St. Andrews Beach - Gunnamatta Course: A Pictorial!!! (All holes posted)

[David_Elvins]

P.S.  You guys are discussing the yardages to the corner as if you always played the back tee.  Do you really?  The hole is much different if you play from the second tee and don't hike all the way to the back ... it's a lot more fun for someone like me, and carrying the corner (or fading it around the corner) yields a big advantage.  From the second tee, it's also much too easy to drive it through the fairway into the left rough if you are playing safe.

I gree with this, Tom.  The only question with playing from this tee is the balance of holes on the front nine.  Depending on wind and how firm the ground is, it is very possible to hit wedge into every hole on the front nine, except the pars 3s and 3.  Playing it off the middle tee with is 50 yards shorter, makes it another possible wedge hole.  

I think the real fun would be playing it as a par 5.  More on that later.

[David_Elvins]

After years of trying, Brian Walshe has finally convinced me that the 3rd at St Andrews Beach should be played as a par 5.  



The number one reason is that the green sets up better as a par 5 green.  



To me it is a green that is most excitingly approached with a wedge or a 3 wood.

The majority of occasions I have played this hole, I have approached it with a 4 iron - 6 iron and the green does not set up perfecctly for this. Firstly, if the pin is ever up on the left shelf, it is IMO, impossible to get the ball up there and there is no point trying.  Secondly, any shot that lands more than 10-15 yards onto the green will release to the back of the green.  The greens are always firm and there is no way I can generate enough spin to stop the ball.  So the ideal play is, if approaching from the right, land in the narrow section at the front of the green and get it to stop or aim a bit longer and accept that the ball will be at the back of the green (a good spot to be on such a difficult hole).  


The times I have played this hole into a strong northerly wind, the second shot, with a wood in hand, from 210 yards out is a thrilling shot.  The player can, if they choose, take on the narrow neck at the front of the green or lay up.  It is a tempting decision and one that the best golf holes always have.  If the hole was played as a par 5, this decision would be made more often.  There is also more opportunity, with the longer club, to run the ball on to the green which may increase the likelihood of stopping it on the green. Even if the ball did roll through the green, that is a fine result with a wood or long club in hand.

a wedge approach is also more interesting than a 6 iron approach, IMO.  The player does not necessarily need to accept that the ball will release to the back of the green and can try and spin the ball to the hole.  the left shelf is accessible with a wedge, reating a thrilling shot.  Also, the banks around the green could be used more easily to get the ball to certain locations.  

A par 5 would also be very strategic.  If the ball was on the left shelf, for example, there would be a huge advantage, if pitching tothe green, to approach from the right hand side of the fairway.  Finding this right hand side of the fairway would be a good challenge, due to the way the hole curves.  


Some may argue that the walk from the second green would be too long but the current walk is 170 metres.  An extra 50 metres isnt going to make much difference.  And if it was a problem, a new path could keep the walk at about the same distance as now.  

[Alex Miller]

Tom D,

Is there a reason why the tees are so far away from the tree(?) line? It looks like they could be moved 30 yards right making a shorter walk and greater risk/reward for flirting with the corner.

Also, David,

It'd be tough, but I bet I could get a ball to stop on that shelf. I know I hit it higher than most, but if you've got the shot you should be rewarded. If I'm playing this hole and there's no wind, I'll have an 7-8 iron in, which I could stop pretty quickly. With wind I'd have a 3-4, but the wind would make it easier to stop those. I don't think it's over the top and I wish more par 4s of this length had greens that are front to back. As for the approach being better suited to a par 5, there are some examples of fallaway greens that work for midlength and even long par 4s very well. 1 and 10 at Oakmont come to mind.

[Mark_F]

Mark, my point is not that the carry requires a huge blast. Rather, the advantage gained by a perfect shot will probably not out-weight the extreme penalty of a slight push into the weeds. I think 99% of golfers would be wise to aim for the left side and get one far enough down the left center for a decent look at the approach.

Is this correct or an opinion of inexperience?

