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.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2007, 07:47:57 PM »
I have never been in St. Andrews for an Open Championship -- for anyone who has, where do they put the hole on the Eden for four days of the championship?

I was there in 2005 for the Friday-Sunday rounds.  I don't recall seeing hole locations any different than the day in, day out locations, i.e. mostly about 15-25' above Strath, and one side or the other or directly behind.  I didn't see it on Sean's "wee plateau."

Jeff Loh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2007, 08:13:13 PM »
Of course no Eden on the Black....but if you didn't know any better you might think #14 qualifies. Close in yardage (give or take 10 yards) and a green that slopes quite obviously from back to front. And that severe fall off  if you miss long. No Eden river, just Round Swamp Road (i think that's the name). Just goes to show that three similar features dont come close to making the same hole.





















3

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2007, 10:36:41 PM »
JES:

The essence of the Eden hole is as follows:

1.  NASTY bunker front right-center (visualize the DA)
2.  pretty good opening left-center
3.  nasty bunker on the left flank
4.  strong back-to-front tilt to the green along with a bit of left-to-right tilt

What makes it great is that as long as you're short and straight, you've still got an angle to get close to the hole when it's tucked behind the nasty bunker, but you have to flirt with the trouble.  If you bail out long, there's no way to stop the ball near the hole in two; and if you double-cross the safe play to the left, you're also punished.

Bill B:  Why are there not more good examples of the hole?  Because architects don't have the nerve to build bunkers that nasty or to put so much slope into the green that you have no chance of getting up and down from a shot played safely past the bunkers; and because American greens are generally soft so you can fly it to the hole.  Nobody ever flies it at the hole at the Eden ... if you get it close, it's by playing a bit left of the hole close to the bunker, landing pin-high, and having the slope of the green stop it and feed it back to the hole.

We built a decent version of the hole at Beechtree (#13).  David Kidd's 12th hole at Bandon Dunes is sort of a mirror-image version of the hole, and it's firm, but the mirror-image is not as demanding, because a short-right miss is okay.  


Tom-

  Did you design the 13th at Beechtree with the public player in mind?  Having played it several times, it is not as severe a hole as, say, 4 at The Creek.  Also, was it ever discussed to build the rear bunker?
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2007, 10:43:43 PM »
Tom Doak,

Would you say that modern green speeds have eliminated many of the back hole locations on a number of Edens ?

The back of # 13 at NGLA and GCGC become dicey as green speeds increase

Patrick-

  Is the rear of the green on #18 at GCGC even pinnable?  I am most familiar with the hole locations set in the middle of the green, about 10 paces (est.) off the back.  Most hole locations I have experienced on that green have been cut in roughly the middle of the green.  I have not seen many hole locations cut closer to the right or to the left greenside bunkers.  

From my experience, the 18th at GCGC is the finest replication of the Eden hole I have experienced in person.  
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Patrick_Mucci

Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2007, 03:55:11 AM »

Patrick-

Is the rear of the green on #18 at GCGC even pinnable?  


Yes, but, only when green speeds are on the slow side.
[/color]

I am most familiar with the hole locations set in the middle of the green, about 10 paces (est.) off the back.  Most hole locations I have experienced on that green have been cut in roughly the middle of the green.  I have not seen many hole locations cut closer to the right or to the left greenside bunkers.  

There's been a monotony in terms of hole location on that green.

It's been as you describe.

Just last week I sent a note to the Green Chair and Superintendent citing that issue and the need to provide more diverse, challenging hole locations.

By cutting the hole where you indicate, the golfer is deprived of the challenge of some very interesting hole locations.

As you know, playing straight to the opening or short of the green leaves the golfer with the easiest recovery when the hole is where you indicate.

The beauty and challenge of the "Eden" green is primarily when the hole is cut to the right, forcing the golfer to challenge the deep pit bunkers, or play safe and be faced with a very difficult recovery or putts.

Hole locations along the periphery, when green speeds allow, provide for a thrilling hole, from start to finish.
[/color]

From my experience, the 18th at GCGC is the finest replication of the Eden hole I have experienced in person.  


I can't recall any that were better in the U.S.
Although, I think lengthening the hole seems to dictate more docile or benign hole locations.

If you lengthen the hole, but cut the cup in the left center of the green, you've defeated the inherent architectural challenge presented by the configuration of the green and the surrounding bunkers.
[/color]


D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2007, 09:17:18 AM »
Could those of you with pictures, drawings or any other means of showing please post them...what does "The Eden" look like?

From the tee...close up of the green...different perspectives of the hole...anything would be very much appreciated because this is a hole I'm interested in learning about but have never been to the original so I don't have a great idea what we're talking about.

Thanks very much.

a decent version that i am sure you have played several times.  Merion east #15

wsmorrison

Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2007, 09:52:33 AM »
While Alex Findlay or HJ Whigham may have said the 15th at Merion East was a version of the Eden hole (along with Professor Moriarty and now Racetrack George).  I never understood that.  Can someone please explain how a flat par 3 and an uphill dogleg par 4 with completely different greens (other than back to front slope) and bunkering are conceptually linked?

Even the original version of the green (Flynn and Wilson redesigned it in October 1923) bore no resemblance at all to the Eden green.

The 11th at The Old Course



The 15th at Merion East

« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 09:54:50 AM by Wayne Morrison »

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2007, 10:08:42 AM »
The essence of the Eden hole is as follows:

1.  NASTY bunker front right-center (visualize the DA)
2.  pretty good opening left-center
3.  nasty bunker on the left flank
4.  strong back-to-front tilt to the green along with a bit of left-to-right tilt

lets add TD then to your list of #15 edenisters (see quote above". or we could just agree that merion 15 has many characteristics of the eden hole.

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2007, 10:10:04 AM »
especially at the green

wsmorrison

Re:TD, why aren't there more good Edens?
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2007, 10:52:03 AM »
No, I disagree and would be flabbergasted if Tom Doak attempted to state that the 15th at Merion East has an Eden concept green forgetting that the overall approach shot has nothing at all in common.  Frankly, George Bahto and other Macdonald/Raynorphiles like to compartmentalize holes into trite templates or combination of template pieces fit together in some awkward manifestation.  Whether to look for Macdonald's influence or that's how they see golf architecture, I cannot say.  I just think it gets to border on the ridiculous.

1) The second shot at Merion East is an uphill approach, generally much shorter than the approach to the flat 11th hole at TOC.

2) There is no bunker, nasty or otherwise, front right center at Merion that corresponds to the Strath bunker.  The right greenside bunker might appear to be a bunker that pinches in the right side of the green (only from the right side of the fairway and to a back right pin) but it really is a diagonal bunker along the right side of the green.  Given that the preferred approach angle is from the left side of the fairway, the bunker only comes into play with a back right pin, a very dangerous shot to take in competition--better to hit the center of the green.  

3) OK, there's a nasty bunker on the left flank.  Thousands of greens have back to front slopes with left bunkers (as do most at Winged Foot West).  Are they all Eden greens?  It is funny how people like to classify things in ways that take away all meaning to the original definitions.

4) Many classic era courses have back to front tilts, especially on long approach shots.  This characteristic is not confined by any means to Eden greens.  The overall side slope of the 15th green at Merion is not left to right, only along the left side of the green.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back