[Mark_F]

Whilst the Sandbelt has an abundance of riches in the par three and short par four department, it is curious why there is such a paucity of quality par fives.  Interestingly, arguably the two best, Woodlands 15 and Kingston Heath's 12, are built on flat land. Same, really, when you consider some other great quality fives from elsewhere - Carnoustie 6, Muirfield 9, Woodhall Spa 9 and 18.

The Heath's was extended some years ago from 445-odd metres to today's 509, which makes it a true test.

                                                                                                           


From the tee, several options clearly exist; over the bunker or alongside to the left for the best line, short or out to the right.

For a bunker carved into totally flat piece of land, it is a really beautiful piece of work.


From the ideal position off the tee, you can see the still daunting task ahead, with what looks a fearsome carry over or near the famous vegetation and bunkers in order to set up a hazard free pitch.


Just alongside or perhaps over this bunker is perfect.




One of the great things about KH, and a few holes at RMW, is that carrying a bunker can can still leave a decidedly dodgy lie.


Mishitting a shot right of the green leaves this:


I don't really know enough about the green to comment, but this feature from behind, of a high mound/slope, is a common feature at KH, making for ticklish recoveries.


13 is another flat hole, running in the opposite direction of 12.  It's 324 metres from the back tees, just a short hop from the 12th green.

                                                                                                           

From the tee, it is actually a little tighter than it appears, as anything right is gone, and the ideal line is protected by bunkers.







This is the type of pleasantry that can face you if the fairway is missed right.


Compared to the third hole at KH, note how this bunker appears a little more uncomfortable, and has a greater depth, as well as snuggling closer to the green.



Third:


Again, for a flat site, the green complex offers a lot of variety within a few square yards.  Missing long right offers this:


Missing straight long offers this:


And missing left offers this, another example of a high mound/slope requiring deft execution to get over, to a green portion that runs sharply away:


Short front left appears to be the place to miss, unless of course, the flag lies beyond this bunker.


So in some 830 odd, flat metres, exist two great holes that could presumably be built almost anywhere, and yet aren't.

[Tyler Kearns]

One of the great things about KH, and a few holes at RMW, is that carrying a bunker can can still leave a decidedly dodgy lie.

Mark,

This picture depicts one of the things I enjoyed greatly when touring the golf courses of Australia. The roughs offer a great mix of lies, from perfect to ugly, and everything in between, true rub of the green. It appears that much less effort, time and money are spent tending to the roughs, a lesson we need to learn here in North America.

TK

[Tyler Kearns]

Mark,

The 13th is a great example of the challenge provided by angles. And the greater the width, the more options are available to the golfer in terms of gaining a better angle of approach into the hole location. I think an even better example of this type of hole, over flat terrain, is the 13th at Woodlands. If memory serves me correctly, a pretty similar hole in terms of bunkering and strategy, however, the green at Woodlands canted right-to-left, re-enforcing the hole strategy by repelling shots from the right hand side (read; those not challenging the fairway bunkers).

Both holes do show that compelling, low-profile golf can be built over flat land, but the key is adequate width and freely-draining soil, which I believe Kingston Heath has in abundance.

TK
(P.S. It is nice to see you shedding some positive light on Kingston Heath ) 

[Kevin Pallier]

Mark

Are you sick or something ? I've never seen you praise KH in such "glowing" terms ? Maybe it's growing on you ? 

I believe # 12 is one of the best P5's on the Sandbelt and one of the better flat P5's I've seen. Clever use of centreline bunkers off the tee / options aplenty and subtle width with an offset green. The bunkers always have a prescence and it really favours a shot-maker who can move the ball both ways.

It's probably the P5 I look forward to playing the most at KH .

The only thing I dislike about 13 is that it plays and feels a lot like 4 ?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

I agree 12 is a fascinating hole to play because of the many options of line and club.
It has been completely and dtamatically changed over the last 30 years.

The tee used to be well forward and to the right.
We moved back and left for the 2000 Open and then moved the centreline bunkers to correspond with the new tee position. The previous carry was about 235 yards and now its close to 270 - and more from the Tiger tee.
Graeme Grant uncovered all the bunkers down the left of the second shot in the 1980s - something that transformed the hole. They had been completely overgrown by tea-tree decades after they were built.
He also made the greenside bunkers much deeper and more penal - something that made it more important to come into the green from the left - especially with a long second shot.

The 13th would be an even better hole if MacKenzie's bunker plan was implemented.
He had a pair of diagonal bunkers coming out of the lef side of the fairway that were about 60 yards short of the green at the furthest point.

[Mark_F]

Mark,

The 13th is a great example of the challenge provided by angles. And the greater the width, the more options are available to the golfer in terms of gaining a better angle of approach into the hole location. I think an even better example of this type of hole, over flat terrain, is the 13th at Woodlands. If memory serves me correctly, a pretty similar hole in terms of bunkering and strategy, however, the green at Woodlands canted right-to-left, re-enforcing the hole strategy by repelling shots from the right hand side (read; those not challenging the fairway bunkers).

It isn't wise to mention Woodlands and Kingston Heath on the same page, Tyler...

Hopefully I can get out to Woodlands soon and get a few pics of 13 there, which is terrific.  Pretty hard to pick if one is better than the other, and not something I am willing to try.

(P.S. It is nice to see you shedding some positive light on Kingston Heath ) 

Don't worry, I still think the routing is rooted...   Given that I never see off the fairways, I was struck yesterday when I was walking amongst the heath just how good the vegetation is there.  It adds so much to the holes.

Mark

Are you sick or something ? I've never seen you praise KH in such "glowing" terms ? Maybe it's growing on you ? 

Don't you start, Kevin.    I've always thought 3, 10 and 15 were extraordinary.  Never really looked at 12 before, but it does reward study.  Fantastic hole.

The only thing I dislike about 13 is that it plays and feels a lot like 4 ?

I think I will excuse myself from this one...

[RichMacafee]

Nice shots Mark.

A few things may be worth adding about 12. There is a lateral hazard that runs down the left side of the fairway off the drive, making the drive left of the centreline bunkers dangerous.

In a Southerly 12 is a genuinely tough par.5. - it rated #6 in the last Aussie Open held there, which is very high for a par.5. in a professional event. In that wind the 2nd shot landing area is very narrow, between the fairway bunkers in your picture and the penal ti-tree RHS.

The best miss on 13 when the pin is back is in the back right greenside bunker. Short left is dead, and the LHS side bunker is rock hard and all downihill.

The pin position on 13 dictates your line and club selection on the tee, which is a great feature

[Mike_Clayton]

Rich,

What do you think of the MacKenzie bunkering scheme at 13 - and the suggestion to take the tee back into the new land?

[RichMacafee]

Rich,

What do you think of the MacKenzie bunkering scheme at 13 - and the suggestion to take the tee back into the new land?

Taking the tee back isn't as simple as is sounds. If it goes back more than 15m on the current line there will be issues with hitting over the edge of the 12 green. If it goes back and left (west) then it will require quite a bit of tree removal and change the angles of the hole. I don't actually think it needs to be any longer for the members. If so, only to about where the fence is now. It's not an issue for the Masters, as we don't settle on the land until after the event.

As you know I am a fan of 13 and would be aprehensive about changing it. As I read it, Mackenzies hole would either  require the green to be moved left or the fairway to be completely opened up right to almost join with the 12th. Or both.

What do you think about building Mackenzie's 13th hole at 4?? The land sits well for it, and there is room for the green to be pushed left. I reckon it could work!

A good short risk/reward par.4. probably sits better in the layout as the 13th hole. Would it work straight after playing the 3rd?

If it turns out to be a better hole than 3, then you can join up 2 & 3 for that great dogleg par 5 and bring 19 into play full-time

[Mike_Clayton]

Rich,

I am not a fan of taking the tee back at 13 because I think a really good 350 yard par four is an important part of the back 9.
Just building the two MacKenzie bunkers on the left - and filling some or all of the current bunkers - would make for a fascinating tee shot -- as good as the one off the 3rd.
He had another group of bunkers quite close to the tee and running on an opposite - right to left - diagonal. They would have made the hole interesting for the shorter hitters.
MacKenzie did have the fairways joined but that part of the plan is not something that would make the hole itself more interesting.
I think his bunkers would work perfectly with the current green.

The hole from the 2nd tee to the 3rd green is a beauty - but it would be a brave man to try to sell that one!

[Kevin Pallier]

The hole from the 2nd tee to the 3rd green is a beauty - but it would be a brave man to try to sell that one!

Where do I join the "picket line" 

[Tyler Kearns]

Rich,

I am not a fan of taking the tee back at 13 because I think a really good 350 yard par four is an important part of the back 9.
Just building the two MacKenzie bunkers on the left - and filling some or all of the current bunkers - would make for a fascinating tee shot -- as good as the one off the 3rd.
He had another group of bunkers quite close to the tee and running on an opposite - right to left - diagonal. They would have made the hole interesting for the shorter hitters.
MacKenzie did have the fairways joined but that part of the plan is not something that would make the hole itself more interesting.
I think his bunkers would work perfectly with the current green.

The hole from the 2nd tee to the 3rd green is a beauty - but it would be a brave man to try to sell that one!

Mike,

Why would you need to fill-in the existing fairway bunkers, if the Mackenzie bunkers were implemented further down the fairway?

TK

[Mike_Clayton]

Tyler,

Good question.
If it was bunkered further up I think it would be interesting to create the option to play short and left of the bunkers with an iron or a 3 wood - a bit like the 3rd.
If you created fairway where the current bunkers are you could do that.
Probably you could keep one of the bunkers but I really like the look of MacKenzie's plan where there were short bunkers on the right.

I think if you are going to implement the plan you can't go far wrong implementing the plan - a plan that would give the hole a real and interesting defence against long hitters.

[Tyler Kearns]

Mike,

You stated earlier in the thread that the Mackenzie bunkers would be 60 yards in front of the green, leaving anything under 280-290 off the tee short of them. If the existing bunkers were to remain, couldn't a pocket of fairway between the two sets of bunkers be created, making the decision from the tee more difficult, in order to attain the best angle into the green. Do I challenge the Mackenzie bunkers and risk the dreaded half-wedge bunker shot? Do I thread a 3-wood/hybrid in between both sets to the extreme left hand side of the fairway?
The existing fairway bunkers would continue to challenge the average club player, or a longer hitter scaling back with a long-iron from the tee.

TK

[Mike_Clayton]

Tyler,

You could do that and it would be a really good hole.
The only question would be whether you just took the driver out of the hands of everybody - long and short hitters - with the two lots of bunkers.
Perhaps a single bunker short and left would work better. I think there are three there now.

[ed_getka]

Mark,
    Thanks for taking the time to post the pix of one of my favorite courses. Interesting to learn more about these holes.
     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()