[Patrick_Mucci]

the bunker be moved, or should the bunker be left intact with a new, similar bunker introduced in the DZ to replicate the intent of the original bunker ?

Does this thread apply to the Mac bunker at 10 ANGC?

Carl,

The "Mac bunker on 10 at ANGC" at one time serviced the 10th green, which was moved back considerably.
In addition, the hole, originally 430 from the Masters' tees is today about 500.

Relocating the green back to the mini-plateau made replicating that bunker near impossible as the natural terrain was more than sufficient as a defensive feature.

I don't think the bunker at # 10 served the same purpose, off the tee, that the bunker/s on # 16 serve/d

[Patrick_Mucci]

On the 17th hole at GCGC, the carry from the tee to clear the diagonal fairway bunker is 188 yards.
That bunker has an elevated berm.
That bunker is elevated above the tee, as is the entire fairway.

Into the prevailing wind, when it's slightly cool and moisture laden, that carry if 188 yards is not to be taken for granted.

On many occassions, while hitting a solid, albeit low drive, my ball has found that bunker, as have the balls of many other good golfers I've been playing with.

In 1899, 1929, 1949 that bunker had to have been an extremely challenging carry, forcing most golfers to aim to the narrow neck right of the bunker, which is the same dilema on # 16, except they aimed left of the bunker.

I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.

[Steve Burrows]

It seems to me an attempt to recreate the intent of the DZ (however that is being defined) would not be limited to simply moving the complex of bunkers in the middle and right side of the fairway.  Doing that actually would create another problem.  Moving them closer to the green would create a disconnect with the historical spatial relationship that complex has with the bunkers on the left side, the ones further down the fairway.  In other words, doing nothing else besides moving the bunkers on the right further down the fairway would narrow the DZ considerably, creating a situation that is completely unharmonious with the original intent.  

Steve, I'm not so sure of that in that the DZ is pretty generous.
In addition, the ball goes much straighter today.
The bunkers are also "offset", and that "offset" could be achieved further down the fairway.

I don't know that anyone is claiming that the identical function/configuration would be returned.
In geometric terms, I think you can achieve a similar, but not a congruent configuration

An alternative, of course, would be to also move the three bunkers on the left further down the fairway, but then you have increased both the scope and cost of the work,

I don't think that would be a major impediment.
Alternatively, you could just add bunkers on the left, while keeping the current bunkers


and (as Brian Izatt has mentioned) have still left yourself in a situation whereby even though you have potentially regained the shot value(s) of the drive, there is nothing you can do to regain the original shot value(s) of the second shot.  

I stated that, early on.
I also reiterated that point when I stated that a half a loaf is better than none.

Pat has reinforced the fact that there is no more land available, and the green cannot be moved.  That said, I am just not convinced that metaphor of a "half loaf" of bread that Pat has used is enough to justify any work, especially when Pat admits (in Reply 65) that even today, with the right weather conditions and the right pressure situation, these bunkers actually can challenge modern players.

There are two issues.
The concept or architectural/playability issue
Cost justification.
It's been my limited experience that if the concept is accepted, the money will be raised.
One only has to look at # 12 for proof.

Yet another alternative solution to this "so-called" problem would simply be to stop using modern equipment when you play courses with otherwise antiquated features such as being discussed.

That's not a practical or even a remote possibility at the local level. Quite the contrary.  It is at the local level that this discussion is the most practical.  It is no different that playing golf one day with an old-fashioned bullseye putter in your bag and playing with Scotty Cameron on the next day.
Only a USGA sanctioned rollback would accomplish what you suggest.Again, this is simply not the case.  I was never suggesting large scale changes by the USGA; obviously they would never make such a decision.  Rather, I was saying that this is a personal decision.  I was saying that if YOU (or anyone else) felt that certain features of a given golf course were no longer relevant given the advancements in balls and clubs, then YOU could make the decision to play hickory clubs at that course.  One does not need permission from the USGA to play hickories.  And surely making the switch would allow a modern player to better experience the "original intent" of the driving zone (at this course other otherwise) without any alterations to the golf course itself.

