[Joel_Stewart]

I played a new course the other day with a short par 4 that in the end didn't have any reward for trying to drive it close to the green.  Sure if you hit the green it would be an eagle putt but should short par 4's leave you an option (could be a very small one) of driving the ball to a certain spot leaving you an option to chip it close?



From the tee it was somewhat confusing because of the mounding and bunkers but once I got to the green it was clear that the only option 98% of golfers have is to lay it up.  From my tee it was 299 yards. FYI: The small landing area to the right of the picture is non existant.

[Adam Clayman]

Joel, The size of that central complex is too large. If it were smaller, it would then accomplish what I assume you mean by risk/reward.

[John Moore II]

I would say that its simply a short par 4 that is heavily guarded. But I don't think there is any way of getting a ball on the green from the tee. No run-up and a ball that hits on the green is over. Not the finest hole.
BTW-Is that hole from Savannah Harbor?

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel, The size of that central complex is too large. If it were smaller, it would then accomplish what I assume you mean by risk/reward.

Actually its not the central complex that is the problem (that's easy to carry), it's the 2 centerline bunkers which in the diagram are not to scale.

The course is in California, the 8th at Yocha-De-He which is part of the Cache Creek casino.

[Mike Benham]

Looks similar to the third at Rustic Canyon, except for the points noted by Joel.  I would assume that Rustic's is much more playable and fun.

[Wayne_Freedman]

I will weigh in, having joined Joel in that round.

If, from the gold tees at 299, a player can carry a precise, cutting drive 245 yards, he might get a clear look at the hole.  Most mortals are not capable of consistently hitting such a shot,  leaving no safe line short of laying back to hit a full wedge. On this day, they cut it back left, See that little nook in there? It's blind from anywhere else short of the upper fairway, which is essentially for show.

I thought it was a pretty hole to look at, but flawed.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd have to guess that the graphic depiction of that hole is probably very distorted from what the real distances and widths are.  As seen, it looks to me like the right side long waste or bunker area is fine if the carry of all of it to that LZ is around 190-210. leaving 100 or so to the green center.  But, the big right side bunker at the green seems unnecessary if you are promoting risk reward for one to try and carry enough to bound onto the green, or one who has the distance to fly there, albeit a bit errant to the right.  The back left bunker at the green should be more offset to the left also not to penalize the player that took the risk of going at the green, over the center complex of fronting bunkers.  It seems to me that the carry over the center complex would have to be in the 250-260 range with some foregreen roll up.  Why the strip of FW on the left of the center complex is depicted so narrow is a puzzle to me.  There has to be more width there than that, IMHO.  Othewise, why not hit two 7 or 6 irons, dink dink? 

[Wayne_Freedman]

It's just a squeezed-in, long forced carry taken to the extreme.

There were other notably good holes on this course, however.

The par 3, 130/150/168/191 yard, 8th, is an interesting modified Redan.

My playing partners enjoyed that split fairway, 347/379/399/416 yard, right-turning 14th.
I didn't like it, originally, because the aiming marker is deceptive. If you target it,
you have gone too far. But, I like the strategy of playing close to the fairway, and how
doing so opens your look to the green.

And the 286/366/405/433 yard, par 4, 15th makes sense when you see it.
Two parallel fairways, split by a creek, into a wide green with right and left hole positions.

The 17th was a disappointment, unless you want to begin gambling before reaching the casino.
It's a par 5, 440/478/513/565. Water on the right. Green surrounded by water front, right, and back.
It's reachable in two, but not worth the risk, imho. A decent player can make par of birdie with a drive followed by two wedges.

[Bill_McBride]

It's just a squeezed-in, long forced carry taken to the extreme.

There were other notably good holes on this course, however.

The par 3, 130/150/168/191 yard, 8th, is an interesting modified Redan.

Wayne, what is a "modified Redan?"  Please describe, does sound interesting.

[Lloyd_Cole]

If the greenside bunker on the right isn't to severe I'd fancy a blast with a draw aimed at it. If I hit it weak (likely) I'm still in the fairway and if I don't draw it I'm in the bunker. If I was playing well I'd give it a go.

[Jason Connor]

Maybe I missed something.  To me it still is risk-reward.

A short, drivable par-4 needn't have a safe place close to the green -- where is the fun there?

I think it can be risk driving the green and get rewarded. Try and fail to drive the green and get punished.

The "safe" play is play short of the trouble and have an easy 100-yards in for par, maybe birdie.

