Can you think of original challenges that need to be recovered?

[mike_malone]

In some cases holes have changed in such a way that the original challenge is now obsolete. Here are two examples.
 


   The #8 hole (par 4) at Torresdale Frankford in Phila. now has a 5-8 yard creek some 15-20 yards short of the green. It is a downhill second shot so the water really only affects a mishit. There is a par 3 on the back which has a similar carry requirement so I don't see the need to replicate that shot.

   The original design had the water in the back of the green. I play with a friend there and always say they should recover that original intent. If the water is in the back of the green for a short downhill shot it completely changes the thought process.



     #8 at Rolling Green has a 400/425 yard par 4 that has a crescent shaped creek at approximately 160 yards from the green. Today most golfers need to decide whether to try to carry the creek or not. But the original intent was that everyone would come up short of the water. Then the longer hitters would have to be concerned about rolling into the water. Now the lesser hitter has the concern.

   If the tees are moved back the original intent could be recovered.


     

[mike_malone]

 Michael B. Prystowsky's excellent " In my opinion" piece on Westchester  speaks to the original challenges of the wonderful land and the bunkering being usurped by trees. I have only been there once but I felt a disconnect between the  originality of the early course versus the current tree lined version. How many challenges have been lost there?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The original green at TF was in front of the creek, yes.  However, when Ross came back in the 20s, he asked the members if they wanted it located in front of or behind the creek.

Being typical golf masochists they chose the latter.  

I personally think it's a much better hole, because as a par four, the "tyranny of par" leads a lot of people who should no better in firing their second shot at the green when they have about a 20% chance of success.    

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   With the creek in back of the green the hole can play harder for the short hitters who have a blind shot over the hill. I doubt many would intentionally hit it long and over the creek . Then they would have to go back over the creek to the green. Although, come to think of it, that would be a fun option.

  As a result they had , originally, a blind shot with the potential to go in the water. This really tests your game.

   From a routing point of view you now need to walk further back to the #9 tee as well.

   
    I'm surprised Ross left it up to the members. They usually don't understand the subtleties of architecture. They opted for a commonplace hole rather than one of some specialness.


      What other classic courses in Philly have small creeks in back of the green ?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Stone walls?  North Berwick etc.  Should they be replicated?
Hedges?  There's one across the short par-4 18th at Royal Blackheath?  It's an anachronism, but should such features be removed or replicated?

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

  Were there many more stone walls at N.Berwick ? Would the Pit be as interesting if there many more walls used before that hole?

   


   

[Ed_Baker]

Mayday,

I wish the regulatory red tape up in this area would bow to common sense once in a while but alas it rarely does.

During our restoration project in the mid 90's I had a specific water feature that I wanted to reinstate and couldn't get it permitted as part of the project.

I wanted to restore a stream that wandered through our 13th fairway. The hole is only 350 yards long but has a blind landing area leaving a short iron approach to an extremely elevated undulating green. Typical of Ross, the stream wandered through the landing area with the water closest to the tee on the right side of the fairway to catch a slice that happened to bounce down to the valley and leaving another 15 to 20 yards more room to land on the left favoring the well struck draw which the angles off the tee beg for.
The way the hole is now, a draw is still favored but any shaped shot that finds it's way to the valley leaves the short iron approach and the landing area is 45 to 50 yards long. It was a much more strategic hole when I was a kid, requiring a lot more thought on the tee shot and much more precise execution.
During the U.S. Amatuer in 1972 Jay Sigel played the practice rounds using 2 five irons on this hole opting to see the ball land off the tee, when he played the tournament, he blasted driver to the end of the valley and flipped a sand wedge at the green !! I can only dream of the entire field leaving the ball up top if the stream were still there.

[mike_malone]

 I went to Google Maps and viewed T/F and Charles River. For T/F you can see how the creeks were used on the course and view #8 (near the clubhouse). I don't know how to make the maps show up here.

  For Charles River, an old creek bed angling as Ed says is evident.

[Kyle Harris]

The use of woods in the fairway needs to be more addressed today.

Yes, I am talking about a shot calling for a Driver off the deck every now and then as well.

Too often, the second shot on the Par 5 is a long and lazy 3-wood with little circumstance for position or angle.

