News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« on: December 21, 2004, 09:12:11 PM »
A par four requiring:

1) A tee shot over a tree and a second shot over a tree?
2) A tee shot over a tree and a second shot under a tree?
3) A tee shot over a tree and a second shot around a tree?
4) A tee shot that must finish at least 200 yards from the tee but no more than 230 yards from the tee?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2004, 09:17:09 PM »
Mike,

Unfortunately, I'm pretty good at #'s 1-3, out of neccesity, and as for #4, I don't like holes that REQUIRE a lot of math off the tee.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2004, 09:31:29 PM »
Mike,
   Are you complaining about #18 ;)?
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2004, 10:04:01 PM »
Ed,

No.  I just asked a question.

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2004, 10:14:38 PM »
Are you sure there isn't something you want to get off your chest? #4 is awfully specific. :) You can say it, we're here for you buddy. Feliz navidad.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2004, 10:26:23 PM »
Ed,

If I live to be 800 ;) I don't think I'll "get it."

I must admit I might just have my head up my a**.  Come to think of it, a great title for a country song:  "I'm my own b*tt boy."

Mike

To all, just answer the question.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2004, 10:27:38 PM by Mike_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2004, 10:28:30 PM »
 ;D ;DI'm going home now, thanks for the laugh.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2004, 12:25:43 AM »
I'm not nearly the tree hater some on GCA are, but I think any hole that REQUIRES you to drive over a tree is pretty dumb.  Never seen one that required driving over a tree and then going under a tree.  You sheepranching it in a state park or what?

Not a big fan of the "must be between 200 and 230 yards" thing either.  Sounds like one of those crappy Florida courses constructed on swampland with island fairways.

I'm willing to excuse one hole per round where you either are forced to hit over a tree or forced into a narrow distance range tee shot.  But I see that on the first three holes its going to put a bad taste in my mouth that will be difficult to recover from.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

DMoriarty

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2004, 04:23:51 AM »
I only like 1-3 if it is the same tree on both the drive and the approach.  

Number 4 sounds like it could be one of Matt Ward's favorite par threes, if it only were a little longer . . .

Brian_Gracely

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2004, 07:19:12 AM »
Mike,

Why the need to hate on #7 at Cuscowilla so much?

Casey Wade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2004, 11:04:12 AM »
I don't mind at all attempting to hit a tee shot over a tree so long it is protecting a dogleg.  What I do mind is a ball in the fairway and having to play "over", "under", or "around" a tree that probably shouldn't be there in the first place.  My examples are from the same golf course our section played our section championship this year North of Austin, Texas in Georgetown on a golf course called Cimarron Hills.  It's a Jack Nicklaus signature golf course and on the second and eighteenth holes there are oak trees in the center of the fairways that block about 1/3rd of each landing area.  This would be fine if the holes weren't 430+ yards.  These holes, after playing 3 rounds would be much better off without the trees.  
« Last Edit: December 22, 2004, 11:05:41 AM by Casey Wade »
Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to shoot them.

Brent Hutto

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2004, 11:12:17 AM »
#1-#3

When you say "requiring", do you mean that going under, around or over those trees is an absolute requirement for advancing the ball? Or do you mean that you have to aim to one side or the other of the fairway and/or flirt with bunkers or rough if you want to avoid putting the tree in play? Or is there some club you can hit off the tee (other than driver) to avoid the tree?

If you really are forced into playing those shots with no alternative strategy available then I'd say at most one hole like that on a course would be OK with me and even then it would seem pretty quirky.

If you are able to play a 4-iron way out to the right followed by another 4-iron that has to carry a bunker to get at the green then that's pretty cool.

#4

Sounds pretty cool to me. A whole course consisting of that kind of specific layup target off the tee would get old fast but on a single hole I think that's a valid challenge.

Brent Hutto

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2004, 11:15:27 AM »
I don't mind at all attempting to hit a tee shot over a tree so long it is protecting a dogleg.  What I do mind is a ball in the fairway and having to play "over", "under", or "around" a tree that probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

What is the criteria for deciding if a tree "shouldn't be there in the first place"? Was it planted by the club after the hole was built? Or is it sufficient that the tree keep you from aiming a driver down the centerline of the hole?