I think the problem you and others may be having is that you're ignoring the concept and confining your thoughts to a hole I merely offered as an example

I suspect that if any of us picked up a set of hickory-shafted clubs and a haskell ball (or even a ball that predates these) and played GCGC we would have all the challenge we would need.  

I think you're correct and will have Mike Policano and other hickory players play the course in the Spring.
I think that will be a neat experiment, not just on# 16, but other holes as well, even from the "member" tees.Then extending the "experiment" to everyday play, for those who chose to do so, would be very easy.  Again, no action is necessary from the USGA, only the personal decision to play hickories.

And, moreover, this alternative eliminates any need to undertake unnecessary, and potentially disfiguring, alterations to what is effectively a living museum of golf course architectural history.  

While I generally agree, it's not going to happen.
You won't convert/transition play from modern equipment to hickories.

But your point brings a viable alternative into play, an alternative that isn't greeted with open arms by many.
Lengthening at the tee end where possible.
On # 16, you're land locked, but that's not a universal, although many of the holes with carry bunkers have limited length available.
#'s 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 have very limited room to extend the carries.

But again, the concept and discussion shouldn't be confined to a few holes at GCGC

[Steve Burrows]

On the 17th hole at GCGC, the carry from the tee to clear the diagonal fairway bunker is 188 yards.
That bunker has an elevated berm.
That bunker is elevated above the tee, as is the entire fairway.

Into the prevailing wind, when it's slightly cool and moisture laden, that carry if 188 yards is not to be taken for granted.

On many occassions, while hitting a solid, albeit low drive, my ball has found that bunker, as have the balls of many other good golfers I've been playing with.

In 1899, 1929, 1949 that bunker had to have been an extremely challenging carry, forcing most golfers to aim to the narrow neck right of the bunker, which is the same dilema on # 16, except they aimed left of the bunker.

I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.

Then what is the point of this thread?  If you admit that these bunkers (on both 16 and 17 at GCGC, and surely many others at older golf courses) are not to be taken for granted, even today, then why would anyone entertain suggestions to move them?  They are indeed relevant to the modern game.  Yes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Then what is the point of this thread?  

If you admit that these bunkers (on both 16 and 17 at GCGC, and surely many others at older golf courses) are not to be taken for granted, even today, then why would anyone entertain suggestions to move them?

I didn't equate the bunker on # 17 with the bunker on # 16.

The bunker on # 17 is  uphill, requires a longer carry and is directly into the prevailing wind.

My citing of the bunker on # 17 was to demonstrate to Bryan Izatt that carry distances in 1899, 1929 and 1949 brought those bunkers into play. 

They are indeed relevant to the modern game.  Yes?

Not on # 16.

And not to golfers whose ability dictates that they play from the back tees.

[Tim Martin]

I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives.

Pat-I think that is true for sure and many people are shocked when they see the data read outs on a launch monitor.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

For your consideration:

From Golf Illustrated in 1929, a description of holes at Winged Foot for the US Open and the clubs players were expected to hit.  I draw your attention to the par 3's that are all at or beyond your GCGC 173 yard carry.








______________________________________


Also from the same edition, a separate article about "Our New Golf Ball".  It uses drives of 240 to 250 yards as a reference point in pointing out how much distance will be lost with the new larger ball to be introduced in 1931.  Seems like there were concerns about carry distances and hazards, even in 1929.  The USGA discussion took place at  Pine Valley, so here also is a picture of PV included with the article. 










_________________________________________


I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?


__________________________________________


Lastly, vis-a-vis the prevailing wind at GCGC, here are multiyear wind roses for LaGuardia, JFK and Farmingdale/Republic that more or less surround GCGC and are each about 10 miles away.  These ones are from July.  The other summer months are similar.  If you want the wind at your back on that hole you should try April or October.  The hole plays ESE.  As you can see the wind doesn't come directly from that direction very often in the summer months.  Most often, maybe 50% of the time, it will be across from right to left and either a bit into or a bit behind on that tee.  It seems to be helping blow the ball back in bounds and away from the rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

For your consideration:

From Golf Illustrated in 1929, a description of holes at Winged Foot for the US Open and the clubs players were expected to hit.  I draw your attention to the par 3's that are all at or beyond your GCGC 173 yard carry.

