[TEPaul]

Who amongst the contributors to this thread has actually walked back to where this new tee is proposed to be and looked at it from there?

Anyone?

[Mike_Cirba]

Who amongst the contributors to this thread has actually walked back to where this new tee is proposed to be and looked at it from there?

Anyone?

Tom,

Not I.

I'm basing my comments strictly on the aerial showing the new angle, which is seemingly quite a few degrees different than the present angle.  

Is that correct?

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, this is a hole or the type of hole where putting a tee back there is pretty complex. By that I mean there're just a ton of factors going on all over that hole that could make a tee back there in play something that could be pretty interesting or something of a real bust.

This is just one of those holes that has so much going on, particularly in its mid-body that it will be complicated. Whoever is doing it better really think through ALL the ramifications on the hole.

[Mike_Cirba]

In my opinion, this is a hole or the type of hole where putting a tee back there is pretty complex. By that I mean there're just a ton of factors going on all over that hole that could make a tee back there in play something that could be pretty interesting or something of a real bust.

This is just one of those holes that has so much going on, particularly in its mid-body that it will be complicated. Whoever is doing it better really think through ALL the ramifications on the hole.

Tom,

Am I correct in believing that there is simply no way to keep the current angle without creating one of those gawdawful volcano tees?

[JESII]

Archie,

Do you think many people actually try to hit their tee shot as far right as where that bunker is now? Actually try...

I think any ball that lands where that bunker is now looks from the tee like it is in the trees...before the bunker was there those balls did often bounce down into the fairway at the bottom, but I never saw this as a viable strategic option...too much risk for too small a percentage of people...

I don't think it actually svaes you more than 5 or 10 yards from hitting it over the hill in the right center of the fairway.

If all of the trees left of the road were removed (which might be necessary depending on the angle of the new tee) I would agree that there is some value to removing the bunker...

[JESII]

Tom,

Am I correct in believing that there is simply no way to keep the current angle without creating one of those gawdawful volcano tees?

Mike,


There is no way to build a tee at the hieght of the current tee, and within 50 yards of it, without building a similar platform to what is there now.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

In my opinion, that aerial is not much help at all. There are so many things that you just can't see on that aerial that you can see on the ground.

For starters you can't even see the bunkering on the right side on the top of the fairway and that will be really important via this concept.

You also can't make out the fascinating cants and angles and their distance ramifications across the end of the fairway which massively affects the turboboosting of the ball and where and how.

From a tee that will be where I think this one will have to be (I did go back there and look at it from where it was flagged a year or so ago) one also needs to really understand the front of that fairway and that doesn't show well on the aerial either.

The last I heard the idea to do it wasn't even decided by the club and that they were still testing approval from the EPA or the SEC or the IRS or the FBI or the CIA or whoever the hell else one has to get permission from these days to add a 500 sf tee that's within a hundred miles of any kind of water on a golf course in the great state of New Jersey.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm pretty familiar with the 4th fairway and completely understand what you're saying regarding the turbo-boost down the right side, as well as the slippery slope going left over the hill, as well as the steepness and difficulty of the second  shot if the drive doesn't reach the crest.  

I'm just very uncertain how any tee behind and to the right of today's tee, especially with the added distance of about 50 yards or so, will make any of those natural features work any better than they do today.  

I also think that if the intent is to make it play as it did P.T. (pre-technology), this proposed change won't accomplish that understandable and worthwhile goal.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I didn't exactly walk off the distance back there where it once was flagged or apparently designated a year or so ago but it sure seemed it had to be 50-60 yards more. The problem as I recall is you had to get over the road and over the end of the water deal in that area across the road and behind it. It looked sort of OK topographically if you tried to go to the side of it but then the angle would be too much behind and restricted by the present tee. To me it looked OK from where I was shown the tee might be but it sure did look like a helluva long way up to that fairway from back there (but I'm not much good at estimating distance and spatiality of something I've never actually played). I had a pretty distinct sensation about it when I went back there but I can't exactly recall what it was at this time. I can tell you that it did look quite a bit different to me from back there than I thought it would just looking back at it from the present tee. I guess by that I mean it seemed a lot more doable when looking at it from back there than it did from looking back at it from the back of the present tee.

