[Mark_Fine]

I have to say this has been an interesting thread.  Maybe Philip will chime in, but I agree with Wayne and Tom in that I don't think Tillie and Flynn communicated too much.  But I don't think that either of these guys treated anyone else any different.  They were all doing their own thing but at the same time there were similarities in their work.  

Tom it is interesting that you see green similarities between these two.  I would have suggested that Flynn's greens were mostly more subtle in contour compared to many of Tillies.  The Black is one glaring exception but those greens don't have any contour period    They are pancakes.  

I was also thinking about the "shot testing" concept as some call it.  Aren't essentially all holes shot testing?  I was trying to come up with holes that would not be?  For example, aren't all par threes shot testing?  They are probably the best example of where the architect has complete control of what he wants the golfer to do.  

Finally, can you think of any "par three" holes that would be considered "cart before the horse" type holes?  Now that would be pretty out of the box thinking.  It would surely be different but I'm not sure I'd call it a good golf hole  

[JESII]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

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.

You are correct in that I am mostly joking about a cart before the horse par three hole.  But then again, why is this concept any more out of the box than the #2 hole?  You told me in your one quote that you wanted me to think about the #2 hole as a three shot hole.  Why can't you think of my suggestion as a "two shot" hole?  Please explain the difference.  

I think the course I proposed taking you to play might even have one of those holes - #16 at Cypress Point.  I've played it numerous times with decent golfers who were forced to layup because they could not reach the green in one shot.  I'm sure this happens often for golfers who can't carry the ball 230 yards in the air (longer when the wind it up).  

[JESII]

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.

[wsmorrison]

"I was also thinking about the "shot testing" concept as some call it.  Aren't essentially all holes shot testing?  I was trying to come up with holes that would not be?  For example, aren't all par threes shot testing?  They are probably the best example of where the architect has complete control of what he wants the golfer to do.

Finally, can you think of any "par three" holes that would be considered "cart before the horse" type holes?  Now that would be pretty out of the box thinking.  It would surely be different but I'm not sure I'd call it a good golf hole"

Mark,

You are either thinking too hard or not hard enough, it is hard to tell  

When you think of the sort of design that Flynn and a few others (Crump, Wilson and Tillinghast in some cases) that Tom (he came up with the idea and coined the phrase) and I call "shot testing" you should think about specific shot testing.  Flynn wanted you to hit specific shots to achieve the best score possible.  Huntingdon Valley is a fabulous example where this philosophy is readily apparent, if you look with an expert eye.  How many times does he require a fade off a draw lie (especially if 2 and 3 greens had the left fall-offs returned) and other specific shots that you had to hit in order to get birdie and even par?  He asked for specific shaped shots, trajectories and other demands--sometimes with or counter to the topography of landing zones.  I'm sure in all your travels and studies you will begin to recognize what we mean.

As to the cart before the horse in par 3s, pass the stuff you are obviously smoking.  You've had enough  

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[wsmorrison]

Phil,

I haven't looked at most of the Tillinghast letters to the PGA so I was only basing my interpretation on the one letter I've seen by Tillinghast regarding Flynn and PCC.  

I think it is odd that he recommended Flynn while including a description of him as "a local golf course architect and construction man" but not including that he was their original architect and ongoing consulting architect.  You have a much greater perspective on this, but still it is of interest.  

Why was he recommending an architect to the club when he was already the consulting architect?  Was he overstating his importance or need at PCC to the PGA?  They had their man, and it was Flynn; who would go on to make substantial changes to the golf course for the 1939 Open.  

The only thing I know that Tillinghast recommended and was done is the practice hole between the current 13th and 14th holes.

Thank you for pointing out the article where Tillinghast first mentions the cart before the horse.  We know Flynn built one.  Did Tillinghast?

[Phil_the_Author]

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_Fine]

JES II,
I have to say I've had a good time sparing with you    

You have to remember, when the wind is blowing in off the ocean at #16 at Cypress, it is almost a two shot hole for most.  Actually it's a two shot hole for most in benign conditions.  The average golfer doesn't carry the ball 230 yards (even though most think they do).  There are more balls in the ocean there than sea shells.  

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?  

Bill V and others,
What is wrong with designing a hole that requires a precise short iron of say 90 to 100 yards followed by a 140 or 150 yard shot?  Maybe the reason the hole must be played that way is because of a stand of trees that blocks a direct path to the green (an severe elbow type hole) .  Seems to me that would fit the cart before the horse concept?  

I am not advocating this two shot par three concept, I am just pointing out a "different" kind of hole that would require "shot testing".  Tell me why it wouldn't?

