Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci_Jr on March 30, 2003, 07:24:48 AM
-
Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green ?
The green is angled to the fairway approach, elevated by about two feet in front, with a VERY deep bunker running behind the entire rear/right side of the green, with a deep PIT bunker fronting the middle of the green. The green narrows considerable at its begining right side.
Depending upon where the pin is can determine the direction of approach on the 2nd shot, and leave the golfer with a third shot that can be hit with almost every club in the bag.
If you've played # 7, what do you think ?
What other greens provide the same variety of challenges ?
-
Unless you miss long/left, the approach to the 7th at National is the scariest mother I know.
Into the wind it's more manageable if you have the courage to fly the ball right at the center of the green.
But on a calm day or, worst, down wind - it's a terror.
I went to the Dave Pelz short game school for 3 days primarily to learn how to successfully approach that green.
At least on #8 at PV, and others like it, you get to hit a full shot in there.
I've played the original Road Hole 6 times with much less difficulty than #7 at National.
#7 at National is as brilliant a strategic design on the 2nd and 3rd shots as I know.
-
"Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green?"
Pat:
That's a very good question--at least that's an interesting way to phrase the question. There sure seem to be a lot of possible ways to approach that green and it probably has as high degree of deception and opportunity for mistakes for the unaware as any green I can think of.
The green complex always fascinated me because it so old fashioned engineered looking (probably the most at NGLA) and it works sooo well for golf.
Just to show how neat architecture can be and how interchangeable things can sometimes be just think of that exact green complex in other uses.
How cool would it be as a par 3 of maybe 175 (to the middle) when approached from the direction of the 8th tee? Coming directly at the narrow end and wide part in the rear and that interesting varied bunkering on either side and all the possibilities of the recovery shots.
How about that green at the end of a 460yd par 4 if approaching directly at the wide back left (from over in the direction of #11 fairway)? It'd have about the same psychological effect of PVGC #1 with the ratched up difficulty the deeper you tried to go.
Or how about that green complex as a par 3 of about 155yds approaching it from the direction you do now (maybe with a big wide tee too for variousl angles)?
That green complex is so good it could be used in all kinds of arrangements in architecture.
-
Chipoat,
Interesting thoughts about preparing to tackle the 7th green.
Did your crash course in the short game give you the confidence ? Or, does the 7th still bedevil you ?
TEPaul,
Interesting concept, playing to the 7th green from a variety of directions and distances, while it retains its appeal, challenge and options of play. I wonder how many other greens can retain their interest and strategic challenge from other directions.
What I find fascinating about the green is that you can drop a ball at a given location 10-20-30-40-50-100-150 yards from the green, and the changes in the pin positions can dramatically alter your mindset, shot selection and club used.
The McBride brothers showed me a variety of shots that I wouldn't have dreamed of when approaching that green.
One could spend the better part of the day just learning how to approach that green when the pin is in different locations.
What I like, is the different challenges the shots face.
Why isn't this green replicated on more modern day courses ?
And, as you suggest, it could be a par 5, par 4 or par 3.
-
"I wonder how many other greens can retain their interest and strategic challenge from other directions."
Pat:
Don't get me started on that unless you want to sit up and listen all night. That's half the fun of observing and analyzing architecture and it's features and arrangments. Remember what Coore said that it's all in the arrangements. Obviously this kind of thing is important for any architect's mental inventory.
-
In answer to the question, "Does the 7th green complex at NGLA represent an optimization of the methods of play to a green ?" I would say no as the green side bunkers are so deep as to prevent recovery for a large segment of less skilled golfers (i.e. some would have to pick up from both the front and back bunkers). And for me, optimum means accomodating the greatest range of players, though plenty of others like Crump/Fownes/etc. had a different take.
Certainly, the variety of hole locations created by the 7th green complex is awesome and how diffcult/easy the hole can thus play is wonderful, really first rate. And with all aerial and ground game options open to the player, indecision can be the golfer's undoing, especially those in no man's land of 10-70 yards shy of the green. And of all the great shots at NGLA, the approach to the 7th - be it from 10 yards, 60 yards, or 220 yards - would have to rate at or near the very top.
Still, Pat, in terms of optimal by the strictest definition possible (the one citied above), I wonder if a green complex needs to be bunkerless to be optimal? Like 5 at Royal Worlington perhaps or the double plateau 16th green at North Berwick? That way, all can play and finish the hole. Or at least, a "pit" shouldn't guard the green and the bunker depth would be more manageable. If so, the original vague boomerang shape of the 1st green at Riviera has no clear superior in terms of the available options it created for both the 2nd and 3rd shots. The recently built 13th green complex at Rustic Canyon would also receive very high marks for the same reasons.
Cheers,
-
Ran,
Perhaps I should have included the term "golfers".
But, those deep bunkers create such a strong risk/reward presentation that they are invaluable to the hole
Those golfers of lessor skill have the option of skirting the front pit bunker, triangulating or tacking, so to speak.
Even better golfers employ this strategy.
But, avoidance sometimes makes the next shot more difficult.
As to the rear bunker, that presents quite a different problem that is not so easily skirted as I think a golfers "touch" diminishes as handicaps go up, and the fear factor created by the visual, influences ones play.
