Is this a good golf hole

[Tim Gavrich]

Hmmm..

Bailout area short and left, bunker in front, water in front and to the right, 230 yards.

Is this a good hole?   

Not to mention it is also the second of back-to-back par 3s!

I'm very glad someone agrees with me!  Thank you Kalen.

Is it Fazio-hate that would cause someone to love #16 at CPC and not love #17 at the Keowee Vineyards?  I'm not a enormous Faziophile, but this is a fantastic hole, no matter who designed it.

[J_ Crisham]

David, Hmmm, 230 yds to a well bunkered green that favors a high fade-looks like an easy hole if you are Jack Nicklaus and its 1972 and can hit high soft fades with 2 irons! For the rest of us  catching the bunker would be a good shot. I hope the drop area is next to the green , it must get a lot of action. Jack

[Kevin Pallier]

David,

Granted it's difficult to judge without playing it but it doesn't excite me.

The green looks small from that angle ? and one would be going at it with a long iron or wood ??

Like Andrew Summerall all I would be thinking about is trying to run it in from the left - those trees short left need to be removed for mine.

[DMoriarty]

David, Hmmm, 230 yds to a well bunkered green that favors a high fade-looks like an easy hole if you are Jack Nicklaus and its 1972 and can hit high soft fades with 2 irons! For the rest of us  catching the bunker would be a good shot. I hope the drop area is next to the green , it must get a lot of action. Jack

That is my point.  Golfers should not be happy to hit bunkers, good shot or not.  Going into a bunker is supposed to be a bad thing.   Going in these bunkers is the second best thing that can happen to a shot at that green.  By the way, I'd be laying up, but over trees?

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

You make very good points, and this is one that I would concede on.

But without any bunkering, all you have to do is hit a 200 - 230 yard shot to a target that is fairly large. So without one smallish bunker in the front middle there is nothing to make the hole play differently day in and day out, depending on the hole cup location.

[Andy Troeger]

From what I gather don't most players play the other tee though, the straight on one? The hole appears to be designed from that perspective, which is refreshing if 95% of golfers play from there.

David,
I see what you're saying in terms of the trees, they don't serve much purpose and could go without bothering me a bit (especially those little pine trees on the end). But anyone having to lay up that far left shouldn't be playing that tee. There's room to lay up 15 yards left of the green without going over  the trees from the look of the photo, if someone needs more room than that then move up IMO. I'd still get rid of the ones on the end to open it up, but there seems to be room for anyone playing a 7000+ golf course which I would assume this is from the tips.

[Matt_Cohn]

A few options:

[DMoriarty]

I like the first one the best of those. 

I doubt that 95% of the people play the other tee, but even if they do, I assume the question was is it a good hole from the angle in the picture posted. 

Look, I know that it part is a matter of different tastes, but the hole just kind of looks phony and forced to me.  You can clearly see the fill line and the big dirt bank looks straight off a construction site.  And the brick-a-brack of boulders around the penninsula looks forced and phony to me. 

Why pollute such a beautiful location with a forced looking hole?

Anyway, here is a quick version I did.  I am still not sure I like the hole.   That tiny white spot is a bunker, and I guess it could be a bit bigger, but it is only there to make the layup a bit more interesting and to give those on the other tee a bit to think about, but I am not sure it is necessary.    I tried to naturalize the edges and the flow of the ground a bit.   Also I got rid of the rough.  If they want to play that tee, let them sweat a bit.

[Sean_A]

I like the first one the best of those. 

I doubt that 95% of the people play the other tee, but even if they do, I assume the question was is it a good hole from the angle in the picture posted. 

Look, I know that it part is a matter of different tastes, but the hole just kind of looks phony and forced to me.  You can clearly see the fill line and the big dirt bank looks straight off a construction site.  And the brick-a-brack of boulders around the penninsula looks forced and phony to me. 

Why pollute such a beautiful location with a forced looking hole?

Anyway, here is a quick version I did.  I am still not sure I like the hole.   That tiny white spot is a bunker, and I guess it could be a bit bigger, but it is only there to make the layup a bit more interesting and to give those on the other tee a bit to think about, but I am not sure it is necessary.    I tried to naturalize the edges and the flow of the ground a bit.   Also I got rid of the rough.  If they want to play that tee, let them sweat a bit.

