Greywalls & The Kingsley Club

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  

I still disagree with you.  A lot of golf course design strategy IS "101 level" stuff; if it wasn't most people would never see it.

I still have not seen the hole in question, but let me ask you a hypothetical.  What if the tee was 20 yards forward so that a very long hitter like yourself had the option to try and bomb it OVER the pinch point?  Wouldn't you think it was a great risk/reward hole then?

[NAF]

I've been to many new courses since my first and second trip to the Kingsley Club (2002 and 2003) and let me say none have surpassed it with the exception of Friars Head and Pac Dunes.  I can only say that NGLA is a more fun place to play and that is by a whisker.  How I wish sometimes I lived in Chicago and could spend summer weekends up in Traverse City.

One day I will drive the 13th green and not 3 putt.

[PThomas]

a quick two cents before I head to the airport:  I didn't have any problems with the so-called choke point as a design feature...

as I told the group at Greywalls as we sat on the rocks above 18 on Saturday --a great group btw -  what's wrong with having driver not being the best play off a par 4 or 5 sometimes?  why do pros sometimes not hit their drivers?  because the risk is too great to do so or because its simply a better play?  and you CAN hit driver there, but it simply has to be very straight

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Great architecture isn't about setting the bar low for the understanding of Joe Sixpack and his ilk. It's about creating aspirational type design that goes beyond the fast food junk that masquerades itself far too often as quality design.

Tom -- you have never seen / played the hole in question so how do you know I am so dead wrong in my thoughts?

The issue isn't about me -- it's about the nature of forced lay-ups. I played the hole into a moist breeze off Lake Superior -- driving it through the "choke point" would have been especially difficult. I have even said that if I play the hole again and the wind comes from the more prevailing direction it's possible I could drive past the choke point and play the hole that way.

The broader issue is about "choke points" -- they take away from the player the option and insert the architect squarely in the picture by saying that hole "X' can only be played this way and you must adjust accordingly. I don't doubt that budget is big part of the picture and I agree with Mike DeVries that one cannot throw that element out of the discussion.

What you don't get Tom is the idea that options lie at the heart of great holes / courses. When options are limited for the player you can still have a good or even very good hole. I don't believe limited options escalate such holes to the level of greatness. I don't see how the insertion of penal architecture is helpful or desired. That's just my opinion.

I see forced lay-ups in the same light as forced carried. Unfortunately, many who post here on GCA argue vehemently against the latter but rarely if ever speak up against the former. Very interesting indeed.

[George Pazin]

What's interesting is that someone would view forced carries and forced layups (even setting aside that a choke point is in no way forced) in the same light.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  You didn't answer my question.

What you fail to see is that there IS an option on this hole you describe.  You could try to carry the choke point.  You're just not long enough to do it.  The hole forces YOU to lay up, so you think it sucks.

I haven't seen the hole, but it doesn't force you to do anything except to take a realistic account of your own abilities, and play accordingly.  It is a tough choice you have to make.  You know if you don't try to get through the choke point, it's just far enough that you'll have a hard time getting to the green.  I think giving golfers tough choices is a part of good design.

Call me unsophisticated!

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug:

How did your long hitting friends find the 18th at Greywalls?

Matt:

I asked my friend about it, and he didn't seem to mind the proposition. But of course, he bombed it past the choke point and said he left himself about 180. I think Tom made a good point that YOU choose to let it effect how you play the hole. Do you think it would phase Victor Schwamkrug? Architectural features aren't going to effect everyone equally.

My buddy is VERY long, even by Tour standards (clubhead speed in the high 120's), so he may possibly hit it a bit longer than you.

Regards,

Doug

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

You need to see and play the hole in order to grasp the actual specifics of what is being bandied about here.

People can talk about generalities until the cows come home but frankly you need to sense what the course / hole does in order to really comprehend the nature of the arguments made. If you played the hole in question it would move far beyond the fuzzy "what might be" analysis that's being provided.

Please don't get into a tizzy and take your ball home and run away from the conversation as you did the last time. This "cracker" would miss your company.

Tom D:

Let me point out this AGAIN -- I could not carry the choke point on THE DAY I was there because the wind direction was 180 degrees opposite of what it normally is. You are right -- such is the nature of golf.