What I really like about the complex is its seemingly benign look as one approaches.
Perhaps ignorance is bliss.
-
The thing I find so fascinating about the approach to the 7th green at NGLA is that where to "miss" changes 180 degrees simply based on the hole location.
In that way, it reminds me of the 3rd hole at Lehigh. If the hole is in the front of the green, missing left is DEAD, while missing right leaves a reasonable chip if you don't fall off the steep slope. On the other hand, if the hole is cut in the back, missing left is your best play. Fun, thinking man's golf.
-
There're some who feel the best place (maybe only place) to play the ball coming into #7 is over the pot bunker sort of back left--there's a lot of room back there although it isn't that apparent from the fairway. The really neat thing about that green is from back in the fairway (even if pretty close) it looks like there's plenty of room right front too--there isn't!
In my book this kind of road hole green complex and set up has to be one of the very best types in all of golf. I've, never seen #17 TOC but I grew up at Piping Rock and it's #8 is good but I think Maidstone's #2 is every bit as good and hard to play to as NGLA's. The added interest to Maidstone's is the right front is just as dangerous because you run out of room without being able to see it but the back left of the green is much harder to get the distance right because the whole left side is bunkered in a really deceptive diagonal. Maidstone's doesn't have the pot bunker.
-
TEPaul,
George Zahringer told me years ago, that hitting your shot into the green a little long wasn't a bad spot to be, and he indicated that when going for the green in two he always made sure that he played 1/2 club more.
However, that theory works favorably if the pin is in the middle or back. If the pin is in the narrow front, recovery from the back of the green might be more than difficult.
I do believe that L-wedges have taken some bite out of the difficulty of the approach, but it's still a great complex.
-
Pat Mucci:
The "distance wedge" part of the Dave Pelz curriculum has been a great help to me from 20-80 yards - nowhere more so than on the approach to the 7th green at National.
It's less scary to me than before, but still gives me the creeps.
-
"TEPaul,
George Zahringer told me years ago, that hitting your shot into the green a little long wasn't a bad spot to be,"
Pat:
I know that because you told me that. When I mentioned that above I didn't want to mention his name because the chances of you being correct are so low and what if George Zahringer read it and got really pissed off at both of us?
It's no snap but I don't think it's all that terribly hard to get a lofted wedge to a right front pin position on #7---what's hard though is figuring exactly what the yardage is to any front pin--it just seems hard to detect and the more right it is the less there is to shoot for. Both front and back on the right side of that green are masterful diagonals and the back one just can't be seen from out there I don't think. Exactly the same with Maidstone's #2--you're just not aware of what the back of the right side of the green is all about until you go right over that section a few times thinking you've hit a good shot.
-
TEPaul,
Hopefully, we'll get to test your theories in the not to distant future, and at the same time see if Chipoat can still stop payment on the check to the Pelz school. ;D
-
Redanman,
I've seen far too many shots, hit just a little to firm, roll off the back of the green into the deep rear bunker.
So, I'd like whatever "backstop" assistance I can get, and would almost always leave the pin in.
When that pin is far right, it is a terrifying shot, from 5 to 200 yards.
-
redanman:
Dave Pelz has copious data to support everything he teaches.
Including:
trying to hole a shot = flagstick out
satisfied with getting close = flagstick in
-
"Pelz is WAY wrong on the leaving the flagstick in issue. Agree or disagree?
TEP and others comments welcome, too."
redanman:
I have no idea. Golf is hard enough to be thinking of stuff like that and I sure as hell ain't gonna pay Pelz to tell me what he thinks about pin in or pin out. If I ever did think about it I might consider the in/out thing throughout the history of golf to be about a wash.
But I tell you what redanman--even though this isn't something I would spend too much time thinking about---why don't you just tell me what you think--in or out? Whatever you say is the best thing to do the opposite has to be true due to fact you've already about proven the theory of contrary opinion to be correct with the things you're constantly saying about tour players. ;)
PS:
On second thought, I think almost all golfers should leave the pin in, though. The reason is if someone is gonna be a big enough hotdog to remove the pin they better go ahead and sink about 20% of them or come real close the rest of the time. And think of it this way--if you go to the trouble of removing the pin and then skull the damn ball across the green anyway you're gonna look like ten times more of a hotdog for removing the pin in the first place!
-
"I leave it in except when I take it out."
redanman;
That's incredibly profound. If that's advice what do you think it's worth? ;)
-
I've only played NGLA #7 once, so my thoughts should be discounted--however, my impression was that it was not as good of a green complex as its mother (#7, TOC). Less demanding tee shot (just remember, TEP and others, even Max Behr said that you should look backwards to the tee to evalula any golf hole or feature!). More elevation to the green complex, complicating the 2nd shot. More intimidating RH bunker (at least until recently!). Much better back right, center and left hazards (road, Swilcan burn).
I remember hacking it around #7 NGLA, missing a 10 footer for 4 and being depressed until I counted up my score at the end and found out that I had made "par!"
-
Rich;
Speaking of the Road Hole bunker, have you been out to see the latest (second or third iteration) version of it?
If so, would you share your thoughts with us?
Your mention of the "Until Recently" in your last post makes me think you have some. ;)
-
"I remember hacking it around #7 NGLA, missing a 10 footer for 4 and being depressed until I counted up my score at the end and found out that I had made "par!""