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2004, 11:35:02 PM »
That's a good question, Brent.  Some here will argue that no tree belongs in the fairway, no matter what, but I can't go along with that.  I've seen some examples where it worked well, and some where it worked badly.  And once, on the same hole...

One local course had a 510 yard par 5 11th hole with a "specimen tree" pretty much in the center of the fairway about 90 yards from the green.  This thing was huge, close to 100 feet tall.  Wasn't terribly wide, so there was room to go around, and the branches didn't start up until around 40 feet or so IIRC, so it didn't affect the high handicappers too badly.  But damn it sure made things interesting going for the green in two.  Due to a bunker left at 260 off the tee and a cluster of pine trees off the right across the bunker, your line was pretty well defined.  You hit it straight and dealt with the tree, or hit a draw around it (going into the prevailing wind carrying it wasn't an option then, at least for me, and still isn't a gimme today)

I probably ended up with about two dozen tries at that green over the years, usually hitting a 1 or 2 iron at it.  You gotta really be confident of your ability to REALLY flush it if you want to take a 1 iron over a tree that tall (and use balata balls, because Pro V1s and V1xs don't spin enough off the long irons to hit it that high)  Of course, more often than not I wasn't able to go for that thing, either because there was too much wind into me, I didn't hit a good drive, or was out of range of my irons (don't carry fairway woods) so I'd layup, and that tree created a lot of strategy and interest in where you wanted to lay up.  And you had to play various knockdowns and half shots if you put it in a less than desireable location, or worse, hit the tree with your second.  It absolutely dominated and defined that hole.

Then back in 1997 we had a big derecho (particularly violent type of thunderstorm that packs extremely high winds) run through town and right through that course.  Surrounded by flat land on all sides, it was a sitting duck, and the wind gauge at the course registered 123 mph before it blew away!  Needless to say, lots of trees were lost, including that one.

So they did the dumbest possible thing they could do.  They planted a NEW TREE right there.  About 20 feet tall at the time, now maybe 30-40 feet tall.  So there's no worry about hitting over it at all, so it no longer affects anyone going for it in two, but totally screws the high handicappers since its got branches and leaves all the way to the bottom so there's no way to play below it.  Its either over it or around it.  There was no way to recreate that hazard, they shouldn't have tried.  Now it just looks stupid, and I'm sure people always wonder why in the hell they deliberately planted a tree in the dead center of the fairway!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Casey Wade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2004, 10:46:30 AM »


What is the criteria for deciding if a tree "shouldn't be there in the first place"? Was it planted by the club after the hole was built? Or is it sufficient that the tree keep you from aiming a driver down the centerline of the hole?
Quote
Brent, I believe the playability of the holes in question would be better without the trees in question  The trees might have already been there and they decided that the trees should stay there.
Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to shoot them.

Brent Hutto

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2004, 12:03:59 PM »
I'm with redanman, there are very some fun holes to play that would meet the description given. Unless the trees just completely block out the hole and give a weaker player no way to get around them I say it's all good.

Casey Wade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2004, 01:26:05 PM »
This is one of the holes I was describing.
http://www.intra-focus.com/cimarron/DOCS/jnsgc_18_tee.htm

Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to shoot them.

Brent Hutto

Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2004, 04:15:35 PM »
So you go through that opening off the tee, preferably with a right to left shape, then need to land it in the correct part of the fairway to get a clear shot at the green, prefably from the right. That's a tough hole but seems fair enough unless I'm missing something.

Casey Wade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Do You Like These Holes (No Pics)
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2004, 05:55:56 PM »
Brent,  

I agree with you that it is tough and fair.  The point I am trying to make is would this hole be better off without the tree.  My answer is yes.  Especially when it is uphill, 440 yards to a green that has water and trees left, water fronting the green and to the right.  
Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to shoot them.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back