You still missed my point -- a choke point is a very limited and unsophisticated design feature. It reins in a multitude of options and knocks them down to two possibilties -- go short or try to hit through a bottleneck of just 20 yards -- a limited area for success and frankly something I find quite outlandish -- especially for the higher handicap player.

Why outlandish? Keep this in mind the "choke point" area is 100% BLIND from the tee. This only furthers my argument in the case of how the hole plays for nearly all groups.

The "tough choices" you mentioned need to be balanced on the beam of reasonableness. When you add a blind tee shot to the mix with a choke point that is at max 20 yards across before you get to the hayfields I think you slowly move across the line of "touch choices" to "bad choices" inserted by the architect. Great architecture is not simply an insertion of black and white outcomes. It's about the shades of different colors.

Tom -- try to play the hole when time permits. I've been there and the bulk of the people responding are simply doing armchair QB-itis. It can becomes an entirely different matter when people actually play the hole and see what it deals with their efforts instead of talking about it in vague generalities.

George:

I hear people on this site bitching and moaning forever about forced carries -- the same issue applies for forced lay-ups. You as a high handicap golfer may not see the issues as similar because you rarely are forced to lay-up. The architect is inserting himself into the picture by limiting the manner by which a hole can play. Multiple options give elasticity to any hole and add to the quality of the design.

For the higher handicap types the forced carry is always a point of emphasis on how a given course is reviewed. I see no differences between the two.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I missed the part about the blindness.  In that case I will change my tack and agree with you in this particular instance, still not having the willingness to ditch my family to make the drive to Marquette this weekend.

I do agree with you about the black-and-white vs. 1000 shades of grey approaches to design ... in fact I think I wrote something just about like that in a book about 14 years ago!  However, I also think that if everything is 1000 shades of grey, the good player will always keep his ball in the light grey range and never get himself in any trouble.  Every once in a while [maybe once or twice per course], you've got to make him choose black or white so he can't just play middle-of-the-road conservatively on every hole.  I think a choke point is a legitimate way to do that, and I'm okay if you disagree.

PS  Just occurred to me last night that the 8th hole at Ballyneal is a short five with a choke point similar to what we've been talking about ... but you're looking right up the gut at it from the tee.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I do agree with you that variety is the spice of life -- and golf course architecture. I guess my point was geared towards the actual "facts" of this particular case rather than the general use of "choke points" -- but I still hold that multiple options present the best of all types of holes.

The issue with the 18th at Greywalls rests with the 20-yard wide fairway that quickly escalates into hayfields and unplayable / lost situations. And coupled with the blind aspect in trying to navigate one's ball through this narrow point.

Possibly if the hole was widened a tad or the tee shot was not blind might mitigate in favor of what was attempted design wise. I fully understand the budgetary limitations but Greywalls still succeeds in a major way in so many fronts IMHO.

[George Pazin]

George:

I hear people on this site bitching and moaning forever about forced carries -- the same issue applies for forced lay-ups. You as a high handicap golfer may not see the issues as similar because you rarely are forced to lay-up. The architect is inserting himself into the picture by limiting the manner by which a hole can play. Multiple options give elasticity to any hole and add to the quality of the design.

For the higher handicap types the forced carry is always a point of emphasis on how a given course is reviewed. I see no differences between the two.

See my response on the other thread.

I am forced to layup all the time, probably more often than you, given your length advantage over me. I'm not a big fan of forced layups, but they are hardly the same thing as a forced carry.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Where you stand on the issue comes from where you sit. High handicap players routinely complain (many times correctly) that forced carries leave them little choice. More often than not -- the forced carry will be the #1 complaint item over the aspect of forced lay-up.

Few high handicap players see the commonality of forced lay-ups. If you examine the essence of both aspects the sameness derives from the word "forced."

I don't see holes / courses that "force" things as being capable in rising beyond the good level. No doubt an architect can use such a tactic but my overall assessment of such maneuvers depends upon the actual circumstances of each instance.

The worst type of design is when an architect forces you to lay-up then you have to come back and hit an even longer second shot than nearly with the first.

A good example of this -- the 18th at Center Valley in eastern Pennsy. Here you have a hole that forces you carry 275 yards or more to get to the other side of a fairway protected by a creek. If you lay-up you can't assume you can get right to the edge of the lay-up zone. As a result you are then "forced" to play a much longer second shot. For the better player this tactic is inserted as some sort of equalizer and frankly I don't believe such a "forced" / limited option makes for a better hole or design.