Rich:
That shouldn't technically make any difference. My recommendation is the 7th should be a par 4 (on an alternate card). It would be a perceived as a better hole that way and you're paragraph above is perfect testimony to why that would be (not that that changes the quality of the hole). If the recommendation to drop the par on #7 to a par 4 is ever made your paragraph would be a good one to go along with that recommendation as another good reason as to why to do it.
-
TEPaul & Rich Goodale,
I think dropping par on # 7 would make the hole too difficult.
Moving the tee back 20-30 yards would be a better alternative.
Part of the beauty of the hole is plotting your strategy in approaching the pin with your third shot.
As a par 4, I think the inner need to make par would cause many to abandon prudent, and attempt heroic shots, and strategy would be pushed to the back burner.
Rich, I've been in both bunkers and both can be formidable, but the current 7th may be more difficult than the current 17th.
But, that's just my opinion.
-
Patrick;
I completely disagree with you about dropping the par on #7 from 5 to 4 (but only on an alternate card) and adding up to 20-30 yds and keeping it a par 5 for all instead. For the members the hole and the card they used could logically remain a par 5. But for tournaments an alternate card with #7 as a par 4 could be used very effectively.
I once did look behind the tips there and although I can't really visualize it completely right now my sense was it would be complex and not a good idea. You start to get a bit jumbled up with #12 and the ground back there might not be ideal topographically and you must understand the problems that alone could entail trying to get up to 30 yards back there.
A better idea to me would be to use the hole as an alternate par 4 and maybe move the tee markers up some for some occasions. If pros or really strong amateurs played there the tips should work fine as a long par 4. Certainly #5 would work much better as a strong par 4 for good players from the present tips.
I can't imagine what you're talking about when you mention that dropping #7 to a 4 for good players messes up the strategy of the hole. Do you think they screwed up #17 TOC when that was dropped from a 5 to a 4? The idea of any golf hole and it's strategies is to score as low as you can on it while considering the inherent risks and rewards of the golf hole so as not to do far worse than you could or should. If you did nothing at all to #7 except call it a par 4 instead of a par 5 why would that fundamental mindset and strategy change?
The particular par number is all in your head, Pat, since not a single thing about the hole has changed. But maybe you have preferred playing it all these years in 5 instead of trying for a 4 and risking a 6 or worse. And if you have that shouldn't change either just because it's called a par 4.
Look at Tiger Woods when he won the Open at TOC by 12 shots. He took three 5s on #17 and apparently happily so! #7 NGLA would be no different.
Thinking that the inherent strategies change on a hole like that if nothing is done to it at all except dropping the par number is the "card and pencil" and par fixation mentality at it's most extreme!
-
TEPaul,
What is the yardage from the back tee at # 17 and what is the yardage from the back tee at # 7 ?
Do you think the differential makes a difference ?
-
Pat:
I believe they're about the same but if #17 is the same or shorter from its tips as #7 what difference does it make? You could basically put the par 4 tee markers on #7 at about the same distance (or anywhere shorter).
-
Tom Paul:
Don't believe a shorter #7 is a good par 4, I'm afraid. Green complex not receptive to long approach and front right pin is absurd enough from 20 yards let alone 200.
Extending tee box back 30 yards OK idea but I have enough trouble from right where it is now.
Rich Goodale:
Have never hit it in the road on the original Road. Perhaps I would be more humbled from there.
-
"Don't believe a shorter #7 is a good par 4, I'm afraid. Green complex not receptive to long approach and front right pin is absurd enough from 20 yards let alone 200."
Chip:
Are you saying then that #17 TOC is not a good par 4 for strong players? I don't think its green is all that receptive to an approach from 200yds either. So what? That's most of the interest of the hole, don't you think--ie, how to try hard to make 4 without making worse than a 5? NGLA's #7 is basically a copy of #17 TOC--so what's the difference if NGLA's was a par 4 too for very good players?
All I'm proposing here is that NGLA make #7 a par 4 on an alternate card when very good players play the course--it can remain a par 5 for the rest of the players. It's a simple solution and would cost very little--no more than it costs to print a set of alternate cards. I suggest that the alternate NGLA card be a par 71 or even a par 70--including #5 as a long par 4 for strong players.
The benefits are basically that it doesn't alter the golf course and it makes those holes what they really are--very good demanding long par 4 holes for good players.
-
TEPaul,
The angle of attack is so different, so comparing # 17 to # 7 may not be a good idea, or a valid comparison.
The configuration and orientation of the green is different, and that difference would make it a bad par 4 when compared to # 17.
-
Pat and Tom
Good double act showing why "par" is an irrelevant concept.
chipoat
Hackers like you and me never go long.
Mike C
I posted on my numerous Valentine's Day weekend walks along TOC at about the same time that you were going through your period of existential angst. The new bunker sucks, but it will evolve.
-
Tom Paul:
I find #7 at NGLA to be a more difficult green complex than the original. The original is also a touch shorter.
For whatever reason, TOC's Road Hole seems a more reasonable par 4 to me - I've played it 6 or 7 times and National's somewhat more often.
