[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Perhaps some who are adept at this sort of thing could scan and post it for you.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Haven't you seen the 1928 schematic in the back of Scotland's Gift? I don't have it.

I was looking at the drawing of NGLA in GeoffShac's book and the bunker scheme on the second shot on #9 is basically the same as it is now (maybe there's another bunker on the left but that's about it).

I can certainly tell from that drawing that the second shot would not be improved over what it is right now!

Try to imagine a diagonal bunker scheme across the fairway as I described above connecting the short right bunker with the longer left ones and tell me how you think it would play and how it would play differently from how the second shot does right now.

Don't focus on it as having to be a recommendation, just focus on the architectural concept!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

One of the things I like about NGLA is the uniqueness of each hole.

If you were to place a similar mid-fairway configuration of cross bunkering similar to # 8, I think it would be redundant and detract from the unique character of each hole.

The tee shot on # 8 and second shot on # 9 would be mirror images of one another, and I think that wouldn't be a positive alteration.

I'd like to comment further on your post and research, but the only GEOFF'S name I'm suposed to mention is GEOFF CHILDS.  I'm not supposed to mention GEOFF SHACKELFORD's name, so I can't comment on any of GEOFF SHACKELFORD'S books or works, even though I have read some of them.  You evidently have permission from GEOFF to use or reference his name.  
I wonder, is this a form of censorship ?  
Does this qualify me for a refund ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I can hardly see how a diagonal bunker scheme across the fairway on the second shot of #9 would look much like the basically inline bunkering in the middle of #8 fairway, but anyway...

As to the rest of your answer to my post I can only quote Cuba Gooding's response to Tom Cruise in Jerry MacGuire;

"Well, that's an answer! It's not much of an answer but it is an answer!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm not sure that I understand your diagonal bunkering scheme.

Is it similar to # 3 or # 5 ?

Does it require a forced carry or lay up ?

I guess the best thing would be to visit the 9th fairway and have you describe or depict your idea.  It would be neat if we had telestrater capability.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You know the fairway bunker on the right side about 100+ yds from the green? You know the bunkering on the left side of the fairway about 10-30 yds from the green?

Take a thin (maybe about 3-4 paces wide) shallowish bunker scheme (broken up into maybe 5-6 bunkers ala #8 and snake it in a diagonal from the right bunker to the left bunkers across the fairway!

If you can imagine that I think you can easily imagine the options and playability involved in carrying it short right/longer left or laying up short right or longer left!

[Sebonac]

I think a good example for what TEPAUL is trying to accomplish can be seen at Piping Rock on the second shot on I think it is the sixth hole.......

[SPDB]

Sebonac,
not sure about the 6th hole at PRC. those bunkers are pretty square to the line of play, and not that thin.

The design of that hole, particularly bunkering has always reminded me of 18 at NGLA.

[TEPaul]

Sebonac;

I grew up at Piping Rock and the bunker scheme on the 6th hole would be a very very loose analogy to what I'm thinking about on the second shot at NGLA's #9.

It certainly wouldn't have to be a diagonal bunker scheme all the way across the fairway (on maybe a 70 yd diagonal), that's only an example of something to create some interesting problems and solutions for the second shot.

I believe the golfer should have to think very muck both distance and direction control on that second shot if he wants to come within 20-100 yards of that green!

Otherwise the choice would be to lay farther back but there has to be something very much on or across the fairway in that area to make him do that!

[SL_Solow]

Dave Schmidt; sounds like your usual strategy on many holes.  There clearly is method to your madness

[Paul Richards]

Shel:

So you too have seen Dave execute (literally?!?) holes in said manner?

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

Those old guys used to say it was a good thing to create some interesting strategies on golf holes but that it wasn't necessary to take things too far that way as most players bring their very own problems and solutions to the course.

In your case a very unique strategy in playing the hole in regulation par! Your last couple of shots seem like posterboys for the glorious "recovery shot" concept, something they all valued highly back in those days!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sebonic & TEPaul,

Never played PRC.

I'm supposed to in the next two weeks.  

After I've played it, I'll be better able to understand TEPaul, if that's ever possible  

[Sebonac]

One of the great things about the design of NGLA is all of the interesting options that present themselves when you don't hit the perfect drive....Granted number 9 does not change that much if you don't hit a decent drive....unless it is so bad that you cannot make the carry to the second fairway on your second shot.....It seems to me that the bunkers on the that can come into play on the second shot at #6 at Piping accomplish this to some degree....if you don't hit a proper drive...you have to consider where to place that second shot and decide whether carrying one of those bunker's is worth trying....Something with this in mind at NGLA #9 would make it more interesting....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()