I might go down there briefly in a few days and if so maybe I can quickly hie on over there and take another quick peek.

I'll tell you even just talking about this makes me really miss the Mayor. With a thread like this I'd be calling him up right about now.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'll tell you even just talking about this makes me really miss the Mayor. With a thread like this I'd be calling him up right about now.

Tom,

That's the one thing on this thread that I DO clearly understand.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The thing that really concerns me with adding that much yardage on a hole of this particular type and topography and configuration is that if they do it they really need to try to stay somewhat realistic with what they will get with it in play.

Even when I played good I was an exceptionally short driver so maybe I'm more sensitive to this kind of thing than most. The fact is even when I was playing well I had to play these new tees on some of these courses.

And it's not just me and my own game---I do a whole lot of officiating in Class A events and I can tell you right now with total certainty that about half the players who play these kinds of events, including the Crump, just do not carry a golf ball off the tee any 295 yards that some are claiming they do.  

A few do but most just don't. This has just got to be taken into consideration if they do something like this on the 4th hole or they are going to totally embarrass themselves and a whole lot of pretty good players they will not want to be embarrassing.

We've seen some of this in the past. The 18th at Merion is that way from the new new tips. Even Faldo told me from the old new tips that in a moderately adverse wind up to 15 or 20% of the players on tour today wouldn't clear the end of the quarry.

So who needs that? And what generally happens when they do something like that on a hole like that one (Merion's 18th) or perhaps this one? They end up almost never using them anyway. So why bother to build them in the first place?

The thing these people who propose these kinds of new tees, including some architects, is some do carry the ball 295 or so but there is a real distance differential with what some of the rest carry the ball.

What do I mean by a real distance differential? I mean up to 40 to 50 yards. That a lot and it has to be taken into considerations with decisions like this on a hole like this one. This is not the same kind of hole as say #13 is where a shorter player can go wide right who can't make the ideal carry over Holeman's Hollow or #16 where a shorter player can still go wide left around the enormous cross bunker.

The idea is you really don't want to do something on a hole of this type that basically has a big forced carry that will just totally shut down a significant amount of the shorter end of the really elite player level.

This is where I think a guy like Crenshaw is so good. He understands this reality so well. And why wouldn't he, he has the experience of about 10 million shots in his bones in all kinds of conditions to draw on for a reality check.

Some holes you just can't be added thoughtless or formulaic distance too without considering a whole lot of factors unique to some holes.

And some of this doesn't even address what was being talked about as far as cutting the right corner the way you used to do and getting a boost down the hill.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I agree with your post in its entirety.  

I'm afraid we're starting to architect for the 2% longest hitters, and I can't imagine that making the game more fun (or competitive) for the rest of us.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'm not saying that it's wrong to add yardage to holes just that it's dangerous to indescriminately add a whole lot of yardade to SOME types of holes.

And this particular one just may be one of those.

This just shows crystal clear why it's never a smart idea to generalize about anything to do with architecture, and certainly not when it comes to distance considerations on basically forced carry holes.

When one tries to do something like this on this hole you just really have to work the discussion of the strategic concept of the hole and all the ramifications of the hole and work the hell out of it while always staying ultra realistic about how you're affecting anyone who may HAVE TO play the hole.

In my opinion, if you do something and then have a significant enough slice of players in say The Crump who when they hit their Sunday best in certain conditions can't even reach the fairway or get far enough up to see anything but sky you've probably made a mistake in design with that tee.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Just seen this post..so here goes.
When I was there for the Crump, I walked back into the woods to the area that they have marked with those plastiv strips.
From there I tried to laser a distance to the top of the hill.
The best measurement I could get was 267 to the crest..all uphill, more so than the current tee shot plays.
The shot will also appear tighter because of the shoot you will invaribly have to play through.
"cutting" th corner..forget about it for anybody!

It will certainly restore the hole to it's original intent of design, it will also for the better, tale the left side out of play.
At the moment when we play the left side..ie running through the fairway left or straight.....is as much of a concern as missing the fairway right.
That will no longer be of concern, from that respect it will be less demanding off the tee..ie less options of club selection, as driver will be the only choice.