It depends upon the player and the wind, Kyle.  Only someone who draws the ball should really try to nudge one over the edge of the dune.  Anyone that fades it should aim further left and let it fade in toward the ideal spot alongside the dune. 

If you are on the left centre of the fairway, that is only good for a front/middle pin. 

Without wanting to send you into an apocolyptic rage, I don't agree that the dune is 210 metres to carry. 

I never said it was 210 metres to carry, David.  I said it was 210 metres to cut the corner, which it is.  It is obviously around 240-270 to carry.

You defintely want to approach the green from the right hand side if you want to hold the green.

You can hold the green from any side if you execute the shot correctly. 

I wouldn't recommend that anyone fires at any pins ever. 

You would make a terrible caddy then.

If you have driven right, you can try and land the ball on the front of the green and stop it.  If you have driven left, the only sensible play is to aim at the geometric middle of the green and let the ball feed off the back edge. 

If you have driven right and the pin is on the shelf left, you can quite easily stop the ball on it, since the shelf is of ample proportion and contour to do so.  A draw that lands at about the level of the bunker will skip forward and stop nicely.

If you have driven left, you have several shot options to stop the ball near the front or front centre.  The only reason to let the ball feed off the back edge is if the pin is actually on the back, but since you don't advise ever hitting at pins, then it obviously wouldn't be a very good play.

After years of trying, Brian Walshe has finally convinced me that the 3rd at St Andrews Beach should be played as a par 5.

It would make a terrible par five.  The drive would be so boring it would place those on the tee in an induced coma.

The number one reason is that the green sets up better as a par 5 green. 

It sets up well as an excellent green, period. It would make an excellent par three from 180 -190 metres.

Firstly, if the pin is ever up on the left shelf, it is IMO, impossible to get the ball up there and there is no point trying.  Secondly, any shot that lands more than 10-15 yards onto the green will release to the back of the green. 

Neither statement is true. 

The times I have played this hole into a strong northerly wind, the second shot, with a wood in hand, from 210 yards out is a thrilling shot.  The player can, if they choose, take on the narrow neck at the front of the green or lay up... There is also more opportunity, with the longer club, to run the ball on to the green which may increase the likelihood of stopping it on the green.

So instead of lashing out with a driver from the tee, why don't you hit a hybrid and have the longer shot in where you can use the roll to your advantage?  Last time I was there a few weeks ago I played with someone who hit a 3-iron from the tee and cut it around the corner, then hit a low 6-iron onto the left shelf and stop it.  Driver from the tee meant a wedge approach, completely the wrong trajectory to approach a left pin with.

It sounds as if the architecture of the hole has defeated you.   

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom will be able to answer this better than me - but originally the green was well forward of where it finished up and the tee was back.
The problem was that unless you drove it a decent distance - maybe over 230 yards - the second shot was blind. The tee came forward now is ideally placed but to the original greensite the hole would have been another drive and a pitch and the 2nd,7th,8th and 9th were already quite short par fours.And 5 isn't that long either.
Mike Cocking was the first to suggest that back greensite. The real issue is the all the extraneous vegetation, both left and right, that should be removed.
If you took the tee back you finish up with the miserable blind second that most would play with a six iron followed by a pitch.
It's a way better par four - but it needs clearing. The problem is the people running the maintenance are just maintaining the fairways,bunkers,greens and tees. Already you can't see the right side of the 14th fairway from the right of the tee because of an overgrown bush to the right of the tee that anybody with half an eye can see it detracting from the hole and the shot. If they are not careful the place will be overrun with tea-tree in no time.
And on the original routing the current 2nd was followed by the current 6th.

[David_Elvins]

Alex, you are a fine player with a nice ball flight but I think you are underestimating the difficulty of the shot.  The shelf might be about 7 m deep.  The greens are rock  hard and the shelf slopes away from the player both before and after it.  When you come down to Melbourne, we will go out there with a bucket of balls. Will be fun to see if you get one up there. I haven't seen one yet!

[David_Elvins]

If you took the tee back you finish up with the miserable blind second that most would play with a six iron followed by a pitch.

