News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2004, 05:43:15 PM »
Any support for the west course at Hershey.  Is there any one out there with memories from the PA State Junior in the match play days on this track. I loved the routing of this par 73 when the Hershey mansion served as the clubhouse; #9 & #18 were par threes, #4 (now#18) and #5 ( now #1) were strong back to back 4's, #7 & #8 were challenging short fours, and the back to back par fives positioned in the middle of the back nine ( a great place to make a move if you were a couple down).  This was a great match play golf course. Is it worthy of at least a top 10 consideration.

Matt_Ward

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2004, 07:37:27 PM »
gookin:

Can you elaborate on the tree program that Fox Chapel has carried out?

I have not been back to the course since the US Open at Oakmont in '94, but the course is clearly
undervalued -- why Raynor fans don't tout it more is mystifying given the lovefest they go on with such overblown layouts like Shoreacres.

To be clear I'm not suggesting Fox Chapel gets a 3rd place position but with Digest placing it so low now (20th in Pennsy) I believe it's a layout many need to revisit. I think of it as the Fenway of western Pennsy!

redanman:

What makes a visit to The Ace Club worthy of your time is not the obvious connection to Gary Player but the contribution of Warren Henderson. Player had his involvement with the design and the end product is a very good one IMHO -- even though the 9th is a bit overdone.

What's tough to do is crack the stellar grouping of courses that comprise the Phillie connection.

Bill -- I didn't want to say anything about your inclusion of Jericho National ::) because I thought Alzheimer's was taking over that razor like recall you possess! Say it ain't so ... ;D

fred ruttenberg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2004, 07:40:08 PM »
Lancester is the 3rd best course with Phila. Cricket close behind.

How does Tom Paul have time  to have 10000+ posts?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2004, 09:47:27 PM »
Not including Merion and Oakmont (which are 10s), I can think of at least a dozen or more courses in PA that are 7 on the Doak scale or above.  Most if not all of these have been mentioned here already.  Also, some of the courses mentioned here are not.  

gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2004, 12:08:46 AM »
Matt,

Since 1994 we have removed in the neighborhood of 350 trees.  Some of them recently thanks to a microburst which hit our course. Local environmental regulations makes it very difficult to remove mature trees.  We have made progress be it slower than many would like.  This is allowing us to restore our fairways to their original shapes, a project which is just underway.  If your last visit was 1994 you would like what we have done. Our punchbowl is back, the redans on #1 and #6 have been restored, the alps has been put back on #7, and the biarritz is back.  The biarritz looked great during the Curtis Cup TV coverage two years ago.  Several things left to do including; fairway shaping, cross bunker restoration, and the lions mouth on #9.  In the end I hope we do as well as Mountain Lake did with their work.  Again we are not out to be better than any other course we just want to be the best we can be.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2004, 05:01:04 AM »
gookin;

Very happy to see you on here participating as a member of Fox Chapel. Last year, as you may know, your Don Wolff was the Pres. of the Pa Golf Assoc. and just after our fall meeting at the Pitt. Field Club we walked Fox Chapel with your super. Don had seen something on Golfclubatlas and wanted to discuss it as we went around the course.

Generally, it was to figure out a better way of accomodating some members who were apparently concerned about the severity of some of the playability following your recent Silva restoration. Basically we were looking to find a bit more fairway accomodation on some of the approach shots to greens (#1 on the left as it juxtaposes with the left green-side bunker is a good example and perhaps on the left on #8 another example). By this, of course, I'm talking about simply widening a few fairway lines as they meld into the green fronts!

In any case, I was very impressed how Don and the club appeared to be reaching out to seek advice so freely. Obviously, the club will take all the information and advice they've collected to make decisions for the final leg of the course's restoration. Good stuff to widen your horizons of information that way!

I remember the course from at least one State Am but that was maybe 10-12 years ago. (And we did play it last year as we had our Pa Golf Assoc. fall meeting there). That State Am was memorable to me because I was paired for two rounds with Bob Egan who had to have been the oldest man in the field and who I've since come to know well. That tournament was storm shortened, I remember.

Anyway, I feel bad because I was going to get back to Don by email about my impressions of what's been done and what you all want to accomplish in the final leg of the restoration.