[Brian_Sleeman]

I still don't really see the idea of the "choke point" on 18 at Greywalls as being so penal, and I've played it personally and heard more about it from players than anyone else here.  Perhaps I'm missing something but this seems to be presented here as a do-or-die idea by Matt, which I don't see at all.
 
Every tee shot I've ever seen that has reached the area in question has rolled to it, and so has been forced by the tumbling valley nature of the fairway to funnel in order to even reach that point.  The hayfields, lost balls, etc only apply to *extremely* off-center tee shots, just as they would on a majority of other holes.  I've seen tee shots up to 40 yards apart in trajectory end up right next to each other at the bottom, even from long hitters.  And despite the fact that the actual "choke point" is blind from the tee, you can clearly see the valley coming together and easily predict its location in the dead center of the fairway.

As Mike has explained and with which I agree, the really cool thing about the hole is that shorter hitters can catch up a bit to the longer hitters in that their tee shots will reach roughly the same location, perhaps only a short distance behind.  The long hitter can blast away if they like, but it won't provide that much more of a boost than a 3-wood.  

It's smart golf vs grip-and-rip golf, which is one of the great differences our membership has found between the Heritage and Greywalls in general.  Eighteen presents a situation where it's not *all* about a million options and risk/reward choices.  Greywalls gives you a ton of that most of the time, and even here, if you hit a driver and you're in that 1% of the golfing population who can carry the ball over 300 yards downhill, your risk/reward is a long straight driver for some extra yardage vs anything but a completely sprayed smaller club which results in a decent area with a bit longer approach.  

Is there something wrong with giving a bit more of an advantage to the conservative player who realizes a 3-wood will work nearly as well as a driver?

The more I play the 18th, the more I like it as a homecoming of sorts and a relaxing, natural finish to a wild ride of a round.  It just fits.

[Jim Franklin]

I certainly need to play the course again (and can't wait to do so) because I hit driver on 18, not thinking about any trouble left or right, and was left with 135 yards. Where is the choke point? I played from the back tees and it was hot with not much of a breeze.

[George Pazin]

I thought it might be helpful to show some info on 18 - diagram, photos, etc.

Drawing first



View from behind green



Cascading down the hill, into the "choke point"



Looking back up through the "choke point"



I'm glad I didn't see these photos before making up my entry for Golf's contest, as my design is kind of similar. I hope the folks at Golf don't think I copied it. Actually, the only real similarity is that this is the type of topography I was envisioning for my hole.

[Brian_Sleeman]

I hit driver on 18, not thinking about any trouble left or right, and was left with 135 yards.

Those were the dryest and firmest conditions the course has been in this year, too - normally they don't run out quite that far!  

The point I'd like to clarify is that even when it ends up that far through the choke point, the landing area is actually quite a ways behind it.  Jim's drive also illustrates the benefit of a straight driver - it catches the last downslope before the choke point and propels it straight forward for extra yardage.  By contrast, tee shots hit left or right are slowed down by the slopes and gathered together in the middle of the fairway about 200 yards out.  Hardly penal.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

I played the hole into a moist breeze coming off Lake Superior. The day I played I hit 5-iron to the green because of the aforementioned conditions. Possibly, if the wind dropped or came out of the more prevailing northwest then my club selection into the target would have been different.

George:

The pictures you posted don't account for the high grass growth that engulfs the "choke point" today. If you miss left now the ball is likely lost or unplayable -- ditto the right side but just a fraction less.

Brian:

You missed my point -- choke points -- are simply saying that traffic can only go through this narrow avenue. Think of it in regular traffic situations. If road 'X" doesn't work for your ride you can opt for another option. Choke points are very limited -- you either go through or in the case of Greywalls 18th you lay back. With a traffic situation there are other multiple alternatives -- beyond the go through or lay-back options.

Let me also take issue with the idea that going through the choke point requires a see-ing eye dog at best. The shot from the tee is BLIND -- let's not dimiss that as just an aside. You then have to face a very narrow and lined with hayfields area.

Brian -- help me out with this -- where do balls simply gather through the choke point and run towards the 200 yard distance area? You make it sound like the funnel is an automatic situation. I didn't see that at all when I played the hole. There is a yardage plate directly at the middle of the choke point (219 yards) -- I was there to see it. Getting to the far side of the "choke point" is not something that will happen by a simple guiding of the turf / downslope.

Guys --

All of this could have been eliminated by either widening the area involed somewhat -- or at least clearing the area on one side to provide the player with an option to actually play the tee shot if it lands in that area -- likely the right side is better because the grade of the terrain and the height of the grass is as bad as the left side.

[Brian_Sleeman]

All of this could have been eliminated by either widening the area involed somewhat -- or at least clearing the area on one side to provide the player with an option to actually play the tee shot if it lands in that area -- likely the right side is better because the grade of the terrain and the height of the grass is as bad as the left side.

But it doesn't land in that area - it lands well short - and my experience has been that there is a wide range of left or right trajectories (particularly right) that will end up in the same position - right at that 219 plate in the center of the fairway.  Yes, this means that the average decently-hit approach comes from roughly the same spot: a straight stretch of the center of the fairway beginning about 230 yards out and continuing as far as you like.  If your point is simply that the approach is played from the same spot in the center of the fairway (caused by the funneling effect of the terrain), then I agree.  But if you're saying that it's too penal and unfair, I completely disagree.

Yes, the actual choke point is blind from the tee, but I'd argue that it doesn't particularly matter - anything moderately right, left, or center will end up in the same spot.  The situation of a player coming down to find their ball buried in the fescue on either side of the choke point just does not happen unless hit extremely right or left off the tee, so far right or left that it's beyond the rim of the valley and doesn't catch the funnel, which I think plays more of a part than you realized in your visit.

As far as getting through the choke point, this happens in the case of a solid tee shot hit down the middle - in that case, rather than catching the bowls to the right or left and funneling sideways, the ball instead is propelled forward and past the 219 marker, running as far as conditions will allow.

Straight and solid gets you through, moderately left or right gets you to 219 in the center, and wild shots to either side (particularly left) get you the penalty you deserve.

[Mike_DeVries]

Guys --

All of this could have been eliminated by either widening the area involed somewhat -- or at least clearing the area on one side to provide the player with an option to actually play the tee shot if it lands in that area -- likely the right side is better because the grade of the terrain and the height of the grass is as bad as the left side.

Matt,

There is not an easy option to just widen the area to the right or left -- it is solid rock and rises up at a steep angle that is unfriendly for equipment, even track machines, and would destroy a beautiful natural rock valley.

A big hitter at the club played last weekend and I asked him how he played it.  He said that he hit driver the first time and ended up around the 219 point.  Subsequently, he hit a 3-metal and then a 5-metal and finds that he funnels it to a similar point, leaving him the opportunity to play to the green and make a birdie, without requiring as much accuracy as with the driver.  He does not feel forced to lay-up, but chooses to do so, knowing that he will get to where he wants to be for the approach.

I am not forcing players to lay-up, they have an option to get really close if they want to bust one straight and be left with a really short shot.  Just because they can play conservatively and still have a reasonable chance of getting it home in 2 is fine with me, but it doesn't force them to do something like a complete forced carry does.  If a green has bunkers surrounding all or most of it, except for a narrow approach in the front (think Tillinghast's Winged Foot, . . . ), that is not considered a forced carry -- it is a challenging approach with a run-up option if the conditioning is appropriate and the player is in position to do so.  Many players today would opt to fly the ball into the green in such a case, but if the green was very firm and a well-struck pitch-and-run (or long iron from a shorter hitter) was executed, could not that be considered the option, although a very defined one?

I think the points Brian has made are very accurate.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Let me point it another way -- choke points NARROW the terrain -- they are the complete opposite of the width approach for fairways that many here on GCA not only opt for but prefer. The architect should not intrude upon the shotmaking requirements through an "either or" approach. That's too narrow a range for my tastes. You also state that the terrain will aid the playing of the hole. I'm sure it does for some but it's not some sort of guarantee by any means.

When you say the word "moderately" that begs the question for further defintion. Let's not obfuscate the facts -- the hole is only 20 YARDS WIDE before you get to the HAYFIELDS -- there is no transition area between the short grass and the buffalo weed. That's a good bit strong -- too strong for my tastes again and why the penal tag applies.