Forrest just built a par two hole.  Is that too much out of the box thinking?  

[JESII]

Mark,

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

[Mark_Fine]

Philip,
Well stated!  

Everyone else,
This has been a good healthy discussion.  Everyone has been civil and had some fun with it.  I'd like to see more of these on GCA.  If so, I, along with many others might try to contribute more (time permitting).  

[Mark_Fine]

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

[JESII]

And again, about CPC, when laying up, is your first shot closely representative of a standard secong shot on a long par three? And is the second shot closely representative of your first on a long par three? If so then we've got something, otherwise I'd have to say you've entirely missed the concept of "CART BEFORE HORSE".

You see it goes like this, in days of old people used something called a cart to carry large items in. They would then strap the cart to a horse that would pull it to where they needed their goods delivered. If you put the cart in front of the horse it just don't make sense...it's backwards. Kind of like hitting a 4 iron off the tee and a 5 wood into the green.

[JESII]

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?

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
I guess I was expanding my definition with the #16 at Cypress.  The idea being that here is a "par three" that can't be reached by most in one shot.  In fact, you have to play substantially away from the target (you basically hit two full wedges) to get to the green.  I just played the hole twice in June and my one playing partner (a 10 handicap) hit wedge wedge to reach the wind was up.  The father of the one member we play with always plays the hole that way.  He can't reach in one any more.  

[Mark_Fine]

I have to run.  Catch up later!

[JESII]

I can't say I've ever heard of a golfer that couldn't hit their driver as far as they can hit two of their wedges. Especially when you consider the route taken with the wedges in this example. You sure you got those clubs right ? And assuming you do have them right, you sure he's not just making a decision to take the conservative route and make a four? He's probably deposited his fair share of pellets over the years.

When you try to expand this way you get stuck because there is an incredibly large percentage of golfers that cannot reach a 400 yard hole in two, or any hole in "regulation" for that matter and the "cart before the horse" hole is not backwards for them, it's just a long hole. They have 240 yards or so before running out of room on #C2 at Huntingdon Valley. The trouble for them on this particular hole is they frequently cannot get to the corner of the dogleg (about 190 or 200) to have an opportunity to advance their second shots over the creek to the approach area at the bottom of the hill. I have a solution for that problem that does not comprimise the current integrity (not that many think it has any worth protecting) of the hole, from a shot-testing perspective, but no action as yet.

[wsmorrison]

"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.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
Here is a photo I dug out from the left landing area on #16.  



I guess the idea for hitting wedge is that if you are going to layup, then layup.  There is more area to play safe to by hitting well left (toward an old Cypress Tree).  If you try a longer carry you can easily run through the fairway and into the ocean on the other side.  Also, some like to hit a full shot into the green rather than from 60 or 70 yards.  

Trust me, even good players struggle to reach this green in one shot.  Go play it and then tell me what you think.  If the wind is up and you played smart (most don't), you play the hole like Bobby Jones said he used to play the island green par three at East Lake - "with an old ball"  

I remember the first time I played the hole.  I looked at my caddie and said, "You realize I am not leaving this tee until I knock one over the water onto the green or else run out of balls, which ever comes first".  I hit driver that day, first one went right into the ice plant by the cliff, second landed just left of the green but caroomed down onto the beach, and the third finally ended up on the front right portion of the green.  I managed to two putt from there for a par "for my third ball"  

[Mark_Fine]

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.  

[Kyle Harris]

Could C-2 even be considered "Cart Before the Horse?"

How different are the distances on the tee shot and approach?

I think it may be stretching things a bit especially considering the distances the ball was going during Flynn's time.

Linc Roden's interview even mentions that the club selection on C-2 in 1928 would be Driver off the tee and full wood into the green. That Hogan would hit 3 wood and then 4 wood, and that a certain GCA poster involved in this discussion hit 3-iron and then 4-iron.

Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse with this discussion?

[JESII]

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?

[JESII]

And by the way Mark, you clearly do not have this shot testing idea down yet. When Wayne and Tom talk about it they refer to the concept of putting each player into the same situation on a particular hole and letting them try to perform. On #2 at HVCC C-nine its that 200 yard shot up the hill. On #7 at Pine Valley it's the ability to complete about 400 yards in two shots, with the second shot carrying to the 400 yard mark as opposed to running out to that point. On some holes you need to hit a cut from a hook lie to have any chance of holding the green. This is shot testing. Playing a links course and strugling with the different shots that are needed is not.

[Kyle Harris]

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).

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Thanks for putting into better words what I was trying to get Mark to understand.  As you know, it isn't about how difficult golf courses are but rather the specific shot demands required of all golfers.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()