What do you think of this par 3?

[CJ Carder]

I was going through some of my pictures tonight longing for the break of spring and consistent warm weather when I stumbled across this gem from a round that I played back in October. 

I'll state for the record that this might be the most Mickey Mouse par 3 I've ever seen.  Nevertheless, I wanted to get everyone else's opinion on it.  I don't know if there's a style or buzz word to describe it, but I'd never seen anything like it.

Just for general purposes, it's the 14th hole on a new course nearby and plays as a par 3, approximately 180 yards (to the center). 

Look closely and you can see the top 1/3 of the flagstick...


And now a view from closer to the green, standing on top of the bunker on the right...


View from behind right (in the 2 o'clock position when viewed from the tee)...


View from behind left (in the 10 o'clock position when viewed from the tee)...

[Joe Perches]

It's kind of an  odd hole, but I don't mind it.  I think it rather pretty actually.

Clearly you shouldn't carry it to a back pin and be just a tad short.
You'll get kicked toward the pond.

I wonder if the approach was once from the opposite side.
It might have been a better hole as a par 3/4/5 with the carry over the pond.

[Mike McGuire]

A nightmare.

Is that a red stake next to the yellow over the green? If so could be a tough judgement call.

Regardless if you are playing the hole for the first time and go a little long....you could hit what you thought was a good shot and end up going back to the tee or dropping across the pond a long way away.

[Rich Goodale]

That is one COOL golf hole, which teeters lusciously on the sharp edge between quirk and unplayability.

The key is how it is maintained.  If truly fast and firm from tee to green to pond it is a crap shoot, but if there is some softness/slowness both before and after the green, it can offer some great choices in terms of both daily set-up and golfer strategy.

I want to know more!

[Norbert P]

 I like anything that suggests the ground approach. This hole would definitely get into the psyche.

[David Neveux]

Mr. Carter

Interesting Looking hole.  Can you share some information as to playability of this green?  Would a shot that lands short and catches the slope catch the back of the green or will it release into the pond?  Same goes for a putt from above the slope?  Is it possible to fly it to the rear, lower shelf and hold it from 185 - 190 ish?  Would it be a better hole if it played from a yardage like 140-150 offering a choice of a maybe a wedge or 9 iron that would allow the player to carry the slope? 

I also anxiously await the winter thaw.  Up here in Michigan we are experiencing a winter storm / blizzard right now and yesterday it was 57 with rain which melted nearly all the snow. 

P.S.  Will you be revealing the site of this hole?  For now maybe you could just let us know what    part of the country?   

D.P.N

[Sean_A]

I like the general concept of the hole (Redan-like elements), but I don't think this one is carried out very well. 

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Even on a members course, I am just not a fan of blind water. Take away the water and then I might like it. It reminds me of a hole at Stone Harbor GC..........which is not a great thing.

[CJ Carder]

Some of you have asked for more info on the hole, so here you go...

The course is the new Yorktown Course at Williamsburg National here in Williamsburg, VA.  It's a brand new course, just opened last September, and is a Tom Clark design that accompanies the Nicklaus designed Jamestown Course at the same site.  The entire course has a bit of quirk to it but this hole definitely stands out amongst the group.

As for how it plays, in my group of 4, I was the only one that stayed dry on the tee shot and I think that's only because I pushed my tee shot right and it got caught up in some of the rough beyond the bunker.  Even still, I was down in the collection area to the right of the flag (if you look closely at picture 2, you can see my ball).  While the green is of decent size, anything at or left of the grove of trees in picture 1 turned out to be wet since the green actually angles left to right away from the player. 

For short game shots, I did not try hitting any chips or pitches from the front of the green, nor did anyone try and run anything up onto the front of the green.  I did, however, drop two or three balls at the top of the slope and try to putt them down the slope and even the slightest tap of the putter couldn't keep the ball within 10 feet of the hole.

From 185-190, it's a nightmare hole, particularly if you've never played it before.  I think you could make an argument that it could be an interesting hole where players hit 9-iron or wedge, but I can't see much else holding the green (and it'd have to be perfectly placed with zero margin of error).

It's interesting that the hole backs up to a lake... if you look at picture #2, you can distinctly see another green in the background - that's the 17th hole, also a par 3 with a bit of a biarritz green.  If I was the architect / owner / operator, I would seriously consider reversing the routing a bit and setup 2 par 3's that criss-cross the lake.  You'd have to do some work as it would mess with the routing of 15 (par 4 to the right of the par 3 going back away from the lake) and 16 (a par 5 that returns to a peninsula green on the lake.  This would still allow for maximum usage of the lake and make 14 a better hole.  As it is, you're left thinking about 14 for the rest of the round and your perception of the remaining holes is jaded as a result.

[Sam Morrow]

There is only so much I can see from the pictures but at first glance it's not a bad looking hole, normally I wouldn't like the water behind the green there but it appears that you have plenty of room to run the ball into the green. I just wonder if the back of that green is so severe that you can easily putt into the water, though it does appear that the green flattens out some at the back.

[TEPaul]

Obviously they covered a very large area but it looks to me like they did one massive amount of bull-dozering in most everything you can see in those photos.