David

This is the sort of look I was thinking of.  Though the bunker is way too small.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Sean, I made the bunker a little bigger above, but I would not want it to glare, and functionally it I would want it small and but pretty nasty.  Golfers laying up would have to think about it, as would golfers playing the other tees.   Very little play out of the bunker would be a sign of its effectiveness. 
______________________________


Matt, above I meant to write that I liked the one with no bunkers best.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
I like the original hole a lot as I said before, but given the intent of your changes I like your hole better. Opening up the vista does appear to improve the playability of the hole not to mention the aesthetics of the hole.

[Kyle Christensen]

I don't see clearing the tree lines to benefit this hole. there is no way a ball that far left will even come close to getting on the green. And with how the hole is setup there is still a ton of room left of the green. Maybe about 5% of the members at the cliffs play the back tee so I think they were going for the wow factor from the back tees and as you can see the hole plays completely different from the forward tees. The bunker in front of the green could be moved but then the hole would play completely different for the players that play from the forward tee. The bunker is there primarily for the forward tees so a slice will not find the water. Just a classic move for a residential community.

And the green is large and sloped backed to front so balls don't often run through the green if you can put any kind of loft on a shot. I Don't see why so many people are hating on this hole, it is a risky par three and if you aren't sure of your game to go at the green there is a ton of room to lay up and always the forward tees for the weaker minds. Also Carnival doesn't run cruise ships through Lake Keowee yet.

[Matt_Cohn]

Now it's links land?

[DMoriarty]

David,
I like the original hole a lot as I said before, but given the intent of your changes I like your hole better. Opening up the vista does appear to improve the playability of the hole not to mention the aesthetics of the hole.

Thanks, although I am still not sure I like it much, but I have a bit of a different perspective on these things.  Would the hole be fun?  Yes.  Would the hole be strategic?  Yes.   But do I like it?  No.   I don't like the continuing chase pf the spectacular, natural constraints be damned.

________________________

I don't see clearing the tree lines to benefit this hole. there is no way a ball that far left will even come close to getting on the green. And with how the hole is setup there is still a ton of room left of the green. Maybe about 5% of the members at the cliffs play the back tee so I think they were going for the wow factor from the back tees and as you can see the hole plays completely different from the forward tees. The bunker in front of the green could be moved but then the hole would play completely different for the players that play from the forward tee. The bunker is there primarily for the forward tees so a slice will not find the water. Just a classic move for a residential community.

And the green is large and sloped backed to front so balls don't often run through the green if you can put any kind of loft on a shot. I Don't see why so many people are hating on this hole, it is a risky par three and if you aren't sure of your game to go at the green there is a ton of room to lay up and always the forward tees for the weaker minds. Also Carnival doesn't run cruise ships through Lake Keowee yet.

The question was about the photo from the back tee.    It is a better hole with a real lay up option, and one should not have to hit over trees to lay up.   Plus, I think the hole is better from the other tees without the trees as well.   It is a much more intimidating and exciting vista without the trees.   

 

I would consider doing away with some of the trees on the other side as well.   

As for the bunker, I don't like it from the other tee for the same reason you like it.  A bunker is not a band-aid.    Get it out of there and the higher handicap golfer would have more options and could try and figure out how to stay dry.

__________________________

Now it's links land?

Is semi-artificial, rocky peninsula in the middle of a lake links land?   Not that I know of.   Are you referring to removing the trees in the line of play and putting some movement into the fairway?   I guess you could call that "links land" but I tend to think of it as golf.

I do agree that, without the trees, my version does not fit in with the landscape.  But neither did the sterile penninsula with the trees.  As I said before, I just don't think this is a good place to build an excessively artificial golf hole. 

So here is my choice:



Find a new greensite and enjoy the natural beauty of the place.
 

[Matt_Cohn]

You bring up a good point: how artificial *is* the peninsula? I have no idea.

