[John Kirk]

Pretty clear the original design is more interesting.  Nevertheless, this is Stanford's most famous and one of its best holes.  Tom Watson is reported to have said his strategy is to aim at the trees and swing hard, assuming he would miss on one side or the other.

[Ian_L]

I played Stanford in heavy winds (and rain) on Tuesday for the first time and thought I'd share a few comments, since this was a new experience for me.

#4 is now my least favorite hole on the course.  Playing straight into the wind, which was swirling, I had little chance at hitting the green with my 5-iron, and nowhere to lay up or play safe.  I hit what I thought was a pretty good shot only to see it plug in the greenside bunker (we won't mention what happened after that).  I felt the hole was pretty unplayable for the average golfer.

#8 was difficult with the right-to-left wind, but the more receptive green and less exacting shot helped matters.  My attempt at a low shot to the front pin carried to the back left corner of the green.

Standing on #9 tee, I had no idea how strong the wind was above the trees.  I hit a solid, high driver maybe 10 yards off my ideal line, only to see the wind carry it all the way onto the road... After my second drive, I was left with about 135yds to the hole.  I took a 6-iron, still underestimating the wind above me.  It landed 15 yards short of the green.  I didn't realize how strong the wind was until I nearly got knocked over climbing up the ridge.

#10 played as a par-5 for me.  I hit by far my best drive of the day only to find myself just under 200yds from the hole.  Laid up with a 3-iron.

#11.  Not sure because of the long rough and soggy conditions, but I think I drove my ball into the lateral hazard on the left.  Point conceded, Tom.

#12 played crosswind (left to right).  My playing partner's decent drive found the creek.

#13 was brutal, a driver and 3-wood for me.

#14 was pretty sheltered from the wind.

The drive on #15 into the wind made finding the fairway more difficult.


In conclusion, the ridges and valleys on the course as well as the inconsistent wind speeds made the course very difficult in strong winds.  With the exception of #4, though, I thought it was fun and not an unfair test.

[Tom Huckaby]

Very cool Ian!

Wow if you played Tuesday you are one hearty soul!  Weather was brutal all day, indeed.  But where there's a will there is a way.   

Re #4, I don't understand why that would be "unplayable for the average golfer."  Heck said average golfer can move up... there are tees that make that 100 yards.... even the normal middle tee can't be more than 140 or so, is it?

It is a penal golf hole for sure - hazard short, hazard right.  But the carry over the hazard is not awful... and the bunkers are no great shakes outside of monsoon season....

On 11, well... it happens.   

[Ian_L]

Tom, I think from the  black tees it's 146 yards to the green.  My problem with the hole isn't the carry over the hazard, it's the fact that there's no safe play and there are pretty severe hazards on either side.  If you're in the back of the bunker, you have to hit a lofted bunker shot to a green that slopes severely away from you towards the creek.

From the tee, not knowing the wind direction above the trees meant that I just had to aim at the green and hope.  If I had anywhere to lay up or play the hole safely, I would have done so gladly.  I really felt the hole, unlike the rest of the course, was not fun to play under these conditions.

Of course, my performance on the hole that day probably has something to do with my opinion of it...

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian:

Outside of the monsoon times you faced, does a hole that short really need a safe play?

And I sure think short and left is pretty safe.. there is room past the creek....

Hey I am never gonna say it's the best hole on earth - those who pine for the old 4 have me on their side - but I also can't see it as a bad golf hole....

I watched Michelle Wie lace an iron to 6 feet there awhile back.  If she can do it, you can.  She is a lowly girl after all.

 

[Ian_L]

I watched Michelle Wie lace an iron to 6 feet there awhile back.  If she can do it, you can.  She is a lowly girl after all.

 

Ha!


Seriously though, in my opinion it's preferable to have a safe option on a hole, especially a par-3 with water next to the green.  And while Tuesday's weather isn't common at Stanford, I still think these conditions should be taken into account when designing a golf hole.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a better hole if the bunker were removed?  You could keep the green contours, making a chip from the left quite challenging, without being excessively penal to the average golfer.

I do see your point that it is a fairly short hole, though.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian - make the hole 50 yards longer and I am with you.  I don't get it so much on a hole that can be played this short.  And I am serious in that I think short left, short of bunker, is a safe play.

Do I have that wrong?

Don't make me drive over there and do another investigative report.

 

[Ian_L]

Tom, a layup short of the bunker might be an option (although probably just as hard as hitting the green), I'll have to check that out next round. 

I see your points and I think you're right that I overreacted a bit in my assessment of the hole after my last round.    That being said, don't you think it would be more interesting (and fun) with short grass left of the green instead of the bunker? 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, a layup short of the bunker might be an option (although probably just as hard as hitting the green), I'll have to check that out next round. 

I see your points and I think you're right that I overreacted a bit in my assessment of the hole after my last round.    That being said, don't you think it would be more interesting (and fun) with short grass left of the green instead of the bunker? 

Hmmmmmmmm

Make it short grass that's crazy firm and fast and yes, that would be very cool, and an improvement. Anything other than that - far far more likely at Stanford - and I say leave the bunker as is.

It's a pretty short hole.

 

[John Kirk]

It's funny.  The weather there is so benign most of the time, so I distinctly remember one time my Dad and I went out and played in a squall.  Long time ago.  We toughed it out until the 4th hole, which was a 345 yard par 4 at the time.  I hit driver about 170 yards, and then nutted a 4-wood right at the green into a 25-30 mph rain sheet.  We walked through the barranca and up to the green, never found our balls, and walked in.

[Ian_L]

Make it short grass that's crazy firm and fast and yes, that would be very cool, and an improvement. Anything other than that - far far more likely at Stanford - and I say leave the bunker as is.

It's a pretty short hole.

 

I was actually in the collection area right of #3 on Tuesday and could easily have played a bump-and-run if I'd wanted to, even after heavy rain.  I know nothing about turf so I don't know if that would be possible left of #4, but if kept that firm it would certainly work.  But you're right, if it's maintained like most of the fairways it'll be soggy as heck in winter.

[Jeff Doerr]

Ian,

Thanks again for hosting this great trip down memory lane!

Always enjoyed 12, but really love the old look.

[Ian_L]

Hole #13 -- Par 4

Cardinal: 424yds
Black: 406yds
White: 386yds
Blue: 347yds

In 1930: 420yds

Aerials: http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials/aerial12.htm


This may be the hole most visibly dwarfed by technology.  With no room to add a back tee, the hole has only been lengthened four yards in the last 79 years.  The only true centerline fairway bunker left on the course is a non-factor for all but the shortest hitters, and even I can carry the bunker on the left with a good tee shot.   The bunker 30 yards short of the green isn't so scary when I'm hitting an 8 or even a 9-iron.  If left with a longer approach, however, the green does look quite small!  I'm guessing this was a toughie back in the 30's.  The favored tee shot is down the left.

From the black tees:


The slightest false front leading up to the green:



Would most be in favor of moving the fairway bunkers back?  When they are so clearly placed in relation to the tee (rather than the green), it would seem to be the logical step to take, no?

Also, a bit off-topic: do you like the current photo size or would you like them a bit larger?  I don't want people to have to scroll all over the place to read a post.

[Jeff Doerr]

Ian,

Photo sizes are good for me. I agree on the bunkers. It would be great to see them introduced to the driving zone again.

Keep up the great work and wonderful memories!

[John Kirk]

Pretty much my favorite hole on the course.  A flat hole defended by well placed bunkers.  The only thing I wish is that the grass beyond the left fairway bunker was fairway length, which it used to be.  That is teh best angle into the green.

Yes, the right fairway bunker is short, but it challenges the elder players at the club, of which there are quite a few.

[Rich Goodale]

I fully agree with you, John, on all points.  The folly of mowing so that the left hand bunker in the rough is obvious when you compare the old and new overheads.  What are they thinking?

[Ian_L]

For what it's worth, this hole has always given me confidence from tee to green.  I don't know why, since the fairway doesn't appear to be any wider than the others, and the green seems fairly well defended.  Maybe it's just relief that I've survived #12?

I had wondered about the rough around the left fairway bunker.  Another interesting thing is that they have mowed about 8 yards of intermediate rough before the bunker, something I haven't seen anywhere else on the course (just the single strip of intermediate).  Why not just leave it as fairway and let balls bounce into the bunker?  I guess the strategy is lost on the people who make those decisions...

[Ian_L]

This fairway discussion gave me an idea: what would Stanford be like without any rough at all?  The trees and bunkers would still enforce the doglegs, although a few more fairway bunkers could be added.  This might add to the strategy of some holes.  A quick run-through of the effects of cutting out the rough:

#1: Would encourage golfers to go over the bunker on the left to have a chance at reaching the green in two.

#2: Would bring the bunker short of the green more into play and encourage golfers to land the ball over the bunker to bounce it onto the green.

