[Patrick_Mucci]

What would a meaningful hazard behind the 15th green do for the hole ?

[Wayne_Freedman]

What's  a meaningful hazard, Patrick? You already have the tree and the slope, from which Couples could not effectively recover. In fact, he nearly bogeyed the hole.

As is, the 15th allows risk, but defends birdie (and for most of us, par), by demanding a perfect recovery.

I think it's enough.

[CHrisB]

I seem to remember the entire area behind the 15th green being cut as fairway height in past years, which allowed the occasional overly bold 2nd shot to roll all the way into the pond on the 16th.

It would be interesting to see them do that again, particularly if the grain runs away from the green which would make run-up chips even more difficult.

[Bill Gayne]

The two options that come immediately to mind for a hazard behind 15 would be a bunker or to remove the pines behind the green and enlarge the pond fronting 16. I think both would be a mistake. The bunker play of the tour golfer is so good that it would not be meaningful. I don't like water because it lacks recovery options and in my opinion the penalty for gambling would be to great.

For member and guest play the current chip and green is probably already challenging enough.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Nothing good.   Seriously, I can't think of anything back there that would be an improvement over what exists. Bring the water closer and you'd limit the number of guys going for it in two, bunker it and you'd just be providing a safety net for the guys that do.

[David Lott]

A meaningful hazard is one that will likely cost a stroke on a badly played shot. Pat is right that some bad shots are not penalized on this hole. Whether this is a bad thing is another question--you don't need to penalize all bad shots, especially since on this course where good shots are often not rewarded.

[Jordan Wall]

Pat...

Did you happen to have a particular hazard in mind??

Personally I think it is very fine as it is, and Couples almost took 4 from behind the green.  

Good thought, but the green is just to o narrow and firm to have a hazard beyond, IMO...

[A.G._Crockett]

I think the pond in front becomes a hazard for the recovery shot from the bank in the back.  If there was a bunker, it would be an easier shot for those guys than the current chip to a green that runs away.  Additionally, adding further difficulty would discourage players from going for the green in two, which is what makes the hole great in the first place.

[Jim Nugent]

A meaningful hazard is one that will likely cost a stroke on a badly played shot. Pat is right that some bad shots are not penalized on this hole. Whether this is a bad thing is another question--you don't need to penalize all bad shots, especially since on this course where good shots are often not rewarded.

I'd like to know exactly how many guys get up and down from there.  I don't remember seeing any.  So my sense is that there already is a penalty for missing long.  

A bunker might actually make the hole play easier, by stopping shots that now run way down the bank.  To get your ball close from back there now, at least with the Sunday pin placement, you have to play well short of the green and try to trickle the ball to the hole.  Too short and you end up where Fred did, working to make par.  Too long and you go into the water.    

[tonyt]

I agree it was perfect back when there was only a very tight apron cut behind the green. Balls going through and running hot either risked the pond (rarely, but sometimes) or at least rolled further and further away and made for super tough judgement on the distance of the return recovery. Many left it over the back to avoid taking a swim.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()