7th NGLA - The ideal green complex to approach

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green ?

The green is angled to the fairway approach, elevated by about two feet in front, with a VERY deep bunker running behind the entire rear/right side of the green, with a deep PIT bunker fronting the middle of the green.  The green narrows considerable at its begining right side.

Depending upon where the pin is can determine the direction of approach on the 2nd shot, and leave the golfer with a third shot that can be hit with almost every club in the bag.

If you've played # 7, what do you think ?

What other greens provide the same variety of challenges ?

[ChipOat]

Unless you miss long/left, the approach to the 7th at National is the scariest mother I know.

Into the wind it's more manageable if you have the courage to fly the ball right at the center of the green.

But on a calm day or, worst, down wind - it's a terror.

I went to the Dave Pelz short game school for 3 days primarily to learn how to successfully approach that green.

At least on #8 at PV, and others like it, you get to hit a full shot in there.

I've played the original Road Hole 6 times with much less difficulty than #7 at National.

#7 at National is as brilliant a strategic design on the 2nd and 3rd shots as I know.

[TEPaul]

"Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green?"

Pat:

That's a very good question--at least that's an interesting way to phrase the question. There sure seem to be a lot of possible ways to approach that green and it probably has as high degree of deception and opportunity for mistakes for the unaware as any green I can think of.

The green complex always fascinated me because it so old fashioned engineered looking (probably the most at NGLA) and it works sooo well for golf.

Just to show how neat architecture can be and how interchangeable things can sometimes be just think of that exact green complex in other uses.

How cool would it be as a par 3 of maybe 175 (to the middle) when approached from the direction of the 8th tee? Coming directly at the narrow end and wide part in the rear and that interesting varied bunkering on either side and all the possibilities of the recovery shots.

How about that green at the end of a 460yd par 4 if approaching directly at the wide back left (from over in the direction of #11 fairway)? It'd have about the same psychological effect of PVGC #1 with the ratched up difficulty the deeper you tried to go.

Or how about that green complex as a par 3 of about 155yds approaching it from the direction you do now (maybe with a big wide tee too for variousl angles)?

That green complex is so good it could be used in all kinds of arrangements in architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Chipoat,

Interesting thoughts about preparing to tackle the 7th green.
Did your crash course in the short game give you the confidence ?  Or, does the 7th still bedevil you ?

TEPaul,

Interesting concept, playing to the 7th green from a variety of directions and distances, while it retains its appeal, challenge and options of play.  I wonder how many other greens can retain their interest and strategic challenge from other directions.

What I find fascinating about the green is that you can drop a ball at a given location 10-20-30-40-50-100-150 yards from the green, and the changes in the pin positions can dramatically alter your mindset, shot selection and club used.

The McBride brothers showed me a variety of shots that I wouldn't have dreamed of when approaching that green.

One could spend the better part of the day just learning how to approach that green when the pin is in different locations.
What I like, is the different challenges the shots face.

Why isn't this green replicated on more modern day courses ?

And, as you suggest, it could be a par 5, par 4 or par 3.

[TEPaul]

"I wonder how many other greens can retain their interest and strategic challenge from other directions."

Pat:

Don't get me started on that unless you want to sit up and listen all night. That's half the fun of observing and analyzing architecture and it's features and arrangments. Remember what Coore said that it's all in the arrangements. Obviously this kind of thing is important for any architect's mental inventory.

[Ran Morrissett]

In answer to the question, "Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green ?" I would say no as the green side bunkers are so deep as to prevent recovery for a large segment of less skilled golfers (i.e. some would have to pick up from both the front and back bunkers). And for me, optimum means accomodating the greatest range of players, though plenty of others like Crump/Fownes/etc. had a different take.

Certainly, the variety of hole locations created by the 7th green complex is awesome and how diffcult/easy the hole can thus play is wonderful, really first rate. And with all aerial and ground game options open to the player, indecision can be the golfer's undoing, especially those in no man's land of 10-70 yards shy of the green. And of all the great shots at NGLA, the approach to the 7th - be it from 10 yards, 60 yards, or 220 yards -  would have to rate at or near the very top.

Still, Pat, in terms of optimal by the strictest definition possible (the one citied above), I wonder if a green complex needs to be bunkerless to be optimal? Like 5 at Royal Worlington perhaps or the double plateau 16th green at North Berwick? That way, all can play and finish the hole. Or at least, a "pit" shouldn't guard the green and the bunker depth would be more manageable. If so, the original vague boomerang shape of the 1st green at Riviera has no clear superior in terms of the available options it created for both the 2nd and 3rd shots. The recently built 13th green complex at Rustic Canyon would also receive very high marks for the same reasons.

