National Golf Links images

[George_Bahto]

That feature was called a sand hill (but a hill of sand is not necessarily one of all sand) - was also called a "mound? - a berm and various other descriptive terms.

I don't know “for” "inverted bunkers" - never saw "him" write about it that way ....   but I guess it could be referred to it that way.


When Karl was there I think he scalped the top of the "berm" (which is what I would like to refer to it as) and then put in the hair transplants clumps.  I never liked them much but hey, itz not my course.  I think there were some discussions over it at the time -  the same features is/was on the berms on hole 9.

I wasn't about to get involved in that debate (although I was asked to).

The point is, in the general sense, berms of one sort or another, be they like 17 or just a high bunker berms, are there to block the landing area of about one third to one half of the green.

There is (was) usually a hazard on the more safe side of the landing area that should be respected - but this fairway bunker was supposed t make you think to hit the ball to "wrong" side of the fairway (unless you challenged the hazard successfully) and you would be faced with the blind/semi-blind approach.

A very basic but a most powerful strategy.

The drive down the left side at 17 NGLA is about 240 or so if you flirt with the left hazard line. This opens up the approach ....  sort of.

In the days when the course was first built balls were not in the air very long but bounded long distances.

His fairway bunkers on 17 were intended to segment the fairway into two or three smaller targets - consider the carry over the huge diagonal sand hazard off the tee in those days.

Think about it if you, as an average player, could only carry the ball about 175 on your tee-ball - where do you play to considering the wind etc.

It was a different hole then.

With today's cannon shots? ..... totally different hole.

Still one of the great hole in the US.

gb

[ForkaB]

Dave, etc.

I think Tommy N and I agreed several years ago that the "Leven" was a pretty damn good copy of what is now the 16th at Lundin Links (the closer to the seaside holes of which used to be part of the old Leven course at the time CB was alive and kicking).

That hole (the 16th at Lundy) is dominated by a big dune on the left which can be carried from the tee that was in use on the olden days (about a 250-260 yard carry).  You can take the girlie man route short right and have a little pitch to a small difficult green, or try to bust it over the hump.  Altogether a really neat hole.  I think that 17 NGLA used to be like that, or at least I would hope that it were.  Now, as you say, its an iron and a pitch hole (not that I accomplished (or even tried) that in my one bite at that particular cherry.........)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill Gayne,

One has to understand the topography of the hole to more fully appreciate it's design.

If the golfer lays further back from the green, they gain elevation that allows them to see the green and it's surrounds.
This gain is offset by the need to hit a longer club into the green, and the peril of finding one of the many fairway bunkers on your drive.

As you approach the bottom of the fairway, about 100 yards or so from the green, the flag is not visible.  You have to walk back, behind your ball to see where it is, and pick a spot on top of the raised bunker to aim at.  I'm about 6'3" and can't see the flag from about 100 yards from the green.  The convex bunker complex starts at about 65 yards from the green.

Dave Schmidt,

The fairway may look wide, but I think that's part of the deception.  

In order to clear the center bunker a drive must carry 250 yards.  Many forget the pond just left of the ideal landing area, which requires a carry of 260 to clear.  Balls that carry 250, but are hit right, will run through the fairway and into the heavy right fescues.  Balls hit too far, dead straight will end up in the convex bunker complex, leaving a difficult approach shot.

For one that sprays a tee shot, the perils are abundant.

Andy Hughes,

I don't find the rail sheds as examples of great architecture.

Look carefully at the photos taken before vegatation was allowed to grow behind the 17th green.  When you do, you'll notice a blending of the features from the tee, the sand beaches and expanses beyond the green, and the sand on top of the feature George refers to as a berm.  All visuals aggregate to make the green appear to be an island amidst the sand.

# 17 isn't the only hole that features this look. One has to view # 17 in the context of the holes that preceeded it.
Holes like # 2, and especially # 9, where this feature occupies a vast segment of the golfers view from the tee.

Dan Callahand,

NGLA is replete with hazards identical in appearance to that found on # 17.  The 9th hole alone has about four of them.

