[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[ChipOat]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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 ?

[TEPaul]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[TEPaul]

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?

[TEPaul]

"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!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()