[Bryan Izatt]

Professional or amateur - all are welcome to critique this hole.  You don't even have to have been here to take a run at it.  Is this hole good, bad or ugly?  I'll give the architect later, if case no one guesses it.

First, an aerial with yardages.




From the tee, requiring a forced carry over a quarry.




From the left side landing zone.




From the right side landing area.




From behind the green

[Matthew Rose]

I guess the one thing that sticks out to me is that there doesn't appear to be any apparent advantage in hitting one particular side of the fairway or the other, since you have a similar shot over pot bunker regardless of where you place your tee ball.

As a result, there doesn't seem to be much risk/reward in challenging the centerline bunker or the left side of the fairway, which from the tee appears to be a harder shot to pull off. So I don't see any benefit in playing aggressively off the tee.

I don't think it is a bad hole but I do think it could be a better one if the green was angled or bunkered differently.

[Frank M]

#2 at Wyndance. I personally think its a decent hole. Not horrible but not great.

[Mark Saltzman]

Bryan,

Looking at the pictures, the hole looks fine... it's a short hole so an exacting approach to an angled green with a run-off behind is interesting.

I agree completely with what Frank said about the tee shot... that quarry on the left and the centreline bunker make you think the ideal line is down the left... but in truth, ideal is probably up the right, though anything that isn't in the centreline bunker will do.

Playing the hole at ground level, I think the hole is pretty bad.  The approach is too exacting with no bail-out.  And I hate to use the word fair, but that approach is unfair to anybody but low cappers.  Especially downwind, many players will find it almost impossible to carry the deep front bunkers and then stop the ball before the ball runs off the slope behind the green. 

The green probably should have been angled left-to-right instead of right-to-left.  Frank's probably right, getting rid of those front bunkers would be an improvement... as would lowering the level of the green... I just don't think a tabletop works here.

[Bradley Anderson]

It appears that it might be a better hole if you take out at least one or more of the bunkers in front of the green. I like a golf hole that plays easier or harder depending on hole placement. But all that bunkering in front of a shallow and diagonal green makes the hole play hard every day regardless of hole placement.

The short grass expanse that wraps around the green is a little excessive - there is a lot of bent to maintain there way beyond the scope of it's usefulness.

[Carl Rogers]

The 10th at Riverfront, in which I started a thread, does this type of hole very well (shortish par 4 w/centerline fw bunker & angled green).  Missing in the centerline bunker makes for an iffy appraoch shot though it is only 110 yards or so to the middle of the green.  When the pin is in the front the best drive is to one side of the bunker & the opposite when the pin is back.  That is because the positioning of the green side bunkers carefully guard different sections of the green relative to the angle of the approach shots.  Missing in the green side bunkers are highly problematic.  The easier green side miss zone is not obvious from the approach shot areas.

[Mark McKeever]

The only thing I find odd is that there really isnt any advantage to hitting boldly down the left side.  I think that if the green was angled and bunkered differently to reward the tee shot down the left, I think I would like it better.

Appears to be a fine hole otherwise.

Mark

[Greg Tallman]

What purpose does the right hand fairway bunker serve?

What advantage is gained by going left from the tee?

Why not incorporate the quarry more into the green site?

Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?

1. Move center line bunker a tiny bit right creating a more realistic left side option from the tee
1A. place another smallish bunker 25-30 yards beyond and left of the repositioned center bunker challenging the big hitter who goes left by pinching it in at the longer distance.
2. Eliminate the right hand fiarway bunker and while you are at it the other right bunker as well.
3. Move the green over to the edge of the quarry
4. Place perhaps a single deep bunker at the front right forcing those playing "safe" on the right to carry the bunker and perhaps bring the quarry (long) into play on the approach.
5. Slope the green from front right to back left... again making the approach from the right difficult
6. Provide some green level bail out on the right with the left and rear maintaining their fall away slopes of the current green.  

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know where Wyndance is, but what is the rationale behind the two different styles of bunker on the same hole?

One look at the aerial photo first, and the angle of the green, and I thought that it was a hole that suckers you into playing down the left side when in fact the better line for nearly any player would be down the right.  The fairway bunker on the right makes sense, from that perspective.  But, I agree with Greg that given the nature of the quarry, it would have made more sense to design the hole to reward the player who dares to go left off the tee ... unless, of course, there are several other holes of that persuasion at Wyndance ... wherever it is.

[Kyle Harris]

Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?

Answer A:

Wind

Answer B:

Because no two golfers are the same.

[Mark Pearce]

Answer C: to confuse;

Answer D: to give options;

Answer E: why not?

[Frank M]

Tom: Wyndance is just north of Toronto and you're right, the bunker styles are all over the place on multiple holes.

[Bryan Izatt]

I guess I felt that the hole would get a little love here both because it offers some strategic choince and because the surrounds on the side and back provide some options for recovery.  It's a little strange that Seminole is held up as great architecture at least partly because the greens are difficult to hit and hold and recovery is no sure thing.  And that the 6th at Pacific Dunes is also held in high esteem at least partly because it is a small hard to hit table top green with a penal bunker on one side and a closely mown runoff on the other.

That said, many of you have focused in on the perceived shortcoming of the strategy of the hole; the risk/rewards of either side of the centreline bunker.  To me, the design of the tee strategy is almost a misdirection.  People assume that the left side, being narrower and with death in the quarry nearby must have a significant reward to justify the risk.  As most have noted, that is not the case.  The reward is a shorter second shot, a short iron to wedge for most.  This is good for hitting the table top green.  However, there are two downsides to the left approach.  The green is shallower from over there and the surface is completely blind.  The right side provides a longer (but not hugely) second.  But, it also provides some view of the surface and the angle looks down the legth of the green, so there is more room for error.  The fairway bunker to the right provides at least some risk (for the membership, if not pros) for those bailing out to the right off the tee, so they don't get a totally free ride.

As to positioning the hole nearer the quarry, the course has 3 or 4 other holes that use the quarry more closely.  I guess the architect was trying to not be too repetitive.

Mark,

I'm not sure why you think the hole too exacting.  It is a short par 4 and most people will have a short iron to wedge in hand for their second shots.  Given it's short, shouldn't there be some challenge for the second shot.  Brings me back to courses like Seminole and PD that have exacting greens - more exacting than this even.

Bradley,

I'm not sure if taking out the front bunkers would make it easier or fairer.  I suppose that if the ridge were fairway cut then there would be some chance to run a second shot up, but how many players in North America would even try that.  I've seen a number of people blow up their scorecard trying to recover from the closely mown area in the back.  If the front were the same, there would be double the opportunity.  Now, many people final those front bunkers penal.  They are deep.  But there should be some risk for a short par 4.

As to maintaining the extra bent area in the back, I don't think that is significant.  All the fairways are bent, so it's just some more.  I kind of like it because it is rare in this neighbourhood to have green surrounds that aren't bluegrass rough or hazards.  Nice to have a change of pace.

Greg,

Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?

To get in players' heads.  The proper strategy for each player isn't precisely clear.

1A. place another smallish bunker 25-30 yards beyond and left of the repositioned center bunker challenging the big hitter who goes left by pinching it in at the longer distance.

I think that's overkill.  The hard to spin half shot off short grass is probably just as difficult for the long hitter from a bad angle as it is to play out of a bunker.

2. Eliminate the right hand fiarway bunker

It helps keep the right side from being a complete free ride.

5. Slope the green from front right to back left... again making the approach from the right difficult

Actually it is sloped that way  (but not to Redan portions).  There is also a crease running from back right to front left providing some more interest to the green.

6. Provide some green level bail out on the right

Bailing out right, if you miss the bunkers, results in a rough lie.  Just a little more variety and challenge.  Getting it out of there to a sort side pin on a green sloping away is a tester.


I guess I like the hole because it provides some subtle challenges.  I'd bet many players leave it frustrated after a bogey or worse on what looks like it should be a short easy hole.  And, I like it because I had a 2 on it this summer.  

The architect, in case anyone is wondering, was Greg Norman.

[Bryan Izatt]

I don't know where Wyndance is, but what is the rationale behind the two different styles of bunker on the same hole?

One look at the aerial photo first, and the angle of the green, and I thought that it was a hole that suckers you into playing down the left side when in fact the better line for nearly any player would be down the right.  The fairway bunker on the right makes sense, from that perspective.  But, I agree with Greg that given the nature of the quarry, it would have made more sense to design the hole to reward the player who dares to go left off the tee ... unless, of course, there are several other holes of that persuasion at Wyndance ... wherever it is.

Ooops, our posts crossed.  

As Frank says, it is north east of Toronto.  The majority of bunker in play are in the style of the ones in front of the green.  The ones on the edges backing into rough are more the natural look.  There are also five or six other holes with waste areas that are different looking again.  At least there are no RR tie bunkers. This was a working quarry not too long ago and the waste areas were probably an expedient way to deal with some of the transitions to some areas of the quarry.   I'll post some more bunker pictures, because I am intrigued by the style.  They are essentially deep coffin bunkers, but the sides are upholstered in grass and are very steep.  They look like they'll be a maintenance nightmare.  some have already collapsed.  I'm not sure I've seen this style anywhere else.  They certainly don't look like Australian bunkers.

I'd agree on the left side being a sucker play.

