Dear Chairman;
First things first....Thank you very much for your kind and gracious hospitality at Rolling Green two weeks ago. It is certainly a wonderful course as my earlier posts indicated, and although we didn't have a chance to meet, I can assure you that both Mayday and Wayne were superb hosts in every way.
Did it only take me 85 strokes to negotiate my way around?? My lord, I seem to recall that many strokes with the wedge alone! Have you ever heard of the "chip yips"? Well, I have this strange affliction where I either hit a Mickelsonian beauty that defies the laws of physics and stops stone-dead, or half-blade or chili-dip one or more after that. Exorcism of my wedge has been suggested by others.
But, as you say, "that's okay". Because, truthfully, when I go to a new course for the first time, I'm there to see and try to understand and gain an appreciation for the golf course architecture, as well as commiserate with my playing partners. Although I've been as low as a 2.3 index too many years ago (probably over 7 now), no one has yet suggested that they'd pay me to play the game, and I've given up the illusion that I'll ever get much better at this point. Besides, I have much more fun now that I've accepted that I generally am pretty mediocre and likely to stay that way. The fun is in the trying.
As far as architecture, I think we're discussing some of the finer points here that are applicable not only to Rolling Green but to most classic courses in an age where a green chairman can reach a par five with driver, seven-iron.
So, although I have no wish to become involved in club matters in any way...that is your gentlemen's responsibility... I'll try to give you some general thoughts and philosophies based on your questions.
I'm guessing that you're a pretty good player, or minimally quite the long-hitter based on what you've shared. I'm also guessing that you're concerned that your course remain an adequate "test of golf" for the better player, as well you should.
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. You're right that the hole in question wasn't designed to be played by anyone back in 1926 with a driver-seven iron. Flynn himself warned about the dangers of unimpeded technology to the game, and foresaw the need for courses in the 8,000 yard range if the implements were not effectively reigned in.
And, in truth, Rolling Green (and many other classic courses) would probably need to be close to 8,000 yards today to be played with the exact same clubs that were used in 1926.
So, one option is to build all new back tees, but that's only half an answer, because not only do players today hit their driver further, but also their irons and other clubs. More importantly, this may fundamentally change what was designed by the architect to be the "landing area", affecting the location of fairway hazards, angles, turns in holes, etc. It's almost as if to recreate the same hole as it was originally, a hole would need to be stretched in both directions, which is impractical in almost every conceivable instance.
Admittedly, some courses with additional space can "up" the level of demand by building back tees. Flynn himself talked about providing "elasticity" in design, and seemingly left room in many cases behind the tees he built. As a general philosophy, I think this approach, while imperfect, is far preferable to other alternatives.
What are those alternatives? Among them; narrowing fairways by growing thick rough, planting trees to not only narrow target widths, but to provide serious impediments to reasonable recovery, adding hazards such as sand and water in places never conceived by the architect, creating ultra-fast conditions on greens that weren't designed for anything near those putting speeds, and providing "soft" conditions through the green to limit roll.
In a way, it's sad and problematic that technological changes in recent years have created a situation where so many courses are faced with this very dilemma. But, for discussion purposes, let's consider your example of the 7th hole for two types of players.
For those unfamiliar with Rolling Green, the 7th is a short par five with a significantly downhill tee shot. A creek crosses the fairway at about 350 yards, and is only in play if the drive finds trouble, or for a very weak player's second shot. The drive zone is fairly narrow, with most of the trouble being the trees on each side.
The lay of the land on the second shot is significantly right to left, with a moderate, but lengthy hill on the right side flowing into the green complex. The green is bunkered on the lower, front left side, and the green itself has a wonderful center "fold" that becomes difficult to negotiate from right of the hole. Generally, the green runs from front to back and right to left more than is visually apparent. A shot beyond the green will go down a slight enbankment, to generally thick rough, but it's not too penalizing to be over.
The trees in question have been planted on this right hillside, which appears to have been fairway in early times from original drawings (which coincidentally, included tree placements).
Now, a player of your calibre and length hits a good drive, and is left with a 7-iron approach. Almost assuredly, those trees on the right were not a factor in considering your approach shot, correct? I mean, you probably had less than 180 yards, and I'm sure you selected a club where you would fly the shot all the way to the green's surface (easily held with that lofted club), or perhaps to land just in front. Seriously, did those trees enter into your mind on the second shot whatsoever? They really aren't very tall, and at the distance you had to the green, you probably would have flown over all of them even if you pushed the shot, leaving a downhill chip from the tougher right side that had to negotiate the swale in the green for a decent birdie chance.
Now, consider the game of a playing partner who hits the ball say, 40 yards less than you.
His drive, instead of going about 320 downhill, goes 280, leaving him 220 to the green. Instead of a seven iron, he's likely looking at either laying up to leave a full third, or, trying to bring in a 3-wood to the green on a straight line, with little chance of holding it, or ending in the front bunker because of the topography in the area.
With the trees in their current position, he does not have the option of trying to play a running shot in from the right side, as the hole seems clearly designed to have originally permitted. But, for a moment, let's imagine that those trees weren't there, and that it was maintained halfway up the hill as fairway. Is there any less skill required for player B to hit the perfect running draw off that embankment onto the green with a 3 wood than it took for your high-flighted 7-iron to land softly and successfully? You already have a 40 yard advantage per shot on your opponent.
I realize your intent is to maintain the level of challenge for the best players, but do those trees come into play for the best players? I would contend that they don't, but only make the game more difficult and uni-dimensional for the less-skilled.
Now, let's imagine that the back tees on that hole were moved back 60 yards. For the better player, the green would still be reachable in two, but instead of your 7-iron from 180, you'd be looking at a long club from 240. Would you agree that it would require a great deal of skill from that distance to use the right side bank to run the ball onto the green (not to mention a hell of a lot of fun!)?? What's more, the player who "hung it up" on the hill would certainly not have an easy chip from a downhill stance to a green running away from him and the aforementioned center swale to negotiate.
In truth, there are no easy answers Chairman, when technology allows the ball to be advanced at distances that courses weren't built for, but I don't believe the answer to the questions of the new "power game" played by the top golfers is to eliminate options for the shorter hitter or high-handicap man.
Some attempt at brevity prevents me from going into a whole host of agronomic difficulties that over-planting of trees can be the "root" cause of, not to mention problems with air circulation, blocking of wind, blocking of vistas, etc. Perhaps a willing superintendent can get into more detail in that area.
Short of adding new back tees, perhaps you might want to just call the 7th a par four for championship play? What would be the harm in that?
Thank you again for your warm hospitality, and best wishes to you and your excellent club.