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ran,

Perhaps I should have included the term "golfers".

But, those deep bunkers create such a strong risk/reward presentation that they are invaluable to the hole

Those golfers of lessor skill have the option of skirting the front pit bunker, triangulating or tacking, so to speak.
Even better golfers employ this strategy.
But, avoidance sometimes makes the next shot more difficult.

As to the rear bunker, that presents quite a different problem that is not so easily skirted as I think a golfers "touch" diminishes as handicaps go up, and the fear factor created by the visual, influences ones play.

What I really like about the complex is its seemingly benign look as one approaches.

Perhaps ignorance is bliss.

[Mike_Cirba]

The thing I find so fascinating about the approach to the 7th green at NGLA is that where to "miss" changes 180 degrees simply based on the hole location.  

In that way, it reminds me of the 3rd hole at Lehigh.  If the hole is in the front of the green, missing left is DEAD, while missing right leaves a reasonable chip if you don't fall off the steep slope.  On the other hand, if the hole is cut in the back, missing left is your best play.  Fun, thinking man's golf.  

[TEPaul]

There're some who feel the best place (maybe only place) to play the ball coming into #7 is over the pot bunker sort of back left--there's a lot of room back there although it isn't that apparent from the fairway. The really neat thing about that green is from back in the fairway (even if pretty close) it looks like there's plenty of room right front too--there isn't!

In my book this kind of road hole green complex and set up has to be one of the very best types in all of golf. I've, never seen #17 TOC but I grew up at Piping Rock and it's #8 is good but I think Maidstone's #2 is every bit as good and hard to play to as NGLA's. The added interest to Maidstone's is the right front is just as dangerous because you run out of room without being able to see it but the back left of the green is much harder to get the distance right because the whole left side is bunkered in a really deceptive diagonal. Maidstone's doesn't have the pot bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

George Zahringer told me years ago, that hitting your shot into the green a little long wasn't a bad spot to be, and he indicated that when going for the green in two he always made sure that he played  1/2 club more.

However, that theory works favorably if the pin is in the middle or back.  If the pin is in the narrow front, recovery from the back of the green might be more than difficult.

I do believe that L-wedges have taken some bite out of the difficulty of the approach, but it's still a great complex.

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci:

The "distance wedge" part of the Dave Pelz curriculum has been a great help to me from 20-80 yards - nowhere more so than on the approach to the 7th green at National.

It's less scary to me than before, but still gives me the creeps.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
George Zahringer told me years ago, that hitting your shot into the green a little long wasn't a bad spot to be,"

Pat:

I know that because you told me that. When I mentioned that above I didn't want to mention his name because the chances of you being correct are so low and what if George Zahringer read it and got really pissed off at both of us?

It's no snap but I don't think it's all that terribly hard to get a lofted wedge to a right front pin position on #7---what's hard though is figuring exactly what the yardage is to any front pin--it just seems hard to detect and the more right it is the less there is to shoot for. Both front and back on the right side of that green are masterful diagonals and the back one just can't be seen from out there I don't think. Exactly the same with Maidstone's #2--you're just not aware of what the back of the right side of the green is all about until you go right over that section a few times thinking you've hit a good shot.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Hopefully, we'll get to test your theories in the not to distant future, and at the same time see if Chipoat can still stop payment on the check to the Pelz school.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Redanman,

I've seen far too many shots, hit just a little to firm, roll off the back of the green into the deep rear bunker.

So, I'd like whatever "backstop" assistance I can get, and would almost always leave the pin in.

When that pin is far right, it is a terrifying shot, from 5 to 200 yards.

[ChipOat]

redanman:

Dave Pelz has copious data to support everything he teaches.

Including:

trying to hole a shot = flagstick out
satisfied with getting close = flagstick in

[TEPaul]

"Pelz is WAY wrong on the leaving the flagstick in issue.  Agree or disagree?

TEP and others comments welcome, too."

redanman:

I have no idea. Golf is hard enough to be thinking of stuff like that and I sure as hell ain't gonna pay Pelz to tell me what he thinks about pin in or pin out. If I ever did think about it I might consider the in/out thing throughout the history of golf to be about a wash.

But I tell you what redanman--even though this isn't something I would spend too much time thinking about---why don't you just tell me what you think--in or out? Whatever you say is the best thing to do the opposite has to be true due to fact you've already about proven the theory of contrary opinion to be correct with the things you're constantly saying about tour players.  

