TomD said;
"But it does take some skill to get both holes to work well in the process."
I couldn't agree more. Getting really tight green to tee situations, particularly melded situations seems to be something to do only if the opportunity presents itself in sort of an obvious way. As TomD implies trying to force something like this in the wrong place can mess up the next hole or even the previous one to some extent and become somewhat of a nuisance forever.
I'll give you my world-class best example and on the #1 course in the world of all places. I pretty much admire everything about PVGC but the tee on #15 in relation to the 14th green as well as how to proceed on #15 has always bothered me. It's the one real glitch I think PVGC has.
It's true that the PVGC members have all come to appreciate what they call the "nature walk" when they leave the 15th tee and I certainly like it too but the fact is that back tee on #15 is an everlasting problem particularly for golfers on #14 tee. Putting netting high up in the trees to protect back #15 is not my idea of a solution.
What happened on #14 green and #15 tee is probably the result of a green/next tee situation, just as Tom Doak mentioned, that was problematic that just never got worked out to best advantage. Why did it never get worked out properly? Probably because just as the problems and solutions were being worked on the architect died. It's a well known remark from Simon Carr that the last words he had with Crump was that he was not satisfied with #15 and was having real problems conceiving of what-all to do with the hole. The irony is the landform of that hole had basically been routed for years but the hole had never been finalized by Crump and the construction of its features and details had not begun! (fellas, the truth is that what Crump did by constructing holes before really finalizing his routing and the entire design of it was one classic example of how to paint yourself into a corner in a design/construction sense!!).
To see why things happened they way they did one has to go back and look at #14, even #13 or #12 and how they evolved after the remainder of the course was done and in play and one begins then to see what problems there can be in finalizing a routing and getting all the details of the individual holes worked out in both a routing and in a single hole sense.
#14 went through a number of planning and design iterations and one of them was one of the coolest looking real "cape” holes you've ever seen, at least on paper. I've looked at it on the ground and it would've played from around the present #14 tee right over the "nature walk" on #15 to a green that would've been right about the beginning of the 15th fairway bordering on the lake. The drawing of it that I've seen (which is in scale) would've been a true cape-type hole of the original NGLA #14 design that would've been about 300 yards if you played to the fairway that would've been where the "nature walk" is today. The other fascinating option would’ve been a hugely heroic carry for someone who wanted to try to fly the ball all the way across water to the green. I measure that carry on the drawing to have been around 240 yards although playing downhill!!
But that incredible "cape" 14th hole at PVGC (frankly, noone is particularly sure if it was a par 3 or a par 4) was never to be! Why? Because, again, Crump died before he completely worked out ALL the solutions in this section (#12-15).
Even more interesting, if the “cape” hole iteration was selected as #14 the tee for #15 would’ve been on the far side of the lake and #15 might’ve been a very long par 4!! But what would that have done to the par of the course? We can see from the record that Crump had entertained the idea of repositioning the green on #16 way back near the railroad tracks and that hole would’ve become the second par 5 on the course!! Interestingly, that explains why #17 was listed on both the Crump and Colt #17 hole drawings as being between 360-380 rather than the 338 yd it is today!
So back to the #14 green and #15 back tee juxtaposition. Again, in my opinion, this is the one real glitch on the course. But now they’re in the process of adding a new back tee to #15 that will ratchet up that already super long “unreachable” to about 635!! And where is that new back tee? It’s behind #14 green or just over and to the right of the small section of the lake behind #14 green. That’s fine and frankly that’s a wonderful new angle on that left to right canting fairway that will create some interesting tee shot variety compared to the regular tee position.
But how are golfers going to get from #14 green to the new back tee and even more interesting how are they going to get from there over to the fairway. I can’t wait to see how they’ll work that out. Somehow golfers will have to walk back by #14 green and over to the bridge to the “nature walk”. This could definitely create an additionally cumbersome situation that will also be an everlasting nuisance!
Or they can look into their age old records and look at a recommendation Hugh Alison made for this hole in his hole by hole recommendation report to the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee that was charged with finalizing the golf course following Crump’s untimely death.
They will see in that Alison report for #15 a recommendation to build a bridge across the pond from the peninsula behind #14 green over to the 15th fairway across the lake. Actually from the peninsula to the fairway is not very far. Why might they not consider that? Probably because they think that would ruin the look and tranquility of the lake. I say bullshit to that---it wouldn’t ruin the look of the lake at all, in my opinion. With a low and attractive wooden bridge they probably wouldn’t even think of the ruination of the look and tranquility of the lake again after a week!! The walk across that low attractive bridge would be an awesome walk too, just as the “nature walk” is, and that way golfers would have a choice and they’d finally be able to solve the one real glitch at PVGC---eg the way too close juxtaposition of the tip tee to the 14th green!!! They could solve that problem by simply using the regular tee and obsoleting that old tip tee (not original) since they now have another tip tee in an entirely different position.
When TomD said, "But it does take some skill to get both holes to work well in the process", he wasn’t justa kiddin! #14 green and #15 tip tee PVGC has been testimony to that for about 80 years now. But today, if they think it all through really carefully, they can finally solve that one real glitch at PVGC.
Sorry about the length of this post---just another of my super long ones---but it's an interesting architectural evolution and an interesting story in the context of this thread subject, don't you think?