So at this point I am not sure if it makes the hole more difficult or not.
Certainly the second shot is going to be a ball buster, but at least it is to a large green that was probably designed for a long iron anyway.

For shorters players like myself, when the wind blows into your face, it will become like number 18..can I even reach the fairway

[archie_struthers]

 

I've been to the spot where it appears the tee will be  and obviously some trees have to go...not a bad thing

the distance ...is going to really give the bombers a huge edge ...and again here'e the rub....Pine Valley is one of the few championship golf courses where length is not the defining edge for great players ...both amateur and professional alike

just removing those "new" bunkers would allow the average long hitter...no one is really short anymore that wins tournaments ...reach the sweet spot on # four under certain conditions...like the old days

consider the twelth hole....all the long hitters can now drive the green but take an awful risk if they miss...I don't think the new bunkers impact anyone but the middle length driver..they don't even come into play for me today unless I duff one...however...someone like JES will now have an inordinate advantage over someone who can only carry it 250-260....moreover...the hitting area will be much tighter for the shorter hitter....not a good thing

when the area in the right rough was devoid of bunkers it effectively made the risk /reward  of aiming way right a viable option...this will eliminate the option for all but a select few...even at the highest level

 

[JSlonis]

On a ride back from the Short Course, I took a quick look at the area that I thought was the proposed site for the new tee.  I didn't laser any yardage though.  As Archie has mentioned, there will need to be some pretty extensive tree removal to fit this tee in, if it is in fact going to be located where we think it is.  

The largest hurdle in creating a new back tee for this hole is simply the topography of the land behind the current tee.  If it was fairly level behind the current tee, it would be an easy addition and one that would have probably been done some time ago.  To make that tee shot a "driver" hole again would be a positive.

As Tom Paul has also mentioned, creating a new tee on #4 will be quite complex.  There is a lot going on land wise behind the current tee.  You have a fairly steep dropoff, the road, and then a small pond/wetlands area on the other side of the road.  The slope and height of the hillside across the road doesn't match the level of the current tee for a considerable distance.

It will be an interesting project to see develop.

MikeC,

You asked, "if there really is a need for a new tee on this hole?"

While it certainly isn't a "birdie" hole, the current #4 plays so much differently than it used to or was intended to, that a new back tee would add back some of what has been lost.  Ideally it would be located right behind the current tee, but without a massive amount of work, that just isn't possible. Under normal conditions, the hole used to be a driver-long iron, then a driver-mid-short iron, and now a 3 wood-mid-short iron.  

In recent years, there has been a push to put the driver back in the hands of the better/longer player.  The addition of the new tees so far have done that.  I definitely see this as a positive.

[archie_struthers]

 

I'm not communicating this real well so I'll try again...Pine Valley is way cool. and a good part of the reason is that the shots are not above the skill levels of most players...save when the greens are really fast. It's havig the ability to keep hitting good, not great shots that make it so much fun. The ol timers often would say as someone has a real good round going...many can linger...but few can last...nowhere is this more true than at the "Valley"

  This being said , even the new tees on 13 and 18 aren't going to impact someone like me too much, as my other skills, mostly mental, not distance alone , limit my ability to score. If I have to hit 4 or 5-iron to 18 after a good drive , and a long hitter hits eight or nine iron, I still have a chance to make par or even birdie. The greens are receptive enough to most long irons to give you a chance. The shots are not like  the way back at 18 / Merion anywhere.

Now imagine the new tee on four...someone that can only carry it 250 might still be 230 out, given the topography...
someone that can carry it 280 will be hitting eight iron or wedge....as TEP interjected, not a lot of  players can carry it 280 or more ...but those that can will gain 50-60 yards ...it's too much  IMHO

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Archie
I agree with what you are syaing, the very long hitters will gain more advantage than thier actual yardgae, as they will be able to get the advantage of the downslope.
But , hey that's part of the agme.
If you ever get to play East Lake, there are about 6 holes atht have the same advantage you are talking about.
If you hit the ball between 260-280 you are in one place , but if you can hit it 290+, you will gain another 30 yaerd advantage due to downslopes.