I'll do that from recollection in the next post, and again, welcome on here and please stay and continue to participate. Frankly, I was even thinking, back last fall, of asking Don if the club would be interested in participating on here with their entire restoration project as they possibly would've been the first club to do that in sort of an official capacity with Golfclubatlas. I never got around to asking that either. I must be a real procrastinator.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2004, 06:03:52 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2004, 06:00:05 AM »
gookin:

I'd only want to comment on two holes (#2 & #9) in a real way but also make very minor mention on some other holes (#1, #5, #7, #8, #12, #13, #14).

#2 and #9 are truly fascinating to me in what I really believe could make those holes better and more interesting holes, and perhaps even in some way the two of them might be looked at together for the reasons you'll see below.

From the walk with Don and the super it appears that the bunkering on the hillside left on the tee shot on #2 may not be original Raynor bunkering but in my opinion that bunkering is a very good set to have there for obvious reasons--eg the very good natural left to right slope and cant of that entire fairway area (if expanded)! In other words to take advantage of that real natural cant of that entire landform the long man can try to bomb a drive directly over that bunker set to catch the real left to right bounce and run of the ball! But you have that enormous tree just past that bunker set and rough in that area directly over the bunker set.

In my opinion, both the tree and the rough left completely corrupt and shut down the effectiveness of directly challenging that bunkering---that's what most good fairway bunkering is for---to be directly challenged---in other words that's a fantastic option that should be restored or just done! Again, the tee shot options on that hole are severely limited because of the tree and the rough on the hillside on the left. And it's a very poor idea to limit tee shot options when you have real slope on a fairway--one of the best natural features and characteristics a hole can have! Expand that tee shot fairway area as much as you dare on that slope and let the ball travel as far and as fast left to right as you can!!

Unfortunately, that tree is large and beautiful but for all kinds of reasons it just has to go as it almost completely shuts down two really great tee shot FEATURES--eg one natural, the left to right cant of the entire hillside and the other architectural, the bunker set! I don't mind trees on a golf course but only if they got planted in the right places considering their full maturity but unfortunately that attractive tree was planted in just about the worst place imaginable!

However, and this is a big "however"---if you do what I'm suggesting here, there will undoubtedly be a big contingent amongst the membership who will say this will make the hole much easier and in fact it will---to two really well thought out and executed shots from a good player! So what?---that's basically the entire point of thoughtful but aggressive risk taking that's well executed! But the downside of the way the hole is now there's no reason at all for a good player to hit an aggressive drive on that high line challenging those bunkers as there's rough and a tree just past them!! So an aggressive option is lost and corrupted and the tee shot as it is now becomes so much more one dimensional!!

If you're at all interested in what I have to say here I'd like to talk to you some more about exactly how those bunkers on the hill are arranged as to carry distance off the tee and such and also what the ideal fairway line would be past those bunkers.

When I mentioned earlier that #2 and #9 should perhaps be looked at together I only mean this in the context of the reaction to this hole (#2) possibly being made easier. If that's so, the club can expect to recoop what they lost in difficutly on #2 by what they'll get back in difficulty by restoring the 9th hole (last hole on the front nine) to Raynor's "Lion's Mouth"!!!

The thought of actually restoring Raynor's "Lion's Mouth" is probably one of the most exciting restoration ideas I've ever seen in my years of interest in golf architecture. But there's no question to me that it will be controversial amongst a contingent of your membership. History tells us, though, that all great holes tend towards the controversial as they tend to be enigmatic, mysterious, multi-optional, both loved and feared or even hated by some probably because their options are so interesting and so much in balance---making both decision making and execution anything but obvious!

If you fellows at Fox Chapel are seriously considering restoring #9 (Lion's Mouth") to the way it was explained to me Raynor originally had it I will personally guarantee Golfclubatlas itself will go to lengths you can't imagine to talk that hole up as one of the truly interesting one's of the world! I will guarantee that!!