I wouldn't use the limited number of pictures that appear in Ran's write-up as the basis for a definitive all encompassing evaluation.  Had you seen pictures from the 9th tee you would not view the convex bunker as out of the ordinary.

On a previous thread regarding Sandpines and dunes, many types of dunes were discussed, from oblique dunes to types more familiar and common to links like courses.
So most of us have been exposed to the great variety in dunes, and the definition is not restricted to the photo you posted.

The topography found at the green end of # 1 is so vastly different from the topography found at the green end of # 17, that a suggestion to replicate it is ill advised, or foolish at best.

The bunker on # 17 is not out of place.  It is in perfect harmony with the view from the tee.

[TEPaul]

I think Dave Schmidt is sort of right about #17---it's sort of a second shot hole unless you're very long off the tee or a lady. If you're a man when you step on that tee there sure is a lot that seems to be going on out in that fairway. If you drew the possible landing area in an arc about 270 off the tee on that hole you'd have a fairway width of probably 120 or more yards. I've played that hole a lot and I've never seen a man even attempt to hit a drive across the middle fairway bunkers over to the right third of that fairway. There's really no point at all to try that. Everything on the right side of the fairway to the right of those mid-fairway bunkers has to be an option from the ladies tees only which are way to the right of the men's tees. Again, although that tee shot looks like one of multiple options, in effect it really isn't. Most all men just hit their tee shots over the diagonal carry bunker and try to land it fairly close to the mound bunker for a shortish comfortable shot in from there. Whenever I've hit a decent drive on that hole the second shot is just some kind of SW, although blind. Some long players can go much farther down to the left and open up the the approach in to view, but there's some real subtlety in the approach from there, in my opinion. Most of the green actually very subtly slopes away from you coming in from the far left----I think that's a much more delicate half shot from there and nowhere near as reliable as just a SW over the bunker mound in a direct line from tee to middle of the green.

It looks like there's a ton of tee shot options from the men's tees on that hole but functionally it really isn't that way at all, in my opinion.

[Dan_Callahan]

Patrick,

As I said before, I can only base my observations on what I see in the photo, since I've never played the course. But to this untrained eye, that is one pretty crappy looking hazard. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

[Jfaspen]

Standing on the tee of "Leven", what is the prevailing wind direction?

250-260 downhill downwind is a different story than 250 into the wind.

[TEPaul]

I never thought of this before now. If you hit a decent drive on #17 almost any good player I ever saw on that hole is very definitely thinking birdie. All you have to do is hit it at the flag with a SW and get the distance dialed in--certainly not that hard a shot with a SW. The thing that always amazed me about that hole is the green---it's so big and pretty flat for such a short hole. Look at that photo again above. How much cooler would that already cool hole be if there was a broad ridge running from the middle of the back of the green right at that grass island in that mound bunker that shed balls hit to the left half of the green left and balls it to the right half right? If the top of the ridge was about 2 feet higher than the far left and right sides of that green think how sporty it'd be to putt from the wrong side to the pin on the other side of the ridge. Do you think that may make golfers think more about which side of that really wide fairway to hit their drives depending on where the pin was, which they can clearly see from the tee? I do!

[ian]

Dan,

It looks better than it appears in these photos. What is wonderful about it, is the way it hides the approach unless you are long and left (which is a tough shot into the wind).

Pat,

I found it interesting how the shot from the left bunker allows a good view into the green. I must admit, I never thought of laying back for visibility.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What's this wishy washy, "I sort of agree with Dave Schmidt" nonsense.

The fact is, that risk/reward and precision driving are vital, integral components of playiing the hole.

Dave has said, on many occassions, that he sprays the ball.
Aiming at the narrow, left side slot, could easily result in his drive ending up in water, deep, deep rough, or bunkers.
It never ceases to amaze me that he thinks he can pinpoint his drive, yet admits to being wild off the tee, and that's before I factor the wind into the equation.

At 275 yards off the tee, the fairway is narrow.  At that point you have the narrow entranceway to the left, and little fairway to the right.  A yard or two further and you're in the convex bunker/berm complex

The fairway is at its widest at 250 off the tee, however, that is barely enough to clear the center bunker, and brings you precariously close to the right side bunkers and left side bunkers and water should you pull your tee shot, so it's widest at its riskiest.

Robert Floyd drove it onto the berm bunker or the fronting bunkers, I forget which.

But, what you and many others are forgetting is the play of the hole from the right side tees, the tees just over and right of the 16th green.  Play from those tees is either abandoned, or rare, but it certainly does change things.

And, with a blind shot from 65 to 100 yards, the hole is hardly a dial in birdie hole.  That green has more contour and slope then you think.  In addition, hole locations can play havoc with approaches.  Any hole location close to the perimeter of the green, rear, front and right, can be diabolical.

I've seen more then a few double bogies by good players from under 100 yards.

Go to page 103 of George Bahto's, "The Evangelist of Golf", and tell me how the 7th green will play from the 8th fairway

Dan Callahan,

This is why you can't rely on photographs in evaluating a golf hole.

Is this feature that much different then the mounding that appears in the Principal's nose bunker complex at # 11 at NGLA and # 17 at Yale ?  

There is a desire to obscure the target green from certain angles, and when you play from the highly elevated 17th tee at NGLA, it's all layed out in front of you.  It's only when you get to the fairway that the green and surrounding features disappear, as intended.

If you can get George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf", go to page 131 to see how the convex bunker complex blends in with the surrounding area right, front, and behind the green.

And, look at page 108 to see the same convex bunker complexes on the 9th hole, page 98 to see how they are integrated into # 6, and page 85 to see how they appear on the 2nd hole.  That bunker on # 17 is all part of a general scheme or theme.

That you feel they look crappy may be the result of your untrained eye, as you state, or a lack of sufficient  information upon which to base your evaluation.

Jeff Formanczyk,

It's been my limited experience that the wind is either at your back most of the time, or in your face, with occassional left-right or right winds.

Into the wind, from the exposed, elevated tee, alters the play of the hole considerably.

Ian Andrew,

It's a viable alternative.

I suspect that the strategy was more heavily employed when the tee was on the right of # 16 green.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I couldn't agree more with you regarding TE's wishy-washy response. One more post and they'll turn into life-like renditions of Archie and Jughead! I'll even let you pick which one is Archie and which one is Jughead!

Rich, Yes, absolutely YES!

Lundin does own the original Leven Hole, and we were originally wrong in our assessments of what we thought which hole it may have been.

Since seeing C.B.'s version of the Leven Hole, I thought about this afterward. What hole was most like it at Lundin and Leven.  It all hit at once--The Leven Hole does exist, but its the 10th, called "Thorn Hill," thus proving that the Lundin members don't know the extent of the history of the hole.   Thats the REAL "Leven Hole." Its also an original part of Leven before the Lundinites bolted, taking half of the course with them!

From the Lundin Golf Club site....


You can see what exactly he was emulating here, and the distances while not downhill, are in line @ 353 Yards.

Its also happens to be one of my favorites at Lundin Golf Club, and of course......The National Golf Links of America.

[ForkaB]

Rich, Yes, absolutely YES!

Lundin does own the original Leven Hole, and we were originally wrong in our assessments of what we thought which hole it may have been.

Since seeing C.B.'s version of the Leven Hole, I thought about this afterward. What hole was most like it at Lundin and Leven.  It all hit at once--The Leven Hole does exist, but its the 10th, called "Thorn Hill," thus proving that the Lundin members don't know the extent of the history of the hole.   Thats the REAL "Leven Hole." Its also an original part of Leven before the Lundinites bolted, taking half of the course with them!

Tommy

I think you are wrong here.

The 10th at Lundie (being north of the old Railway line, which was the boundary of the Leven course prior to 1909) is one of the new holes.  Even if CBM had seen that hole prior to 1909 (when both NGLA and the Leven/Lundin split occurred), I would doubt he would copy such an upstart

Also, I think there is a reference somewhere to the Leven being a copy of the 7th of the old (combined) course.  This is where the current 16th at Lundie would have been in the old routing.

