Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Chris Cupit on May 26, 2014, 09:55:38 AM
-
Golf Channel will be televising some great golf these next three days. This afternoon you can watch the fight for one of the eight team match play spots with Match Play for the championship on Tuesday (quarters and semis) and Finals on Wednesday. Great course and great kids should make for fun viewing starting today
-
I just had the wonderful opportunity to play there last month. I am really looking forward to seeing the course on tv.
-
Unfortunate luck with the weather this week. Rain and no wind thus far. 6 delays in 3 days. Seems to be windy all the time there unless hosting a big tournament... :(
-
Chris,
Your boy is gonna be out there for GC dong the commentary.... ;D ;D
-
Chris,
Your boy is gonna be out there for GC dong the commentary.... ;D ;D
Already ran in to him........at the buffet . :)
-
I'm the 1:50 time this afternoon. Drew Stanford, Alabama and Oklahoma St. Gonna get to see some great golf!
-
Chris,
Your boy is gonna be out there for GC dong the commentary.... ;D ;D
Already ran in to him........at the buffet . :)
Imagine that......
-
Chris,
Your boy is gonna be out there for GC dong the commentary.... ;D ;D
Already ran in to him........at the buffet . :)
His buffet or the Player buffet? ;D ;D ;D there is a difference...
-
Chris,
Your boy is gonna be out there for GC dong the commentary.... ;D ;D
Already ran in to him........at the buffet . :)
His buffet or the Player buffet? ;D ;D ;D there is a difference...
Unfortunately the players. He had a ten minute biscuit search and caused a considerable delay!
-
Charley Rhymer is very enthusiastic and other commentators filling in nicely regarding golf course.
Have come to know Patrick Rodgers and his famliy over the years.
Watched him at Western Collegiate at Pasatiempo and he was masterful playing his ball to this second shot golf course. I expect you will see him exercise the same course management and execution today
-
Sweet golf tournament played on a world class golf course. I'm really enjoying the coverage.
-
It's great to see PD on television. The greens will test these kids even if the length won't.
-
As a midwesterner i've always been enamored by Prairie Dunes. After watching this tournament it borderlines on infatuation. I need to make thst 6 hour drive soon. I'm amazed at how good the conditioning is after the winter we had
-
It's great to see PD on television. The greens will test these kids even if the length won't.
As you know, it will teach them something about length....
-
The course looks tremendous. But what is Stanford doing using pushcarts???
-
What's wrong with pushcarts? Easy to use, good for the back...
-
What's wrong with pushcarts? Easy to use, good for the back...
Nothing wrong with them per se, but not sure whether it's the move for tournament play. But you are right about it being easy on the back.
-
The course looks tremendous. But what is Stanford doing using pushcarts???
Winning
-
The course looks tremendous. But what is Stanford doing using pushcarts???
Winning
The men's or women's division? Just kidding, relax.
-
Not sure whether it's the move for tournament play.
Do you think it makes any difference (positive or negative)? Physically, strategically? I don't have a strong view, as I have never played competitive golf, but whatever they are doing seems to be working.
-
Not sure whether it's the move for tournament play.
Do you think it makes any difference (positive or negative)? Physically, strategically? I don't have a strong view, as I have never played competitive golf, but whatever they are doing seems to be working.
It's definitely easier on your back and shoulders, particularly if the course is a tough walk. If they can't use caddies, I'm actually surprised they can use pushcarts in competition.
-
Not sure whether it's the move for tournament play.
Do you think it makes any difference (positive or negative)? Physically, strategically? I don't have a strong view, as I have never played competitive golf, but whatever they are doing seems to be working.
It's definitely easier on your back and shoulders, particularly if the course is a tough walk. If they can't use caddies, I'm actually surprised they can use pushcarts in competition.
I will be shocked if other teams don't suddenly show up with them. Wednesday is hot and humid...
-
Collegiate golf brought us the stand bag. Maybe they'll popularize the push cart for tournament play?
-
It would be great if the pro's could save the ten percent to the caddie in exchange for a push cart and calling their own distances.
-
8) Who would they talk to??? ::)
p.s. very nice flyovers of holes on the PD website
-
Gents, perhaps it is because not very much amateur golf is televised but push carts have always been used in tournament golf, especially when I was young back in England 25/30 years ago.
I would use one depending on the course and the weather. It can be a longer walk making your way round tees and greens and hills are no fun but if you are playing 36 and you need waterproofs, wooly hats and warm gloves etc. it can certainly be of benefit.
-
Great TV!
Love the place, the greens are just insane!
The weather is typical midwest unfortunately.
-
What a GREAT event.
-
Positively one of the coolest golf courses on the planet. Watching the approach shots into these greens really shows me and I hope these young kids the definition of strategic. Fall of fronts on the greens, inside rolls that you don't want to be on the wrong side and bunkers that are really a challenge instead of a manicured beach.
Enjoyable golf, hats off to the Golf Channel.
-
Agreed. Best golf watch of the year. PD looks great at sunset.
-
What a fun day. Had Patrick (Stanford), Corey (Alabama) and Wyndham (Ok St). Three great golfers and nice kids. Just a couple observations. All hit 9 irons into 4. Patrick had driver wedge on 7. Downwind. Par5. On hole 11, 535 Par 4 with a very slight breeze quartering and helping Patrick had 175-180 for second shot. On 18, playing downwind Corey hit 5 iron and gap wedge
Have two matches tomorrow :)
-
Loved the line from Illinois' coach Mike Small, that his kids were all PhD, meaning poor, hungry and determined.
-
Gents, perhaps it is because not very much amateur golf is televised but push carts have always been used in tournament golf, especially when I was young back in England 25/30 years ago.
What's sad is that it's newsworthy that pushcarts are being used.
-
A guy that first came on to my radar screen in 2013 at Porter Cup was SMU's Bryson Dechambeau. I have respect for his game and his demeanor. If no one else has picked him as one to watch, let me be the first.
-
What a fun day. Had Patrick (Stanford), Corey (Alabama) and Wyndham (Ok St). Three great golfers and nice kids. Just a couple observations. All hit 9 irons into 4. Patrick had driver wedge on 7. Downwind. Par5. On hole 11, 535 Par 4 with a very slight breeze quartering and helping Patrick had 175-180 for second shot. On 18, playing downwind Corey hit 5 iron and gap wedge
Have two matches tomorrow :)
I scored for Maverick McNealy, Tom Lovelady and Jason Niebrugge today, two.groups.in.fro t of Chris.
We've all spent too much time sitting in the clubhouse this week waiting for the weather to clear.
-
PD looked fantastic today.
Best golf of the year on TV.
-
Gents, perhaps it is because not very much amateur golf is televised but push carts have always been used in tournament golf, especially when I was young back in England 25/30 years ago.
What's sad is that it's newsworthy that pushcarts are being used.
There is a Florida Junior Tour event coming to Pensacola Country Club in November. I looked up the details on the web. Notice in big red letters, "NO PUSH CARTS WILL BE ALLOWED, YOU MUST CARRY YOUR BAG."
That will be news to our members, who have about 100 carts stored in our bag room.
-
The course looked incredible. Can't believe how calm the weather has been. The course is not that easy with the normal Kansas winds. The greens are soft from the rain too.
Was just out there May 16-18 and the course was perfect. The rough (not the gunsch) was longer than I have ever seen.
-
What's wrong with pushcarts? Easy to use, good for the back...
What does this say about caddying -- especially carrying double?
-
I can't remember if there were rules on push carts when I played in college, can't remember in AJGA either. I don't remember seeing any. My home course has a young girl who is a very good junior, she always uses a push cart.
-
What a fun day. Had Patrick (Stanford), Corey (Alabama) and Wyndham (Ok St). Three great golfers and nice kids. Just a couple observations. All hit 9 irons into 4. Patrick had driver wedge on 7. Downwind. Par5. On hole 11, 535 Par 4 with a very slight breeze quartering and helping Patrick had 175-180 for second shot. On 18, playing downwind Corey hit 5 iron and gap wedge
Have two matches tomorrow :)
Thank you Chris for the updates!
It is really crazy how far they hit it. :o
Patrick Rodgers can really whip that club as he is so tall, flexible, and thin. No way he could heft a bag around for as many rounds as they play.
The leaders are the most accurate, of course.
-
i have Maverick McNealy (Stanford) vs. Brian Campbell (Illinois) at 8:10 off #1. Afternoon is Alabama/SMU winner versus LSU/UCLA winner. I'll try to post updates but I do have to pay attention :)
Great crowds too--lots of kids. I had two terrific kids carrying the scoreboard today--Steven and Molly--both junior golfers and in 8-10 years maybe college players too!
-
Based on practice round tee markers look for hole 12 and/or hole 14 to be moved up to a drivable distance.
-
I watched a bunch today. I thought the golf course looked fantastic.
I will admit, I was also surprised to see the Stanford push carts. I don't have a problem with it in the least, just didn't expect to see it.
I talked with Stanford coach Conrad Ray a couple of times when I was still a newspaper hack. He is from Minnesota and was still kind of trying to play.
-
Push carts are far and away my favorite way to play. For me it makes a huge difference on how my knees feel after a round. They are becoming very popular in Dallas. I was surprised to see them in the NCAA but I bet in a few years they will be a common site. Were the Stanford guys using their own push carts or some that belong to the club?
-
What is the chance they play this event at Cypress Pt or Spyglass in the future? Would love to see this kind of tv coverage on either of those courses.
-
I remember Billy Mayfair and his push cart back in 1985-ish at the NCAA championship. It did stand out but made total sense. The game is a devastating wallop to the back.
As far as outlawing them, the anal-retentive are at it again! On what basis could you outlaw a push cart? The same one that allows you to limit number of practice swings, looks at a putt, and on and on? A push cart serves one purpose: to limit strain on the back born of carrying a heavy sack on the shoulders. A double-strap certainly balances the load, but in no way decreases it.
If you have a burr in your saddle about a push-cart, you certainly are too young (or too spiritually constipated) to be legally allowed to have an opinion on anything.
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
-
i have Maverick McNealy (Stanford) vs. Brian Campbell (Illinois) at 8:10 off #1. Afternoon is Alabama/SMU winner versus LSU/UCLA winner. I'll try to post updates but I do have to pay attention :)
Great crowds too--lots of kids. I had two terrific kids carrying the scoreboard today--Steven and Molly--both junior golfers and in 8-10 years maybe college players too!
Should be fun watching Brian coming off his amazing 63 yesterday that pulled his team into matchplay.
Push carts aren't a story (nothing new) - although using them at PDCC is noteworthy. Carrying is much easier out there with the hills and stairway climbs to tee boxes. There is quite a bit of extra walking required to use a cart.
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
They've been consistent for a long time (and are unchanged for this event). The fairways are really wide out there.
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
They've been consistent for a long time (and are unchanged for this event). The fairways are really wide out there.
They've been narrowed, as were Newport's.
Does it matter if they were narrowed last month, last year or several years ago ?
And, they were narrowed for a significant competition, as were Newport's, and never returned to their prior width.
You can't give a course a pass because you like the frilly bunkers or some other features.
Narrowing fairways, rarely, if ever, benefits the membership
-
I don't like the narrowed fairways either. But the last time I offered that gentle criticism, I was pilloried by the PD faithful. I think PD is awesome but would be better with wider fairways and fewer cottonwoods, whose seeds are plentiful this week. And the Chute par 3 hole doesn't really look so great on TV either. Those are relatively niggling criticisms, however, even if the members and other defenders find them baseless and heretical.
-
What a fun day. Had Patrick (Stanford), Corey (Alabama) and Wyndham (Ok St). Three great golfers and nice kids. Just a couple observations. All hit 9 irons into 4. Patrick had driver wedge on 7. Downwind. Par5. On hole 11, 535 Par 4 with a very slight breeze quartering and helping Patrick had 175-180 for second shot. On 18, playing downwind Corey hit 5 iron and gap wedge
Have two matches tomorrow :)
I am going to be watching make sure you don't kick any balls out the rough from the GT players :-). Glad to see LSU doing well.
I really liked the way the coaches get involved in helping the players. Do they do that every tournament or just the NCAA ?
-
On TV at least, I thought PD reminded me a lot of Crystal Downs - all the way to the narrowed fairways. At least at CD it didn't make or break the course for me, so I'm sure that's the case at Prairie Dunes.
Overall, I thought it looked fantastic on TV and the drama of the event was great. I've never seen multiple people nail so many clutch putts like the UCLA team.
-
Chris,
I know originally the plan was to have the teams 54 hole qualifying conclude on Sunday with the top 40 individuals competing for the individual title on Monday, and then match play beginning today. Since this is the first year with that format, I assume that was a Golf Channel decision to make the Monday round like a real tournament with the leaders coming in at the end. Obviously, the weather prevented that from happening.
In the end, I think it made better tv to have the team qualifying alongside the individual championship. Of course, if there hadn't been any individuals in contention at the end, it may have been different, but I thought the drama was much better the way it worked. Do you think in the future they may stick to that format, and have the team and individual event conclude together.
-
I know it is a great course, I do, I do, I do, but yesterday afternoon I watched every second of the coverage while monitoring this site and was shocked at the lack of discussion of how the course is maintained. The unrecoverable gunch, narrow fairways and a shute on a par three that you not only have to hit through, you have to hit under. Rich Harvest Links anyone? Since I know it is a great course it is my opinion that the TV coverage did the course a great disservice. I don't get it. Oh, and were the greens slowed down for the event because where were the issues for these young players. Could blame the rain for the course being soft but if that is the case the fairways are even that much more too narrow.
Since I am most certainly wrong the course must not have looked good on TV.
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
Do you include the short rough is what you call fairway?
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
Do you include the short rough is what you call fairway?
No. I thought the actual fairways were plenty wide. I have no idea what the measurements are, and I am sure some of the PD members that participate on this site could provide far better context. Just my takeaway following 5+ rounds in early May.
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
Do you include the short rough is what you call fairway?
No. I thought the actual fairways were plenty wide. I have no idea what the measurements are, and I am sure some of the PD members that participate on this site could provide far better context. Just my takeaway following 5+ rounds in early May.
Thank you, which seems to go with my contention that TV did the course a disservice. I would love to hear what people saw that they thought looked good. What is odd is that Benton Harbor looked great on TV this weekend and it gets nary a nod on this site.
-
Not all of the fairways are narrow. But many are. And not every hole is hemmed in by the gunsch, but many are. The good thing about the gunsch is that it's easy to find a ball. Somebody else's!
But the penal nature of the course by now is not just a matter of setup; it seems to be the culture of the place. I totally understand that the membership of a classic course like PD might gravitate slowly but surely to making the course tougher in ways that seem inimical to gca purists. They want the course to be relevant to top flight competition. Happens all the time, even at a shrine like Merion. I'll go ahead and apologize to the PD members who bleat that the fairways aren't narrow and the gunsch is sort of out of play. I apologize, because I love the place despite its perceived shortcomings.
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
Do you include the short rough is what you call fairway?
No. I thought the actual fairways were plenty wide. I have no idea what the measurements are, and I am sure some of the PD members that participate on this site could provide far better context. Just my takeaway following 5+ rounds in early May.
I played there last month too. The fairways are plenty wide enough. I'm not that good and only missed two with the wind gusting to 40mph. It is not a course that rewards those who don't think about their shots before hitting them though. I do agree with JakaB that the 15th is not the most visually appealing hole. I feel the opposite about 12 though. The field goal trees make that hole a great hole. I think Press was much more sadistic than Perry.
-
Coming off my first visit to PD just a few weeks ago, I can say that the fairways are far from narrow, even if they have been narrowed...this coming from a rather erratic driver of the ball (I have a lovely snap hook / massive push combo). I found the course immensely playable.
Brian & Nigel,
What are your handicap indexes ?
With the incredibly penal nature of the flanking gunk, why would anyone endorse narrower fairways at PD ?
For the membership ?
For a significant competition ?
-
Not all of the fairways are narrow. But many are. And not every hole is hemmed in by the gunsch, but many are. The good thing about the gunsch is that it's easy to find a ball. Somebody else's!
But the penal nature of the course by now is not just a matter of setup; it seems to be the culture of the place. I totally understand that the membership of a classic course like PD might gravitate slowly but surely to making the course tougher in ways that seem inimical to gca purists. They want the course to be relevant to top flight competition. Happens all the time, even at a shrine like Merion. I'll go ahead and apologize to the PD members who bleat that the fairways aren't narrow and the gunsch is sort of out of play. I apologize, because I love the place despite its perceived shortcomings.
PD member here ready to attack.
Gunsch is by far the biggest shortfall of the course and yes many of the members look at it as a badge of honor. I do not, as I think it keeps it out of the very top echelon of courses.
