#2 NGLA

[Sebonac]

I am sorry but 18 as a par 4 is silly....

[TEPaul]

redanman:

I hear you when you say that par is completely irrelevant!

But I think you have to recognize that it might be to you but it just isn't to an absolute ton of golfers and some very good ones at that--and that's not a reality that's going away any time soon just because they might read or be told somewhere that it's irrelevant!

In the hands of a really good and really clever architect like Coore and Crenshaw that par perception (or misperception or whatever you want to call it) can be used very cleverly in design and in concept against a golfer with that par related mindset.

I believe the design and par of #17 Easthampton is just such a use and concept that can and will result in a certain amount of confusion, frustration and strategic quandry only because of what it is--a par 5 instead of a par 4 on a hole that is anything but clearcut as to what it should be.

So you can say it makes no difference at all what they call NGLA-a par 73-72-71-70-69...., but I will almost gaurantee you that it will make a difference---it will make a real difference in perception despite the fact that nothing whatsoever is done on the course!

What it will do in no time is begin to build a perception of NGLA as a course that is not so obsolete in total distance and hole demand as some very good golfers might consider it today mostly revolving around those 2-3 par 5s.

Those particular holes to those golfers will instantly be considered strong holes, really strong holes instead of the somewhat weak par 5s they're now considered.

I saw this myself right there a few years ago. Just by chance I had a conversation with a very good golfer (one of the best in New England for the last few decades) at the Singles who is very savvy about architecture and can be very honest in his criticisms. He said that NGLA was a great course but that there were a few holes that were really obsolete by today's standards, and one of them, #5, he's just hit a 5 iron into and that he considered it a weak obsolete hole. So I said what if they just dropped its par to a 4!

This is not a guy at a loss for words but that stopped him cold! Later that evening he came back up to me and said that's definitely what they should do and that would make #5 a really good strong hole? Of course, I never did say to him, what the hell's the difference it is still what it is!?

So that sure as hell convinced me of the power of "par perception". You may think it irrelevant but that conversation is true testimony to the fact that lots of others don't think so as illogical as it may seem and in fact is!

[TEPaul]

Sebonac:

NGLA's #18 as a par 4 may sound silly to you (and it should) but it would not sound at all silly to a tour caliber player! Again, the odd and varying power of "par perception".

The logical way to compromise and use that "par perception" correctly is when you play NGLA you play it with a card that's a par 73 and when a tour caliber player plays it he plays it with a card that says par 70!

And I gaurantee you with the differences in performance expectation it would be anything but silly.

[Sebonac]

Sure for Tiger, Vijay, Duval...You have a point...but for those guys the course needs a lot mroe than tweaking the par ratings on some of the par 5's....John Daly would be driving it over the midway bunkers on 9....I just think for 98% of the players....it is a solid 5 par....

Redanman....you make some excellent points.....for the solid country club player....#5 should be a par 4....It is rated way too low for tournaments also....

Back to my original question on 2....I do find it interesting how much praise #2 gets....thanks for the feedback....although I do beg to differ....

[THuckaby2]

VERY well stated, THE Doyen.  Illogical though it may be, par plays a BIG role in most golfers' perceptions.

I will add to the mix this:  when rating a course (in the course rating/slope determination sense), the figure "par" just plain doesn't exist.

Food for thought?

TH

[TEPaul]

".........permission to lay up."

"Permission. Phooey."

I read it, but....

If that's your response to the actual perception of par that can influence the decision making in the minds of tons of golfers, well, Allrighteee!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 18 a par 4, surely you jest, the screams would be heard across the sound !

Into the wind, with a left to right cross wind, or right to left cross wind, even downwind, the hole is treacherous as a
par 4.  Have you forgotten what lurks right, left and long of that green.

# 2 is a fabulous par 4 just the way it is.

Sebonic,

Lengthening # 7 may be a viable alternative, and there is plenty of room.  I think it would be a good "fine tuning"

# 2 also possesses the same subtle upward pitch as # 9,
just before the green, stopping balls hit just a hair short.

The second shot at # 18 is one of the scariest shots in golf, especially into a wind or with a good left to right wind.

And, # 7 as a par 4 would bring the screams as well, especially in three out of the four of the winds.  Miss that green in two and an up and down is doubtful for the best of players.

As to # 5, the cross bunkering would cause major hollering.

