[Mark_F]

I have heard several say there's a lot going on in a small space on that green, and that it might feel better if the same curves swept across a more broad area. Someone of this mind also posed the question of what the green at RMW 2 would feel like if reduced 50% in size, while maintaining the same slopes and curves. I can see what they mean, but obviously don't agree. I'm keen to see if anyone else was in that camp. Doesn't seem there is does there...

MM

Matt,

The front area is obviously quite small, but it has minimal contour.  It is a difficult target to hit with anything more than a 9-iron, and that is obviously only if the wind isn't too strong.  There is, however, plenty of room at the back of the green for those times when conditions, or lack of talent or nerve, apply.  That section does have a trifle more contour, though hardly unfair, and it can be a difficult putt up the back of the tier, but it is hardly onerous.

It is a similar hole to some at Newcastle, in a way.  You are better off being on top of the ridge with a longer shot in, or right at the base of the valley.  In between, with a pitch of a downhill lie to an elevated green, is fool's territory.   I do believe the second bunker at the base of the valley to be a touch of overkill, however.

Some people say the greens at St Andrews Beach are often difficult to hit.  On 8 and 9, despite the size of the putting targets, it is really the fairway position that is difficult not only to hit, but to discern. 

[Kyle Henderson]

The 12th hole (389 meters) bends right between bunkers before rising to a green benched into the far hillside. Native grasses along the right separate this hole from the 5th (which runs in the opposite direction). Care must be taken to ensure approach shots do not come up short – the green is fairly deep, though this is not possible to discern from the fairway. As with so many of its siblings, the markedly complex putting surface will often produce double-breaking putts.

[Bryan Izatt]

Off of one play, it looks like the temptation is to drive it over the right fairway bunker to shorten the hole.  However, there really isn't fairway over there and it brings the hay on the right into play and presents a more challenging angle for the second shot.  A better line is toward the fairway bunker on the left.  Another elevated green that's tough to putt.

After 3 holes the back is definitely looking tougher than the front.

[Brian Phillips]

Here it is Robin!



And where you ended up.

[Ben Stephens]

Nice shot Robin!

Here are my pics of Hole 12.


Tee shot


View of 5th green from 12th tee


Slope in front of green making the green look closer than it sctually was - so deceptive!


Rear view showing left hidden run off area

Cheers
Ben

[Robin_Hiseman]

Brian.

You're a legend!!!  Thank you!

Robin

[Kyle Henderson]

The carry from the 13th tee is quite daunting, particularly given that most of the fairway is hidden.


Simply making the carry from the tee is insufficient, for the fairway drops on both sides and will quickly send slight misses even further off line. Only a long and very straight ball will bring the green within reach, and even then the approach will be played from the most heavily undulating fairway on the course.


Happily, the green is set in a bowl that will tend to gather slightly errant approaches toward the flag, with the exception of the slight false front. The green is also set below the landing zone for one’s drive, making the entire flagstick is visible(!!!).

[Mike_Clayton]

Kyle,

I am not sure who took you back to the 'other' tee here but it was the 14th hole that had problem with the neighbour.
There is a little cleared spot back and right of the 14th tee that makes it a much better hole but the bloke in the house complained that golfers would be looking into his windows.
When I knew the blokes maintaining the course they kept it cut so those who knew it was there could play from there.
Now I am assuming the contractors have no idea its even back there and last time I played it needed a little clearing work with the wedge to make it playable.
The neighbour was told there would be a group of trees planted so the view of the house would be blocked.
His reply?
'I don't want any trees planted that will block my view of the course.'!!

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle,

I am not sure who took you back to the 'other' tee here but it was the 14th hole that had problem with the neighbour.
There is a little cleared spot back and right of the 14th tee that makes it a much better hole but the bloke in the house complained that golfers would be looking into his windows.
When I knew the blokes maintaining the course they kept it cut so those who knew it was there could play from there.
Now I am assuming the contractors have no idea its even back there and last time I played it needed a little clearing work with the wedge to make it playable.
The neighbour was told there would be a group of trees planted so the view of the house would be blocked.
His reply?
'I don't want any trees planted that will block my view of the course.'!!

