NGLA to be lengthened?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood is an excellent researcher of historic and classic courses but to talk intelligently and effectively about adding tee length to NGLA or NOT one really has to have been to NGLA and know the golf course and most everything about it pretty well. Otherwise one would be sort of offering opinions in a vacuum.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Thanks for shooting down opinions I never offered and never planned to offer.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Thanks for shooting down opinions I never offered and never planned to offer."

Tom:

You're very welcome--they were something I was expecting you to do anyway momentarily!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eckstein,

What you don't seem to understand is that no panel of outsiders can prevent a club from doing anything it wants to do, including, moving in the wrong direction.

What you naively miss is a critical component, that a panel composed of outsiders, has NO AUTHORITY.  Nor would the membership be willing to cede authority to outsiders.

Yale doesn't have a membership that determines the fate of the club or golf course, NGLA does.  The Athletic Department controls the Yale golf course, not the membership.

I've seen the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, but I've never seen a Memorial or statue commemorating a panel, have you ?

I'm not trying to be impolite, but your suggestion is wildly naive, bordering on the absurd.

[JakaB]

Pat,

The Vietnam Memorial....not our finest moment.

[ForkaB]

How about the Iwo Jima Memorial?  Not only was it one of our finest moments, the memorial also depicts the entire committee!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There may be more room for lengthening then you might think, on a number of holes, and to different degress.  
Other holes are clearly capped out.

# 2  has room
# 3  has a little room
# 5  may have room back and left
# 7  has room
# 8  has room
# 10 has room
# 12 has room
# 14 has room
# 15 has room
# 16 has room
# 17 has room
# 18 has room, but, problems as well.

If George Bahto is correct, and there was a combined tee for
# 8 and # 12 near the gap between # 11 and # 7 green, wouldn't a true restoration call for re-examining the relocation of another, alternate tee/s in that area ?

As long as the angles of attack, and the strategy are not negatively impacted, I see nothing wrong with elasticizing the golf course.  They've done it in the past with good results, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be carefully considered at the present time.

What disturbed me was the report that an individual carried his drive over the road on # 11, near the green.
If anyone told you that 5 to 10 years ago, that would have been viewed as the ravings of a lunatic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B & Rich Goodale,

Those are two of the worst examples one could imagine.

How in any way could you categorize those who fell in battle in Vietnam as a panel, assembled with equal votes, to construct recommendations
Where and when and by whom was that panel formed ?

Rich, Iwo Jima, the flag raisers, a panel
When and where and by whom was that panel formed ?
Or was it a spontaneous reaction from a random group of survivors.  You are aware that that monument depicts the recreation of the second flag rasing on Mount Surabachi (sp?), Yes ?

How could two bright guys come up with such poor examples ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

I always thought that those guys were a panel who got together to decide how to get their pictures on the cover of Life magazine.  Pretty good panel to dream up that "second flag" strategy.

PS--how do you make those dayglo(tm) emoticons?

PPS--I though eckstein had the best answer (the US Capitol), which you conveniently ignored.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I really don't agree that #2, #5, #8right has any room. Some of the others need to be looked at in the context of if there just isn't some better way to handle those holes without adding tee length. There's no question in my mind that particularly holes #5 and #7 would be ideal as very challenging par 4s for such as the Walker Cup. #18 would need to be looked at more carefully in that regard. So the question is are these holes and the course better served that way than be simply looking at WHERE additional tee length can POSSIBLY be added? To do the latter may turn out to be a more irresponsible thing to do. Don't forget, it isn't good architectural practice to add tee length to any golf hole just because YOU CAN!

This isn't something I'm exactly imagining either. I spent hours out there with Salinetti and Burrows this summer looking at every single hole for these reasons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,
quote author=Patrick_Mucci link=board=1;threadid=6469;start=25#msg123867 date=1065572157]
Eckstein,

The Capital Building was not created as a monument, commemorating any one, or group, of individual/s.

Your reading comprehension skills are being called into question.

I answered the Capital Building comment earlier, which you conveniently ingnored  

On some of those smiley faces, I don't know how they get there, some of them appear when I enter a question mark.

TEPaul,

I agree that each possible tee extension must be looked at carefully.

I am also aware that you've spent hours out on the golf course, BUT, I do have to say that I'm not sure how much you can learn between the hours of 10:00 pm and 4:00 am

[TEPaul]

"BUT, I do have to say that I'm not sure how much you can learn between the hours of 10:00 pm and 4:00 am"

Pat:

You may not be too sure, which doesn't surprise me but I'm sure. You can't learn much between those hours but you can learn plenty from the hours of about 6am to 10am when I was out there for a few days.  

[M.W._Burrows]

Conceivably, every hole on the course COULD be lengthened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

Wouldn't # 6, # 9, #11 and # 13 be a tough stretch ?