As for the rough lines I have a couple of different thoughts. I do wish they were wider especially on a few specific holes (17 jumps out). That being said, I do think that the rough in the current set up prevents a lot of balls from getting into the gunsch for the normal member. The rough is generally kept pretty short (not hack it out rough at all) so it is extraordinarily playable.
As for the Chute par 3, I don't like it either. I have heard that there has been some talk of removing at least one of the trees which I support.
Hope this post doesn't make you feel pilloried :).
-
Not all of the fairways are narrow. But many are.
Agreed
And not every hole is hemmed in by the gunsch, but many are.
Agreed, and once you're in it, unless you take an unplayable, you're unlikely to get out, resulting in an "X" on a hole.
It's a round ruiner.
The good thing about the gunsch is that it's easy to find a ball. Somebody else's!
Agreed
But the penal nature of the course by now is not just a matter of setup; it seems to be the culture of the place.
Thoroughly agree.
And, this isn't restricted to PD. You find it at Oakmont, PV and other terrific golf courses that develop a culture, a mind set, over the years.
I call it the golf equivalent of the "Red Badge of Courage". Pride in the demonic golf gods.
And, it's so incredibly hard to change that culture, even if it's an out of place iconic tree or other feature.
It becomes imbedded in the culture.
I totally understand that the membership of a classic course like PD might gravitate slowly but surely to making the course tougher in ways that seem inimical to gca purists.
They want the course to be relevant to top flight competition.
It's a matter of "Golf Pride", in not wanting golfers to destroy par, as if that somehow detracts from the quality of the course as it relates to the membership.
It's really a by-product of the failure to rein in the I&B (distance)
Happens all the time, even at a shrine like Merion.
It's not limited to select courses, it's systemic, universal.
I'll go ahead and apologize to the PD members who bleat that the fairways aren't narrow and the gunsch is sort of out of play.
They're not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated. They're defenders of their club's policies and as such they're naturally defensive when it comes to these subjects.
I apologize, because I love the place despite its perceived shortcomings.
I think it's a fabulous golf course, one you can play every day and not tire of it, but remember, without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
PD member here ready to attack.
Gunsch is by far the biggest shortfall of the course and yes many of the members look at it as a badge of honor.
That's the misguided culture.
I do not, as I think it keeps it out of the very top echelon of courses.
Perhaps, as a round ruiner.
I played with a fellow in a competition who hit his drive into the right gunk on # 17.
I mumbled, loud enough for all to hear, that if it was me, I'd go back to the tee.
Unfortunately, he failed to do so, flailed away, only hitting the ball a few feet, and now he couldn't return to the tee.
He finished the hole with a double digit score and his drive wasn't that errant.
It's clearly a round ruiner and excessive
As for the rough lines I have a couple of different thoughts. I do wish they were wider especially on a few specific holes (17 jumps out).
Agree
That being said, I do think that the rough in the current set up prevents a lot of balls from getting into the gunsch for the normal member.
ONLY if their ball is running along the ground.
Balls with trajectory will end up in the gunk if hit in that direction.
The rough is generally kept pretty short (not hack it out rough at all) so it is extraordinarily playable.
As for the Chute par 3, I don't like it either. I have heard that there has been some talk of removing at least one of the trees which I support.
Great, get more vocal ;D
Hope this post doesn't make you feel pilloried :).
It's a common sense post.
-
Pat,
The rough and gunsch are separate things and issues. There are a lot of older members at PD ( a couple even older than you) and they don't hit the ball very high. I am just saying that one positive is that the rough in its current setup prevents some ball from getting into the gunsch.
Beyond a badge of honor, there are financial restrictions with maintaining the gunsch as well.
-
Pat,
Serious question. Have you been back to PD since you played it in the US Midam? I am curious as to the thickness of the gunsch then versus now, and if current state of fertilizing has affected that part of the course. Older pictures seem to suggest that it wasn't quite as dense many years ago.
-
The round ruining nature of gulch can certainly be frustrating. I'm actually surprised there weren't more extremely high numbers as a result of wayward drives this week. I do know one of the guys on Illinois made a 10 in the first round and was 1 under for the rest of the event.
Also, does anyone know why Alex Burge of Illinois was DQ'd? I saw a tweet that he took a lost ball, but a competitor found it and didn't tell him until after the round. Can't believe that is true and someone would knowingly do that.
-
The round ruining nature of gulch can certainly be frustrating. I'm actually surprised there weren't more extremely high numbers as a result of wayward drives this week. I do know one of the guys on Illinois made a 10 in the first round and was 1 under for the rest of the event.
Also, does anyone know why Alex Burge of Illinois was DQ'd? I saw a tweet that he took a lost ball, but a competitor found it and didn't tell him until after the round. Can't believe that is true and someone would knowingly do that.
No wind is why there were so few big numbers. Also having spotters helps as well.
I have about 75 rounds played there. Maybe 3 of those under wind conditions that they had this weekend.
-
The round ruining nature of gulch can certainly be frustrating. I'm actually surprised there weren't more extremely high numbers as a result of wayward drives this week. I do know one of the guys on Illinois made a 10 in the first round and was 1 under for the rest of the event.
Also, does anyone know why Alex Burge of Illinois was DQ'd? I saw a tweet that he took a lost ball, but a competitor found it and didn't tell him until after the round. Can't believe that is true and someone would knowingly do that.
No wind is why there were so few big numbers. Also having spotters helps as well.
I have about 75 rounds played there. Maybe 3 of those under wind conditions that they had this weekend.
And even with perfect conditions, and dozens of kids that can "go low" the course more than held up. Heck, a tournament at yale yielded -33 earlier this year. Only a few rounds under 65, seems plenty tough to me.
-
The round ruining nature of gulch can certainly be frustrating. I'm actually surprised there weren't more extremely high numbers as a result of wayward drives this week. I do know one of the guys on Illinois made a 10 in the first round and was 1 under for the rest of the event.
Also, does anyone know why Alex Burge of Illinois was DQ'd? I saw a tweet that he took a lost ball, but a competitor found it and didn't tell him until after the round. Can't believe that is true and someone would knowingly do that.
No wind is why there were so few big numbers. Also having spotters helps as well.
I have about 75 rounds played there. Maybe 3 of those under wind conditions that they had this weekend.
And even with perfect conditions, and dozens of kids that can "go low" the course more than held up. Heck, a tournament at yale yielded -33 earlier this year. Only a few rounds under 65, seems plenty tough to me.
I think under normal conditions even par wins and there are more high scores overall.
Chris Cupit, were the tees up a bit this weekend? Obviously 10 was. I am wondering about 13 for example.
-
I've been pilloried! Ma, help me!!!
-
no doubt the greens are slower than normal with the deluges they've had, makes the scoring receptive
I remember the fairways as generous and lush, while the greens were firm and fast requiring a bump and run for most approaches
the greens are fantastic!
-
Older pictures seem to suggest that it wasn't quite as dense many years ago.
I've seen pictures from the 1960s where the whole expanse of gunch between 8 and 9 was only ankle deep.
-
The Stanford pushcart use began when Cam Wilson had some back problems last year and Coach Ray suggested the move to them.
The other players liked the idea and they are winning. How great to see the No 1 AM IN THE WORLD AND THE ncaa CHAMPION pusshin trolleys
-
The course looks fantastic. For those in the know, what are the chances of your average 15 hdcp getting around with 1 ball?
-
I hope Golf Channel has a web archive of this tournament, I would love to watch it again.
-
I hope the pushcarts become a little more socially acceptable in this country. One thing that stood out during the years I spent in Australia is that everybody walks and a lot of them take pushcarts. There doesn't seem to be the stigma that there is here. Maybe this will help.
As for the course... been on my bucket list for a long time. Just have to find a way on it.
-
The course looks fantastic. For those in the know, what are the chances of your average 15 hdcp getting around with 1 ball?
Almost zero, unless you are the straight hitting 15 handicapper that just doesn't hit it far enough.
-
Great final match in semifinal #2...Walker Cup boys Rodgers and Niebrugge for all the coffee.
-
Based solely upon what I've seen on television, because I haven't played either, does anyone else think that Prairie Dunes resembles a Sandbelt course, both in terms of appearance and playability? Can anyone tell whether I'm right or way off base? I'm well aware that I could be wrong, but from certain views, it appears to be almost a Sandbelt course stuck in the middle of the USA.
-
Based solely upon what I've seen on television, because I haven't played either, does anyone else think that Prairie Dunes resembles a Sandbelt course, both in terms of appearance and playability? Can anyone tell whether I'm right or way off base? I'm well aware that I could be wrong, but from certain views, it appears to be almost a Sandbelt course stuck in the middle of the USA.
I think it is very unique, especially the late night views we saw of #10. However, it looks very narrow in a Merion style. Not from trees but rather from lost balls and hacking out rough.
Neither Merion nor PD need to be narrow to be great, but similar to Newport CC, they seem to be USGAed.
Merion is 2 hours, Newport 2 1/2 hours, will pass on Prairie Dunes until I get to a 5 handicap, for the first time.......
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow. It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow. It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
That's fair.
-
Our bagboy rep said the calls started coming yesterday from club pros...buy pull cart stock...this is gonna make it take off...
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow.
It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
David,
The course/fairways were narrowed, intentionally, and never returned to their previous widths.
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country.
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow.
It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
David,
The course/fairways were narrowed, intentionally, and never returned to their previous widths.
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country.
Did you see my posts and question above? Would appreciate your thoughts and perspective.
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow.
It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
David,
The course/fairways were narrowed, intentionally, and never returned to their previous widths.
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country.
Did you see my posts and question above? Would appreciate your thoughts and perspective.
Sean,
Yes.
I addressed your comments in reply # 64 and agree with most of what you said.
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
Not sure what you are talking about. Fairways are very generous. I am estimating 40 yards for fairways in many places and width from "bunch to bunch" is even wider. I played there about two years ago and I did not notice that they did anything special re: narrowing fairways of this event-just some new tees :)
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
I am not a straight driver of the ball. I believe the fairways are very generous.
-
Chris,
I know originally the plan was to have the teams 54 hole qualifying conclude on Sunday with the top 40 individuals competing for the individual title on Monday, and then match play beginning today. Since this is the first year with that format, I assume that was a Golf Channel decision to make the Monday round like a real tournament with the leaders coming in at the end. Obviously, the weather prevented that from happening.
In the end, I think it made better tv to have the team qualifying alongside the individual championship. Of course, if there hadn't been any individuals in contention at the end, it may have been different, but I thought the drama was much better the way it worked. Do you think in the future they may stick to that format, and have the team and individual event conclude together.
Golf Channel could not have been more gracious or understanding of the players/coaches overwhelming desire to have the team competition be the primary driver of the championship. They understood the desire to have 54 holes determine the final 8 teams even to the "detriment" of the individual part.
I agree that the drama of the team competition is very compelling--more so than the individual thing would have been. Great event and drama as it turned out
-
The round ruining nature of gulch can certainly be frustrating. I'm actually surprised there weren't more extremely high numbers as a result of wayward drives this week. I do know one of the guys on Illinois made a 10 in the first round and was 1 under for the rest of the event.
Also, does anyone know why Alex Burge of Illinois was DQ'd? I saw a tweet that he took a lost ball, but a competitor found it and didn't tell him until after the round. Can't believe that is true and someone would knowingly do that.
He was DQ'd for a violation of 27/13 and there was NO CONTROVERSY at all. He realized he made a mistake and the DQ was "by the book". He played a provisional ball after hitting one ball in the high fescue. Despite his pleas to "not look for the ball" a spectator did identify a ball. Instead of going over to identify the ball and verify if it was his or not, he failed to do so and continued play with the P-ball. Facts were not in dispute and after a discussion in the scoring tent, he was unfortunately DQ'd. Thankfully, his score was not a counting score
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
Not sure what you are talking about. Fairways are very generous. I am estimating 40 yards for fairways in many places and width from "bunch to bunch" is even wider. I played there about two years ago and I did not notice that they did anything special re: narrowing fairways of this event-just some new tees :)
Chris,
Go back and remeasure # 6, # 8, # 16 and # 17.
I think you'll find them closer to 30 yards, by far, than 40 yards.
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
I am not a straight driver of the ball. I believe the fairways are very generous.
Bill,
What width do you consider "very generous"
-
I know it is a great course, I do, I do, I do, but yesterday afternoon I watched every second of the coverage while monitoring this site and was shocked at the lack of discussion of how the course is maintained. The unrecoverable gunch, narrow fairways and a shute on a par three that you not only have to hit through, you have to hit under. Rich Harvest Links anyone? Since I know it is a great course it is my opinion that the TV coverage did the course a great disservice. I don't get it. Oh, and were the greens slowed down for the event because where were the issues for these young players. Could blame the rain for the course being soft but if that is the case the fairways are even that much more too narrow.
Since I am most certainly wrong the course must not have looked good on TV.
John--i love you but to compare PD to Rich Harvest is flat out STUPID--not even remotely in the same ball park. I am not a fan of the chute on 15 but consider that the expert golfer is hitting a 6 iron mostly there. They are not concerned about a "narrow" chute but instead an overhanging limb.
You guys that think the fairways are narrow surprise me. Width on most holes between the bunch is 60 -80 yards. With little wind like we had this week, narrowness was not an issue at all. With 15-20 MPH winds the wide (yes wide) fairways do play a little tight but nothing like what you guys are suggesting--unless you are not driving the ball well :)
Many great scores on the 63-65 range. Both my matches today were under par as well. PD is a fabulous golf course--this is what golf should look like :D
-
So everybody raving about Prairie Dunes doesn't object to narrowed fairways ?
Not sure what you are talking about. Fairways are very generous. I am estimating 40 yards for fairways in many places and width from "bunch to bunch" is even wider. I played there about two years ago and I did not notice that they did anything special re: narrowing fairways of this event-just some new tees :)
Chris,
Go back and remeasure # 6, # 8, # 16 and # 17.
I think you'll find them closer to 30 yards, by far, than 40 yards.
After working the course for a walk thru on Thursday, 6 holes on Friday, 48 holes Saturday, 36 Sunday, 36 Monday and 34 today I feel pretty good about my estimates. Hole #6 is WIDE where those kids hit it (maybe not your drive zone ;)). And believe to or not, we had to wait on the tee as some kids actually went for the green and put it in the green side bunker!
Fairway is absolutely 40 yards plus wide past the left bunker--NO DOUBT. #8 is narrow at the 350 mark. Hole played 468. Most kids hit hybrids or 3 woods to the flatfish portion short of where fairway bends right. Average play I saw was a 3 wood and 6 iron.
#16 is similar. From new tee at 429 most kids hit 3 wood, hybrid or iron to the flat portion short of both FW bunkers. Few tried driver and thoe that did brought bunkers and gunch into play as the line had to be over the right bunker. One stroke play round I had Patrick Reed. After he played a driver over the right bunker he had between 50-60 yards for his approach :o
#17 is narrow and plays blind to a fairway canted away from. The 7th hole was a driver and 8-Wedge and 17 was very reachable at 523 as well. Drivers, 3 woods and hybrids in equal number. Fairway is absolutely 30 yards wide (though to to hit because of above). Still, great drives resulted in iron second shots. Balls in first or second cut meant a wedge, wedge approach.
-
One other point. For these kids the bunch is not death. We had unplayables but most of the time the player was able to advance the ball out quite well. I was shocked at the number of times the player could play to and reach the green from the gunch.
One story--USC player Rico Hoey is in stroke play. Drives in crap on the right of #7. Swings at it, moves it 4 inches. Drops under unplayable and still has a shot that I assume means a punch out. He must lift the club up nearly vertically and come down right on top of it due to a bush behind his ball. Has about 190. Hits a 9 iron about 15 feet!!! Damndest thing I ever saw.
He missed his par putt :(
-
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country. [/color]
Less light rough, replaced by fairway, would mean more balls would enter the gunch.
The course is plenty wide.
-
Last thought about width:
Fairways were all a minimum of 35-40 yards wide. There was a 4-6 first cut of rough, 20 yards or primary fescue on both sides and then, the gunch. If I had a complaint it is that despite a drought, the fairways and roughs were LUSH. Fairways did not play firm or fast and would not even without the rain. (Greens would have been firmer but for the storms).
With little to no wind and lush fairways and rough the course played wide. I had numerous members as walking scorers and despite the drought the normal maintenance practice seems to be to keep the fairways and "interior" roughs very green which help keep the balls out of the tall stuff.
Again--this is a GREAT, classic course that serious students of architecture should experience first hand.
-
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country. [/color]
Less light rough, replaced by fairway, would mean more balls would enter the gunch.
That's not true.