-
TEPaul,
When's the last time you were hitting 5 & 6 irons into # 7 green at NGLA for your second shot from an angle equivalent to the far far right rough ?
They are different holes and play vastly different.
As Chipoat said, approaching # 7 green from 20 yards is difficult, from 200 it would be impossible.
-
Pat & Chip:
That's interesting that you think #17 TOC is easier to approach as a par 4 than NGLA's #7 would be as a par 4. I certainly know #7 but I've never seen #17 TOC in person or played it---only seen it on TV. So would you explain why #17 is easier to approach, how it's orientation is different from #7, presumably making it easier to approach? I thought both of them were basically on the same angle or orientation or are you saying #17 TOC is at an easier angle to approach in two? It certainly doesn't seem to be from what I've seen in a number of Opens. It would also be helpful if you'd tell me if you've ever seen a golfer actually fly a ball in two onto TOC's #17 and holding it on the green, particularly the front right section.
Frankly, I really couldn't imagine any golfer actually flying a second shot onto the front section of NGLA's front right section but so what? There are other options to getting a ball on there in two.
The important things to keep in mind here are--
1. TOC's #17 has apparently transitoned from a par 5 to a par 4 successfully, and,
2. If nothing is done to holes like these two it really isn't particularly logical to assume they should be played differently despite which par they are. The fundamental idea on any golf hole is to attempt to play it in as few shots as possible always weighing the risks of making a higher or much higher number in attempting to do so.
Fundamentally in golf if a hole is within reach of two shots it could logically be called a par 4---perhaps a very demanding one but a par 4 nontheless. Things such as statistically high GIR in two really doesn't necessarily have that much to do with it--and TOC's #17 seems to prove that theory in spades. That's why I think NGLA's #7 could transition from 5 to 4 (only for good players--ie, the alternate card) the same way that TOC's #17 did.
And if they did that at NGLA I can guarantee that hole will get a ton more respect and a better reputation as a demanding hole than it has heretofore enjoyed. And the very reason that would be true is simply because the hole would then be able to play a bit of a psychological mind game on many players--players such as yourselves.
-
"As Chipoat said, approaching # 7 green from 20 yards is difficult, from 200 it would be impossible."
Pat:
And you think #17 TOC is easier to approch from 200 yds out (or less dangerous to approach)? Tell me why and let's see if others agree who know both those holes. It's certainly hard for me to imagine just what #17 is like to approach since I've never been there. However, everything I've ever seen from #17 including a lot of pro tournaments it would seem to be incredibly hard to approach in two. And if that happens to be true the point is #17 has and is setting a very interesting standard as a very demanding par 4--a standard NGLA's #7 could logically follow since it's basically a copy of #17---same name and all!
-
TEPaul,
This is why it is so important to see and evaluate a course firsthand.
You've drawn a conclusion based on limited if not erroneous information, because you want your conclusion to be valid.
The sharp elevation at the green is missing at TOC and the green is at a far more benign angle of attack and not nearly as narrow in the front right, almost the reverse green configuration as # 7 widens out toward the back, where # 17 narrows toward the back.
I also believe that the 17th plays about 460 yards from the tips.
-
Tom Paul:
Having played them both, I can vouch that Patrick has described the differences between the 2 green complexes superbly.
I will add that you can also drive the ball a bit farther right at TOC thus making the angle of attack even less problematic.
While the Road Bunker is certainly no bargain (and probably more penal than its NGLA near-twin), the worst danger on the original is to be up against the wall across the road.
The original is just an easier green to approach from just about anywhere except across the road.
If I can do it, it can't be that problematic.
-
Pat & Chip:
Well then, seeing as I've never laid eyes on TOC's #17 and so can't compare the two greens and the shot values of the approaches to them I'd have to accept your conclusions--providing others are in some kind of agreement with you.
However, if that's so the two of you should accept another logical conclusion.
That is if you ever begin to argue, for whatever reason, that NGLA's #7 is too easy as a par 5--because it can be successfully hit in two shots and birdied too often you should then seriously consider the logic of dropping its par to 4 rather than adding 20-30 yards of tee length onto it and continuing to insist it should be a par 5 for very good players.
You've apparently already argued succsessfully that due to it's extremely difficult green, green-end, orientation, angle, whatever, #7 is just too hard to make a 4 on as it now is from 200 yds or 20 yds, so how could you then propose that it should be made even harder? And furthermore, why would you even want to do that? And if you did argue for that it would seem to me you're both trying to argue both sides of the same coin!
-
Here is the roadhole at TOC. I think the front right is raised quite a bit. Flying a ball directly onto that green seems like suicide. I don't remember #7 green at NGLA well enough to comment but perhaps someone might want to comment on differneces in angle of attack and upslope leading into the green. Thanks
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/RoadHole.jpg)
-
Does this help?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/NGLA%207th%20Approach.jpg)
-
p.s.
For anyone who hasn't visited the course profile on NGLA here for some time, Ran has evidently added some TREMENDOUS pictures!!!
-
TEPaul,
Is there no merit to the architects original intent, that the hole should be played as a three shotter ?
If there is merit to that, then wouldn't it seem more logical to add a little length in pursuit of that intent, rather than shorten the hole and make it a par 4 contrary to that intent ?