Obvousness in both architecture and particularly in strategic choice through architecture is never a good thing, at least not to me---and I don't think I'm alone on that. Executing golf shots as it relates to architecture is one thing and it's very important but creating a higher level and a higher demand on thought in conjunction with execution is the best of all worlds!
« Last Edit: February 21, 2004, 06:21:50 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2004, 06:53:13 AM »
redanman;

Perhaps, if you want someone to pay attention to your mention of Jericho National and comment on it you may want to spell it correctly first. The way you spell it one might even think the course was in Puerto Rico!  ;)

And regarding your apparent conclusion of why PCC may not be as highly ranked as you think it should because of obliterating of original Flynn green features I'd say that's a very poor conclusion on your part. Many may not realize exactly why PCC's greens are as unique to putt as they are but it's because Perry Maxwell did redesign them in what appears to be perhaps a wholly unique way---thereby creating greens that really are unique and interesting. Would you like to know why? And would you also like to know why Perry Maxwell was brought in during the 1930s to rework Flynn's original PCC greens.

Also in the spirit of good and dynamic golf architectural discussion and critique I think your comparative evaluations of some of the golf courses around the east side of Pennsylvania is sort of all over the place---in other words your evaluations aren't very good, in my opinion.

But no one ever said that golf course architecture wasn't subjective!  ;)

Matt_Ward

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2004, 11:03:45 AM »
Mark Fine:

How bout being a bit more precise on the "names" of courses that you believe are in the category of a Doak 7. Clearly, a man of your discerning talent can decide which ones is the first among equals.

One other thing -- how bout posting the names of those courses that have not been mentioned.

Why is it that those who are active posters on the board who also live in Pennsy have parakeet b*lls in posting what course would take the 3rd slot among all Pennsy courses.

P.S. That last comment was not directed at TEPaul (who takes high and mighty approach that all ratings are silly) or redanman who has already mentioned his take on this matter.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2004, 12:37:19 PM »
"P.S. That last comment was not directed at TEPaul (who takes high and mighty approach that all ratings are silly) or redanman who has already mentioned his take on this matter."

Matt:

You do know my feeling about rankings and I know your feeling about rankings but that last statement really does make me laugh! You say my approach is a high and might one that rankings are silly? To me that's a bit of a contradiciton in terms. I don't think much of rankings and there's nothing high and might about it while you, on the other hand, never talk about anything but rankings so who really sounds high and mighty about rankings? It sounds to me as if you do.

I'm curious about a lot of things to do with architecture, conceptual things, mysterious and nuancy things but you seem to be in such a hurry to get on down the road to the next course in the state that's #3 or whatever or a 7.8759 on the Doak Scale instead of a 7.135 that I don't even believe you think about anything else.

What is a 7.5 on the Doak Scale anyway? Does that mean one should be willing to drive 75 miles to the course instead of 79 miles? That's just another reason I think this ranking crap is crap. And some of you report a course is ACTUALLY a 7 on the Doak Scale and not an 8 like that's what everyone should actually believe? To me it ridiculous, but what the Hell;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and.....";)

But what the hell since you're asking and although it doesn't mean much to me I'd say, in my opinion, the course that should be and probably is considered #3 in Pennsylvania behind Merion and Oakmont would be Lancaster C.C. We just held a state open there, and I was there for the three days of it, and the course proved itself in numerous and interesting ways to probably be considered #3 in Pa. And to be honest with you that to me is more indicative than 1,000 raters who breeze through the place in a day and think they know the course well and can talk about it comparatively!
« Last Edit: February 21, 2004, 12:46:36 PM by TEPaul »

Matt_Ward

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2004, 03:43:54 PM »
TEPaul:

Unbelievable -- the great and mighty OZ has posted a ratings answer to a question posed by me. Many thanks Tom -- I understand that CNN may break into programming to mention this momentous event! ;D

Please realize I'm only kidding -- I always enjoy seeing how people assess courses and rating them forces them to think in some sort of categorization.

I have not played Lancaster in some time (about 6-7 years) and given the high marks you make I have to revisit and see for myself.

P.S. By the way the Doak rating numbers are one way to determine if any course is worth visiting. The higher you go in number the more a person should contemplate going there to play.

Tom -- I'm never high and mighty -- it's just my nature to ask people the tough questions and get them to answer what their preferences are. Nothing more ... nothing less.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2004, 04:26:27 PM »
Matt Ward said:

"TEPaul:
Unbelievable -- the great and mighty OZ has posted a ratings answer to a question posed by me. Many thanks Tom -- I understand that CNN may break into programming to mention this momentous event!"

