Kingston Heath 17th Hole

[Andrew Bertram]

I spent a very enoyable day today at Kingston playing in the PGA Foursomes.

A senior Pro who has played all over the world that I was paired with was scathing in his criticism of the 17th with it's blind second shot.

The hole is approx 440 yards.

I have always enjoyed the hole and feel that the size of the green combined with the contours running down to the green on the second shot make the concept of having the second shot blind apppropriate.
The tee shot landing area is quite generous with bunkering up the left and the second is played iwth a long iron.

I am interested in the thoughts of those who have played this hole as the strength of his criticism did stun me somewhat.

 

I am interested 

[Matthew Mollica]

Hi Andrew,

Glad you enjoyed a day at Kingston Heath - a wonderful course.

The 17th hole certainly polarises opinion. I for one like it. Often times, the hole plays quite short.
Big southerly winds can see people take 8iron or less into the green.

I seem to recall that Ben Crenshaw thinks of it's second shot as one of the better blind approaches anywhere in the world, yet other golfers who seem to place a premium on "fairness" and all the inverted comma use entails are less enamoured with the hole.

Below is an excerpt of a Kingston Heath course review I penned a while back, and a photo of the 17th green ( taken from the 18th tee, looking bck down the 17th hole ) for those not familiar with the green complex.

Matthew

/\/\/\

The dominant ridge on the property is again encountered on the 17th hole. Rather than influencing the drive, this feature takes centre stage during the approach. With southerly winds at one’s back, the invitation to open the shoulders on the drive is ever present. The entire putting surface is totally blind on approach, lying on the down slope beyond Kingston Heath’s dominant ridge. The top of the extra-long flag is usually all that is visible, especially from the area of fairway on the right of 17, common to it an the 8th hole. Pin position on the 17th is able to be gleaned from time spent on the neighbouring 7th green earlier in the round, a point noted by wily and experienced golfers. The large, relatively circular and bunkerless 17th green is receptive to low running approaches which land short of the apron and trickle forward. One must take care however to weight such approaches correctly, if they seek a putt. Many players face a chip back to the hole from an area slightly through the green on 17 - not too bad a miss. The putting surface looks relatively benign to many, yet features some fiendish hole positions, and some putts of far greater pace than many expect.

The 17th green at Kingston Heath

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew,

A lot of pros don’t like any hole that is blind.

I think the 17th at KH works well for many of the reasons you have stated in your post.

Don’t forget, quite a few pros rate The Australian as a better course than NSW. ‘Nuff said!

[Bill_McBride]

This hole reminds me of #17 at Alwoodley, which is a lot of fun to play.

[Tyler Kearns]

Andrew,

While not my favourite hole at Kingston Heath, the 17th is a good golf hole. The surrounding contours are subtle and if memory serves me correctly, help feed the ball towards the green surface. The green has no bunkers, so no complaint could be made about ending up in a blind hazard. I've only played the course once, is there a distinct advantage to approaching the green from near the left side fairway bunkers? I know a few were added there to encourage playing to the right, protecting neighbouring property owners, but I assume they represent a strategic element, for example, more of the flag can be seen, and/or the approach plays over gentler contours in front of the green.

TK

[Chris Kane]

I quite like it, but wouldn't consider it to be a very good or great hole.  Its a way to get from the 16th green to 18th tee without being overly offensive.

The green is a lot more complex than it appears at first glance - I remember Rich Macafee saying somewhere that it took him about ten years to figure out how to hit his approach shots properly. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

Sorry I missed you yesterday. The course was pretty good given they had seven dead greens a month ago.

To be 'scathing' of the 17th is a typically ignorant criticism by a golf pro  - and I want to make sure that as one of maybe two 'senior golf pros who have played all over the world' that it wasn't me who made the criticism!!
 For me It fails to understand the original design options and shows no understanding of why Dan Soutar did what he did.
The could have build a short drive and pitch hole or stretched it out and made it a longer hole (remember it was a par five) with a blind second followed by a pitch - much like the 14th is now.
That would have shortened 18 by quite a bit.
They could also have made 18 a five is 17 had been a drive and pitch hole.
I think it is a really fun hole to play - you are never quite sure of the result of the long second but you have to flight the ball properly.
Its no use hitting a high shot and landing short or a running shot and carrying it too far.
The back nine is not that long but you know that you are really going to have to hit on the last four holes and in a tournament knowing those holes are coming is always a concern.
I think 17 is a really important part of the finish - and I think it is also a pretty good hole.

Yarra Yarra's finish in contrast is the exact opposite - and that is not a criticism because 16 and 18 are terrific two-shotters.
You always know there is a real chance to make up for mistakes over the last 3 holes and that is a real comfort - as opposed to a concern - and despite what they say pros don't think of one shot at a time. If there are tough holes coming - or easy holes - they know.
Imagine the perception of how difficult Yarra Yarra would be if one or other - or both - 16 and 18 were renamed par fours.

[Kevin Pallier]

As far as "blind holes" go it is one of the best I've seen.  

You get to see where the pin is on playing the 7th (so it's not completely hidden) and the fact that it's bunkerless is a plus IMO. One has to hit a pretty wayward approach shot to reach the vegetation and as others have said the green is trickier than it looks at first glance.

I enjoy the walk over the rise to see whether my "guess-work" was right or not.

[James Bennett]

I haven't played the hole (yet), but I enjoyed watching the women tackle the hole during the recent Oz Open (on TV).  I expect a firm approach adds to the challenge.  From what I saw on TV, the wrong flighted approach can either end up pitching and stopping short (leaving a tricky downhill pitch) or it can race away and either roll-off to the side or even through the green.

I can understand how a person playing a one-dimensional game (hit and stick emphasis) would not enjoy the hole.  It certainly is not of the target golf variety.

Bill McBride

I suspect that Kingston Heath's green sits a little more naturally into the terrain than Alwoodley's #17.  I could be wrong though.  They certainly have similar elements.  I have played Alwoodley #17 twice, and have failed dismally at both attempts.  The tee shot was too challenging for me when I was trying to comprehend the difficulty of the approach to the green.  (Memo to self - get tee shot away first, then worry about the second shot.)

James B

[Andrew Bertram]

Thanks all

I agree Mike, the greens have come up extremely well a month after the problems. For the middle of winter the course was pretty good. I also felt last week at RM that with the new water source (The lagoon) and 2 growing seasons that the conditioning should be up to were it could be.

Personally I love the 17th and I have never had any problems with blind second shots allowing that the design is such that allows some room for error as 17 does.
THe contouring allows the approach to be run in and a 4 is a good score.

The senior pro, Mike, was the other senior pro playing who coaches a lot through asia and had wonderful ideas all day on how to improve about 7 of the holes at the Heath.

There is some talk about 18 becoming a par 4 at Yarra amongst some other works being contemplated.



 

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew.

The 18th at Yarra was a par four thirty years ago - they just called it a par five.
It has a perfect green for a long four and 71 or 70 is a much more realistic par for the course.It would not seem so easy then.

[Andrew Bertram]

Mike

it has been discussed at length for Master of the Amateurs the last 2 years. It would not surprise if it happened for next years event as it was a close thing this year.

Andrew

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

Do those against worry about the par changing to 71 or because they think the hole is too long and hard to be a four?

[Paul_Daley]

The 17th at KH is a very fine hole --- one of the highlights of any round at KH. It was a par-5 for many more years than a par-4, so the 'blind' second shot criticism is unfounded. Even as a par-4, the 'blind' element is unfoundered, especially with the adsence of any litigious 'ball-clattering' issues. The bunkering also sets up beautifully for an ex-par-5. The green is enormous, so that should be some compensation for the negative crew.
Another thing: the worst possible golfer can always make a bogey five by playing three ordinary 'cutty' shots. Many top players, though, find the green, then 3-putt from long range. It's an especially interesting hole during matchplay. We need more of these holes, but they can't be imposed on the land; Soutar just read the terrain and, the rest is history.

 

[RichMacafee]

This is a hole that grew on me slowly over the years, and has become a real favourite. Some of the more important factors to consider:

1. You get a 'preview' of the green and the pin position clearly when you play the 7th hole, so while it is a blind approach you know exactly where the pin is located.

2. I really like the way the green lulls good players into just hitting average shots. It's a bit like the easy lay-up on par 5's that are so easy to mess up because you don't get a specific target. There are no bunkers, and a dowslope short of the green, so many players just hit it over the hill and hope. In fact, the shot does require a lot of trajectory control to get the ball close, and it can also be played a few different ways, which is a plus. It's not a hard hole to make a par on, but it is the hardest on the course to make birdie on IMO, which makes it a bit different to most golf holes.

3. As others have mentioned, it was originally a par 5.

4. Long is usually the better miss on this green, but so many people leave their approaches short, so it decieves very well. Long is so often dead on the sandbelt, so a lot of players are conditioned to never going near the back of greens, but it is the smart play on KH 17 and 8/10 times will give you an easier 2-putt or up and down.

Tyler,

The advantage to being up the left comes more from a shorter approach than a distinctly better angle. You can definitely see more of the pin from the left, but IMO the best spot to hit the approach from is the right side of the fairway on the upslope (which means you are driving into the narrower part of the fairway and bringing the right trees into play).

[Paul_Daley]

Well said, Rich

[Shane Gurnett]

Rich, hasn't much fo the critcism of the hole, especially from the professional ranks been due to the turf conditions just short of the green at times? I seem to recall Norman being quite vocal about it during one of the Aussie Opens in the 1990's, accusing the curator of doctoring the turf to soften it up?

I dont mind the hole, but it would be my 18th favourite if I had to choose a pecking order of holes at KH (well, maybe I would put 2 and 4 below it but no others)

Shane

[RichMacafee]

I'm not suggesting it's a great golf hole, but it is quite unique and a lot more strategic than it first appears. I've never ranked the holes personally from most to least liked, but I'd say 17 would be in the middle somewhere.