-
"Is there no merit to the architects original intent, that the hole should be played as a three shotter ?
If there is merit to that, then wouldn't it seem more logical to add a little length in pursuit of that intent, rather than shorten the hole and make it a par 4 contrary to that intent?"
Pat:
I don't believe that. I think it's far more sympathetic and preservationist to the golf course to leave the hole and the golf course the way Macdonald designed it and not add tee length to that hole.
I would prefer the club leave the hole and the par the way it is now but if they're going to start to consider #7 to be a weak par 5 or a weak hole for some reason, as evidentially you must be to recommend adding yardage I would prefer to see them simply call it a par 4 and leave the hole alone.
Calling the hole a par 4 on an alternate card and a par 5 on the regular card does nothing to the hole except change the perception of it--not the hole itself. Shortening the hole as you call it is nothing more than setting back tee markers on existing tees wherever seems reasonable on any day---there is nothing architectural involved in doing that.
If for some reason that doesn't work they can simply throw away those alternate cards. This would be a much simpler, less costly and less invasive process to the architecture of NGLA than adding a new tee where it was never planned by Macdonald.
The thought of adding 50-60 yards to #18 by moving the driveway and Macdonald's gates is far more invasive to the golf course though.
But again, if someone thinks there's something wrong with #7 right now for strong golfers I think the best idea is to not add tee yardage and just call it a par 4 on an alternate card. That does absolutely nothing to the golf course itself--and that's the point!
Additionally it doesn't seem that TOC or its design intent or the Road Hole or its design intent has been compromised in any way by having the par dropped on that hole from 5 to 4. If anything it has unquestionably strengthened the reputation of #17 or the perception of it. And I believe the same would be true for NGLA's #7 and also #5!
-
TEPaul,
The yardage on the two holes is significantly different so you can't compare the two.
In addition, many other features are different, such as the angle of the green, configuration of the green, elevation of the green, etc., etc..
To endorse your theory is to deny the existance of elasticity.
-
I'll quote C.B. himself to try to address Geoffrey Childs' question (from "Scotland's Gift, pp.191-2):
"The seventeenth or Road hole at St. Andrews was, of course, easy to duplicate, but I determined that the station-master's garden should not be out of bounds as that is a forced situation, so I made it a great expanse of bunkers and mounds, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot capable of making any distance. When it came to building the green, the size and bunkering were identical duplications with two exceptions. The sharp juttings of the bank running up to the green I made less unfair by smoothing the juttings off somewhat. I had read many criticisms of this flukey approach and agreed with them. Where the road with its mud, ditches, and walk are on the right of the green at St, Andrews, I built a formidable sand-bunker running the entire length of the green with a five to six foot face; therefore giving a player, unfortunate enough to get in, an honest golfing shot."
-
Patrick:
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying here about NGLA's #7. My definite preference would be that the club just leave #7 alone and that it remain what it's always been, a 478 yd par 5 from the championship tee markers.
But recently some recommendations seem to have been made regarding some changes to the golf course. I have no idea where those recommended changes are coming from--from within the club, from Rees Jones, from the superintendent or from you or someone else.
Some of the recommended changes look to be restorations of what Macdonald had at NGLA or intended to have and other recommended changes seem to be nothing of the kind. I think with a golf course as significanct, as historic, and seminal to American architecture as NGLA is it's extremely important that anyone involved in recommending changes to that course know and understand the difference.
Again, some of the apparent recommended changes listed on another thread on this website recently look to be restorations and other changes such as adding significant tee length to #18, #7 and #5 are in no way anything that Macdonald conceived of that I'm aware of. I think you must know that--I'm certain the golf club knows that.
You speak of elasticity. That's a real and useful luxury to have on a course and a routing and on certain holes. In some cases it can be done very simply such as #8 and in other cases it cannot be done simply at all. I've never really analyzed any of those holes that closely to imagine the addition of added tee length but my memory of #5, #7 and #18 is that it could not be done easily at all--and I have looked at each of those holes with that in mind. My sense is on #5 the topography is not really conducive to going back with tee length--that the ground is lower back there. I believe the same is somewhat true with #7 and going back there to the extent of 20-30yds would really jumble things up with #12 green anyway.
Other recommended changes to the present course such as restoring the tee angles on #8 and #12, restoring green space to #13, removing trees behind #18 appear to me to be unquestionably a restoration of things that once were. The others mentioned above are definitely not and one certainly wonders how well they could be done in any case. That alone could be a very good reason why Macdonald may never have considered them!
Have you actually stood behind #5 and #7 and analyzed carefully the potential problems involved in adding that kind of tee length to those two holes?
So my point with #7 is to leave it the way it is including the par, but if for some reason the club thinks #7 has become a weak and reachable hole by strong players in two shots due to technology my preference then would be to logically drop the par of the hole and simply leave the hole alone!
If that's what the senitment now is with #7--ie that it's too reachable in two shots by strong players then commonsense and logic would indicate it isn't much different than a par 4 for strong players.
One cannot logically argue that the hole is too reachable in two shots for strong players and at the same time also argue that it's not reachable in two shots by strong players because it's almost impossible for strong players to gain the green in two shots! That's simply arguing both sides of the very same coin. Heads and tails are not the same and #7 has either become too reachable by strong players or it hasn't. If it hasn't I say leave the hole and its par as it's always been and if it has become too reachable by strong players in two I say call it what it has really become then--basically a par 4 and leave the golf hole's architecture alone.
I'm not the one proposing change to the architecture of #7--you are by recommending adding 20-30 yds to the hole or else you're endosing something the club is thinking of doing that way. I just don't agree with that. So it seems to be you who's trying to make a change fit into your conclusion and not me--ideally I'm saying leave everything about the hole as it's always been.
And again, I've never seen TOC's Road hole but the greens don't look all that different to me as you suggest. And if you read C.B. Macdonald's own thoughts on the comparison of the two greens in the post above you can see that he didn't believe the greens were that different (he said it was easy to copy TOC's Road hole green--except that it seems he felt that #17 was apparently more difficult--even unfair for some shots for a few reasons). And if one looks at the comparative drawings of both holes and greens in Geo Bahto's new book (assuming the drawings are correct and representative) you can see it appears that #17 TOC's green actually appears to be at a greater angle off the axis of the beeline to the hole than #7.
The front section of #17 may be bigger but apparently Macdonald felt the immediate rise onto the front section of #17 was too steep to copy exactly at #7 and anyone who has read about #7 NGLA and Macdonald's adjustments to the front rise knows that Macdonald intentionally softened the original steep upslope on #7.
So I'm not recommended that NGLA's #7 be reduced from a par 5 to a par 4 for no reason---all I'm doing is suggesting if the club is recommending changing that hole by trying to add 20-30 yards to it--which may be hard to do for a number of reasons because they believe the hole has now become too reachable in two by strong players a far better and less architecturally invasive solution would be to simply call the hole a par 4 on an alternate card--to be used by good players only.
And when you talk about a significant difference in distance between TOC's #17 and NGLA's #7 it appears to be 461 for the former and 478 for the latter. I don't call that all that significant when all you have to do to make them absolutely the same yardage is plant the back tee markers on #7 app 17 yards in front of the present tips. Do you really think planting tee markers at the same yardage is some kind of big deal?
-
Pat Mucci and chipoat. It seems that McD has contradicted your assessment of the relative difficulty of the apporaches to #17 TOC and #7 NGLA. Much as I hate to admit it, the CB is right, this time, at least......
I think that Tom Watson would also concur with our assessment............
-
"Much as I hate to admit it, the Dr. is right, this time, at least......"
Rich:
Are you actually questioning Alister Mackenzie on architecture again? Amazing! I think the man's architecture has pretty much proven his opinion on things to do with architecture generally correct so why would you hate to admit that he might be right?
I was once put in my place for mentioning to Betty Jameson, a two time US Open winner and strong disciple of Tommy Armour's teaching methods that in my opinion golfers should not play the ball as far back in the stance as Armour recommended. Betty said; "Tommy, I think Tommy Armour knew a bit more about the golf swing than you do." She was right and I learned a good lesson early on.
And I would say the same about what you know about architecture compared to Alister MaKenzie. So again, why is it that you hate to admit that he may be right about architecture? Have you done a course somewhere that's better than Cypress Point that we should know about?
-
Tom
I was a stupid in my pervious post and referred to McDonald as MacKenzie. Not a hard thing to do. All dead Scottish GCA's look alike, don't they? I've amended the erroneous post.
As to your specfic questions, given my humble admission of error, they are irelevant. I will answer one of them, however. I have not, YET, designed a course equal to Cypress Point. But, there is still time!
-
I also think it's obvious from the comparative pics of the front sections of both greens that the one at NGLA is not nearly as dramatically upsloped as the one at TOC.
Glad CB agrees with me. :)
-
Charles P - thanks for the reminder about CB's comments on NGLA
Why doesn't NGLA just print cards like Sand Hills? Put the yardages on them- thats all- no par and no handicaps. #7 would be a 478 yard golf hole- period.
-
Geoff
That is far too intelligent a suggestion to ever be adopted.
-
"All dead Scottish GCA's look alike, don't they? I've amended the erroneous post.
As to your specfic questions, given my humble admission of error, they are irelevant. I will answer one of them, however. I have not, YET, designed a course equal to Cypress Point. But, there is still time!"
MacK or MacD--it's really of no matter as both were heavy-weight architects with super reputations and products. So instead of asking you if you have something as good as Cypress somewhere we don't know about just interchange NGLA for Cypress--so, again, why do you hate to admit either of them are right about architecture?
As far as all dead Scots looking alike---yeah, right. They probably look as alike to you as the holes on their courses which must be part and parcel of your feeling that a hole is a hole is a hole. It sounds to me that you must be thinking of Gertrude Stein instead of Mackenzie or Macdonald!
-
Mike Cirba, et. al.,
There is a material difference.
The upslope at TOC is all within the green.
The upslope at NGLA is all outside the green
Despite CBM's pronouncement, the greens are configured differently, just look at schematics or aerials.
TEPaul,
I understand your concerns, but, the 2nd hole is proof positive that extending tees to gain yardage preserves the architectural intent and integrity of the hole.
If you play the 2nd hole from the old tee location and then play the 2nd hole from the new, back tee location, you will quickly see the merits to extending tees on certain holes.
