Is # 13 at NGLA CBM's ultimate .....

[Patrick_Mucci]

template hole, in that it replicates the approach to two (2) holes, the 7th and the 11th at TOC ?

A close inspection of the 12th green at NGLA reveals a walkway to the left rear of the green between two bunkers to an adjacent level footpad that would seem to duplicate the approach from the tee on # 11 at TOC, while the current tee, down and to the right, would seem to duplicate the approach from the fairway on # 7 at TOC.

Wouldn't maintaining the leftside footpad as an alternate tee enhance the playing experience and legend of NGLA ?

P.S.

TEPaul,

On # 18, there's room behind and to the right of the 17th green, behind the bunker and adjacent to the rightside exit gate to install a tee which preserves the angle of attack on
# 18 without having to move the gates, which I knew you were going to fund., thus, saving you enough money to buy me a new car.

Thanks.  

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
    That is an interesting theory. I don't remember well enough from my one round at NGLA, but I don't remember any shot that played like #7 at TOC.  
    Plus #13 is probably one of  the poorest replicas on the course IMO. The slope of the green with current speeds is plenty of challenge, but the bunkering challenge and size of the green opening doesn't even come close to TOC.
   Have a great summer.  I picked up a copy of the routing plan of NGLA this spring, so I'll have to look and see if  I  can see what you are suggesting.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Some of the models or drawings or old aerials seem to show a small tee behind and to the right of the 12th green. Whether that was an intentional design element by Macdonald to replicate the second shot on TOC's 7th hole is not certain. Matter of fact whether he intended in the end to use the right part of #13 green as green-space is uncertain.

Nevertheless, these kinds of things should be looked at today in the context of whether they work well and make the hole play more interesting and more fun.

As for an additional back tee on #18, I wouldn't object to that if there's room and it works well enough. I think it's a preposterous idea, however, to actually move the driveway and Macdonald's Gate to accomplish the purpose of a new back tee on that hole.

The smartest thing to do in that vein with NGLA is simply to create four separate scorecards for that course, one its longtime par 73, one a par 72, another a par 71 and another a par 70. The total cost should be around $1,000, if that. Those four separate cards would also change the perception of the golf course from being too short for today's elite player.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Some of the models or drawings or old aerials seem to show a small tee behind and to the right of the 12th green. Whether that was an intentional design element by Macdonald to replicate the second shot on TOC's 7th hole is not certain. Matter of fact whether he intended in the end to use the right part of #13 green as green-space is uncertain.

TEPaul,

There's a clear, artificially constructed footpad adjacent to the 12th green, not dissimilar to the original tee on # 2 that was an extension of the 1st green.  

In addition, there's a walkway that bisects two bunkers, the flanking left and the rear bunker.
In light of CBM's large, continuous bunker designs throughout the golf course, that "break" in those bunkers at that particular location carries a good deal of significance for me.

There's little doubt in my mind that CBM's genius contemplated the reproduction of those two approach shots to the 13th green at NGLA, and that's why the break in the bunker and the footpad exist.[/color]

Nevertheless, these kinds of things should be looked at today in the context of whether they work well and make the hole play more interesting and more fun.

THEY DO.

The problem may be related to legal rather than architectural issues.

The approach to # 1 green is short and everyone on the old 2nd tee can clearly see the golfers and their approach shots into # 1 green.

The approach to # 12 green has gotten longer and longer and observing the approach shots into # 12 may be more difficult for the golfers standing on the tee left of # 12 green.

The next time I visit, I will play from the footpad long and left of the 12th green.

However, hole location becomes critical when playing from that tee.  The hole location and the tee location must be co-ordinated such that the replication rings true.[/color]

As for an additional back tee on #18, I wouldn't object to that if there's room and it works well enough. I think it's a preposterous idea, however, to actually move the driveway and Macdonald's Gate to accomplish the purpose of a new back tee on that hole.

If there were no gates presently, where would you locate them ?  Further north by a hundred feet or so ?

If you say "Yes", then, moving them north by a hundred feet becomes a financial issue, not a conceptual or architectural  issue.  Often, the easiest problems to solve are those which merely require money, especially at clubs with membership's of means[/color]

The smartest thing to do in that vein with NGLA is simply to create four separate scorecards for that course, one its longtime par 73, one a par 72, another a par 71 and another a par 70. The total cost should be around $1,000, if that. Those four separate cards would also change the perception of the golf course from being too short for today's elite player.


That's the worst thing to do.

That means that you're willing to disconnect the interfacing of the architecture with the golfer for the sake of saving money.

Your method continues to allow the "Hotel" bunker complex to remain a non-factor on the drive, which also disconnects the golfer from the architecture on the second and third shots.

My method, which uses an existing footpad back behind the current tee would bring all of those features back into play, on the tee shot, second shot and approach shot.

Your "fix" is an abdication of your architectural responsibilities and a willingness to allow intellectual honesty as it pertains to architecture to be bought for $ 1,000.

Your "fix" is an architectural crime.
One that You should be punished for.
Go to your room and go to bed, there will be no milk and cookies for you tonight.
And no TV or computer either[/color]

[SPDB]

Wasn't this issue discussed just a couple of months ago?
Click here for previous thread

[TEPaul]

"If there were no gates presently, where would you locate them ?  Further north by a hundred feet or so?"


But Macdonald's Gate is there Patrick. It's been there since he was alive and so has the driveway, and that's the point!

"If you say "Yes", then, moving them north by a hundred feet becomes a financial issue, not a conceptual or architectural  issue.  Often, the easiest problems to solve are those which merely require money, especially at clubs with membership's of means."

I hate to hear anyone say things like that. That's a really bad rationalization on your part. There's all kinds of things anyone can do if they throw money at it. That's probably the primary and most thoughtless way most of the great old courses have been screwed up-----Just do whatever someone feels like if there's enough money to throw at it.

Believe me, Macdonald's Gate and the NGLA driveway need to stay exactly where they've been for the last 70 or more years.

[Kalen Braley]

How about leave the road where it is and just build a new tee box as this picture shows.  It would only take building a new tee and the road would be left as is.  Golfers already have to play over it as it is...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

It changes the angle of attack, the view from the tee and the play of the hole.

Look carefully at where the location of the current back tee is.

That line needs to be extended/retained in order to keep the configuration of the architectural features intact, along with the play of the hole and the view presented to the golfer.

You can see a little triangle adjacent to the rear bunker, road and gates that could be made into a tee, preserving the angle of attack, view and play of the hole.

SBerry,

Yes, it was, however, I reexamined the 12th and 13th this past friday and had specific discussions on the subject with two individuals intimately familiar with the course.

TEPaul,

Don't be surprised if the route of the road is changed in the not too distant future.

As you can see, it's precariously close to the 17th green and rear bunker.

As to solving problems, the easiest ones to solve are those where the solution is evident and only needs to be funded.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Don't be surprised if the route of the road is changed in the not too distant future.
As you can see, it's precariously close to the 17th green and rear bunker.
As to solving problems, the easiest ones to solve are those where the solution is evident and only needs to be funded."


Patrick:

If that driveway and Macdonald's Gate is move to make room for a new back tee at NGLA it will basically make me sick to my stomach but this time I wlll know exactly who to blame.  

You've had some good ideas and a lot of bad ones too. This one is perhaps the worst.

If a 500 Mercedes or two gets slammed by a golf ball on the driveway of NGLA that's just the way it is and should be. The owner and driver should wear the dent or broken window as a old fashioned badge of honour.

[Thomas_Brown]

Regarding angle of attack, the bunkers on the left of the tee are mostly decorative - only 240 to carry? Everyone in our group did it with ease.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regarding angle of attack, the bunkers on the left of the tee are mostly decorative - only 240 to carry? Everyone in our group did it with ease.

Then you would support bringing those "decorative" bunkers back into play.

It's less of a carry than 240.

It's a little over 200 from the mid tee, not taking the elevation factor into account.

Which tees did you play from ?

Was the wind from the west ?

[Jim Franklin]

I would hate to see the gate moved as well, but Patrick may be right in order to keep the original intent of the hole. The question becomes does National really care to take down the gate in order to lengthen the hole? Do you want to preserve a historical landmark or the integrity of a golf hole? I say save the landmark.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   I was thinking about that footpad you are talking about behind #12 green. Is there any chance that the tee would have been for #14 for golfers who couldn't carry the water? I don't remember the exact spatial relationships of those 3 holes, but it seems possible.

[Kalen Braley]

I would hate to see the gate moved as well, but Patrick may be right in order to keep the original intent of the hole. The question becomes does National really care to take down the gate in order to lengthen the hole? Do you want to preserve a historical landmark or the integrity of a golf hole? I say save the landmark.

