[Mike_Cirba]

Damn Shivas,

Here I thought we were in agreement only to find out once again that you're wrong.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, I misrepresented nothing!
Don't you think if we were on the same page
 on that feature, during that phone call,
 I wouldn't have had to wait until Dave's post
 to learn it was a brand new feature?

And beside, your premise is way off, you called me.  

[DMoriarty]

. . . "hey, wait a second, didn't you just say that you prefer ground contours and isn't that contradictory?"

I did say I generally preferred strategy instructed by ground contours rather than hazards.  But I did not  say that the changes at RC 4 were great or that they made the hole better or worse than before.  Rather, I explicitly abstained from getting into the "interesting issues" which this change brings up until more have seen it.

But thanks for asking.
____________________

Mike, you've hit on the main interesting issue I allude to above.  I do agree that one of the main virtues of the old No. 3 was that "it looked easy and it was only after it bit you that you realized that such an innocuous looking hole had such sharp teeth."  

Not sure I agree with your assessment of the new hole, though.  It may have a few unique qualities of its own.  

I'll stop there.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave,

Couldn't the argument be made that the hole now only punishes the weaker golfer, who doesn't make the bunker carry?

I think it might be discouraging to play a running shot if you have to carry that cross bunker.  Thus, the hole becomes much more one-dimensional, a thought that should please Shivas.  

[DMoriarty]

Couldn't the argument be made that the hole now only punishes the weaker golfer, who doesn't make the bunker carry?

While almost any player is capable of carrying it over the bunker, it will definitely catch the topped balls and really bad mishits of the weaker player.  It is much too early to tell, but I dont think it will prey only on the weaker player.  So far I have seen a surprising number of decent players get caught up here, probably because really weak players arent as likely to try to get tricky with the slope short of the green.

I think it might be discouraging to play a running shot if you have to carry that cross bunker. . . .

It definitely gives the golfer something to think about before trying the runner.   There is actually quite a bit of room beyond the bunker, but it is hard to be confident in this fact from the tee. One thing that may encourage the runner, at least for those spoiled righties, the countouring is now more conducive to a drawing runner hit up the right side.   Some of these balls used to feed off right into the trouble.  

Here is a picture of the green that gives some idea of the room short.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Would you estimate that cross bunker being about 40 yards short of the green?

If there's that much room, then that's a pretty cool illusion from the tee, but I still miss the elegant simplicity of the original.

[RJ_Daley]

I remember Tommy and I having this discussion about the 4th par 3, during construction as we examined the property and progress of the work.  I sort of wrinkled up my nose at the plain appearance and didn't like the crossing path with just a flat field of turf all the way to the green.  Then, I played it a few times after grow-in.  I had to admit the brilliance of the deception of the uninspiring foregreen and the number of approaches one could conjure up after you saw how the green received various shots.  

Now, I assume the green contours are the same, and as we see, there is about 30-40 yards of room over the crossing bunkers to still have a bounding shot played short and properly get to certain portions of the green.  But, to my eye, the bunkers are more of an unsightly feature after getting used to the original.

Like all things, one has to adjust and it might become a more appreciated look over time.

Do the new crossing bunkers have any engineering function with water diversion or retention, specifically intended by the remodelling efforts?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I havent paced it off, but there is quite a bit of room in front of the green, especially on the right side.  The photograph doesnt really do it justice-- you cant even see the collar where it extends way into the fairway on the right.  I'll pace it off this weekend.

Dick,  The green isnt exactly the same, but seems like it will function about the same strategically.   As I said above, I dont think that cross-bunker complex has a real engineering purpose, except as a place to put the excess silt and dirt when rebuilding the bowl in front of the green.  

Mike and Dick.   You've both really hit on the beauty of No. 4 before the flood.  At first glance, it rarely got any respect at all-- this was the hole most often overlooked by raters, and was more known for the nearby Brad Klein Estates than its virtues as a golf hole.  But for those who play Rustic Canyon, the hole got better and better with each subsequent play.

In some ways, it was the poster child for the entire course.  Subtle, deceptive, forgiving for the duffer yet challenging for the scratch, and with more viable options than it was possible to imagine at first glance.  In short, much more than first meets the eye.  Time will tell if the new version is better (and it may well be,) but to the regulars at least the old hole was damn good.  It will be missed.

[David Kelly]

In some ways, it was the poster child for the entire course.  

Exactly.

Mike,

 I agree with you about #4.  It was a very unique par 3 and was a much tougher hole than it appeared from the tee box. It used to be my favorite par 3 on the course.

The new bunkers will only come into play on the very worst shots but they do greatly change the look of the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()