Bryan,

Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough.

Did you notice the words "U.S.Open"

There's no U.S. Open at GCGC

We're talking about amateurs, members and guests.

Thus your reference to WF is totally irrelevant.
If you were familiar with WFW, which you're not, you would know that Billy Casper, in winning the Open in 1959, played short of # 3 in every round.  In addition both # 3, # 7 and # 13 have openings allowing for run in shots and that # 10 tee is elevated well above the green thus making it play far shorter.  Once again your ignorance leads you to draw flawed conclusions.

As to the second article, you disingenuously equate overall distance with carry distance.
And that's not the first time you've tried that tactic.

As to the wind charts they confirm what I said.
A cross wind in your face takes distance off the ball.
As to pushing your ball away from out of bounds, wouldn't that mean that the wind would push your ball into the deep bunkers and tall rough left, causing you to aim further right, over the bunker requiring the longer carry.

Of course you wouldn't know any of this because you've never seen the hole, let alone played it.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't provide you with insight regarding the play of a hole, especially # 16.

I'd suggest that you stick to holes that you've actually played when offering advice regarding how they play

P.S.  I've only been playing WFW for about 60 years.

[Bryan Izatt]

Glad you enjoyed the articles and found them informative.  

I must say that when I read the "new ball" article an image came to mind of Mr Patrick Mucci Sr leading the charge to move bunkers closer to the tee to deal with the lost yardage associated with the larger, lighter ball.

I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?

I did notice that you didn't answer this question.  I did a little more research (I know you don't like to do that) and it turns out that at amateur tournaments/outings in 1899 it was common to have driving competitions.  For the men, a sampling of winning distances were 185, 142, 104, 172, and 207 yards.  For women, the distances were 100, 144, 90, 124, 142, and 145 yards.  Of course these were probably before dimpled Haskell balls.  Seems way shorter than 1929.  If the hole at GCGC was built at 405 yards (or 466 yards as you previously reported) before 1899 then it must have been an impossible par 4 to reach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

quote author=Bryan Izatt link=topic=57012.msg1330909#msg1330909 date=1383109058]

Glad you enjoyed the articles and found them informative.   

I must say that when I read the "new ball" article an image came to mind of Mr Patrick Mucci Sr leading the charge to move bunkers closer to the tee to deal with the lost yardage associated with the larger, lighter ball.

Patrick Mucci Sr played in U.S. Opens and U.S. Amateurs, so there's no need for you to worry your little head about his ability to play golf.
He was very accomplished.

I was curious if you thought that carry distances were relatively similar in 1899, 1929 and 1949?

No, I don't think they were.

I did notice that you didn't answer this question.

Which question ?

 I did a little more research (I know you don't like to do that) and it turns out that at amateur tournaments/outings in 1899 it was common to have driving competitions.

For the men, a sampling of winning distances were 185, 142, 104, 172, and 207 yards.

So, should we judge the play of holes, today, based upon the distances that the ReMax long drive contestants hit the ball.

You continue to introduce inance, irrelevant and moronic issues, having no bearing on the topic at hand.

By the way, who played in these amateur tournaments ?  The best amateurs in the area  
Again, are you suggesting that we judge how a hole plays based upon the drives of the best players, in a driving contest, completely ignoring the members who play the hole/course every day.

Remind me again, how many times have you played # 16 ?

For women, the distances were 100, 144, 90, 124, 142, and 145 yards. 
Of course these were probably before dimpled Haskell balls.  Seems way shorter than 1929. 

If the hole at GCGC was built at 405 yards (or 466 yards as you previously reported) before 1899 then it must have been an impossible par 4 to reach.

Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course

I don't know why you don't know that the last 80 yards or so are downhill

Another point of note.
Driving contests are irrelevant, since there's no consequence for failure.
No need for precision and the contestants usually had several opportunities to hit a drive.
You're probably not aware of this, but, when playing golf, you don't get to hit 5 drives per hole and pick your best one.

