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.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« on: June 08, 2005, 02:50:34 AM »
There is a hole on my course that I'm not sure whether it is inspired or just plain folly.  I'd call it a strategic penal target design.

The vast majority of people who play it, hate it.  They call it stupid, ridiculous, contrived, unfair, or bizarre.  A local newspaper pundit once rated it the worst/stupidest hole in our metropolitan area.  So, I'd like some armchair amateur (or professional) opinions from afar in the treehouse on the architectural merits of this hole.

A brief description and some pictures follow.  It is a par 5 that ends the front nine.  It goes about 520 yards from the mens tee.  On the scorecard it is called Twisted after the small river that meanders its way through the hole.

The hole is a 90* left dogleg on a flat piece of land.  The tee shot is framed on the left by a line of large trees along the river.  The right appears more open but the landing area is bordered by a pond.  The end of the fairway is defined by two bunkers and some mounding.  The bunkers are 265 yards from the tee, so aren't in play for most players.  The fairway is about 30 yards wide until it turns left.



There are three options off the tee.  Option 1, hit it 220 to 250 down the middle of the fairway; Option 2, hit a high draw (apologies to the lefties in the crowd) over the corner trees on the inside of the dogleg; Option 3, hit an iron 175 yrds in the middle of the fairway.

The issues on the drive are: anywhere right in the landing area is dead in the pond; too long and you're in thick rough or fairway bunkers; low left is dead in the river and trees; and, too short risks being blocked out by the trees.

The second shot presents a split fairway with a river wandering down the middle.  The river ends anywhere from 150 to 250 yards depending on how far left or right of centre the tee shot is placed.  This view looks down the fairway towards the green after the dogleg.



Beyond the river the fairway is wide but shallow as it leads into a large waste area with grass islands fronting the green.

Players laying up short off the tee (Option 3) are left with a blind middle iron over bush and between trees to the narrow left fairway.  Players who opted for the middle of the fairway off the tee are left with fitting a shot that carries the river, comes up short of the waste area, and leaves a wedge into the green.  Players who opted to cut the corner can have a go at the green from say 240 yds in, depending on how much of the corner they bit off.

The impediment to those cutting the corner is the large (100 foot high) specimin oak that ends the right fairway.  Those that can cut the corner usually have the ball roll out to where the oak blocks a direct shot to the green.  Going for the green requires either a hard cut or a high draw around the oak.



The approach to the green does not allow for running a shot in.  It's pretty much all carry.  The green has three distinct tiers and is protected left by a long coffin bunker and right by two pot bunkers.



The challenge for  most players is devising a strategy to play the hole and then executing three shots to pull it off.  What should be a relatively simple long iron to 3 wood off the tee, followed by a middle iron to the left fairway, and a short iron to the green, most often comes to ruin off the tee or in trying to carry the river on the second shot.  Since the hole is flat it is hard for most players to get comfortable with target landing areas and distances.  Most seem to go for the heroic rather than the strategic in playing the hole.

So there you have it.  What say you?  Inspired or folly, or somewhere in between.

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2005, 11:28:33 AM »
Bryan:
Looks like they just fit the hole to the land and tried to use what areas were available for landing zones while maintaining the natural hazards.  Some would call this inspired. Maybe TEPaul ;) ;D.  Personally I am not a big fan of target golf where good shots could be penalized and this apparently could happen here.  So on that score I would have to say folly.  But does that then make it somewhere in between? ;D
Not sure.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2005, 11:55:08 AM »
Good shots are not penalized per se.  If you can pick your spots and hit them, then you are rewarded with a plausible next shot.  The penal part of it is if you get off line or distance, then trouble await on all sides off the tee.  

For those cutting the corner, and making it, the only downside is having to hit a hard cut to reach the green.  That's not penal, is it?

THuckaby2

Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2005, 12:04:53 PM »
Let's put it this way:  I'll take this hole BIG time over the uninspired boring just bash away crap I see all over lots of the courses I play.  On this hole, you have to make two or more choices and how can that ever be a bad thing?  Sure the hole seems to be damn penal.  But hell, absent penalty there is no risk... and for a reward to be worthwhile, there has to be risk....

I like the hole, from the pics and the description (which is damn good btw - well done Bryan).

Put me down for inspired.

With one caveat - a three-tiered green at the end of all that does seem to be overkill.

TH

Pete Buczkowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2005, 12:32:52 PM »
Bryan,

I would like it a lot more if that pond to the right of the landing area was not there.  Make it a bunker and I think the hole is fine...but there is too much water for my tastes.  I wonder if they considered making it a par 3 followed by a par 4?  Ninety degree doglegs are a bit of overkill and feel forced IMHO.  I've seen this kind of hole on Smyers' courses with bunkering and people seem to like them.

Thanks for posting the hole and nice description.  

Matthew MacKay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2005, 04:57:56 PM »
Brian, I've played that hole a few times and it is very confusing and intimidating the first time you play it.

As a true three-shot hole I think it is a fairly good one and I think the closed and tiered green is appropriate considering the vast majority of players would play a lay-up second shot.

It's defienately the epitome of target golf.

THuckaby2

Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2005, 05:11:22 PM »
Matt - you make a good point about the green.  I suppose if people are hitting short irons into it - which is the intent, and which will happen in practice the vast majority of the time - this closed and tiered green is OK.  My thought was just that man, one has to really hit two good shots to get to a point where he has a short iron in, so at that point a little reward would be nice.  But what the hell, this golf hole does seem to be the mother of all target three-shotters, which is also cool by me.  I don't think I'd want EVERY hole on a course to be like this, but as a change of pace, it's cool.  Heck, it warrants discussion on here, which again has to be a good thing.

TH

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Inspired Architecture or Design Folly?
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2005, 01:22:41 AM »
Matt, you're right, most find it confusing and intimidating the first time around.  But the intimidation continues, even with the regulars.  The hatred of the hole continues even when the confusion wears off.  Perhaps it's like burning your finger on the stove.  You're very cautious about being burned again.  That seems to play with peoples' minds.  A sign of a good hole perhaps.

Tom, as Matt pointed out, most play it as a three-shotter, hence the closed green.  The rest of the course is fundamentally a target golf course and rates out at 76.0 from the tips, so there isn't a whole lot of let-up on it.  The holes are not all as target oriented as 9, but all are challenging in one way or another.  The course wears on most people.  Nevertheless the hole described is the one that sticks in peoples' minds.

Pete, the routing of the course is in a river valley so the pond comes naturally with the territory.  In fact there are 5 ponds on the property.  There are two branches to the river and two small tributaries, so water is in play on 13 of the 18 holes.  Almost Floridian.  Environmentalism is such that not much can be done with the rivers and their surrounds.  As for whether the architect considered a par 3 and par 4 for that part of the routing, I don't know.  The course is routed to return to the clubhouse after nine, and there is a range that had to be fitted into the valley as well.