The game is no longer played on the ground, it's an aerial game with little to no roll on more and more courses.
The course is plenty wide.
Since when is 30 yards in the DZ "plenty wide" ?
-
For those who claim that Prairie Dunes is "wide" or "plenty wide", how would you compare today's width with the pre-2006 Senior Open width ?
If it's "wide" or "plenty wide" today, what was it pre the preparation for the 2006 Senior Open ?
Speak up boys ! ;D
-
It could/should be wider in places but it really isn't that narrow.
It just seems that way because the gunch is death.
David,
The course/fairways were narrowed, intentionally, and never returned to their previous widths.
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country.
Did you see my posts and question above? Would appreciate your thoughts and perspective.
Sean,
Yes.
I addressed your comments in reply # 64 and agree with most of what you said.
I was talking about my posts in 65 and 66.
Despite what Pat refuses to believe, the rough does keep some balls out of the gunsch. The rough is normally kept very light and when the wind blows, sometimes I prefer to be in the rough hitting into the breeze so it spins less.
Here is where I would like to see fairways extended.
Left on 3
Right on 16
The entire way on 17, especially as you get closer to the green. This is the one hole the looks Merionified to me.
Left on 18.
Other than that I am ok with the fairway width. The gunsch is a different story but that cannot effectively be changed.
-
I enjoyed the TV. Push carts and rangefinders aside, I liked seeing no caddies, players raking their own bunkers, packing their clubs, replacing their divots, holding the flags for their opponents, and so on. Not so sure about the coaches slowing things down. I never watch live golf—thanks, DVR—so I have no idea about the POP, but it seemed pretty slow. Maybe limit advice to between holes. How long can it take? Thirty seconds seems adequate on the walk from green to tee. The course looked good to me. The gunch was extreme, but the greens were magnificent. Chris C. seems to know what he is talking about.
Final comment: TV is not a good way to get a feel for the architecture. It could be, but that’s not the focus of the production which is on the human drama, who wins and loses, and that turns it into a putting display. I don’t fault the producers. They know what folks want, what sells Chialis, and their business. Most viewers couldn’t care less about the golf course. Who won? That’s it, who cares about how the grass or gunch is cut?
-
This is why it's pointless trying to have a discussion with Pat Mucci.
Chris, who knows the topic inside-out, says "all the fairways were at least 35-40 yards wide", to which Mucci responds "since when is 30 yards in the dz plenty wide?".
It's even more tiresome than hoary old lines about Ford models, barbecue charcoal and ATVs in the Hamptons.
-
Sean, I saw this post about #15 at Golfwrx...interesting that he notes that the trees on the left were worked on a few years ago.
"I've played the course my whole life; it is a daunting tee shot. After hitting high draws all day, the player is forced to hit a low cut. The Chute, as the hole is named, has been made a bit more playable in the past couple of years. Some limbs on the left trees were removed, making an opening up the middle. It used to be a straight chute that rejected any and all high shots. As such, I was previously forced to club up and hit a stinger- to an uphill green that slopes away. If the greens were at their normal firmness, it would be the toughest tee shot on the course. Alas, the greens are the softest I have seen in my 20+ years of playing the course. Interestingly, the hole is the #18 handicap."
-
After working the course for a walk thru on Thursday, 6 holes on Friday, 48 holes Saturday, 36 Sunday, 36 Monday and 34 today I feel pretty good about my estimates. Hole #6 is WIDE where those kids hit it (maybe not your drive zone ;)). And believe to or not, we had to wait on the tee as some kids actually went for the green and put it in the green side bunker!
Fairway is absolutely 40 yards plus wide past the left bunker--NO DOUBT. #8 is narrow at the 350 mark. Hole played 468. Most kids hit hybrids or 3 woods to the flatfish portion short of where fairway bends right. Average play I saw was a 3 wood and 6 iron.
#16 is similar. From new tee at 429 most kids hit 3 wood, hybrid or iron to the flat portion short of both FW bunkers. Few tried driver and thoe that did brought bunkers and gunch into play as the line had to be over the right bunker. One stroke play round I had Patrick Reed. After he played a driver over the right bunker he had between 50-60 yards for his approach :o
#17 is narrow and plays blind to a fairway canted away from. The 7th hole was a driver and 8-Wedge and 17 was very reachable at 523 as well. Drivers, 3 woods and hybrids in equal number. Fairway is absolutely 30 yards wide (though to to hit because of above). Still, great drives resulted in iron second shots. Balls in first or second cut meant a wedge, wedge approach.
Are guys like these, with their great length, going to take over the tour and majors in coming years?
-
If they can keep the ball in the fairway then certainly. The difference in many matches turned on what player avoided a mistake of hitting a loose shot in the tall stuff. Putting inside 6 feet was a separator too
-
Chris,
I'm working in Costa Rica and is not on TV here but Rymer tells me a lot of you rules guys are walking around all hunched over and are getting little boners when you get to make rulings and he is doing his best not to let it show on TV....also claims he was not at a buffet... ;D
-
After working the course for a walk thru on Thursday, 6 holes on Friday, 48 holes Saturday, 36 Sunday, 36 Monday and 34 today I feel pretty good about my estimates. Hole #6 is WIDE where those kids hit it (maybe not your drive zone ;)). And believe to or not, we had to wait on the tee as some kids actually went for the green and put it in the green side bunker!
Fairway is absolutely 40 yards plus wide past the left bunker--NO DOUBT. #8 is narrow at the 350 mark. Hole played 468. Most kids hit hybrids or 3 woods to the flatfish portion short of where fairway bends right. Average play I saw was a 3 wood and 6 iron.
#16 is similar. From new tee at 429 most kids hit 3 wood, hybrid or iron to the flat portion short of both FW bunkers. Few tried driver and thoe that did brought bunkers and gunch into play as the line had to be over the right bunker. One stroke play round I had Patrick Reed. After he played a driver over the right bunker he had between 50-60 yards for his approach :o
#17 is narrow and plays blind to a fairway canted away from. The 7th hole was a driver and 8-Wedge and 17 was very reachable at 523 as well. Drivers, 3 woods and hybrids in equal number. Fairway is absolutely 30 yards wide (though to to hit because of above). Still, great drives resulted in iron second shots. Balls in first or second cut meant a wedge, wedge approach.
Are guys like these, with their great length, going to take over the tour and majors in coming years?
Start winning on tour and majors? Yes. Take over? No I don't think so. The length echelons of professional golf see the longest guys playing mini tour golf, then web.com and finally the PGA tour are probably on average the shortest. Lots of college guys hit it longer than most of the PGA tour (Bubba and co notwithstanding), but the games are different. I think the PGA tour is a lot more about finesse and consistency. There is a pretty long list of people who can go out and shoot 63 for 18 holes. There's a much shorter list of people who can go out and shoot 265-270 for 72 holes. Especially on the types of courses the PGA tour plays.
I think that the kids like Rodgers will get out there and do pretty well, but I would expect that he'll get shorter in search of consistency.
-
I'm working in Costa Rica and is not on TV here but Rymer tells me a lot of you rules guys are walking around all hunched over and are getting little boners when you get to make rulings and he is doing his best not to let it show on TV....also claims he was not at a buffet... ;D
Rymer molests small animals ;)
He's just mad Tech can't seem to win a match :(
I will concede that he may be an expert on identifying little boners though ;D
-
We had 156 really talented kids. Many "can't miss" ones for sure. Out of this bunch 3-5 may have significant professional success and half of those will be guys the "experts" never heard of!! So many factors go into success on tour you would be crazy to try and predict who makes that next step.
-
Chris,
Are they on the air yet? Not getting a reply to your comments from the large one...
-
Chris,
Are they on the air yet? Not getting a reply to your comments from the large one...
Not till the afternoon. First match is 2:00 CDT.
Had the Alabama vs LSU first match yesterday. Bobby versus Benjamin. Solid match. On 9 Ben calls me over to tell me when he was in the hay he caused his ball to move about a millimeter on his backswing. One stroke penalty and it gave Bobby a 2 Up lead. Fights back with great birdie on 10. Benjamin is 1DN on 14. He's in bunker and Bibby is short sided after his drive. (Both players tried to drive the green). Anyway Benjamin is from the UK where they often play stones in bunkers as moveable obstructions. Before his coach or I realized what he was doing (I literally was yelling "Benjamin stop", he had picked a stone up. Loss of Hole. Two DN with four to play. Total momentum shift and Bobby closed him out 3&2. Shame as it was a well played match.
-
Sean, I saw this post about #15 at Golfwrx...interesting that he notes that the trees on the left were worked on a few years ago.
"I've played the course my whole life; it is a daunting tee shot. After hitting high draws all day, the player is forced to hit a low cut. The Chute, as the hole is named, has been made a bit more playable in the past couple of years. Some limbs on the left trees were removed, making an opening up the middle. It used to be a straight chute that rejected any and all high shots. As such, I was previously forced to club up and hit a stinger- to an uphill green that slopes away. If the greens were at their normal firmness, it would be the toughest tee shot on the course. Alas, the greens are the softest I have seen in my 20+ years of playing the course. Interestingly, the hole is the #18 handicap."
Sounds right. I know they have limbed up some of those trees a bit this year anyway. The branches on the right have grown out since I have been a member so that a high slight draw could hit them. I don't like that at all, especially when the tee is near the back of the tee box.
-
That's a tough one...you guys have fun...
-
Pat,
The rough and gunsch are separate things and issues. There are a lot of older members at PD ( a couple even older than you) and they don't hit the ball very high. I am just saying that one positive is that the rough in its current setup prevents some ball from getting into the gunsch.
Beyond a badge of honor, there are financial restrictions with maintaining the gunsch as well.
Sean,
Have there been talks about replacing the gunsch with thinly seeded fescue? Couple holes a year to offset the costs? Burn and seed. My guess is the soil is sandy? Love the course from TV and photos.
-
Pat,
The rough and gunsch are separate things and issues. There are a lot of older members at PD ( a couple even older than you) and they don't hit the ball very high. I am just saying that one positive is that the rough in its current setup prevents some ball from getting into the gunsch.
Beyond a badge of honor, there are financial restrictions with maintaining the gunsch as well.
Sean,
Have there been talks about replacing the gunsch with thinly seeded fescue? Couple holes a year to offset the costs? Burn and seed. My guess is the soil is sandy? Love the course from TV and photos.
Not that I am aware of and it seems impossible. It's native grass and it's beyond huge.
I have always wished that the native could be like Ballyneals when it first opened. Not sure how it is now as it's been years since I have been there. Wondering if that has gotten worse over time due to runoff from grass maintainance.
-
If you ever lost the gunsch, you'd never have an opportunity like the one I saw on television where a player named Gooch was in the gunsch!
-
I'm a little surprised that the heavy stuff is so, well, heavy this early in the season. We had the worst winter in a generation and it only warmed up a couple weeks ago. Do they not cut it down at least once a year? What's the average age/handicap of the membership? Are they generally happy with the presentation of the course?
-
Chris,
Are they on the air yet? Not getting a reply to your comments from the large one...
Not till the afternoon. First match is 2:00 CDT.
Had the Alabama vs LSU first match yesterday. Bobby versus Benjamin. Solid match. On 9 Ben calls me over to tell me when he was in the hay he caused his ball to move about a millimeter on his backswing. One stroke penalty and it gave Bobby a 2 Up lead. Fights back with great birdie on 10. Benjamin is 1DN on 14. He's in bunker and Bibby is short sided after his drive. (Both players tried to drive the green). Anyway Benjamin is from the UK where they often play stones in bunkers as moveable obstructions. Before his coach or I realized what he was doing (I literally was yelling "Benjamin stop", he had picked a stone up. Loss of Hole. Two DN with four to play. Total momentum shift and Bobby closed him out 3&2. Shame as it was a well played match.
That sucks. But hasn't he played in the US for at least an entire season?
-
I'm a little surprised that the heavy stuff is so, well, heavy this early in the season. We had the worst winter in a generation and it only warmed up a couple weeks ago. Do they not cut it down at least once a year? What's the average age/handicap of the membership? Are they generally happy with the presentation of the course?
It actually is less dense and lighter this year because of the weather. There is a burn program where they do a scheduled burn every couple of years. They also do work to manage anything that grows with a wood stem so to speak. but it is the midwest and it is native and it grows REALLY fast.
Average age is near death and handicaps run the gamut. Members learn how to play the course keeping the ball down and way from trouble as much as possible. I believe they generally they are happy as there is a badge of honor element to the difficulty presented. The members are not happy with no wind this past week as no one likes to see their course get taken apart like they did.
-
I'm a little surprised that the heavy stuff is so, well, heavy this early in the season. We had the worst winter in a generation and it only warmed up a couple weeks ago. Do they not cut it down at least once a year? What's the average age/handicap of the membership? Are they generally happy with the presentation of the course?
It actually is less dense and lighter this year because of the weather. There is a burn program where they do a scheduled burn every couple of years. They also do work to manage anything that grows with a wood stem so to speak. but it is the midwest and it is native and it grows REALLY fast.
Average age is near death and handicaps run the gamut. Members learn how to play the course keeping the ball down and way from trouble as much as possible. I believe they generally they are happy as there is a badge of honor element to the difficulty presented. The members are not happy with no wind this past week as no one likes to see their course get taken apart like they did.
Sean,
This is one of the most astute posts regarding the attitude of a membership hosting a big event that I've ever seen on the site. I can just see the stereotypical 72 year-old retired Hutch banker bemoaning softness of the turf and the weakness of the winds while the college kids were competing. I can only imagine how many Member Guest events wound up with wacky scores because of the seemingly ever-present 25 m.p.h. plus winds that zip across Prairie Dunes. The truth is, the average member of a private club wants to see great players suffer on their own field of dreams, a course that has humbled and frustrated them for decades. It's human nature, after all.
-
OT on this wonderful thread, but I may start a petition to get Kelly Tilghman removed from not only the Golf Channel, but anywhere on television sans for the occasional infomercial for Kevin Trudeau.
In that vein, it has chapped my ass for years that my buddy Dave Seanor got fired for having a noose on the cover of Golfweek. He was highlighting the controversy. She created it. He gets fired and she keeps her job after Tiger publicly forgave her. She should be working on Animal Planet now.
-
OT on this wonderful thread, but I may start a petition to get Kelly Tilghman removed from not only the Golf Channel, but anywhere on television sans for the occasional infomercial for Kevin Trudeau.
where do I sign?
-
I'm a little surprised that the heavy stuff is so, well, heavy this early in the season. We had the worst winter in a generation and it only warmed up a couple weeks ago. Do they not cut it down at least once a year? What's the average age/handicap of the membership? Are they generally happy with the presentation of the course?
It actually is less dense and lighter this year because of the weather. There is a burn program where they do a scheduled burn every couple of years. They also do work to manage anything that grows with a wood stem so to speak. but it is the midwest and it is native and it grows REALLY fast.
Average age is near death and handicaps run the gamut. Members learn how to play the course keeping the ball down and way from trouble as much as possible. I believe they generally they are happy as there is a badge of honor element to the difficulty presented. The members are not happy with no wind this past week as no one likes to see their course get taken apart like they did.
Sean,
This is one of the most astute posts regarding the attitude of a membership hosting a big event that I've ever seen on the site. I can just see the stereotypical 72 year-old retired Hutch banker bemoaning softness of the turf and the weakness of the winds while the college kids were competing. I can only imagine how many Member Guest events wound up with wacky scores because of the seemingly ever-present 25 m.p.h. plus winds that zip across Prairie Dunes. The truth is, the average member of a private club wants to see great players suffer on their own field of dreams, a course that has humbled and frustrated them for decades. It's human nature, after all.
The last time PD held a big event was the US Senior Open in 2006, and there was no wind, the tees were up and the members STILL bitch about it. The wind ALWAYS blows there, as you know, so to have it happen again is unreal.
-
I'm a little surprised that the heavy stuff is so, well, heavy this early in the season. We had the worst winter in a generation and it only warmed up a couple weeks ago. Do they not cut it down at least once a year? What's the average age/handicap of the membership? Are they generally happy with the presentation of the course?
It actually is less dense and lighter this year because of the weather. There is a burn program where they do a scheduled burn every couple of years. They also do work to manage anything that grows with a wood stem so to speak. but it is the midwest and it is native and it grows REALLY fast.
Average age is near death and handicaps run the gamut. Members learn how to play the course keeping the ball down and way from trouble as much as possible. I believe they generally they are happy as there is a badge of honor element to the difficulty presented. The members are not happy with no wind this past week as no one likes to see their course get taken apart like they did.