Let me also point out that the tee shot is BLIND TO AN AREA OF LAND THAT IS EXTREMELY NARROW AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. If a high handicap golfer plays from the more forward tees the shot is still blind but the idea that they must hit a very wild shot to reach the junk is truly pushing your argument a good bit. The likelihood is that the high grass that encroaches that area is very much in play.

Let me reemphasize this -- how does widening the fairway a scant 5 to 10 yards on the right hurt the playability / challenge of the hole? It doesn't IMHO. Let me also point out that I don't doubt budget is a part of the discussion but playability should not be sacrificed on that altar.

Brian -- one other thing -- the area in and around the green needs something to be added to the hole. When you stare down from the 1st tee to the 18th hole area you see open space to the max and even if one pot bunker was added either next to the green or offset by a few yards would add a good bit to this closing hole.

[George Pazin]

Let me reemphasize this -- how does widening the fairway a scant 5 to 10 yards on the right hurt the playability / challenge of the hole? It doesn't IMHO. Let me also point out that I don't doubt budget is a part of the discussion but playability should not be sacrificed on that altar.

There is not an easy option to just widen the area to the right or left -- it is solid rock and rises up at a steep angle that is unfriendly for equipment, even track machines, and would destroy a beautiful natural rock valley.

Asked and answered.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

You need to see the hole in question because the narrow elements (20 yards across) are extreme to say the least. Nothing can prevent the possibility of hand mowing just that small amount of clearance if needed.

[Brian_Sleeman]

When you say the word "moderately" that begs the question for further defintion.

I mentioned this before - I've seen shots go up to 20 yards left or right of the center of the fairway and still end up at the 219 plate.

Let's not obfuscate the facts -- the hole is only 20 YARDS WIDE before you get to the HAYFIELDS -- there is no transition area between the short grass and the buffalo weed. That's a good bit strong -- too strong for my tastes again and why the penal tag applies.

In my experience it plays about 40 yards wide, and balls roll to that 20 yard wide area.  It's almost like what you're saying is it's hard to put oil in your car using a funnel because the bottom end is so narrow.  It's how the hole plays, and I'm not sure how many times I can restate the same thing, but as part of a little practice session I had tonight, I played 8 balls off of that tee, some intentionally left and right and a few down the middle.  

The results:

A couple I hit straight down the middle ended up about 200 yards from the green.  The ones I hit left ended up at 219, except for one a little further left which ended on a severe upslope about 235 out, in the light rough before any hayfield.  All three of the shots I hit right ended up collected around the 219 plate.

Let me also point out that the tee shot is BLIND TO AN AREA OF LAND THAT IS EXTREMELY NARROW AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. If a high handicap golfer plays from the more forward tees the shot is still blind but the idea that they must hit a very wild shot to reach the junk is truly pushing your argument a good bit. The likelihood is that the high grass that encroaches that area is very much in play.

But the truth of the matter is that the high grass isn't in play, I'm not sure how many times I can say it.  It's the way it plays - ask any member out here.  No, you can't see the choke point, but there really isn't much of a need as it's not in play.  In theory I can see how if a player could see it, they would be intimidated and choose to lay up, perhaps with a fairway wood, but they'd be surprised to find their ball at the middle of the choke point most of the time anyway, just as Mike described.  The cool thing about the hole as a first time player is that you might start looking for a wayward tee shot left or right only to spot a dull white object in the middle of the fairway, far further than you would've expected.

Brian -- one other thing -- the area in and around the green needs something to be added to the hole. When you stare down from the 1st tee to the 18th hole area you see open space to the max and even if one pot bunker was added either next to the green or offset by a few yards would add a good bit to this closing hole.

This is a point I've begun to disagree with the more I play the hole.  At first glance, it does appear extremely benign, particularly in contrast with everything else you encounter during the rest of the round.  But the more I play it, the more I enjoy it as a relaxing, natural finish to a wild round of golf, much like the finish at the end of a rollercoaster.  It's a nice homecoming, sort of a light at the end of a tunnel to continue the metaphors.

Getting back to its benign appearance, the way it plays is actually subtlely deceptive.  The crown in the fairway just short of the center of the green does a good job of influencing any ground approach, and shots flown beyond that crown are almost certain to run long.  You simply must be on the same side of the green as the hole to have a good chance of 4.  And after so much definition and focus needed on just about every shot the whole way around, this looks like a breather but has more to it than meets the eye.  I think it's quite clever.