Capice?

Ricardo

[Andy Hughes]

I don't find the rail sheds as examples of great architecture.

No Pat, I didn't think you did as I seem to recall it coming up in the past.  But while there is not a direct correlation between 17 at NGLA and the Road Hole, and countless differences can be listed, the Rail Sheds and the funky convex bunker do seem to have a similar function--obscure the view and hide the landing area and force a decision to be made (though the decision is made on the shot before at NGLA).

[George_Bahto]

CB Macdonald fm Scotland's Gift speaking of his (some of his)  "Ideal Holes:


#16: "suggested by 7th Leven, which is only 260 yards, with burn (his spelling) running at a bias, and green guarded by a sharp hillock  (love that word!)"

.................  however someplace in my notes or files I remember either Charlie M or someone saying that the hole was "gone" when they split the course into two courses.  I could be wrong and if I find the info I'll post it.

They may have tried to reproduce the strategy when they redid the course(s). I'm sure they were aware of how good the hole was.  Obviously at 260-yds it needed help.
      

Discussion: .....  would you rather play 17-NGLA downwind or into the wind ....  assuming a 1.5 tp 2 club wind, dead at your back of dead into the wind? .... from the right bailout area you then have a quartering wind .... same to a lesser extent from the left edge of the fairway.

Also: flirting with the left edge of the fairway off the tee can result in some big-time numbers if you pull the ball or underestimate the carry. You don't think the pond is in play but it can easily be.

There are a lot of temptations and deceptions built into this great short hole ..... credit the thinking of Macdonald (especially in the context of 1907).

It may be in my book but I came across a sketch drawn by him on his NY office stationary probably made at the point when he lengthened the hole by 30+-yards or so. It shows the tee-box and yardages of three lines of play for the "new" version of the hole.  This of course when they put in the "Macdonald Gates" donated by his good friend George Bourne.

You wonder how many cars in those days crashed into the concrete stantions by that group of inebriates - hah)

gb

[ForkaB]

CB Macdonald fm Scotland's Gift speaking of his (some of his)  "Ideal Holes:


#16: "suggested by 7th Leven, which is only 260 yards, with burn (his spelling) running at a bias, and green guarded by a sharp hillock  (love that word!)"

Thanks, George.

I think that nails it in terms of inspiration (there is a "burn running at a bias" as well as the hillock).  However, the "suggested by" caveat properly recognises that NGLA 17 is a different and unique animal.

Rich

PS--Was 17 originally shorter than today?

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul;
“….But, what you and many others are forgetting is the play of the hole from the right side tees, the tees just over and right of the 16th green.  Play from those tees is either abandoned, or rare, but it certainly does change things.”

My God, Pat, how many times are you going to prove you’re incapable of reading and understanding something? I certainly did not forget the vastly different strategies on the tee shot from the far right tees on #17. This from my post #35;

“…..it's sort of a second shot hole unless you're very long off the tee or a lady. If you're a man when you step on that tee there sure is a lot that seems to be going on out in that fairway. If you drew the possible landing area in an arc about 270 off the tee on that hole you'd have a fairway width of probably 120 or more yards. I've played that hole a lot and I've never seen a man even attempt to hit a drive across the middle fairway bunkers over to the right third of that fairway. There's really no point at all to try that. Everything on the right side of the fairway to the right of those mid-fairway bunkers has to be an option from the ladies tees only which are way to the right of the men's tees.”

Does that sound like I’m forgetting how different the hole has to play from those tees way to the right? I’ve never seen men play from those tees way over there. And yes there is a tee(s) over there! You see, just like me you’ve obviously never played from over there but it appears you never even noticed them either.  

[TEPaul]

"Go to page 103 of George Bahto's, "The Evangelist of Golf", and tell me how the 7th green will play from the 8th fairway."

Pat:

You've got a good point there. It does look like it could play in another iteration from the 8th fairway. But, in my opinion the other three directions are far more interesting if used in other hole iterations, particularly the par 3 iteration from the right.

[TEPaul]

"The fact is, that risk/reward and precision driving are vital, integral components of playiing the hole."

Pat:

Come on--that's crap! Hitting a tee shot down the left half of that enormous fairway is not exactly precision driving. All you have to do is carry that diagonal hazard and hit it somewhere to the left of that mid fairway bunker. The width of that play is probably 60-70 yards. Shivas is right about that pond on the left. That's something that may come into the mind of a real long driver trying to get way out and just to the left of the green while skirting to the left of the mound bunker. Something like that is not something I'd ever try or am capable of. Frankly, I've never even noticed that so-called pond way out there to the left somewhere and how many times have I played that hole?

George Bahto gives a very fine analysis of the hole and the differences both vast and subtle of the way it plays for today's good golfers vs the way it must have played for good players way back when.

[Marty Bonnar]

In 'Scotland's Gift', CBM also says that NGLA 8th is "similar to Leven 9th".
Is that now Lundy 18th??

Yours befuddledly,
FBD.

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Put it this way---hitting a ball into that pond on #17 seeing as how large the left side of that fairway is could be considered about the same thing as hitting the clubhouse off the tee on #1!  

And if Pat Mucci has ever actually hit a ball into that pond on #17 it just goes to show he really is the Big Booby I always thought he was.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
Not doubting you one bit, the reason why I had surmised this one quite obviously the bunker and how its situated in the hole.

Do you have information regarding the 10th as a new hole?  It was to my understanding that it was not one of Braid's, But one from Old Tom, and given its location, a possilbility that it could in fact fit into the old Leven routing. So, Martin or even you Rich, get to it and lets see a copy of the old Leven routing.

[ForkaB]

In 'Scotland's Gift', CBM also says that NGLA 8th is "similar to Leven 9th".
Is that now Lundy 18th??

Yours befuddledly,
FBD.

Dear Befuddled of Balbirnie

9 old Leven would have been #1 of today's Lundie.  The only similarity with the "bottle" hole that I can see is the blindness from the right/better angle from the (more dangerous) left aspect.  Plus, they are both long.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Do you sometimes get the feeling that the so-called "similarities" some of these guys come up with between golf holes is about the same thing as saying they're similar simply because they're all golf holes?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Take a look at this hole.  Water on the left?  Pat, that's a fricking retention pond or something that is so far out of play, the only way to find it is with a total disaster of a swing.
That pond that you claim is out of play is less then 15 yards from the left edge of the fairway.  In addition, if you're aiming at the center of the slot to the green, a drive with about a 10 degree deviation from that line will find the pond.  For someone as wild as you've indicated that you are off the tee, that would seem well within your shot pattern[/color]

You're constantly amazed that I admit to being wild with the driver, yet I think I can pinpoint it?  Pat, Pat, Pat, that fairway is 100 yards wide.  If I (or anybody else, for that matter) have to worry about what's another 20 yards left, there are serious swing issues going on.  I would never in a million years let a retention pond 20 yards left of a 100 yard wide fairway come into my thinking on a golf hole.  Never.  If a player somehow hits it in there, it sure as hell wasn't his STRATEGY that failed him.  It was his swing, pure and simple, and badly so!

Your inability to accurately recall the hole is impeding your ability to understand the play of the hole.  You've told us that drives of 250-275-300 are common for you.  From a highly elevated tee, I think it's safe to add 25 yards to those numbers, and with the wind at your back, a little bit more.

At 280 you're in the convex bunker complex, have no fairway remaining on the right, and have a 25 yard wide slot on the left.  So now, as a big hitter, who is admittedly wild, you're telling us that you're just going to bang away ?  You've also told us repeatedly that you don't lay up, you go for the gusto.

So now, tell me how easy this tee shot is for you.
A 25 yard wide slot, with water and deep fescue just slightly left, a horrendous bunker complex straigth ahead, and deep fescue to the right.