Sure Matt, no problem at all---you know I always secretly want to accomodate you and your GCA threads and ranking questions! It was sort of like a tetanus shot, it only hurt for a little while, and nowhere near as painful as I thought it would be. But I don't plan on tetanus shots as a steady diet!  ;)

gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2004, 11:37:11 PM »
TEPaul,

Thanks for your thoughts.  Don shared with me your view on #2.  I found it very interesting, but I am not sure I have fully grasped the concept.  Tree removal for us is a very complex issue,  The local Borough has very restrictive regulations which would make removal of the trees you discussed on #2 a real challenge.  Regarding the Lion's Mouth, Don and I are quietly committed to that idea.  We have a growing group of Raynor desciples at Fox Chapel.  What makes the Lion's Mouth restoration such a challenge is that #9 is already our second strongest par 4.  When the Lion's Mouth was there in the late 20's, #9 played as a par 5, with the challenge being to leave your second shot properly positioned to avoid the LM.  We have made six or seven presentation to our members since you walked the course with Don.  We are  comparing the courses original fairway design to our bowling alley like fairways of today. We want to restore the strategic choices that were provided by the fairways as they existed originally. However, #2 may be one of the last to get fixed. ( But ten years ago we had a pine forrest on either side of the fairway). And we will not rest until the Lion's Mouth is back. Our plan is to have a well educated membership demanding the change be made. As far as featuring our restoration on GCA; a bit high profile for us.  But if we get the Lion's mouth back I hope to make an exception.

The one thing Don and I have figured out is that decision making improves dramatically when you are armed with the maximum amount of information or points of view. GCA is a great place to help that process, bot don't expect me to see 10,000.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2004, 03:43:26 AM »
Matt -

If you liked Fox Chapel that much when you saw it in '94, you should really make an effort to get back. The work done there has been discussed somewhat on this site - in fact, Geoff Childs was kind enough to post some before and after shots a few months ago that I took at the Curtis Cup a couple years ago. I'll try to dig up the thread.

gookin -

Thanks for the info you've shared. Always nice to have another Pittsburgher on board, to balance out those Philly guys. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2004, 07:28:47 AM »
gookin;

Let me first say the work or restoration you've done on #17 is truly praiseworthy. I hope the membership wants to keep the front green-section. My thought when there was the club should also restore the front section of the left bunker (which is basically still there sans the sand). I can understand why that portion may have been removed for easier access and egress from the green---as originally designed it would be about 80 yards long with no way on or off the green (after parking cart) to the next tee. My recommendation was to restore the front section of the bunker and simply put a grass path across the bunker adjacent to the dip in the green. It would be interesting too to restore the Biarritz carry bunker. If you did all that the green would definitely be like two or three greens in one and the hole would be remarkably adaptable and elastic!

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2004, 07:57:45 AM »
gookin;

As for #9 and restoring it to Raynor's "Lion's Mouth" it's a bit hard for me to comment in detail because I'd virtually never heard of his "Lion's Mouth" hole or concept until touring the course last year with Don and super.

But when it was explained to me, where the bunker used to be and perhaps the way the green surrounds were designed by Raynor I could just see so much interesting potential. I mean that is a fascinating green anyway and the back of it is world class!!

We did spend a bit of time around it discussing the way it would work and play as a restoration to the "Lion's Mouth". My recollection is that the club may not now know exactly how it used to be--particularly how the entire front around the "Lion's Mouth" bunker was shaped. Are there no good photos or aerials of the old "Lion's Mouth"? I'd assume George Bahto has an idea of how it was and I think I spoke with him about it later.

But anyway if one looks at the way it probably was and could be if restored one just sees so much interesting playability and multi-optional decision making revolving around that approach due to the "Lion's Mouth" bunker and what the logical contour surrounding it should be for maximum effect on the ball and options. We talked about exactly how to redo the green-side berm or bank on the right by gradually diminishing it as it came forward and out past the "Lion's Mouth" bunker on the right. On the left of it it appears the natural topography does now or could take care of a ball's left to right filter around it.

So obviously the idea would be to create the maximum of four distinct approach options--to play short of it, to filter the ball around it left, to filter the ball around it right or just play over it onto the green.