DMoriarty,

I made the linksland comment because in your version the ground looks exceptionally rumpled with a lot of tans in it, and the bunker quite rough, even eroded.

[DMoriarty]

You bring up a good point: how artificial *is* the peninsula? I have no idea.

I don't know what was underneath, but doesnt the majority of the peninsula look artificial?  At least those portions right of the natural rock visible in the first photo.  The  brick-a-brack boulders around the entire outside of the peninsula are completely artificial and make no effort to appear otherwise.  The black triangle of soil on the side of the penninsula looks like fill. 

My guess is there was a natural peninsula, and they cut out high parts, filled in low parts, extended it out a bit, filled in and/or flattened out a green area and forced the land into a preordained shape, and it until it no longer resembled a natural peninsula.   Was there a natural peninsula there?  Maybe but if so it is long gone.   

Don't get me wrong, I do know designers and builders move dirt to build golf courses, but I just do not understand the appeal of something so artificial in such an naturally beautiful setting.   

And of course you get the comparisons to Cypress Point 16.  I cannot believe anyone who has ever played or even seen CPC 16 would compare the two.    A large part of the greatness of CPC 16 is the incredibly natural setting and how well the golf hole fits into that natural setting. 

Are there some strategic similarities?  Yes, one can bail out left on both holes or go for the heroic carry.    Judging solely from the photo of this hole,  CPC 16 is much more beautiful, much more interesting, much more strategically complex, and much more intimidating..  At CPC 16 the tee is about same elevation as the green and the lay up area, maybe even a bit lower.  At CPC 16 one cannot hope to lay up just left of the green, or to miss to the safe site, because the peninsula is narrows and ocean awaits both short left and long left.   There is no drop area and no lateral water hazard. A safe layup must be well left and the second shot is no cake walk.   Lay up successfully and most would be happy with a four.  The tee is the tee.

I made the links land comment because in your version the ground looks exceptionally rumpled with a lot of tans in it, and the bunker quite rough, even eroded.

I think my sloppy editing probably accounts for most of what you see.  I didn't spend too much time on my photo.  I was trying to put movement in the fairway, but not a rumpled dunes look.  I did try to make the bunker sand a more natural color, but did not mean to make it look eroded or links like.  I do think in a setting like this bunkers ought to look something like erosion one might find locally.
________________________________


I apologize for getting on my soapbox about a hole that I have not even seen in person, but I just don't see that this type of "golf" design is at all good for golf.   Some years ago I started a thread suggesting that CPC 16 (one of my favorite holes anywhere) may have had a detrimental impact on golf course design, and had I a photo of this hole at the time, I would have posted it as an example.

[Randy Thompson]

Whether a hole is a good hole or not should never be judged from a tee that was designed for five percent of the overall players. A better title would have been, is this a good pro tee location? It is a completly different hole from the other tees and in my opinion yes a good hole. Not much recovery in the back is the only slight flaw I see, the bunkers donīt bother me and seems to be more savior type bunkers to allow the player to recover and not get the excesive water penal. As far as I am concerned if your a pro or low handicapp, hitting a draw into that green from 230 yards isnīt asking too much. Let face it, how much straegy goes into a par three, its art and the hole has art, thank god the owner didnīt insist on another island hole with railroad ties, I bet there was discussion!!!

[tlavin]

Whether a hole is a good hole or not should never be judged from a tee that was designed for five percent of the overall players. A better title would have been, is this a good pro tee location? It is a completly different hole from the other tees and in my opinion yes a good hole. Not much recovery in the back is the only slight flaw I see, the bunkers donīt bother me and seems to be more savior type bunkers to allow the player to recover and not get the excesive water penal. As far as I am concerned if your a pro or low handicapp, hitting a draw into that green from 230 yards isnīt asking too much. Let face it, how much straegy goes into a par three, its art and the hole has art, thank god the owner didnīt insist on another island hole with railroad ties, I bet there was discussion!!!

Ditto.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Is that post #38 photoshop? If so your explanations with those photoshop iterations of yours are pretty savy, in my opinion. You may have some potential for conceptual architecture or conceptual consulting. It would probably be a whole lot more worthwhile for you than historical architectural analysis! 