Leave the course as it is, to change the par is to change the charm.

[Sebonac]

Would you ever want to see #2 built today.....If this hole was built on some new course and your had never seen it before....would you still like it?  Or is it only for its historical significance.....and its present setting?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sebonic,

The first time I ever played # 2 it took some getting used to.

I think the same process would occur today.

It's a hole that grows on you.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The interesting thing about NGLA and the so-called half pars are they can be utilized to fit the games of various levels of players.

Possibly for something like the Singles #5 might be interesting as a par 4=par 72. For a higher level maybe #7 too=par 71--and if the Touring pros happened to play it with #18 also making the course par 70.

To the touring pros #18 would be no more than a long and very demanding closing hole as Pr 4!

I look at your last post and shake my head! "....the hole as a par 4 is treacherous, have you forgotten what lurks right and long?"

It may be to us and I wouldn't recommend it as a par 4 for us but we don't play like touring pros. But the fallacy is in the ironically different perception you have when the number is changed!! The hole's the same Pat! What lurks right and long is the same whether a 4 or a 5!

Pat, the hole is what it is! Whether it's a 4 or a 5 the idea is still to play the hole in the fewest shots and to avoid stroke costing mistakes in doing so!

You must admit the hole would be perceived differently if a 4 became a par and a 5 became a bogie, but still any intelligent golfer should be playing the hole the same way in the context of its risks/rewards!! Why on earth would a number change your strategy?? Unless of course you happen to fall prey to the card and pencil stroke play mentality.

But #18 as a par 4 should only be for the tour caliber player!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Are you saying that, coming into the last hole, qualifying for the Singles, and needing a par 5 to qualify, that you would play this hole the same way that you would if you needed a birdie 4, or a bogie 6 ??

Most of the time when I play, and when my friends play, score is important to me/us, perhaps some have forgotten the object of the game, to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.  This nonsense about card and stroke is contrary to the purpose of THE GAME.  When you qualify for the Singles, are you cognizant of your score the whole round, and especially coming into the 18th ?  Do you wander over to the first tee tent prior to hitting your third shot to see what's needed ? I do.

I find the beauty of the 18th hole is that it tends to get harder as you get closer to the green, especially when you need to do something on that hole, match or medal.

It is a par 5 that I could play everyday, and never tire of it.
As a par 4, I'd get tired pretty fast.

The hole presents different obstacles for touring pros.

The landing area gets narrower on the right side, and the do or die nature of the second shot, off an uphill lie, played with unsettling wind combined with the consequence of second shots hit left, right or long make this a birdie, par, bogie, double bogie, triple bogie hole for even the best players in the world.  Add a little tension, and a little more wind and the results could be devastating.

Due to the unpredictability of the wind, I'm not sure # 5 makes a good par 4, especially with the cross bunker, and I would prefer to see the tee on # 7 moved back before par is changed to 4.

We've seen amateurs turn the front nine 5, 6, and 7 under par, so the course does not present a US OPEN challenge to the tour player if you're trying to protect par.

[G.W.Roope]

Sebonac
You must be from the modern camp that looks for 18 finishing holes. These old gems are gems because they were not affraid of "bad" golf holes. Many of these "bad" holes ain't so bad and give these courses their character, their abscence is why so many new courses are without souls. It wouldn't matter if the course were built in 1900 or 2000, "bad" holes are good.

-George

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What ARE you talking about? Again, what are you talking about? I would say what you're talking about is "PAR" fixation run rampant!!

#18 NGLA is what it is!! The purpose of playing the hole, as is the purpose of playing golf, is to play in as few strokes as possible always considering the risks involved to your score in doing so.

It's the very same hole with the very same risks and rewards no matter whether it's call a 4 or a 5! How in the world could you enjoy playing it everyday as a 5 and tire of it as a 4? It's the same damn hole Pat! Why would a number make you look at the hole differently or play it differently!!

What you're saying, although you may not realize it, is a "par mentality" run rampant!!

What someone might have to shoot to qualify for the singles has nothing to do with the par of the hole!! It's the number on the hole you need to qualify for the Singles, period. If that was a 3 or a 6 it influences the way you play the hole and has nothing to do with the hole's par--all it has to do with is the number you need on that hole to qualify for the Singles!! Period!!

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Paul
You should know better by now not to get all flummoxed by Pat's comments.  There is a very simple explanation here.  On this thread, Pat's written words don't necessarily reflect his thinking, whereas on that other thread entitled “Does Scoring Matter?”, wherein Pat writes that score matters "only relative to the other golfers!", Pat's written words do reflect his thinking.  

[TEPaul]

Ken:

I write on here so much that for the record I should probably say, I never get flummoxed--certainly not by Pat's comments!

I might say though over the years I've become quite fascinated by Pat's comments and additionally even more fascinated by Pat himself.

I like to think that good architectural analysis should evidence a certain consistency of opinion and Pat's comments and architectural analyses are anything but consistent (just another example being what you just pointed out in those two topics).

It would be interesting to point out that Pat's comments are inconsistent particularly if his opinions are even remotely consistent with his comments.

That's not easy to do though since when it's been pointed out to Pat that his comments are inconsistent, he deflects that reality by explaining that his comments do not necessarily reflect his opinions and furthermore it's not important that any of us know what his real opinions are but only that we cogently answer his numerous questions embodied in his inconsistent comments!

And if we cannot consistently answer those questions (embodied in Pat's extraordinarily inconsistent comments) then Pat reminds us that proves he's right and we're wrong!

If this were a high school debating society the judges would have not only deemed Pat to have lost every single debate he was involved in but they would have thrown him out of the classroom long ago for not only exhibiting mind-numbing inconsistency of comment on the actual subject of the debate but for also attempting to browbeat the entire class (and the judges) into proving that the subject of the debate was relevant at all by producing more and more facts to disprove his ever changing and inconsistent comments!

I've decided that it's quite likely that Pat may have been a quadruple agent for both the CIA and the KGB and in the process so confused both agencies that they recommended just ending the entire Cold War!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

You've misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misunderstood my statement relative to what I write and what I think.

On a given issue what I write may be consistent with what I think.  

On another issue, what I write may not be consistent with what I think, but a position I choose to take for discussion purposes.

I see nothing inconsistent about that.  

TEPaul,

Fixation with Par ??

PAR is the STANDARD by which one's play of the hole is evaluated.

PAR is the STANDARD by which one's play of the golf course is evaluated.

Perhaps the concept of PAR hasn't reached the Philadelphia area yet.    

# 18 at NGLA as a par 4 would raise the standard for play of the hole far beyond my abilities.

Since my memory is fading fast, could you point out all of those inconsistencies that you mentioned I'm guilty of.

P.S.  If you're looking for inconsistencies, just read your above two posts, and your post on this thread dated,
May 17, 2002, 2:24pm, regarding par.  But, be advised, this is just what I'm writing, it could or couldn't be what I'm thinking      

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're damn right par 4 on NGLA's #18 would be raising the standard on that hole beyond your abilities--and beyond mine too! You didn't read my post did you? I don't think you ever really do--you just make snap assumptions that turn into inconsistent comments!

I mentioned that the par on #18 NGLA would be consistent with the standard ability of the tour pro level! If you don't believe that just go back and read what I wrote!

Point out your inconsistencies? I have time Pat, but I don't have that much time!!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Please don't cite my posts as apparent inconsistencies--do your best to explain why you think they're inconsistent--recognizing that may be very difficult for you, of all people, to do!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I achieved fairly high scores when I was tested for reading comprehension so I think I'm fairly capable of discerning inconsistencies.

For example, on one hand you tout par and the PERCEPTION of par in the first four paragraphs of your 05-17-02, 2:24pm post.  On the other hand, you completely dismiss par and the
PERCEPTION of par in your later posts, especially the last sentence of the third paragraph of your 05-30-02, 935pm post

Now you can't praise Coore & Crenshaw for designing, based on the perception of par, and claim I'm fixated on par because I state that the perception of par is important to me, that's just inconsistent.

With respect to # 18 at NGLA:
at 503 yards,
uphill all the way,
With fairway bunkers in critical positions
sitting on the edge of a cliff,
with a narrow green,
with a well bunkered green
with WIND

I'm not so sure the touring pros would fare so well on that hole
and would probably complain bitterly about it being a par 4.
Remember, they do play medal play, and view par and/or the perception of par as an important number.  

[Gib_Papazian]

Karl has made all sorts of subtle nips and tucks around that golf course, a few of which I could never have spotted. . . . so, although any major change to the golf course would be tantamount to defecating on the altar of American Golf, I personally think the following:

If they want to monkey with par for some major amateur tournaments at NGLA, it hardly matters. They do the same at Woodhall Spa and it does not seem to diminish the perception of the course. True enough, some of these guys are so frighteningly long that switching the par on a couple holes might get into their heads. The tee shot on #7 is difficult for a short knocker, but tension free for a gunner if he does not feel the need to blast one to get home in two with a mid-iron.

The original tee on #2 was to the right of the 1st green - Karl showed me where he blended in some putting surface and I would have never guessed the work was recent. Even with the marker all the way back on that runway tee, the hole is too easy for big hitters. I met a Scottish guy last year who was playing in the NGLA Singles who shot something like 6-under on the front nine, starting with an eagle on #2.

Sahara is one of my favorite holes in golf and anyone who suggests moving the green and making it a par-3 ought to be convicted of heresy and burned at the stake. Why don't we just fill in the quarry at Merion while we are at it?

All that needs to be done is to extend the bunker from the top of the hill down another 20 yards on the left side, gradually tapering off to the right.

Now, the carry is much longer, you retain the difficulty of the hole for mortals like me and anyone trying to gun one over the bunker to the green has to contend with that downslope and berm right in front of the putting surface.

Because the bunker tapers off from long left, gradually shortening to the right, guys will tend to bail out a bit to the right side because they will psychologically worry about making the carry or catching the downslope and blowing it over the green.

In that case, down they go to the pit of perdition.

I like Tom Paul's idea of jazzing up the 2nd shot on the 9th hole, it looks to me like there used to be a bunker over there in what is now rough and I wonder if there was more to the hole before on the 2nd shot.

If you examine the tee shot and see the diagonal movement of the fairway to the right, it is almost like the shape of the fairway ont he far side of the pit isn't quite oriented correctly.

All things considered, my vote would be not to touch a thing, (with one exception) but those changes would not prompt me to fly across the country and lie in front of the dozers.

As for the one thing I would do - and I've stated it before - the 12th hole sucks. It is nothing like C.B. intended and if they cannot move the tee back to where it belongs due to safety, then move the bunkers behind the double-plateau far to the right and try and parrot the original strategy.

That anthill putting surface is also sort of a head scratcher. Go take a look at the plasticine model of the hole on the wall in the maintenence shed. . . . . . George and I go round about this, but if I was Karl, I would build exactly what is on the wall. . . . . whether it ever was built that way or not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

How do you feel about lengthening the 7th hole, which could be done quite easily, rather than tinkering with par ?

Where was the original tee on # 2 ?
Are you talking about the current forward tee directly right of # 1 green ?
Are you sure the tee wasn't behind # 2 and Karl grafted the rear of the green into the tee relatively recently ?  
If not, when was the tee behind # 1 green built ?  The schematic dated 1928, in "Scotland's Gift" shows a tee behind # 1.  I tend to think the grafting between the old tee and the first green was done receently, with the tee having been there for some time.  George Bahto, can you help us.

I'm going to look closely at the tee on # 3 in terms of lengthening same without substantively changing the angle of the tee shot.  The schematic of 1928 shows additional room.

Could a tee be built for # 5 that is back and to the left of its current position, on the slope almost behind the 4th green ?
The angle of attack would barely change and this added length might make it a more challenging par 5 ?  I'll look at that as well.

# 8 could always be lenghthened.

# with respect to # 9, in the schematic in "Scotland's Gift"
there appear to be more bunkers up by the 10th tee.
Perhaps George Bahto can tell us how accurate that schematic is.

The schematic does not show a tee left of # 11 green, but the fairway bunker complex certainly looks as if it was built for one.  It would be neat if Karl built a small tee left of # 11 for experimental purposes.

# 14 could probably be lengthened at the tee without harming the angle of attack of the tee shot.

For years there has been talk about creating a new tee on the other side of the entrance road on # 18.  While it would add length it takes away the critical angle of the tee shot, almost taking the far left side fairway bunker out of play, and aims you away from the right side fairway hazard.  
I like the hole just the way it is.  If a few more yards could be squeezed straight back, I would take them.

The golf course has been lenghtened since it was built, and where certain holes can be lengthened, I would do so as long as the angles of attack aren't substantively changed.

What I am surprised about, is the difficult start when # 10 was # 1.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In the first post (without going back and reading it) I don't think I "touted" the perception of par! I merely stated that the "perception of par" very much exists in the minds of many players even very good players--even if a hole remains the same and the par number alone is all that changes! Again, that's not "touting" the perception of par on my part merely stating what I believe to be a fact (in the minds of some players)!

In the second post I probably mentioned that this "perception of par" (what you say I touted but did not) should not be of consequence in the minds of players (if the hole remains the same but the par number changes) because the hole is the same and the risks/rewards have not changed! This is extremely important since the idea is to play the hole in as few strokes as possible always considering the stroke costing risks!

So what you consider inconsistencies are not inconsistencies on my part but merely a statement of what I consider to be a "fallacy"!!! in the minds of some players when it comes to the "perception of par".

Put another and simpler way--in the minds of many players (obviously including you) "par" is the perception of what number THEY "should" play the hole in. What they sometimes seem to forget is that all players in the field are theoretically going to face the same problems and solutions so what does it really matter? What does par really matter in that case?

Statistically there are definitely many holes that are par 4s that throughout a pro tournament will play to a stroke average of say 4.5! There are also many par 5s in a pro tournament that will play to a stroke average of 4.5!!

So, I think you can probably see what this means in fact and reality and how "par perception" can sometimes skew things in the mind of a player although in actual fact, in a numbers context, it's somewhat meaningless!

Another good example might be Woods playing the Road Hole in one 4 and three 5s and being perfectly happy with that and still winning the tournament by a mile. He was smart enough to not fall into the "par perception" fallacy on that hole because he knew in reality very few players were going to play that hole in 4!!!--despite the fact that's its par!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

When was #10 the first hole?

[TEPaul]

The nines were turned around when the hotel burned down and the clubhouse was built where it is (near the beginning)! The interesting thing about the clubhouse being were it is now is also the road getting to it along the water which unfortunately made the alteration of #14!! (the original cape hole) necessary!

George Bahto:

Would you go for restoring the cape hole green where it once was and tunneling the road under #14? By the way, when the cape hole's green stuck out into the water, the walk to the 15th tee must have been very long! Where was #15 tee in the beginning? Even if it wasn't where it is now it still must have been a substantial walk from the original #14 green to #15 tee! The golfers must have had to walk back across the fairway going around to the left to get to #15 tee!

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,
When the clubhouse was the Shinnecock Hotel directly behind the 9th green. . . . . It burned down.

That is a point of issue with Rich Spear, who was discussing the pacing of NGLA with George and I a couple years ago. He does not like the current start and thinks the golf course plays better starting from the 10th tee, George used to tell me he agrees, but I do not know if he changed his mind. Maybe the icon can help us, I'll e-mail him.

As to the 2nd hole, all I know is what Karl and George have taught me, but let's not forget that C.B. moved a lot of thngs around over the years through his tinkering, so absolute definitive accuracy is beyond my knowledge.

There was certainly a tee either behind #11 or to the right, especially when you take note of the contouring of the fairway on the far side of the bunkers from that angle. Go Look at it next time you play it - what a gorgeous and intimidating carry! It is a shame that you cannot see a thing from the current 12th tee.

Lengthen #7? Why not? I am not one of those guys who think teeing grounds are sacrosanct - look at the new Road Hole tee at Piping Rock. It is outstanding. I just want to make sure those bunkers off the tee on #7 at NGLA are in play for the big hitter and if that is what needs to be done, then I say do it.

Those who have read my recent weekly rant understand that there is no law making it mandatory everyone play a "back back tee" just because it is there.

The 18th is a bit more complicated. The bunker to the left needs to be in play, so if moving the markers back across the road will accomplish that, all the better. I just don't want it to disturb the feng shui of the entrance - there is something holy about that little corner of the world.

My last 5 scores on the 18th are 5,7,10,4,4. . . . . that is plenty of challenge for the Armenian. The 10 at the last was a result of the very stupidity and arrogance Macdonald sought to punish. Somehow, I was feeling extra good and decided the hole would be easier by flying one over the left bunker . . . . . . and then compounded the error with the hallucination that I could sneak a 6-iron over the lip . . . and then a 7-iron. Good thing I one-putted!