# 8 is but another example.
I think a few yards added to # 7 will have marvelous results, just like on # 2 and # 8.
I feel the same way on # 5 and # 18 provided that the angle of attack is relatively preserved.
-
Picture of upslope at TOC is from front left - green is level w/ground where golfer is standing (straight on).
The 2 green complexes are just not the same but perhaps I've talked myself into a problem at National that doesn't exist for others.
TOC #17 is a bit shorter, a bit easier to position a drive further right and the green is a bit easier to approach from center of the fairway or anywhere right thereof IMO.
The original Road is a better par 4 than it's NGLA sibling. The National's Road Hole is a brilliant rendition that, like #4 at NGLA(Redan), may be superior to the original.
-
Pat:
I hear you on holes #2 & #8 and they probably are improved from the old tees. But every hole has to be looked at individually and uniquely for a lot of reasons, in my book, as to adding tee length. The most dangerous thing of all is for the club or anyone else to use the rational that just because added tee length has been done successfully on certain holes that it can be done successfully on any hole and every hole.
And furthermore we're talking a comparison here of par 4 holes to par 5 holes and that alone makes a difference in some cases. Certain par 5s can transition quite easily to good demanding par 4s and my belief is that NGLA has two such holes--particularly #5 and also probably #7.
Frankly, I believe that NGLA would be perceived as a much stronger golf course by very good players and particularly touring pros as a par 71 or even a par 70. The course is very lucky in that regard to have been a par 73 this long.
And again the added benefit is it wouldn't have to be touched architecturally.
I feel exactly the same about Maidstone. It just happens to have two short par 5s (#15 & #16) that really are sort of longish par 4s for very strong players. So there's no reason not to call them that with an alternate card for those occasions. Maidstone would also be perceived as a stronger course as a par 70 rather than a par 72--and again nothing would have to be done to those holes.
This again is not a recommendation for either course unless either course is thinking of making changes to any of those par 5s because they view them as either too weak or too short which is generally a club's sentiment with these kinds of holes---and it's interesting that every hole I'm talking about has always been a par 5 and not a par 4.
And it's also interesting and lucky for both courses that they are par 73 and 72. I wouldn't make this recommendation if the course dropped to a par 69. That unfortunately brings with it another very negative perception. I don't disagree with the reality of a par 69 course I'm just realistic about the negative perception of most golfers of a par in the 60s.
-
TEPaul,
On # 7, I think a little extending of the tee would do wonders.
That green doesn't have the angle and configuration to make it a good par 4. Hitting it in two is difficult, and remember George's advice, to go long-long/left, to allow you a better recovery angle and 3rd shot into the green.
I think the beauty of the hole is approach shots from 5 to 150 yards, and as a moved up par 4, the vast majority of the golfers would be deprived of many of those approach shots.
-
Pat:
Look--you seem to continue to misunderstand what I'm saying here. The vast majority of golfers aren't going to be deprived of a damn thing with my recommendation since part of my recommendation is that the vast majority of golfers, members and such will continue to play #7 as a par 5 just the way it's always been. And those golfers don't need the additional tee length you're proposing.
But for other occasions, for really strong players, perhaps even the National's Singles tournament, and certainly for something like Walker Cup players and touring pros playing #5, #7 and maybe even #18 the way they are now as par 4s is a very intriguing and very valid thing to do. It's much better than the expense and complexity of added tee length on those holes, and certainly given the place in architecture of NGLA and the need to preserve all things about it as much and as best as possible.
Most on here know you and I argue with each other only because we're kidding around and that my harping on you as being right only 2% and wrong 98% is a joke--and that you harping on me is too. You and I know I think those percentages are probably about the reverse when we're off this website.
But on this particular subject I'm not kidding. I really believe this. I think it's a much simpler and much more logical solution for that golf course and all that it is and should be. My idea of dropping the par is only for special occasions--as an alternate card only for those occasions---the rest of the time for any golfer it's of no real consequence and the course can remain the same.
NGLA for everyday play for any golfer does not need those changes of added tee length on those two holes you're recommending and I'm pretty certain you know that Pat.
-
TEPaul,
My objection is:
That touring pros, en masse, will never play NGLA.
And, that a few extra yards may have marvelous results in light of the increased distances most golfers are hitting the ball.
I would imagine that par might be changed for the Walker Cup,
but, it's very difficult to gage on a windy site.
If strong winds are out of the west and you make # 7 and
# 18 par 4's, you've done a disservice to the golf course, its architecture and the players by reducing par on those holes.
The sometimes arbitrary nature of the winds makes changing par dicey, while extending the tees a little retains all of the architectural intent on each hole, and isn't as adversely affected by the changing winds.
I'd certainly like to continue this discussion on site, with Chipoat as a participating party. How about this spring ?
-
Pat:
You seem to have developed some pretty odd formulaic opinions from somewhere about what a golf hole must be in all conditions (winds) in relation to its par. You seem to have an absolute formulaic GIR mentality for any conceivable occasion.
Certainly par is the expectation for excellence on a golf hole but while things such as prevailing wind is often taken into consideration on golf holes things such as occasional strong headwinds certainly has never been something that created the expectation that even very good players MUST be able to reach a green in GIR. Any European golfer would probably tell you that or even good golfers in high wind states such as Texas.