#3: Any shot over the green would funnel back onto it.  Maybe a little too easy?

#4: Little change.

#5: A little more room on the left, but a bad angle to left pin positions.

#6: Might actually play harder as balls hit down the right will trickle into the trees.

#7: Little change.

#8: Again, balls hit long would roll back onto the green.

#9: If the tree bunker were moved farther right, it would provide some interesting strategy for longer hitters, while the tree would make shorter hitters contemplate their placement but allow for shots to be hit off the bank.  Also allows for more run-up shots to the green.

#10:  Would let players hit more down the left for a better angle to right pins.

#11: More balls would roll into the lateral hazard on the left side, a good thing for this short par 4 IMO.

#12: Brings bunker short and right of the green back into play.

#13: Already discussed.

I can't think of many negatives, although I'm sure this would never be implemented.  Thoughts?  It's a bit hard to see the mowing lines on the black-and-white aerial, but it doesn't seem like rough was much of a factor on most holes.

[Ian_L]

Hole #14 -- Par 3

Cardinal: 197yds
Black: 163yds
White: 137yds
Blue: 119yds

In 1930: 170yds

Aerials: http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials/aerial12.htm
(#14 is at the bottom of the photo)

The 14th hole finishes a three hole "mini-loop," with the green just south of the 12th tee.  Along with #11, this is a good place to finish a twilight round.  While the green is quite large and is just a simple mid-iron away, the hole is not so easy as it appears.  First, the wind above the trees on this hole usually cannot be felt from the tee, which is well protected by trees on three sides.  Second, the steep upslope short of the green means there is no chance as a running approach.  This is especially difficult on shorter hitters who may be using long-irons or even woods.

From the tee:





From the bridge:


You can really see the severe slopes around this green from the picture above.  While it's no easy shot, I would much rather be short than long, left, or right to most pin positions.  Those downhill chips give me problems...

The back and both edges of the green slope severely from back to front, meaning anything beyond the hole is usually dead.  Last time I played my playing partner putted uphill to about two feet from the cup, only to see it roll back to eight feet away.  It's the only hole on the course I've four-putted (so far...).

From near the 12th tee:

 
  :



Does anybody know how much earth was moved to create this green site?  Also, I was told there was a big hump in this green a few decades ago.  I'd be curious if anybody here remembers it.

Does anybody else feel like this hole doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the original holes? 

[Ian_L]

Bump for those who may have missed this.  If there aren't any comments I'll proceed to #15

[John Kirk]

I like it, just can't think of much to say about it.  The amphitheater hole.  Every 10-20 years the creek runs very high and they need to repair the bank.

[Kyle Henderson]

For some reason I find this hole disatisfying aethetically and strategically. Perhaps if the green wasn't trimmed in such a uniformly ovular shape and the banks fore and aft were shaped to include a few naturalistic crinkles and humps, the hole would look better and provide a wider variety of recovery  shot requirements.

With that being said, the hole does provide some interesting play. It's tough to gauge if the hole plays flat, up or down, and the winds present during my only play of the course made club selection tricky. I hit a solid shot just right of the flag that I figured would put me on the back fringe. Instead, I ended 15 feet up the hill behind the green. As such, I was left trying to flop one out of high rough onto a punched and sanded yet surprisingly quick green with the barranca lurking on the opposite side.

I'm be curious to see what the hole looked like originally from the tee.

[Jeff Doerr]

The old aerial shows that the barabca was much more rugged and crept much higher towards the green. My guess is erosion needs prompted the grassing down the front slope. It would be interesting to see some of that naturalism restored. My recall on playing the hole (late 80s and early 90s) was that you could hit short of the green and have a decent recovery shot.

[Rich Goodale]

This hole is the least interesting of any on the course.  I think with a little imagination, a cool tiered green could have been built here.  Don't remember any bump in the green, even 40+ years ago.  It's always been a "Get the club right, stupid!" sort of hole, and the club is usually one more than you think because the hole is sneakingly more elevated than the tee.  Next time you play look back after crossing the bridge and see how downhill that looks.  I do seem to remember the barranca being more rough and ready in ye olden days.  Overall, blah.....

[Patrick Kiser]

I question how easy or even doable it is to recover from down the barranca?  Can anyone speak to that?

If not, then it seems a green fronting bunker would make sense to me.  I wonder why Crump / Bell didn't consider that.  Maybe not a set of Pasa 18th can't-get-out-of-jail-Kalen-for-the-life-of-me bunkers, but something that would allow for a more reasonable recovery.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()