Another new hole for discussion and debate

[Bryan Izatt]

This is a par 4 that is 435 yards from the tips.  There is no real prevailing wind direction, although it rarely comes from left to right.  First an aerial view to give a layout of the hole.



All distances are from the tips.  It's 195 yards to the specimin tree near the pond.  The grove of trees that encroaches on the fairway to the left is about 300 yards from the tee.  The fairway is 60 yards wide at the end of the waste area and pinches to 40 yards where the grove of trees encroaches.  There is some movement in the fairway and there is often an uneven lie for the second shot.  The fairway slopes a bit to the pond on the right and a bit to the left around the grove of trees on the left.  The green is severely tilted back left to front right and is elevated maybe 40 feet above the fairway.

The back tees are elevated and the more forward tees are progresively lower.  The specimin tree is easily carried from the tips, but becomes increasingly distracting as you go forward on the tees - both because it's higher and because it's closer.

The best landing zone for the drive is as far right as possible without being in the pond.  This leaves an uphill second up the very narrow neck of fairway, but the green surface is at least partially visible.

The further left you go the more you have to fly the second shot blind uphill over a steep rough hill.  Too far left and in the waste area leaves a really difficult second shot.  The grove of trees left is reachable from the appropriate tees and can block out the second shot. Note how the tee decks lead you to the left side away from the water, but to a less desireable angle.  At 60 yards wide the fairway allows plenty of options on selecting the angle of play.

Notwithstanding the bunker at the end of the pond (which is really out of play for all but the worst players) and the waste area left (flanking the very wide fairway), this is essentially a bunkerless hole.

Here are some ground level pictures of the hole. 










I think this is a great hole.  Feel free to wade in and critique.  No need to have played it.

[Sean_A]

I like the green site and how the hole slides gently right, but the green serves to straighten the hole a bit.  I don't understand the bunker after the water nor the tree.  Perhaps one or the other could be in, not both - its an unnesessary complication in the hole which already has a fair amount of complexity.  Unless the waste area is free to maintain I would get rid of it - its another piece to a puzzle which is unnecessary and worse, its ugly.  This looks to be a good hole which has been visually over-complicated.

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

An attractive looking hole thanks to the different landscape characteristics.
In autumn when the rough grasses are yellow and the trees change colour it must look spectacular.

From the tee it appears to be a no-brainer, aim for the middle of the fairway rather than flirt with the lake side and get as far up as you can, so you can go for the bowl where the green is.

The tree doesn’t appear to come into play for the good player just makes life more difficult for the weaker player.

How about a deep bunker at 260 yards out in the middle of the fairway which you say is very generous 60 yards wide, so there is plenty of room for one say 5m wide! This would challenge longer players to make decisions without effecting the weaker players.

I’m pretty sure the players prefer the waste sand to the left of the fairway more than long grass or trees - it also gives an interesting test of skill - long shot from sand to the fairway.

The neck of fairway going up the hill to the green demands some hard decision making if you can’t hit the green with the second shot, as a run-in shot looks very narrow and difficult from 200 yards out. Probably a lay-up to the bottom of the hill is the best option for the not-so-long player.

Did the ball on the photo reach the green in 2?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Think id axe the 'specimen tree'.

[Kevin Pallier]

Without knowing the rest of the layout - in which to view the context of the hole - I'd consider:

1. Chainsawing the lone tree (encourage the "open" drive)
2. Get rid of the "waste area" to the left and possibly condense it to a couple of bunkers to "visually" push the drive  to the right
3. Trim back the treelines to the left and right of the approach (open the target up) and possibly put a bunker down the left hand side to capture weak shots into the green and save lost balls)
3. Shave the grass around the greens - make it more of a true bowl

[David_Elvins]

Bryan,

Nice thread.

What's the contouring of the green like?  What sort of recovery shots are you normally faced with if you miss the green? 

[JMorgan]

Brian, do you have any pictures from the left or right side of the green?  To me, this example nicely demonstrates the gap between the perspective distance you "see" from the tee and the actual distance shown in plan view.Unfortunately the tree dictates much of the strategy.  (They should have spent the extra 8-10k and replaced it with a mature specimen with a more aesthetically pleasing and "play-friendly" morphology, if it's so important.)  Ideally, JB Holmes-powered high fade, at 65 degrees along right side of the "canopy" of the tree, pitch to upper left of green rolling back to hole (assuming that cant of the green).

[Joe Hancock]

Brian,

I'll take the hit as being a nit-picker from a shaping point of view:

The mound directly behind the green is too symmetrical in my eyes. The slopes on each side of that mound are nearly identical, causing it to appear man made. Of course, a comment like that can make me look foolish if it is completely natural, but I doubt it. From the aerial you can see a cart path directly behind that mound, so I would bet money it was an add on to hide the path.

Also, the hillside just short and right of the green is a flat plane, almost like you'd find where they do a cut while building a road through a hill. 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to put a foot in my mouth!

 

Joe

[Ian Andrew]

I'm going to add to the discusion by asking you -  where was the earthmoving.

Give your opinion on Cuts and Fills - and how much if you care to be bold with your opinions.

At a logical point - I'll provide a profile of the original concept and the site decisions

[Dan Boerger]

Cut the tree down this morning. It make no sense to me. I really like the visual narrowing and the similar but different hazards. Is the green relatively receptive or does is slope back to front severely?

[Kirk Gill]

As an unofficial "weak player" representative, I have to say that the presence of the tree wouldn't bother me. Aim left and let my "natural fade" do its work. I think an arborist or the like needs to work on that tree a bit, as it's not the most attractive "specimen."

My ignorant opinion is that the left side of that green had to be built up a bit, and perhaps even the ridge in the left center of the fairway. What do I know?

An attractive hole that would be fun to play a number of times, just to try out various modes of attack.

[Tom_Doak]

The tree is TERRIBLE, because it pretty much takes the water out of play.  Cut it down -- or move the tees way into the woods on the right, but that would be a forced carry.

Ian:  I'll take a shot at your question after others have tried ... I think I can see some stuff but I don't want to give it away.

[John Kirk]

I agree, Bryan.  Nice looking golf hole.

I have two problems with the "specimen" tree.  It's not a particularly good looking tree.  Also, it blocks the bold line off the tee, which gives the best angle to the left and center pin positions.

I suppose that high drives clear the tree.  Does that tree have mistletoe, or ivy, or some other parasitic plant around the trunk?  It does not look very healthy.  See how the right half is rather sparsely foliated? 

[Britt Rife]

How about a deep bunker at 260 yards out in the middle of the fairway which you say is very generous 60 yards wide, so there is plenty of room for one say 5m wide! This would challenge longer players to make decisions without effecting the weaker players.

That is an interesting idea, but remember that this weaker player would be playing from the tees which appear to be about 30 yards in front of the tips.  That would put the bunker squarely in my landing or target zone at 230. 

So it would cause some headaches for those of us who stink.  Nevertheless, I would applaud the addition, particularly because from the "white tees"  (the third set back in the picture), there appears not a lot to do other than to hit it to the right of the white stake near the middle of the fairway.  It appears from the tee photo that this would not be overly difficult to accomplish, as the white-senior-ladies tees shift progressively leftward relative to the tree, so a bunker there would certainly add some challenge to this very wide fairway.

Or just leave the hole alone--it looks like fun as it is.

[John Foley]

I agree, lets get rid of the tree.

Secpoond, I hate the pond. Pet peeve. I take it's an irrigation pond. If it's natural then I'm less annoyed by it. I think if it was waste/ unmaintained area, then it would be a more and not penalize the golfer so tremendously.

I like the grren site, but I think that mound behind looks too shaped. Wouldn't a flat horizon there be better?

Love the fairway width from the green looking back. Definetly does not look that wide from the tee.

[Kalen Braley]

As has been said by everyone else...not a big fan of the tree and where its positioned on the hole.

My biggest question here is why the massive waste bunker on the left even exists?  If you drive left, there is already penalty enough trying to hit the green from over there.  Why make it worse by making them play from a bunker.  I also don't like the pond where it is either?  If its thier for irrigation, then I would do a simple swap.

Move the pond to the far left hand side of the fairway and the massive waste bunker to where the pond is.  This way, aiming for the right side of the fairway which appears to be the best angle in will be more tempting because at least you could make a recovery from the bunker.  Move the water to the left side because well, you shouldn't be going over there in first place.  You could even hide it behind some of the scrub bushes.

[Peter Nomm]

I have to throw out a little "playability" curve on the anti-tree discussion.  As a player, if I am standing on the tee needing to hit a shot, I actually find it easier with the tree there than if I imagine it without.  That tree draws a picture of a nice high fade, taking the water out of play, and eliminates a common error I have of not committing to a specific shot.  If the tree is gone, then I have to debate the type of shot to hit off the tee.  As of right now that 150-stake looks like the right side of the fairway and the water is way to the right.  Plus, right of that seems to have more uneven lies than left of the stake.

So then the questions are these:

Did the architect want me to avoid the water?

Or was he intending the golfer to hit a specific shot? (right or wrong)

Could the pond have been "required" evironmentally somehow, but he didn't want it to be as much in play?

Ian, my guess as a "wanna-be" architect is that the dirt from the pond area was pushed over to the fairway, creating both the pond and the raised & undulating fairway.

[Mark Pearce]

My biggest question here is why the massive waste bunker on the left even exists?  If you drive left, there is already penalty enough trying to hit the green from over there.  Why make it worse by making them play from a bunker.  I also don't like the pond where it is either?  If its thier for irrigation, then I would do a simple swap.

Move the pond to the far left hand side of the fairway and the massive waste bunker to where the pond is.  This way, aiming for the right side of the fairway which appears to be the best angle in will be more tempting because at least you could make a recovery from the bunker.  Move the water to the left side because well, you shouldn't be going over there in first place.  You could even hide it behind some of the scrub bushes.

I disagree.  The water hazard means that the ideal line runs the risk of having to take a drop, potentially some way back and a serious danger of taking 6.  The "safe" waste bunker on the left makes a 5 an easier play but even a safe drive in the fairway on the left leaves a tricky 4.  I like that the better line for a 3 or a 4 is also more likely to end in a 6.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

I agree that the removal of the tree causes some confusion or disruption in the thought process. That solidifies my opinion to remove it.

If the pond is necessary, it probably is in the lowest point of what we see, thus making it located "correctly".

Joe

[Jason Topp]

It looks like a fun hole.  The tee shot reminds me of a hole at Bunker Hills in Minneapolis which is one of my favorites on that course.

I'm ambivilant about the tree.  If players can easily fly over it from the back tees, I do not see how it hurts.  The pond is in play for them and for the high handicap slicer it probably adds interest.

I would guess that there is a lot of ball searching in that no-mow area short and left of the green.  If the long grass is playable, I think it is ok.  If it is midwestern farm land, I see it as a significant problem.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I agree with your take if you are looking for a penal golf hole.  Myself, I've always felt holes with a bigger strategic component are funner to play and get me thinking more.

With this current hole, all I see off the tee is the don'ts.  Remove the tree and replace the water with a bunker and it now becomes more strategic and can actually tempt many more golfers to play near the bunker to get the better angle in.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

I agree with your take if you are looking for a penal golf hole.  Myself, I've always felt holes with a bigger strategic component are funner to play and get me thinking more.

With this current hole, all I see off the tee is the don'ts.  Remove the tree and replace the water with a bunker and it now becomes more strategic and can actually tempt many more golfers to play near the bunker to get the better angle in.

Kalen,

I don't think it's a penal hole at all.  In fact, I think it is wonderfully strategic.  The player has the option off the tee of playing safe down the left hand side and leaving a tough second shot or playing a riskier shot down the right to leave a more straightforward second.  Isn't that what strategic design is all about?  There's no forced shot or disproportionate penalty for missing a shot and the more aggressive play carries the greater risk.

[Garland Bayley]

Drain that damn sewer.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I agree with your take if you are looking for a penal golf hole.  Myself, I've always felt holes with a bigger strategic component are funner to play and get me thinking more.

With this current hole, all I see off the tee is the don'ts.  Remove the tree and replace the water with a bunker and it now becomes more strategic and can actually tempt many more golfers to play near the bunker to get the better angle in.

Kalen,

I don't think it's a penal hole at all.  In fact, I think it is wonderfully strategic.  The player has the option off the tee of playing safe down the left hand side and leaving a tough second shot or playing a riskier shot down the right to leave a more straightforward second.  Isn't that what strategic design is all about?  There's no forced shot or disproportionate penalty for missing a shot and the more aggressive play carries the greater risk.

Mark,

I think having the water right would work better if there was a lot more to be gained by fllirting with it.  As you mentioned, you bring 6 into the equation by going that route.  Is it worth all that risk to only get a better angle to the green?  I think most would say its not worth assuming that much risk for so little reward.

Now if flirting with a water hazard means you have a chance at getting home in 2 on a par 5, or driving a par 4 green, then the reward of an eagle would probably be worth such a risk.  But given its an elevated green where you can't miss left, right, or long, playing to the right doesn't even give one a better chance for biride, much less anything better.

I wouldn't call a hole strategic when even going for the riskiest route means you only have a slightly improved chance at par.

[Phil McDade]

Bryan:

Nice thread. Speaking from the high-handicap caucus:

-- I don't mind the tree; it helps in some ways frame the shot, and for my limited game that's a plus. Speaking as someone who disdains narrow, tree-lined corridor golf but finds myself oddly attracted to lone trees in the line of play.

-- I like the fairway width left of the pond (I hate hate water hazards, esp. those parallel to the line of play) and how it makes the approach shot more difficult.

-- I like the apparent range of options for how to play the hole for both players like me and the near-scratch folks. I don't think the bunker right would ever enter my thoughts on the tee, but it surely would for the better player looking for position.

-- Interesting use of tee pad misalignment (watch the Golf Channel today for more of this at Pebble).

Bryan -- what is the fairway width 50-75 yards short of the green? I can see myself playing from something like the 385 tees with a safe tee shot left of center in the fairway, followed by an approach into the "neck" of the hole (past the waste bunker on the right, short of the uprise, essentially the second-to-last picture posted in your series). How wide is that? It looks perhaps more prudent than a long-iron/fairway wood uphill into a tough green with penal surrounds.