If the gate and entrance were moved 100 feet to the north, would it really be that bad?  

The landmark isn't going away, its just being relocated and in 5 years from now, no one will even remeber where it was originally.

I think Pat is right, that little triangle does seem to be the best spot for it to keep the original line in play of the hole. You've had one of your 3% moments Pat..  

[Thomas_Brown]

I wouldn't change a thing at NGLA.
It's *the* GCA museum in the USA.

Besides, I witnessed a world class eagle on that 18th.

Wind was hurting us on 18, helping on 17 on my day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would hate to see the gate moved as well, but Patrick may be right in order to keep the original intent of the hole. The question becomes does National really care to take down the gate in order to lengthen the hole? Do you want to preserve a historical landmark or the integrity of a golf hole? I say save the landmark.

Jim,

I never suggested taking down the gates, I merely suggested moving them a little farther north.

My suggestion does both, it preserves a landmark and the integrity of the hole.

It's a win - win situation.

A crane could do the job in a New York Minute, with ample prep work beforehand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
   I was thinking about that footpad you are talking about behind #12 green. Is there any chance that the tee would have been for #14 for golfers who couldn't carry the water?


I don't believe so, but, I wouldn't exclude the possibility.

# 14 has a forward tee down on the water, minimalizing the carry, however, a 1928 document reveals that the 14th hole played to 355, 337 and 236 yards.

However, there appears to be an additional footpad behind the existing 7th tee.  I'd like to see that footpad used for a new back tee on # 7.  It's possible that that abandoned footpad could have been the tee from which # 14 played 236 yards.   I will measure it in the next few weeks.

Remember, the original 14th green has long been abandoned and that the current 14th green is not the original.[/color]

I don't remember the exact spatial relationships of those 3 holes, but it seems possible.

It may be possible, but, I would think that the abandoned footpad behind the 7th tee makes more sense as the tee for # 14, especially when you look at the "break" in the left and rear flanking bunkers that's a walkway to the abandoned footpad directly adjacent to the 12th green, along with the shot created from that tee, along with the shot created with the lower right side tee.

The right side tee replicates a shot from the lower fairway to an elevated green at TOC and the left side tee replicates a shot from a tee to the green at TOC.

The configuration of the green, bunkers and surrounds lends itself to the dual nature of the hole, a replication of # 7 and # 11 at TOC, as presented from two distinctly different tees on # 13 at NGLA.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wouldn't change a thing at NGLA.
It's *the* GCA museum in the USA.

Many things have already been changed, including, but not limited to, additional tee length, vis a vis, extensions or seperate foot pads.

Which tee did you play on # 16, the original tee to the lower right, or the added tee to the upper left ?

Which tee did you play on # 1, the original tee which was part of or adjacent to the 1st green, or the new tee behind the 1st green constructed by Karl Olson ?

Elasticity, vis a vis tee length is inherent in the design of many golf courses, including NGLA.

George Bahto, indicates that the original tees on # 8 and # 12
have been abandoned.

In addition, the 14th green isn't the original, and, the gates were added subsequent to the opening of the golf course.[/color]

Besides, I witnessed a world class eagle on that 18th.

I could play that hole, and that hole alone, all day long.
I think it's one of the GREAT holes in golf.
And, a 3 is extra special.[/color]

Wind was hurting us on 18, helping on 17 on my day.

The helping wind on # 17 is one of the prevailing winds, it's from the south, which becomes more of a cross wind on # 18.

What tees did you play, red or green ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

Moving the gates north and east, would allow substantive and critical tee length to be added while preserving the angles of attack, views and play of the hole as well as the beautiful gates.

It's the perfect solution.
The concept is sound in every aspect.
It preserves the architectural integrity of the design and the historical landmark gates.

I don't see why TEPaul opposes such a logical suggestion.
I think he suffers from inverted perception.
That's why he thinks I'm right 3 % of the time, when it's actually 97 %.

[Thomas_Brown]

we played 36 holes - played diff. tees on 16 in the morning and afternoon.  That's a hole I'd need another 10 times on to understand.

we played the back tees - don't recall color.

agree on the elasticity point.

NGLA & CPC are of a category that they would need 1000 yards throughout the course to make it long enough for long players to use different clubs on approaches.  Because of that, an extra tee here or there doesn't add that much(to me at least).

[TEPaul]

Once again, a far better perscription for NGLA with today's technology enhanced long player is simply to leave the golf course and its architecture alone and supply alternate scorecards that make the course a 72, 71 or 70.