We need more par 4 approaches that put 3 or 5 wood in a players hands with many options around the green for trajectory and bail out.

[mike_malone]

Kyle,

   That would be the effect on #8 at Rolling Green. Because players will end up laying up too far from the creek they will leave themselves a 200 yard uphill shot. And on that hole 175 yards plays like 200!

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Sometimes the most interesting aspect (and strategic merit) of a creek 10-20 yards short of a green is to challenge the player who misses their tee shot or has to play from a questionable lie in the rough,...and so on.  On a well played tee shot, maybe it is not a big factor but that doesn't mean the hazard is obsolete and/or the original challenge is necessarily lost.  

[mike_malone]

Mark,

   My suggestion is that the original challenge of water behind the green is worth returning to #8 at T/F. This is because it is not found again on the course and provides variety to the course. There are other holes on the course where a mishit creates a challenging shot over water. Water behind the green is a very different kind of challenge and is worth resurrecting.

  The original challenge was lost when they moved the green beyond the creek.

     

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
My mistake.  I was just skimming through this thread and thought you didn't like the idea of a stream short of a greensite.  Sorry.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Very few mid to high handicap golfers are long on their approach shots to greens.  For these players and others, a creek fronting a green or 20-30 yards short of a green is much more in play, and as Mark suggests has particular impact on approaches from the rough.    There are too many factors in play (length of approach, elevation change, bunkering, fairway contours, green complex dictates, etc) to make generalizations about the architectural merit to generalize about the value of a creek before or after a green.

Some classic Philadelphia Flynn courses (designs/redesigns) with creeks behind greens:

#11 at Merion East  Perhaps the most famous hole in the district.
#5 at Philadelphia Country Club
#4 at Eagles Mere New Course (NLE)
#17 at Huntingdon Valley (originally the stream was behind 2/3 of the rear portion of the green---stream must have moved some in last 80 years)  
#2 Manufacturers GCC (as originally planned the creek was to be moved behind the green, especially considering the approach angle.  I'm not sure if it was done or not)
#17 at North Hills
#14 at Plymouth Country Club

[mike_malone]

Wayne,

   Thanks for that list. I just believe that for T/F the original creates a different challenge than is available anywhere on the course. That is worth preserving. The creek in front of #8 requires less thought than a creek in back of the green. I certainly agree that lesser golfers will mishit their shots and end up in the creek but that isn't strategy; it is bad execution.

  I wasn't generalizing. My recommendation is specific to this site and suggests that the original is better for the playability of the course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I wish I could locate my TF history book (it got misplaced in one of my moves), but I'm not sure that the green behind the creek isn't original.   In any case, it certainly has been there since the 20s, and is a Donald Ross original.

I would respectfully disagree that the same challenge that is faced on the 8th is faced elsewhere on the course.   The 8th is a LONG par four of 475? yards, and that creek 15 yards short of the green is a consideration for most players, especially if the drive isn't particularly long or accurate.  The fact that it's called a par four has a lot of folks who frankly can't hit the ball that far in two shots trying anyway, so it's a good mind-game, as well.

I would agree that a green short of the creek would present its own unique challenges, but I can't make your leap that it should replace the original Ross green that has been in play for 80 years.  

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   I will find out about the timing of the change for that green. But, even within the flow of the course I prefer the hole a little shorter with that creek behind the green. The two holes before it have that length challenge.


  There a few other places on the course where a bad drive brings creeks into play for the next shot.

[Doug Siebert]

I would think water behind the green used to be a much more effective hazard before irrigation was commonplace.  Even a good golfer might think twice before attempting a half wedge off hardpan to a rock hard green with a stream behind it.  Even if that was the better play on average, in a match where one merely needed to avoid a disaster, a long chip and run or even a putt from 60 yards could be the preferred play.

What's the risk now on most of today's courses that are overwatered with greens surrounded by rough, where you are provided with the distance exact to the yard?  Unless you fly the ball over the entire green you are pretty much safe.  Other than a sucker pin way in the back the chances of finding oneself in the water are slim...and they don't call it a "sucker" pin for nothing

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The tee shot on the 12th at NGLA. Those bunkers used to come into play when the tee was far left. Wonderful arts & crafts architecture going on there.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the 8th at Torresdale is a far better hole with the green over the creek. Matter of fact that hole is one of Philadelphia's most memorable due to the way it plays now.