I stand corrected (as does my post above). I guess I'm getting old.
The ungrassed teeing area is not currently playable, due to the growth you mentioned.

[Mark_F]

Excellent images of just what the [layer faces on 13, Kyle.

I am not sure who took you back to the 'other' tee here but it was the 14th hole that had problem with the neighbour.
There is a little cleared spot back and right of the 14th tee that makes it a much better hole but the bloke in the house complained that golfers would be looking into his windows.
When I knew the blokes maintaining the course they kept it cut so those who knew it was there could play from there.
Now I am assuming the contractors have no idea its even back there and last time I played it needed a little clearing work with the wedge to make it playable.

It was me, in an act of nerdery, that took Kyle through the jungle that area on 14 has become, Mike. Much better hole from there, although I still reckon the left hand bunker is superfluous. 

[Rob Swift]

The drive on 13, although its a long carry and does drop off on both sides, it is still a pretty good size land area on the fairway. Although I haven't played the hole for a while, I think because the landing area is in such an exposed area of the course we always struggled a little to get a really nice thick cover of couch grass up there, which in turn didn't hold as many balls up on the fairway. With that in mind maybe the rough in the hollow on the left could have been a little more forgiving.

For the longer hitters there is a nice shoot down the right half of the fairway where you can gain a few extra metres. With how small the actual putting surface is (approx 315m2) there is a pretty large area to hit your approach with the bowl type surround. This can be a fun green to chip into using the banks to get your ball close.

I believe this was only 1 of a small number of fairways where a large amount of earth moving had to occur.

[Ben Stephens]

Here is my take of hole 13, Firstly I did not think much of the hole on the tee shot and when I walked over the apex it was WOW what a hole. Wished I had walked the course backwards first before playing it!


Tee shot - tiger line right of the marker post


Fairway


Fairway bunker


Green


Closer view of green set in a amphitheatre

Cheers
Ben

[Bryan Izatt]

Yet more pictures of the 13th.


The lonely walker on the dusty road to the forward tee.




The fairway.  Into the wind this plays as a par 5 from the blue tees for mere mortals.  I guess you have to pay the price for short downwind par 4's some time.




The green.  Interesting switchup on the usual large green at the end of a long 4.

[Tom_Doak]

.
I believe this was only 1 of a small number of fairways where a large amount of earth moving had to occur.

Rob:

The only hole where we did any real earthmoving was #15.  On this one, we spent about two days on the crest of the fairway consolidating some contours, and trying to hold up balls on the left side from going down into the hollow on the left as much as we could, without changing the elevation of the top of the hill.  I'm sure we could have done more, but I figured one severe landing area out of 18 wasn't too many.

I've been questioned about this hole many, many times for a course that was closed for most of its life.  I still love the hole.  A lot of the controversy would have been avoided if we'd just called it a par 5 from the start, instead of a 4 ... or, made the green bigger to justify calling it a par 4.  I would guess one player in 20 reaches the green in regulation.

[Scott Warren]

Can those who have an issue with #13 please speak up? I know you're out there.

[Matthew Mollica]

Thanks Scott. I'll start. I thought someone would have said something by now! I am not as critical as some, but will play Devil's advocate.

A blind, uphill, drive, often played into the wind, to an undulating and crowned landing zone which the designer himself calls severe.
It's not as wide as many suggest. The carry to get to a good wide landing area is significant.

The result of anything other than a long straight drive to a central fairway segment is a ball repelled to rough, or a point where the ball may regularly be lost. The speed slot Rob discusses rewards the long hitter. There's little route to the hole for the short hitter or less accomplished golfer. 

Calling 13 a par 4 or 5 doesn't change these points so I'm not sure reassigning par would change a lot.