Thankfully, the club has begun to do that with #5.

What I do not agree with, however, is that the club should give up their par 73 scorecard for general membership play. They should retain that par 73 scorecard for general membership play. For most of the members the 5th hole is not really a par 4, it's a par 5 as it's always been. For the technology enhanced good player the 5th essentially is a long par 4 and that fact should be reflected on a SEPARATE scorecard.

This general alternate scorecard application is the best way by far of making most golf courses as flexible for all levels of play as they can be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Changing the scorecard doesn't address the issue of restoring MacDonald's architectural features, features that no longer interface with the golfer, back into play.

You can fiddle with the scorecard all you want and it won't restore the "Hotel" bunker complex back into play for the drive on # 7.  And, it won't restore the lost values on the second and approach shots on that hole as well.

The same can be said for the 18th.

The 5th has a built in defense against length as the cross bunker and the deep swales, combined with a prevailing wind from the south, prevent balls from going farther.

NGLA, using the elasticity provided by MacDonald, has lengthened many holes over the years.  Lengthening # 7 and # 18 are FAR MORE BENEFICIAL IN THE PLAY OF THE GOLF COURSE than just changing par on the scorecard.

While the ultimate goal may be achieving the lowest score, architects placed features on the field of play with the deliberate intent of having the golfer interface with them.

when that interfacing has been lost due to I&B and increased length, that interfacing needs to be returned, and, it's returned ON THE FIELD OF PLAY, NOT ON THE SCORECARD.

The "Hotel" bunker complex on # 7 and the left side bunker complex on # 18 need to have their architectural intent, their design integrity restored,  and the only way to do that is with an "additional" tee further back along the existing angle of attack, and not by changing a 5 to a 4 on a scorecard.

P.S.  I used to think that Depleted Uraniam was one of the
       densist materials on earth, but, you've set a new
       standard  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Reread all that you just said in that last post and I will then explain to you both the lack of logic of it as well as the general strategic fuility of it.

This subject, its discussion and debate has been going on about as long as GOLFLCUBLATLAS.com has been around and yet both you and so many others have apparently learned nothing much from it.

You've been maintaining that adding 50+ yards to #7 and #18 tee will restore the shot value on the tee for these good players today who drive the ball at least 50+ yards farther than the good long players of Macdonald's time did.

I recognize that as well as you do and I admit that adding 50+ yards on those tip tees will put today's good long player back in that same LZ and "interfacing" with the same features and shots values of Macdonald's time.

So there they are in the same tee shot LZ as Macdonald's time.

But what next, Patrick??

You put a guy who hits a drive 280-290+ in Macdonald's original tee shot LZ, how in the hell do you expect to restore or recreate for him Macdonald's shot values and the interfacing of the architecture on the remainder of those old holes (any and all of those old holes in this world)?

You get one of these good long players today in the same place on those holes where a good player in Macdonald's time may've used a brassie or 3 wood for the aggressive play to come somewhere near or on those greens and these guys today could probably accomplish the same goal with a 5 iron!!

How are you going to recreate or restore Macdonald's original shot values on the remainder of those hole for that guy?

Are you next going to recommend they move the Road Hole (7th) green across the street onto the beginning of #8?

Are you going to recommend they move the 18th green onto Sebonak??

How else could they restore the remainder of the shot values on the second half of those holes?? How could they get today's long player to interface with the architecture on the second half of these holes the way the players of Macdonald's time did without stretching the second half of those holes an additonal 50+ yards??

See what I mean?

Like a lot of other analysts and golfers who don't think much of anything through to its logical end and conclusion all you're accomplishing is a "single shot increment" fix---a tee shot fix. You aren't restoring or recreating or in any way maintaining the entire "whole hole" strategic concept of the hole. By "whole hole" I mean the way the combined shots of a hole's strategic concept once worked and was designed to work in its whole hole entirety.

It's a whole lot easier and less destructive of the architecture of NGLA and most all other courses to simply let these good long players hit the shots from the present tees and call those holes what they functionally and effectively are for them today----eg par 4s and no longer what they really were functionally and effectively for the good players of Macdonald's day---eg par 5s.

Furthermore, there is a direct example of how well this transition has worked in play---eg TOC's #17 (The Road Hole) which has been a par 4 for some years now, down from an original par 5.

Look in the archives for a thread called the "Two way stretch" to understand better the real futility of what you're recommending.