Sean,
This is one of the most astute posts regarding the attitude of a membership hosting a big event that I've ever seen on the site. I can just see the stereotypical 72 year-old retired Hutch banker bemoaning softness of the turf and the weakness of the winds while the college kids were competing. I can only imagine how many Member Guest events wound up with wacky scores because of the seemingly ever-present 25 m.p.h. plus winds that zip across Prairie Dunes. The truth is, the average member of a private club wants to see great players suffer on their own field of dreams, a course that has humbled and frustrated them for decades. It's human nature, after all.
The last time PD held a big event was the US Senior Open in 2006, and there was no wind, the tees were up and the members STILL bitch about it. The wind ALWAYS blows there, as you know, so to have it happen again is unreal.
Yep..one of our members won that one...I think it was a repeat from 2005. He beat TW if I am correct.... ;D
-
Sean,
I was Grounds Chairman at Olympia for the '03 Open and everybody is still lamenting the first two days' weather AND the USGA's decision to cut the rough to 3 1/2 inches. It absolutely killed everybody in the Members Lounge to watch the pros kill the course for the first two days. By the time the weather changed and the USGA started hanging flags in bunkers, everybody's opinion on the course had already been implanted and most of the members never "recovered". The fact that only three players broke par for the week is pretty much lost in the fog of memory.
-
OT on this wonderful thread, but I may start a petition to get Kelly Tilghman removed from not only the Golf Channel, but anywhere on television sans for the occasional infomercial for Kevin Trudeau.
Great idea, but unfortunately Mr Trudeau is not available at this moment...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-17/business/chi-kevin-trudeau-sentenced-20140317_1_kevin-trudeau-global-information-network-guzman
Kelly is awful though.
-
Below are the course ratings for Prairie Dunes
White (~6200 yd) -- Old: 71.2/134 New: 72.3/141
Blue (~6500 yd) -- Old: 73.6/141 New: 74.1/144
Gold (~6900 yd) -- Old: 74.7/144 New: 75.5/148
A problem with golfers is that they want their course to defend par against the better/best players,
but, they want to use hi-tech I&B to score lower with their games.
You can't have it both ways.
-
Sean,
I was Grounds Chairman at Olympia for the '03 Open and everybody is still lamenting the first two days' weather AND the USGA's decision to cut the rough to 3 1/2 inches. It absolutely killed everybody in the Members Lounge to watch the pros kill the course for the first two days. By the time the weather changed and the USGA started hanging flags in bunkers, everybody's opinion on the course had already been implanted and most of the members never "recovered". The fact that only three players broke par for the week is pretty much lost in the fog of memory.
Of course it is. And it will be forgotten that -6 won this week.
Myself, I would have liked to just see the normal 15 MPH south wind, with maybe 1 day with a similar wind from the north. I would not like to see what I have had for wind this past weekend the last 2 years when it blew 25-30 mph. That isn't good for anybody.
-
I absolutely love this great course and fine golf!
-
This is why it's pointless trying to have a discussion with Pat Mucci.
Ahh yes, pointless because your position gets rendered useless.
I feel your pain.
Chris, who knows the topic inside-out, says "all the fairways were at least 35-40 yards wide", to which Mucci responds "since when is 30 yards in the dz plenty wide?".
Did it ever occur to your dim witted moronic brain that maybe, just maybe, Chris's measurements might be flawed or off by a few yards ?
What then my dim witted friend ?
It's even more tiresome than hoary old lines about Ford models, barbecue charcoal and ATVs in the Hamptons.
No one is holding and gun to your head and forcing you to read any of my posts.
I happen to like the charcoal briquette story about Maidstone and I love riding ATV's and I never tire of Ford models or any other Agency's models.
But, mayber you're more of a guy who likes guys.
I can't please everyone and I certainly wouldn't make the effort to please you.
Have you ever played Prairie Dunes ?
My measurements absolutely could have been off and so I texted one of the officials today and asked him to ask the other officials of their best estimate of fairway widths and he even half stepped a few mentioned in this thread. Of the five remaining officials including the head official who set up the course it was unanimous at 30-40 yards with some portions much wider and a few (more wider than narrower) like 3 and 17 narrower.
-
Scott Warren,
So the fairways were measured at 30-40 Yards.
And what was the question I asked ?
"Since when is 30 yards plenty wide ?"
So who was right Scott, you dim witted moron.
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
Have you ever played it ?
How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?
You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.
-
Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
Have you ever played it ?
How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?
You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.
I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes. 30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye. It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.
-
You can't know a course with only a hundred to two hundred plays. (You have gotten the most out of that membership!)
-
Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.
So you're stating that Pre-2006 Sr Open, the rough, as it was then configured, didn't save any balls from going into the gunsch ?
But now that the rough has been expanded inward, toward the center of the fairway, more balls, balls hit closer to that centerline, are saved from going into the gunsch ? ? ?
Is that right ? ? ?
You'll have a hard time convincing me that when a fairway is 40 yards wide, and it's narrowed down to 30 yards wide, how that 5 yards of new rough, closer to the centerline of the fairway, saves balls from going into the rough.
Don't take this the wrong way but are you guys blind to the physical facts ?
Put in logical terms, you're all morons, blindly defending a course that enjoys "MFNS"
If the rough between the fairway and gunsch is ten yards in width and you move the rough closer to the centerline of the fairway by expanding the rough five (5) yards closer to the center of the fairway, do you really believe that reconfiguring the rough such that it now extends another five yards closer to the centerline of the fairway is going to stop more balls from going into the rough ?
You'd have to be a colossal moron to believe that.
You guys must have flunked math 101........... or maybe it was geometry 101 or logic 101
Or maybe all three.
So, let's go back to the question I keep on asking that no one has answered.
Why would you defend the current width of the fairways versus the Pre 2006 Sr Open widths of the fairways ?
MORONS NEED NOT REPLY
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
Have you ever played it ?
How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?
You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.
I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes. 30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye.
It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.
You can be absolutely assured that you're not mentally tougher than me, on or off the golf course.
When you say, "gone around" does that mean that you were lost and couldn't find the course or that you actually have played it "a couple hundred times". There is a difference and I'm just trying to clarify that difference.
-
PD has been in my top five golf courses in the U.S since my days working for the Dye Family. My first visit coincided with a trip to Firethorn golf club a Pete Dye design and Dick Youngscap owned facility. I would go from Denver to Firethorn and then circle back around through Hutchison to walk and play PD. I was just learning how to play golf but knew this was a place that was as close to the look of sand dunes and golf as I had seen, at least since my first visit to Scotland. I believe that Dick made a call for me the first time I made a visit to PD.
I have written in my interviews with GCA the reasons for my love affair with this course. I patterned a lot of my green shapes over my years of shaping greens and count this Maxwell gem a must for all who enjoy the simpler land forms of dunes golf. The best sand course don't need thirty foot towering dunes to be good.
Small inside rolls that you saw gave some of the best ball strikers fits today. The rolling fairways and interesting greens more then make up for the length of the holes. In fact I wish they would have shown more of the 6-9 loop with the 7th green being my favorite. A classic on the ground green with very interesting Maxwell rolls.
Watching it on TV this afternoon brought back many memories, I need to get back out there soon.. You can discuss the fairway widths all you want. The true character of this course is the greens and the landforms they are attached to.
I need to get a note off to Golf channel for including this in the line up. It was well worth it, now back to the regular tour stops.
-
Jim,
I think the first hint that you're in for something special is when you're driving to the club on flat roads and in the distance you see the changed landform.
-
Pat,
The fact that you first response to me bypassed on-topic debate for calling me a homosexual speaks volumes.
I also noticed your voice kinda faded away after KK responded to your old favourite "have you even played it?".
There's plenty of room by and large from gunch to gunch and the light rough makes that effectively wide than were it all fairway. Where there could be more room is on a very short four and a short five, so I can live with that.
The terrain, greens and conditioning are as good as it gets in golf and the wind makes all of that even more fun. I visited Prairie Dunes on a six-day roadtrip in 2012 with Sand Hills and Ballyneal and were I forced to choose only one to visit again it would be PD. Splitting 15 rounds I'd take 6 at PD, 5 at SH & 4 at BN.
-
Pat,
The fact that you first response to me bypassed on-topic debate for calling me a homosexual speaks volumes.
I didn't call you anything, I merely theorized that you might prefer stories about guys given your stated distaste for stories about Ford models.
I also noticed your voice kinda faded away after KK responded to your old favourite "have you even played it?".
Then you're delusional, in addition to being a dim witted moron.
I responded to his comment less than 3 hours after he made it.
Is that "fading away" ?
Evidently, you can't tell time.
You should have noticed that KK has yet to respond to my query as to whether his use of the term "gone around" is equivalent to the term "has played", and it's been more than 3 hours in case you hadn't noticed
There's plenty of room by and large from gunch to gunch and the light rough makes that effectively wide than were it all fairway.
No one, repeat, no one ever remotely suggested that the area between the flanking gunsch should be all fairway.
Only a dim witted moron would attempt to misrepresent the discussion to that extent to serve his own agenda.
The fairways have been narrowed.
That's a fact that even a dim witted moron should be able to understand.
And, that narrowing occurred by increasing the area of rough closer to the fairway centerline, not away from it
Where there could be more room is on a very short four and a short five, so I can live with that.
It's nice of you to now admit that the narrow fairways should be widened.
I believe I stated same earlier, but you took exception to it.
What changed your mind ?
Facts and logic ?
I also stated that some of the fairways were only 30 yards wide and you told me that I was wrong and that another party knew more than I did about the fairway widths.
But then, that party had the officials on site actually measure the fairway width.
And those measurements revealed that some of the fairways were 30 yards wide.
So I was right and you were wrong.
But the real issue isn't your ignorance regarding the fairway widths.
It's that you, without any facts regarding fairway width at your disposal, declared that a third party was right and that I was wrong.
It's that YOU chose to personalize this by declaring:
[This is why it's pointless trying to have a discussion with Pat Mucci. [/i]
Well it it isn't pointless to have a discussion with me, it's educational, especially for dim witted morons who don't know what they're talking about, such as yourself.
So The next time you want to personalize this and make snide remarks, get your facts right you dim witted moron
[/color]
The terrain, greens and conditioning are as good as it gets in golf and the wind makes all of that even more fun. I visited Prairie Dunes on a six-day roadtrip in 2012 with Sand Hills and Ballyneal and were I forced to choose only one to visit again it would be PD. Splitting 15 rounds I'd take 6 at PD, 5 at SH & 4 at BN.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of fairway width Pre and Post the 2006 Sr Open
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
Have you ever played it ?
How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?
You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.
I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes. 30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye.
It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.
You can be absolutely assured that you're not mentally tougher than me, on or off the golf course.
When you say, "gone around" does that mean that you were lost and couldn't find the course or that you actually have played it "a couple hundred times". There is a difference and I'm just trying to clarify that difference.
I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.
It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart. I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.
-
I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes. 30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye.
It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.
You can be absolutely assured that you're not mentally tougher than me, on or off the golf course.
When you say, "gone around" does that mean that you were lost and couldn't find the course or that you actually have played it "a couple hundred times". There is a difference and I'm just trying to clarify that difference.
[/quote]
I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.
Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?
So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.
It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.
"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.
Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?
In what year did you first play PD ?
I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.
Cold
But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.
Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?
[/quote]
-
When you examine the issue of fairway width in the context of the table below, and compare that table with a similar table dated 2004, what might that tell you.
Morons need not tax themselves by trying to think and answer the question posed.
Below are the course ratings for Prairie Dunes
White (~6200 yd) -- Old: 71.2/134 New: 72.3/141
Blue (~6500 yd) -- Old: 73.6/141 New: 74.1/144
Gold (~6900 yd) -- Old: 74.7/144 New: 75.5/148
-
I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.
Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?
So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.
It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.
"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.
Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?
In what year did you first play PD ?
I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.
Cold
But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.
Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?
Yes - I do believe 30 yards would be wide enough. Every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than that, but I don't see any reason to narrow them further. As it is set up now, there is plenty of room to drive the ball and the angles are there. Do you feel that Pine Tree is too narrow from the tee? How about Garden City?
When is the last time that you played Prairie Dunes? With your current handicap we could have a good match. I'm sure a man as mentally tough as you are doesn't give strokes. I do worry that you couldn't keep up. I'd likely be waving while heading down the third fairway as you continue to search for a place where you could step off the fairway width of the first in 30 paces.
-
Pat...
Do what you want, you are a big boy.
But it is my opinion that you are way out of line. You can question members of the course who've played there many times over, but in all honesty they have way more knowledge of the course than anyone on this forum. You can question the rules official who was actually on-site for this tournament, but, again, he has way more knowledge of the course set up then any of us have on this forum. HOWEVER, to make comments about someone's sexuality and sexual preferences is WAY out of line. I believe a kudos goes out to Scott Warren for showing restraint in his responses to your over the top comments.
You can respond in whatever way you want to me, but to be clear this is my last post of this thread...regardless of what you say. This was a really cool thread about the championship and Prairie Dunes with lots of people with first hand knowledge and now it is being dragged into meaningless banter and non-sense.
-
And to throw a little fuel on the fire...
I spoke with a kid who played in the NCAA. He didn't think PD was particularly narrow--he loved everything about the golf course. But I'd guess he's a better player than a very high percentage of the members.
-
Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#
I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch. Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball. In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back. There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
-
Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#
I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch. Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball. In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back. There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
That is interesting as the Press holes seem tighter, but according to your stats are not. I thought 8 in the landing area was miles wide too.
-
I watched all of the coverage late last night, and was reminded of just how incredibly diverse and interesting Prairie Dunes is. I wish there was a bit more coverage of the early holes, particularly 6 through 8, which I think is an absolutely incredible stretch of holes within an 18 hole masterpiece.
6th - short(ish) par 4, especially for the college bombers, but plenty of trouble, with bunkers in just the right spots (esp the left fw bunker ~250-260 out and the visually deceiving bunker roughly 10 yards short of the green)
7th - brilliant, reachable par 5 with a generous landing area for those willing to lay back a bit, but progressively tighter from 300 to 350 off the tee...well-guarded green, with just enough room for shorter hitters to trundle the ball on through the gap
8th - perhaps the best par 4 I have ever played - rumpled, reverse camber fairway, challenging approach, particularly if attacking a right flag position.
The greens throughout the course are a rare meeting of natural landform and design genius. They have a very consistent look and feel, but manage to never play in a repetitive manner (hole to hole or round to round). That goes for the entire course, really, which was especially impressive to me as I went around my first 5 times earlier this month, considering the mix of Perry and Press.
-
Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.
So you're stating that Pre-2006 Sr Open, the rough, as it was then configured, didn't save any balls from going into the gunsch ?
But now that the rough has been expanded inward, toward the center of the fairway, more balls, balls hit closer to that centerline, are saved from going into the gunsch ? ? ?
Is that right ? ? ? No, those balls are not. But as you move the fairways closer to the gunch, more balls are saved from the gunsch because the bounce off the fairway is bigger than off the rough.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that when a fairway is 40 yards wide, and it's narrowed down to 30 yards wide, how that 5 yards of new rough, closer to the centerline of the fairway, saves balls from going into the rough. I think that an additional 5 yards of fairway would not have a major affect on the playability of the golf course, with the exception of a few holes, which I have highlighted earlier. If we are talking about expanding the fairways so that the fairways are WIDE, as you spoke of earlier, then we are talking about way more than 5 yards
Don't take this the wrong way but are you guys blind to the physical facts ?
Put in logical terms, you're all morons, blindly defending a course that enjoys "MFNS"
If the rough between the fairway and gunsch is ten yards in width and you move the rough closer to the centerline of the fairway by expanding the rough five (5) yards closer to the center of the fairway, do you really believe that reconfiguring the rough such that it now extends another five yards closer to the centerline of the fairway is going to stop more balls from going into the rough ?You are correct. 5 yards will not make a big difference.
You'd have to be a colossal moron to believe that.
You guys must have flunked math 101........... or maybe it was geometry 101 or logic 101
Or maybe all three.
So, let's go back to the question I keep on asking that no one has answered.
Why would you defend the current width of the fairways versus the Pre 2006 Sr Open widths of the fairways ? I did not play it pre 2006. I am talking about how the current golf course plays for players of all ability. If the rough were kept so that it was penal, I would agree with most everything that you say. But it is not. I would like to see a few fairways widened a bit. I do not know the cost associated with reclaiming fairway and keeping it that way, but that is a consideration as well. The biggest shortcoming of the course is the gunsch. If anything, I would like to see some of the corridors widened (which they have done on number 5 since you have been there in 1988).
MORONS NEED NOT REPLY
-
I watched all of the coverage late last night, and was reminded of just how incredibly diverse and interesting Prairie Dunes is. I wish there was a bit more coverage of the early holes, particularly 6 through 8, which I think is an absolutely incredible stretch of holes within an 18 hole masterpiece.