PS:

On second thought, I think almost all golfers should leave the pin in, though. The reason is if someone is gonna be a big enough hotdog to remove the pin they better go ahead and sink about 20% of them or come real close the rest of the time. And think of it this way--if you go to the trouble of removing the pin and then skull the damn ball across the green anyway you're gonna look like ten times more of a hotdog for removing the pin in the first place!

[TEPaul]

"I leave it in except when I take it out."

redanman;

That's incredibly profound. If that's advice what do you think it's worth?  

[ForkaB]

I've only played NGLA #7 once, so my thoughts should be discounted--however, my impression was that it was not as good of a green complex as its mother (#7, TOC).  Less demanding tee shot (just remember, TEP and others, even Max Behr said that you should look backwards to the tee to evalula any golf hole or feature!).  More elevation to the green complex, complicating the 2nd shot.  More intimidating RH bunker (at least until recently!).  Much better back right, center and left hazards (road, Swilcan burn).

I remember hacking it around #7 NGLA, missing a 10 footer for 4 and being depressed until I counted up my score at the end and found out that I had made "par!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Speaking of the Road Hole bunker, have you been out to see the latest (second or third iteration) version of it?  

If so, would you share your thoughts with us?

Your mention of the "Until Recently" in your last post makes me think you have some.  

[TEPaul]

"I remember hacking it around #7 NGLA, missing a 10 footer for 4 and being depressed until I counted up my score at the end and found out that I had made "par!""

Rich:

That shouldn't technically make any difference. My recommendation is the 7th should be a par 4 (on an alternate card). It would be a perceived as a better hole that way and you're paragraph above is perfect testimony to why that would be (not that that changes the quality of the hole). If the recommendation to drop the par on #7 to a par 4 is ever made your paragraph would be a good one to go along with that recommendation as another good reason as to why to do it.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul & Rich Goodale,

I think dropping par on # 7 would make the hole too difficult.

Moving the tee back 20-30 yards would be a better alternative.

Part of the beauty of the hole is plotting your strategy in approaching the pin with your third shot.

As a par 4, I think the inner need to make par would cause many to abandon prudent, and attempt heroic shots, and strategy would be pushed to the back burner.

Rich, I've been in both bunkers and both can be formidable, but the current 7th may be more difficult than the current 17th.

But, that's just my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Patrick;

I completely disagree with you about dropping the par on #7 from 5 to 4 (but only on an alternate card) and adding up to 20-30 yds and keeping it a par 5 for all instead. For the members the hole and the card they used could logically remain a par 5. But for tournaments an alternate card with #7 as a par 4 could be used very effectively.

I once did look behind the tips there and although I can't really visualize it completely right now my sense was it would be complex and not a good idea. You start to get a bit jumbled up with #12 and the ground back there might not be ideal topographically and you must understand the problems that alone could entail trying to get up to 30 yards back there.

A better idea to me would be to use the hole as an alternate par 4 and maybe move the tee markers up some for some occasions. If pros or really strong amateurs played there the tips should work fine as a long par 4. Certainly #5 would work much better as a strong par 4 for good players from the present tips.

I can't imagine what you're talking about when you mention that dropping #7 to a 4 for good players messes up the strategy of the hole. Do you think they screwed up #17 TOC when that was dropped from a 5 to a 4? The idea of any golf hole and it's strategies is to score as low as you can on it while considering the inherent risks and rewards of the golf hole so as not to do far worse than you could or should. If you did nothing at all to #7 except call it a par 4 instead of a par 5 why would that fundamental mindset and strategy change?

The particular par number is all in your head, Pat, since not a single thing about the hole has changed. But maybe you have preferred playing it all these years in 5 instead of trying for a 4 and risking a 6 or worse. And if you have that shouldn't change either just because it's called a par 4.

Look at Tiger Woods when he won the Open at TOC by 12 shots. He took three 5s on #17 and apparently happily so! #7 NGLA would be no different.

Thinking that the inherent strategies change on a hole like that if nothing is done to it at all except dropping the par number is the "card and pencil" and par fixation mentality at it's most extreme!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

What is the yardage from the back tee at # 17 and what is the yardage from the  back tee at # 7 ?

Do you think the differential makes a difference ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I believe they're about the same but if #17 is the same or shorter from its tips as #7 what difference does it make? You could basically put the par 4 tee markers on #7 at about the same distance (or anywhere shorter).

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Don't believe a shorter #7 is a good par 4, I'm afraid.  Green complex not receptive to long approach and front right pin is absurd enough from 20 yards let alone 200.

Extending tee box back 30 yards OK idea but I have enough trouble from right where it is now.

Rich Goodale:

Have never hit it in the road on the original Road.  Perhaps I would be more humbled from there.