[Kalen Braley]

I really like the green, has lots of quirk.  But as a par 3 with a long iron approach, I don't know how well this works with the green running away from you into the water.  Perhaps if they rotated the green 90 degrees to the left, then you would have the high shelf on the right with the low shelf on the left and it may be more playable.

[Steve_Lovett]

Forgive the elementary rules question, but......

If you hit over the green and trickle into the water, what are the options for a drop?

[Jerry Kluger]

The question to me is what is a good shot when the pin is back.  Obviously, with a front pin the hole is not nearly as intimidating.  However, the bunker on the right, which appears to be short of the green surface, means you will fly it for a back pin and possibly bounce off the hill and down the green and into the water.  The back pin requires a shot which is too precise, and this is for top players as well.  It almost becomes an automatic play to the front of the green and a putt down the hill.  To me attempting to fly it to the back pin is too risky, especially with the yellow stakes.  A bit short of the level area in the back hits the downslope and is in the water, and naturally, a bit long and the same result. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think it looks a bit of a mess, some of the features seem overdone, I would be suprised if this was the work of a reputable architect.

[JohnH]

I don't care for it.  I'm all for variation, but this is borderline.  I don't see how this favors a ground game at all, as it seems to me that it would be next to impossible to judge with any consistency at all.  An aerial shot must be precise with the rear pin position, and even at that the rear slope that caught the blooper would sling shot the ball further back.  I guess it's OK for the precise golfer, which includes maybe 5% of the golfing public....

[Carl Rogers]

If you believe in 'fairness' as a 190 to 200 yard hole it is not a fair hole.  If it is 130 yards from a more elevated tee, it (for me) becomes fun and sporting.

[Mark Pearce]

I liked it initially.  My concern is that a decent shot landing just short and running just to the top of the change of level might run through and into the water.  So long as the rough at the back of the green is maintained so that a shot just running through the back of the green won't get wet but one racing through the back will, I think it's quirky and fun.  I also disagree with those who think it's better if it's a short par 3.  Surely this is a hole that cries out for reasonably firm and fast conditions making the golfer land a mid-iron short and let it run out to a back pin position?

In some ways it reminds me of the 10th at Elie, which is a short (very driveable) 300 yard blind par 4 over a hill.  The green slopes steeply away towards the sea.  At Elie the rough behind the green means that all but the most over-hit shot (there are days when a 3 wood is plenty of club, even for me) will hold up through the back of the green.  You might get a crappy lie but will in all likelihood have a chip and putt for birdie.  On this hole I'd like the rough a little shorter than at Elie as the approach is played with a shorter club and is less blind but a slightly overhit shot with that slope on the green shouldn't get wet.

[tlavin]

I saw the water on the second photo, but I still can't see the clown's face behind the swale in the green.

[Sean_A]

I like the green and short grass surrounding the green.  Both these features send signals to the golfer that the option of a bump in is there. 

However, I agree with Adrian, visually this hole is a mess.  It doesn't look as if the bunkering fits the design of the green in any way.  The left bunkers saves shots from the water and the right bunker reduces the option for a run in shot.  Additionally, I think an opportunity was lost in making the two greens appear as if they were one.  A bit more landscaping (there appears to be a load anyway) could have acheived this.  As it is, the two greens look strange to appear that close together without also appearing to be connected. 

I also have an issue with the limited space between the back of the green and the water.  I wouldn't want to see the rough grown, so the green needs to be pushed forward 10 yards. 

Finally, the green looks to be a decent size, but there is little interest to the front hole location.  If the three bunkers were scrapped and one well placed bunker were put in to create an interesting shot to the front of the green - which additionally creates a choice for the back hole location as to fly the bunker or run wide right, then I believe the hole would present more variation on a day to day basis depending on weather and ground conditions. 

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

Fill in the pond. Then I'd like it, and view it as an enjoyable and challenging hole.

[Andrew Mitchell]

I like the green but not the concept of a blind water hazard

[Mike Hendren]

Like it.

I'm fond of low rear tiers and delight in watching a ball disappear on the green.  Also looks like the back curls up a tad to break an overzealous lag put and make the second putt very difficult to read.  Wouldn't want the bank shaved down, however.

I'm also fond of sucker pins, and this one appears to be world class.

Might want to see that front right bunker moved left so that it could be carried to kick a ball down to the back left pin for those foolish enough to try.

Mike

[Norbert P]

 Michael, I like your input here. If I don't like a feature in a design then I try to come up with something better.  Put my own idea "on the line", if you will. If I say I don't like it, then I'd better have an alternative or I'm not really helping. 
  What would we do differently?

I am a big (HUUUuuuGE) fan of level-to or higher-than approaches to greens. But to me the upper tier looks difficult to hold, even if running on. If most balls go into the water, the hole would probably hold up play; especially if the pin is up.  So, it may be considered to lower the approach and upper tier, shorten the upper tier, gouge out the green but leaving the sides similar (with blending) to where they are.  * 

 *Disclaimer: I haven't been there, haven't spent much time on this, don't know its target clientele, don't know the bedrock structure, don't know the drainage issues, and I am not a golf architect. I only play one on my computer and my graph paper.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Are you sure this isn't a case of the bulldozer guy reading the plans upside down?