6th - short(ish) par 4, especially for the college bombers, but plenty of trouble, with bunkers in just the right spots (esp the left fw bunker ~250-260 out and the visually deceiving bunker roughly 10 yards short of the green)
7th - brilliant, reachable par 5 with a generous landing area for those willing to lay back a bit, but progressively tighter from 300 to 350 off the tee...well-guarded green, with just enough room for shorter hitters to trundle the ball on through the gap
8th - perhaps the best par 4 I have ever played - rumpled, reverse camber fairway, challenging approach, particularly if attacking a right flag position.
The greens throughout the course are a rare meeting of natural landform and design genius. They have a very consistent look and feel, but manage to never play in a repetitive manner (hole to hole or round to round). That goes for the entire course, really, which was especially impressive to me as I went around my first 5 times earlier this month, considering the mix of Perry and Press.
Brian,
Some great early holes as you point out and one item mentioned that makes the "width debate" so tough is the number of choices the elite golfer has off the tee and the fact that widths vary depending upon which area of fairway you ar playing to.
for example, the 6th hole you mention may have that left bunker at 250-260 that is right in the good player's range but it was not a factor for 90% of the college kids. Drivers and mostly threee woods were bombed over that left bunker as if it were not there (with wind it may have been a diffrent story). Six was in fact one of the easier driving holes because after you bomb it sown to the flat portion of the FW, it is VERY wide--my estimate is that while the FW may measure 35 yards between that left bunker and rough line (even farther to the gunch) once you get to the flat is is 40-45 yards wide.
Hole 7 is another example--the second FW bunker on the left is where many scratch golfer hit the ball and many college kids landed right in and around that bunker too--that was the narrowest part of the FW and lots of kids found trouble on this tee shot. But the the decision for the kids was either a hybrid or #wood that was hit to try and just keep the roll out short of that bunker and leave a longer iron or hybrid in OR attempt to bomb it past that left bunker, over the hill and way down to where a lone FW (?) bunker was on the right at the 350 or so mark. The bombers that made that play brought more trouble into play getting past that bottleneck but if they hit one great they had wedges in to this par 5. Not sure how you measure width on that hole--35 yards wide short of the left bunker, 29 yards wide at the narrowest point and back to 35-37 yards wide after that.
I had mentioned 8 before and again saw most of the kids play hybrids and 3 woods to the widest, flattest portion of the FW before the hole began to bend. Drivers would be at that narrower area but few challenged it as a worthwhile risk. If you hit your 6 iron 200, why bother :D
What to me is so great about the course is the number of CHOICES the golfer has off the tee--isn't that what strategic architecture is all about. PD gives you many, many options and various widths to play to.
-
PD is great and Pat may be mostly off base BUT he has a point--this is a difficult course for the average player who does not hit the ball straight. It may be difficult for many in the Membership there too--BUT IT IS THEIR CLUB. Should Oakmont members be chastised for the fetish with penal architecture and green speeds beyond crazy ??? Should Seminole be taken to task for firm and fast so extreme that elite amateurs five and six putt (one to lose the finals of their invitational) and chip all over the greens and back ???
In this thread I was trying to talk about a great championship at a great course and highlight an event I thought many would be interested in. I love the course and played it a few years ago. Frankly, I played awful and mainly as a result of driving the ball poorly. It was very windy on my trip (flight was cnancelled coming in due to weather and I had to re-schedule) and so I have seen very windy, difficult conditins and benign ones.
I am a good club player and had to hit 6-7 iron into 2, 3-4 iron into 4 and hole 8 was an absolute bear into the wind--I think I hit my driver right into the "crapper" on the left >:(
BUT, with enough plays I still feel like I could manage my game and get around were I playing well--it wasn't unfair.
There is ample width today and that width is needed because you will usually have wind.
I also saw Pat's chart comparing old slope and rating with new slope and rating. Rating is almost entirely a factor of length and is a roughly a measure of what a scratch golfer would shoot compared to par. Slope takes into account factors like fairway width nad certainly "gunch" but also green severity and slope and is a relative rating focused more on the "average" golfer (whatever that is). I would suggest that other factors, like increased green speeds on those very difficult greens, maybe some added length and yes, maybe some narrowing of some fairways all contributed to slight increases in the slope rating. I suppose I could ask Tom McCutcheon who was one of the raters of PD about these changes though I am sure Pat would call him a "moron" too--his first hand knowledge be damned :D (That offer stands though Pat--Tom has been a very long time USGA and NCAA official, I bet you know him and after he was a PD rater he since became a Member too--would his opinion carry any weight with you????
One last thought that Pat may even concede--Equipment today (the ball and driver) have made driving the ball straight easier than ever. It is easier to hit a straight ball today than it was in 1988--26 years ago. Maybe in 26 years, with a ball flying longer and straighter than ever before, a slight narrowing even for the "average player" is not so out of line?
Was PD with old balata, wood woods, steel shafts and no lob wedges easier for the expert OR the average player than today with modern equipment?
-
What to me is so great about the course is the number of CHOICES the golfer has off the tee--isn't that what strategic architecture is all about. PD gives you many, many options and vary widths to play to.
Outstanding points in your entire post - an excellent comparison of how holes play for a scratch club player compared to today's best D1 college kids.
I especially agree with the above comment on CHOICES. Nearly all of my favorite courses present multiple (genuine) options on nearly every shot. PD does so like few other courses I have played.
-
Now, off topic, if I give you my address woud you be abe to see if I need to get someone on my roof to get rid of any limbs/branches that are up there?
If you think you might need someone on your roof, you need someone on your roof.
The Blue Golf site has impressive information for the courses with photo tours available. By clicking on two spots on a particular hole you can measure distances between them. I find it a great objective check on subjective experiences.
The big limitations of the tool are elevation changes and wind. It is easy to be led astray when guessing your tactics for a new course so some mystery remains.
-
On Morning Drive earlier today, Gary Williams declared himself to be "anti-trolley" in response to the Stanford team's use of pushcarts at PD. I wonder whether the use of pushcarts in some way detracts from one's ability to appreciate course architecture as opposed to carrying your own bag?
-
Great thread Chris, THANK YOU! You have very thoughtful insights and experience. 8)
There is no doubt that these top amateurs hit it farther and straighter than ever! :o
-
Since it appears that I was the only other GCAer there this week, I'll offer my two cents.
Pat's right about one thing, some fairways are a bit narrow. But I was there for four days in 2001 for the Women's Open, played twice on back to back days a couple years ago and now walked it four times with college players.
First, I don't see much, if any, significant difference between 2001 and now. The exception is that some areas of gunsch have been cleared, notably the hill on #10. In 2001 it was a blind shot due to the bushes.
I'll also say that until this week I thought PD was too hard for a 12-handicapper like me--IOW a short, crooked hitter with a short game of note.
The reason being that it's not the thigh fairways that concern me. My concern was that hole after hole has impenetrable gunsch within a couple of steps of the putting surface.
I could hit it in the fairway only to barely miss a green (I miss 16+ a round) and make double bogey or worse.
But four days with a clipboard have changed my mind... along with talking to some members about strategy.
One example is #8 which seemed completely beyond my ability. And I didn't see how to get past it.
But now I realize that driving to the flattest part of the fairway, on the left. From there with the usual tailwind I have a chance. But even if I don't, I can lay up to the VERY wide spot short of the green.
Even more notable is that I found out plenty of members in my age group (66) play the silver tees.
Which are only 5500 yards. Hell, a single-digit player with some.gray hair said he was close to.moving up.
-
I was watching on TV and told a companion that if you can see any green contour from the overhead shot, it must have lots of contour. If you see dramatic contours from the overhead shot, they must be close to over the top.
I don't recall seeing the contours that easily from the air on any recent broadcast.....
-
One thing that isn't being taken into consideration is that regardless of the width of the fairways, in the effective landing zones for drives the fairway is much wider. That is because you are often driving into a fairway that is turning one way or another.
Hole 1 - side-to-side width really isn't an issue because you are driving into a fairway that is turning to the left.
Hole 3 - players are hitting irons or hybrids into the fairway on this short hole.
Hole 5 - to me the tightest driving hole on the course, made tighter by the fact tthat because of the slope of the fairway you have to land the ball on the left 50% of the fairway in order not to roll into the right rough.
Hole 6 - the teebox is offset to the left of the fairway so that your effective angle off of the tee gives you a much wider landing area.
Hole 7 - pretty tight driving hole however it usually plays downwind so players can hit a 3W off the tee and still often reach it.
Hole 8 - fairway moves slightly left to right which opens up a little extra width.
Hole 9 - pretty straight fairway but one that I have never thought of as tight at all. Sometimes plays with a hard wind coming from the right which makes hitting a good drive harder.
Hole 11 - again the fairway is moving left which opens up the width a little.
Hole 12 - hitting the fairway is imperative on this hole and while it is a little offset from the tee box it is a tough drving hile. Generally most players won't be hitting drivers here though.
Hole 13 - a bear of a drive into the prevailing wind but again its turns a little to the left to open up the fairway a little.
Hole 14 - golfers are often hitting less than a driver here and the fairway is moving left.
Hole 16 - fairway is pretty generous and is moving right with a back tee that is offset to the right.
Hole 17 - the tee shot is not as straight as it looks because it is offset a little. The fairway has a vanishing point look to hit that gets narrower as it gets closer.
Hole 18 - usually downwind and not requiring a driver, fairway goes a little right which opens up the angle a little.
The only thing I haven't liked about the course set-up the last wek at PD is that the greens are too soft. The Maxwell greens there are top 5 in the world and would be a little more interesting if they were a little harder. Also, where the hell has the wind been?
-
Great work, Jason. Makes sense-17 is always a tough drive for me, because:
1. Obviously, it's the narrowest fairway on the course
2. It's a straight hole, which for my eyes, is the toughest to play. I can't work the ball off a gentle bend, etc. That's why, even though playing the new 480 yard tee on #5 into the prevailing wind is absolutely nuts for me, I LOVE that tee. It frames the hole wonderfully and gives you the bunker on the left to work the ball off that. Also wides the effective width of the fairway.
I guess I thought the driving areas are generous, because as another member pointed out, many of the hole have gentle bends (1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18) and you can work the ball with the shape of the hole to effectively widen the fairway.
I am not a straight driver of the ball. But, I can work the ball, and typically have some consistency of my right to left move, which works very nicely on all of the above mentioned holes other than 16 and 18. However, I can down the right side on those hole and have a lot of room left to miss.
I LOVE Prairie Dunes (about 90 rounds in my 4+ years as a national member) for a couple of reasons:
1. It's a great test of golf between the wind, gunch, and green complexes
2. However, that being said, it's still FUN to play. Maxwell, from what I can see being an associate of Dr. MacKenzie, also believed bogey to be reasonably attainable and par a challenge for the average golf. The Maxwells give you places to miss and places to layup if you decide not to try to force a shot into those greens (example, any approach for me over 180 yards on #8-I'll take a 7 iron and leave myself a 30 yard pitch up the hill).
3. It forces you to commit to every shot. If you are commited to a shot and a shot shape, and you avoid the dreaded double cross (which Prairie Dunes does not tolerate in any way, shape or form) you will be at least partially rewarded.
4. The greens just take my breath away. Either from the sheer beauty, or being paralyzed by the thought that my chip shot, if I miss my landing spot, will either go bounding off the green or come back at me. I tell some of my guests that there are holes that if you aren't in complete control of your short game, you should simply just put your chip shot in the middle of the green and take bogey.
Vog
Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#
I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch. Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball. In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back. There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
-
I was watching on TV and told a companion that if you can see any green contour from the overhead shot, it must have lots of contour. If you see dramatic contours from the overhead shot, they must be close to over the top.
I don't recall seeing the contours that easily from the air on any recent broadcast.....
I can never see contours on any Google Maps aerial photos either. Is Google Earth better?
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. It plays wide as stated above.
Have you ever played it ?
How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?
You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.
I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes.
Kyle,
Then you're holding yourself out to be an expert on Prairie Dunes.
30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye.
Really ?
Well in that case would you identify those 45 yard fairways that your eye detected ?
Below is Jason's chart on the fairway widths.
With your hundreds of plays there how is it that there are NO fairways that are 45 yards wide ?
With your hundreds of plays there, including "more this year than in my lifetime", how could you be so wrong
about the widths of the fairways ? ? ?
It would seem that your evaluative skills are more a figment of your imagination and ego than reality.
There's not a fairway that comes close to 45 yards.
What does that tell us about "your eye" ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.
It seems that you need a seeing eye dog, irrespective of your age.
-
You can't know a course with only a hundred to two hundred plays. (You have gotten the most out of that membership!)
Mike,
I suspect that Kyle's 200 plays were between 10:00 pm and 4:00 am with Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder.
The guy doesn't have a clue as to how wide the fairways are, and that's with the benefit of his alleged 200 plays.
What does that tell you about his powers of observation and evaluative skills.
-
With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.
The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.
It's too penal the way it is.
Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country. [/color]
Less light rough, replaced by fairway, would mean more balls would enter the gunch.
What "light rough" ?
There's fairway, rough and gunch, there is no "light rough"
Widening the fairways to their PRE-2006 USGA Sr Open would NOT result in more balls in the gunch.
Consider the angle that a ball from the tee would hit the fairway and how it's continued path would end up in the gunch.
The course is plenty wide.
Really.
Do you consider this plenty wide ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
Next time you make a analytical comment, know what you're talking about before hitting the "enter" key
-
This is why it's pointless trying to have a discussion with Pat Mucci.
Pointless because you're so wrong, so out of your element in terms of the facts that your only resort is to personalize the discussion.
Chris, who knows the topic inside-out, says "all the fairways were at least 35-40 yards wide", to which Mucci responds "since when is 30 yards in the dz plenty wide?".
Turns out that Chris's measurements were incorrect, weren't they.
Where are those 45 and 40 yard wide fairways that you claimed were plenty wide ?
In case you had forgotten the fairway widths, here they are:
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
I didn't see one fairway at 45 or 40 yards, did you ?
So 29 yards is "plenty wide" ? ? ?
Perhaps for PGA Tour Pros, but, not for a local club's membership
It's even more tiresome than hoary old lines about Ford models, barbecue charcoal and ATVs in the Hamptons.
What's tiresome is your grossly inaccurate posts regarding the fairway widths at PD
But, what can one expect from a dim witted moron ?
-
Pat,
The fact that you first response to me bypassed on-topic debate for calling me a homosexual speaks volumes.
I also noticed your voice kinda faded away after KK responded to your old favourite "have you even played it?".
There's plenty of room by and large from gunch to gunch and the light rough makes that effectively wide than were it all fairway.
Gunch to gunch width was NEVER the issue.
Fairway width WAS the issue
My question remains:
For those who claim that Prairie Dunes is "wide" or "plenty wide", how would you compare today's width with the pre-2006 Senior Open width ?
If it's "wide" or "plenty wide" today, what was it pre the preparation for the 2006 Senior Open ?
Where there could be more room is on a very short four and a short five, so I can live with that.
The terrain, greens and conditioning are as good as it gets in golf and the wind makes all of that even more fun. I visited Prairie Dunes on a six-day roadtrip in 2012 with Sand Hills and Ballyneal and were I forced to choose only one to visit again it would be PD. Splitting 15 rounds I'd take 6 at PD, 5 at SH & 4 at BN.
-
Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?
Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is.
It plays wide as stated above.
This is wide ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
-
I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.
Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?
So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.
It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.
"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.
Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?
In what year did you first play PD ?
I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.
Cold
But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.
Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?
Yes - I do believe 30 yards would be wide enough.
Every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than that, but I don't see any reason to narrow them further.
So, according to you, who's played Prairie Dunes over 200 times, every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than 30 yards.
How do you account for the following fairway widths, some of which are narrower than 30 yards ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
I thought you said that you had played the course over 200 times ?
That's right, you said that you had "gone around" the course over 200 times, and I asked you to clarify the "gone around" versus "played" for us.
As it is set up now, there is plenty of room to drive the ball and the angles are there.
Really ?
Perhaps your eye is faulty when it comes to assessing the fairway width measurements.
Here they are again.
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
Tell us where there's plenty of room on these fairways, NOT one of which comes close to your 45 and 40 yard assessment ?
I also asked you to tell us how many times you've played Prairie Dunes in 2014 since you claimed that you had played it more this year than I had in my lifetime.
Why have you failed to answer that simple question, especially given the weather this Winter and Spring.
So, how many times have you played Prairie Dunes in 2014 ?
I also asked you what your handicap is.
Now that's such a simple question, one that can be answered with one or two digits.
