ANGC's (Lack of) Tee Flexibility
As appalling as the rough or tree planting plays in light of Bobby Jones's eloquently stated design philosophy, it appeared Sunday that the lack of tee flexibility hindered the committee's ability to make a few holes more vulnerable.
Every time there was a wide view of a tee shot, it seemed the markers were placed as far forward as possible. On holes playing into the wind where you want to tempt players to attack (13, 15), there was no alternate tee between the back and forward tees that might have forced led to some more aggressive golf. (And therefore, perhaps more drama?)
Also knowing that Jones and MacKenzie were hoping to import elements of links golf to their inland site, tee flexibility would be seemingly vital to preventing what Jones lamented:
…with our own best courses in America I have found that most of our courses, especially those inland, may be played correctly the same way round after round. The holes really are laid out scientifically; visibility is stressed; you can see what you have to do virtually all the time; and when once you learn how to do it, you can go right ahead, the next day, and the next day, and the day after that.
I've never understood the club's obsession with the "clean" look of two sets of tees along with the odd decision to bulldoze the old tees when extending the course.
Add it to the list of architectural oddities that has the place just not playing as well as it should.
Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 09:12 PM
Reader Comments (8)
Too tough is just right.
It's funny though, about the addition of the trees; people don't seem to think they count as massive changes, when if a lake were slotted between, say, 15 at ANGC and 17, there'd be roars of protest, despite the penalties being similar -- OK, a lake's a bit extreme (it would need waterfalls to compensate for the slope, too!), but how about if a Crump-style wasteland were placed there instead? (though of course there used to be a kind of scrubbish-nish to the bunkering at ANGC ... i.e., to the left and short of the first green -- before they all got trimmed and tweezered and tressed into Euclidean submission). And all this at a time, as thousands have pointed out, when Royal Lytham, Walton Heath, Oakmont, etc., are removing trees by the 1000s.
Perhaps if they were really serious about tightening up the right of the 17th, a bunker could do? -- but, no, that would be sacriledge ... but at least it would add strategy, as opposed to just penalty (a la four, famously, at Woking GC) -- lay short, fly over, go left, go right, etc. Still I enjoyed the tournament immensely, though I thank Zeus they haven't tampered unduly with three ... three cheers for the short par four, I say!
Excellent point. The only thing I would ask you to consider is that with such extreme lengthening of courses (again, maybe just bad!), such flexibility is necessary to maintain the interest and balance of risk/reward in certain holes.
I fail to see how the course lengthening can be seen as 'extreme'. THe course played at 6990 yards for about 50 years. It now plays at a maximum of 7,500ish. Considering the improved distances that players are hitting the ball, increasing the length of the course by 7-8% can hardly be seen as extreme. Increasing the length of the course should be a good excuse to not plant trees, not over-water or narrow the fairways, and not set ridiculous pin positions.