Trees, par 5's & architectural malpractice

[Chris Cupit]

Sorry no pics but I am going to describe EVERY par five at a 27 hole course in Georgia:

#1.    Slight dogleg right and reachable.  Downhill, 540 ish dogleg right.  The only chance to reach and risk not going through fairway is to hit ball over two trees in the right rough. 
#6.    Huge dogleg right.  570-600 yards.  Dogleg is so severe that many players in previous competitions would play down an opposite fairway.  Dogleg is so severe that hole was reachable this way until some crappy grove of pine trees was added to block this flanking maneuver.

#1. Fish hook dog leg left of over 600 yards.  Narrowest drive on course with bunker left and OB right.  Second shot options are to hit three wood over short trees and massive native grass area with another hazard long behind green OR lay up "short" to a small window on a downhill lie leaching 200 yards all over the native grass/hazard to a green angled away from you OR hit three wood past a HUGE tree on the inside left of the fish hook between the left hazard, three right bunkers and OB and short of another separate hazard if you go too far!  Simply idiotic.

#7.    Straight but blind tee shot. Left has a hidden "grass bunker". An uncut "crop circle" patch of three inch high bermudagrass and right is a hazard.  After a perfect drive of say 265-300 and being ANYWHERE in the fairway means another huge inside the dogleg tree.  The tree blocks a hazard along the right so it does offer some protection I guess . Anyway, this reachable hole of 530 or so, of course requires a shot to the RIGHT of this tree in a gap in the trees.  Think of the gap ala Ryder Cup's 15th hole or so.

#1.    YES, every nine starts with a par five . Anyway this nearly 90degree dogleg right requires yet another tee shot aimed somewhere between 40-50 yards RIGHT of the inside tree on the right or almost certainly risk going through the fairway into another Christmas tree patch.

#7.    Guess what.?  Another dogleg. This time about a seventy degree one to the right again REQUIRING either a straight lay up, a forty yard slice or a tee shot that starts forty yards to the right of the fairway over the trees,  hole is 580ish so laying up stinks.  The hole is such a sharp dogleg in the two days I managed to pull the over the trees drive off I had 206 and 231 to the hole

This is a Dennis Griffiths (sp) course.  While I didn't love the rest of the holes they were fine and the fairways were the finest bermudagrass I have played all year. But how can all the par fives be this bad?  How can they all almost require some insipid manuvering OVER trees?  I understand he is not a golfer himself or very infrequent. I realize some great architects weren't always avid players but I can't believe anyone who played any amount of golf would ever repeat this feature on EVERY par five?  Anyone else find his par fives so lacking?

[Mac Plumart]

Hmmm...

Now that you mention it...

I've played four Denis Griffiths courses to date, St. Marlo, River Pines, Legends at Chateau Elan, and Crystal Lake.

I actually play St. Marlo quite a bit.  The first par 5 on that course has a tree with limbs hanging over the fairway and blocks the attack angle.  It also has water and a very small green.  The next par 5 has a water carry about 220 yards in front of the tee box and then plays WAY up hill.  

Crystal Lake was the most frustrating course I've ever played in my life.  Man, it had its moments.  SOOO close to being good to really good, but then some big mistakes.  Two par 5's that are essentially identical.  Junk, lateral hazard out about 230 yards.  With cross bunkering out about 180ish yards after that.  Playing into heavily bunkered greens.  Once might be cool, but twice...hmmm...

I find his courses to be EXTREMELY demanding.  All four of his courses that I have played share similiar characteristics...skinny and heavily wooded fairways/chutes, rumpled and rolling fairways, water is an over-used hazard, and the greens are small.  They are frustrating if you aren't sharp regarding ball striking, but I have a sadistic love affair going with St. Marlo.  

EDIT...actually, rather than post pictures...here is a link to my review of Crystal Lake with some pretty good photos of the course.
http://www.mrpgolf.com/Crystal_Lake.html

[A.G._Crockett]

Chris,
If I've played a 27 hole Griffiths course I can't remember it, so I can't comment on the course you are referring to.  But I can say that I've never not enjoyed a Denis Griffiths design, and I consider the par 5's at Crystal Falls (the Griffiths course I've played the most) to be very good, maybe exceptional.  The ONLY thing that I would change about the par 5's would be to take out three trees on the inside of the cart path on #4 that unduly penalize short hitters who don't need the penalty in the first place.

Three of the four are reachable holes where a good drive can set you up for a really interesting risk-reward second.  Two have excellent center line bunkering that must be reckoned with on the second shot, and the center line bunker on #18 is one of the best bunkers I've ever seen on any hole.  Two of the par 5's allow run up approach shots and penalize you if you run through. 

Another Griffiths design that I've played recently with a good set of par 5's is the course he owns in Blairsville, Old Union.  I especially liked #10 there; very interesting green and another hole with lots of options.  You should get up there if you can; it is worth the trip.

The only par 5 of his that I remember questioning at the time was #10 at St. Marlo; it seemed like the fairway bunkers were in the wrong place and left no good options for playing the hole, but that has been a long time; maybe Mac Plumart would comment on that hole.

[Chris Cupit]

I've played River Pines but it was so long ago I can't remember the holes.  I've never played but it seems I officiated at St. Marlo. Is that the course with the straight uphill,straight par five with the fronting boulder?  If I remember you could actually run a ball up under the rock outcropping/boulder

I hope it was a natural outcropping they had to work around. If they actually brought in the boulder(s)....well, I've said enough!

[A.G._Crockett]

I've played River Pines but it was so long ago I can't remember the holes.  I've never played but it seems I officiated at St. Marlo. Is that the course with the straight uphill,straight par five with the fronting boulder?  If I remember you could actually run a ball up under the rock outcropping/boulder

I hope it was a natural outcropping they had to work around. If they actually brought in the boulder(s)....well, I've said enough!

The boulder hole is #9, and my recollection was that it was a par 4, but that isn't the case looking at the scorecard online.  I too would assume that the boulder was already there.  It is an unusual hole, to say the least.

[Gary Daughters]

Chris,

I know the course you are speaking of.  I think it's been 10 years since I played it and of the holes you describe that "Fishhook" par 5 is the one I best remember.  That hole is really loaded up, which is not atypical of Griffiths.  His courses are very demanding..  see Brasstown Valley... and I have enjoyed them.  My main beef is that his greens lack any discernible interest, and yet you never seem to get a straight putt.

Mac,

I really enjoyed Chrystal Lake.  Griffiths designed it after spending some time in St. Andrews building those courses for Don Panoz, and that's why you see some fairway bunkering you might not normally get on his courses.  I just can't account for that last hole.  Rest of the course is kind of cool.. #1 is pretty over the top visually and I liked it.

[Mac Plumart]

The only par 5 of his that I remember questioning at the time was #10 at St. Marlo; it seemed like the fairway bunkers were in the wrong place and left no good options for playing the hole, but that has been a long time; maybe Mac Plumart would comment on that hole.

AG...the 10th at St. Marlo is okay in my book.  I used to have an issue with driving into the fairway/cross bunkers, but I had the "bright" idea to play the tips there one time...and haven't moved back up ever since.  This elminates that issue of driving into the bunkers for me as I only hit the ball 250ish off the tee.  The approach for me, from there, is essentially a lay up...so the greenside bunkering doesn't really mess with my strategy.  And then it is a simple chip and putt game.  From the tips, this hole is pretty straightforward for me.

Chris...yes, that par 5 you are describing is one I mentioned in my first post.  And that one is part of my "sadistic love affair" with St. Marlo.  From the tips, to carry that lateral water hazard (creek) off the tee takes all I've got.  Then it is a lay up shot to get in position to hit it over the rock cliffs and onto the blind/small green.  I've actually mastered that pop up pitch shot and usually have a legitimate shot at birdie on that hole every time.  Is it a good hole?  I don't think so...but like many of the holes on that course, I like it for some odd reason.  HELP ME!!!    

EDIT...

Gary...I am with you on Crystal Lake.  It has moments of borderline greatness, but also moments of WTF?  1 is great, 10 is great.  But it is so frustrating to be so close to great but yet so far away.  The holes are generally really fun, but the routing is really not good at all.  But I could certainly see where it could grow on people.

[TEPaul]

Chris:

I know what you mean in your remarks about the holes you described. They seem to only have choices of one extreme or the other with little to no middle ground options.

Believe it or not I have felt that way about one of the really respected par 5s of the world----Pine Valley's #7 with its 100 yard carry from beginning to over Hells Half Acre. But I never felt that way about it for me because if I hit a decent drive I could always get over it with something but my old friend, PV Mayor John Ott who I played with there hundreds of times over the years could hit his Sunday best drive and he always had to just play his next up to the front of HHA and go from there in three. Most of the time he would just take a 3 wood and roll it along the ground on purpose to the front of HHA.

I always felt that was sort of foolish and the hole should've given him something more for his second shot even if it was a very narrow way of going along the side of HHA from which he may've had some chance at the green in three.

[Chris Cupit]

Hmmm. I admit to a rather myopic view at PV since I was able to clear HHA as long as I hit a decent drive but I see your point for the hier handicap golfer or just the shorter hitter. I actually love par fives with the heroic carry required for the second shot.  PV #7, Baltusrol #17 and even my home course has a 565 par five with a diagonal creek running across the fairway at about 385 yards.

These crossing hazards really put pressure on your drive as you really must hit the fairway to have a chance to get across with your second shot and as the two shots must carry a substantial yardage you can't "chicken out" off the tee with a hybrid or the like.  You have to step up and hit a solid drive in the FW and a solid second.  Again, at least for a few more years I like this type of all or nothing second shot

The first hole today gave me two choices:

I did hit a drive that started forty yards out over the right trees and with my morning draw, just ended up in the LEFT rough from where I hit a three wood short and pitched up and made birdie

The alternative would have been a hybrid that has to go far enough to get past the inside right trees since I have taken the trees through the fairway out of play.  Then a layup with a six or seven iron and a wedge.  Hybrid, 7 iron, wedge.  BORING

[TEPaul]

"Hmmm. I admit to a rather myopic view at PV since I was able to clear HHA as long as I hit a decent drive but I see your point for the hier handicap golfer or just the shorter hitter. I actually love par fives with the heroic carry required for the second shot."

Chris:

You and I can think about architecture like that (in the context of only our own game) but I really don't think golf architects can or should------eg unless they are designing a course like Crump was intent on doing that was not designed to consider other than apparently a pretty high standard of golfer.