You can research that too

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrrick,

Some time ago you made the statement,

A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.

Now you say,

Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course

Was there an 18 hole course in 1899?

Did the 16th hole exist at 405 yards in 1899?  

Why did you raise 1899 in the first place?

I have provided some information about driving distances in 1929 and 1899.  I thought they were interesting.  Why are you getting so exercised about this?

I am now of the opinion that a carry of 173 yards would have been very difficult in 1899, but not so difficult in 1929 and not difficult at all in 1949.  You raised those years in relation to a carry of 173 yards.  You apparently think differently.  So be it.

By the way, the Haskell ball article I posted laments that "an amateur" made a 340 yard hole in one on TOC in 1920.  I know it's only one instance, but it demonstrates that some people on some occasions could drive the early Haskell ball quite far.  

All of this has nothing to do with the 16th at GCGC and whether I've played it or not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrrick,

Some time ago you made the statement,

Quote
A carry of 173 in 1899, 1929 or 1949 was still substantial, especially considering the prevailing wind.

Now you say,

Quote
Before 1899 there was no 18 hole golf course

Was there an 18 hole course in 1899?

Yes, but there was no 18 hole golf course before 1899.
In your post above, you stated that the hole was built before 1899 and I was just correcting you.

Did the 16th hole exist at 405 yards in 1899?

There's some conflict regarding the length of the hole in 1899, so, I can't say, definitively  

Why did you raise 1899 in the first place?

Because that's the year the 18 hole course opened, so it seemed like a good starting point.

I have provided some information about driving distances in 1929 and 1899.  I thought they were interesting.  
Why are you getting so exercised about this?

I'm not getting exercised in the least, except that your citing of those driving distances is disingenuous in the context of the play of the 16th hole by members/guests.  You cite the driving distances of the best players in the country and then present that as if that's typical of those playing the hole.  In addition, you presented total driving distances as if they were carry distances, and that too is disingenuous.

I am now of the opinion that a carry of 173 yards would have been very difficult in 1899, but not so difficult in 1929 and not difficult at all in 1949.  You raised those years in relation to a carry of 173 yards.  You apparently think differently.  So be it.

I do feel differently.
And, I offered how a carry of 188 yards, just 15 yards further, isn't always easy to make, today.

By the way, the Haskell ball article I posted laments that "an amateur" made a 340 yard hole in one on TOC in 1920.  I know it's only one instance, but it demonstrates that some people on some occasions could drive the early Haskell ball quite far.  

How many times must I repeat, the issue isn't total distance, but carry distance.
Watch "Tin Cup" and you'll see a guy drive the ball 800 yards

All of this has nothing to do with the 16th at GCGC and whether I've played it or not.

Of course it does.
You rendered an opinion regarding the carry on the 16th, yet, you've never set foot on the property.
You've never seen the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye.
You've never felt the breeze in your face.
You never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory, so how credible can your opinion be absent any first hand experience on playing the hole ?

I did like the wind info at JFK, LaGuardia and Republic, although, JFK is on the south shore, LaGuardia on the North shore and Republic a little further east.

[Bryan Izatt]

I rendered an opinion on a carry of 173 yards in 1899, 1929, and 1949 - years of your suggestion.  

I provided information that the winds in the summer at GCGC are often, but not the majority time, crossing or slightly into you on that hole.  

I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.  Have you provided any information or facts?  Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.

"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of  their attention to the art of long
driving. They  have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.

How exactly would feeling the breeze in my face (which wouldn't be all that often directly in my face)  affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?

How exactly would personally seeing "the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye" affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?

How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1929 using the balls and equipment of that era?

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1849 using the balls and equipment of that era?  How old were you in 1949?

How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?

[Jeff_Brauer]

" I think many overestimate their carry distances, especially when they hit low trajectory drives. "

Pat, no joke.  Having the aerial photos and accurate as built maps of courses I designed, I then watch where balls land, and I would guess that players overestimate how far they hit it throughout all play levels.

