Caledonia #9

[ForkaB]

I think that in lesat one of his self-portraits, Van Gogh put a head with only one ear where a full head should have been.......

[Michael Whitaker]

Caledonia was built on only 110 acres or so... it is obviously "shoehorned" and "crammed" onto the property. But, that is the genius of Strantz' routing: it doesn't "feel" shoehorned or crammed. Sure, it is a short course by modern standards. But, as was mentioned above, it effectively plays as if it were much longer. It doesn't feel small. It doesn't feel tight and narrow. It feels great!

There are areas on the course where several holes converge, but they are almost always at such angles that they do not "affect" each other. A good example is the area where the 5th tee, 15th green and 16th tee come together. That area is like the hub of a wagon wheel with each hole venturing off like a spoke. It's hard to imagine with a course on so little property, but rarely, if ever, is your play on Caledonia disturbed by players on another hole. #8 and #10 are the only two holes on the course that have parallel fairways, but even that is for only 200 yards or so; and the holes are separated by a birm that so effectively isolates each that you never think of the other hole being "just over the rise."

As for #9 being disjointed... I can appreciate that argument and don't really disagree with it. But, there is one thing I have always wondered:  there is a fair amount of property between the 8th green and the 9th hole that currently houses a chipping and pitching practice area... I've always wondered why Mike didn't use that property in some way for the 9th hole. He must have had a clear vision of what he wanted #9 to be to have it placed in the elbow of the entrance drive the way he did.

[Yannick Pilon]

Good point Michael....  Very interesting idea....

[Ted Kramer]

As for #9 being disjointed... I can appreciate that argument and don't really disagree with it. But, there is one thing I have always wondered:  there is a fair amount of property between the 8th green and the 9th hole that currently houses a chipping and pitching practice area... I've always wondered why Mike didn't use that property in some way for the 9th hole. He must have had a clear vision of what he wanted #9 to be to have it placed in the elbow of the entrance drive the way he did.

Yeah, that is where the clam chowder guys chips balls.
I love that clam chowder.

-Ted

[A.G._Crockett]

Caledonia was built on only 110 acres or so... it is obviously "shoehorned" and "crammed" onto the property. But, that is the genius of Strantz' routing: it doesn't "feel" shoehorned or crammed. Sure, it is a short course by modern standards. But, as was mentioned above, it effectively plays as if it were much longer. It doesn't feel small. It doesn't feel tight and narrow. It feels great!

There are areas on the course where several holes converge, but they are almost always at such angles that they do not "affect" each other. A good example is the area where the 5th tee, 15th green and 16th tee come together. That area is like the hub of a wagon wheel with each hole venturing off like a spoke. It's hard to imagine with a course on so little property, but rarely, if ever, is your play on Caledonia disturbed by players on another hole. #8 and #10 are the only two holes on the course that have parallel fairways, but even that is for only 200 yards or so; and the holes are separated by a birm that so effectively isolates each that you never think of the other hole being "just over the rise."

As for #9 being disjointed... I can appreciate that argument and don't really disagree with it. But, there is one thing I have always wondered:  there is a fair amount of property between the 8th green and the 9th hole that currently houses a chipping and pitching practice area... I've always wondered why Mike didn't use that property in some way for the 9th hole. He must have had a clear vision of what he wanted #9 to be to have it placed in the elbow of the entrance drive the way he did.

This makes perfect sense to me.  There is no other part of that course that seems "shoehorned"; it makes infinitely more sense to me that a craftsman like Strantz did somethiing on that hole exactly the way he wanted to do it.  I really like the hole; I think it keeps you off-balance in a very, very good way.

[Brent Hutto]

Hey Mike,

What if there were a tee box somewhere over around the chowder shack/practice green? If I can correctly recall the relative layout of the place wouldn't that be aiming sort of up the long dimension of the green?

Having that plus the current tee box would give a Tobacco Road #6 style of alternative setup with one tee playing wide/shallow and the other narrow/deep. Plus I think teeing off from the other spot would make the hole longer, if so quite a challenge with the tilt of the green (away from the shot) and the bunkers.

[Michael Whitaker]

Brent - I think Tom Doak made a great point about #9 possibly being a precursor of #6 at Tobacco Road. But, before he built #6 at TB he built #14 at True Blue, which has the super-wide, multi-level teeing ground that you find at TB.

As you and I discussed about Strantz courses, every one I have seen has a collection of outstanding and creative par threes. I've never played the Virginia courses, but all of the NC & SC courses have par threes that offer various options of wide teeing grounds and/or multi-section greens. The exceptions I can think of are #17 at Caledonia and #11 at True Blue.

[Tim Gavrich]

#14 at True Blue, in my opinion, is a worse hole than #9 at Caledonia.  I think that TB14's green is too big.  From the tips, it's 135 yards downhill to a huge target.  I don't think it forces as much thought out of the golfer as Cal9.  Also, the penalty for missing the green is less severe than Cal9.  There is too much room in proportion to the length of the hole.  Perhaps this came from the softening that was done shortly after the course opened (I'd love to see some before/after pictures of the changes that were made at TB).

Based on the last few posts, new thought.  What, in your informed opinions, are the three best Strantz par threes?  Perhaps overall best, or by length from the tips; short(sub 160)-medium(161-195)-long(196+).  But from thinking about it, the three best overall one-shotters may all be shorter.  I'll give it a think.

