News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« on: April 17, 2006, 08:24:25 PM »
Would be interested in hearing Andrew Biggadike's comments on the course and the difficult conditions...even in today's bright sunshine :)  following his strong performance today in a California Amateur qualifier at Olympic Lake.  No doubt the conditions, particularly the thick wet rough,  must have been penal.

http://www.ncga.org/tourneys/qualify/cga/olympic.htm
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2006, 08:42:19 PM »
Kevin,

Can I ask a question, remembering that I'm Australian & possibly ignorant of the situation.

I understand that the Lake course was playing exceptionally tough & Andrew's 74 was a very good score, but what is with all those scores in the high 90's. Three guys shot 99.

Most the top amatuer events in Australia have a limit on handicaps, generally meaning most the golfers are around scratch or better. Is it different in California ?

This is a genuine inquiry. I am not meaning to be offensive in any way.

rjsimper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2006, 08:54:36 PM »
Club handicaps.

Plain and simple.

I dont know a single thing about that qualifier but I can say this...my handicap (when I had a true one) was always pretty darn legitimate and got as low as 3.1 one summer on the index.  3 weeks later the elements and all of the bad karma in the world combined to lead me to fire a 101 in a college tournament.  Mortifying to be sure, but having played the O-Club Lake, a course much tougher than the one I butchered, it's not impossible to fathom that a 3 index could just have a terrible day.  

I know plenty of guys with low single digit handicaps at their own club that I would eagerly play straight up for cash at a neutral site - (I'm about a 6 or a touch higher) - it's the result of an imperfect system (handicaps) in an erratic game.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2006, 09:13:41 PM »
Ryan / Andrew -

Knowing many of the names that played in the qualifier, there were plenty of good amateur golfers.  As Andrew will attest to, the conditions are O Lake were pretty tough.  US Open length rough, wet and gnarly.  And it is just a hard golf course, no easy holes out there.

A 74, first time on the course, under any tournament condition is pretty impressive.

Kudos from this side of the treehouse.

Mike

Ps:  Yes, I have lost some coin to Andrew ...
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 09:15:17 PM by Mike Benham »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

rjsimper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2006, 09:15:43 PM »
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that having played it, a 74 even under benign conditions at the Lake course is impressive, so my hat's off to Andrew for a round well played.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2006, 09:41:18 PM »
Kevin,

Can I ask a question, remembering that I'm Australian & possibly ignorant of the situation.

I understand that the Lake course was playing exceptionally tough & Andrew's 74 was a very good score, but what is with all those scores in the high 90's. Three guys shot 99.

Most the top amatuer events in Australia have a limit on handicaps, generally meaning most the golfers are around scratch or better. Is it different in California ?

This is a genuine inquiry. I am not meaning to be offensive in any way.

Many of the guys who play in these tournaments are 3 or 4 handicappers, as opposed to the top guys who play off  +2 or +3 -- that's a big gap. Also, many of the guys have very little (if any) tournament experience, and their games literally implode under tournament pressure.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2006, 09:47:52 PM »
Andrew,

FANTASTIC playing. See you at Poppy and Pebble in June!

David

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2006, 09:50:26 PM »
Kevin,

Can I ask a question, remembering that I'm Australian & possibly ignorant of the situation.

I understand that the Lake course was playing exceptionally tough & Andrew's 74 was a very good score, but what is with all those scores in the high 90's. Three guys shot 99.

Most the top amatuer events in Australia have a limit on handicaps, generally meaning most the golfers are around scratch or better. Is it different in California ?

This is a genuine inquiry. I am not meaning to be offensive in any way.

Here is an update on the course and the conditions from a buddy that played in the qualifier. Jud is a solid 0-1 handicap and I believe he shot 84. Said the conditions were brutal.

*************

Well, I'll spare the full round report because it was another dissappointing day. Out of nowhere I had my worst ball-striking round that I can remember. I just couldn't string together two consecutive shots at any point in the round. On average, I hit 10-13 greens a round. Today I hit 2. My first and 16th holes.