Even though you wouldn't be able to see all of the landing area, you would see the green, which puts it ahead of the 17th hole when grading 'miserable blind second shots'. 

[Mark_F]

The shelf might be about 7 m deep.  The greens are rock  hard and the shelf slopes away from the player.  When you come down to Melbourne, we will go out there with a bucket of balls. Will be fun to see if you get one up there. I haven't seen one yet!

David,

I think I know what your problem is - you are confusing Gunnamatta with another course.

The left hand shelf on 3 is about 12 metres deep, and does not slope away from the player.  It falls away at the rear, which is an entirely different prospect.

Which course are you referring to?

[Mike_Cocking]

It certainly plays tough for the middle band of golfers who can just reach it in two and who wouldn't consider playing short and pitching on.  I've probably played the course a dozen or perhaps 15 times and I usually have a mid to short iron in here which is an incredible advantage for the reasons given previously.  Whislt the shelf is pretty hard to access I never found any of the other pins a problem - well not with an 8 iron anyway.

The trees became an issue through construction and the client were twitchy about trying to seek permission to remove anymore than the row that had to be removed to build the 2nd - they ran staright across the fairway at about 200m from the tee.  If the tea-tree were gone it would allow a bit more short grass - especially on the right - which would obviously be a good thing.

I really like the feature david highlighted - the fact that the right hill is actually really long and pretty much uncarryable so the best shot is a well controlled fade around rather than a bomb over. 

My biggest gripe about the course has been the very poor revegetation which has spoilt many areas of the course - this green site and the next (the 4th) being two of the worst.

[Tom_Doak]

David E:

Thanks for your thorough analysis of the 3rd hole.  I agree with nearly all of it, except the part where you want to move the tee back!

There was another GCA thread a few days ago where I talked about my goal to have a couple of holes on each course where the approach was harder for good players [with a medium or short iron], than for an average player running up a 3-wood.  Your illustration of the second shot here displays my reasoning perfectly.  Perhaps, if the second shot is easier when the ball will run up to the front of the green, you should lay back a bit off the tee, or hit a 3/4 approach shot with a longer club.    [I'm just teasing; the only good players I've seen take that approach are Tom Watson, Nick Faldo, and Tiger Woods.]

You, like most, are just too hung up on the concept of par, whereas this hole is designed around the predecessor of par -- the "bogey" score which was referred to widely in the UK, prior to W.W. II.  In fact, when I did my year in Britain in 1982-83, there were still two courses [Swinley Forest and The Addington] which had only the Bogey score listed on the scorecard.  I think the Bogey score for each of them was 72 or 73, though strict par at Swinley is 67 or 68.  The difference is exactly what you describe ... that, although this hole is reachable in two by the better players, only the very best golfers should expect to make 4 on a regular basis, and everyone else will be scrambling to try and do so.

The thirteenth hole is similarly controversial, for generally the same reason, although it's the tee shot there rather than the second shot which is the crux of the difficulty.  I actually told the management in December, after playing the course three consecutive days, that they should change #13 to a par five on the scorecard ... but keep all the tees exactly where they are.

[Tom_Doak]

And on the original routing the current 2nd was followed by the current 6th.

Mike:

Actually, the original 27-hole routing I did for David Inglis went 1-2-7-8-9-[10-11]-6-3-18, and then over to #17 on the Fingal course; 17-4-5-12-13-14-15 were all going to be part of a separate nine-hole course.  The tenth and eleventh were different than today ... ten was a great par-3 to a shelf just left of #10 fairway, and then eleven would have been a par-4 up and over to the current #11 green.  But we couldn't remove the trees, so those two holes had to change, and then 11-6 would have been consecutive par-3's, so the sequence was changed.

For a while after that, I thought we'd take #2 down over the saddle toward #3 tee, but we couldn't remove those trees, either, so we had to make #2 work as a sub-300 yard hole.  Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention.  

[Kyle Henderson]

Thanks again to the participants so far. This is fun!