So often holes at St. Andrews Beach involve subtle strategy. 13 asks for a straight smash with driver, and a straight smash for the second shot.

Why would anyone be surprised this hole is the topic of debate?

MM

[Mark_F]

So often holes at St. Andrews Beach involve subtle strategy. 13 asks for a straight smash with driver, and a straight smash for the second shot.

There is more subtle strategy to the tee shot here than on any other two or three shot hole at St Andrews Beach, apart from perhaps 5 and 15.

The second shot offers no less subtle problems.

[Rob Swift]

Tom,

I love this hole for the challenges that it brings, you stand on the tee and know you have to hit a near perfect tee shot to;

1- Stay on the fairway and
2 -Give your self a shot at hitting the green in regulation or getting yourself into a good position to try and get up and down for your par.

I'm glad you left it as a Par 4 and most of the other par 4's at STAB have their challenges for other reasons. This one challenges all levels of golfers for length and accuracy. Although the green is small you probably have a bigger target with the bowl type surround than you would with a green of 500m2 or so and no bowl.

With the short par 4 14th next to come, everyone has a chance to get a possible bogey on the 13th back with a birdie on the 14th.

[Matthew Mollica]

There is more subtle strategy to the tee shot here than on any other two or three shot hole at St Andrews Beach, apart from perhaps 5 and 15.

The second shot offers no less subtle problems.

Mark, what does the tee shot ask for, apart from a low, hard straight smash, played to the central portion of a blind fairway?
No I'm not being facetious.

I think 15 is much more subtle. A broad, visible and wide fairway, with a valley rising to the greensite, and a green not fully sighted from the tee. No bunkers to hint at the ideal line from the tee.

What am I missing on 13?

MM

[Mark_F]

What am I missing on 13?

MM

Matt,

There are a lot of options depending upon the player and the conditions.  The best line into the green, especially for the most difficult hole locations on the right side of the green, is on the left hand side of the fairway, which also offers a slightly flatter lie.

It is 235 metres to clear all of the trouble on the left.   A nice fade that just skirts the crest will safely hold, but a draw will not.  Hitting to the centre of the fairway brings a more uneven lie into what is usually a long second shot. It isn't unusual to find your ball on one side of a slope, and both your feet on separate contours as well.  The central portion of the fairway also requires a longer drive to see the green, and will more likely result in an upslope lie, which is hardly what you want.

A big hitter wanting the chute to the right brings the rough into play if they miscue, and makes getting there in two unlikely, as well as leaving a narrow channel for a lay up. The player taking that line has to do so with a draw, since the fairway slopes toward the rough at that point.  Overcook the draw, and it could catch the other side of the crest that slopes toward the rubbish left, unless they are very long.

If you have played the hole before, you know which landmarks on the horizon to aim for depending upon what you are trying to accomplish, but it is still a line you have to convince yourself is correct, since the landing area is blind and the view from the tee is still disorientating.

Part of the reason the fairway contours seem extreme is because they weren't oversown with fescue.  That was always the plan, and it was something mentioned in the prospectus as part of the course plan, but it was never done, since the directors preferred to spend money on bathroom renovations rather than the course. That way, the slope on the left wouldn't have been so dicey, but the fact that it hasn't been done is scarcely an architectural fault. It will be interesting to see if the current owners do it, but I doubt it.

13 isn't one of my favourite holes, but the arguments against it are amusing. I have made a pair of fours the last two times I have played the hole, so it is hardly unachievable, is it?   I would still prefer the back tee abandoned, but it hardly kills the hole.  Maybe it is just the combination of elements that lead to the dislike.  If the tee was elevated, with the fairway problems clearly in view, would the hole be viewed with the same venom?

I doubt it, which means it is people's perceptions of what a hole should be rather than tackling what is there, that are the cause of discontent.

[Tom_Doak]

There is more subtle strategy to the tee shot here than on any other two or three shot hole at St Andrews Beach, apart from perhaps 5 and 15.

The second shot offers no less subtle problems.

