[RJ_Daley]

I continue to have very mixed emotions about Bayside, the Bunkerhill, Axeland and Proctor contemporary course to Wild Horse, also in western Nebraska.  

It isn't pure sand hills, yet the front nine is more or less sand hill composition.  The backside is sand hill top layers, but steeply and severely arroyo'ed or baranca'd (whatever you want to call a series of many wash down ravines).  

The course was in the best condition I have ever seen it.  The greens rolled slightly less speed than Wild Horse's, which are generally unparalleled in consistency of roll and speed.  Baysides are probably cut about 1/32 higher.  But they are actually even more dramatically contoured.  The fairways the same dwarf blue grass as WH, but cut about 1/4 higher.  But, once again, rolled firm and fast.  The intermediate rough is longer too, and the primary more sparse than Wild Horse's 2005 lushness due to rain down there.

We walked the front nine twice at Bayside and I really must say that I have always thought is was a good design.  But, with this extra few rounds of familiarity, have warmed up to saying it is not just good, but very good.  Bayside's front 9 gives Wild Horse a semi-serious run for the honor of being Nebraska's best front 9.  Elton, the course super has it in very good shape.  The angles of approach, the green contours and relationship to the approach shot choices are really first class.  The only difference in the maintenance meld with the design is that Bayside doesn't feature as wide and short cut of surrounds (generally, not some specifics) as WH.  In fact, Bayside is more similar to Sand Hills than WH.  

I wish I could warm up to Baysides back 9.  But, I can't.  It is really crazy, because there are 4 holes on the backside that are indeed top notch and examples of some of Axeland and Proctor and friend MIke O'Neil's best work  (12, 14, 16, 17)  But, 10, 11, 13, are not good golf hole design in one aspect or another, and most egregiously 15 continues to be the worst and most unfair golf hole designs I can think of.  

The excuse for the back nine goofy aspects is that the land simply could not be routed out to yield much better.  I would qualify that with the caveat that with the limitted budget they had, nothing was practically possible to mitigate the wildness of the ravines ruining or getting in the way of a better design.  I think a very expensive construction effort might have addressed some of the goofy spots.  But, it would still have yielded something not to write home about, other than the 4 excellent holes as noted above.

The design concepts on the backside also did not take in the task of maintenance on extreem slopes.  (what is being maintained there should pay respect to the super to get it mowed as well as he does)  Even the cart path is nearly over the top in safety.  Yet, the backside presents some beautiful views.  It is scenicly wonderful, and golf design schitzophrenic at best.

I would tell everyone to play there, and hold your nose when playing these controversial holes, in order to have a great thrill playing the 3/4 of the course that is really high entertainment.

[Cory]

RJ, I would agree with what you say.  I believe that the back nine at Bayside is the most severe and difficult nine holes I have ever played in my life.  It is very penal.  It is eye candy though. However, it is very difficult.  ON #15, you could hit a great drive and layup second shot only to face a difficult short iron into a green that drops off on all sides.  You have to place it on the right hand side of the fairway on 15 or you have virtually no shot to hit it around the trees that surround the front left hand side of the green.  The par 3 #13 is one of the most visually stunning golf holes that I have ever seen.  It is really beautiful.  If you are short, left or right of the hole, then your ball could fall down to the cart path below it and be 30 feet below the hole and you basically have to hit the ball strait up to get it to the green.  I love # 18 as you have to try to hit it off the hill on the right hand side of the fairway and let the ball bounce down to the middle of the fairway.  I think that the par 5 # 11 is also one of the most difficult holes on the planet.  The drive is the easiest shot on that hole.  The hole narrows the closer you get to the green.  If you are short on either the left or right, your ball goes down into the canyon.  The green is narrow and falls off on 3 sides.  Your second shot basically requires hitting a 7 iron down the fairway and just trying to make a par is not easy.  I do think that Bayside is a must play.  After playing there, it makes me appreciate the perfection that is Wild Horse.  

[Dan Kelly]

10, 11, 13, are not good golf hole design in one aspect or another, and most egregiously 15 continues to be the worst and most unfair golf hole designs I can think of.  

Dick --

I haven't been there.

What's wrong with 10, 11, 13?

What's terribly wrong about 15?

Dan

[Matt_Ward]

RJ & Cory:

I've had the pleasure in playing Bayside and believe it's vastly underrated -- especially compared to the hosannas that are tossed in the direction of Wild Horse.

