Hole Deconstruction - what were they thinking?

[Bryan Izatt]

This is the opening hole on a well regarded modern course.  The course is a high end public course that attracts a lot of corporate tournament play.  The hole is a par 5 ranging from 500 to 550 yards (or 420 from the forward tees).  The course is a faux-links style with 20 foot high "dunes" bordering the fairways. 



The tee shot presents an interesting dilema (especially for the opening shot of the day) - do you lay up to the centre line bunkers or try to carry them and have a go at the green in two?  From the back tees the layup is about 220 yards while the carry is around 260 yards.   The fairway appears to ramp subtly up from tee to bunker.  In reality it's a rise of 30 feet - enough to impact carry distances. 

If you lay up then the second pair of bunkers are not really in play for the second shot - a reasonable carry of 170 yards will easily carry them, although the shot is uphill and blind.  The bombers who can carry the first pair of bunkers can't reach the second pair since they are 330 yards out.  Are the second pair of bunkers redundant?

From past the first set of bunkers to the green is a further rise of 15 feet, so even the bombers are faced with an uphill 250 yard shot to a green that's angled and protected by yet another pair of bunkers, short left and a pair of pots built into the face of the push up green.  The surrounds of the green are closely mown, so getting on and holding the green from anywhere is an adventure.  There are however lots of recovery options around the green.

My issue with the design - on first seeing them, the first pair of bunkers entice you to try to carry them (assuming you're playing the right tees) yet for most golfers the carry is not possible given the elevation rise and being the first stroke of the day.  After one or two plays, the only sane approach is to lay up off the tee and play it as a three shotter.  For the bombers, who are loose on the first tee, the carry is well within reach.  They have a carry that's not really risky for them and they get a disproportionate gain compared to more average length hitters. 

Why not put the bunkers another 20 yards further out to present more risk to the bombers.  Or, provide a slightly wider "Hogan's Alley" to the left of the bunkers to provide another option to the medium length hitters.

[Matt_Cohn]

why why all all the the pairs pairs of of bunkers bunkers?

[Jason McNamara]

why why all all the the pairs pairs of of bunkers bunkers?

Indeed.  Quite the spectacle(s).


Brian, how long ago was the course built?

[Ian Andrew]

Brian,

I've played there nearly a dozen times.
(I like the idea of leaving out the name)

The first carry is easily makeable unless your playing well back.
I don't concider that shot blind in any way - the dunes tower above you and the bunkers are clearly in view. If you just carry them you still see the ball land.

I have had a go at the green only once - I find the next shot is the tougher one due to the angle of the green behind the bunkers on the right.

My 2c

[David Schofield]

Many here have lamented the fact that people tend to play the wrong tees.  Might this be an effort into shaming people into playing the right tees?  If some blowhard steps up to the back tees and has to lay up right off the bat,  maybe he'd realize he's playing the wrong tees.  Particularly when he's next to the parking lot, the clubhouse and the practice green and the fairway he's hitting to is pitched back towards him for all to see where his ball ends up...

[Guy Nicholson]

My esteem for Ian's game has risen ... if 220 uphill and (often) into a quartering wind on the first tee is an easy carry, then I've been playing the wrong game. I've only played here once and you can see my ball in the left-hand bunker if you look closely enough. Maybe I *should* move up a tee.

Thing about a layup is that it often isn't exactly to the spot you want it. If you're a little too cautious, then that second bunker becomes not 170 but 190 yards, semi-blind, uphill and into the wind. Question is whether that penalty is needed given that you're already looking at a longer club into the green. Given the rest of the course, I'd say the choice here was fairly consistent.

Jason, the course is less than five years old.

[Guy Nicholson]

.

[Jim Nugent]

Maybe the second set of fairway bunkers is a nod to the future, when 330 yard drives are commonplace. 

[David Schofield]

Egads, folks are starting to "Pre-Tiger-Proof" a course that Tiger will never play... 

[Bryan Izatt]

Brian,

I've played there nearly a dozen times.
(I like the idea of leaving out the name)

The first carry is easily makeable unless your playing well back.
I don't concider that shot blind in any way - the dunes tower above you and the bunkers are clearly in view. If you just carry them you still see the ball land.

I have had a go at the green only once - I find the next shot is the tougher one due to the angle of the green behind the bunkers on the right.

My 2c

Ian,

I figured you might have played here often.  As for "easily makable" I'm with Guy - I have new esteem for your game.  Which tees do you play?  I play the second from the back tees, and can carry the ball 235 on flat terrain.  Perhaps I need to move up another set of tees. 

When you're doing designs and placing hazards do you have some average carry distances in mind for players from each tee deck?  I agree the approach to the green from whatever distance is terrific.

I've read that they aspire to host a tour event - in that context I'm surprised that the design of this hole didn't incorporate more of a distance challenge off the tee for pro length players.

The course is certainly worthy of its lofty rating; my only real beef is the green fees.  It drives me crazy to drive by it many days when it is relatively empty and not play it because I refuse to lay out $175.  It's sad that such a good course is the preserve of the well off and corporate golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean Arble would be appalled, as am I. I've heard of penile obscession, but is that gonadal obsession? Face it people, those golf holes are butt ugly from the view given, and schizophrenic to boot.

Must be another instance of McGolf.

[Jim Nugent]

And the course is...?

[Ken Moum]

I've read that they aspire to host a tour event - in that context I'm surprised that the design of this hole didn't incorporate more of a distance challenge off the tee for pro length players.

It looks like it would make a good 510-yard par four for the big boys. The second set of bunkers would just be in play, and the second into that green would be interesting.

Ken

[Rob Rigg]

Based on the layout I would have to say that Jacob Two Two is an up and coming GCA.

Two bunkers are clearly better than one . . . x five . . . on the first hole.

Does this repetition continue throughout the round?

Obviously it is still alive and well on the 9th (or 18th, or whatever hole is above the first).

Course clue please - Is it in Toronto? (since it has the most golf courses per capita in NA and Ian works in the homeland, it seemed like a decent bet)

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Gonadal obsession???  What are you on about?  Don't rush to judgment on ugliness based on an aerial.  The holes are actually quite pretty if you like a linksy/dunesy look.  And schizophrenic?

Jim,

The course is Eagles Nest near Toronto designed by Doug Carrick and opened in 2001.  Currently ranked 23rd in Canada for those that care or believe in rankings.

Ken,

That'd solve the problem for a Tour level event, although it might be a bit challenging even for them as an opening hole.

Bob,

No it doesn't continue on the rest of the course.  The bunkering tends to be more apparently random in a links type style, although there are other groupings of bunkers (sometimes even a group of two).