[Joel_Stewart]

Here is a picture of the hole that Wayne took.   He stood on top of the golf cart to take this picture so its slightly higher than normal.



The slivers of fairway are no more than walking paths when you get up by the green. It suckered me into playing towards the right side of the green but I pulled it into the bunker.  It really doesn't make sense to hit driver unless you're Bubba Watson and can carry it to the green.

Maybe its well designed???  If you look at the 10th at Riveria, there is no place to miss if you hit driver there as well. 

[Wayne_Freedman]

Bill,

It's not fortified in the classic sense. There is a bunker in front, but not an elevation.
But, if you hit a draw to a left hole, your ball should run to the hole.

Joel will post a clip as soon as I send it to him.

[JohnV]

Does this hole remind anyone of Cuscowilla's 5th hole?  That might have more room over the bunker and more room to the sides, but it certainly looks similar from the graphic.

[Joel_Stewart]

It's just a squeezed-in, long forced carry taken to the extreme.

There were other notably good holes on this course, however.

The par 3, 130/150/168/191 yard, 8th, is an interesting modified Redan.

Wayne, what is a "modified Redan?"  Please describe, does sound interesting.

Bill:   Its modified to fit the modern game and resort crowd.  97% of the people have no idea about it being a redan much less a modified redan.   The back right doesn't nearly have the slope, and basically the entire green is not a severly sloped say as the 7th at Shinny or the 2nd at Somerset Hills.   A good chip from almost any part of the rough could possibly get up and down.  Furthermore the bunker on the front left is not as severe.  Regardless its a good hole and really the start of the golf course.  I'll try and post a photo later this week.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't remember for sure, but does 17 at Oakmont give any option other than lay up or hit the green?  i.e. is this hole any different in that respect from one of the acknowledged masterpieces of short par 4s? 

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with Lloyd.  I don't really see a good strategy here so I'd just aim at that right side bunker and try to draw it a bit, and not get too worried if it doesn't come off and I end up in the bunker or in the rough somewhere around it, and that far centerline bunker in front of the green probably isn't a terrible spot either.  Depending on the severity of the bunker(s) and the rough, and the pin position, maybe that's not a great birdie strategy but it ought to be a very solid par strategy.  I'd much rather play my second from a few yards away rather than 100+ in pretty much every circumstance.

Perhaps the point of the hole isn't to give one a true risk/reward so much as it is to frustrate the hell out of golfers who assume a 299 yard par 4 ought to always present a birdie opportunity?

[Doug Siebert]

Jim,

Good point and apt comparison with Oakmont's 17th.  I remember arguing that from what I could see of Oakmont's 17th during the US Open last year that laying up looked like a pretty stupid idea to me.  The success of that layup was far from guaranteed even for the world's top pros, so I'd just gun it at the green and figure my chances of making par laying one from some random place around the green was on average going to be better than if I laid up, and my chances at making birdie after driving at the green were probably higher too, though luck would have a lot to say about it depending on where I happened to end up.

At least the example hole from this thread does have a guaranteed layup that just about anyone should be able to successfully execute, so its one up on Oakmont's 17th in that regard!

[Wayne_Freedman]

Doug,

If you draw it, you'll get a running shot, and may not have room in which to stop it.
Pull it, and you're likely to be hitting from one sand bunker and over the other.
That center bunker is the last place you will want to be, as members of our group will testify.

For the record, I misread the hole from the teeing ground, cutting  what seemed to be a perfect 3-metal, almost right  of the last center bunker.  My reward was a blind, open-faced-punch-lob-prayer across that sand to the back left hole position. Next time, for such a hole position, it might make more sense to lay back with a long iron or a hybrid,  and go in with a full club.  This is not a hole to trifle with.

Maybe that was the architect's intended design.

If the hole had been cut right, my strategy would have worked. Penalty for dyslexia.

In golf, faulty navigation negates positive execution.

I agree with Lloyd.  I don't really see a good strategy here so I'd just aim at that right side bunker and try to draw it a bit, and not get too worried if it doesn't come off and I end up in the bunker or in the rough somewhere around it, and that far centerline bunker in front of the green probably isn't a terrible spot either.  Depending on the severity of the bunker(s) and the rough, and the pin position, maybe that's not a great birdie strategy but it ought to be a very solid par strategy.  I'd much rather play my second from a few yards away rather than 100+ in pretty much every circumstance.

Perhaps the point of the hole isn't to give one a true risk/reward so much as it is to frustrate the hell out of golfers who assume a 299 yard par 4 ought to always present a birdie opportunity?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()