meant with the two shot hole.  See his comments.  

Does Yale have shot testing?  How about Oakmont, what about Olympic with all the side hill lies to angled greens, what about Fenway or Plainfield or Fox Chapel, or Cypress or Pebble Beach or Cog Hill #2 or Winged Foot West or Harbour Town or Royce Brook West (just to name a few I've seen this year that I think do).  

Does anyone else beg to differ with what I am getting at?  What would George Thomas or any of the other great architects say about their golf courses?  Philip did most of Tillies courses require shot testing?  

By the way, I am not even going to begin to mention all the British Isles courses.  You can have every kind of shot imaginable on a single hole due to the nature of links golf.  You want to get "shot tested" play over there.  

And you wait until post number one freakin hundred to bring that out of your arsenal Kyle, what the ****?

Seriously, my play of that hole from the current back tee with relatively firm conditions would be to hit a 210 or so tee shot. This would be my expected yardage on flat normal conditions. On this particular hole that should mean 220 or 225 in actual yards. That should get me pretty close to the 200 yard plate; although depending on my success in hugging the corner I would be anywhere from 190 to about 220 from the center of the green. Let's say I am at the 200 plate. From there I have a shot equivalent of about 220 to get to the center of the green based on the elevation increase. Unlike most every hole at HVCC, this one really does not offer a running approach to reach the green due to the severity of the incline to the green. It's all fairway, it's just too steep to think you could run the ball up.


Now back to Mark's idea. If you are telling me there is a guy that can hit a pitching wedge over to the left off the tee on #16 at CPC into a position that he can hit another pitching wedge ontl the green, I am telling you that very same guy has the length to reach the green with one of his woods. He is simply making the decision to lay up and ha prefers to lay well back. Those are decisions to get in the hole in the fewest strokes. Sure there are plenty of people that cannot reach that green off the tee (probably 90% of all golfers), but they cannot hit a wedge at a wide angle as a lay up club and then hit the same club into the green. Geometry and common sense make this pretty hard to argue. Let's say it's 200 yards to carry the ball to the green on a straight line. What is the total yardage covered by traveling the route you are talking about? If the guy goes at a right angle he'd have to hit his wedges 140 yards. So let's just say he goes at a little closer angle and only needs to hit each shot 120 yards. Any guy that can hit his wedge 120 yards can sure hit another club 200 yards, he just chooses not to on #16 at CPC.

Remember, I'm not arguing that the hole is easily reachable or anything even remotely close to those lines. I am saying your argument is totally and completely empty. I could care less if you like or dislike #2 on the C-nine at HVCC, and I could certainly not give a damn if you come back, see the hole and have a different or reinforced opinion of the hole. My position is that if you are going to come on here and give a strong negative analysis of a hole you'd better come with more ammo than you brought to this conversation. You repeatedly tried to lay your failing position at the feet of Tom Doak and his feelings on this hole (and hole principle) and his Confidential Guide. When Tom came out with the Confidential Guide it was unique. Controversial, but unique. Right now you are trying to be controversial but you've failed on the unique.

Question: Do you think Tom would write that book again if he knew then what he knows now?

Fair points Jim. Good to get your insight as I tend to play the hole a bit more conservatively (5-wood and then 5-wood, using the right-side plateau to get myself a level lie and "hoping" that if the balls rolls left, it's firm enough to get to the bottom). It takes the creek out of play for me, as well.

That's another interesting aspect of the hole that REALLY can affect play if the course isn't as firm as usual, and that is the steep right to left slope that runs along the center line of the tee side fairway.

Here's Ran's view looking back from the landing zone to the tee:


There is ample room on the left side of the picture to hold a shot up top (which would be the right-side of the hole from the tee).