[SteveOgulukian]

The Par 5 16th at Lido Golf Club is a very polarizing hole.  For those of you that have played it, what are your thoughts?

For those not familiar with the hole, here is an aerial view showing your 2 options off the tee, and a link which describes the hole in great detail.



http://www.golfonlongisland.com/teebox/2011/08/closer-look-lido-golf-club-16.html

[Craig Disher]

Thanks for posting the photo. I've walked the hole but not played it. It appears a poor attempt to copy the #4 at the NLE Lido. There doesn't appear to be a great advantage in playing to either of the landing areas. The lagoon is there but which landing area significantly shortens the hole?

[SteveOgulukian]

Going right off the tee shortens the 2nd shot a touch, but it's all carry from there.  Played it into a 25 mph wind today which really affected play. 

[George_Bahto]

RTJ version -  poor homage to 4th at the real Lido

[corey miller]

Mr. Bahto

Didn't you design a replica Lido course?  Would it be too much to ask for you to post your version?  Would it have been an exact replica of this hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

With good winds sweeping the site, I'd imagine that it's a very challenging hole.

What are the yardages ?

[Greg Taylor]

I've played this hole, and it's penal... there's no bail out really... you can go left and have a landing area, or go right and shorten the approach. Whilst you are presented with options, it's a "least worse case" type of scenario.

It's a great hole to play, even if it's a card wrecker...!

[SteveOgulukian]

Yardages can be found here.  Sorry for not posting it as a picture.

http://www.lidogolf.com/site/yardage/yardage006.htm

[Garland Bayley]

I've played this hole, and it's penal... there's no bail out really......

It's a great hole to play, even if it's a card wrecker...!

The whole premise of the thread seems to be this is a failed hole. Options really don't matter. Doesn't remotely replicate it's model. And, you come up with "It's a great hole". We'll put you down as a RTJ fan and disciple of the dark ages of golf architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've played this hole, and it's penal... there's no bail out really......

It's a great hole to play, even if it's a card wrecker...!

The whole premise of the thread seems to be this is a failed hole. Options really don't matter. Doesn't remotely replicate it's model. And, you come up with "It's a great hole".

GJ,

Have you played the hole ?

Greg has played it and rendered his opinion based upon that play.

We'll put you down as a RTJ fan and disciple of the dark ages of golf architecture.

So it's your opinion that RTJ never designed a decent to good golf hole and that his body of work is representative of the "Dark Ages" of golf architecture ?

[Mark McKeever]

Has anyone on the board played the original?  Or does it pre-date all of us?


Mark

[Garland Bayley]

I've played this hole, and it's penal... there's no bail out really......

It's a great hole to play, even if it's a card wrecker...!

The whole premise of the thread seems to be this is a failed hole. Options really don't matter. Doesn't remotely replicate it's model. And, you come up with "It's a great hole".

GJ,

Have you played the hole ?

Greg has played it and rendered his opinion based upon that play.

We'll put you down as a RTJ fan and disciple of the dark ages of golf architecture.

So it's your opinion that RTJ never designed a decent to good golf hole and that his body of work is representative of the "Dark Ages" of golf architecture ?

Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result.

[SteveOgulukian]

I think this hole would benefit greatly if it played downhill so that you can actually see what your target is.  However, due to the hole being flat (with the exception of the green) and tall weeds surrounding the water hazards, there are too many blind shots on this hole.  I’m not against blind shots, but on a hole like this where you have so many different options, and any miscalculated shot ends up in the water, it really makes the hole a bit gimmicky when you don’t really know where you are trying to land your next shot.

There is a severe lack of yardage markers on the entire course and on a hole like this it becomes a nightmare trying to figure out what shot you want to play.

[Jason Thurman]

I've played this hole, and it's penal... there's no bail out really... you can go left and have a landing area, or go right and shorten the approach. Whilst you are presented with options, it's a "least worse case" type of scenario.

It's a great hole to play, even if it's a card wrecker...!

Greg,

Is it possible to "bail" short? It looks like there's plenty of room if you hit a 200-ish yard (guessing) layup off the tee, though I'm sure it really complicates the strategy for the rest of the hole. Of course, for the player looking for a bail out, I don't see any problem with your lack of guts leading to complications in your strategy.

Don't mind GJ. The rest of us have already put him down as a fan of prescriptive architecture who judges courses he hasn't played based on who their designer was and hates holes that occasionally require him to hit a decent shot.

[Niall C]

"Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result."

GJ

I'll bet just about every great architect has designed a hole like that, and I bet a lot of them are great holes. For instance, penal, no bailout and card wrecker would be a perfect description of the Postage Stamp. Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the 13th at Silloth which was discussed in length on the BUDA threads. Occasionally there's nothing wrong with a hole that requires you to take it on, IMO.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result.

GJ,

It's a par 5 that plays 430 from the front tee, 460 from the middle tee and 487 from the back tee.
The drive is to a fairway that's about 100 yards wide, with a catch bunker straight away.

From the back tee, if the golfer hits a 225 yard drive, they have a wedge to get over the water and about 262 to the center of the green.
So they can hit a 120, 140, 160 or 180 iron leaving them a 142, 122, 102 or 82 yard approach to the green.

That doesn't sound overly penal nor does it sound like a card wrecker.

Granted the wind could make the hole more difficult, but, this is a very short par 5 with a generous fairway in the DZ.