Again, if the tee markers on #7 were set at the same yardage as TOC's #17, for instance, and the hole was played as a par 4 by good players (the alternate card) what would be the difference of the hole given those wind conditions and the same wind conditions on #17 TOC? If a good player can't reach either hole in strong headwinds, so what? He simply does the best he can, as it's always been. Saying its doing a strong par 4 a disservice if GIR can't be accomplished in certain circumstances even by good players is really pretty ludicrous. What about a hole like Shinnecock's #12? Do you think even good players expect to reach that in two in a strong headwind?
Do you now think TOC has done a disservice to #17 by dropping it's par to 4 years ago? Do you think they don't have the same intensity of headwinds in St Andrew's occasionally?
Trying to accomplish the kind of formulaic GIR certainty on golf holes and in architecture that you seem to be suggesting isn't a good direction to be going or even thinking.
-
Pat:
Matter of fact, I would say, not only does dropping the par of a hole like #7 not do the hole a disservice even in a headwind it could be said it does the hole an added service by simply increasing the temptation of certain options--such as thinking you HAVE TO hit the green in two. And as Geoff Shackelford has always said increased temptations are one of the best and most fundamental elements in all of golf architecture--very much calling on the psychological side of the game!
-
TEPaul,
If you recall the 7th tee and the land in front of it, you may remember that the 7th tee is elevated and then the land falls into a bowl in front of the tee for the next 40-80 yards.
Thus any tee moved forward would be akin to hitting blind out of a significant depression, unless you want to build a 15 foot high tee in the middle of play.
You would have absolutely no sense of direction, no features to guide you with your drive. At least with the road hole you can pick a letter. But, perhaps you and Geoff Shackelford could put some directional markers in the middle of the fairway, such as the one behind the 3rd green, to assist the golfer in his quest to find the hole, let alone play it.
TE, theory is great, but you have to look at the actual topography of the hole when trying to make pronouncements with regard to changes or the actual play of the hole.
-
Patrick:
What in God's name is the matter with you? Seriously? Just show me where and when I EVER said or recommended anything about a tee forward on #7. Look at you talking about depressions and blind tee shots and the need for something 15 feet high. Your discussion here is becoming sort of ludicrous.
All I've ever said is just leave the hole alone period and call it a par 4 on a alternate card for the occasion of strong players playing the golf course IF IN FACT the club thinks too many of them are reaching the green in two shots (as apparently you must be) instead of adding a tee 20-30 yards behind the present tips. And if the club doesn't think that then just leave the hole the way it is and as a par 5. Whose ideas of adding 20-30 yards to #7 is it anyway--the club's or yours?
-
"TE, theory is great, but you have to look at the actual topography of the hole when trying to make pronouncements with regard to changes or the actual play of the hole."
Patrick:
I think you're the one who needs to get out there and look at some topography before making any more pronouncements and architectural recommendations for that golf course.
You apparently haven't noticed that I've said about ten times now I'm not advocating architectural alterations---you're the one doing that. All I said is drop the par on an alternate card to be used for certain occassions. There's nothing architectural about that Pat!
-
TEPaul,
A better idea to me would be to use the hole as an alternate par 4 and maybe move the tee markers up some for some occasions.
My response was triggered by your statement quoted above.
If you move the tee markers up you go into the bowl.
-
Pat Mucci said:
"If you move the tee markers up you go into the bowl."
Patrick:
That statement just about takes the cake. No wonder you're always getting everything screwed up. Apparently you don't even recognize the difference between tees and tee markers.
You know those things that're called "tee markers" or "tee blocks" that maintenance can pick up and set wherever they think is necessary on existing tees for the day's play? You know those things that golfers are supposed to tee their golf ball within and behind? They're call tee markers Pat. They can be things like smallish wooden objects that generally have a spike in the base of them.
I don't know many golf clubs that build new tees everyday to vary the distances holes can play, but maybe you do. I know a lot of clubs that use the tee markers to vary hole distances though. Frankly, nothing you can ever say surprises me anymore.
-
TEPaul,
You and I and Chipoat and others KNOW how small the tee on # 7 is. You said previously that you endorsed moving the tees up to play at the same distance as # 17 at TOC, which is exactly 461 yards.
Please, no more wiggling out of your own statements, thanks.
-
TEPaul,
Pat:
I believe they're about the same but if #17 is the same or shorter from its tips as #7 what difference does it make? You could basically put the par 4 tee markers on #7 at about the same distance (or anywhere shorter).
Again, I think the contouring of the land, the bowl, would make that a bad idea.
-
Pat Mucci said:
"Again, I think the contouring of the land, the bowl, would make that a bad idea."
Patrick:
Are you then saying there is no current tee space at #7 NGLA where tee MARKERS could be set for strong players at app. 461 yds (the length of the tip tee markers on #17 TOC as a par 4).
If that's what you're saying I think you need to go out to that hole again and take a look at the current tees and tee space available.
Or alternatively just stay at home, get out a NGLA scorecard and if you're lucky you might notice that the regular tee length on that hole lists as 462 yds--not 478 yds. Are we getting a little warmer yet? But maybe you still think that 462 yd regular tee length is in some kind of "bowl".
Amazing!