Unfortunately, if you find it you will probably have no more understanding of the truth and logic of it now than you did back then.

Like so many people today you think of the problem of length today MERELY as only a problem with a driver. That's not the way it is today Patrick. These guys who hit their drives 50+ yards farther then the good players of Macdonald's time also hit the remainder of the clubs in their bag COMMENSURATELY FARTHER than the good players of Macdonald's time hit the remainder of their bag.

So how does one INTERFACE architecture with THAT Patrick, you blockheaded putz?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You've been maintaining that adding 50+ yards to #7 and #18 tee will restore the shot value on the tee for these good players today who drive the ball at least 50+ yards farther than the good long players of Macdonald's time did.

I've never maintained that at least 50 yards should be added to both holes.

What I have maintained is that a new 7th tee be brought back to the existing footpad directly behind the current 7th tee.

In fact, you and George Bahto stood with me on that tee in October of 2003 and we discussed the merits of placing a new back tee on that footpad.  At the time, George Bahto agreed with me.

With respect to the 18th hole, land constraints limit how far back a new tee could go.  Bringing a new tee back to the exit gate would help, but, a little more length would help more, ergo, move the gates.[/color]

I recognize that as well as you do and I admit that adding 50+ yards on those tip tees will put today's good long player back in that same LZ and "interfacing" with the same features and shots values of Macdonald's time.

When you consider the caliber of golfers that play NGLA those back tees make a lot of sense.[/color]

So there they are in the same tee shot LZ as Macdonald's time.

But what next, Patrick??

You put a guy who hits a drive 280-290+ in Macdonald's original tee shot LZ, how in the hell do you expect to restore or recreate for him Macdonald's shot values and the interfacing of the architecture on the remainder of those old holes (any and all of those old holes in this world) ?

While you can't cure ALL of the problems created by modern I&B and distance, you can cure some of them, and, those that can be easily cured, should be cured.

The DZ's on # 7 and # 18 are a critical LZ's, fraught with danger.  If one fails to successfully negotiate them, play on the balance of the hole becomes far more interesting and complicated.

If they're negotiated successfully, the greens remain as demanding targets, with mis-hit shots paying a dear price.

Hence, you have to ask yourself, does the addition of a small back tee on those two holes accomplish the following:

Return the design integrity in the play of the hole off the tee
Return some of the design integrity in the play of the second and the third shots

I say, YES

So what's the downside, $ 5,000 to construct those tees ?
It's a small price to pay when the benefit is the restoration of the playing values intended by MacDonald[/color]

You get one of these good long players today in the same place on those holes where a good player in Macdonald's time may've used a brassie or 3 wood for the aggressive play to come somewhere near or on those greens and these guys today could probably accomplish the same goal with a 5 iron!!


That's a hell of a lot better than having them do it with a wedge, isn't it ?[/color]

How are you going to recreate or restore Macdonald's original shot values on the remainder of those hole for that guy ?

While you can't restore in in "whole" you can restore it incrementally.

What I don't understand is why you continue to resist the principle of elasticity as it applies to these holes.

Certainly # 2 is a far better hole for today's better players from the Karl Olson tee than it was from the right side of the 1st green.

Ditto # 8, # 12, # 14, # 15 and other holes that have been lengthened at NLGA over the years.

# 7 and # 18 need that additional length in order to restore the interfacing of the golfer with the bunker complexes that MacDonald designed with the specific purpose of interfacing with the golfer.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are you next going to recommend they move the Road Hole (7th) green across the street onto the beginning of #8?

Now you're trying to divert and deflect a good idea with an extreme, non-related idea.[/color]

Are you going to recommend they move the 18th green onto Sebonak??

Elasticity works best at the tee end.
But, you are aware that the 14th green is not the original green.  Yet, it works quite well, especially with the new back tee constructed recently.[/color]

How else could they restore the remainder of the shot values on the second half of those holes??

Have you never heard of the phrase, "half a loaf is better than none" ?

Let's face it, you're an obstructionist and I'm a problem solver.[/color]

How could they get today's long player to interface with the architecture on the second half of these holes the way the players of Macdonald's time did without stretching the second half of those holes an additonal 50+ yards ??

First, if today's long player finds the LZ bunker complexes, he'll be faced with the same dilemas.

Second, moving today's player back 50 yards in the fairway after he's hit his tee shot HAS to help in returning the shot value on subsequent shots, if not completely, certainly, incrementally.[/color]

See what I mean?