On a positive note, I putted quite well. The putting stroke is definitely working.

I shot 84 (45-39), it could have been much worse. When I left it appeared that 78 was going to qualify. The course was playing very tough. We've had a ton of rain and any ball in the rough required a search. I had plenty of those.

Some of the low-lights:

3 double-bogeys on par 3's. 2 bad bunker shots, 1 bad pitch, etc. One missed 18 inch putt when I was frustrated and tryed to invent a stance to avoid other lines. Amazingly, on the last par 3 I was 55 yards right of the green and almost made a 2.

I had three par 5's out of 4 holes and had to make an 8 footer on the last one to play them three over.

That leaves 11 par 4's, which I was only 4 over on.

When I left, amazingly it looked like 79 was going to qualify.

On another note, I had previously said not so great things about this golf course. I take them all back. My memory was faulty. This is definitely a world-class golf course worthy of all the accolades that it has received.

*****************

Evan_Green

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2006, 10:22:51 PM »
First of all: Congrats Andrew! Thats a terrific round.

As to the comments above:
I know of no other golf course that can exaggerate the difference between a 3-5 handicap and a +3 more than Olympic Lake. It's very straight forward and there are no tricks, but it is really good at exposing weaknesses if your golf game. Not being able to hit the small greens can make all the difference between a 71 and an 81. Throw in a couple of slightly errant drives into the tree lines that become chip outs and your 81 turns into an 86 without you even losing a single ball. However the +3's will still be able to hit the 12 greens and shoot even par.

Thats under regular conditions. Add the fact that the rough hasnt been cut for 2 weeks since it hasnt stopped raining and it raises the stakes further.

The course rating does an inadequate job of reflecting the phenomenon above. A 2 index if you play 20 rounds on the Lake course is not comperable to a 2 index on an average difficulty course.

One more thing that people who have only played the Lake once or twice may not realize is that it can flat out demoralize you by the time you get to the 12th or 13th hole if your playing for score and you're struggling. So that 99 might really be a 5 handicap on an easy course who has never seen the Lake before who would have shot 90 but got demoralized and gave up and he shoots a 99.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 10:37:25 PM by Evan_Green »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2006, 10:50:30 PM »
The thing I would add to Evan's comments are that you can literally play an entire round on the Lake Course and not have one shot (aside from your tee-balls) from a level lie. Shots from uphill lies are frequently followed by shots from downhill lies. Faced with a shot that calls for a draw (from the fairway on #4), you will likely find the ball below your feet. Faced with a shot that calls for a fade (from the fairway on #2), you often find the ball above your feet.

Oh, and the greens aren't that easy to read the first (or second) time around either!

 

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2006, 10:59:48 PM »
Thanks everyone.  The qualifier was originally supposed to be on the Ocean course but got moved to the Lake course because of the work being done on the Ocean's 15th and 16th holes (and a recent aeration?).  In any event, I was excited to have the opportunity to play the Lake, but wasn't sure a qualifier was necessarily the best time to play it for the first time.  But, it all worked out.  Thanks to both David Tepper and Mike Benham for giving me very helpful advice on playing the course.

The course was in great shape considering the weather we've had here the past month or so.  The fairways and greens didn't seem overly wet to me at all, but it probably was a bit on the softer side.  The rough was pretty long and hairy, but luckily I only missed one fairway (no doubt saving myself several shots).  From the one I missed and seeing my fellow competitors' shots, you had to get a good lie to even have a chance of going at the green.

Design-wise, I definitely thought the course was tough.  I'm trying to think of a stretch of consecutive holes I've played that's tougher than two through five, and I'm not coming up with anything.  I was actually wondering how anyone ever broke 80 out there walking to the sixth tee (at three over par).

One of my main take-aways from the course in terms of difficulty (and fun) was that I rarely felt comfortable or at ease over a shot.  I attribute a lot of this to the many sidehill lies I encountered throughout the day.  This required (and enabled) me to think a lot more about the shape of the shot I had to play in to greens.  Specific examples of this are trying to cut it off a draw stance on five and nine to hold the ball straight into a right hole location; similarly, I played for a draw off draw stances to left hole locations on six and 14.  My short approaches into seven and 17 were made considerably more difficult by uphill, fade stances, and a few longer shots (second on one, four, 11, and 17) were made difficult by fade stances as well.  Downhill lies with long-irons in to 10 and 12 caused me to take one club less, allow for the low ball flight, and try to run it on.  Very few shots out there were just your "run-of-the-mill stock X iron", and it was great.  I'm not sure I've had to think quite so much about the type of shot I was going to play (in terms of shape and trajectory) since I left Dornoch in August.

Most of the greens have pretty significant slopes to them, which also added to my lack of feeling comfortable.  Even though the greens weren't too fast, I felt like I always needed to be careful because it seemed the speed and/or break could easily get away from me and leave a long next putt.  Aside from the seventh and 11th, though, I didn't observe a lot of undulations within greens aside from their general slope.  I think that makes judging the speed a bit easier since you don't have to worry about speed changes throughout the putt.  Still, I found the slopes quite challenging and I wonder how fast they can get the greens before things get "out of hand" (difficulty-wise).  I bet Payne Stewart would've had something to say about that, but what's the feeling from Olympic members and the USGA?

The course seemed to play longer than the yardage to me.  I don't know if it was the wetness or not hitting my driver solidly, but I was left with longer clubs into most holes than I expected.  Have others experienced this?

Oh, and we played the new back tee on three.  Not surprisingly, there were two or three groups on the tee pretty much all day.  That tee is probably a bit much for the likes of us, but I think it will be a good test for the pros.

I'm curious to hear some feedback on my thoughts from those who have played the course a lot.
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

Tom Jefferson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2006, 11:27:46 PM »
Andrew Summerell;
When I think of Olympic Lake Ben Hogan's comment always comes to mind.......'the longest short course in the world.'
My experiences there seem to support that....one round there I hit fairway woods into greens 10 times!
In college (early 70s), I played the State Amateur qualifying there twice....for $25 you could play the Ocean (with the holes west of the Great Highway) and the Lake on the same day, plus a practice round the evening before, if lucky.  Though a 4 handicap I never got below 164 for the two rounds.

Strategy off the tee, sidehill lies, missing to the wrong side of the small greens, lots of uphill shots (2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18) into the greens, cool and moist weather, all add up to a real test.

Tom
the pres

Evan_Green

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2006, 12:54:05 AM »
One of the elements that makes this "the longest short course in the world" is that many of the downhills are abrupt (holes like #9) while the uphills and long and gradual (holes like #2 and #11). Also there are a few really short holes on the course: #7 at 290 yards, #18 at 340 yards and #8 at 140 yards that really throw the yardage into the long par 4's that make up the meat of the course. Add this to heavy, foggy seaside air and your long irons get a workout.

Wait until they add another 300 yards for the 2012 Open- then it will be the longest long course in the world  ::)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 03:06:34 AM by Evan_Green »

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2006, 01:39:13 AM »
- I know of no other golf course that can exaggerate the difference between a 3-5 handicap and a +3 more than Olympic Lake.

- One more thing that people who have only played the Lake once or twice may not realize is that it can flat out demoralize you by the time you get to the 12th or 13th hole if your playing for score and you're struggling.

Very well said ...







« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 01:40:34 AM by Mike Benham »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jim Nugent

Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2006, 02:24:01 AM »
Great scoring, Andrew.  And really interesting comments, too.  What IS the yardage now?  

Evan_Green

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2006, 02:28:44 AM »
What IS the yardage now?  

