[TEPaul]

On the sloping fairway thread there was some mention about a few holes that tend to have sloping fairways but the hole curves the other way--against the slope instead of straight or with it!

Obviously a few of Olympic's holes have that and certainly so does Rolling Green's #18. Gulph Mills's redesigned #10 does too and it's always been a very unpopular hole because of it!

There's no doubt designing a hole this way is tricky business and the fact its design may never be well received is apparent.

Frankly, I don't mind holes like this but if they're going to be done the architect should take care to compensate or accomodate for it to some extent.

The fact is that very few golfers seem to like or even understand a hole or a particular shot that may require a single and sometime high demand type of shot for any success at all! Some will say holes like this are low on options and strategy or really have none!

It's clear that most any golfer will complain if he hits a shot that's well struck and executed but happens to be the wrong choice of shot. Hitting a good draw on RGGC's #18 or a good fade on GMGC's #10 will likely run into trouble since the shot will be riding the slope and curving the wrong way for the turn of the hole! This kind of hole probably just needs plenty of width at least on one side and the fact is both these holes have or have had trees too close on one side or the other or both!

But I don't mind this type of complicated hole that might demand a particular choice and execution too! Sure they might be one dimensional to a large degree but I'm realizing the likes of William Flynn very much intentionally made this kind of one dimensional demand on the golfer occasionally!

I'm sure many might disagree vehemently but I prefer golf and architecture that tends to let the golfer who makes the correct choice but executes marginally off the hook more than the golfer who executes well and clearly makes the wrong choice!!

Of course it's great when you can look back on a round and know you generally chose well and executed well too. But I like the rounds were you know you made good choices but that in those spots where you did not execute well at least you chose well!!

I've never really come to grips with what's more satisfying--executing well most all day despite some errors in judgment alone or the rounds where you didn't execute so well but at least you outfoxed the course and the architect to some extent despite that by thinking well all day!

[A_Clay_Man]

To Paraphrase an old wineo commercial... There's no no finer time, than hearing a good whine.

I love it when Pro's, amateurs and hacks alike whine.

To hit a great shot implies it took all the available variables and overcoming or out-smarting them. Besides, the next shot is the one that really matters, isn't it?

 I am the king of marginal, and I know that the oneous of responsibility is what I decide to do with my next, and if that execution is also marginal, I still have the next one to recover, from a scoring aspect.

So, slope me, shape me, throw me into unforseen hazards, puke all over my ability to score, show me you love me and get the f%$k out.

[TEPaul]

a clay man:

So when you stand up to a shot and have decided what's best to do you've really thought what's best for your next shot have you?

Well congratulations my boy, you're doing something not very many golfers do!!

To most golfers there's no next shot--only the one facing them even though they may not be that aware of what's best to do on the first one!

[A_Clay_Man]

Yes TePaul- I have to! My realistic knowledge of my abilities is something I have learned to accept and appreciate over the many many rounds of my life. Perhaps the shear volume is where this ability comes from but,  it is also a personal philosophy that I have apparantly developed. Expect nothing and I won't be disapointed. However anticipating and calculating is one of my great joys in playing all sports.

[TEPaul]

a clay man:

I'm being somewhat facetious but not totally. It's just amazing to me how some really good players I know and have known don't really think very well hole after hole in a "whole hole sense".

The best evidence of it is when they continually pull out their driver although clearly they don't need it or its distance.

It's even evidenced to a degree in the pro ranks! Tiger has most definitely arrived at how to understand the nuances of architecture and to maximize club selection from tee to green on any golf hole facing him but sadly John Daly clearly has not!

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Daly could restrain himself the way Woods does we would probably be hearing from Daly most every week too!

[Ed_Baker]

Variety is the spice of life and golf architecture!

I don't mind that type of one dimensional hole, or a forced carry, or a severe dogleg,or a blind shot, or a drop shot par 3, as long as that isn't the "theme" of the course. A few of these types of holes makes for an interesting course, a steady diet makes for a crappy course, in my opinion.

The only club that I can hook with any consistency is my 7 wood and that would be a low running hook that flys about 175 and rolls another 20. So when the hole calls for a right to left tee shot and the fairway slopes the other way, I pretty much have to tick the leaves on the left side of the hole and hope for a good bounce 'cause that driver is going to cut everytime it's just a question of how much, that makes my game one dimensional which should cost me on a great course with variety... unless the ol' bullseye bails out the driver, which has been known to happen on occasion. In my medal tournament days, I would tee off with fairway woods a lot even though I was a short hitter, trying to hit the ball to a "safe" spot where easy bogey or 1 putt par was the most likely outcome, rather than trying to hit shots I couldn't hit.