Yes, and I explained why it SHOULD be done.[/color]

Like a lot of other analysts and golfers who don't think much of anything through to its logical end and conclusion all you're accomplishing is a "single shot increment" fix---a tee shot fix.


That's absolutely false.

In addition, elasticity at the tee end has always been weighted toward returning shot values to the drive, with the shot values on subsequent shots incrementally benefiting.

But, that's no reason NOT to do it.

You're just being stubborn and an obstructionist rather than viewing the issue with an open mind.

Why do you think the tee on # 8 was extended back ?
Answer, to bring MacDonald's brilliant centerline bunker complex back into play, FULLY UNDERSTANDING that the subsequent approach shot for the modern player couldn't be duplicated exactly as CBM intended, but, it could be enhanced versus the previous version before the tee was extended.

You keep missing the connective link between the impact on the drive and the resulting, subsequent shots[/color]

You aren't restoring or recreating or in any way maintaining the entire "whole hole" strategic concept of the hole.

You didn't complain when Pine Valley did the same thing at
# 18, or at # 16, or at # 14, or at # 9, # 7 or the new tee contemplated at # 4.

Everyone understands that you can't restore the entirety of the design intent, but, if you can restore it off the tee, as intended by the architect, vis a vis, elasticity, why wouldn't you ?[/color]

By "whole hole" I mean the way the combined shots of a hole's strategic concept once worked and was designed to work in its whole hole entirety.

Everyone understands that, but, again, a half a loaf is better than none ![/color]

It's a whole lot easier and less destructive of the architecture of NGLA and most all other courses to simply let these good long players hit the shots from the present tees and call those holes what they functionally and effectively are for them today----eg par 4s and no longer what they really were functionally and effectively for the good players of Macdonald's day---eg par 5s.

That's absurd.

And, it's not a matter of what's easier, it's a matter of preserving the architectural integrity of the golf course and design intent of MacDonald, the continuance of having the architecture interface with the golfer, not keeping a local printer in business because the features have become obsolete.[/color]

Furthermore, there is a direct example of how well this transition has worked in play---eg TOC's #17 (The Road Hole) which has been a par 4 for some years now, down from an original par 5.

That's about as bad an example as you could offer.

The 17th at TOC doesn't have the fairway bunkering complexes of # 7 and # 18 at NGLA that were meant to tempt the golfer.

The 7th and 18th at NGLA have brilliant risk/reward features in the DZ that are no longer serving their architectural purpose as intended by MacDonald.  The prudent course of action is to return those features back into play, and you accomplish that by extended the tees back along the current angle of attack, not by printing new score cards which will have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE PLAY OF THOSE HOLES.[/color]

Look in the archives for a thread called the "Two way stretch" to understand better the real futility of what you're recommending.

I don't need to read anything to understand that returning the architectural features, intended by MacDonald to interface with the golfer, is a desirable goal.

As I said, you tend to be an obstructionist and I tend to be a problem solver, hence we have differing views on the same subject.[/color]

Unfortunately, if you find it you will probably have no more understanding of the truth and logic of it now than you did back then.

Why don't you tell John Ott and all your friends how they really screwed up by adding tee length at PV, then, after you do that, perhaps I'll work on having a better understanding of truth and logic. [/color]

Like so many people today you think of the problem of length today MERELY as only a problem with a driver.

NO, I don't.
I'm keenly aware of the global problem,
But, I can immediately fix the problem with the driver, courtesy of the elasticity provided in the design by MacDonald himself.[/color]

That's not the way it is today Patrick. These guys who hit their drives 50+ yards farther then the good players of Macdonald's time also hit the remainder of the clubs in their bag COMMENSURATELY FARTHER than the good players of Macdonald's time hit the remainder of their bag.

Everyone understands that.
Even your friends at Pine Valley.
Yet, they chose to address and remedy the problems off the tee by extending/lengthening the holes, just like NGLA, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Seminole and many other courses have done over the years.

I'd rather fix one third or one half of a problem than not address it at all.[/color]

So how does one INTERFACE architecture with THAT Patrick, you blockheaded putz ?

You divide and conquer.
One step at a time.
Until, someone (read USGA or probably ANGC) does something about the I&B.

You know, I'm going to make a motion to the court asking that my fees for being your custodian are increased.
The work is taking more effort and more time and you're making almost no progress.   I definitely need a raise.[/color]