But, you failed to answer that as well.
WHY ?
Do you feel that Pine Tree is too narrow from the tee?
Feel free to initiate a thread on that subject and I'll respond
How about Garden City?
See my answer above
When is the last time that you played Prairie Dunes?
With your current handicap we could have a good match.
I'm sure a man as mentally tough as you are doesn't give strokes.
Not surprisingly, you're confusing mental toughness with stupidity.
I do worry that you couldn't keep up.
I'd likely be waving while heading down the third fairway as you continue to search for a place where you could step off the fairway width of the first in 30 paces.
In some cases I wouldn't get to 30 paces.
In others I'd just reach 30 paces.
But, one things for sure, I won't reach 45 and 40 paces as you claimed as measured by your "eye"
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
-
Pat...
Do what you want, you are a big boy.
But it is my opinion that you are way out of line.
Why, because I challenged people to think and they proved that they were incapable of the exercise ?
You can question members of the course who've played there many times over, but in all honesty they have way more knowledge of the course than anyone on this forum.
Mac,
Really. Then how did they get the measurements so WRONG ?
Where are the 45 yard fairways ?
Where are the 40 yard fairways ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
It turns out that they were wrong and that I was right.
What a surprise.
Time for you to chastize them for being morons.
You can question the rules official who was actually on-site for this tournament, but, again, he has way more knowledge of the course set up then any of us have on this forum.
More knowledge ?
Turns out that they didn't have more knowledge.
And, did you and those morons bother to read my reply # 100.
Did you bother to read it with an iota of comprehension ?
I suggest that you reread it as many times as necessary until you have that light bulb moment when you "get it"
The issue i raised was about "RELATIVITY".
The issue morphed into absolutes because morons can't read with the slightest degree of comprehension.
But, even in absolutes, I was correct.
There are NO 45 yard fairways.
There are NO 40 yard fairways.
There are fairways less than 30 yards wide
There are fairways that are 30 yards wide.
Do you know what US Open widths are ?
Does 24-26 yards seem about right.
If 24-26 yard widths are intended for the best golfers in the world, how would you define the quality of golfer who should be playing fairways 29 yards in width, with disaster lurking just beyond that width ?
HOWEVER, to make comments about someone's sexuality and sexual preferences is WAY out of line.
I believe a kudos goes out to Scott Warren for showing restraint in his responses to your over the top comments.
Baloney,
Scott intitiated the personalization.
Scott has a history of that conduct.
And, Scott was DEAD WRONG about the fairway widths.
Scott didn't like my comments about Ford Models.
If he intends to dish it out, he should be prepared to take the response.
You can respond in whatever way you want to me, but to be clear this is my last post of this thread...regardless of what you say.
I really don't care.
This was a really cool thread about the championship and Prairie Dunes with lots of people with first hand knowledge and now it is being dragged into meaningless banter and non-sense.
Since when is correcting gross misrepresentations and setting the facts RIGHT, meaningless banter and nonsense ?
Go back and reread reply # 100.
Is it not a legitimate question ?
Then read the moronic responses, read the morons inability to comprehend the question in the context of relativity.
Then read the blatant misrepresentations about the fairway widths at Prairie Dunes.
Some from people who've never been to Kansas, let along Hutchinson.
Do you see any fairways that are 45 yards wide, as was claimed ?
Do you see any fairways that are 40 yards wide, as was claimed ?
Is that what you would call a "cool thread" ?
A thread that misrepresents the FACTS ?
Do you want threads with candor and veracity or do you prefer romantic myths with no basis in fact ?
-
Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.
So you're stating that Pre-2006 Sr Open, the rough, as it was then configured, didn't save any balls from going into the gunsch ?
But now that the rough has been expanded inward, toward the center of the fairway, more balls, balls hit closer to that centerline, are saved from going into the gunsch ? ? ?
Is that right ? ? ? No, those balls are not. But as you move the fairways closer to the gunch, more balls are saved from the gunsch because the bounce off the fairway is bigger than off the rough.
Sean, there's 20 yards of rough between the fairway and the gunsch.
If you examine the angle from the tee to impact on the fairway, you'd be hard pressed to have a ball enter the gunsch.
AND, more telling is: That's the way the course was PRIOR to the 2006 Sr Open.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that when a fairway is 40 yards wide, and it's narrowed down to 30 yards wide, how that 5 yards of new rough, closer to the centerline of the fairway, saves balls from going into the rough. I think that an additional 5 yards of fairway would not have a major affect on the playability of the golf course, with the exception of a few holes, which I have highlighted earlier. If we are talking about expanding the fairways so that the fairways are WIDE, as you spoke of earlier, then we are talking about way more than 5 yards
Don't take this the wrong way but are you guys blind to the physical facts ?
Put in logical terms, you're all morons, blindly defending a course that enjoys "MFNS"
If the rough between the fairway and gunsch is ten yards in width and you move the rough closer to the centerline of the fairway by expanding the rough five (5) yards closer to the center of the fairway, do you really believe that reconfiguring the rough such that it now extends another five yards closer to the centerline of the fairway is going to stop more balls from going into the rough ?
You are correct. 5 yards will not make a big difference.
Agreed
You'd have to be a colossal moron to believe that.
You guys must have flunked math 101........... or maybe it was geometry 101 or logic 101
Or maybe all three.
So, let's go back to the question I keep on asking that no one has answered.
Why would you defend the current width of the fairways versus the Pre 2006 Sr Open widths of the fairways ?
I did not play it pre 2006. I am talking about how the current golf course plays for players of all ability.
That WASN'T my question.
MY question was specifically about the PRE 2006 Sr Open rough and today's rough.
If the rough were kept so that it was penal, I would agree with most everything that you say. But it is not. I would like to see a few fairways widened a bit.
Then we agree on the subject
I do not know the cost associated with reclaiming fairway and keeping it that way, but that is a consideration as well.
Nah
The biggest shortcoming of the course is the gunsch.
It's certainly a relevant issue.
It's akin to OB or a Water Hazard.
If the gunsch was water I'm sure that the criticism would be harsher.
There's something about taking an X on a hole that I find distasteful, especially when it can be any one of 18 holes.
If anything, I would like to see some of the corridors widened (which they have done on number 5 since you have been there in 1988).
AGREED
MORONS NEED NOT REPLY[/color]
-
Pat,
My response to you was this:
Not sure what you are talking about. Fairways are very generous. I am estimating 40 yards for fairways in many places and width from "bunch to bunch" is even wider.
Given that I was "eyeballing" widths I think coming within three paces on many holes is quite good. Also, I am not sure of the method for measuring but I remember the eighth green being 41 paces deep. I did look on google and it appeared to me that the depth of eight green was equal or even less than several fairway widths. I think the width of the FW on 6 where the kids actually played to is wider than what may have been mesured too.
But even if the widths reflect accurately what was there last week (how recent are Google earth pics--I really don't know) my point is that the fairway widths are plenty wide, generous in fact and they need to be given the wind they often encounter there. As someone like yourself who has played in numerous championships you know that 32 yards wide is about as wide as you would ever find a hole in a USGA Championship--most fairway at PD is wider than that.
But the main point is not just fairway widths but overall width between the gunch. What are those measurements? REALLY WIDE! To hit a ball in the gunch at PD you have hit a very bad drive. I am guessing the OVERALL width of playable area on most holes at PD is 60 yards plus. I do not deny that over 18 holes the cumulative effect of keeping your ball in play can put a lot of pressure on a player, even an expert. But unless the wind is blowing at PD, you have room to play golf.
Last point is that the course is relatively short for today's players. As I mentioned I saw every club from Driver to 5-iron on 18 for example. Would you say 18 is too narrow for a 5-iron? A 3-iron? Hybrid? The tee shots present choices--every time a player hit it in the gunch I am sure they thought "why didn't I just lay back with my xxx club"!
Just so we know--what is the "proper" width of fairways at PD? Should there be primary rough, secondary rough and then the "gunch" as it was at the NCAA? If so, how wide should that be? How wide from gunch to gunch is appropriate? I am certain the Membership and future Championship Committees are breathless with anticipation of your pronuncements :D
-
PD is great
Agreed, I stated that from the begining.
and Pat may be mostly off base
Doubtful ;D
BUT he has a point--this is a difficult course for the average player who does not hit the ball straight.
It may be difficult for many in the Membership there too--BUT IT IS THEIR CLUB.
Separate issue.
Just because a club is a member's club, doesn't immunize it from constructive criticism.
Should Oakmont members be chastised for the fetish with penal architecture and green speeds beyond crazy ???
"Chastized" might be too harsh.
Oakmont, like other clubs, has a unique culture.
I find the penal nature of Oakmont excessive for everyday play.
Not necessarily the speed of the greens, but, the penal nature of the rough and fairway bunkers in conjunction with the speed of the greens.
Should Seminole be taken to task for firm and fast so extreme that elite amateurs five and six putt (one to lose the finals of their invitational) and chip all over the greens and back ???
That was an over the top setup for an invitational event.
I think that incident illustrated the setup error and will prevent it from being repititious.
In this thread I was trying to talk about a great championship at a great course and highlight an event I thought many would be interested in.
I love the course and played it a few years ago. Frankly, I played awful and mainly as a result of driving the ball poorly. It was very windy on my trip (flight was cnancelled coming in due to weather and I had to re-schedule) and so I have seen very windy, difficult conditins and benign ones.
That highlights my comments even more.
Wind, and it can be a windy site, makes fairway width more necessary, especially with disaster lurking at the flanks.
If you're going to have a feature so penal at every flank, on a windy site, then the golfer should be entitled to a fighting chance as manifested in fairway width.
I am a good club player and had to hit 6-7 iron into 2, 3-4 iron into 4 and hole 8 was an absolute bear into the wind--I think I hit my driver right into the "crapper" on the left >:(
BUT, with enough plays I still feel like I could manage my game and get around were I playing well--it wasn't unfair.
On a windy day, in a medal play round, would that still be your opinion ?
There is ample width today and that width is needed because you will usually have wind.
Chris, this is not ample width on a windy site
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
I also saw Pat's chart comparing old slope and rating with new slope and rating. Rating is almost entirely a factor of length and is a roughly a measure of what a scratch golfer would shoot compared to par. Slope takes into account factors like fairway width nad certainly "gunch" but also green severity and slope and is a relative rating focused more on the "average" golfer (whatever that is). I would suggest that other factors, like increased green speeds on those very difficult greens, maybe some added length and yes, maybe some narrowing of some fairways all contributed to slight increases in the slope rating.
I suppose I could ask Tom McCutcheon who was one of the raters of PD about these changes though I am sure Pat would call him a "moron" too
That's always a possibility depending upon the GIQ of his response.
--his first hand knowledge be damned :D (That offer stands though Pat--Tom has been a very long time USGA and NCAA official, I bet you know him and after he was a PD rater he since became a Member too--would his opinion carry any weight with you????
Of course his opinion would carry weight, but, so would mine and that's why dialogue is so important.
Scott Warren and especially Kyle Krahenbuhl with his 200 plus plays, insisted that the fairways were 45 and 40 yards wide.
We know that both were wrong, grossly inaccurate, so you just can't accept anyone's stated proclaimation.
But, I would welcome a conversation with Tom and you.
One last thought that Pat may even concede--Equipment today (the ball and driver) have made driving the ball straight easier than ever. It is easier to hit a straight ball today than it was in 1988--26 years ago. Maybe in 26 years, with a ball flying longer and straighter than ever before, a slight narrowing even for the "average player" is not so out of line?
I disagree, especially when you consider the inability to recover from gunsch.
Was PD with old balata, wood woods, steel shafts and no lob wedges easier for the expert OR the average player than today with modern equipment?
They are two different courses, so the answer escapes me.
-
Chris,
When measuring or evaluating width, I think you have to consider the degree of consequence for failing to meet that width.
At PD it's an "X".
In many cases it's worse than a water hazard or OB, because once the golfer gets in it, if he fails at his attempt to extracate himself, he's going to take an X, and in medal play, that's NC.
That's one of my primary concerns and criticisms.
If the area adjacent to the fairway/rough is so penal, then there should be more than adequate width, especially on a windy site.
-
My final thoughts on this thread:
1. I am not certain on the fairway measurements. I am a pretty good estimating these things and I am not too sure how accurate one can be using google maps. I tried it and my estimate/measurements were different. As I am not good at that type of thing, I am happy to defer to someone better at it than me but it is funny how Pat takes these measurements as gospel when they seem to support his view.
2. The broader point I made was that PD is not a "narrow" course and that the fairways are, in fact, generous. I agree that they "play narrowe" due to often windy conditions but the conditions last week were calm and wet--making the course play "wider".
3. I think that technology, particualrly since Pat last graced PD with his presence has made driving the ball straighter far easier--something Pat hasn't commented on. It may be worth discussing whether or not SOME narrowing in light of technology isn't out of the question. (I would say yes for expert play, no for daily play).
4. Pat, you can be a real pill. You so can't stand being wrong that when someone loke myself makes a point (the fairways are generous I am estimating 40 yards wide in many places) if you can find any fact that seems to rebut anything about the statment you cling to it like its your last penny. Then the discussion "devolves" into a debate about who is right and who can be "proved" wrong versus any substantive discussion about the topic--a real thread killer.
5. I don't think Pat is a "moron" as he does of most, if not all of us here. I do think he has to feel "right" so much that it makes having a pleasant discussion with him almost impossible.
-
My final thoughts on this thread:
1. I am not certain on the fairway measurements. I am a pretty good estimating these things and I am not too sure how accurate one can be using google maps. I tried it and my estimate/measurements were different. As I am not good at that type of thing, I am happy to defer to someone better at it than me but it is funny how Pat takes these measurements as gospel when they seem to support his view.
2. The broader point I made was that PD is not a "narrow" course and that the fairways are, in fact, generous.
Chris, I never stated that PD was a narrow course as some of the morons have implied.
I did state that it's narrower today than it was PRE the 2006 Sr Open.
Fairways 30 yards and less are narrow, especially on a windy site.
I agree that they "play narrower" due to often windy conditions but the conditions last week were calm and wet--making the course play "wider".
This isn't a "last week" issue.
It's an issue about fairway width on a year round basis on a windy site played by a local membership.
The fairways were narrowed for the 2006 Sr Open and like Newport and other courses that hosted substantive tournaments, they weren't returned to their Pre-Tournament width. Why would you support the concept of local members, hackers, playing fairways narrowed to challenge the best PGA Tour Pros ?
3. I think that technology, particualrly since Pat last graced PD with his presence has made driving the ball straighter far easier--something Pat hasn't commented on. It may be worth discussing whether or not SOME narrowing in light of technology isn't out of the question. (I would say yes for expert play, no for daily play).
I did comment on it.
It's true that the ball goes straighter, but more incrementally so for a PGA Tour Pro than a local club member, the5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicap golfer. And for the better player it goes farther, necessitating a reduced angle of deviation, less the ball finds the gunsch
4. Pat, you can be a real pill. You so can't stand being wrong that when someone loke myself makes a point (the fairways are generous I am estimating 40 yards wide in many places) if you can find any fact that seems to rebut anything about the statment you cling to it like its your last penny. Then the discussion "devolves" into a debate about who is right and who can be "proved" wrong versus any substantive discussion about the topic--a real thread killer.
First, please reread post # 100.
I can't help it if the morons on this site can't read and/or comprehend.
I can't be held accountable for morons who don't understand relativity, comparisons between Pre 2006 width and current width.
Kyle and Scott declared that the fairways were "plenty wide", that they were 45 and 40 yards wide.
But, they're not.
Should misrepresentations, deliberate or unintentional be allowed to stand ?
If we're to have "Frank" discussions, shouldn't they be based upon facts rather than misrepresentations ?
5. I don't think Pat is a "moron" as he does of most, if not all of us here. I do think he has to feel "right" so much that it makes having a pleasant discussion with him almost impossible.
I can see how someone who is wrong in their representations would resent someone who is correct in their representations.
It happens all the time ;D
Would you or anyone else cite where I declared that the "course" was narrow ?
I know that it's narrower today than it was Pre 2006.
I also know that like most clubs, Prairie Dunes is populated by mostly mid to high handicappers, golfers Ill equipped to meet a challenge intended for PGA Tour Pros.
The "MFN" status bestowed upon Prairie Dunes makes objective discussion difficult if not impossible.
If this was any other course the howling and whining would be incessant.
-
Chris,
Let me put it in another perspective.
If Donald Trump acquired Prairie Dunes in 2004 and narrowed the fairways to today's width, the outcry from the morons on this site would be deafening.
You know it, I know it and even all the morons know it.
Scott, Kyle and others would be outraged and calling for his head on a platter, and I'd be in agreement with them.