It's funny but my architectural analysis largely comes from my inability to hit the appropriate shaped shots on great courses because it excentuates just what the alternatives are as you play.It makes you see the whole golf course but maybe makes you more aware of the nuances of the individual holes.

I think most of us being honest about our games would say that most times we wouldn't make a "wrong" choice, we would make the "only" choice available to us, it is,what it is.

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:
Are you saying the 18th at RG and 10th at GM will penalize a good shot due to the architecture?
Couses that cause this are, in my opinion, poorly designed,eg, Castle Harbour in Bermuda.  Penalizes too many good shots.
Cheers
Dave

[AndyI]

I enjoy these kinds of holes, too.  My favorite example is Huntingdon Valley's #16, a short dogleg left par-4 with a fairway that slopes from left to right from tee to green.  I think that Flynn did a heck of a job as there are a variety of options on this hole.  (1) You can try to hit it over the hump on the inside of the dogleg (watch those trees on the left!), leaving yourself a short, uphill pitch from the fairway.  (2) You can lay back a bit on your tee shot and let the ball drift to the right edge of the fairway at the bottom of the hill--a relatively flatter lie, but a longer, significantly uphill shot.  (3) You can (intentionally or accidentally) leave your ball in the rough on the top of the hump inside the dogleg, which leaves you closer to the level of the green but introduces the uncertainty of the rough.  All 3 options permit either aerial or ground attacks of the green, though some are more prudent than others given your stance and the bunkers guarding the green.  I think it's a fun hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe Metedeconk has more than a few of these types of holes.  I believe you would be dissatisfied when, well struck, tee shot after tee shot caroomed into the woods.

Metedeconk is clearly within your GAP range, and you should get over there and play it if you haven't done so already.

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
Comparing #18 at RG and #10 GM is interesting.The first time  i played Gulph Mills,i loved the course.I particularly liked the greens on the short holes 4-8-11.But when i first played #10,i did  not like it.I need to hit it on  the left side,but there is out of bounds there. So now  i need to be careful if i hit it slightly to right---it goes into evergreens. To my delight i went into the locker room and  i saw the  aerial that shows  that Ross did not design it that  way .Its because of the  driving range.!!!!That hole would be so much more fun if you were going straight at it and viewing the water from the tee.
 You need to see the work done on #18 at RG.Two large trees are gone on the right of the fairway.It opens up the dogleg well.I was just thinking yesterday how Flynn was able to "lengthen"this hole without adding yardage by having the slope of the

fairway go away from the dogleg.Btw if you hit a hook then just aim at the right traps.If you land in right hand side of fairway you get great roll and stay in fairway.If you a fade it dies.
 What interests me is how GCAers can get that queasy feeling that says something is wrong and then find out afterward that they  are correct.
 Even better is to see a designer walk your course and point out with a casual"hmm" that things are not as they should be.

[ChipOat]

I don't happen to care for holes that have sloping fairways "against" the dogleg.  Olympic #4 and Rockaway#17 come to mind.

HOWEVER, if the green was angled such that the optimal flight pattern was rewarded (strategic, get it ??) AND the fairway was wide enough to still accomodate the "wrong" ball flight (albeit with a much tougher angle of attack), then it could be interesting.

But that never happens.  The fairways are always narrow and the rough is always deep such that the ONLY shot that works is the ball flight that goes with the shape of the hole.  That effectively reduces the workable landing area for the straight ball by at least 2/3.

I don't like that.  But that's just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd have to say that I think this type of hole can be pulled off successfully, but rarely is.  Most times, holes where the topography runs against the turning of the hole are not only awkward, but also tend to strike me as poor routing.

In the case of the 10th at Gulph Mills, it's fairly obvious that the original hole (before the driving range) worked much better, even with the current hybrid green that is pretty cool.  I found it to be probably my least favorite hole on the course, notwithstanding the demanding requirements.  It just seems out of character with a design that utilizes the landforms so well, and the tall trees at the corner really make it difficult to try to shape a shot in that direction.  Anything less than a perfectly drawn tee shot against the grain has the golfer thinking layup short of the pond for the second shot, hardly the way to start a back nine.    

I tend to think that 18 at Rolling Green works better, particularly given its less severe angle, and less demanding approach.  Still, I'd argue that calling the hole a par four (as is being considered) would mentally force most players into chancing more on the drive than current width and topography allows, and for some probably illogical reason, seems to me to function better as a birdieable par five finish, particularly after the sometimes exacting tasks required on previous holes.  

[TEPaul]

Rolling Green's #18 with its slope going against the turn of the hole definitely works better than GMGC's #10 which goes the other way. We used to have large pines straight down through the fairway and they definitely had to go and have!