The par-5 15th provides plenty of risk and reward. The player must decide at the tee how much of the corner they wish to cut with the tee shot.

The idea that the lay-up with the 2nd should GUARANTEE some sort of easy-to-play 3rd is groundless in my view. I was able to reach the hole in two blows -- as I am sure other long hitters can -- in fact -- my approach was with a 9-iron downwind.

The trees are an issue but frankly they only come into play shold people play too far down the left side to protect against the trouble on that side.

Yes, the green does fall-off on all sides -- do yourself a favor and travel to Pinehurst #2 and you will see plenty of such instances.

Beyond the 15th hole I really enjoyed the par-5 11th. The hole narrows in the further you go down the fairway is usin a technique that the 15th at PV follows -- the longer you play the 2nd shot the more dicey the landing area becomes.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the closing trio of holes. The uphill driveable par-4 16th is a gem of a hle with a neat OB right side and the coffin-like bunkers that tug at the entrance to the green.

The downhill par-3 17th has got be one of the best short par-3's in America. People gush about the 17th at Sand Hills but I see the 17th at Bayside being the supeiror hole. Talk about a delicious green!!!

The 18th is also well done although I see the green as being a bit vanilla since it doesn't have the protection of either sand or internal contours -- nonetheless -- it's a good closer.

Bayside gets little attention but I know the next time I'm back in the neighborhood I'll be heading there for a repeat round.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, I heartily agree with some of what you are describing, yet can't agree at all with your assessment of 11 and 15.  Matt, we all know you hit a drive verrrrrrrrrry looooooong.

But when you say you had a 9 iron left on 15, obviously the drive bit off a ton of trouble and got to the second to lowest terrace, you must have still had about 160-70ish to the green.  You can hit a 9iron that far, high and if you are right of the trees, probably hold the green.  But for us mortals, the hole is driver 8iron, 8 or 9 iron.  You must be right on target, right of the trees guarding the left, and the margin of error is either make it or death.  And, to approach a green with sheer death by hitting the left half of the green and bounding over or left is goofy in my view.  Not that my game counts in defining a good hole, but Sunday I hit my best drive all day.  I had about 225 to the green.  There is no way I hit a 3 wood and get it stopped on top.  It would be folly to hit a second shot to the very bottom and now mowed turf below the green only to have a blind straigh uphill to try and hold without rolling off the back and death.  I chose to do the 8I-8I and chunked my second 8 leaving me 160 which is 6I for me.  I hit a beautiful drawing shot that just cleared the left guarding trees, and one hopped off to left rear and death ravine of snakes and sage and grung that is 30 ft nearly straight down.  It is that way on the left PIN HIGH!!!  That is not good design.

More later, gotta go play...

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

You've allowed the architect to play with your mind and
you seem BUFFALOED on the hole. There's plenty of room to negotiate but the 3rd shot to the green should be demanding -- I mean most people will have no more than 100-120 yards left for the shot. How much room do you want to land the ball -- the entire state of Nebraska?

When you say you were 225 yards to go for the green you have to play a superior 2nd to hit and hold the green. Am I missing something here? With all due respect -- it's call golf skill of the highest order. If you opt not to do it that doesn't mean then that the 3rd shot is not challenged or demanding in its own right.

From what you are describing you want some automatic shot with no challenge. I don't see the hole that way and  salute Axland & Proctor for not allowing any golfers to excape without some sort of sot execution.

When you say it's not "good design" -- I disagree partner-- you failed to execute. Big difference.

The par-5 15th at Bayside requires a high level of skill and you must execute. Above all else I quote Clint Eastwood in defining this hole -- "A man's got to know his limitaitons."

[Tony_Chapman]

It pains me to say I haven't been to Bayside, but here are pictures of the 11th and 15th. Maybe Matt and Dick could expand more.


The 11th


The 15th

[Jay Carstens]

I'm not sure but I don't remember #15 playing quite that much downhill  :-)  Thanks for the photos.  To the extreme right you can see #13's green site, a hole that recalls Prairie Dunes to me.

I am curious about Bunker Hill Design and their history if anyone can help.  Driving Hwy.# 2 last year (highly recommended vs. I-80), I saw some fairway bunkering at Hyannis that looked very conspicuous.