I dont think you can accomodate a hole for everybody, all you can try to do is make the course play the way it is supposed to.
I truly believe that most of the new tees at Pine Valley have accomplished that feat.
Sure there will always be the long dong that is outside the large portion of the bell shaped curve, but that has alwasy been the case.

When #4 was first built and most players were struggling to hit the crest of the hill...you know there were a few guys who blasted it down to the bottom and had a 6 club difference, so really nothing has changed.

Besides, the guy that hits it that far now,  will to think like I do on that tee, and will have options...I will have no options which to me makes the tee shot esier.

[Mike_Cirba]

I have to question the whole idea that we can make classic holes play today just like they did in the 20s, or even the 50s.

To regurgitate something I used to have here as my tagline;

Exactly how long would the 18th at Merion have to be today for your longer than average (as Hogan was) touring pro to hit driver, 2-iron on a still, hot summer day as Hogan did in 1950?  How long would it have to be for Tiger...570??  

Even if you move the tee back, someone is hitting a high 5-iron or 6 iron from that spot, so the shot values have clearly changed.

It's a losing proposition all around.

[JESII]

Mike,

If, in fact, Hogan was,longer then average he could have hit it over the hill on #18...I think he dialed back so as not to approach the green from the downslope...



Archie, Jamie or anyone...

How much shorter do you think it is to the crest of the hill in the right rough than in the right center of the fairway?

I would take the under on 8 yards...it is not strategically sensible for someone to aim over there.

Also..how many drivers does the long hitter hits there today? Maybe 6...this will not turn PV into a long hitters haven...but it will make him control his ball better, and if he can't the guy coming in blind from 230 will have a big edge...

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

If, in fact, Hogan was,longer then average he could have hit it over the hill on #18...I think he dialed back so as not to approach the green from the downslope...

Jim,

Hogan was not short, by any stretch.   But even let's just say he was an average driver of that time.

The hole played 463 yards.   A good drive back then was 260 with both carry and roll, and when you consider how uphill that drive is, I'm pretty sure he wasn't holding back to leave himself a lengthy downhill/sidehill second shot with the US Open on the line.

In fact, the was looking for birdie to finish things so he didn't have to walk the next day.

[JESII]

Is that what he told you?

[JESII]

Mike,

Are you suggesting that Hogan could not hit the ball more than 260 yards on a firm fast fairway?

I would say the hill effect on #18 at Merion is close to negligible because the ball lands on a downslope at a pretty shallow angle...it's hot and running.

He laid back on that tee shot, I promise.

As this pertains to chasing the illusion of re-creating shot values from the original design...I sort of agree with you. It cannot be duplicated exactly because the game is sooo much different (I'm guessing on this point...Pat Mucci, can you confirm?) but does that mean no hole should be lengthened? I agree with the routing problem, but this tee will be used in less than 10% of rounds played there.

For tournament golfers these days, I am average length at best and this hole is a rescue club and a 9 iron under normal conditions with a bit of run and a slight helping breeze. Let's see what it looks like to have to hit a really good drive in order to get the green in regulation...

[JSlonis]

Archie, Jamie or anyone...

How much shorter do you think it is to the crest of the hill in the right rough than in the right center of the fairway?

I would take the under on 8 yards...it is not strategically sensible for someone to aim over there.

Also..how many drivers does the long hitter hits there today? Maybe 6...this will not turn PV into a long hitters haven...but it will make him control his ball better, and if he can't the guy coming in blind from 230 will have a big edge...

Sully,

I agree with you, I don't think there is a big difference between the areas toward the crest of the hill that you have mentioned.

Also, Mr. Hogan just sent me a text message from the beyond. It read:

"18 @ Merion, caught the driver on the heel." BH

[Phil Benedict]

Isn't it known that Hogan's 1-iron was from 230-yards, thus the drive must have been about the same distance, and was either a mishit or an intentional lay up, unless he hit his driver and 1-iron the same distance, which I doubt?

Tiger's 230-club is probably a 4-iron.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()