At the top, I once stacked my team for a charity event with players from my son's college golf team.  One said he hit it 345.  However, he was short of the shortest par 4, and on a 420 hole (just two examples) by more than 120 yards.  Even with the small dogleg, his tee shot measured out to 290.  I can only guess that, like all of us, he remembers his one 345 tee shot.....

Just recently, I am building a 327 yard "driveable" par 4 from the back tees.  The pro shop guys all said they drive 320, but came up well short of the green, even with the hole playing downhill nearly 100 feet, which should shorten it by 30 yards effectively.

The overestimation of the 225 hitters is - wait for it......legendary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I rendered an opinion on a carry of 173 yards in 1899, 1929, and 1949 - years of your suggestion.  

Your opinion is not quite worthless, whereas the years are a reasonable collection.

I provided information that the winds in the summer at GCGC are often, but not the majority time, crossing or slightly into you on that hole.
You cited the winds for two weeks in July on one site and 4 weeks of July on the other two sites.
Hardly the extent of the golfing season at GCGC.
The question would be, did you limit your citation to those times most favorable to your argument ?
I would tend to think so.
 

I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.

No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.  

Have you provided any information or facts?  

Yes.

I've played the hole HUNDREDS of times, at all times of year and under all conditions.
And, I've provided facts based upon those plays

Remind us again, how many times have you played the hole.



Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.

"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of  their attention to the art of long
driving. They  have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.

Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.
And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.

How exactly would feeling the breeze in my face (which wouldn't be all that often directly in my face)  affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?

SIGNIFICANTLY

How exactly would personally seeing "the visual that the multiple features send to the golfer's eye" affect how far a ball would carry in 1899, 1929 or 1949?

You can't be that obtuse, can you ?

How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?

I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?

The same as you

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1929 using the balls and equipment of that era?

I didn't, but, my dad was a very good player in 1929 and based on conversations with him, I think I have a much better understanding of golf, and the play of the game, in that era and every era since then.

What's your experience ?

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1849 using the balls and equipment of that era?

Unfortunately NOBODY played the hole and attempted to carry it in 1849 as that was 50 years BEFORE it was built

How old were you in 1949?

7
How old were you ?

How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?

I guess you are that obtuse.

Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?

[Bryan Izatt]

...............................

I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.

No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.

Wrong again.  There were multiple events in 1899, all small club level amateur events with small local fields and winning scores in the mid 80's.  

................................


Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.

"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of  their attention to the art of long
driving. They  have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry. There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.

Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.

Really?  I have highlighted the part about carry distance in the quote above.  I know your eyes are bad, but I hope you can see it now.

And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.

Who knew that it rarely rained on Long Island in the 50's and 60's?!  I suppose you can interpolate that "fact" to 1899, 1929 and 1949.

.....................................................

How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?

I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.

Well, you'd lose.

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?

The same as you

That is - never.

.........................................................

How old were you in 1949?

7
How old were you ?

Just fact checking to be sure you really hadn't been playing the course in 1899, 1929 or 1949.  Slightly younger than you.  So ,we can agree that neither of us played the course in the years you quoted and so can't comment on how it played in those years.  We can both have opinions on carry distances in those years.

How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?

I guess you are that obtuse.

Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?

Why, yes I have.  But, clearly you don't know what it means.  Perhaps you meant extrapolation, but then I doubt you did either in the mathematical sense.  Here for your edification is a brief definition of both.

"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known.

Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values."

Happy interpolation.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Ooops, I forgot to add, yes the wind charts were from July. May through September were very similar.  April and October and the winter have helping winds.  Go check it out, it's not hard to find.  But then you wouldn't want to confuse yourself with facts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ooops, I forgot to add, yes the wind charts were from July. May through September were very similar.  April and October and the winter have helping winds.  Go check it out, it's not hard to find.  

But then you wouldn't want to confuse yourself with facts.

The "facts" are how the wind blows on the 16th hole at GCGC, not on the South shore at JFK or on the North shore at LGA,

Have you ever played the 16th ?

Have you ever stood on the 16th tee and noticed how the wind will affect your drive ?

You did say that you were interested in the facts, didn't you ?

Now, I've only played the 16th hole a few hundred times in all kinds of conditions,

what "facts" do you have to support your position on the play of the 16th hole ?

[Bryan Izatt]

You seem to have missed the point yet again.  I'm dealing with the difficulty of a 173 yard carry in general for your selection of years.  For that you have no facts and I provided some anecdotal contemporaneous information.  And, I was dealing with your claims about the wind at GCGC.  For that I provided you with the facts on wind directions for Farmingdale/Republic as well as JFK and La Guardia, all within 10 miles of GCGC and Farmingdale is even inland like GCGC.

Time to move on.  Thanks for the incentive to do a little research on driving distances back in the day before either of us were born.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

...............................

I provided information from 1899 and 1929 about driving distances.

No you didn't.
You only cited extremely limited information regarding two events, where the competitors were the best golfers in the country or at the event.

Wrong again.  There were multiple events in 1899, all small club level amateur events with small local fields and winning scores in the mid 80's.  

They were long driving events where the contestants were amongst the best players of the day, and not reprsentative of the membership.
You citation is disingenuous, in form and substance.

................................


Here's one more piece of information about carry distance in 1920 from American Golfer.

"Modern women players of the
front rank have devoted a great deal
of  their attention to the art of long
driving. They  have been granted
plenty of facilities for playing on
men‘s courses and so they have had
to strive for length.
"They have been remarkably suc-
cessful in securing) it. I would esti-
rnate " says the Daily Mail corre-
spondent, "that, on an average, Miss
Leitch drove at least 210 yards at
Mid-Surrey, and the distance was
nearly all carry.

So here we're supposed to believe that there was little if any roll to
the drive of 210.

Like most articles, one has to doubt the veracity/accuracy.
Probably a 40 mph wind at her back as well.

A 210 carry in 1920 by a women is preposterous, but makes for good press

And you consider this reliable information ?

There were definite
proofs of the length of her shots at
several holes. At the sixteenth, of
220 yards, for instance, she drove on
to the green and obtained a 3. And
she is by no means the only long
driver—or even the longest—among
women players.

Once again, you deliberately confuse overall distance with carry distance.

Really?  I have highlighted the part about carry distance in the quote above.  I know your eyes are bad, but I hope you can see it now.

It's sheer fantasy, but, I can see why you'd post it.

And, you completely ignore the fact that automated irrigation systems hadn't even been thought of.
Driving, even in the 50's and 60's was often akin to hitting it down a runway on an airport.

Who knew that it rarely rained on Long Island in the 50's and 60's?!  I suppose you can interpolate that "fact" to 1899, 1929 and 1949.

Since you cited the winds in July on sections of Long Island you shouldn't have any problem ascertaining what the typical rainfall in July is.
Not much is it

.....................................................

How do you know that I "never had to drive the ball with a high, rather than a low trajectory"?

I know that you haven't done it at GCGC.
And, I'm willing to wager that you don't have the talent to do so on command, when faced with obstacles that call for carry or roll.

Well, you'd lose.

What would you like to wager ?

How many times did you play the hole and attempt the carry in 1899 using the balls and equipment of that era?

The same as you

That is - never.

.........................................................

How old were you in 1949?

7
How old were you ?

Just fact checking to be sure you really hadn't been playing the course in 1899, 1929 or 1949.  Slightly younger than you.  So ,we can agree that neither of us played the course in the years you quoted and so can't comment on how it played in those years.  We can both have opinions on carry distances in those years.

Except that I have the experience of accompanying my dad when he played in major tournaments and I have the benefit of listening to the many conversations, in and out of household that took place, and I can assure you that my understanding of how golf was played in 1949 far exceeds yours.

How old were you in 1949 ?  I see that you avoided answering that question when previously asked.

How exactly would playing the hole today inform me about how the hole played in 1899, 1929, or 1949 with the balls, equipment and techniques of the day?

I guess you are that obtuse.

Have you ever heard of the term, "interpolation" ?

Why, yes I have.  But, clearly you don't know what it means.  Perhaps you meant extrapolation, but then I doubt you did either in the mathematical sense.  Here for your edification is a brief definition of both.

"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known.

Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values."

Happy interpolation.  

Once again you conveniently omit the other definitions.
Why doesn't that surprise me ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You seem to have missed the point yet again.  I'm dealing with the difficulty of a 173 yard carry in general for your selection of years.  For that you have no facts and I provided some anecdotal contemporaneous information.  

And, I was dealing with your claims about the wind at GCGC.  For that I provided you with the facts on wind directions for Farmingdale/Republic as well as JFK and La Guardia, all within 10 miles of GCGC and Farmingdale is even inland like GCGC.

Your wind charts are accurate in terms of the wind direction for two to four weeks in July at JFK, LGA and FRG, but, not at GCGC.

I've played the 16th at GCGC over 100 times and have a good sense of how the wind affects my drives on the hole.
How many times have you played the hole ?
What's the basis for your opinion on how the drive is impacted by wind, humidity, temperature, etc., etc.. ?

The Travis is held in May.
I've played in the Travis when it was 38 and raining.
Do you think your 1920 "women" could clear that 173 yard bunker under those conditions.
Sunny and warm conditions ?

Time to move on.  Thanks for the incentive to do a little research on driving distances back in the day before either of us were born.  

So you were born after 1949.
That would help to explain your lack of familiarity with how golf was played in the 40's and 50's.

[Bryan Izatt]

Having trouble moving on are you?  Keep on disbelieving.  



The wind roses are inaccurate and not relevant 10 miles away.  Uh-huh.

The carry distance wasn't as the magazine stated.  Uh-huh.

The 1899 driving competitions were amongst the best players of the day playing in local club competitions.  Uh huh.

There's another definition of interpolation that's relevant Uh-huh.

I was born after 1949.  Uh-huh.  

__________________________


Will I be as surly a curmudgeon as you when I pass 70?  No wait, you were a surly curmudgeon when you were my age.  I should be safe.


To quote that famous GCA Shakespearean Expert:  "Brutus doth protest too much."  Who knew you were talking about yourself.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The wind roses are inaccurate and not relevant 10 miles away.  Uh-huh.

No, not really, especially when you consider that two sites are directly on the water.

My experience on # 16 is based upon well over 100 plays of the hole, what's yours ?

The prevailing wind/s at GCGC have the 1st and 3rd hole playing downwind and the 2nd hole playing into the wind.
That means that the 16th hole often plays into about the same wind as # 2.
That means that the carry is into the wind.

The carry distance wasn't as the magazine stated.  Uh-huh.

The magazine NEVER stated that.
You need to read more carefully.
What the magazine stated was that the correspondent "ESTIMATED" the driving distance he observed, never having actually measured it.
And, the notion that there was no roll on the ball just adds more doubt as to the accuracy of the "correspondent's estimate.
Consistent 200+ yard carries by a woman in 1920 is beyond believable.

Tell us, in 1920 and 1929, before the advent of "Iron Byron" how did they measure drives with any degree of consistency ?

The 1899 driving competitions were amongst the best players of the day playing in local club competitions.  Uh huh.

Is it now your contention that the driving contests were held between the worst players ?

There's another definition of interpolation that's relevant Uh-huh.


Since you're such a great researcher that should be an easy one for you to look up.

I was born after 1949.  Uh-huh.  

__________________________


Will I be as surly a curmudgeon as you when I pass 70?  No wait, you were a surly curmudgeon when you were my age.  I should be safe.

First, you should hope that you make it past 70.
Secondly, curmudgeonliness keeps the blood flowing, it's envigorating and should be encouraged as you age.

To quote that famous GCA Shakespearean Expert:  "Brutus doth protest too much."  Who knew you were talking about yourself.  

Well, when someone asks me, "who are you going to believe, your own eyes or what I tell you happened ?"  
I'm sure you know the answer where I'm concerned.

Kinda like the view of Pine Valley from the railroad tracks.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()