[Lou_Duran]

RJ,

How are the plans for the fall trip progressing?  I only have a slight probability of making it, but I remain interested.

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

The 11th is one of those par-5's that keeps closing in the further you advance down the fairway. The hole starts out as a dog-leg right and you have to decide how much to play down the right. Too far to that side and the ball visits Elvis land -- as in deader than.

The same concept of the narrowing fairway on par-5's is exhibited in grand fashion at PV's #15. The golfer who crunches a drive should not have the hole completely surrender simply because of the length factor.

If one opts to get as close to the green in two shots as possible you have to handle the tightness the fairway shows in the photograph you posted. It's completely fair game to me and highly appropriate.

The 15th is a downhill dog-leg right hole. There are a series of bunkers that guard the right side and you have to decide at the tee how much you wish to "bite off." If you pull it off the grade change will provide a significant turbo boost. Depending upon the line of play made from the tee you then have to decide if going for the green is an option.

The green as pictures sits high above a deep gully. Anything that plunges into the gulley is akin to the deep abyss of no return.

There are trees near the green but they have little real strategic qualities unless you land too close to the side they are fronting.

If you notice the green is quite angled and unless the approach comes in super high it's likely your ball may bounce a good bit before stopping.

Frankly, if someone plays the hole smartly and opts to play a conservative 3rd shot from the valley floor cutoff you have enough room to hold the green. Is the shot easy? No way Charlie. It does require a deft touch with the short iron -- as it should.

Both par-5 holes here provide plenty of risk and there is a fair share of reward when you pull it off.

I salute Axland & Proctor because both the 11th and 15th IMHO are beyond any of the par-5's you face at Wild Horse. Ditto the qualities of the aforementioned par-3 17th -- which I believe is a good ways ahead of the hype and rightful acclaim that comes with the 17th at Sand Hills.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I totally disagree with everything in your last two paragraphs.  I love Dan and Dave, but they had some severe land and a very small budget, and they got what you might expect from it.  

I played with Michael Clayton who knocked it on the 11th green in two, and seeing him do it was all the proof you needed how silly that hole is.  It keeps getting narrow, yes, but it's crowned, and you can't see either edge to know if you are staying on the tightrope, which is why Mike just ripped a driver out of the fairway and went and looked for it.

Fifteen isn't a risk/reward hole at all ... you pretty much have to lay up your second shot, and if you don't hit a good third you're X.  If that is your idea of a good par five, it's no wonder we disagree a lot.

That back nine is a pretty tough walk, too.

[George Pazin]

Tom -

Could you compare 11 to Cape Kidnappers 16 (or 15, whichever is the ball buster par 5)? Realize that I haven't played either, but before seeing the photo, and based on reading the descriptions from the other posters, I remember thinking that the narrowing down sounded similar to how others have described CK 16.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, Tony's pictures are excellent, yet still don't convey the slope down to the abyss on three sides of the 11th and 15th.  Matt, you are telling me (as is 15) that a green approach is fair and good design if a ball can only land on about 1000sq ft of green surface or perhaps a sliver of foregreen 3-5ft on the front right, and if anything else, will one hop off the world to total unrecoverable deep ravine snakeland, Dante inferno time?  Look at the photo of 15.  What the photo does not convey is that the trees on the left (which are even thinned out more now) obscure the entire left 1/2 -2/3rds of the green when viewed from fairway height on either the upper or lower terrace garden spot.  The only realistic angle you have to the right side of the green from 220-120 out is if you are on the leading edge of the fairway on the right as we look at the photo.  If you are not on the fairway off the tee, or you push off too far to the right into the leading edge ravine on a second shot, you are equally dead.  Look at the group on the green.  If you approach pin high anywhere left of them, you are one-hoped dead.  That picture doesn't begin to tell how steep and severe it is just behind and coming around the left side of the green.  If you are short, you are lucky to be in the bunker or roll backwards down to a sand blast or pitch up to the narrow table top of the green and pray you hold it.  If you are short and left, you are again in an area 15-20 ft below the green but there are dead tree trunks, grunge and poisonous wild life lurking there.  In the photo you only see one of the cart paths leading from 15 to 16 or beside 13.  There is a second cart path higher near the green, but still 12-15 ft below the green fringe.  The picture gives you no clue how steep and treacherous and immediatly adjacent to the green the death plunge is.

As for the picture of 11- it is pretty good, but you have to know what you are looking at.  The tee ball comes at the aiming bunker at the foreground from the apex of the down right corner of the photo and across the ravine.  It is a bite-off shot too.  The carry at the direct line to the aiming bunker is not as difficult as it looks from the tee.  The line of bunkers begins to eat up real estate quickly, and anything aggressive to take on that front line of bunkers can lead to some real difficulty, that if you are within the field of bunkers is a perfectly fine penalty to pay, but in the ravine is a re-load.  I for one was at about 2 o'clock off the aiming bunker off the tee.  If I'd have hit it 10-15 yards further, it would have caught a steeper slope than the photo depicts through the fairway into the grung.  The second shot is a bunt down the ever narrowing fairway.  Not bad.  But, a third shot approach must land short and suffer the vagaries of the two noses fronting the green.  It is folly to go for it in two as you will not stop your ball from bounding through the green and into space.  If your approach is running on the ground, you may get deflected right or more likely left.  Left can make it to the deep grunge easily, right is likely to go down and out if it doesn't catch yet another on the front line of bunkers.   Anything pin high on the green is hard to hold the run away front to back sloped green, sloping into a ring of bunkers about 8-10 ft below the promentory green, or may end up skipping over the bunkers to death in the ravine on three sides of the green.  

The leading edge bunker work on 11 is exqusite.  It was done by a real artist.  But, the hole corridor has too much severity of deep sloping to either side as it narrows to the green promentory to keep the play going without a real chance to suffer the death penalty for slightly  errant shots.  

I think that one should always be able to access and play a ball that was diverted on a one hop off a green, an otherwise good shot, without having to go back to the original place and hit another, or take some sort of local rule relief, when the ball hopped off the world from the green.  If you can't even physically walk down there to look for the ball, it isn't a good design.  

11 is barely playable.  I made par.  But, it was a lucky par and I knew that I needed to ginger the ball onto the green bunting it along the ground, even so-getting diverted down left and 4th shot pitching it on to an easy front pin with a one-putt.  

BTW, there is supposed to be a lake back there from just beyond the far trees beyond 11 green, to the far shore.  That is how bad the drought has been.

As we saw at Pinehurst, bounding off a green to a runaway area, collection area, bunker or rough is OK as a design feature.  You pay a price but can go from there.  Bounding off a well hit shot landing on a green, near a pin, then going off the world into a time warp worm hole, is not the goal of good golf design, IMHO.

Matt, all the par 5s at Wild Horse are infininty better than the backside of Bayside's par 5s.  You must be trying to pull my chain.

But, I'll give you this, 4 of the par 3s at Bayside (of the 5 there) are as good as all 4 if the par 3s at Wild Horse head to head competition.   13 bayside is a dog, if you get beyond the photogenic and consider how it actually plays.

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

Please help explain how ALL THE PAR-5'S at Wild Horse are INFINITELY better. That's a mega stretch in my book. Two of them on the back side run the same way so that the wind is a constant direction with each. The front nine par-5's are simply standard fare -- good but I will still take what Bayside provides.

RJ -- you keep harping about the death plunge -- if you can't hit a 9-iron or PW that accurate how is that the problem of the hole -- might it just be the problem of the player who can't execute. Heck -- I landed a 9-iron on my second shot and stayed on the surface without problem and I had a downwind condition which took some spin off the approach as well.

I have no issue with "death" being on the left side -- if you pull a shot on any number of holes on links courses you will find a similar fate.

Methinks you doth protect too much.

Tom D:

Let's just say we agree to disagree -- the hole provides sufficient avenues for different skill levels to play each of the holes.

When you say you face the risk of an "X" on the 3rd shot at Bayside -- please help illuminate for me how you hit thaaaaaaat bad of a shot. The length is less than 120 yards and if a player has a wedge or anything close to that the green is more than capable in holding the shot than it's time to retreat to the confines of the practice range and do what it takes to get to Carnegie Hall -- practice, practice and practice. The hole is more than capable in handling the task required provided the player provides a modicum of execution.

Frankly, I hit the green with a 9-iron 2nd when downwind and from a much longer distance than 120 yards.

The hole can be reached by long hitters who are far stronger than I and I reached it the lone time I played the hole.

You're right Tom -- we certainly do have a different definition of risk'n reward. I know what I saw and I stand by it.

One other thing -- there's nothing wrong with the 11th -- there are plenty of holes I have played across the pond with more quirk and gimmick attached to it than the 11th at Bayside -- again -- let's just say we agree to disagree.

Tom -- if you think the back nine is a tough walk then don't return to Bethpage Black which is much larger in scale and in more demanding between the holes.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, for one thing, I am placed in the odd position of criticising Dan and Dave's work, which is as uncomfortable to me as walking down in that gulch to the left front, left and rear of 15, bare legged in rattler breedin time.

But,

Please help explain how ALL THE PAR-5'S at Wild Horse are INFINITELY better. That's a mega stretch in my book. Two of them on the back side run the same way so that the wind is a constant direction with each. The front nine par-5's are simply standard fare -- good but I will still take what Bayside provides.

Matt, you really do stick to a theme on this directional thing.  As you also blasted Sutton Bay as having only two directions (north and south) par 5s, you imply that WH is also a two direction course.  As with Sutton, WH actually has three distinct directions on their par 5s.  The 3 front side 5s of Bayside, as I think we both agree are very good.  Even if one of them is a mere par 4 for you, and even a 4.5 for me.  The directions at Bayside are more oriented to SW, SW, N and Nturning NE and SE, turning S.  A nice mix, I'll admit.  

You call WH standard fare.  WH 6 is bunkerless, so is that your rationale for standard fare?  Is it a simple par for you?  The issue is that 6 WH gives a long hitter like you a reasonable opportunity, if not a tantalizing dare to go for it in two and only suffer a run through into the "wooga" and quite findable and recoverable.  Or, come up short (not you) on the false front with a deft touch required to get on the putting surface and hope for even a two putt.  Wide surrounds of mostly low mowed fescue, finally leading to "wooga" are the standard fare at WH. That is a design feature that keeps the game going.  At least that is the way this mortal sees it.  Neither 11 or 15 at Bayside has that option of an heroic attempt, with a reasonable chance to recover from a miss.  You don't even have a 50-50 chance to find the miss. You do have a high chance to hit it stiff and bound to places one can't or won't try to find it.  

RJ -- you keep harping about the death plunge -- if you can't hit a 9-iron or PW that accurate how is that the problem of the hole -- might it just be the problem of the player who can't execute. Heck -- I landed a 9-iron on my second shot and stayed on the surface without problem and I had a downwind condition which took some spin off the approach as well.

When you say you face the risk of an "X" on the 3rd shot at Bayside -- please help illuminate for me how you hit thaaaaaaat bad of a shot. The length is less than 120 yards and if a player has a wedge or anything close to that the green is more than capable in holding the shot than it's time to retreat to the confines of the practice range and do what it takes to get to Carnegie Hall -- practice, practice and practice. The hole is more than capable in handling the task required provided the player provides a modicum of execution.

Frankly, I hit the green with a 9-iron 2nd when downwind and from a much longer distance than 120 yards.

The hole can be reached by long hitters who are far stronger than I and I reached it the lone time I played the hole.

Matt, the one thing that really turns me off (despite the smiley faces) is thaaaaaat you soooooooo often when evaluating the merits of a golf course seem to discount any other golfer's game that doesn't match your prodigggggious length propensity.  Frankly, I play with some fairly good players who wouldn't ever have any chance to consider a 9 iron second to either of those holes, no matter what the wind.  I myself can get a wedge or 9 iron third stopped on either of those greens (sometimes).  The point is that the 'other' times, if I hit the green, and it bounds over or right or left, I don't need an X, which is a great possibility.  What I need is a penalty of bogey or double, because I can find it and get back into the race.

Tom -- if you think the back nine is a tough walk then don't return to Bethpage Black which is much larger in scale and in more demanding between the holes.

Shirley you jest...  Again, I never have been to Bethpage, but I simply refuse to believe that the walks on BB are anywhere near severe or long as those on the backside of Bside.  Even the cart rides on that backside have an element of a death plunge risk on downgrade curves!!!

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

For God's sake man -- you keep harping about the danger that comes from a pulled 3rd shot from roughly 120 yards with no more than a 9-iron or PW and you whine -- ON AND ON AND ON about the death plunge you get from hitting such a terrible shot.

Am I missing something here?

It's not about my game but this incessant moaning about what happens when YOU as the player badly play a shot that the green is more than capable in handling.

The reality RJ is that you are spooked by the hole and to the considerable credit of Axland & Proctor they are so far in your head I can see it spinning from New Jersey.

The green is quite large -- and does provide for sufficient bailout areas to avoid making the risky play when it's cut tight to the corners. If the green were the size of the 8th at PV then I could see where you are coming from. Not this time though.

RJ -- here's another ignorant leap -- you have not been to Bethpage Black but you swear the walk at Bayside is tougher. Hello? Anybody home? How can you swear to something you know nothing about. I've been to both courses and the immense scale and range of the hills you face at Bethpage Black is a consistent thing from the 1st tee through the 18th hole. RJ -- I had respect for your take on things but when you start to throw forward criticism about what others HAVE ACTUALLY faced you sound like a few of the old birds here on GCA who chirp more than actually fly.

P.S. One last thing -- I have immense respect for Wild Horse but the par-5's on the back side are similar -- they both play in the same direction -- and yes RJ -- I do observe the overall routing of a course -- Sutton Bay, Wild Horse, you name it, to see if the architect has avoided any copy cat situations. Thank you for being observant on the motion of the Bayside routing -- I actually believe the positioning of the holes is better there than Wild Horse although the course in Gothenburg does have a number of unique and exciting holes.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, you are inflating again.  I took no oath and did not swear to anything.  I said, I simple refuse to believe...

I guess I'll have to leave it to some of those other old GCA birds, as old bird TD has already weighed in on your take of the two backside par 5s, and perhaps others might comment which of our assessments is more credible in regards to playability of those two holes.  Throw the par 3 13th in for good measure...

I do have one good will wish for you and I however.  May all your courses and particularly par 5s compare to Bayside's back nine, and may all of mine be like WH's.  And the guy that dies the most satisfied golfer wins...

[George Pazin]

As an interested non-participant in this discussion, I guess the question I'd ask is how likely it is that an errant 3rd shot results in an X.

I don't care who you are, even pros miss greens with wedges in their hands. To say otherwise is pure denial. Take a look at the Tour stats sometimes. For instance, this past week they showed a stat that Furyk had an average distance left of just over 17 feet from 100-125 yards, and that he ranked 13th in the field with this. It doesn't take a genius to realize that some of the best golfers in the world miss greens from 100-125 yards, which is most assuredly a wedge, even for me. It obviously is nowhere near as frequent as the high handicapper, but it happens, otherwise Sawgrass' 17th would be little more than a novelty.

The flip side of that is that a mid to high handicapper misses a HUGE number of greens even with a wedge.

So what's the answer? Automatic X? 70% X? I can understand a penalty that results in a high score - double or triple, etc. - I'm not a fan of penalties that result in Xs (which is obviously why I'm not a big fan of desert courses!).

[RJ_Daley]

George, let me try to back into the answer here.  One telling thing is how many old cups do you see cut in the rear 1/2 of 11, or the left 1/2 of 15?  I checked that specifically.  The answer is none.  I wish I could provide you with some consistent observation of the performance of those greens at receiving approaches, and the % of consequences.  I can't.  But, I am now so convinced I am right, that if I ever am out there during significant tournament or outting where I can watch 50-75 players come through, I will park my ass down and start counting and charting approaches.

I did make par on 11 with a good tee ball, low running bunt 3 wood trying to stay up the gut but veering a bit left, then an approach with I think 7I intentionally played short of green with the knowledge of how it is, yet hit one of the noses in the foregreen to go down left.  A pitch up near the hole to one putt.  But, it was more luck than skill as the whole corridor running up and narrowing is crowned, as is the fall-away green front to back.

As I said above, on 15 I cracked a good tee shot, had about 255 ( I mistakenly said 225 above)  I tried to hit 8I to a lower terrace to give me about 130ish in yards to green.  I chunked that and still had about 165.  I hit a very nice 6I that drew perfectly skirting the left trees.  It hit somewhere near the left 1/3rd to 1/2 half of the green, one-hopped off the planet behind the green, never to be seen again.  From the fairway, I thought it should be fine as it landed about pin high.  I knew there was little room back there from previous plays, but forgot there was NONE!  My friend went toppy off the tee into the sand wall missing the carry.  He took a drop on the fairway side.  He hit a fairway metal to about 225 out.  He hit an iron down to the lowest terrace.  He had about 90-100 left and hit wedge onto the right side of the green just over the front bunker, rolled down right to the edge of the first cartpath.  He chilly dipped a pitch up. Hit another pitch thin and almost rolled off the back left of green.  He still took a couple of putts to get it in.  He hit that approach to about the only area you would have a chance to hold the green, and didn't.  But, at least he bounded right down to first cart path, which is not lost-gone.

