[Michael Blake]

I know I know, everyone detests these two hole/course adjectives.  But it was my first thought after my second shot at the 14th at Jeffersonville a couple of days ago.

I wish I had pictures but the hole is 340 back tees/320 middle tees.  Usually play back (6400) but played middle (6100) that day.

Tee is probably the lowest point on the course and the fairway begins maybe 100 yds away, maybe 10-20 feet above teeing ground so you cannot see your ball land.  The fairway is angled ever so slightly to the right.

I've played the course numerous times so the blind landing is not a problem.  There are two FW bunkers left (not to mention a mean dog in someone's backyard) and further down the FW on the right there are two small bunkers 40 yds short of the green.  And the 2nd bunker on the right is what I am questioning.

Normal play for me from back tee is driver.  This day from middle tees I also hit driver.  Smoked down the right center.  Ball ends up in first FW bunker on right side, 40yds short of green.  A foot right of being a perfect drive.

OK.  40 yd bunker shot may be the hardest shot in golf.  A one stroke penalty since I/most won't put it on the green.  But staring right in front of me, just 5 feet ahead is another small bunker, in my line to the green.  Thud....ball flops into the second bunker.  So now my 2nd shot, the hardest in golf, is to be followed by....the hardest shot in golf for my 3rd.  End up with a double.

That's where I begin to think "fair or unfair."  Those two bunkers are only in play from the "white" tees.  And the 2nd bunker probably never gets a tee shot since the 1st once gobbles it up first.  

So what is the purpose of the second bunker?  Is it there to get inside the head of the golfer as he hits out of the first one?  Is it there to further penalize him if he hits into it as I did?  Is is there to make the person in the first bunker hit out sideways.  Is it too strong of a defense for a short par four?

Would the bunker shot be any different if there was just one larger bunker instead of two smaller ones?

I just failed to see the point of that second bunker that is only in play for the "joe sixpack" player like me, who if in the first bunker has a good chance to hit it fat into the second one.  Thus being doubly penalized.  


Is the answer simply, "Hey idiot, driver is not the play from the white tee so stop complaining."

It very well may be and I won't be offended if everyone thinks so.

[Adam Clayman]

It's there to be avoided.

Evaluating based on personal play is not fair to the course.

[Mark Pearce]

Sounds entirely fair to me, indeed, it sounds like good design.  If you make the mistake of putting it in the first bunker you have a choice - attempt the 40 yd bunker shot or play safe, come out on a line avoiding the second bunker and play your third from the fairway.  If you go for the green you'd better play a good shot or you may not get on in three.

[John Kavanaugh]

320 yd hole - 40 yd bunker shot = 280 yd drive.  Who are these hacks that are bombing drives like that?

[Michael Blake]

It's 320yds give or take 20yds depending where the tees are placed that day.

I've played the course 50+ times (mostly from the blues) and have seen many people do exactly what I did and feel the 2nd bunker made the hole too penal (2 stroke penalty, usually more)

I guess the hole is only penal if the golfer makes bad decisions.  The first is a risk/reward decision off the tee.  The second is a risk/reward if you end up in the first bunker.

A bad decision on either can turn a 4 into a 7 very easily.

The result of a good design?  I guess Mr Ross or McGovern or Pritchard knew what they were doing.

To me it just seems that one long bunker shot (one or more stroke penalty) is penal enough for the average guy playing the whites at the local muni.

The long bunker recovery shot is one that is extremely rewarding if executed.  Most will try it....and most will end up in the 2nd bunker.  If most were to play "safe" from the first bunker, then the great recovery shot is lost.




Five wood every time.

[Bill_McBride]

Michael, even if you avoid the first bunker, is there a tougher shot in golf than the 50 yard pitch?  How receptive is the green to that pitch?  Maybe it's always better to lay up on that hole if a full shot has a better chance to get close.

Are you one of those "bomb and gouge" guys?  

Around this group you really do need to keep "fair" out of your vocabulary!

[Tom_Doak]

Sounds like genius to me.

If you're going to bomb driver up over the hill blind, you have to be ready to pay the price ... even a steep price.  On a hole of that length you don't have to choose that club.

[TEPaul]

Tell me the truth. If you hadn't gone in either bunker would you be asking this question?

[Doug Siebert]

Hey idiot, driver is not the play from the white tees! (unless you are prepared to accept the consequences when you don't hit it where you intend)  I accept those consequences every time I hit a driver on a hole where an errant shot could result in a lost ball or OB, which is a hell of a lot worse than a 40 yard bunker shot with another bunker behind it.  I don't see that the reward for you being 40 yards closer using a driver instead of a fairway wood is worth this risk that clearly seems to bother you quite a bit.

I'd say if you get in the bunker since you obviously have no confidence in your ability to successfully play the 40 yard bunker shot, the correct play is to aim short left of the green taking a line that will miss the second bunker if you fluff your bunker shot.  That still leaves you a chance to get up and down for a par, and takes double bogey and higher out of play.

I agree with Tom Doak, the hole sounds like genius.  It sure got into the head of one golfer, which is what a great short par 4 should do!  You say the second bunker is only in play for the average golfer, I'd argue it is only in play for the average golfer who does not use his brain, and blindly hits driver off the tee without thinking, and blindly aims at the green from the first bunker without thinking about the consequences of a misplayed shot.

[Michael Blake]

Often, the very highest recommendation of a bunker is when it is criticized. That shows that it is accomplishing the one thing for which it was built: It is making players think. How often do we hear players criticize a bunker that is placed for a carry as being an unfair one if they cannot carry it?  DONALD ROSS

Looks like the architect of the course himself decided to comment today from Geoff S's site, on my initial boldfaced questions.  Though not necessarily a bunker placed for a carry, it sure does get into the head of the golfer!

Tom P, I have thought about that before, the dozens of times I have seen others get into the 1st bunker.  Some fly their driver into it. Some from the blue tees as well as white tees have hit a pop up drive 100yds or so and in deciding to lay up for position, hit it into that 1st bunker.  Also those who have sprayed their tee shot right have put their second in that 1st bunker.  Most of them flopped THAT shot into the 2nd bunker.


Thus leading me to these two questions:


Is there more temptation to attempt the great recovery shot with the bunker in front of you because it gets "in your head" and therefore is a harder shot and more satisfying if executed?

Or it there less temptation to attempt is because it is so difficult?


I guess it's the temptation of attempting some of those second shots that help to make this a good hole.


If I don't want my brain to explode, similar to a scence in the movie Scanners, I should just hit 5 wood, 8 iron every time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()