Mayday, the creek of #8 Rolling Green is a wonderful natural feature and if the club uses it correctly it will be even better. The distance differntial between the rightside and leftside is good too as either a carrry option or a layup option. What I'd like to see on that hole is more fairway over the creek on the right. If the club is thinking of putting a tee farther back on that hole to essentially take the creek out of play on the tee shot they will be essentially nixxing about half the effectiveness and interest of a really good natural feature on that hole.

The 12th hole of NGLA from the old tee position on the left looks like A/C architecture? Yep, good thinking there Tommy Naccarato. Last time I was out there it sure did look a lot like a Gertrude Jekyll "wild" English cottage garden, didn't it?

[Jim_Coleman]

Tom:
  Moving the tee back will not take the creek out of play; it will return the creek to being in play.  Now, good players don't think about the creek.  They just blow it over.  Moving the tee back 20 yards will return the tee shot to its original challenge.  Try to go over on the right, or lay up on the left.  But if you go for it and don't hit it perfectly, or if you pull it, you will likely find the creek.  That's how the hole played in the old days.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
I'm glad you caught that, as much as I'm glad to see you still have a sense of humor!

Now lets hear you talk about how that tee shot needs to be recovered and how Repton, Jeykl or Capability Brown don't have a clue!

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Mike Malone that the design intention was to hit a long approach from the short side of the creek.  At least one drawing iteration of the hole indicates that the tees were meant to be right of the current tees so that the hole plays more like a dogleg right.  This meant that the carry of the creek on the right side was 270 yards and on the left an unmanageable 300 yards.  I'm not sure the hole was built this way.  With the fairway starting 20 yards on the far side of the creek, I don't think it was meant to be carried.  

However, the way the tees are oriented today and the creek positioned, I feel very strongly that the tees should be moved back to create a go/no-go determination on the tee given modern golfers, balls and implements.  I like the long iron/fairway wood demand that Flynn intended, yet given today's game, I don't think it is there for the best players yet it is still there for shorter players whether or not they are playing from what would be a new back tee.  

If the tee is moved back approximately 25 yards the current carry to the right side of the second fairway would be 260 yards rather than the current 235 yards to clear the creek on the right-most line of play and 275 yards to reach the current start of the second fairway.  As Tom Paul rightly suggests, the fairway should definitely be expanded back to the creek with the result being more temptation to try and carry the creek thus bringing the creek into play even more.  Trees could come into play from the right side with right side pin positions.  There is a nice distance differential as Tom also points out.  To clear the creek on the left side, the carry is currently 265 yards and would be 290 with a new back tee.  

Mike has to someday realize that it is not always a good idea to go back to the original intent if the original intent cannot be returned given ground constraints and today's game.  The better players would still be able to challenge the creek even with a new back tee and that's a better concept given that the approach from the original LZ is also affected by the modern game and most good players would be hitting a 4 or 5 iron into the green and not a fairway wood or 2 or 3 iron.  Mike tends to like variety for variety's sake and a dedication to going back to original intent even when it isn't clear what that was (he divines it somehow) nor appropriate for today's better players.  It should be satisfaction enough that the majority of members still play the hole the way it appears to be designed.

With today's distances, the creek is currently easily cleared by most low-handicap players and should be challenged from a bit further back.  The good news is there is room to do this.  The average club member cannot fly the creek from today's member tees, so a new back tee would only benefit players of state amateur quality.  If the club wants to spend the money to build a new tee, I think it would be for a very small segment of the playing population, but since it ain't my money no mo, I think they should do it.

Here's one of Flynn's drawings for the hole:

[James Bennett]

The 8th hole at Rolling Green (with MM in the foreground).  The creek doesn't have the serpentine characteristic that was displayed in Flynn's drawing (and a rhs bunker has sprung up to).  I can gurantee that there is nothing false about the front of this green - not a divot mark to be seen for the thrity yards approaching this one.



James B

[Kyle Harris]

Those bunkers still make me want to puke.