I can only guess, but I'll say 50% of any ball from 100-120 out hit pin high on the left 1/2-1/3rd side of the green won't hold. 80%-90% landing pin high or middle of that green section on the 1/3 to left edge won't hold.  The % also goes down rapidly from further than 130 or higher than wedge club.

[Tom_Doak]

George P:  Actually, I was thinking when I wrote the criticism of Bayside's 11th that the 15th at Cape Kidnappers was a similar hole ... and it's a lot further down off it on the left side.  

The 15th at Kidnappers is 40-50 yards wide for the last 400 yards, but it's very flat across it and tilted gently toward the green, so you can always see the edges and the distant target.  The Bayside hole might have a slightly wider playable area by the tape, but it's crowned so you can't see the target OR the sides of the hole very well.  Thus it feels much more uncomfortable to play, to me, but of course I'm biased.

Matt:  We'll just agree to disagree, again.  But are you sure you walked that back nine?  I was there with Ron Whitten, Brian Silva, Jim Urbina and Michael Clayton before our get-together at Sand Hills 3 years ago, and none of us could remember ever playing a nine holes that were so disjointed (and we've all been to the Black).

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Yes, we agree to disagree partner.

I have played courses that are far more daunting to walk than Bayside -- the Black Course on a 90+ degree / humidity drenching conditions can be extremely painful for those not up to the task -- and that walk is for the full duration of 18 holes. I've even walked Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV and the hills there make the 18 at Bayside like a walk in the park.

I look forward to playing the 15th at Cape Kidnappers and seeing what the similarities / differences there are between the two holes.

Tom -- keep this mind the very nature of the crowned condition at #11 produces the very qualities "uncomfortable" that makes it quite appealing in my book. When golfers get the "perception" of being uncomfortable than the architect / terrain has produced the kind of indecision / doubt that makes such holes always dangerous for the varied results they often produce.

No one touched base with my comments / re: the 17th at Bayside being the better par-3 than the 17th at Sand Hills. Be curious to the comments from those who have played both.

[CHrisB]

I played Bayside today for the first time (27 holes, played the front nine twice), and really enjoyed it. The fariways were quite high, but the greens were excellent and everything I was hoping to see.

I thought the front 9 was very good (although both par 5's were essentially par 4's), although I didn't care for the 9th hole as much--kind of an awkward look to the tee shot, and the trees to the right looked out of place given the rest of the site. Other than that, almost every shot on the front nine is fun, and several of the greens (most notably #1, #5!, and #7) were amazing to look at and imagine all the possible great pins...

I'll take Wild Horse's front side over Bayside's, but not by much.

I actually really enjoyed the back nine, although the greens were a little more tame overall and I agree it would not be a pleasure to walk... I thought the 10th was a little strange, but I loved the 11th, especially the tee shot which is as thrilling as they come in my opinion. I'm glad I didn't know how tight the 2nd shot was when I hit it...I got lucky and scooted it onto the green, and then went up there and saw how little room there was! Seems to me you either go down there as far as you can and take your chances, or lay back to 120 or so and try to hit a very accurate wedge or short iron. I've got no problem with that, really, but I can see why some do...

I also really liked the 13th, and trying to use the slope left to kick the ball toward the hole. Like everyone else, I liked #12, #14 and especially #16, which has a great green for a driveable par 4. #18 was a little awkward off the tee, and the green was pretty massive, and so I'd say it's an OK but not outstanding finishing hole (although the view is excellent).

I found myself wishing the 17th was just a little longer. That being said, I loved the green, which was about the neatest use of a "bunker within a green" I could imagine. With the flattish bottom face of tghe bunker, you could actually putt through it to a pin on the lower level if you had to!

As for #15, I enjoyed playing it although I will agree that the situation with the layup, trees, and green site is not ideal. The drive is thrilling, though, with the greatest advantage gained by taking on the greatest carry.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()