Approx 6,875 yards, par 71
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 03:02:53 AM by Evan_Green »

Greg Stebbins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2006, 08:12:15 AM »
Andrew B,

I'm surprised that you missed a fairway! What hole? How far did you miss it by?  Great playing.. enjoy Pebble.

Jim Nugent

Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2006, 10:06:16 AM »
To chime in, if Retief Goosen can shoot 82 in the last round of a U.S. Open, it's not hard to believe a 3 handicap could shoot upper 90's on a U.S. Open course in tough conditions.  

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2006, 10:25:17 AM »
Holy crap, what an absolutely GORGEOUS golf course!!!

It's not surprising to me that so many of the scores were in the 80's and 90's. Most amateurs (even the pretty good ones) have a TERRIBLE time on tight golf courses, and that course looks like it might be fairly intimidating off the tee.

What happens is that they lose confidence in their tee ball, start "steering" it, and next thing you know they're 6-over through four holes.

In amateur golf, the tee ball is HUGE. If most of these guys can drive the ball with confidence, then they can hit their irons with confidence. If they're doing both, then they have a chance to qualify. But you MUST do both or you can forget it.

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2006, 11:07:17 AM »
Evan,

Really interesting comments regarding the length of the course.  I hadn't thought about the sharp downhill, gradual uphill.

Where are they planning to add more yardage to the course?

Greg,

Heh, I missed the fourth fairway by about 20 feet to the right.  To my credit, on that hole you can't see the fairway from the tee!  When you hit it as short as I do, you've got to do something else right to shoot a decent number.  That's why I fair better (relative to the field) on courses that require accuracy off the tee.

By the way, you'd love the tee shot at the fifth hole at Olympic Lake: its shape reminds me quite a bit of 9 West at Ridgewood around the trees, except the fairway slopes right to left too.
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2006, 11:47:55 AM »
By the way, you'd love the tee shot at the fifth hole at Olympic Lake: its shape reminds me quite a bit of 9 West at Ridgewood around the trees, except the fairway slopes right to left too.

The angle of the tee shot on #5 ... the Black tee blocks are 20 yards behind this position and new tournament tees are allegedly to be built even farther back.




From the back of the 5th green, looking diagonally up the 4th fairway/green site and 5th tee.  On the far right edge of the photo is the bushy tree that you see straight out in the tee shot photo.



"... and I liked the guy ..."

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2006, 12:00:21 PM »
Where are they planning to add more yardage to the course?

They are going to start by putting the first tee on top of the pro shop ... just kidding (I think) ...

Kevin Reilly or Joel Steward probably remembers better than I but here are a few of the holes (and note, none of these were suggestion/required by the USGA ;) ):

#2 - New tee built 25 yards or so behind current blacks - completed

#3 - New tee built on edge of practice area - completed

#5 - New tee to be built 20 yards or so behind current blacks

Also a rumor that #16 will be lengthened ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Evan_Green

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2006, 12:08:50 PM »
In addition to those mentioned by Mike, my understanding is that 6,8 & 12 are also to be lengthened. I also heard that #17 might be lengthened across the road making it a par 5.

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2006, 12:13:05 PM »
#3 - New tee built on edge of practice area - completed

Also a rumor that #16 will be lengthened ...

Yes, these holes were already soooo short to begin with.... :o

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GCAer does well in Tough Qualifier
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2006, 02:57:28 PM »
Where are they planning to add more yardage to the course?

They are going to start by putting the first tee on top of the pro shop ... just kidding (I think) ...

Kevin Reilly or Joel Steward probably remembers better than I but here are a few of the holes (and note, none of these were suggestion/required by the USGA ;) ):

#2 - New tee built 25 yards or so behind current blacks - completed

#3 - New tee built on edge of practice area - completed

#5 - New tee to be built 20 yards or so behind current blacks

Also a rumor that #16 will be lengthened ...

#6, 10, 11, 12 and 16 were also mentioned in a Geoff Shackelford column last year.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson