Another new hole for discussion and debate

[Bryan Izatt]

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

The course is one of a three course complex.  The design theme on this one was to be "wasteland" in style.  One of the others is "heathland" in style while the third is "parkland".  This course has many unmaintained waste areas, so in that context the waste area down the left makes sense.  It is actually used as a cart path for most of its length.  In fact, there are no maintained bunkers anywhere on the course, but there are many, many waste areas.  I suppose the course was to be along the lines of Pine Valley in look and play.

I'd agree that the bunker at the end of the pond is a waste, but the design incorporates many waste areas that are primarily aesthetic rather than functional.  Whistling Straits comes to mind.

[Daryn_Soldan]

Ian,

I'll make a guess at the earthwork that was done.

Cut:
The lake and maybe some of the hillside between the lake and tees

Fill:
The fairway in front of the green down to the right fairway bunker and extending back toward the cartpath left of the fairway
Behind and green and at its sides
Tee pads

I would guess that shaping in the fairway may have included some fill as well, probably near the bunker on the left and the rolls along the edge of the lake past the tree. The left edge of the fairway could have just been scraped up from the waste area. My big question is whether the ridge was cut at the green entrance or if its at existing grade with fill added to accentuate the bowl on the sides.

-Daryn

[Bryan Izatt]

To the tree haters, I think the tree adds to the complexity of the hole off the tee.  Sure there are lots of things to think about off this tee, especially for the bogey golfers, and the tree adds one more, but why is that bad?  For the flatbelly's off the tips it is probably irrelevant, but if it gets in their mind just a bit and encourages a shot down the left side to a less favourable angle, that's good.

The architect gave you a very wide fairway to hit to.  How easy do you want the tee shot to be.  For the bogey golfer it provides a direction sign away from the more penal water (and might even knock down a few wayward shots headed for the water). 

And, besides it was there before the golf course was.   

The pond is I'd guess man-made or at least enlarged.  But it is the lowest point and no doubt captures a lot of run-off down the very steep slope to its right.  And, if fairway width is provided, as it is, what's wrong with penal hazards to one side?  Especially on the side of the preferred line.  The bunkers are all hard packed sand so long shot recoveries from them are not so difficult.

[Bryan Izatt]

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.

Kalen,

I think you under-estimate the advantage of being right rather than left.  Too far left and you're potentially blocked by the grove of trees or have a long shot out of the waste area.  In any case the shot from the left is significantly uphill and blind over a sure-death rough hillside.  It's way too easy to come up short from that side and be looking at a six or worse.  From the right side the green is partially visible and there is the 20 yard wide ramp that provides some margin for error.  From the right side you can also sometimes get a friendly kick off the right bank onto the green.  That doesn't happen coming from the left side.

The green surrounds are all very thick and deep rough (probably partly to stabalize the hillsides) so getting up and down from the green surrounds is no bargain.

For long hitters who might be looking at a wedge or short iron in on the second shot, controlling spin would be a significant concern.  It'd be easy to spin the balll back off the green.  It's actually better to be hitting a mid-iron in.  The green is very receptive to such shots, although you do not want to be above the hole.

All-in-all it seems to me to be a fine strategic hole with clear rewards for the right line of play.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I do agree that there are clear rewards for challenging the water on the right.  I've never said there weren't.  My contention is that the reward is not worth the risk.

Agreed 100% that the green surrounds are very nasty, and this also plays into why it seems like coming into the right is not such a big advantage.  You still have to execute that shot well from the right side just to have a look at par, much less birdie.

So all things considered, why risk going in the water and taking a 6 when you can aim away from the water and still have a do-able chance at getting par.  Especially in light of the fact that even if you do go successfully go right you are still basically just looking at par anyways.

Saying having options on the course is one thing....but they mean zero if there isn't something to be gained by using them.  I still maintain its a penal hole as is, even though it does have options.  Its just that your options are make par or make a big number....those aren't exaclty exciting prospects in my book.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Ian,

Thanks for chiming in.  I'd sure love to hear about the original concept and site decisions.

On the cut and fill, I'll take a shot.  I hope it's not as tricky as say #15.

Some cut and fill to create the tee pads.  Some cut to create the waste area and build up the left side of the fairway.  Excavation to create the pond and provide fill to create the level and movement in the fairway.  Now, the green is more difficult, but I'd guess that there was some cut toward the back side to provide fill for the front and left.  Perhaps not as much as people would think.  Some cut and fill grading to create the ramp up the neck to the green.

I hope the original slope of the hill around the green site was not so steep as the hill on eight.  The hill on eight sure looks like it was cleared out to provide a vista.  Surprising that it doesn't wash away more.

Was there  ever consideration given to moving the tees back on #7 by a 100 yards and turning the hole into a par 5.  There is a ridge back there that'd make a neat teeing area, although the forced carry would be daunting.  I always thought that #6 is a weak par 5 because it's too easy to cut the corner and be left with less than 200 to the green.  It'd make a better long par 4.  Of course, #5 is a long 4, so that'd be two in a row.  This routing stuff is hard.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Yes.   

[Norbert P]

 The tree should be removed.

 A bunker placed just short of the 300 yard tree grove would/could sneak up on the greedy driver.

 A bunker on left approach - (now rough) would be more of a playable hazard than what the existing hazard seemingly allows.   It would speed up play and look good, as well.  It may make strategy too obvious, but I rarely see that affecting golfers choices.

Oh yea, a Keiser Tee off behind the pond.

[Ian Andrew]

My wife is working from home today - so I can't post again till this evening. I've enjoyed the comments so far.

I did not design the hole, but I was very involved in getting it built.  Let your comments fly because I rally don't care what people like or dislike about the hole and my former employer doesn't read the GCA.

I will pass on one early comment - the tree was never supposed to stay - typical owner story. I detest the tree and have peed on it, run into it with equipment, run over the roots with volvos and still the thing survived construction. It was even hit by lightening giving it the present shitty appearence in that photo - the fact that its a Black Cherry means this is one tough tree..

I look forward to sharing the information tonight - Tom post around 6:00pm - I think you'll find it interesting when you have Brian's excellent set of images to refer to. Too bad, I had all the construction photos of each stage - but I left them with the former employer.

[henrye]

I've always liked the tree.  I think it's the only one that stands out on the course.  I also think it gets in your head off the tee.  BTW, I've hit safely left, right and through it.  As for the earthmoving, I think you guys just dug a bowl out of the hill to create the green site and pushed the earth down the hill.

[JESII]

What bothers me most is the cluster of trees AND the bunker beyond the pond appearing to be the exact same distance from the tee. For my money, leave the tree and lose the bunker, but keep the right third of the fairway sloped to the right so you have to control the ball if the ground's firm and you want to stay out of the spooge.

[Phil Benedict]

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.

The tree should be taken down because it looks stupid and because it probably serves as an obstable for high handicappers and doesn't bother strong players in the least.

[Andrew Summerell]

I would agree with other & say the tree has to go.

[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

The course is one of a three course complex.  The design theme on this one was to be "wasteland" in style.  One of the others is "heathland" in style while the third is "parkland".  This course has many unmaintained waste areas, so in that context the waste area down the left makes sense.  It is actually used as a cart path for most of its length.  In fact, there are no maintained bunkers anywhere on the course, but there are many, many waste areas.  I suppose the course was to be along the lines of Pine Valley in look and play.

I'd agree that the bunker at the end of the pond is a waste, but the design incorporates many waste areas that are primarily aesthetic rather than functional.  Whistling Straits comes to mind.

Bryan

The waste area may make sense in that it fits the remainder of the course, but the look doesn't do anything for me.  The area in question isn't very waste like and it isn't very bunker like.  It just looks like some sort of gimmick.  Its a shame the archie just didn't let the land speak for itself.   Why the need to over-complicate matters with excessive design?  I say keep it simple and if that can't be done, have a very clear reason why not.  Lets see, we have water, trees, lone tree, raised green with narrow opening and a waste area.  I know, another waste area is just what the hole needs.  I bet the hole would be just as good with only the water and the raised green. 

Ciao

[Tim Pitner]

The waste bunker to the left offends me more than the tree.  It just seems superfluous--it looks like any drive left is going to face a long or bad angle shot anyway.  I don't see the need for the bunker. 

[Ian Andrew]

The hole is the 7th at Osprey Valley (Wastelands) designed by Doug Carrick

Overview

The course is part of a 54 hole facility where three courses were built to a completely different theme. The other two were the Parkland Course and the Heathland Course. The choice for this particular theme was based upon this section of the site being primarily sand and the remainder being sand & gravel. The initial concept was to take inspiration from both Pine Valley and Pinehurst on the use of the waste areas. As Brian and Henry can attest there are other more dramatic uses of waste areas on other holes. Most of the site is pine plantation or pine scrub – so it suited it – although ironically this image shows the one deciduous section where the theme doesn’t hold up as well.

Routing

This hole is a transition hole. It falls between a long series of natural holes starting at #2 and finishing along the small lake at #6 (excellent fishing by the way). The previous holes largely follow the land but this one wasn’t quite as natural, particularly at the green. We needed to get from the lake to the 8th which was 40 feet above on a plateau.

Dirt

The tee is on native grade, just (over) shaped.

The first part of the fairway is on grade and where you see the rise short of the tree indicates the start of the fill. The tee is on grade and so is the bunker bottom. The fill is coming from the pond on the right.

The middle part of the fairway is a small fill throughout although much of the left side is on grade. The pond is not natural and in fact was a massive borrow pit (for straight sand) that was lined to become a pond. The chasm between tee and green on the 8th is also part of the borrow pit. The far end of the bunker remains on grade.

The area between the bunker on the left and the bunker n the right almost gets back to native grade but still has a small bit of fill through that area. The one effect of this is a long drive tends to leak left right towards the copse of trees.

The green was 20 feet higher in the shape of a soft dome, with that back mound being native grade. The green site was cut 15 feet and bowled out which is easiest to tell by looking right when on the green. The cut is clear as day when you look around from the green site. The fairway side of the dome featured a heart racing 40 foot drop straight down to a flat area below.

The Changes on the Fly

The waste bunker on the left was always in the plan, and only slight modifications were made to the far end for effect. The pond is built pretty close to plan on the hole side but is much wider on the right. The “stupid” tree was supposed to come out but it fell victim to the “leave it in and let’s at least have a look” suggestion. I often though Jerry kept the tree to personal piss me off, because he pointed it out on every visit when we were there together and reveled in my displeasure. The green site is on grade but the grades were too tight for the two front left bunkers that were supposed to go in – I think it’s a better hole without them. The approach was widened after that change.

The one thing that I’m confused about is the right fairway bunkers, I’m sure they weren’t in the plan. It’s a nice looking complex but the location is a bit odd – I think they went in after some addition cedar removal – but I’m stretching my memory on this one.

I hope you got something from that.

[Ian Andrew]

The second, a much better hole



An overview of that section of holes, 2 is below, and the 7th is in the distance

[Jay Flemma]

That tree is not only a "bunker in the sky," but the placement makes no sense to me.  If you're going to leave a tree, it should have some sort of strategic impact.  but you're going to want to stay away from the water anyway so now it's become "stay away from the water and the tree."  Look at the airspace it eats up.  You could use all that room in play.

If it's me, I fill in the water, chop down the tree, widen the fair way and stick bunkers in the exact center:)  Calling Kelly Blake Moran!  Calling Kelly Blake Moran!  We have a fairway that needs a center-line bunker:)

That being said, I liked the green site.

[Jay Cox]

What is the point of the left fairway bunker / waste area?  Isn't the penalty of having a terrible approach angle from the left enough to discourage bailing out that far left?  Why not give the cautious player the option of playing well away from the water, given that there is enough land available to build in that kind of width?

[Peter Nomm]

If nobody likes the tree on this hole, what about the trees in the landing area at Pebble?  Water left, OB right, and a tree in the middle.

[Jim Johnson]

Great thread Bryan.

Me...I would axe the tree. I'd eliminate the waste bunker left of the fairway. I'd move the tees back and to the right, further into the trees, giving more of a "chute" effect, but more effectively, presenting a "bite off as much as you can chew" tee shot as a diagonal over the pond. I'd wrap the fairway around to the left of the pond for short hitters so that they could bunt the ball around and up to the green. Take a chance, hit it as long to the right as you dare, and you're left with a shorter run-up shot to an open target. Play chicken on your tee shot, long and to the left, and you're left with a tricky short one over the gunk left of the green.

Just my 2 cents.


JJ