Philadelphia Cricket Club, 3 courses, a great history and...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

a good coffee table book:



http://chestnuthilllocal.com/issues/2010.08.05/news2.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

The first time I played PCC I was really impressed.
It was a wonderful golf course.

I also got to see one of the great amateur golf matches, Bill Hyndman versus Chet Sanok, both really exceptional players.

What a day.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Here's an example of a course that underwent a major tree removal that made the course aesthetically more pleasing (at least to me), but substantially easier.  The tee shots on 2 (right side now wide open), 5 (left side now wide open), 7 (tree guarding right of green is gone), 9 (left side now wide open), 12 (left side now wide open), 15 (left side now wide open) are now markedly more forgiving, with no offsetting difficulty created.  I'm not the saying the course isn't better now, just that it's much easier.  To argue otherwise is to see the emperor's new clothes.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jim,

As you may know, the tree removal was first part of Foster's master plan.The second part-restoration of lost bunkers, etc- has been put on hold.

[Jim_Coleman]

I thought the membership rejected the Foster plan.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jim,

Given the economic climate of '09, the club members delayed the implementation of the renovation program. I guess you could call that a tempoary rejection of the second part of Foster's plan. The first part-tree removal- was done.

I understand the  turfgrass health has improved and as well as the overall playability due to the tree removal. I'll find out next month myself if it is "much easier."

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

It is my understanding that the club delayed implenattion of the plan and, as of now, are intending to do it next year.

[D_Malley]

"Here's an example of a course that underwent a major tree removal that made the course aesthetically more pleasing (at least to me), but substantially easier.  The tee shots on 2 (right side now wide open), 5 (left side now wide open), 7 (tree guarding right of green is gone), 9 (left side now wide open), 12 (left side now wide open), 15 (left side now wide open) are now markedly more forgiving, with no offsetting difficulty created.  I'm not the saying the course isn't better now, just that it's much easier.  To argue otherwise is to see the emperor's new clothes."

Jim,
Give them a few years to grow much more healthy rough in some of the areas where the trees have been removed and you would not say that it became easier.

after all take away the thick rough at merion and you could say the same thing.

[Jim_Coleman]

Time will tell, but I will be very surprised if the Cricket membership would tolerate Merion-type rough.  And I'm not sure it's great architecture if the course's primary defense is unplayable rough.  There's no question in my mind that Cricket needs major bunker work to regain it's teeth.  (I didn't say greatness, just teeth.  I think it's great now.)  We'll see.

[Bill Hyde]

    Here's an example of a course that underwent a major tree removal that made the course aesthetically more pleasing (at least to me), but substantially easier.  The tee shots on 2 (right side now wide open), 5 (left side now wide open), 7 (tree guarding right of green is gone), 9 (left side now wide open), 12 (left side now wide open), 15 (left side now wide open) are now markedly more forgiving, with no offsetting difficulty created.  I'm not the saying the course isn't better now, just that it's much easier.  To argue otherwise is to see the emperor's new clothes.

I would assume it's easier because it was done in anticipation of phase 2 being approved. Not being aware of the Foster plans, I am guessing they would "toughen it up."

[D_Malley]

Jim,
I agree with you that Merion type rough is not ideal for any club.
but many of the areas where they have or will be removing trees are in areas with the less desireable angles for second shots. 
with as i stated "healthy rough" combined with more consistant firm conditions, the architecture of PCC will shine.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

Have you seen the Master Plan that Keith did and understand what he is proposing that the course will be when done?

[John Blain]

    Here's an example of a course that underwent a major tree removal that made the course aesthetically more pleasing (at least to me), but substantially easier.  The tee shots on 2 (right side now wide open), 5 (left side now wide open), 7 (tree guarding right of green is gone), 9 (left side now wide open), 12 (left side now wide open), 15 (left side now wide open) are now markedly more forgiving, with no offsetting difficulty created.  I'm not the saying the course isn't better now, just that it's much easier.  To argue otherwise is to see the emperor's new clothes.

Is it that much easier that the average score for a member is siginificantly lower? 

[Jim_Coleman]

    I did see the master plan.  It looked interesting, and I'm sure would result in a better course.  Politics can be tough however, not to mention the economy.  As for whether the members scores have gone up, I could care less.  Opening up 6 of 14 tee shots makes a course easier.  Not worse, mind you; just easier.  Worse is subjective; easier is objective.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

You may have misunderstood what I meant when I asked if you had seen the master plan and understood what Keith was proposing that the course will be.

I asked that because you had stated, "There's no question in my mind that Cricket needs major bunker work to regain it's teeth..." Actually that is one of the important aspects of what he has proposed. he wants to restore the bunkers to what they both were and should have been. Even ater the 1927 course revisions, the bunkers were NOT BUILT according to the plans, in many cases both in shape and locations with some not being built at all. This can be shown by comparing the drawings of the proposed changes with the aerial photographs taken beginning just a few years later.

Keith's Plan not only restores the "teeth" into the course but also brings back many subtle aspects of the basic design that Tilly originally created. By removing the trees several important things are now accomplishable. First, by redoing the bunkers the angles of play becaome far more critical so that shot options not only increase but risk/reward decisions do as well. Second, by the additional sunlight the turf becomes much healthier. This is important as the putting surfaces will be expanded in a number of locations as well, again creating more challenging risk/reward options for those shots being played into them.

The Wissahickon course is a fine one; with this master plan implemented it has the potential to be an outstanding one.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I hope they have the cajones to do the work!

[mike_malone]

 Jim,

    It may be true that "easier" is objective but it isn't true because you think it is so just because trees are gone. To determine if it is easier you would need to compare scores /handicaps before and after the changes if your defintion of "easier" is that people score lower. I prefer the definition of "easier" to be less challenging. Based on that defintion a punch out is an easy shot followed usually by another easier shot. But, when trees aren't present and the intended design elements come into play on the next shot the shot is more challenging thus "harder" .

    Since most courses don't bother doing a score or handicap analysis the alternative defintion makes more sense. Is the resulting shot more challenging than the "nongolf" shot ---the punchout?

[Jim_Coleman]

Mike:
    I don't know why I bother to engage you on this topic.  When, after trees are removed, one can hit a wild tee shot and still have a shot to a green, whereas, when the trees were there, it was IMPOSSIBLE to hit the same tee shot to the green, THEN THAT HOLE IS EASIER TO SHOOT A LOWER SCORE ON.  There can be no debate about this, and one doesn't need statistical proof.  Whether the hole is better without the trees is a different question.

[mike_malone]

 You are so sure you are right, Jim, and you think it is  so obvious that you don't engage your mind. Just because a tree is gone and you now can make a real golf swing does not make a hole easier. What it does is create a different kind of a shot. For many on this site the value of the originally designed shot is a high one. They tend not to like the shots forced by trees added against the original intent because it changes the shot from an interesting and challenging shot to one that is rather programmed and boring.

   What it comes down is that golf is a game where we plan the best possible responses to challenges BUT FAIL OFTEN ! When our plan is simple or boring like a punch out it usually is easy to execute. The challenging shot is harder.


I honestlly don't believe average scores ON WELL DESIGNED courses are different before or after tree removal . You are correct that without the tree one has an unimpeded shot but that is where the execution fails more often. So, sometimes one will score lower because the tree is gone but sometimes they will do worse than the punchout to a shorter shot. It all averages out. But if you could prove it rather than just speak louder I would think about it.

    

  The most important thing is that well designed courses are designed SPECIFICALLY for the recovery shot not a punchout.

   What is distressing is that many clubs have added trees in an effort to make their course harder and have lost their course in the process.

    I do believe that you think your harder course is a better course.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:
    I don't know why I bother to engage you on this topic.  When, after trees are removed, one can hit a wild tee shot and still have a shot to a green, whereas, when the trees were there, it was IMPOSSIBLE to hit the same tee shot to the green, THEN THAT HOLE IS EASIER TO SHOOT A LOWER SCORE ON.  There can be no debate about this, and one doesn't need statistical proof.  Whether the hole is better without the trees is a different question.

Jim:

Oakmont yielded much lower scores at the 1973 and 1994 US Opens with lots of trees compared to the 2007 US Open, when it had no trees.

[mike_malone]

 Phil,

   I wish I had read your post before I posted my long and windy one

[Jim_Coleman]

Phil:
   Do you think the conditions may have been different?  Wind?  Rough?  Firmness?  Speed?  I challenge anyone to explain how, by taking a tree away so that a poorly hit shot leaves a direct shot to the green, the hole does not become easier to shoot a lower score on.  (How's that for grammar?)  It is simply not possible to argue otherwise.  To do so would require the player with nothing between him and the hole to chip out rather than go for the green as the best choice of shot.  Again, I am not arguing the hole is better with the tree, only easier to shoot a lower score.  Mike: yes a 20 yard chip-out is easier to execute than a tricky angled long shot, but it's still counts as a shot.
   This is one of the dumbest arguments ever had on this site.

[JESII]

   This is one of the dumbest arguments ever had on this site.

Agreed...and I'm even in the Merion ones...


Mike M,

You're taking offense to "easier" when Jim made a concerted effort to distinguis easier from worse, you should reconsider his position.

More specifically, pick any one hole at Philly Cricket that went through significant tree removal and describe how it is now more difficult for you, or any other human being.


Phil,

The rough at Oakmont more than replaces the demands/challenges of the trees...at least under US Open conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,

Today, I witnessed not once, but twice, a tree prevent a poorly struck shot from going out of bounds.

I think you may agree that there are instances where trees PREVENT a poor decision in attempting to hit a green or target from an angle where the shot would require significant skill to execute. In these cases, the golfer must overcome temptation of having the clear shot.

Who lays up because of a poor angle?

The tree on the left side of the 11th green at Huntingdon Valley came down in a storm several years ago and now more people shoot for the back left hole location to a narrow, oddly angled green fronted by a creek. Is the shot now more possible? Yes. Is the hole easier? No.

[JESII]

Kyle,

I think the hole is substantially easier.

You and Mike are confusing Quality (the ability to force a bad decision is certainly a positive mark in terms of Quality) with difficulty. Losing that tree on #11 at HVCC allows a tremendous amount of shots onto the green that would have previously not reached it.

Difficulty is the result of scores on the hole, not the decisions you need to make. It's measurable.