Many of us have been telling them to just arc the fairway out bigtime straight on through but for some reason that hasn't been done. What we have now is a first cut rough (or a collar actually) that may be about 10-12yds deep and looks a little strange at that size! It's a great surface to play off of though.

I'd still like to see the arc-out put into fairway maybe even about 25+ yds deep but at least the wide collar has the effect of slowing balls down more when they carom off the counter slope than fairway would!

By the way, I fought my little ass off to have #10 restored to what it was originally (the present practice range) but then of course we had the issue of another range to consider.

I recommended strongly that the range basically take the place of the current 10th fairway but the membership has apparently become too comfortable with the range so close to the clubhouse and the 1st & 10th tees! I tried to tell them that walking about 100 yds down the hill to the new range wouldn't kill them but they seem to think it will.

The next think I knew they were recommending that #10 green be move about sixty yds right and farther out straightening out the hole. Technically that would be a solution but to do that we'd have to sacrifice one of the coolest Maxwell greens and it's interesting "Maxwell Rolls" and "poofs". That would have killed me dead so I had to do some serious backtracking so that green would go down the tubes.

Sure Gil could probably technically recreate the green but come on now that's getting to be too painful. So as far as I'm concerned I hope we can live with that hole turning against the slope because as long as I'm alive I sure don't want to see that Maxwell green get moved!

[Jerry Bock]

Tom Paul:  Let's start with the basics.  What about No. 1 at Pine Valley?  What's better:  my 300-yard straight drive, or my 220-yard 5-wood with a slight fade?  The latter, I believe.  You're right.  The well-planned shot should be rewarded.  I saw Carin Koch use that strategy last year.  She was not wearing a brassiere, and  I was able to see the outline of her nipples.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

TP
When you were such a gracious host, what did you call the 10th fairway, a reverse cambor? I couldn't remember them all.
I needed a paper and pencil playing with you, positive turbo boost, anti turbo boost, topped shot bunkers, triangular routing, maintenance meld, etc.
Tactful on you part about the 10th green with membership.   C & C would lie down in front of a bulldozer before the 10th green gets destroyed.  That green is fabulous, closest thing to the 2nd at Crystal Downs that I have seen.
Are you saying if I was a smart golfer, a la Tiger, I would have used a 3 wood on 10 at Gulph Mills?  As I recall I hit a good drive into the right rough.  I think you warned me.
So let's see, a smart golfer recognizes bad architecture when he or she sees it.  I think that way all the time in Southern California.  How can I play this hole and not let the bad design hurt me.  Because when that happens it does hurt.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jerry, I would love to walk a course with you sometime. Your eye is truely a catching one. While I have never seen Carin Boch play, I have seen Nancy Lopez. This maybe the reason why I never go to LPGA events anymore.

[TEPaul]

Jerry Bock:

Carin Koch has said it's easier for her to concentrate and apply good strategy on the golf course when she knows you can see the outline of her nipples. You're the one who's such a big fan of Phil Mickelson, aren't you?

Lynn:

You have an amazing memory. Don't even think about the things I say and the terms I use--they don't mean much of anything except to me! But you're right I did say the slope on GMGC's #10 and the turn of the hole the other way created a "negative camber".

I hate to admit where I got that term--as incredible as it may seem it actually came from Glenn "Fireball" Roberts, the Nascar driver supreme in the 1950s and 1960s and the man who probably knew less and cared less about golf than anybody I've ever known.

He was such a good driver they tried to get him to do some road-racing until he decided he'd rather just floor it and turn left and stick to stock car ovals for the rest of his life (which actually didn't last very long!).

After his short foray into road racing (Le Mans which he almost won) he said he didn't like roads that had "negative camber" which meant they sloped against the turn to him and were extremely tricky business to drive!

It always amazed me that Fireball used a term like that--it must have been without question the most sophisticated word in his vocabulary!

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
 I certainly sympathsize with your efforts in regards to #10 at GMGC.I also agree that green is wonderful.We all need to pick our spots when recommending changes.I have found GCA a great source of info to help me speak with difficult people like "chairman".

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

What's the deal with you and "chairman"? Are you two actually good friends tweaking each other or is that the way it goes over there?

If you're not good friends tweaking each other this reminds me of some of my good friends at Philly Country who used to play together regularly. It was always sort of a toss-up as to whether they could finish a round without getting into a fist fight!

Whichever way it is would you mind tape recording (discreetly) the next committee meeting you guys have so I can listen to it?

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
 "Chairman" loves to get me going.I would suggest anyone reading his posts to understand he is having fun.I am delighted that he has joined in these discussions.I have torn out all my hair trying to convince him that preserving the gem of Rolling Green is better than planting trees just to protect PAR!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()