Mark, what does the tee shot ask for, apart from a low, hard straight smash, played to the central portion of a blind fairway?
No I'm not being facetious.

I think 15 is much more subtle. A broad, visible and wide fairway, with a valley rising to the greensite, and a green not fully sighted from the tee. No bunkers to hint at the ideal line from the tee.

What am I missing on 13?

MM

Matthew:

Exactly the thing.  You see the tee shot as demanding a low, hard, straight smash.  But that's only if you are insistent on getting home in two and making four the conventional way.  If you are not thinking you have to reach the green in two, there's plenty of room in the fairway at the 220-yard mark, that would give you a blind second shot to a wide fairway, and a pitch from there.  That's why I think it should be called a par-5.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark & Tom, thanks for the good posts - points well made.

The flatter and far more receptive segment of the drive landing zone is 235m from the plates and 214m from the member tee. There is also a small shoulder on the right of the fairway which deflects you back into the fairway, rather than let balls run out further right.

I'm still not sold on what's available at the 190m (210yd) mark from the tee - there's a lot of golfers who can't fly even that far uphill into the wind. On a 457 metre hole, with a blind drive to a crowned fairway, there's got to be some allowance for them. Especially considering it can play directly into the wind at times.

I'm also not sure about defending the hole by saying that it's best played in a non-conventional way (pitch & putt par) by many golfers. Sure Bubba Watson can get there easily, and the green site is gorgeous, but having a beautiful greensite which is beyond the reach of a second shot for many who will play the course is sure to elicit some critical comment isn't it?

What would we all think of a 320 yard par 3? Pro players could get their with their tee shots, but few others could record a green in regulation. Sure, a pitch & putt par is attainable. Players would also have the option to aim for a realistic and stress-free bogey. Is this good design?

MM

[Mark_F]

The flatter and far more receptive segment of the drive landing zone is 235m from the plates and 214m from the member tee.

Matt,

Which is why the hole is miles better from the 425 metre tee.  Although 214 metres is probably still beyond many who play it, it removes some of the "trouble" from the 190 metre mark. (Measured from the back tee.)

For the better player/longer hitter, it also makes the second shot a little more dangerous because they will certainly have the length to get home, bringing the bunkers more into play for the wild long shot, or blowing a shot wide of the ridge that runs into the back third of the green.

You also get a a fairly unique tee shot - an up and over drive that still has to be kept low in order to avoid ballooning in the wind; it becomes a right-to-left hole, providing a little more variety from a run of left-to-right holes;players have to aim more along the tough left line of the hazard, whether they fade or draw, and it makes the bail out right if they don't want the tight left line require a more careful choice of line and shot shape.  It also means lesser players may possibly only have a chip and putt, or at worst a pitch and putt, for a four, as opposed to a 7 to 9-iron third.

I'm still not sold on what's available at the 190m (210yd) mark from the tee - there's a lot of golfers who can't fly even that far uphill into the wind. On a 457 metre hole, with a blind drive to a crowned fairway, there's got to be some allowance for them.

This image of Kyle's is at around that mark - what is wrong with the fairway here?

I'm also not sure about defending the hole by saying that it's best played in a non-conventional way (pitch & putt par) by many golfers.

I agree.

[Kyle Henderson]

While I do like the 13th, I find the combination of blindness and unpredictable fairway bounces a bit troublesome, as players may not have much of an idea where their ball was repelled.

"Searching for balls sucks. Refute that." -John Kirk

[Tom_Doak]

One more comment about the 13th.  I do believe, in hindsight, that if we'd called it a par 5, most of the criticisms of the hole would go away.

I hesitated to call it a par 5 originally for two reasons:

(a)  We wanted to move the men's tee up a bit, and doing so put the hole at par-4 length.  And,

(b)  I figured the 13th was a par 4 1/2 and the 14th was a par 3 1/2, which adds up to 8 not 9.

Funny how nobody complains about the 14th being too easy in relation to par, just about the 13th being too hard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()