On a windy site width is an architectural necessity and Prairie Dunes is a windy site and 30 yards and less on a windy site isn't a wide fairway by any standard.
-
Pat,
Have a read of the past page or so, populated almost exclusively by you ranting the same thing in chorus with yourself. You have a serious problem somewhere to the left of your right ear and to the right of your left ear.
I think Prairie Dunes is, by and large, of sufficient width. You're entitled to disagree.
When did you last play at Prairie Dunes?
-
Scott Warren,
I didn't repeat myself, I merely answered each previous post by you, Kyle and others.
YOU were wrong in your assessment of the fairway widths and chose to support others who were also wrong about fairway widths.
Didn't you indicate that you've never set foot on Prairie Dunes ? ? ?
So what's your frame of reference regarding fairway widths given the contour of the land and the configuration of the fairways ? ?
You've repeatedly stated that the fairways are plenty wider or membership play.
Hence you've declared that widths of 29 and 30 yards are plenty wide.
At what widths would those fairways be deemed insufficiently wide ?
Lastly, what's your handicap.
-
Pat,
You'll find The Lord blessed you with two eyes, two ears and one mouth.
If you use them in proportion from time to time. You might learn something now and then.
And then you might also stop asking questions that have been addressed on the previous page of the same thread.
And if you want to utilise that one very loud mouth of yours to let us know when you last played at Prairie Dunes that would be great, too.
-
Scott,
Just for the record, have you ever set foot on Prairie Dunes ? ? ?
Since you feel that 29 and 30 yard fairways are plenty wide, at what yardage at a Prairie Dunes would the fairway be deemed "narrow" by you ?
Why are you deliberately avoiding answering that question ?
And lastly, what's your handicap ?
Simple questions, even for dim witted morons.
See if you're capable of answering them.
Failure to do so proves my point
-
Pat,
Not only have I already posted the answer to your dick-measuring question on this very thread, you replied specifically to what I said about my visit (there's a hint as to the answer...).
Your memory is about as useful as the rest of your withering faculties.
So, with that clarified, when did you last play at Prairie Dunes? Or can't you remember that far back?
-
I would be interested to know how much the fairways were narrowed for Senior US Open in 2006. My guess is that any significant narrowing was done for the Women's Open years before. Or maybe for the Midam in 88 that Pat was a part of when he was in his 40's….
-
Pat,
Not only have I already posted the answer to your dick-measuring question on this very thread, you replied specifically to what I said about my visit (there's a hint as to the answer...).
Your memory is about as useful as the rest of your withering faculties.
So, with that clarified, when did you last play at Prairie Dunes? Or can't you remember that far back?
Scott,
That question was already answered on this thread, so maybe it's your memory that's withering.
In the meantime, what width would you deem narrow at Prairie Dunes ?
-
I would be interested to know how much the fairways were narrowed for Senior US Open in 2006. My guess is that any significant narrowing was done for the Women's Open years before. Or maybe for the Midam in 88 that Pat was a part of when he was in his 40's….
Sean,
What's a fact is that the fairways are narrower today than they were before significant USGA events.
What's a fact is that fairways 30 yards wide and less, on a windy site, are narrow despite what dim witted morons claim.
What's a fact is that those claiming first hand experience, including over 200 plays, misrepresented fairway widths at 45 and 40 yards when they don't come close to those widths.
And, when asked, what width would be narrow at Prairie Dunes, the morons are incapable of providing an answer.
-
Pat,
Sean asked if you'd been back since 1988 and you twice dodged the question, so I suppose yes - you did answer it indirectly and confirmed through your silence that you last played Prairie Dunes a quarter of a century ago with persimmon and balata.
Previously on this site you've said you played PD "about a dozen times" over the course of "about seven days", which tallies with playing a Mid-Am there 26 years ago.
And of course that doesn't eliminate your right to an opinion about the merits of the course as it is today, but it does put your opinion in context.
-
A few things I feel should be pointed out when discussing measurements taken using Google Earth:
- If the satellite image was not captured at a position directly above the piece of property in question, the distances will become altered.
- Since satellite images are often years older than current time, measurements on them do not necessarily equate to current time.
- When measuring satellite images from different years Its not unexpected to have multiple measurements of the same static object, a building for example.
- A recent addition to the ruler tool is the "ground length" measurement, which helps to offset topographical changes when making measurements, but does not insure a dramatically higher level of accuracy.
The accuracy of Google Earth measurements are not 100% precise. As such should not be used as hard facts when debating subjects such as fairway width. In the past I've found to use them more as good approximations and within 3-5 yards accurate at best.
-
I hadn't checked this thread in awhile. My measurements should not be taken as gospel. They were an eyeballing exersize based on my guess as to where tee balls might land based simply on how the hole looked.
If I were measuring for my own game, I would assume 225 carry, 250 yards total from the tee, adjust for prevailing wind and any big hills and measure the width in the area my tee ball was likely to finish. I would also know that the measurement did not take slope into account, which can make the hole play much wider or narrower depending on the ground.
Such an effort is meaningless for the purposes of other people and I did not want to take the time to calculate all of that anyway. I just wanted to run a general objective check on widths. My general conclusion was that the fairway widths fell in between the Mucci position and the position of others. To me, it looked to me that the back 9 had been narrowed a bit but the front nine did not look very narrow at all.
-
Scott,
I've asked you repeatedly, if you consider 29 and 30 yard fairways at Prairie Dunes plenty wide, at what width would you deem them to be narrow ?
It's a simple question, why have you failed to answer it.
And, for perspective, what's your handicap ?
-
I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.
Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?
So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.
It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.
"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.
Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?
In what year did you first play PD ?
I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.
Cold
But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.
Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?
Yes - I do believe 30 yards would be wide enough.
Every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than that, but I don't see any reason to narrow them further.
So, according to you, who's played Prairie Dunes over 200 times, every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than 30 yards.
How do you account for the following fairway widths, some of which are narrower than 30 yards ?
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
I thought you said that you had played the course over 200 times ?
That's right, you said that you had "gone around" the course over 200 times, and I asked you to clarify the "gone around" versus "played" for us.
As it is set up now, there is plenty of room to drive the ball and the angles are there.
Really ?
Perhaps your eye is faulty when it comes to assessing the fairway width measurements.
Here they are again.
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
Tell us where there's plenty of room on these fairways, NOT one of which comes close to your 45 and 40 yard assessment ?
I also asked you to tell us how many times you've played Prairie Dunes in 2014 since you claimed that you had played it more this year than I had in my lifetime.
Why have you failed to answer that simple question, especially given the weather this Winter and Spring.
So, how many times have you played Prairie Dunes in 2014 ?
I also asked you what your handicap is.
Now that's such a simple question, one that can be answered with one or two digits.
But, you failed to answer that as well.
WHY ?
Do you feel that Pine Tree is too narrow from the tee?
Feel free to initiate a thread on that subject and I'll respond
How about Garden City?
See my answer above
When is the last time that you played Prairie Dunes?
With your current handicap we could have a good match.
I'm sure a man as mentally tough as you are doesn't give strokes.
Not surprisingly, you're confusing mental toughness with stupidity.
I do worry that you couldn't keep up.
I'd likely be waving while heading down the third fairway as you continue to search for a place where you could step off the fairway width of the first in 30 paces.
In some cases I wouldn't get to 30 paces.
In others I'd just reach 30 paces.
But, one things for sure, I won't reach 45 and 40 paces as you claimed as measured by your "eye"
1. 37
3. 35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37
11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30
Pat,
I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards. I over estimated on the high end. The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards. I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of. This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's. I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time. I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then. All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.
Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards. I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.
I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.
-
Pat,
I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards. I over estimated on the high end.
Kyle,
Understood,
It happens, almost all of us make errors.
The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards.
I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of.
But, you have to add in three other factors.
The increased distance the modern ball goes and the resultant influence on accuracy, especially with fairways that deviate from a direct linear path.
You also have to account for the wind, which can be a significant factor at PD
And, you have to consider the dire consequences for an errant tee shot.
If the gunsch wasn't there I'd have less of a problem with the narrowing that's taken place over the last decade or so.
30-40 yards isn't wide.
Tom Doak stated that anything under 35 yards is narrow, with the caveat relating to dire consequences.
I would wholeheartedly agree with him, although Scott Warren would stridently argue otherwise.
This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's.
I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time.
Your perspective is that of a good golfer, a 6 handicap, what about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicaps ?
You can't ignore them.
Do you feel that # 17 has more than adequate width for them ?
I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then.
I would argue to the contrary.
Width is "THE" critical factor to enjoyment by the broad spectrum of golfer.
If you "prefer" the current version, why not narrow it further, or, do you feel that the current version represents the ideal width for "EVERY level of golfer ?
All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.
That may be true, but, are those architectural changes for the better for the broad spectrum of golfer and not just yourself and your game.
What about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
How can narrowed fairways on that golf course be in their best interest, architecturally ?
Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards. I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.
Kyle, U.S. Open widths, for the best golfers on the planet are 24-26 yards wide and they don't have gunsch flanking those fairways.
How can a fairway barely 4 yards wider than a U.S. Open fairway be appropriate for a 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
You're viewing the issue solely from your game's standpoint
I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.
View the issue of fairway width from the eyes of the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap, not just yours.
You got me on the number
-
Pat,
I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards. I over estimated on the high end.
Kyle,
Understood,
It happens, almost all of us make errors.
The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards.
I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of.
But, you have to add in three other factors.
The increased distance the modern ball goes and the resultant influence on accuracy, especially with fairways that deviate from a direct linear path.
You also have to account for the wind, which can be a significant factor at PD
And, you have to consider the dire consequences for an errant tee shot.
If the gunsch wasn't there I'd have less of a problem with the narrowing that's taken place over the last decade or so.
30-40 yards isn't wide.
Tom Doak stated that anything under 35 yards is narrow, with the caveat relating to dire consequences.
I would wholeheartedly agree with him, although Scott Warren would stridently argue otherwise.
This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's.
I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time.
Your perspective is that of a good golfer, a 6 handicap, what about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicaps ?
You can't ignore them.
Do you feel that # 17 has more than adequate width for them ?
I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then.
I would argue to the contrary.
Width is "THE" critical factor to enjoyment by the broad spectrum of golfer.
If you "prefer" the current version, why not narrow it further, or, do you feel that the current version represents the ideal width for "EVERY level of golfer ?
All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.
That may be true, but, are those architectural changes for the better for the broad spectrum of golfer and not just yourself and your game.
What about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
How can narrowed fairways on that golf course be in their best interest, architecturally ?
Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards. I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.
Kyle, U.S. Open widths, for the best golfers on the planet are 24-26 yards wide and they don't have gunsch flanking those fairways.
How can a fairway barely 4 yards wider than a U.S. Open fairway be appropriate for a 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
You're viewing the issue solely from your game's standpoint
I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.
View the issue of fairway width from the eyes of the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap, not just yours.
You got me on the number
Pat,
While I am somewhat reticent to join in with this, can I just ask one thing. You talk about the width of the fairways as too narrow and talk about the penalty for missing and then talk about the gunch. From what I saw (I haven't played it) of the course in the NCAA it looked like there was a long way from the edge of the fairway to the gunch. To that end, a question for you.
If the course played exactly as it is right now on one day and the next, they cut the fairways to 45 yards wide - all of them, but left the gunch in exactly the same place, would you still be talking about a lack of width? The gunch hasn't moved, which seems to be your biggest issue. The fairways are wider, but the effective playing width from gunch to gunch would be unchanged. I wonder if that might help to reconcile the two differing opinions here. Some people say that it plays plenty wide because if you miss the fairway by a few yards, the penalty is small. Others say that it's narrow because the fairways are narrow. Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
-
One thing they have done on a fee how's, notably the sixth is push the bunch back in places where common misses go.
When played there two years ago I pulled my tee shot at six and I thought I had to reload. My host said, "That should be fine, there's plenty of room behind the bunker."
He was right, and several of the NCAA competitors were saved by it as well. Now, it's rough, but from that short distance it wasn't a huge problem.
-
[
Pat,
While I am somewhat reticent to join in with this, can I just ask one thing. You talk about the width of the fairways as too narrow and talk about the penalty for missing and then talk about the gunch. From what I saw (I haven't played it) of the course in the NCAA it looked like there was a long way from the edge of the fairway to the gunch. To that end, a question for you.
I'd say that there's an adequate strip of rough between fairway and gunsch
If the course played exactly as it is right now on one day and the next, they cut the fairways to 45 yards wide - all of them, but left the gunch in exactly the same place, would you still be talking about a lack of width?
No, but that wasn't the issue I raised.
The issue I raised was the difference in fairway width prior to the narrowing of the fairways for USGA events versus the current width.
The gunch hasn't moved, which seems to be your biggest issue.
It is NOT my biggest issue.
The severity of the gunsch is a collateral issue
The fairways are wider, but the effective playing width from gunch to gunch would be unchanged.
I'm aware of that
I wonder if that might help to reconcile the two differing opinions here.
Some people say that it plays plenty wide because if you miss the fairway by a few yards, the penalty is small.
Some people have also altered their perception of what the fairway widths are.
The issue isn't about missing the fairways by "a few yards"
It's about giving the golfer a reasonable target in the DZ given the incredibly unforgiving gunsch that's clearly within range.
Just so you know, in your example of the gunsch to gunsch distance of 45 yards, that's only 22.5 yards off center, not a lot of leeway if you fade or draw the ball and start it to one side of the centerline.
Others say that it's narrow because the fairways are narrow.
According to Tom Doak, fairway widths under 35 yards are narrow.
When you factor in the winds at PD it makes those fairways play even narrower
Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I believe they are, especially on a windy site with dire consequences at the flanks
-
Pat,
Fair point on the narrowing for USGA events. I don't know about that.
My example wasn't of gunch to gunch distances of 45 yards, it was of fairway widths of 45 yards. Gunch to gunch would be a further 10 to 15 yards on either side.
To explain my final point somewhat, Let's imagine that they cut the fairways out to a blanket 45 yards wide. Let's also imagine that they allowed the gunch to grow in so it was only a couple of yards off that fairway. You might say those fairways are wide because they're at 45 yards, but someone playing the course might feel a whole lot more constrained and say that it feels narrow. Conversely, suppose they narrowed all the fairways down to 20 yards, but cut back the gunch so that it's further away from play than it is now. Those fairways would be extremely narrow, but to the player on the course, it might feel wider than before because the serious trouble is further away. My impression of width on a golf course isn't how wide the fairway is. It's how wide the area where I can still play a decent follow up shot is. That's where the feeling of width (for some people at least) comes from.
I think that's why some people are saying it feels wide and some people are saying how can it feel wide when the fairways are less than 30 yards wide.
-
Michael,
I understand what you're trying to say but don't agree.
20 yard wide fairways are incredibly narrow irrespective of the fact that there would be no flanking features.
You're failing to recognize the influence that being in the rough has on scoring, and are focused on the gunsch as the sole scoring impediment.
GCGC has very wide fairways, typically flanked with a first cut of healthy rough with that in turn flanked by really tall, thick fescue that is very penal.
-
Michael,
I understand what you're trying to say but don't agree.
20 yard wide fairways are incredibly narrow irrespective of the fact that there would be no flanking features.
You're failing to recognize the influence that being in the rough has on scoring, and are focused on the gunsch as the sole scoring impediment.
GCGC has very wide fairways, typically flanked with a first cut of healthy rough with that in turn flanked by really tall, thick fescue that is very penal.
Logically you're right and I suspect that's true for a lot of people. But people are weird (as I'm sure you'll agree) and feelings don't necessarily follow logic. In my head, narrow fairways with a wide swathe of playable rough around them feels wider than wide fairways flanked by water, trees or out of bounds (or gunch, which may as well be out of bounds).
For the pros, roughly speaking (ha) playing from the rough adds about a quarter of a stroke versus playing from the fairway. Given my game and the rough being fairly light, I suspect the difference is around that for me too. OOB adds 2 strokes and water adds at least 1. Given also my propensity to be a little wild at times, my scores will be better on a course where a bad shot costs me a quarter of a stroke than on a course where a bad shot costs me 1 to 2 strokes.
If the rough is heavy, my scoring may be worse, but it still *feels* wider. I know it's not rational, but that's how it is.
Examples:
This:
(http://www.planetgolfusa.com/assets/images/Darius%20Images/San-Lorenzo7.jpg)
is a hole with a wide fairway that feels narrow.
On the other hand this:
(http://www.thegolfcourseguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A07DfyzCQAED8MN.jpg)
is a hole with a narrow fairway that feels wide. Probably not in US Open conditions, but for general play I stand on the first tee on Black and I don't feel constricted, even with the trees on the right.