The play providing the best option for seeing the green and the hole location is at the angle created by the slot, which is about 25 yards wide.  That angle is also the only angle that won't encounter bunkers short of the green, hence approach shots can even be played along the ground, which is vital when the golf course is fast, firm and windy.[/color]

Look, I've said a billion times here that some people on this board mentally jerk themselves off over strategy soooo much that they rob themselves of the ability to see what's going on in plain and simple terms.  How far is it to get to those bunkers in front of the convex bunker?  How far?  What is is?  285?  280? 300?  270?  Whatever.  And by all accounts, clearing the first bunkers is somewhere between 235 and 250, depending on who you listen to.

Clearing the center fairway bunkers requires a CARRY of 250.
A drive of 280 toward the center of the green will be in the begining of the convex bunker berm complex.[/color]

So is there any doubt that that proper strategy on this hole is to hit driver down the middle, favoring whichever way you tend to hit the ball (ie, cut or draw), unless you're likely to hit driver into the bunkers (ie, the dreaded flushed straight ball), in which case, you hit 3 wood or 1 iron or whatever instead?  Why in the world would you flirt with the left rough when you don't have to?  You're going to have a wedge in.  Why would you purposely play to the right when you don't have to?  For me, the play is a draw at the bunkers with driver or my hybrid 1 iron, depending on whether I'm into or downwind.  Period.  And -- barring a 5 club wind -- I won't miss this fairway more than 1 in 20, unless it's going through it with an accidental nuke-job, which I can live with.   From there it's a wedge, which is where Pat can stuff one to 10 feet and make 3 from his preferred angle and I can blade one over the green and try to scrape to make 4.  

I wish I were that good.  # 17 has proven to be a challenging hole over the years, especially downwind, in tournament conditions.  If you think a blind wedge, downwind, to a firm, fast green surrounded by bunkers, save for the slot, is a nothing shot, the assessment of your abilities far exceed your actual handicap.

In match after match, I've watched very good players have difficulty with this hole, especially downwind under tournament conditions.  Into the wind, it's no picnic either.

And, I've seen a good number of good players find that pond on their tee shot.

The deviation from the intended line on # 17 at NGLA is incomparable to the deviation from intended line at # 1 at GCGC. [/color]

My God, if there is anyone on here who has a right to be constantly amazed, it's me being constantly amazed at the amount of hand-wringing and mental machinations people go through over utterly simple shots where being as much as 20% offline has only minimal consequence.

Remind me again, what's your handicap ?  

Everything is easy on paper.

Play the hole under tournament conditions in both medal and match play a few dozen times, then tell me what you think.
[/color]

TEPaul,

I never said that the angle from # 8 fairway was the best angle, only that the green could be played to, from every angle and present a challenge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

Pat, how can that carry be 250 over the carry bunkers if TEP sometimes hits an iron.  He ain't that long.  It's downhill, fine, but that still doesn't have him hitting an iron.

I can only tell you what the yardage is.

TEPaul is responsible for his own words[/color]

It may be 250 to carry the bunker on the far left side, but I don't think it's that far if you aim at the center of the green or to the right (ie, just left of that bunker in the fairway).
You're incorrect, it requires a 250 carry to clear the center bunker[/color]

Good, I'm glad you told me it's 280 to the bunker complex through the fairway directly in line with the green.

So, let's see, you've got a shot you have to carry about 230 or so, but don't want to hit any farther than 280.  If you do that (50 x 120), you've got a wedge in.

Not just a wedge, but a wedge from a downhill sidehill lie[/color]

or....

you can try to pound a driver into a fairway neck on the left side, bring 15 yards of rough into play, bring the entire  bunker complex into play, and bring a pond 15 yards off the fairway into play....

hmmm....

what did the wild hitter from Chicago do in his one and only chance at this hole, into about a 2 club wind?....

Into a two club wind, the dynamics change drastically from a two club down wind, and you know it.[/color]

I hit it into the 50 x 100 and took all the lunacy of trying to thread it into a fairway neck out of play.

