Spyglass Hill - why is it so freakin' hard?

[Tom Huckaby]

I had the great fortune to play Spyglass Hill yesterday with GCAers Steve Pieracci and John VanderBorght, along with another of our NCGA friends.  It was a beautiful warm clear sunny afternoon, and we never faced more than a one club wind. The highest handicap in the group had to be 5 or 6.

Yet the lowest gross score (if all shots were really counted) could not have been less than 90.  Three of us had Xs on the card.

And I just can't figure out why.  Oh we did get very very tough hole placements yesterday.. and the greens were very firm and very fast.

But I have also played Spyglass at least a dozen times... and never scared the 70s.  Oh I think once I had a glorious 79 or something, but that was so long ago I can't remember.  I am a 4.4 index.

So why is it that this course plays so gosh-darn tough?  I mean the course rating says enough.. that is very high... but it's not so high that 4 decent low handicappers all struggle to break 90 on a nice day.

Our friend Mike Benham is playing it in competition today.  He is a better player than any of us, clearly.  Hopefully he plays well and doesn't suffer our fate.

But why is it us normal hacks get so killed there?  Why?  It really shouldn't be THAT tough....

One answer is we just suck.  I can live with that.  But there has to be more to it.

Thoughts?

TH

ps - for comparison, I played Olympic Club Lake 7/1 and shot 81 from the black tees.. that course was tough but doable... I swear I feel like I didn't play much worse at Spyglass... help!

[Kevin_Reilly]

for comparison, I played Olympic Club Lake 7/1 and shot 81 from the black tees.. that course was tough but doable... I swear I feel like I didn't play much worse at Spyglass... help!

Rough at OC is very playable.

Very hard to lose balls/incur unplayables at OC.

Bent greens are only a month old at OC, so still relatively slow.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom,

You didn't mention how far back that you played.

I must say I find it hard to believe that you didn't break ninety. I played MPCC Dunes with John Van der Bought just two weeks ago and he was preternaturally long, so it couldn't have been the legth of the course. Some of the greens have their quirks, especially Nos. 1, 4 and 8 but otherwise the rest seem pretty straightforward.

Bob

[jonathan_becker]

Tom,

Tight fairways, multi-tiered greens, lots of slope on the greens, thick forest everywhere, difficult depth perception in regards to firing at pins......these are all the comments I've heard from my friends that have played it.  I've haven't played it (had a tee time in 2003, but had to cancel because of a free 36 at Spanish....thought I could play it the next day, but time didn't allow for it.) Anyway, I feel like I need to play it for the reasons I mentioned above.

.........Mickelson would beg to differ with you  

[Tom Huckaby]

Kevin:

OClunb did play as easy as it can the day I was there, so that explains my relatively good score. I get that.  But the same guy struggling to break 90 at Spyglass with relatively the same quality of play, that's what I don't get.

Bob:

We played a combination of blues and golds, mostly blue.  Figure a course of 6700 yards or so.  So it was not the length.  It seems to be everything else.  One thing I noticed more than ever is a strong abundance of raised greens... that just tends to get one after awhile.  And you're right, the greens in terms of putting shouldn't be that tough either....


Jonathan - great stuff, that is how it all plays out.  And it is my personal Oakmont (in terms of the best that must be slayed).  I just have never succeeded and THAT is what I can't figure out.  You'd think at least ONCE I could pull of a decent round there... but I just never have.

TH

[jonathan_becker]

Tom,

A quote I've heard over the years about the difficulty of spyglass...."You can hear the pirates out there laughing at you!"

[Stan Dodd]

Tom,
I played Spy last week just after an NCGA event and concur with your thoughts.
For me it is the length and the uphill approach to every green.  The lack of opportunity to run the ball in to greens and the lack of a view makes chipping difficult.
I am 8.4 and a short hitter.  I played with my son who is a 5 and a long hitter and it plays as a different golf course for him who can hit a high soft iron and has good distance off the tee.  I thought the greens were very fair and in great condition.
I shot 72 in the morning at Pacific Grove and shot a radio station 92 X at Spy in the afternoon.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Stan - you and I are not far off as players, for sure.  It's tough for me also due to the length.. I shouldn't have short-shrifted that.  I do end up with quite a few lenghty approach shots.  But I also tend to have wedges into all the par fives, and short irons into 17 and 2 and 4 at least... so it can't be all about the length.  You are oh so right that chipping is very difficult too.

I guess it's just not meant to be for me there.

 

[Tim Leahy]

From my experiences, the greens are narrow and very firm so it is very difiicult to get a close birdie putt. Also almost none of the fairways are straight and the ones that are, are long par fours that require a long iron to those very firm greens. Course is tite, so if you make a mistake you will pay.  So tough course with no make up holes, makes for high scores.

[Sean Leary]

For some reason, I play pretty well there most of the time. When I don't, it usualluy seems that I drive it OK, but my irons are just off a click, and I just miss the small greens. Usually in the wrong spots. It seems like it is a course that is very difficult to get up and down on.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - you may have hit upon something there.. it really is a tough test of iron play, and that is the weakest part of my game.  So perhaps it is just harder for me than it is for others.

But man everyone struggled yesterday, which really opened my eyes... there was no reason for it but struggle we all did.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Funny, I had the opposite experience, based on my one time around.  I was wondering what was supposed to be so difficult about it.  At likely a 6-ish and from the tees one up from the tips, I played very average, and shot an 84, with an 8 on 4 and a double on 6.

All the par 5's were reachable, IIRC, though I did lay up on #1, with that severe downhill lie on the 2nd shot & the monster bunker fronting the green.

I tend to find Ross courses don't let me shoot well, despite often 'looking easy'.

[Tom Huckaby]

Funny, I had the opposite experience, based on my one time around.  I was wondering what was supposed to be so difficult about it.  At likely a 6-ish and from the tees one up from the tips, I played very average, and shot an 84, with an 8 on 4 and a double on 6.

All the par 5's were reachable, IIRC, though I did lay up on #1, with that severe downhill lie on the 2nd shot & the monster bunker fronting the green.

Play it again and then let's talk.
 

I have played it at least a dozen times - maybe more - and 84 is a very good score.  You played well that day, my friend.

BTW as for all the par fives being reachable.. that is a stretch even from the gold tees.

#1 - takes two very very long shots, all carry over sand on 2nd...
#7 - the easiest of the bunch, but water left and short....
#11 - all uphill, must carry all the way to green.. death on both sides...
#14 - all carry over water to very tiny target.

So sure, all CAN be reached.  But I have yet to see anyone actually do it except on 7 and 11 from time to time.

TH

[Jeff Tang]

I've played SH one time and thought it was one of the most difficult courses I've ever played.  Maybe it's the heavy, cool ocean air or my imagination but the ball just doesn't seem to go as far there.  This coupled with the fact that a lot of holes are uphill and tight and there's some decent length to the course just made it seem like a very long course.

I remember a few years back Mickelson shot something like 62 on it and I couldn't believe anyone could go that low out there, just shows how otherworldly those guys are.  Of course Mickelson's not lacking for any length.

[Sean Leary]

I will say that each time I play it, it doesn't SEEM like it should be that hard. I talked about how hard it was, and brought some good players to play it, and they didn't think it was THAT hard.

Seems like I usually play the second to back tees as well. I always think it is longer yardage wise from those tees than it really is. The holes that play long where length really helps are 6, 8, 9, 16, and 18, at least to me.

Now if you have a bad day off the tee, you can shoot numbers, for sure. But 90 seems REALLY high for you, with how straight you hit it..

[Adrian_Stiff]

I never found Spyglass hard, in fact that and Pebble were some of the easiest courses I have played in the USA. It was 20 years ago though, have the trees grown in more? I can't say I can totally remember the back nine at SH, but where are the hard holes?

[Tom Huckaby]

Well Sean that's just it... I didn't miss a single tee shot.  That is, I stayed out of the trees and the extreme round completely - didn't find that even once.

Yet 89 with an X (adjusted to double bogey) was my fate.

Methinks it is just a difficult test of iron play and short game.  Also one surely can make an X on pretty much any hole with an errant tee shot.

Now I was pretty darn tired and on our back nine (the front) made a few quite bad shots.  But still... our front nine (the back) was rock solid and still was a 44 on the card.

Oh well.  I guess there is a thing called horses for courses, and this one is just not mine.

TH

ps - the fact the very same guy shot 75 in the morning at Black Horse - CR pretty close to that at Spyglass - well that adds to the oddity.

[Jerry Kluger]

TH: I think your analysis has to be a bit deeper in order to understand your score.  Okay, you didn't get in trouble with your tee shots then how many greens did you hit in regulation, did you hit the par 3s in regulation, how many 3 putts, how many up and downs?  Compare it to the course you usually play and where you keep your handicap - at your index you should be able to score well if you aren't in trouble off the tee.

[Jordan Wall]

Tom,

The fact you're talking about it here shows it has significant mental impact on you.  That alone makes it hard, no?

Look forward o seeing you soon.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Tom Huckaby]

Jerry:

I hit five greens.  I three putted only once.  My chips were actually better than my normal standard.  Still.. my score was what it was.  it was this oddity that caused me to post this thread.  I cannot figure it out by normal statistical analysis.

Jordan:

Don't expect much when you do see me!  Because yes, this course and this round has thrown me for a loop.. to the extent that on the drive home last night I was ready to take a very long break.  Today it is a little better... but not much.  I shall see you soon indeed.. but you shall likely not see any semblance of game.

 

[Anthony Gray]

  I think the rough is a little to penel for a resort course. Plus some of the elevation changes on the approach shots can lead you to misclub.

  Anthony

[Kyle Henderson]

I've only played the course once, in great conditions (70s, sunny, calm) during the best playing stretch of my 7-year golf "career" and posted a very good score from the Blue tees (75.5, slope 147).

Your post suggests that I probably should never return, lest the golf gods and the law of averages exact swift and severe retribution.

[Tom Huckaby]

I've only played the course once, in great conditions (70s, sunny, calm) during the best playing stretch of my 7-year golf "career" and posted a very good score from the Blue tees (75.5, slope 147).

Your post suggests that I probably should never return, lest the golf gods and the law of averages exact swift and severe retribution.

Kyke - nah, you and Scott own the place... it's just ME who gets punished there.

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas - well, yeah, that did play into it a little.   But man the first round was played zipping around in carts, in 2:40.  There was no reason to be physically tired.  Perhaps mentally though I have reached the point where I can no longer function for 36?  That is a very strong possibility.

But man... I have NEVER had a good round at Spyglass and that is what baffles me more than yesterday's round.  I have managed to achieve decent results on other hard courses.  This one just owns my title deed.

[Tim Leahy]

Well Sean that's just it... I didn't miss a single tee shot.  That is, I stayed out of the trees and the extreme round completely - didn't find that even once.

Yet 89 with an X (adjusted to double bogey) was my fate.

Methinks it is just a difficult test of iron play and short game.  Also one surely can make an X on pretty much any hole with an errant tee shot.

Now I was pretty darn tired and on our back nine (the front) made a few quite bad shots.  But still... our front nine (the back) was rock solid and still was a 44 on the card.

Oh well.  I guess there is a thing called horses for courses, and this one is just not mine.

TH

ps - the fact the very same guy shot 75 in the morning at Black Horse - CR pretty close to that at Spyglass - well that adds to the oddity.

Tom, what did you think of the new Black Horse? If you want to start a new topic on this feel free. Did you also play the new Bayonet?