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Sometimes people who are too close to the scene of any hole / course need to have a fresh perspective that's a bit removed.

I can understand all of your points but frankly I don't view choke points -- no matter how artfully contrived to be the best of all elements an architect can insert into the picture. Widening the hole a tad -- I mean c'mon let's be honest 20 yards is extremely narrow with hayfields on either side.

Keep in mind the greatness of Greywalls is the various options you encounter throughout the round -- choke points which feature containment mounding -- yes that's what you find at the 18th as it serves a funnel -- tends to democratize the shots played on the hole.

GREAT HOLES DIFFERENTIATE SHOTS IN A PROPORTIONATE MANNER. THEY DON'T BANDY THEM TOGETHER NO MATTER THE DIFFERENCES IN HOW THEY ARE PLAYED.

In simple terms -- the funnel effect has a tendency to straighten out crooked shots to either side and take them to the desired location. I don't find that aspect of architecture appealing and frankly it's been brought up numerous times by those who have stated such feelings when demonstrated by other noted architects such as Rees Jones.

Brian -- you downplay completely the blind shot aspect -- I guess that comes from playing the hole so many times that you can completely downgrade its role in such a hole. I don't mind blind holes when there is room under the view of the eye range.

We will agree to disagree concerning the empty space that exists between the choke point and the green. Frankly something is missing -- I am not advocating a whole slew of obstacles (water, OB, etc, etc) but there clearly needs to be something more than just emptiness. Think of the fact if one small pot bunkers is located just to the left side. People would then bailout right to avoid what it provides. When you have a downhill par-5 hole you need something that connects the design at both ends of the hole. I am fully aware of what the green provides and I like the hump aspect there now.

At the end of the day -- you seem to believe the 18th at Greywalls is a good match because it goes in a different direction than the previous holes. I have no issue with "diffferent directions" but there must be substance to that calculation. If you compare the other two par-5's at Greywalls you will see the detailed qualities are beyond that of the 18th and the nature in which detailing / proportionality is part of the mix. The 18th is a good hole -- but in my book it's not the kind of closer such a superb course requires.  

[wsmorrison]

Brian,

I've never been to the course, but I do have this observation on the interchange between you and Matt.

"Sometimes people who are too close to the scene of any hole / course need to have a fresh perspective that's a bit removed."

It seems to me that Matt claims that he is in a better position to determine the architecture because he hasn't been too close to the scene.  His "fresh perspective" is required.  It must be that a ranker that comes to visit once or now and then is better qualified to determine the architectural merits of a golf course versus someone like you who plays it often and under all conditions.  Hmmmm, I wonder why he would demean your ability given that you empirically know how the hole plays rather than how it looks.  Absurd.

First Matt says that the narrowing does have an effect on the tee shot and balls end up unfairly in high grass.  You then point out it doesn't for an acceptably wide dispersion of shots which he refuses to acknowledge.  Then when he finds out the contours steer balls to areas not intuitive like the fairway, he denigrates that.  Hmmmm, sounds like he just doesn't like the hole no matter the dynamics; which by the way he didn't get in his careful inspection.

"Brian -- you downplay completely the blind shot aspect -- I guess that comes from playing the hole so many times that you can completely downgrade its role in such a hole. I don't mind blind holes when there is room under the view of the eye range."

If he says something impossible to understand, I guess that means he must be soooo smart.  "Under the view of the eye range?"   What does that mean?  Not only that but he knocks your ability to take into account the learning experience of playing the hole often and not being able to be objective like only he can be.  Laughable.  Does he know you to judge you?  It doesn't seem to matter to him.

Matt's observation that the hole needs something more than emptiness is odd taken in general.  Again, I cannot speak of specifics because I don't know the hole.  But what is wrong with a broad expanse without visual cues once in a while?  Doesn't that give the golfer a chance to use other skills to figure out where to go and what to hit?  I like width and uncertainty at times, why do all downhill par 5s need something to connect the design at both ends of the hole?  

I am finished criticizing Matt Ward.  I'm sorry if I've been a bit agressive in my watchdogging.  It is best to cease and get back to my own projects.