I did not know the hole was originally a par 5 but that makes complete and total sense with an architectural feature like the "Lion's Mouth" smack in front of the green on a potentially reachable par 5. That feature alone just puts so much neat pressure on golfers attempting to reach the green in two shots!! The most important point is it wouldn't really stop them if they were in range only really intensify their decision making and club selection to deal with that bunker in up to four different ways! This kind of distinct multi-optionalism is of course the raw material of interesting strategies! One can almost feel the palpable temptation of a good golfer within range in two of that green guarded by the "Lion's Mouth" bunker with three distinct ways of getting past it onto the green!!

So the question is---how much tee length elasticity do you have on #9? I didn't look at that but my sense is there probably is some back there--maybe even a lot!

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2004, 08:03:07 AM »
gookin;

As for what I was talking about on #2 maybe we could talk about that on the phone or whatever. I'd first need to know what the carry distance is from the tips over that last bunker on the hillside on the left. The actual arrangement of that bunker set on the left is important too for maximum effect.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2004, 08:13:10 AM »
gookin:

I could be wrong about this but my recollection is that Don said either he or the membership thinks the greenside bunker right (that covers most of the green right) has a top profile on it that's a bit too high or perhaps just too flat a line across the top of it. One has to look at anything done on the tee shot as to how it relates to the green-end and with what I'm proposing for the tee shot it may not be necessary to consider doing anything with that green-side bunker. This of course is only in relation to how a strong player might play the hole. For the weaker, higher handicapper my thought was to cut fairway as much up into the left approach as possible and even adjacent to the green itself. I realize it gets pretty vertical in there (adjacent to the green left) but I think you can imagine what I'm driving at here---eg a maximum bounce of the ball left to right onto the green without getting hung up in the rough in that area. The idea is to always increase the temptation of a risky reward!

gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2004, 09:13:03 AM »
After more thought I get your points on #2.  The left fairway bunker complex has three bunkers ranging from 260 to 295 carry uphill.  The right bunker is about 260 to carry. Most players try to hit a straight shot and let the terrain move the ball to the right side of the fairway beyond the bunker.  This winter we remove two large blue spruces from behind the green which disrupted the sight lines of our punchbowl.  Brian has recommended putting an "old fashioned " target in their place. (Any thoughts?) Back to the tee shot. Even without the two large oak trees it would be a very small group of players who would ever consider playing tee shots over these bunkers.  However, it would be intriguing to turn this bunker complex into more of a centerline hazard.   Again our old photos show that as part of the original design, but I would guess they had more influence on the second shot rather than the tee shot.

I can see we have been successful in getting you excited about the Lions Mouth.  This site has a picture of one at CC of Charleston.  However our green complex provides more interesting terrain which will give players the option to attach the green straight on or shape a shot right to left or left to right to navigate the LIon's Mouth.  Today #9 stretches to about 450 with close to 20 yards room to go back.  We do have some very good old photos which provides us a wonderful blueprint. In our member presentations we show the old and today side by side. It does most of the talking for us.  Could I quote some of your comments for our ongoing membership pitches?

Even more dramatic is our #16.  The original had 13 bunkers in the tee shot area.  Today we have two.  We also had a cross bunker about 25 yards short of the green.  This was removed circa 1935.  Our member presentation shows the evolution from the original to today.  It helps people begin to visualise what can be.

Also I echo you hopes for #17, but Rome was not built in a day.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2004, 09:38:48 AM »
gookin:

Thanks for your reply on #2 and the carry distance over the last bunker left on the tee shot. My understanding was that those bunkers weren't Raynor--but no matter. To have the optional effect on the tee shot I'm talking about the last bunker would have to go providing a carry of around 260 only to the expanding fairway up on the hill past that 260 bunker! A 295 carry is not reasonable---no one would try it because they really couldn't manage that. The whole idea, don't forget, is to increase temptation on an option!

Please quote anything you like. I hope I'm not being too forward with you all with some of these suggestions but this is only a discussion! And to me some of the possibilities on your course really are exciting to contemplate!

gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2004, 09:47:09 AM »
Not too forward at all.  It is why I'm on the site in the first place. Keep your ideas coming.

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2004, 10:03:00 AM »
Gookin,

They are not his ideas at all.

Have you ever heard of Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy,
Paul Winchell and Jerry Mahoney, famous ventriliquist and dummy acts.

Well, it's Mucci and TEPaul

I send him the ideas via email or IM and he parrots them,
it's nothing more then a modern day cyberspace ventriliquist act.

And, he can't leave the site, unless I leave the site. ;D
« Last Edit: February 22, 2004, 05:24:25 PM by Patrick_Mucci_Jr »

Matt_Ward

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2004, 01:40:37 PM »
George P:

I hope to be back in the Pittsburgh area again sometime this summer -- my college roomate at Carolina was originally from Mon City just south of Steel Town as you well know.

I liked Fox Chapel a lot in '94 and given what I have heard from a number of people I respect I eagerly look forward to seeing it again.

George -- what amazes me is that when certain people gush and gush about halfway layouts like Shoreacres -- a perennial pick for top 50 in the USA -- and then leave off no less a deserving candidate like Fox Chapel. It just makes me laugh because the land at the latter is much more compelling than the former. In addition, if memory serves -- the range of holes at Fox Chapel is also much more diverse and interesting from a shot values perspective.

Given my knowledge of golf in Pennsy I can't see how Fox Chapel actually fell to 20th on the Digest poll when additional improvements have been carried out.

TEPaul:

Kudos to your posting a definitive answer -- it seems other inhabitants of the Keystone State who frequently post have developed some sort of inhibition regarding being anything close as forthcoming as you have been. A pity.

TEPaul

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2004, 04:02:19 PM »
gookin:

I probably shouldn't even mention this because you might think it a bit odd at this point and it is off the subject somewhat of all the club is trying to do with the course and the membership's acceptance of the things you're doing with your restoration, but I'll mention it anyway.

Fox Chapel has a unique opportunity, in my opinion, with up to three holes on the front nine to do what I call "par skewing" or "par flexing" and particularly if you do restore #9 to the Raynor "Lion's Mouth" green-end arrangement you and could get up to 20 or more additional yards through tee elasiticity on that hole. Is there any tee length elasticity on #8, by the way?

The point is holes #2, #8 and #9 (if you could get about 20yds more on it) all fall in that cusp of being perceived as either long par 4s or short par 5s! At around 470 with the "Lion's Mouth" restored #9 would be a fascinating short "go/no go" par 5 again!! (Imagine #9 with the "Lion's Mouth" restored playing as a 470 yd "go/no go" par 5 with the pin in the very front of the green tucked right behind the "Lion's Mouth" bunker! How cool would that be playing with the golfer's mind?

The point is #2, #8, #9 could all be sort of "flex-par" holes without doing anything to them except arranging the tee blocks appropriately (and possibly pinning them accordingly)!!

There's nothing better than "par skewing" or "par flexing" in my mind because it rather quickly gets golfers away from complete "par perception" reliance and really gets them dealing strickly and more intelligently with the architectural realities and risk/rewards realities of a hole in relation to their own capabilities!!

It doesn't take much at all to get some alternate cards printed up where Fox Chapel's front nine could be a par 35(70), 36(71) or 37(72) even with cards rotating the pars of up to those three holes any way you wished! Perhaps even just a club computer application could do it.

I realize the club will never have the "Lion's Mouth" done by this year's state amateur but if it did just imagine the State am competitors playing any of those holes in various par  arrangements---eg any of them as a par 5 hole one day and a par 4 the next! It'd be a wonderful experience and wonderful strategic message!!

Mark Petersen, the Exec. Dir. of Pa. Golf Assoc. might not understand this at first but after I put the full-Nelson on him he will!! It'd be a snap for Pa Golf Assoc to do this because we spit our own cards out of our own computer for all our tournaments.

The point is at least one and maybe up to three holes on the front nine are interesting "flex-par" holes! Talk about messing with players' strategic minds!

I hope you understand where I'm coming from on this---it may seem a bit odd at this point but it's just another good example of the fascinating adaptability of Fox Chapel.

You many like to know that both NGLA and Maidstone have this interesting adaptable par potential without doing a thing to those adaptable holes (that fall into that interesting cusp between pars) except setting the tee blocks in the appropriate place!





 

gookin

Re:Pennsy's 3rd Best Course ?
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2004, 09:28:14 PM »
Very interesting concept.  This spring we will return #8 to a par 4 for the third time in the 30 plus years I have been a member.  Although with a back tee at 475 and a back right pin it is not very accessable in two shots.  I have often agrued that the par does not really matter, your score is still your score.  Only one golfer out of 100 has the mental toughness to really believe that.  I will share your ideas with some of my buddies.  Good food for thought.