[Ted Kramer]

#14 at True Blue, in my opinion, is a worse hole than #9 at Caledonia.  I think that TB14's green is too big.  From the tips, it's 135 yards downhill to a huge target.  I don't think it forces as much thought out of the golfer as Cal9.  Also, the penalty for missing the green is less severe than Cal9.  There is too much room in proportion to the length of the hole.  Perhaps this came from the softening that was done shortly after the course opened (I'd love to see some before/after pictures of the changes that were made at TB).

Based on the last few posts, new thought.  What, in your informed opinions, are the three best Strantz par threes?  Perhaps overall best, or by length from the tips; short(sub 160)-medium(161-195)-long(196+).  But from thinking about it, the three best overall one-shotters may all be shorter.  I'll give it a think.

I don't know if I have seen enough of his work to judge, but I'd be very surprised if there are 3 better than #11 Caledonia.

-Ted

[Michael Whitaker]

Tim - I'm not sure which hole you are thinking about, but #14 at True Blue is around 160 from the tips... not 135. And green is very segmented so that the effective target areas are small for each pin position. With all the teeing areas and multi-section green there are at least 20 different combinations, each yielding a very different hole.

[Tim Gavrich]

Michael W--
Mea Culpa.  I must say, however, that when I've played the course, the back tees have never been longer than 145-150.  Perhaps I was exaggerating, but I still believe that the front half of the green is a little too wide.

Also, I have rarely seen the pin in the back (or the left, depending on where you look from) on TB14, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of movement in the tees, which is unfortunate.  This could contribute to my disappointment with the hole.  I'll certainly reevaluate my position the next time I play it.

[Michael Whitaker]

I'll certainly reevaluate my position the next time I play it.

Thanks!

[Andy Hughes]

Here is how 14 at True Blue looked a few months ago:



One of my partners just barely missed the green right, and was dumped into a tiny, deep bunker.  The pin was in the back portion that day.

[Brent Hutto]

I think Andy's photo somewhat flattens out the up-and-down dimension of the hole. My memory from one time playing it is that there's quite a drop from the tee to the green, maybe 20 feet or so. Or is just the right-hand teeing area higher?

[Tim Gavrich]

Andy--
Now why don't they put the tees over there when I play?!

That shot is significantly more interesting than from the right half of the teeing area.  When the pin is in the back, it's a good hole.  But from any tee, I still believe that the front portion of the green is neither small enough nor undulating enough for my taste in that short a hole.

For Two-portion greens at TB, I like the third better.  The different parts of the green are in better proportion to the length of shot needed, and I think it's the toughest one-shotter at TB.

[Andy Hughes]

I think Andy's photo somewhat flattens out the up-and-down dimension of the hole.

Brent, you are correct. This photo does make it look much flatter than it is. I may be wrong, but I do recall there being tees around and behind us that were appreciably higher.   I think to that back pin it was playing around 155.

Tim, sorry  
This was the only time I played True Blue (hope to rectify that someday), and I am sure it is very different from the right side tees to a right-front pin.

Re #9 at Caledonia--- I do wish the hole had just a little more '2 or 20' to it, a little more sense of thrill

[Doug_Feeney]

I have played Caledonia too many times to count and I like the 9th hole!  I have seen many near holes in one, and I have seen some absolutely horrendous shots - bladed wedges into the azaleas behind the green as well as shots dumped into the sand just in front of the tee.  If anyone thinks the hole is easy, wait till they try playing from a bad lie in the sand 60 yds out!

1.  The major problem with the hole is that Caledonia (as most courses in MB) starts groups off #1 and #10.  The ninth as a finishing hole leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

2.  The teeing area, particularly the back of it, is consistently in poor condition.  Combination of lots of wedges and shade from the live oaks.  

[Michael Whitaker]

Doug - I agree completely with your post. Don't know what they can do about the condition of the teeing ground as you can be assured those beautiful live oaks are NOT coming down!!! Again, that's one of the things that makes me think that Strantz had a definite vision for the 9th hole, and that it was not just "stuck in" as some on this site have questioned.

[tonyt]

Firstly, I sympathise with Mr Klein's view that a potentially cramped site is best crafted into a shorter course with a lower total par figure, whatever that may exactly be to suit each site. it is also the chance for a "sporting" course, or one where the green complexes can be made very interesting if indeed the client still insists on a scorecard defence.

But in reading many of the above posts, one point truly saddens me. How can somebody be in a happy frame of mind, be on a golf course, and then play an innoffensive hole and walk off on a downer or less happy than when they arrived? What game are you playing?

When a hole's possible crime is that it doesn't fit, was built as an afterthought and is a little easy, that is perhaps enough to reduce the "ranking" of the course for the sake of discussion, but how can it be instrumental in spoiling the day?

[A.G._Crockett]

Firstly, I sympathise with Mr Klein's view that a potentially cramped site is best crafted into a shorter course with a lower total par figure, whatever that may exactly be to suit each site. it is also the chance for a "sporting" course, or one where the green complexes can be made very interesting if indeed the client still insists on a scorecard defence.

But in reading many of the above posts, one point truly saddens me. How can somebody be in a happy frame of mind, be on a golf course, and then play an innoffensive hole and walk off on a downer or less happy than when they arrived? What game are you playing?

When a hole's possible crime is that it doesn't fit, was built as an afterthought and is a little easy, that is perhaps enough to reduce the "ranking" of the course for the sake of discussion, but how can it be instrumental in spoiling the day?

Amen, and thanks for the perspective.