I get that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's a feeling. I'm not sure it's supposed to.
-
Michael,
I think certain courses and certain holes fit, and don't fit, the golfer's eye.
What may look wide to one golfer looks narrower to others and vice versa.
If one's object is to get from the tee and hole out in the fewest strokes possible, fairway width, in the absolute, is a critical factor, if not "the" critical factor.
Flanking features are a factor, but diminish in significance as the fairway widens
-
Michael,
You've raised some excellent points, thank you for your thoughtful approach, it is refreshing and not boring.
Importantly is that at PD, where all the top amateurs played a week ago, none thought the course was narrow, nor the fairways too narrow.
Feeling the effective playing width as generous on a golf course is what it's all about, as golf is a game of confidence, which is mostly a subjective feeling and unquantifiable. Yet some claim specific features may favor one player over another as stroke play has invaded many golfers preferred approach to the game.
C'est la vie
No doubt, at PD the lushness of the turf also gives confidence.
8)
-
William G,
Did you take a survey or conduct a poll ?
How were the questions about "fairway width" phrased ?
Of the entire field that you questioned, not one player felt that some of the holes were narrow ? ? ?
Tom Doak defined narrow fairways as those less than 35 yards wide.
What's your definition ?
-
Michael,
I understand what you're trying to say but don't agree.
20 yard wide fairways are incredibly narrow irrespective of the fact that there would be no flanking features.
You're failing to recognize the influence that being in the rough has on scoring, and are focused on the gunsch as the sole scoring impediment.
GCGC has very wide fairways, typically flanked with a first cut of healthy rough with that in turn flanked by really tall, thick fescue that is very penal.
Logically you're right and I suspect that's true for a lot of people. But people are weird (as I'm sure you'll agree) and feelings don't necessarily follow logic. In my head, narrow fairways with a wide swathe of playable rough around them feels wider than wide fairways flanked by water, trees or out of bounds (or gunch, which may as well be out of bounds).
For the pros, roughly speaking (ha) playing from the rough adds about a quarter of a stroke versus playing from the fairway. Given my game and the rough being fairly light, I suspect the difference is around that for me too. OOB adds 2 strokes and water adds at least 1. Given also my propensity to be a little wild at times, my scores will be better on a course where a bad shot costs me a quarter of a stroke than on a course where a bad shot costs me 1 to 2 strokes.
If the rough is heavy, my scoring may be worse, but it still *feels* wider. I know it's not rational, but that's how it is.
Examples:
This:
(http://www.planetgolfusa.com/assets/images/Darius%20Images/San-Lorenzo7.jpg)
is a hole with a wide fairway that feels narrow.
On the other hand this:
(http://www.thegolfcourseguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A07DfyzCQAED8MN.jpg)
is a hole with a narrow fairway that feels wide. Probably not in US Open conditions, but for general play I stand on the first tee on Black and I don't feel constricted, even with the trees on the right.
I get that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's a feeling. I'm not sure it's supposed to.
+1 Agree with you completely. As it pertains to PD, it isn't whether or not the fairways are 34 yards or 40 yards that is going to bother me mentally off the tee, it is the gunch! Which imho they should burn and thinly plant fescue.
-
This is far too simplistic a formulation but one might think of a good player as being concerned about width of the area in which he has a good lie while a poor player is concerned about width of the area in which he can find his ball and play it.
In reality both good and poor players are concerned with both aspects of "width" but I think the weighting they give the two factors differ greatly according to playing ability/handicap/etc.
-
This is far too simplistic a formulation but one might think of a good player as being concerned about width of the area in which he has a good lie while a poor player is concerned about width of the area in which he can find his ball and play it.
Brent,
This is a good point. I'd say this extends to wide fairways where there are areas where the ball may be significantly above or below one's feet vs. having a relatively flat lie even though both are within a wide mown fairway.
-
As it pertains to PD, it isn't whether or not the fairways are 34 yards or 40 yards that is going to bother me mentally off the tee, it is the gunch! Which imho they should burn and thinly plant fescue.
Did the gunch really give you that much heartache when you played PD that you'd want to remove it entirely and lose it from the course's character?
-
There are some old pictures of Prairie Dunes, I'm guessing from the 70s and 80s, that are on display in the Men's Card Room. Too bad I won't be back until early September, but if no one else is going to be there, I'll take some quick shots to do a comparison.
For one, the difference I see is just the general length of the gunch. It looks as though back in the day they did a better job of mowing it down. Looks more like 6-12 inches in most spots instead of the current 3 ft+.
The one hole where the landing area is narrower now than back then is #13, the dogleg left. Back in these old phots, the second cut of the fairway extends about 20 feet left of the bunker at the corner in these old pictures. Now anything short of flying the bunker, if it's not in the bunker, is major gunch.
Arguably, doing anything to the gunch would be a mistake. It's what was there naturally. The turf team will do seasonal burns to thin out some of the non-native grasses, but that's it. There was discussion of cutting down of some of the gunch this springs prior to the NCAAs, but I think the NCAA staff and The Golf Channel responded "let it alone, let it grow!"
Back to Pat's point on fairway width, typically the second cut of rough is not a problem at Prairie Dunes. They fertilized the roughs this year to get it thick for the tournament, but typically it's not very penal. I don't believe the local members at PD are prone to be masochistic, so I don't think they look at the gunch or the second cut as being punishment. I think it's a tradition thing. One last thing, the fairways are perfect at Prairie Dunes. The rough tends to be shorter but inconsistent. You'll get the ball settle into a little depression that seems to be a result of the inconsistency of the smoothness of the underlying dirt. I doubt you'd see that a couple of yards off today's fairways if the fairways were at one time considerably wider. Does that make sense how I'm describing it?
Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion. It should be evident that I love the place. If I could only play one golf course the rest of my life, I'm not sure I would pick somewhere other than Prairie Dunes regardless of my budget.
-
The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.
-
Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion.
Bill, far be it for a member of PD to disagree with someone who was last there when Reagan was President! ;D
-
The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.
I only live about 3 hours away and that's how I felt after walking it during the Women's Open.
Then a couple years ago I got a chance to play it with GCAer, and I jumped at the chance. Mostly because by then I had learned enough about architecture to think that my assessment was unfair. And, by then I'd made my first trip to Scotland so I had a better idea of what I liked in courses "like" PD. (I know it's actually unique place, but work with me.)
On second look, with a golf club in my hands, I started to get a handle on why it's so revered. But as a sixty-something 12+ index it really was more course than I can handle. I felt the same way about Royal Dornoch having been beaten into submission by it in 2006.
But here's the deal. It's now 2014 and things have changed I played Dornoch again last summer with a member, and while it's still darned hard, I understand how I'd have to play to get around it.
Finally just this month I got the kind of look at Prairie Dunes I needed, which, combined with several discussions with members and I realized that I could get around it. In fact, I am really looking forward to another chance to play.
For a single-play experience, the trouble with this kind of course is that you can never quickly figure out what to do, especially after a por shot. But walking on the fairways with the college players gave me time to work a lot of those questions. More importantly, perhaps, feedback from those members made me realize they played without the misplaced ego we often have.
The eighth is the best example. I made the mistake of thinking that even without a good tee shot, being able to see the green obligated me to try get on in two. In reality there's perfect spot to lay up below the green that I only noticed standing there waiting for someone to hit.
When I mentioned it to single-digit member, he smiled and said "I've made a lot of fours from there." Its not unlike the second at Dornoch where even good players lay up to ensure their bogey.
Ken
-
Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion.
Bill, far be it for a member of PD to disagree with someone who was last there when Reagan was President! ;D
Scott,
You must have forgotten that, according to Reply #64 on this very thread, the membership at PD are "not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated" and more importantly, they are part of a "misguided culture." Surely a current member of the club cannot be trusted for information. ;D
-
The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.
I only live about 3 hours away and that's how I felt after walking it during the Women's Open.
Then a couple years ago I got a chance to play it with GCAer, and I jumped at the chance. Mostly because by then I had learned enough about architecture to think that my assessment was unfair. And, by then I'd made my first trip to Scotland so I had a better idea of what I liked in courses "like" PD. (I know it's actually unique place, but work with me.)
On second look, with a golf club in my hands, I started to get a handle on why it's so revered. But as a sixty-something 12+ index it really was more course than I can handle. I felt the same way about Royal Dornoch having been beaten into submission by it in 2006.
But here's the deal. It's now 2014 and things have changed I played Dornoch again last summer with a member, and while it's still darned hard, I understand how I'd have to play to get around it.
Finally just this month I got the kind of look at Prairie Dunes I needed, which, combined with several discussions with members and I realized that I could get around it. In fact, I am really looking forward to another chance to play.
For a single-play experience, the trouble with this kind of course is that you can never quickly figure out what to do, especially after a por shot. But walking on the fairways with the college players gave me time to work a lot of those questions. More importantly, perhaps, feedback from those members made me realize they played without the misplaced ego we often have.
The eighth is the best example. I made the mistake of thinking that even without a good tee shot, being able to see the green obligated me to try get on in two. In reality there's perfect spot to lay up below the green that I only noticed standing there waiting for someone to hit.
When I mentioned it to single-digit member, he smiled and said "I've made a lot of fours from there." Its not unlike the second at Dornoch where even good players lay up to ensure their bogey.
Ken
Ken, great point on 8. MacKenzie believed par should be difficult to attain, but bogey relatively easy. Unless I have a perfectly flat lie on the left side with a 4 hybrid or less, or no more than a 6 iron from a side hill lie, I will layup there. Trying to force a 4 will often lead to 6 or 7. Genius
-
Scott,
You must have forgotten that, according to Reply #64 on this very thread, the membership at PD are "not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated" and more importantly, they are part of a "misguided culture."
That's correct.
We saw the same thing at Merion and other courses.
Surely a current member of the club cannot be trusted for information. ;D[
That's your opinion, not mine
-
A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.
A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.
GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.
What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.
I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.
-
A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.
With a Laser? His paces could be long or short...
A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.
approximate doesn't cut, we want exact.
GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.
What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.That is the view of a Supreme Moron, ANGC has neighboring holes and there is no gunch. I would want increased rough to stop an errant shot from going into the gunch at PD, any Moron could get that. :). Also ANGC introduced trees as a means to reduce fairway width/corridors.
I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.
You need some MIT time. ;D
-
BCowan,
In your experience, which fairways are narrowest at PD? Where does the gunsch create the biggest problem off the tee? How many fairways do you tend to hit at PD?
-
I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.
-
A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.
With a Laser? His paces could be long or short...
Both
A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.
approximate doesn't cut, we want exact.
Some were a little more than 50, some a little less, hence the collectivization and use of the word "approximate"
If you want exact per hole, you'll have to do it yourself
GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.
What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.
That is the view of a Supreme Moron, ANGC has neighboring holes and there is no gunch.
This may come as a surprise to you but PD has neighboring holes as well.
What do you call that stuff to the left of #'s 2, 10, 11, 13 and to the right of #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I would want increased rough to stop an errant shot from going into the gunch at PD, any Moron could get that. :).
What anyone with a brain understands is that when you narrow a fairway you introduce rough closer to the centerline, not at periphery.
Tell us that you understand that
Also ANGC introduced trees as a means to reduce fairway width/corridors.
Other than 11 and 7, where did they do that ?
ANGC had trees before it was a golf course and when it first opened
I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.
You need some MIT time. ;D
You've flunked Moron 101 three times, time to bring in a tutor
-
BCowan,
In your experience, which fairways are narrowest at PD? Where does the gunsch create the biggest problem off the tee? How many fairways do you tend to hit at PD?
I know my experience is somewhat limited, but it's pretty easy to see that #5 one of those holes. It's long, into the wind most of the time, and the new back tee is even higher than the members tee. In the four threesomes I walked with, only one got off there without a provisional, two of them had two provisionals IIRC.
The group that didn't was Stanford, Alabama and Ok State on the last day of stroke play.
Nine, downhill with a very elevated tee, played in a right to left crosswind is another one.
16 and 17 both into the wind, and fairly narrow are also a problem.
I think I saw more provisionals on 5 and 16 than any other holes.
K
-
the funny thing about PD or golf courses, is that while some whip out comparisons with other noteworthy courses they play, the comparisons remind me of arguing with my wife, as they are not germane to what makes playing PD special while at the same time trying to raise the position of my otherwise beautiful and intelligent wife because of the noteworthiness of the courses.
If the wind was up at PD, we all would have seen more "stingers" off the tee, instead of the bombs those kids are hitting
-
I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.
I'll accept your self-diagnosis, but note with plenty of examples in your many posts that you are quite willing to engage in vigorous debate about the merits and demerits of a given golf course EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT. Reading your repeated drivel, especially in your attempts to debate experienced hands who have actually played these golf courses, reminds me of Sean Connery's character in the Untouchables, who chided Nitty for "bringing a knife to a gun fight".
-
I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.
I'll accept your self-diagnosis, but note with plenty of examples in your many posts that you are quite willing to engage in vigorous debate about the merits and demerits of a given golf course EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT. Reading your repeated drivel, especially in your attempts to debate experienced hands who have actually played these golf courses, reminds me of Sean Connery's character in the Untouchables, who chided Nitty for "bringing a knife to a gun fight".
Having good banter with Senior Mucci is what I was attempting to do. Have a nice day judge :)
-
the funny thing about PD or golf courses, is that while some whip out comparisons with other noteworthy courses they play, the comparisons remind me of arguing with my wife, as they are not germane to what makes playing PD special while at the same time trying to raise the position of my otherwise beautiful and intelligent wife because of the noteworthiness of the courses.
If the wind was up at PD, we all would have seen more "stingers" off the tee, instead of the bombs those kids are hitting
Amen.
Even with the light winds, the three guys I had on Monday, who were all potentially in contention, flighted the ball much lower than the players I had in the preceding three rounds.
Lovelady's ball flight was so nice that walking off 10 tee I asked him where he was from. When he said Birmingham, I said, "The way you flight the ball I thought you might be from West Texas."
I'm pretty sure he took it as a compliment.
They were also the only threesome that didn't need a provisional on #5.
K
-
Terry, well said - a debate on a course between one bloke who has never played it and another who last played there when Kokomo was charting is exactly what this website doesn't need!
-
Scott,
I think Terry might also have been referencing dim witted morons who don't consider fairways 30 yards wide as being narrow on a windy site.
Or those who claimed the fairways were 40-45 yards wide when they didn't come close to that measurement.
In addition to a good memory, I also have friends who are "National" members and use the information they supply as "source" material.
Hence, I'm content with the accuracy of my statements
-
Pat,
Don't forget you had this to say about PD members like those friends you now cite (on pg3 of this wonderful thread):
"They're not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated. They're defenders of their club's policies and as such they're naturally defensive when it comes to these subjects."
Moronically yours,
A 31yo who was in kindergarten last time you played PD
-
Pat,
Don't forget you had this to say about PD members like those friends you now cite (on pg3 of this wonderful thread):
"They're not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated. They're defenders of their club's policies and as such they're naturally defensive when it comes to these subjects."
Moronically yours,
A 31yo who was in kindergarten last time you played PD
That's not a nap. That's a nap.
-
Pat,
Don't forget you had this to say about PD members like those friends you now cite (on pg3 of this wonderful thread):
"They're not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated. They're defenders of their club's policies and as such they're naturally defensive when it comes to these subjects."
Scott,
It's good to see that you've retained your dim witted moron status.
Did you see the phrase "defenders of their club's POLICIES" ? ? ?
There's a distinct difference between stating an opinion and defending club policies and citing physical facts.
For example.
I like the color that the club painted the maintenance barn versus the Maintenance Barn is painted green.
Or to simplify it for you.
The fairway on # 17 isn't narrow versus the fairway on # 17 measures 30 yards in the DZ.
Moronically yours,
A 31yo who was in kindergarten last time you played PD
Not to worry, Your posts confirm your exalted position in Ripley's as the only student to remain in Kindergarten for 26 years.
How many times did they have to get you a bigger desk ?
How does it feel to be older than the teacher ?
-
Not to worry, Your posts confirm your exalted position in Ripley's as the only student to remain in Kindergarten for 26 years.
How many times did they have to get you a bigger desk ?
How does it feel to be older than the teacher ?
This is the best series of Mucci-isms I have seen in quite a while.
-
Moronically yours,
A 31yo who was in kindergarten last time you played PD
Not to worry, Your posts confirm your exalted position in Ripley's as the only student to remain in Kindergarten for 26 years.
How many times did they have to get you a bigger desk ?
How does it feel to be older than the teacher ?
;D ;D
I'll pay that, you crazy old bastard! (which is a compliment where I come from...)