#

Response Date

Comment:

1.

4/3/2008 3:51:00 PM

no feeling one way or the other

2.

4/3/2008 6:53:00 PM

hole is tough enough as it is. 20 yds is par 5 for me

3.

4/3/2008 10:27:00 PM

Can't hit it anyway

4.

4/3/2008 10:28:00 PM

This is hard to reach in regulation already.

5.

4/3/2008 11:12:00 PM

Farther back means longer? I say no. Yes, to less bunkers.

6.

4/4/2008 2:31:00 AM

Nothing wrong with it as it is!

7.

4/4/2008 1:43:00 PM

I thought we were talking about moving #3 not #7. If you moved #7 back it would be a par 5.

8.

4/4/2008 4:35:00 PM

hole is long enough now

9.

4/4/2008 4:56:00 PM

this is a tough green to hit in 2 for many golfers now

10.

4/4/2008 5:31:00 PM

This hole is already one of the hardest on the course why would you want to make it harder? r

11.

4/4/2008 5:57:00 PM

opposed to moving but not opposed to bunker changes. Believe all high bunker lips should be removed. We are not on the "TOUR"

12.

4/5/2008 1:13:00 AM

Why move or change bunkers...for visual? Where's the $$ coming from, lets do what must be done first before considering the visual aspect.

13.

4/6/2008 12:18:00 AM

The current distance is challenging to the majority of golfers. Adding additional yardage will only frustrate many of us.

14.

4/6/2008 12:24:00 PM

It takes 3 shots to get there. Why make if tougher?

15.

4/6/2008 2:22:00 AM

Makes sense only with added forward tees

16.

4/6/2008 2:56:00 AM

Good hole doesn't need relocation.

17.

4/6/2008 5:57:00 AM

Again, I don't see anything wrong with the green at all. It would just change a hard hole to a harder one. LWW is not about "Visual appeal & strategic challenge"

18.

4/6/2008 6:03:00 PM

This is already one of our longest par 4's

19.

4/6/2008 10:51:00 PM

Would the tees be moved forward? This is long enough from tahe red tees as it is - there are very few women who can reach it in 2. If the tees are moved, then I would be in favor.

20.

4/7/2008 12:33:00 AM

This course is difficult enough without adding greater length.

21.

4/7/2008 7:09:00 PM

From white tees length would be too difficult for most.

22.

4/8/2008 3:59:00 AM

problem of incoming stray ball interference with 6th tee?

23.

4/8/2008 5:09:00 AM

Already a tough hole 20 yards further on a long second shot would make it a very tough hole.

24.

4/9/2008 7:36:00 PM

Agree with the bunker improvement. Added length - no.

25.

4/9/2008 9:48:00 PM

Not high on my priority list

26.

4/9/2008 11:05:00 PM

this hole is very difficult as is-if you lengthen it change to 5par

27.

4/10/2008 4:26:00 AM

This hole is very hard for women anyway & adding to the length only makes it harder for us if we play the red tees

28.

4/13/2008 2:20:00 AM

what is visual apeal when we have some of the most beautiful land in the area.

29.

4/13/2008 6:09:00 PM

For a par 4 - very few golfs can reach it in 2 now.

30.

4/15/2008 8:25:00 PM

This hole is tough enough and lone enough already.

31.

4/15/2008 11:22:00 PM

looks good and is challenging enough

32.

4/16/2008 4:25:00 PM

leave it alone

33.

4/16/2008 8:30:00 PM

Present hold OK with me

34.

4/16/2008 9:02:00 PM

move the back 10-15 yards

35.

4/17/2008 1:22:00 AM

This hole is challenging enough for most golfers.

36.

4/17/2008 9:44:00 PM

#7 is already a tough hole to reach in 2 shots as a par 4

37.

4/17/2008 10:12:00 PM

It is challenging enough for the average LWW golfer.

38.

4/18/2008 4:29:00 PM

Already difficult to reach in 2 shots from the red/white/blue tees. Move the green back 20 yards and few players will be able to get on in 2.

39.

4/19/2008 4:52:00 PM

This hole is difficult enough as is, 20 yards additional would make it almost impossible to par.

40.

4/19/2008 5:21:00 PM

Depends on cost impact and downtime estimates

41.

4/19/2008 8:50:00 PM

Challenging enough as is

42.

4/20/2008 1:00:00 AM

The hole is tough as is, but doing this should raise the PGA rating

43.

4/20/2008 6:58:00 PM

only is it is made a par 5

44.

4/21/2008 4:34:00 PM

wasted spending

45.

4/21/2008 7:19:00 PM

Hole 7 is difficult for ladies, longer is just more difficult

46.

4/21/2008 8:27:00 PM

green 7 is fine as is

47.

4/21/2008 11:17:00 PM

probably not worth the expenditure

48.

4/21/2008 11:33:00 PM

Just leave it alone

49.

4/22/2008 6:44:00 PM

agree with the above "only replace greens when they have failed or are on the verge of failing" and when the operational costs of maintaining them in playable condition becomes too costly. Again, the cost of replacement must be from community reserves!

50.

4/22/2008 10:14:00 PM

It's long enough as is and the rest of the statement is only one person's opinion. Cost is a huge consideration.

51.

4/23/2008 3:06:00 AM

If moved back 20 yards, might we consider it a par 5?

52.

4/23/2008 3:10:00 AM

same as item 14

53.

4/23/2008 4:02:00 AM

This hole has a low handicap already. Why if we are building new shorter tees?

54.

4/23/2008 4:25:00 AM

Maybe, just make the green a little bigger in the backside

55.

4/23/2008 5:49:00 PM

Low priority

56.

4/23/2008 9:45:00 PM

Focus on critical projects that justify the ROI. Funds are limited! If funding becomes available, resurvey members

57.

4/23/2008 10:37:00 PM

I am in favor because I believe that there are many changes that will make our course more appealing even though I think that it is a great course as is. I am always a proponent for change however I think the "need to do" should come before the "nice to do"!

58.

4/23/2008 10:59:00 PM

As a lady golfer this is already a tough par 4 - adding additional yardage will make it near impossible

59.

4/23/2008 11:17:00 PM

Would certainly adversely affect women's play.

60.

4/25/2008 2:37:00 PM

hole is difficult as is

61.

4/25/2008 2:54:00 PM

toughest hole on front now. unnecesary expense

62.

4/25/2008 8:53:00 PM

get rid of front bunker

63.

4/25/2008 10:18:00 PM

#7 is now one of the hardest holes to par - why make it more difficult?

64.

4/27/2008 3:49:00 AM

Members are challenging the cost to golf here and it is suggested to spend big bucks on "visual appeal and strategic challenge!! I don't think so!!

65.

4/27/2008 9:16:00 PM

OK as is