[Patrick_Mucci]

Rumor has it that a few changes are in store for NGLA shortly.

That # 7 will be made a par 4 from a shorter tee

That # 15 will have a new tee back and left

That # 18 will have a new tee back and right, across the road.

That other changes will occur and that other changes are being considered.

What do you think ?

[ed_getka]

Why would they be considering changes when it is so universally hailed as a brilliant design?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

I think there is a school of thought, within the club, that the
famous road hole at TOC is a par 4, hence # 7 should be a par 4.

I also believe that there may be a contingent within the club, that feel that the ball and equipment have altered the strategy and play of a few holes, and this is an attempt to return  or restore strategy to the course and offset the  increased distances golfers are hitting the ball.

[ed_getka]

Is the membership there that long off the tee? What percentage of players that are fortunate enough to play there are long enough to make the course obsolete in your opinion? Does that number justify the changes that are proposed in your opinion?

[brad_miller]

Might #5 be a better candidate for conversion to par 4? Blind second for most? (at least me) but a MUCH easier green complex to deal with.

[SPDB1]

pat -
shouldn't more deference be given to MacD's design intent, than to the hole upon which it is based? MacD and Raynor designed a number of road holes that play to par of 5 (Camargo, off the top of my head). Should all of these be transferred to 4?

Some of the road holes are remarkably similar in strategy to the original (Piping comes to mind), but the overwhelming theme of all of the versions seem to emphasize the approach more than anything else.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Pat,

On 15, don't you think the bunkers are appropriately in play from the current tee? As for 18, why change it? And, as for 7, who cares what par is? The short 5s at National are 5s into the wind and 4s with the wind, right? Does the scorecard matter that much to how one plays the hole?

[Gene Greco]

The course only needs to be maintained as hard and fast. Period.

Everything else is moot.

The powers that be at NGLA are intelligent; they wouldn't carve their initials into a Rolls Royce.

[ed_getka]

Gene,
 Then why do you think changes are being contemplated? I can't understand why a course most of us would dearly love to have an opportunity to see would tinker with such a classic.

[Mike_Cirba]

Re: #7, wouldn't playing from a forward tee tend to negate the strategy of the drive, which is to bite off as much of the carry to the right as one dares to provide the optimum angle down the length of the green for the approach, hopefully avoiding some sort of carry over the road hole bunker on the approach?  

[Mitch Hantman]

I think an important point to remember is that #17 at St. Andrews
was originally a par 5.

[Mitch Hantman]

I think an important point to remember is that #17 at St. Andrews
was originally a par 5.

[Gene Greco]

Ed:

    Maybe a group had one too many Southsides at some point this summer and a few "bright" ideas were concocted.

With the POSSIBLE exception of a new tee back and left on 15 which might present the hole as more receptive to the eye, all are simply stupid ideas and would serve no purpose in enhancing one's experience at one of the finest golf courses in all the world.

[ed_getka]

Aha! Better living through chemistry. Thats certainly a plausible explanation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()