Into a two club lenght wind the slot is unreachable. so you had no choice.[/color]  

And what did I get for this?  A fairly easy wedge shot.  

On the other hand, I could have tried to smash a driver into a thin area of fairway and brought X into play.  I'd had enough X's that day (2 at least that I can think of, #10 and #11 or maybe #12), to be honest.  

What's my handicap?  Dont' carry one anymore.  Somewhere in the low single digits.  I'm a crook at 6 and I have to be playing really well to carry a 1, 2 or 3.  So you tell me.

If you think that pond is in play for a guy aiming at the green, you've got a funny definition of "wild" for a good player.  That's a 30 or 40 degree miss.  That's practically impossible.  I will, however, grant you that if you're aiming for the neck, hitting it 25 yards offline (not 80!) is more than doable.
Pat, if you're telling me that that pond is something that a guy aiming down the middle has to think about on the tee, then basically you're telling me that #2 green at Garden City is something that a player teeing off #1 has to think about.  The aerials don't lie.  They're roughly the same amount offline.

Downwind, good drivers will try to get to the area of the slot leaving them an unobstructed view of the green, a slight pull or hook will put those drives in the pond.

I've seen some great players hit it in that pond, but they were only zero or plus handicaps.  Perhaps it only comes into play for them.

The prevailing wind direction at # 1 at GCGC is at your back,
tee to green.[/color]

Have you ever concerned yourself with the second green at GCGC when you tee off #1?  Didn't think so.  Now I'll grant you that if for some reason you were aiming at the left hand side of that bunker that runs down #1, you might, but why would you ever aim there?  That's the way I feel about aiming left on #17 at NGLA.  It's a sucker play.  I can't help the fact that you've seen guys go for the sucker play.  Lots of people do that.  (and I'll get to the conditions where it isn't the sucker  play later in this post....)

I try to aim right of the sand/rough ridge that runs down the fairway at # 1 at GCGC so that I have the same unobstructed opening to the green that I get at # 17 at NGLA.[/color]

Pat, go find me saying that 250 is common for me.  You're making stuff up.  These days, drives of 250 are very uncommon for me.  275-300 is quite common. I'll grant you that.

This proves my point.
At those distances, downwind, downhill, you have only the slot as a viable choice for your driver.[/color]

Pat, the problem with your thinking is that you keep thinking that I'd be dumb enough to aim at a 25 or 30 yard wide slot on the left!  I've said already a number of times that that's a DUMB shot unless you're dormie or Fred Funk.  I started a thread on how dumb that shot is.  Now, if the green was another 80 yards back toward the Peconic, maybe it's not so dumb, but when the only difference you're talking about for all that risk you take by going left is a half-wedge that you can see vs. a full wedge that's semi-blind, that's just an assinine play, pure and simple.  That's as dumb as trading dollars for quarters.  Yes, it's true, I am not afraid to hit the dumb shot when there's something to gain from doing it, but not for no reason or a negligible reason.  You gain next to nothing going left on that tee (again, unless you're Fred Funk).
For someone who doesn't lay up, who uses the driver to go for the gusto, how else can YOU play the hole ?[/color]

I will grant you that when the course is playing fast, firm and windy, and you're dead downwind, it might be worth it to play left, for precisely the reason you mention -- if you can't stop a wedge from the fairway short of the bunker complex to a pin right of center, then it's your only play to make 3.  Then again, if it's playign that fast, I probably would only need a 2 or 3 iron to get to position A on the left side.

You've told us, time and time again, that you don't lay up, that you don't play for score, that you want to hit the gambling, challenging shot, that you want to get the satisfaction of pulling off an incredible shot, no matter how minimal the chance for success, and now you're telling us otherwise.

Which is it ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

The carry directly over the diagonal bunker looks to a bit more than 200, less over the right side and about 225 over the left side. There looks to be about 85+ yards of fairway directly over the diagonal bunker until the fairway runs into the convex sand mound bunker complex. Flying that mid fairway bunker would be about 250 yards but I rarely see a man try to go that far right in that fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags: