[DMoriarty]

I'm not sure I'd call it more strategic.  Maybe more penal.  The preferred line, then and now is up the left side for a shorter second shot and a better angle to the green.  A continuous OOB wouldn't make the left line more or less desirable than it is now.  It would certainly make it more punitive if you missed it on the left side.  And it would certainly have been more intimidating.

There are still holes today, earlier in the routing, that run parallel and close to the tracks.  They are intimidating and punitive, because if memory serves, the tracks are an internal OOB.

I think perhaps you and I may view "strategic" and "penal" architecture differently.  To my mind, strategic architecture oftentimes has a penal element so that there is some risk associated with playing for the preferred angle or positioning.  Such risk can help create strategic interest.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

We all throw around these adjectives like strategic and penal, but perhaps we are not on the same page about what they mean in specific instances.  I'd be curious what you meant when you said "perhaps more strategic hole" originally?  How can a hole be more strategic? And, what you mean by "strategic interest"?  

Seems to me that strategic architecture implies holes that are designed to allow more than one way of playing them.  This hole allows you to drive out right to ensure a second shot, albeit one that is less than ideal.  The alternate strategy is to drive up the left side for a shorter second and better angle.  There is risk with the drive on the second option and risk with the second shot on the first option.  Having continuous OOB on the left increases the risk of the left option significantly.  I'm not sure how that increases "strategic interest"?  It increases the penalty for a miss on the left option; for most it would just suggest that there is only one real option, the defensive drive to the right.  Would that not make the hole less "strategic"?

I wondered if you noticed the second article that Melvyn posted, where just above the break there is a piece about the Club Captain and his son drawing up a plan for the revised Lundin course.  I assume they were amateurs.  Then Braid was brought in by the laird to do a different design.  Then, apparently the members were unhappy with the Braid plan.  Maybe even on the other side of the Atlantic rank amateurs were doing designs even when they had an experienced architect at their disposal.  I wonder if Tom knows?  

[Brad Tufts]

Here's a question:

The original Innerleven Links looks to be clearly an Old Tom work.

Once the two courses split, Lundin employed James Braid to add 9 holes to their half.

Who is responsible for Leven's inland 9 holes?

Just curious, as the Leven website seems to be coy about this...maybe it was an in-house job?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brad

Old Tom, course split - check your e-mail in say 10 minutes

Melvyn

[Bryan Izatt]

Finally had a chance to get back to Lundin Links to look at, and play, the Leven hole.  The features of the hole are an angled burn that probably affected the tee shot back in the day and a hillock that partially hides the green. 

Today, the burn is not really an issue, unless there is a strong head wind.  It is possible for even relatively modest hitters to try to drive the green.  Here is an aerial of the hole.



From the tee, the right edge of the green is just visible.  Any pins to the left side of the green are partially to totally blind from the tee.







In the old days, the tee shot strategy was a risk and reward option related to the angled burn.  Driving up the left side involved carrying the burn, which is closer to the tee on that side.  The reward is a short pitch that is blind over the hillock.  The hillock is very modest at 8 to 10 feet high and blocks the view of pins that are on the left side of the green.  Here are pictures of the hillock and green from the side with the 2nd green in the foreground.



Here is a picture from the left side of the fairway showing how a left pin is blind would be blind for the second shot.  The tip of the pin is just barely visible.



A drive up the right side would have been a safer layup short of the burn wich angles further away from the tee on that side.  A number of bunkers add some spice to laying up there.  The reward is a more open look at the green for the second shot.  Here is a picture from the right side of the fairway showing how the green is opened up from that angle.



What struck me was the subtlety of the features of the hole.  It surprises me that of all the holes that CBM must have seen on his trek through the UK, that he would have landed on this one as one of his ideal holes. Replaying it also confirmed for me that the Leven hole at Old Macdonald bears little resemblance to this hole, while being an excellent hole in its own right.

[Anthony Gray]

  Excellent post Bryan. Now I understand the hole.

  Anthony

[Bradley Anderson]

Bryan,

Thanks for the great hole description and pictures. These are the kinds of posts that keep me coming back to GCA!

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, thanks for the additional photos.

As for your explanation of how they used to play the hole, maybe I have misunderstood you.   You seem to be saying that golfer had a choice between a riskier carry over the burn on the left, or to play safely and lay up short of the burn on the right.

In the old days, the tee shot strategy was a risk and reward option related to the angled burn.  Driving up the left side involved carrying the burn, which is closer to the tee on that side.  The reward is a short pitch that is blind over the hillock.  The hillock is very modest at 8 to 10 feet high and blocks the view of pins that are on the left side of the green. 
. . .
A drive up the right side would have been a safer layup short of the burn wich angles further away from the tee on that side.  A number of bunkers add some spice to laying up there.  The reward is a more open look at the green for the second shot.  Here is a picture from the right side of the fairway showing how the green is opened up from that angle.

According to CBM the hole was only 240 yards.  If the green is still in its original position then the  carry over the burn to the left side of the fairway was only about 110 yards and the carry over the burn to the right side of the fairway was only about 140-150 yards.  If a golfer was too short to make the carry over the burn to one side or another, he/she was probably not going to get to the green in two anyway.

So my understanding (based on CBM's, Whigham's, and Doak's descriptions of the original) is that the safer shot was over the burn to the left because of the shorter carry, but this resulted in a more difficult angle with the mound interfering and the green sloping away.  The riskier shot was over the burn to the right, because it took the mound out of play and because the green slope was more forgiving from that angle.  

[As an aside, looking at the location of the previous green, I wonder if perhaps the green in question is not quite in the same position as it once was.]

[Bill_McBride]

160 yards would have been a long carry in OTM's time, when this hole was only 240 yards. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

There seem to be three likely options for the tee shot.  Carry the burn left, lay up right, or carry the burn on the right.  Seems illogical to lay up left as it is so short.  Do you know what average carry distances were for amateurs 100 years ago.  The carry left and right were more likely around 140 yards and 170 yards respectively.  Would that have been a challenge/risk for the members of the time?  

Either lay up right, or carry the burn to the right, opens up the green.  A layup leaves a shot of 120 yards in - not too daunting, then or now.  From my recollection the green doesn't slope that significantly away.  It is certainly easier to run the ball in from the right side.

The tee directly behind the preceding green (just left of my yellow line on the aerial) is about 240 yards to the front edge of the green, so that might have been the tee in CBM's time.  Many of the tees on the course are still very close to the preceding green.  

I doubt the green has been moved. I don't understand your reference to the preceding green as it relates to the position of this green.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I agree it seems illogical for anyone to have tried to lay up left and short of the burn, but then I think it seems only slightly less illogical for anyone but the very shortest of hitters to have tried to lay up to the right and short of the burn.  

I guess it is possible that an extremely short hitter would choose to hit short of the burn, but I don't think that is what CBM and HJW had in mind.  As CBM and HJW described the hole, the choice is either an easier, shorter carry from the tee leaving a worse angle over a hill on approach vs. a longer carry from the tee leaving a better angle and view on approach. No mention of your 120 shot off the tee to short of the berm and leaving a 120 yard approach.  

As for carry distances, CBM's article appeared in the fall of 1906.  Carry distances were much shorter then, but not that short.  Take a look at Whigham's diagram of NGLA's 17th, above.  The marked carry distances range from 120 yards to 185 yards.    On the Sahara, I think the options were something like 130 yards to 190 yards.   On the Cape, 100 yds. to 200+ yds.  

As for the length of the hole, I was going by the distance mentioned by CBM (240 yards) and using his stated methodology --middle of the green to the to the middle of the tee box.  Based on that approach the hole seems to be longer now than it was then, and if it is, then either the tees were moved, the green was moved, or both.

[Mark Pearce]

David,

I played in an open competition at Lundin Links a couple of years ago (and played quite well) in a howling gale (on 4 I was through the back with driver 9 iron, my tee shot on 5 went OOB over the back of the green with a wedge, playing from the back tees (so it travelled some 170 yards against my stock wedge distance of 110 yards)).  In that wind and with modern equipment I very seriously considered laying up short right of the burn.  In those conditions (and I think that's the prevailing wind) there is a real decision to be made by many quite competent golfers.

[DMoriarty]

Mark,

Thanks for the added description.  I haven't played the hole and I'll take your word for it that laying up short of the burn can occasionally be a realistic option in severe wind conditions, although it sounds like in the end that you went ahead and carried the burn.

According to CBM, in his time this hole was only 240 yards, so laying up short of the burn would have meant a tee shot of around 120 yards or less, leaving at least as long on the second. To carry the burn would have required a tee shot of around 110-140 yards, depending upon the angle.   Whether or not it was a realistic option under extreme wind conditions, laying up short of the burn was not an option that concerned CBM or Whigham.

[Bill_McBride]

Mark,

Thanks for the added description.  I haven't played the hole and I'll take your word for it that laying up short of the burn can occasionally be a realistic option in severe wind conditions, although it sounds like in the end that you went ahead and carried the burn.

According to CBM, in his time this hole was only 240 yards, so laying up short of the burn would have meant a tee shot of around 120 yards or less, leaving at least as long on the second. To carry the burn would have required a tee shot of around 110-140 yards, depending upon the angle.   Whether or not it was a realistic option under extreme wind conditions, laying up short of the burn was not an option that concerned CBM or Whigham.

David, I think Bryan Izatt says above that the carry down the right side was ~170 yards due to the diagonal nature of the burn.  That was a good pop in the old days, especially into the prevailing wind.

[DMoriarty]

Yep he says that and I believe him.   But the hole was apparently shorter then -- CBM wrote it was only 240 yards.  If so then, unless the green has moved, the longest carry was much closer to 140 than 170.    

For what it is worth, Tom Doak wrote the carry was 120-150 yards.  Here again is his description of the original and of the 13th hole at OM:

On that hole, there is a big dune to the left and short of the green, and the green falls away hard from front left to back right, so you are rewarded by driving down the right side.  On the original hole, there is a burn crossing diagonally from left to right to make getting the right angle harder -- it's only 125-150 yards off the tee, but remember, Macdonald became familiar with the hole in the 1870's, when that was a real carry.  You only actually wind up with a blind second shot [not seeing the flag] if you yank your tee shot out of the fairway left.

We've got the tilted green and the big hill [which was already a part of the site], and we needed to build a short par-4 in that position.  Instead of building a burn to nowhere, I put that little bunker in the right-center of the fairway to guard the preferred angle -- although not many people figure out that it is usually the preferred angle.  Anyway, that's close enough to a Leven for me.  After all, how many other guys can even claim to have seen the original!

I am not sure why Tom is assuming the 1870's, as CBM had been over visiting the holes in 1906, which was the year the description was published.   Other than this point, I think I am saying about the same thing as did Tom, as well as CBM and HJW.  

[Bill_McBride]

David, notice that Tom says that 150 yards was a real carry in those days. 

Just like at NGLA, there is a stout carry, not just an average carry, to get to the best angle and view.   It might have been only 150 yards, but into the wind that was a challenge anytime before the Haskell ball.

If the carry of the burn down the right side was a ho hum shot, it wouldn't be the famous hole it's turned out to be, right?

[DMoriarty]

Yes, I see that.  As I said, I am not sure why Tom is using the 1870's rather than 1906, the year CBM took his last comprehensive study trip and the year he wrote the article mentioning the hole.  By 1906 the Haskell had been around for a few years (he discussed it in the same article) and generally 150 was a manageable carry, especially for the end of the carry spectrum.  NGLA gets some wind, yet he designed the course with a number of diagonals where the long carry was 185-200.

But I agree that at some point the carry must have been at least somewhat challenging, either because of the technology or the wind.  The reason i posted was because in his description above Bryan doesnt even mention the longer carry option from the tee, where my understanding is that a long drive away from the greenside was the key and best option, ability permitting. 

I am left wondering, though, whether/how the hole was lengthened?  (If the green rather than the tee moved, then the carry would have been what it is now, which I think Bryan said was around 170 which sounds more in line with the explanations of the concept.)  I am also left wondering whether CBM saw the potential for the concept without concerning himself with how well it worked in that particular application.  Recall that he did this with other holes (biarritz for example.) I wonder if the shortish carry is the reason he mentioned  that ideally such a hole should be longer.

As an aside, if we forget about the issue of the distances, then Bryan's description sounds more like the early descriptions of the bottle concept.  Drive over the short side of the diagonal and be left with a tougher angle, or lay up short of the diagonal for a better angle.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the hole concept being easier carry left punished by obscured 2nd vs riskier, longer carry to the right being rewarded by more open second shot.  The layup right is merely another option.  I have no idea how it was generally played in the early part of the 20th century.

I think it unlikely the green was moved.  The hole, even today, plays 255 as a slight dogleg from the front tee (behind the right side of the 15th green).   CBM might have mismeasured it, or the tee may have been 10 yards closer, or he may have measured it on a direct line. 

From the current front (255 yard) tee, it is 160 yards to land it on the right hand bridge.  I was allowing for a 10 yard safety factor in saying 170 yard carry.

Re Tom's comments on the original, I think he's got it a bit wrong on a couple of points.  There is not a "big" hill.  It's a quite modest 10 feet high at max. The one at OM is at least three times that height.  You don't have to jerk it left out of the fairway to have a blind second.  See the picture above.  The left pin is blind from the left side of the fairway.  Oh, and he got the last point wrong - "After all, how many other guys can even claim to have seen the original!".  Turns out quite a number of us have.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()