Sorry, but this looks pretty good to me..

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

  Relative to  the photo you show of our #15 hole,  that hole was carved out of the trees on the property at the time.  The 1930's aerial shows the addition of several hardwoods on the right side of the tee at the top of the hill. I don't know the reason for the plantings but several hundred were planted throughout the course in accord with Flynn's writings about trees. There is a feature interview here with Linc Roden that speaks to Flynn and trees which uses this hole as an example of his "funnelling".

    The addition of those flowering trees throughout the course is a scourge that I work constantly to erase.

   My preference for this hole is that it ought to be like a Shinnecock hole with an elevated tee and a dogleg with a fairway at an angle. I think we should remove all the trees on the right to do this. This would allow you to go as far right as you want but be going away from the hole as a result. But I would likely be killed or expelled before that happens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RE: The cart path, another photo shows an asphalt path well shaded by trees, and yet other photos show the path well hidden. My guess is the two lane dirt road is a maintenance or leftover construction road that will eventually be gone.

As to the hole, while there are several plausible design scenarios y'all can debate, I think all the ones in the photos surely have design merit and look great.

Aaron, I am not sure what your beef is with the trough - look at the right side and you can see a ridge carried across there.  Rees cut that ridge for vision, and the trough because he wanted a cape style bunker of sufficient depth to be a penalty. He may have needed the dirt somewhere else as well.

Had he left the ridge, opting against his (and most gca's and golfers philosphies) he would have ended up with a blind shot and no known to the golfer tee shot options. And, the hole wouldn't have been nearly as attractive.  So, why rail against cutting a hill for vision on "general minimalistic principles" when in fact he created a very nice hole?  I really don't understand, but am willing to listen.

I don't know if many can carry the bunker, but the layup option seems far enough back to make a difference, even on a short hole.  And, if not, nothing wrong with a sucker punch tee shot!

[Adam Clayman]

The original hole pictured on this thread looks like one I know I have seen and played many times.  Conceptually.
Here's one example.


The two shot 12th at Black Mesa.

I seem to recall similar looks at Quintero, and concepts from Pete Dye. I suspect a predecessor, also.

Anyone else ?

[paul cowley]

Jes ll....I should have added a smiley with the post [I'll go back and do it].

I have no problem with the cartpath as is ....in fact I quite like it....but its rather obvious that my colleaque Jeff doesn't care for it, which is a good example why we have the 'Big World Theory' thanks to TomP....maybe hes a little grumpy today .

oh and Jeff.....I have it that two Forrests were seen yesterday, travelling in close proximity in your neck of the woods [west of the Mississippi].............can you confirm the sighting?
Thanks, paul.

[Aaron Katz]

Aaron, I am not sure what your beef is with the trough - look at the right side and you can see a ridge carried across there.  Rees cut that ridge for vision, and the trough because he wanted a cape style bunker of sufficient depth to be a penalty. He may have needed the dirt somewhere else as well.

Had he left the ridge, opting against his (and most gca's and golfers philosphies) he would have ended up with a blind shot and no known to the golfer tee shot options. And, the hole wouldn't have been nearly as attractive.  So, why rail against cutting a hill for vision on "general minimalistic principles" when in fact he created a very nice hole?  I really don't understand, but am willing to listen.

Jeff, I don't have a beef with the trough per se.  I understand that it was necessary to give create a diagonal hazard without hiding the landing area.  My problem is that the whole look of the hole is not any different from countless other par 4s that Rees has designed on courses I have played.  I have no problem with template holes, but I see Rees using template features, which is a completely different ballgame.  Long par 4s, short par 4s, par 5s -- whether the fairway is set at an angle or straightaway -- you see the same type of design from Rees.  And that design in a recessed fairway bunker (or, if you'd like, a built up fairway that falls off into fairway bunkers).  When I played Pine Hills in Plymouth, I honestly could not distinguish one hole from another with the exception of maybe three holes.  

I don't think Rees is a horrible designer.  I think that he did a really good job with Bethpage Black (I even like the bunkering on the 18th hole).  I think that he doesn't design garbage.  But I don't see anything new or inspiring, or anything that Arnold Palmer's company doesn't do as well or better.  Is the hole pictured a good hole.  In isolation it sure is.  I'm taking a bigger picture view, though.

[James Bennett]

What a lovely flowering tree. (I hope it's gone?)  

Those are the ones I most want out at my club - along with the pines and spruces. They are pretty for an "Augusta National Golf Club" month, then shed and suck the golf course for the rest of teh year.

That flowering tree was gone in April this year, and some thinning has occurred since (see the inside of the dogleg).  Plus a change in fairway mowing pattern (was striped, now one side up, one side back).

Apart form the chainsaw work, I would appreciate a bit more money spent on fairway mower fuel, and a bit less spent on rough mower fuel.  The playing corridor between the trees may be wider than it was, but the fairway width seems to have shrunk, certainly compared to Flynn's plans.  Perhaps Flynn's plans were inadvertently put through the washing machine?  

A view of the tee shot - the flowering bush  has definitely gone, and the saplings on the inside of the dogleg.


The view that could be - perhaps 50 yards off the tee the vista to the green opens up.  Fairway bunkers would be nice, rather than rough bunkers.


Looking back from the elevated green.  The potential fairway/line of play shapes on the inside of the dogleg are more apparent here.


Thanks again Mayday - it was a memorable time with Craig and yourself.

James B

[Mike_Sweeney]

So I just remembered, this original picture of  the Rees hole reminds me of Kinloch 330 yardish #14.





I think I would take the suggestions to shave down the left side rough to fairway in the Rees hole which would tempt more players to go for it. Keep the right side rough and those pot bunkers.

The Rees "go for it" landing area looks as big as Lester George's, but obviously it is hard to say from pics. I like both these holes. I went for it at Kinloch, was short left and made par.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Mike,

In the Rees hole at Cape Cod, it's hard to tell how much fairway is between the rough line and the green when going for the green.  I have a feeling it's more than appears.  For the player with the length to go for that green, I doubt the bunker complex on the left is really that much in play.  I'd be interested to see what kind of trouble lies around the green, particularly to the left side.

The pictured 15th hole at Kinloch really makes you think.  Most people either lay-up off the tee with about a 220 yard shot or go for the green by aiming left of the big tree of the tee.  The key if laying up is to get past the big tree on the right, otherwise you can have tree trouble.  The only downside is that you may then be hitting your approach from a downhill lie.  

I usually go for the green and am pleased getting it in the fairway short of the green.  The rough can be extremely thick so coming up a little short or wayward can make for a difficult pitch, as it should be.

The best pin position on the green is back right, which is basically like a small green within the green.  If you lay-up off the tee with this hole location, it's an extremely difficult approach to get close.  

It's really a good short par 4, and at a good point in the round.  However, I like it's brother on the front nine even more, the short par 4 4th hole.