[SL_Solow]

Patrick;  I think you are being a bit unfair to Eckstein.  While it is absolutely indisputable that no one can compel a private club membership to accept the advice of an outside panel of nonmember advisers, it is equally correct that a private club could choose to appoint such a panel to serve as stewards to protect their course from mistakes similar to those made by greens committees/chairmen at other well meaning clubs.  To some degree, clubs that engage a consulting architect over a long term with the intent of allowing that "expert" to help them maintain the integrity of their course have undertaken a similar, although less dramatic, course of action.  This is not to suggest that such a panel is needed at The National nor does it suggest that Eckstein's nominees are the "right" ones for my or anybody else's tastes.   But the membership could, if it wished appoint such a panel.  Perhaps that is incinceivable but by suspending disbelief we can discuss the merits of such a suggestion.  Your remarks about the effectiveness of committees are akin to the old description of a camel as being a horse designed by a committee.  On the other hand, effective commitees can serve as checks on the excesses of influential individuals with agendas.  How do you think it will work in this context.  We know that Trump consulted with several architects in designing Pine Valley but that was a new project and he retained final say.  Here in Chicago, Evanston Golf Club, a Ross that has suffered many revisions is trying to get back to its roots and after interviewing several architects hired 2, Ron Pritchard and David Esler, to work together.  I wonder how that will work although I note that the Good Dr and Maxwell did pretty well on Crystal Downs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

Could you cite me one example where a club consitituted a panel solely composed of outsiders to decide their architectural fate ?

I wasn't being unfair to Eckstein, only realistic.

Crump, not Trump, was creating a brand new golf course, not preserving or adjusting an existing golf course that has a full membership.

In addition, NGLA has a history, of almost 100 years, of doing a superb job at retaining the design integrity of the golf course.  Ecksteins proposal implies they haven't and don't know how to in the future, which is absurd, as is his  proposal.

[Mike Benham]

The panel would prevent the club from moving in the wrong direction...insurance on a priceless treasure...a prudent suggestion don't you agree?

And how would the panel prevent the club from moving in the wrong direction?

The panel, if it has any authority at all, would only ALLOW the club to go in the direction that the panel recommends, and there is no guarantee that that is the RIGHT direction.

I believe that Patrick's statement that the club has "almost 100 years of doing a superb job at retaining the design intergrity" thereby eliminates the need for an exterior panel.  

The members of NGLA have proven that they can govern themselves which can't be said about the owners/members of many classic courses.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Patrick,
Of the 12 holes you listed, which do you think would benefit from being lengthened?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben Dewar,

# 8 would head the list due to the bunker configuration in the centerline of the fairway and the desire to keep that feature
"IN PLAY"

# 17 for similar reasons

# 18 but only if the tee came back and wasn't moved across the road.

Gotta go now, but I'll finish the answer later.

[SL_Solow]

Patrick;  Mea Culpa on the Crump/Trump typo.  Typing was never my forte.  I recognize that you were being realistic; nevertheless Eckstein's suggestion is an interesting hypothetical which might lead at least to consultation with a group of experts.  (Imagine the expense).  Finally, while the membership always retains the right to make the final decision on course alterations, many clubs have adopted the vision of a single architect in making design change with varying results.  Thus the issue is the substitution of a panel for an individual.  I ultimately agree with you that it is highly unlikely that this would be seriously considered.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

I think NGLA's membership, Board and committees recognize NGLA's unique status in the world of architecture and golf, and as such, I think that they want to preserve their treasure , like the constitution, with as few amendments as possible.

That's not to say that a club can't make a mistake, but, so can architects and/or a panel, who can find it easier to walk away from their mistakes, without repercussions.

NGLA has done a good job of preserving what they have and I think they should be given the benefit of any doubt, until such time as they take actions to the contrary.

The vacuous rush to judgement, absent all the facts, is foolish at best.

Hiring Bill Salinetti and Matt Burrows would seem to indicate that they know what they are doing and that they are heading in the right direction.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Sebonac]

A few things here...

There has been talk about extending 13 by pullin the tee back and right....into the reeds....

Sixteen is an excellent hole from the tee to the left of the 15th green....It plays longer from there...and could be pulled back a bit....

The talk on the 18th over the years has been to put a back tee across the driveway....so you would hit over the pond....

This year....trees between 8 and 11 are going down...so the idea of a tee the the left of seven green...for the eighth hole is an interesting one...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sebonac,

The danger at # 13 and # 18 is that those tee locations would dramatically alter the angle of attack, and the strategy intended on those holes.

Taking the left fairway bunker on # 18 out of play would be heresy, and would ruin the strategy, risk/reward elements on the drive.

[M.W._Burrows]

Pat,

6 and 13 would be a stretch but so would 5 and many others.

9 could either go to the right of 8 green (with extensive tree removals) OR to the back and left of the upper tee.

11 could go straight back almost to below 9 forward tees.

I don't think length would benefit any of these holes or most of the others for that matter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Burrows,

Would you do me a favor ?

Take a look at the feasability of creating a tee for # 5 that is to the left and back from the present tee, as you face the fairway.

Is the angle of attack changed much ?

How much yardage can you reasonably pick up ?