Which holes benefit from modern technology and which suffer?

[wsmorrison]

I'm trying to consider which classic era holes have greater interest today with improved technology and which have been negatively impacted.  Maybe we can come up with some factors that account for this and try and determine if some of this was intentional or unintentional.  Certainly designing tee length elasticity is a factor.

One hole that I think must be vastly improved with technology is the 10th at Riviera.  Though I've never been there, the hole is fascinating and maybe more so today than ever before because of the temptation to drive the green that exists today that probably never existed when designed, even without irrigation.

A hole that remains great but suffers from technological advancements is the 16th at Merion.  It is 3-wood, 8-iron for the best players today when it used to be driver and a mid-iron.  Perhaps if the fairway was extended to the left bringing in some contours that would feed the ball further left thus bringing trees guarding the left side of the quarry into play, it would be improved.  The firm and fast conditions through the green and the firm green with front to rear grain and a fescue mound behind certainly keep things very interesting.  But it was a much more demanding hole prior to 300 yard carries and 175-yard 8-irons.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wayne,

A while back, some mentioned the 18th at Pebble as improved.  The rationale was technology "converted" it from a three-shot par 5 to a "half par."

I would guess this is the secret to 10 Riviera's standing, too.

Interested to see examples where technology has tilted the balance to the reverse direction; i.e., from a "half par" hole to a full-blooded par.

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne
I think the premise to the question and the question itself are both very good and interesting ones. So I'm sorry that all I have is another question:

You mention the 16th at Merion as less interesting/ demanding today. You're very familiar with Merion: over the course of the full 18 holes, do the holes that have been negatively impacted 'even out' with those that have benefitted?

Probably an unneccesary complication of your original question, so please feel free to let this drop if it is.

Peter  

[Powell Arms]

Wayne,

I'd say 9 and 18 at Philly Cricket have improved with technology, making both about a par 4 1/2, as opposed to unreachable par 4's.  Depending on the wind and the quality of tee shot, these par 4's can be unreachable in two or driver - 8 iron, and there are a ton of options (and trouble) for that second shot in both cases. Perhaps the corrolation lies in what holes have had a 0.5 added or subtracted to their par. ?  (although 10 at Riviera doesn't fit this theory)

[Mark_Fine]

Question for everyone - If some feel that #10 at Riviera is that much of a better golf hole today because of "technology", why didn't Thomas figure that out when he designed it and make the teeing yardage tempt a driver?  Or did he  

The same goes for other holes that "seem to get better" because the ball goes farther!  

[Bill Gayne]

Wayne,

The redan is probably a more perplexing hole for the modern player with the over reliance on the aerial game. Modern players don't practice a lot of long running shots to the front right qudrants of greens so they default to what's comfortable (the aerial shot right at the pin). The idea of possibly playing short and chipping on to save par is a foreign idea to many of the aerial players.

[Phil_the_Author]

The 7th hole of Bethpage Black has suffered because of both technology and the USGA turning it into a long par-4.

The hole was designed as a three-shot par-5 with of 600 yards in length when first opened.

The new tee that was recently installed is a bit behind and to the left of the 500 yard par-4 Open tee. The integrity of this hole design would have been better served by putting a new championship tee further back in the trees (obviously after being cleared out). The angle of play would have been truer in comparison to what has now been done as Tilly designed the hole to be reachable at 600 yards (it was first reached in two in August of 1936 by Jimmy Hines with a driver and a three-iron) and it could bestretched out to nearly 700 yards for whatever future generations (probably no more than another 2 or 3 years off) might need that length.

The hole was designed to allow for shorter hitters to hit far left. It becomes a much shorter hole that way yet is a safe route that still allows for  a mid-iron third into a green that receives this length and shot-type well.

Risk/reward is taken out of this hole as an Open par-4.

[wsmorrison]

Peter,

I wouldn't characterize the 16th at Merion as less interesting, but it is less demanding.  Maybe in a way, the very tough finish that allows a fair shot at a birdie on a hole where par was a very acceptable score makes the overall finishing stretch even more interesting.  As far as the overall effect of technology throughout the 18 holes, that's an interesting question.  It remains a great test of golf and some of that is the middle holes where you might attempt to do more than you should.  For instance, the 8th hole.  It is much better to lay back and have a full shot in that you can spin rather than have a short pitch into the green without spin.  Approach shots without enough spin often go off the back well below the green in fairly deep rough.

Bill,

With the Redan, I think it is easier to fly the ball onto the green now than it used to be and with a more lofted club it isn't impossible to hold.  A firm green certainly would balance the high and low approach shots.

Powell,

I was thinking that the 18th at Philadelphia Cricket was compromised with modern technology.  I guess I'll see for myself next week  

Ron Forse suggested that the 17th at Oakmont has benefited from modern technology.  I think after witnessing the Open last week, we would all agree.

[Powell Arms]

My answer was in the context of a marginally skilled amateur, certainly not a PGA pro.  What would you think of the effects of technology on 11 & 12 on your east course?  My thoughts are 11 has no change, the downhill tee shot likely results in approaches of length and club that are simlilar today to yesteryear.  On 12, I think technology has made the hole play easier, and in this case I would be tempted to say better, because the green is a lot more accessable if one is longer off of the tee.  I imagine that must have been a tough to impossible par for the members pre Pro V1.  That is not to say easier is better, but rather that risk/reward is constant or enhanced.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is another kind of technology that has altere the way sole play--greens mowers and green speeds.  I played Baltimore CC this past week.  I love the course and the new bunkering.  The greens were difficult because the slope was not designed for modern green speeds.  I realize that we all know this, but I don't necessarily see this as bad.  The second green at BCC slopes front front ot back.  When the pin is in the front and the ball is on the back of the green you can hardly keep the ball on the green.  The touch that a player needs is greater than it was years ago.  For me it makes it more fun.

[JESII]

Tommy,

I agree with that whole-heartedly. I think it's a fair and reasonable trade-off in the arms race for more distance to have to get the ball in the correct spot on and around the greens to score well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne - thanks.

About Merion you wrote: "As far as the overall effect of technology throughout the 18 holes, that's an interesting question.  It remains a great test of golf and some of that is the middle holes where you might attempt to do more than you should...."

Of the other great/classic/old courses you've played, how does Merion stack up in this regard? What are there elements inherent in its design (and particularly so) that keeps it a great test? And, of those, how many might have had that 'flexbility' built into them from the beginning?

The intentional-unintentional aspect of your original question really interests me, but I think that may be because of a more general, 'non-gca' interest in those kinds of theoretical questions; in other words, I find it very hard to think about that in terms of golf courses (but I also don't have a lot of specifics at my disposal, so that makes it harder)

Peter  

 

[wsmorrison]

Powell,

Good question.  The responses by Tommy and Jim are timely as well given they relate to the holes you mention.

The 11th hasn't really been impacted.  Some higher handicappers probably hit drivers on the hole and they probably still do.  For the longer hitters and lower handicap players, the tee shot was likely a 3 or 5-wood and today is probably a 3 or 4-iron or my choice from the back tee, a 7-wood.  The way the modern ball behaves with iron shots makes the approach shot to the 11th green easier, but the firmness of the green and the green speeds (not necessarily related) counter the better performing balls and grooves.

As for the 12th hole, the new back tee length requires most to hit a driver or maybe a 3-wood for the longer hitters.  From the middle tee, I hit no more than a 3-wood for a full 8 or 9-iron shot into the green.  The hole remains very difficult because of the slope of the green, the green speeds and the green firmness.  The enhanced maintenance practices keep this hole from being easier than it used to be with softer conditions and slower green speeds.

In addition, the use of rotary mowers for the rough makes the grass stand straighter so that even shorter rough today plays harder than the reel mowers that tended to lay the grass down.  The way rough is being maintained...firmer and much thicker, means that balls off line go further off line and are harder to recover from than they used to be.

[D_Malley]

18 @ Phila Cricket
In the old days before irrigation, i am told that players would hit drives to the bottom of the hill just before the creek regularly.  They may have been playing from the tee which is just next to the boundry.

[Doug Siebert]

#18 TOC is a more interesting hole with modern technology.  It brings it within reach for those of us not named Nicklaus so you have to think carefully whether you want to risk missing right or long (or what would have to be the ultimate embarressment you could achieve at TOC of rolling a hook into the starter's shed on the 1st tee)  Medium distance hitters are closer to the green and have to decide whether they want to pitch, chip or even putt, etc.

Though I hate to say it but I'm starting to think there's some merit to Shivas' suggestion of a pot bunker maybe 305 out directly at the obelisk/cross from the 18th tee to make the safe route a bit less safe (but wouldn't interfere with a tee shot from #1 unless you manage to hit it back between your legs)  I remember a thread a while back were someone had found something indicating there used to be a bunker there in the past so its harder to argue against from a purism standpoint if that's true.

[Tony Ristola]

The once long par-4's suffer.

I think Donald Ross said the finest test of a golfer is a long iron into a tightly guarded green, or something of the sort. The long iron into a par-4? On an inland course for the better golfer (the average guys still go in with woods and don't make it), that par-4 has to stretch to 500+ yards and then it may not be a long iron.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

This is a very good question, particularly the more one thinks about it and about individual holes.

I guess most holes have suffered from the dramatic increase in distance of good and long players but I can think of a few that have probably become much more interesting because of it. Frankly, I can think of 3-4 on my own course that've become more interesting because of real increased distance of long players. I saw this in this year's Pa Match Play Championship. Holes #3, 7, 8, 10 have and I'd be glad to explain why but basically it's because some danger has come into play that was never generally reachable before on those holes.

Another hole that comes to mind that is more interesting is The Creek's 10th. It's now far more tempting to try to drive and with that temptation comes some real reward but a commensurate amount of real risk. That was just not an option before good players were capable of driving it 300+.

I would have to say that holes like Merion's 10th, Gulfstream's 15th or even Seminole's 10th etc may be falling into that category.

Another hole that is not driveable but has become a lot more dangerous if a really long player uses driver is unquestionably Merion's #15. I guess there may seem to be some reward if a long player gets his tee shot up to the upslope to the green for basically a long chip shot but since everything squeezes in bigtime if you hit the ball that far on that hole off the tee there is a huge increase in danger on both sides.

Unfortunately, Nebraska's Long John Hurley found that out the hard way in US Amateur qualifying.

[Mark Bourgeois]

The 15th at The Addington has gone from a par 5 to a long par 4.

Hasn't it?

More controversially, the 13th? I couldn't imagine playing that brute with the i&b of the age.