One of the great joys of my trip, after waking before dawn, playing 36 holes/taking several dozen photos and finally getting “home” (the Elvins residence) around 10-11 each night, was the subsequent discussions Dave and I shared about my impressions, changes to the courses over the years (using time-lapsing aerial photos, etc.), ect. It was a glorious festival of GCA nerdocracy.

[Kyle Henderson]

At the 4th (197 meters), we encounter the first and perhaps most difficult of the par 3’s. The flag is just visible above and between the 2nd and 3rd “no cart” signs from the left. While it seems to play a bit uphill, I’m curious to learn the true difference (if any) in elevation between the tees and green. Bunkers at the front corners and along the right side suggest the best misses will be pin-high left.


From behind the green (the 5th tee), it is apparent that a large swath of short grass is available left of the green (right side of this picture). The green is large and vexing, with many obvious mini-moguls and subtle tilts to test even the best of putters. Further out, one can see the 17th hole approaching on the left and the 3rd hole working away on the right.

[David_Elvins]

My biggest gripe about the course has been the very poor revegetation which has spoilt many areas of the course - this green site and the next (the 4th) being two of the worst.

[David_Elvins]

You, like most, are just too hung up on the concept of par

I agree with most of what you say, apart from this.  

I am not approaching this from the idea of par but from the typ of shots one has to hit.  

I like the hole, but to me, the least fun approach to this hole is with a 6-7 iron.  The reason being that the greensite holds little terror with this short a club, but the chance to stick it really close (especially to the left pin) is difficult. It can be done, and the better players will do it more often, but most often isn't.

The two most exciting shots into this green, IMO are with a wood (or long iron) or wedge.  With a wood or long iron it is much like the 8th at Barnbougle.  A very difficult shot that really tests your execution and decision making.  With a wedge, from 10-40 yards short of the green, it is an exciting opportunity to use the contours in the green to get the ball close to the hole.  

I doubt that Michael Cocking has ever been in either of these spots and I personally think it would be a better hole if he was.  

[Scott Warren]

Four holes into the round there, it struck me that if this is a lesser course than Barny Dunes then BD must really be something special (which it is, but I'm not sure if I think it's all that far in front of StAB).

Firstly: if that first tee doesn't excite you, I'm not sure what will. It's such a great, isolated view with nothing but golf course spread out before you.

I thought the round started well with two birdie chances over great land followed by two tough pars and it made for a lot of excitement: the blind/semi-blind wedge to the tabletop green at the 1st, the driverable 2nd on that wild sidehill and the green dwarfed by the enormous exposed sand dune.

Then the approach to the 3rd reminded me of the 12th at County Louth. I can't take issue with anything David E has said as he's a former StAB member and I've played it just once, but all of our group - three single figures and a low-teens - had long approaches after good drives by virtue of the hole playing into the wind. If the wind blows that way with any regularity then from 380-400m I can't see how even good players will have long irons and hybrids to the green.

I'm a big fan of the 4th. There's ample room up there to land a hybrid or fairway wood provided you're willing to give the pin away and favour the left, though it would be improved if the thick gunch short right allowed you to find your ball.

And it might be down to the bare bones maintenance, but I love the weatehered-looking bunker lips.

[Tim_Weiman]

Kalen Braley,

St  Andrews Beach is probably my favorite course that Tom has built. Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle get all the attention, but I really think St Andrews Beach has the most fun shots to play.

So much wish I could visit and play it every year.

[David_Elvins]

The 4th is a really good hole.  

I just love the contouring in the green.  Very big right to left slope with some great little plateaus.  

It is incredibly hard to get close to a right hand pin and the the bunkers on the right are death.  

The only thing that I don't like about the hole, and I don't think it would be easy to fix, is how hard it is to land a ball short ofthe green and get it to roll on.  The crowned land short fo the green kicks it either left or right.  At 220 yards, the hole is either a 4 iron down wind or a wood/driver into the wind.  Having to carry these shots onto the green and then get them to stop is a tough ask, especially downwind, although I am sure Mar Ferguson will tell me that it is a fade bunt 3 wood landing on a spot 5 square feet in size on the front left of the green is easy and the architecture has defeated me.   Ideally, I reckon the green sets up better if approached from 10-20 yards left ofthe current tee, but that ain't goingto happen.

[Bryan Izatt]

Some belated pictures of the third.  What a terrific golf hole and particularly the green site.  From one play, into the wind, it was playable at 400 yards from the white tees.  Reversing the direction of the hole from #2 makes for an additional challenge on a windy day.







The slopes are not for the timid.




And, look where the flag is.  And, where my ball isn't, although I still saved a par.  The green has my wife scratching her head.  (OK, maybe it was really the flies).

[Mark_F]

I actually told the management in December, after playing the course three consecutive days, that they should change #13 to a par five on the scorecard ... but keep all the tees exactly where they are.

Tom:
Why didn't you just tell them to abandon the back tee?  13 is a much better hole from the 425 metre tee at the bottom of the hill;it is almost as good as it would have been from the tee it should be played from.

While it seems to play a bit uphill, I’m curious to learn the true difference (if any) in elevation between the tees and green.

The difference is negligible, Kyle.

The green is large and vexing, with many obvious mini-moguls and subtle tilts to test even the best of putters.

Interesting viewpoint.  There is at least one occasional poster here who believes the green is too small.

Having to carry these shots onto the green and then get them to stop is a tough ask, especially downwind, although I am sure Mark Ferguson will tell me that it is a fade bunt 3 wood landing on a spot 5 square feet in size on the front left of the green is easy and the architecture has defeated me.

That's a disappointingly jejune, although hardly surprising, reply from you David.  You have a lot of street cred because you are a big hitter, but obviously your lack of intellectual rigor and tendency to preternatural hyperbolic fallacies is glossed over.

Your goal is to make the best score you can on the hole.  If it is downwind and you can't land a ball short of the green and roll it on, hit it out to the left then chip or putt it back against the contour of the green and look for a birdie elsewhere.

[David_Elvins]

And, look where the flag is.  And, where my ball isn't, although I still saved a par.  The green has my wife scratching her head.  (OK, maybe it was really the flies).

Thanks for posting bryan, I think that photo shows just how devilish that pin placement is.  If Alex is still checking in I think he will get a better idea of the challenge that awaits him!

[Alex Miller]

Thanks for posting bryan, I think that photo shows just how devilish that pin placement is.  If Alex is still checking in I think he will get a better idea of the challenge that awaits him!

Pffft! What challenge? 

It is nice to see a tough pin surrounded by grass on all sides and not sitting entirely above its surrounds.

[Ben Stephens]

Here is my take of the 3rd and 4th holes

Hole 3 - I thought it looked a bit bland off the tee viewing down the flattish fairway and then to my surprise what a fantastic looking green site then it grew on me.




Here one of my dad stuck up the top lip of the left bunkers!



Hole 4 - quite a tough par 3 across a valley it was a left to right crosswind then - never go right here and there is a bailout area on the left which I did not know. It is a course that definitely has to be played more than once to know where to miss or land the ball




4th green with 17th green in background and 4th tee on the right

Cheers
Ben

[David_Elvins]

Your goal is to make the best score you can on the hole.  If it is downwind and you can't land a ball short of the green and roll it on, hit it out to the left then chip or putt it back against the contour of the green and look for a birdie elsewhere.

You are correct, Mark. It took me about 2 rounds to realise that I would be always aiming for the left edge of the green on this hole. However, the very best architecture tempts players to bite off more than they can chew, imo.  With the right hand bunkers being such a fearsome hazard, it would be good, imo, if the player was tempted to play towards them. The balance between risk and reward is at the heart of golf course architecture. My opinion would be on this hole, the balance is less than optimal.

It is still a very good hole, imo.

[Tyler Kearns]

And, look where the flag is.  And, where my ball isn't, although I still saved a par.  The green has my wife scratching her head.  (OK, maybe it was really the flies).

Bryan,

This picture and pin position exemplify the need to play to the back of the green here. Same goes for No. 9 green, not a common trait found on most holes I've played.

TK