There are two par 3's where the green hugs the quarry edge and a par 4 and a par 5 that run along the edge of the quarry as well.  So using this hole might have been overkill.

[Frank M]

Bryan: Your point about hitting a bump and run shot into the green is one of the exact problems I have with this hole. Wyndance is so exposed to the wind and it is usually very windy there. I've played the course three times and each time it has been helping on this hole making the approach, due to the conditions and hole features even with a wedge, too severe.

[Bryan Izatt]

Kyle and Mark,

Yes to answers A - E.

Frank,

Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker.  Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.

Right here in Toronto.

[Frank M]

Kyle and Mark,

Yes to answers A - E.

Frank,

Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker.  Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.

Right here in Toronto.

Sounds fair.

[Mike Hendren]

It appears that it might be a better hole if you take out at least one or more of the bunkers in front of the green. I like a golf hole that plays easier or harder depending on hole placement. But all that bunkering in front of a shallow and diagonal green makes the hole play hard every day regardless of hole placement.

+1  Eliminate the one on the far left hand and the two right of the green, leaving a lions mouth front center.  Forces a decision off the tee which line to take. depending on the hole location.  Even better if the back 25% of the green was eliminated.  The current depth doesn't really necessitate tee shot placement.

Bogey

[Randy Thompson]

Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I donīt see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid  short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.

[Phil McDade]

Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I donīt see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid  short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.

To me, the fairway pot bunker is one of the best things about the hole. It's placed in a true Principal's Nose bunker position -- room on both sides, but cleary a narrower and riskier avenue one one side (in this case, the left side.)

It's the rest of the hole that's screwed up. I agree with those who suggest the risk of going left of the fairway pot bunker ought to be rewarded in some way -- and in this case, it's penalized, which is the exact opposite of where you place a centering, Principal's Nose bunker (see this:




The green should be angled in the opposite way that it is -- from front left to back right -- and the left fronting bunker at a minimum eliminated, with possiblly the other left-fronting bunker moved slightly rightward. Not sure about the table-top green -- it may not be that penal if played with something around a 9-iron for an approach. But, hard to judge from photos.

[George Pazin]

The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.

[Tim Nugent]

Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I donīt see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid  short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.

To me, the fairway pot bunker is one of the best things about the hole. It's placed in a true Principal's Nose bunker position -- room on both sides, but cleary a narrower and riskier avenue one one side (in this case, the left side.)

It's the rest of the hole that's screwed up. I agree with those who suggest the risk of going left of the fairway pot bunker ought to be rewarded in some way -- and in this case, it's penalized, which is the exact opposite of where you place a centering, Principal's Nose bunker (see this:




The green should be angled in the opposite way that it is -- from front left to back right -- and the left fronting bunker at a minimum eliminated, with possiblly the other left-fronting bunker moved slightly rightward. Not sure about the table-top green -- it may not be that penal if played with something around a 9-iron for an approach. But, hard to judge from photos.

+1

[Sean_A]

I like the plateau green.  I like the centreline bunker.  I like the ramp up to the green.

I don't like the two styles of bunkers.  I think at least the left greenside and first right fairway bunker can go. 

I would push the second fairway bunker back about halfway between where it now is and the first bunker - making it visually seem like there is less room to go right. 

I would think about removing the right greenside bunker as well.  It sort of helps create a distance control mechanism at odds with the drop-off to the rear. 

Essentially, the hole isn't bad, just over-cooked.  I fail to see how a hole with a centreline bunker and a raised green needs anything like six bunkers.

Ciao 

[Bryan Izatt]

Kyle and Mark,

Yes to answers A - E.

Frank,

Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker.  Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.

Right here in Toronto.

It is a problem if the pin is front right...even if hit crisply the slope of the green won't stop the ball from going over in a helping wind.

Sure, downwind a front right pin position will be inaccessible from almost anywhere if the green is firm.  Golf is not always fair.  I was just saying that it is possible to stop it on the green in those conditions.  Maybe not where you want it, but it is possible to hit the green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

I suspect that you wouldn't like the course.  There are many bunkers and three distinct styles.

I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot.  There could be more of a ramp to play in that side.

You could combine the two front bunkers into one to reduce the number of bunkers.

If you did those two things the green complex would look an awful lot like a Redan with the runoff on the back replacing the back bunkers on the Redan.

I don't see much point in moving the 2nd right-side bunker further up and eliminating the 1st right-side fairway bunker.  The one remaining bunker would basically be out of play for all players, playing from the proper tees.  I think the first fairway bunker is functional.  The one nearer the green could go or stay as far as I'm concerned.


To Others,

To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole?  That's been done a lot.  This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind.  What's bad about that?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()