Norman and Graeme Grant had a bit of a blue at the '95 Open about the approach being soft while the green was rock hard. Norman had a point, but the whole thing was a lot bigger than it needed to be.

Some of the fringes/approaches that were in place with the old Egmont greens were definitely too long and soft. That is no longer the case, with all the approaches being couch again all the way to the green.

Most of the criticism I hear about 17 is that there is no skill required, it is just a 'hit and hope' shot with a lot of luck involved.

I didn't learn to play the hole properly until I stood at the top of the hill for a few hours over 2 different days (different pins) during a tournament and watched all the approaches land and react. I am very rarely surprised when I walk over the hill now, but it did take quite a while to get to that stage.

[James Bennett]

Some of the fringes/approaches that were in place with the old Egmont greens were definitely too long and soft. That is no longer the case, with all the approaches being couch again all the way to the green.

Rich

my understanding is that the 'new' Kingston Heath is a two-grass course - pure couch fairways (and edges of fairway, including the approaches up to perhaps 4 feet from the green.  Closely mown surrounds perhaps 10 yards or so around the green perimeter.  The greens and 4 foot surround in pure A1 bent.  These two grasses can deal with dryish conditions, enabling a lower but consistent watering regime to the greens and approaches.  Now, if the 17th green approach had soft grasses during the summer droughts, then the play would be difficult to judge.  But it doesn't, so it isn't, and it should be as you describe.

Good job KH.

James B

PS the roughs incorporate some pretty tough grasses, including some paramatta grass.  Pretty challenging recoveries from those spots.

[Anthony Butler]

For some reason every time I play KH the wind is either lying down or 10mph from the south. Drive and 7 iron at most. I imagine it is  a totally different proposition when the northerlies are blowing. Add the fact you've been outside in 38 deg weather (that's about 98 for everyone in the US) for 4 hours and you've got a real handful in 17 and 18.

Still I don't think the 17th fits in with the other 17 holes. If one was to change the hole I would soften the slope all the way to the hole and make it more of an RM uphill approach. This would make the approach all carry and lead to some interesting recoveries from short of the putting surface.

Sitting here in Cambridge, MA and just realized I have my Kingston Heath hat on my head.

[Andrew Bertram]

Mike

The concern about losing 72 par is very high on the list for members, it would be an excellent finishing 4.

Andrew

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

I assumed that but it's such an odd concern given more than half of the top 50 courses in the world are not par 72s and for a course as short - and good - as Yarra Yarra 70 or 71 is a much more relevant number in terms of reflecting its difficulty for a scratch player.

[Chris Kane]

Mike, I don't see how par is relevant.  A good player would feel as though they've dropped a shot if they walk off with 5, whether its a par-4 or par-5.

[Mike_Clayton]

Chris,

Par is relevant in the sense it reflects the difficulty,length and nature of the hole.
At Yarra's 18th there is no significant strategic decision or choice to make - 13th Augusta, 14th Lakes - that makes a hole clearly either a two or three shotter.

 For more than 40 years  - I watched Lee Trevino hit a 4 iron second there in 1969 - Yarra's 18th has  been a strong two - shotter and in this age 4 is a more reflective number of the type of hole it is. It is a terrific hole that simply asks for a drive and a long iron - at best.

I agree it's not that big a deal but the architectural problem arises when members/committees think they need to do things to make a hole ' more difficult' in order to retain a number of 5.
Many times those 'things' - usually bunkers and trees -  are added to the detriment of the hole.

I think the trees to the right of the 8th at Victoria, to the left of the 13th at Commonwealth and
the trees that used to be to the right of the 6th at Metropolitan are examples of that - and the first two examples would be even better holes without the trees even though they would be 'easier'

The reality is they are both drives and middle to short irons for scratch players and they have always been the measure of the par of two-shot hole - which is not to say a 550 yard hole should be a par 4 because Geoff Ogilvy hits it with a 5 iron.

[Chris Kane]

Par is relevant in the sense it reflects the difficulty,length and nature of the hole.
At Yarra's 18th there is no significant strategic decision or choice to make - 13th Augusta, 14th Lakes - that makes a hole clearly either a two or three shotter.

I agree it's not that big a deal but the architectural problem arises when members/committees think they need to do things to make a hole ' more difficult' in order to retain a number of 5.

Mike, I don't agree with this at all.

In my view the distinction is often entirely artificial.  In some cases, such as the holes you cited, there are forced carries involved which make five a more reasonable figure.  But there are many cases where the architectural features don't make the ideal par figure obvious.  Has any good play laid up to 12W at Royal when in range?  That doesn't mean it should be a four!

By saying that par "reflects the difficulty,length and nature of the hole", I think we risk succumbing to formula (I'm not suggesting you have succumbed to formula yourself, but its worth thinking about).

Isn't the solution to educate members/committees that there doesn't need to be a clear distinction between par-fours and par-fives, hence making a hole 'more difficult' to retain the number five isn't necessary?