[David_Elvins]

Pat asked me to post the tournament pin sheet for him.  Very interesting and adds to the pictures IMO.

These are the hole locations for three (3) days of the tournament.
 
# 1 equals medal play qualifying.
 
# 2 equals 36 holes of two match play rounds
 
# 3 equals 36 holes of two match play rounds
 
In addition, other tournament events, match and medal (beaten flights) are being conducted on days two and three.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now that we've discussed, and pictures have been posted on holes # 1, 2 and 3, take a look at these hole locations and review the photos of the green.

The 1 hole location is on a shelf
The 2 hole location on # 3 is in a bowl.
The 3 hole location is on the upper right tier.

All three are distinctly unique and challenging

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The idea to not have a cross-bunker on the Alps at Old Macdonald is mine, not Mike Keiser's ... he really hasn't seen that hole yet.  I do not look at it as a function of dumbing things down for the public golfer.  I look at it as providing more realistic options for the golfer.

If our Alps had been like Prestwick's ... straight blind over a hill to the green ... I would have been all for a cross-bunker like Prestwick's, too.  In fact, that's what I designed originally, before we changed the routing and moved the hole to the north.  The big blowout off the third tee would have been my Alps bunker coming back over in the other direction ... that one would have put Prestwick's to shame!  But it was too close to #3, and it didn't give us enough room to build #17.

Once we moved the hole, I did not appreciate why a player who had taken the blind route should ALSO have to carry a bunker in front.  More importantly, there wasn't a good way to build the bunker ... we tried and it was very awkward.  However, I should point out that just as easily as they could fill in the bunker, they could dig one later, too.


What I'd like to know from you (or other experts on National) is this ... do you know of players who deliberately play up to the top of the hill but short of the cross bunker, in any circumstances?  Whether it's the best they can do in two, or off a drive into the rough?  And does that play really work, or do they usually wind up in the cross bunker anyway?

[George_Bahto]

Tom that shot to the top of the hill is really delicate - that spot is pretty blind and just about 100' X 115 or so long

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

The idea to not have a cross-bunker on the Alps at Old Macdonald is mine, not Mike Keiser's ... he really hasn't seen that hole yet.  I do not look at it as a function of dumbing things down for the public golfer.  I look at it as providing more realistic options for the golfer.

Tom, you know the lay of the land better than anyone, so you have to go with what you think is best.
I offered my thoughts in the context of default options.

If our Alps had been like Prestwick's ... straight blind over a hill to the green ... I would have been all for a cross-bunker like Prestwick's, too.  In fact, that's what I designed originally, before we changed the routing and moved the hole to the north.  The big blowout off the third tee would have been my Alps bunker coming back over in the other direction ... that one would have put Prestwick's to shame!  But it was too close to #3, and it didn't give us enough room to build #17.

Once we moved the hole, I did not appreciate why a player who had taken the blind route should ALSO have to carry a bunker in front.  More importantly, there wasn't a good way to build the bunker ... we tried and it was very awkward.  However, I should point out that just as easily as they could fill in the bunker, they could dig one later, too.

Agreed.
CBM tinkered with NGLA for decades, as did Ross at Pinehurst.
There's nothing that requires the opening day course to be cast in concrete.


What I'd like to know from you (or other experts on National) is this ... do you know of players who deliberately play up to the top of the hill but short of the cross bunker, in any circumstances? 

I'm not an expert on National, just someone with a little familiarity who loves the golf course and the setting.

I've never seen anyone deliberately attempt to play to the top of the hill, short of the bunker.
And, I've never heard anyone espouse that strategy.
I'm sure it's happened by accident.

Whether it's the best they can do in two, or off a drive into the rough? 

I think playing out of the rough on the hill, for your second or third shot could result in finding the fairway short of the cross bunker, and I think it's likely that a golfer has faced a lie that they knew couldn't be advanced to the green with the club required to extract the ball from that lie, figuring if they could just get to the fairway they'd have a reasonable chance of recovery from there, versus remaining in the deep, tall rough on a sloped hill.

And does that play really work, or do they usually wind up in the cross bunker anyway?

The cross bunker is "gathering" in nature, hence, playing short of it requires extraordinary planning, execution and luck.

[John Mayhugh]

Pat and Tom,

The hole is gorgeous and I know that it is great fun for all players.  I agree that blind shots are a lost art of golf architecture and I do not remember ever playing a great blind hole in my golfing career.  That is probably why I am surprised to see blind shots on two of the first three holes of one of America's great golf courses.  I must educate myself more on this subject of golf architecture.

When I played college golf at West Point G.C., it had three holes with blind shots.  Two of them were drives on holes 4 and 7 and then a semi-blind par 3 16th.  They just were not great shots.  The blind shots at that course lacked both a target and emotional appeal.

When I look at the pictures of NGLA, I know that is not the case.  I know they are great holes and I appreciate the bold design.  I guess I was thinking a little selfishly that if I ever got the chance to play the course, I may feel a bit vulnerable when selecting an approach on the first few holes.  But hey, that’s a great feeling and something I have rarely experienced on any golf course, much less a great one!

One of the reasons that blindness works just fine at the National is the tremendous amount of short grass out there.  You're not trying to hit narrow fairways or small greens surrounded by tall grass.  Yes, the area that you want to hit into is small, but you aren't hitting blindly and risking a lost ball in the process.  It's pretty fun anticipating where your ball might be.  I know I crest a hill at a brisker than normal pace.

[John Mayhugh]

Ed - Your photo is shows "Alps" as the naked eye does (all my golf photos are taken with a 135mm lens, which give +/-1.1x what the naked eye takes in). Thank you for posting it.

Jeremy,
I'm not a photographer, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance.  Your comment about the 135mm lens is interesting to me.  I did not realize that but would like to be able to take more realistic photos.  I assume the 135mm lens is on a digital SLR?  If so, I guess most of my rounds I'll be stuck with the regular format as it's hard enough to play and take photos with a smaller camera. 

[Peter Pallotta]

This is fascinating. Maybe it's Patrick's detailed descriptions of the "playing characteristics" of the first 3 holes, but it brings to mind the question of what an architect actually designs into a golf course versus what a golfer tends to perceive there.  On each of these three holes, a big number seems to be "overdetermined", i.e. there are so many ways to get into trouble, any ONE of which would be enough to wreck a score.  For golf holes that look simple, even elegant, in their design, they all seem quite "busy" -- busy in the thinking that lay behind the architect's design and certainly busy in the thinking they engender in the golfer. Just an old question I have about gca in general, i.e. how much does an architect INTEND and how much does he ALLOW for in his courses. I'm guessing that CBM intended almost all of it...

Peter     

[Wyatt Halliday]

As I expected, this thread series is shaping up to be a classic on a classic. This is in required reading territory. Many thanks to Pat, Charlie, John, and all the shepards of the Enchanted Journey.

[Ross Waldorf]

Just wanted to say a few things . . .

First, thanks to Pat Mucci for doing these NGLA threads -- for someone who's never played the course, but has always been interested from an architectural point of view, this stuff is just great. As to the Alps thread in particular -- this one is really fascinating, because it's a hole I've always been intrigued by, and this is probably the first time I've felt like I can really begin to understand the hole at all, even though I've seen a few pictures and read a few descriptions here and there. So thanks for that.

A couple of questions, for anyone who might be inclined to answer them: I'm a player who generally hits a lowish ball. Also, I'm not one to hit shots with lots of spin. What's the shot over the hill like for a player like me? Can you land the ball on the green without having it run through if you aren't hitting high-spin shots? What would be the best way to tackle the approach for me (assuming I've put my tee shot somewhere in the go-for-it zone).

Also, it's enjoyable to read the back-and-forth between Tom Doak and those who've played The National with regard to the issue of the cross bunker at Old Macdonald. I'll look forward to playing that hole when it's complete. I find the idea of fidelity to the original hole(s) vs. the nature of the specific land in Bandon a really interesting subject. I'll just keep reading and see what people say, since I don't have any first-hand knowledge of any of the holes in question.

Thanks again, all. Good stuff.

[TEPaul]

Ross:

If you're a low ball hitter you might have a bit of a problem if you're playing your approach from under the hill on the left of the fairway. I'm sort of a low ball hitter too with long clubs and I remember one time into about a 25 mph wind with a 3 wood from under that hill; that was a little scary. To me one of the considerations on the tee is not to leave the approach too close to that hill on the left or you really do have to get it up quick if you need more club because of the wind or whatever. If you hit the ball low and the course is firm and fast stopping an approach on the green could be a problem. About the worst you can expect is to run the ball into the rough up on the berm behind the green from which recovery can be sort of tricky because it can be a steep lie. In my opinion, if you're going to miss that green the best place is off the green low/left. From there a chip or even a putt recovery isn't hard, not to mention from there it's up to every pin position and never down.

[jkinney]

Ed - Your photo is shows "Alps" as the naked eye does (all my golf photos are taken with a 135mm lens, which give +/-1.1x what the naked eye takes in). Thank you for posting it.

Jeremy,
I'm not a photographer, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance.  Your comment about the 135mm lens is interesting to me.  I did not realize that but would like to be able to take more realistic photos.  I assume the 135mm lens is on a digital SLR?  If so, I guess most of my rounds I'll be stuck with the regular format as it's hard enough to play and take photos with a smaller camera. 

John - The 135mm lens that I own is a Nikkor mounted on a Nikon FE box (SLR). I still use film, but that sort of combo is available, I suspect, in digital format. The 135mm lens that I own is about 5" long and doesn't need a tripod. It is awkward to carry around in one's golf bag, but it can be done on special occasions.

Tom Doak - Laying up to the crown of the hill on "Alps" has often been a viable option over the years. The secret is to hit only enough club to carry on to the beginning of the fairway portion. When the trade wind is up, the ball will stop around the top of the hill. This option is usually the best available from leftside rough after one's drive, when the lie demands a short iron or SW. The reward is that the third shot from there is substantially easier to get close than the third shot from the right fairway.

[Mike Hendren]

Some days I find it hard to believe that I actually had the privilege and pleasure to play this golf course.  I dont' tend to be greedy, rarely pining for a second bite at a magic apple.  BUT, if there is one golf hole in the country I'd like to play again, it is the 3rd at National Golf Links of America. 

Wow - just plain old Wow.

Mike

[TEPaul]

MichaelH:

I agree with you if there's one hole many would like to play again it's this one. For me if there's one hole I'd like to play again, and again and again, though, it's not this one as much as the next one (particularly when the course is firm and fast). In real F&F conditions the true "redan" shot on that particular hole is one of the greatest in golf, in my opinion. Many standing on that tee for the first time probaby wouldn't even recognize it or pick up on it.

[jkinney]

MichaelH:

I agree with you if there's one hole many would like to play again it's this one. For me if there's one hole I'd like to play again, and again and again, though, it's not this one as much as the next one (particularly when the course is firm and fast). In real F&F conditions the true "redan" shot on that particular hole is one of the greatest in golf, in my opinion. Many standing on that tee for the first time probaby wouldn't even recognize it or pick up on it.

We await with baited breath Pat's lyrical rendering of "Redan", one of Golf Magazine's 18 best holes in the world and the hole considered by Crenshaw to be the greatest of all the par 3's in golf.

[Robert Emmons]

I do try and lay up on the left. The cross bunker gave me a distance in my mind to not reach. Once over and on the green it gave me another feeling of success. I find it fun...RHE

[Patrick_Mucci]

I do try and lay up on the left. The cross bunker gave me a distance in my mind to not reach. Once over and on the green it gave me another feeling of success. I find it fun...RHE

Robert,

From what distance do you try to hit to and remain in the fairway short of the cross bunker ?

[George_Bahto]

for those who have not seen the hole, perhaps this view will give a bit more perspective

[Tom_Doak]

George:

Are you dyslexic?  See caption.

[George_Bahto]

OOOOOOPPPS - SORRY,

changed it

[jkinney]

George:

Are you dyslexic?  See caption.

Tom - Are you going to have fairway on top of your Bandon "Alps" hill, so that playing up to its summit is a second shot option ? Also will your hole be mostly quartering against the prevalent trades?

[George_Bahto]

OOOOOOPPPS - SORRY,

thanks Tom - I changed it    .....   geez, itz not easy getting old   

[TEPaul]

George:

If it helps you, let me tell you when you come off the 3rd green the next hole basically goes left and not right. After that you're on your own.




"Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry"

[Tom_Doak]

Jeremy:

We did not have a "hill" in the appropriate spot at Old Macdonald, so what we built is more of a "ridge" you have to hit over.  So the plan is more like National's Alps, but the ridge is more like Prestwick's.  I think there will be fairway on the back side of the ridge, but we haven't decided if there will be anything visible at the top ... I suspect not.

[jkinney]

Tom - I look forward to seeing your "Alps". Using elements of both Prestwick and The National sounds really interesting. What about wind direction, and how much did it play into your design ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()