[Mike Bowline]

[quote
Is semi-artificial, rocky peninsula in the middle of a lake links land?   Not that I know of.   Are you referring to removing the trees in the line of play and putting some movement into the fairway?   I guess you could call that "links land" but I tend to think of it as golf.

I do agree that, without the trees, my version does not fit in with the landscape.  But neither did the sterile penninsula with the trees.  As I said before, I just don't think this is a good place to build an excessively artificial golf hole. 

So here is my choice:
Find a new greensite and enjoy the natural beauty of the place.
 [/quote]

DMoriarty: Excellent points, although the cruise ship shopped-in got a real laugh from my wife and me.

Seriously, the peninsula created out into the lake, and defined with abrupt rock borders, causes me to cringe. I totally agree that a different green site should have been found. Why not even site the green right on the lake edge at the "base" of the peninsula and avoid the artificial peninsula out into the lake?

[Matt_Cohn]

Whether a hole is a good hole or not should never be judged from a tee that was designed for five percent of the overall players.

So a good hole only has to be good for some people and not others?

At what specific percent is the cutoff point where the hole must be good for that group as well, since 5% seems to be not high enough?

I would claim that if the course doesn't want the hole judged from this tee, they shouldn't have built it and definitely shouldn't feature it in all of their promotional material!

[Matt_Cohn]

The landform top-right seems to suggest that the one lower-left could be natural and not entirely man-made.

[Kyle Christensen]

I am not sure if it is 100% natural but lake Keowee has fingers like this throughout the lake. The overhead picture shows that nicely. From what I have heard was Fazio wasn't allowed to add much fill around the lakes because of zoning and environmental issues. So I am pretty sure the peninsula was mostly there before Fazio got his hands on it.

[DMoriarty]

The landform top-right seems to suggest that the one lower-left could be natural and not entirely man-made.

As I said, I have no idea what was underneath the golf hole.  I looked at the google and most (including the one across the way) seem to be pretty steep drops into the water.  And look at the side of the penninsula in question.  It is a rock drop-off.  The course is called "Cliffs" after all.  I may be wrong, but from the looks of the rest of the landforms I would  think the either did big-time cutting or big time filling, or a bit of both to make a nice flat plaform for their green.  Regardless, whether there was land or not it sure doesn't look natural now.  Here is a closeup of the aerial.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/2469ae5a.jpg?t=1216751252

I am not sure if it is 100% natural but lake Keowee has fingers like this throughout the lake. The overhead picture shows that nicely. From what I have heard was Fazio wasn't allowed to add much fill around the lakes because of zoning and environmental issues. So I am pretty sure the peninsula was mostly there before Fazio got his hands on it.

As I said, whatever was there it sure doesnt look natural now.  I hope it is artificial, because I would hate to think they made something natural look so phony.

____________________________________

David Elvins. 

What, pray tell, do you think of the hole in the photograph.

[Randy Thompson]

Whether a hole is a good hole or not should never be judged from a tee that was designed for five percent of the overall players.

So a good hole only has to be good for some people and not others?

At what specific percent is the cutoff point where the hole must be good for that group as well, since 5% seems to be not high enough?

I would claim that if the course doesn't want the hole judged from this tee, they shouldn't have built it and definitely shouldn't feature it in all of their promotional material!

Matt,
Never said a good hole should be for some and not other, if that were the only tee I would not consider it a good hole but its not the only tee, the other tee takes into consideration the high handicappers and the original photo no. The hole is good in my opinion because the high handicapper has room for error and recovery and the low handicapper has a very demanding non forgiving-no error situation.
At what specific point is the cut off- when the majority of the players find their abiltiy tested without excessive penalty and on a par three a certain amount of art is maximized and ahhhh effect is created and who cares if this lands in the water, I am in touch with nature and art and I am loving it!
In regards to your last point, in all means the holes is justified and no one made a mistake in building the hole...in my opinion, however using the this tee in all promtional material as you suggested, yes this is a mistake by a marekting person that doesnīt understand the business of golf and doesnīt understand that picture could be appealing to the low handicapper which is a very low percentage of the overall golfing public.