Why do you claim the hole is terrible and that RTJ's body of work is without merit ?

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result.

GJ,

It's a par 5 that plays 430 from the front tee, 460 from the middle tee and 487 from the back tee.
The drive is to a fairway that's about 100 yards wide, with a catch bunker straight away.

From the back tee, if the golfer hits a 225 yard drive, they have a wedge to get over the water and about 262 to the center of the green.
So they can hit a 120, 140, 160 or 180 iron leaving them a 142, 122, 102 or 82 yard approach to the green.

That doesn't sound overly penal nor does it sound like a card wrecker.

Granted the wind could make the hole more difficult, but, this is a very short par 5 with a generous fairway in the DZ.

Why do you claim the hole is terrible and that RTJ's body of work is without merit ?

Patrick,

As usual, you completely miss the point. I am not the one who described it as penal, no bailout, and card wrecker. I am asking the person (or anyone) how they can describe it thusly and then draw the conclusion that it is a great hole.

[Garland Bayley]

"Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result."

GJ

I'll bet just about every great architect has designed a hole like that, and I bet a lot of them are great holes. For instance, penal, no bailout and card wrecker would be a perfect description of the Postage Stamp. Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the 13th at Silloth which was discussed in length on the BUDA threads. Occasionally there's nothing wrong with a hole that requires you to take it on, IMO.

Niall

Doak, Hanse, C&C, examples please.

Your definition of penal could use some exposition too. 17th at Sawgrass is penal, with no bailout, and is a card wrecker. Somehow I don't think the postage stamp quite measures up to that standard.

[SteveOgulukian]

Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result.

GJ,

It's a par 5 that plays 430 from the front tee, 460 from the middle tee and 487 from the back tee.
The drive is to a fairway that's about 100 yards wide, with a catch bunker straight away.

From the back tee, if the golfer hits a 225 yard drive, they have a wedge to get over the water and about 262 to the center of the green.
So they can hit a 120, 140, 160 or 180 iron leaving them a 142, 122, 102 or 82 yard approach to the green.

That doesn't sound overly penal nor does it sound like a card wrecker.

Granted the wind could make the hole more difficult, but, this is a very short par 5 with a generous fairway in the DZ.

Why do you claim the hole is terrible and that RTJ's body of work is without merit ?

Patrick, your explanation, as well as the view of the hole in the yardage book, do make the hole seem pretty easy.  I was surprised myself at how easy it looked in the yardage book after having played it into a biting wind.  However, having a shaky 15 holes prior to this didn't help in the confidence department and our entire group scored bogey or worse.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

My hope was he could explain why penal, no bailout, and card wrecker turn out to be great. Not a very good preamble to a positive result.

GJ,

It's a par 5 that plays 430 from the front tee, 460 from the middle tee and 487 from the back tee.
The drive is to a fairway that's about 100 yards wide, with a catch bunker straight away.

From the back tee, if the golfer hits a 225 yard drive, they have a wedge to get over the water and about 262 to the center of the green.
So they can hit a 120, 140, 160 or 180 iron leaving them a 142, 122, 102 or 82 yard approach to the green.

That doesn't sound overly penal nor does it sound like a card wrecker.

Granted the wind could make the hole more difficult, but, this is a very short par 5 with a generous fairway in the DZ.

Why do you claim the hole is terrible and that RTJ's body of work is without merit ?

Patrick, your explanation, as well as the view of the hole in the yardage book, do make the hole seem pretty easy.  I was surprised myself at how easy it looked in the yardage book after having played it into a biting wind.  However, having a shaky 15 holes prior to this didn't help in the confidence department and our entire group scored bogey or worse.

But then, he completely leaves out the water short, long, left, and right of most of those shots. Kinda complicates things more than his explanation sounds.

[Patrick_Mucci]

GJ,

I think you can discount the water long, it's a rare shot that goes long on a green, especially on a short par 5 under 500 yards and probably into a prevailing wind.

The water off the tee doesn't look threatening.

But, the water on the second shot certainly has to be as factor, especially with wind.
The luxury the golfer has is the diminished yardage presented by the balance of the hole after the drive and the ability to divide the second and third shots into good, manageable, tactical choices, even with the wind.

I can see how it could be a card wrecker for the unwary or unthinking or a wild shot, but unless there's a very strong wind, I'd have to challenge the categorization as well.

[Greg Taylor]

Something to bear in mind is that you cannot see the landing areas from the tee... hence without a caddie/yardage chart it's tough to make the right call when playing the hole for the first time.

I stand by (albeit subjective) assessment that the whole is more penal than strategic, and relatively speaking a card wrecker...!

Of course a tour pro wouldn't call it as such, but then again they are playing at a different level to me at least.

[SteveOgulukian]

GJ,

I think you can discount the water long, it's a rare shot that goes long on a green, especially on a short par 5 under 500 yards and probably into a prevailing wind.

I've played this hole with the wind at my back once before.  If you look at a map, this hole runs from the ocean to the bay.  Sometimes, the wind blows off the bay, other times off the ocean.  Although with the wind this plays more like a par 4, approach shots can easily run through the green and into the bay.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Something to bear in mind is that you cannot see the landing areas from the tee...

Greg, could you explain that a little more ?
I don't understand why you can't see your intended target off the tee

 hence without a caddie/yardage chart it's tough to make the right call when playing the hole for the first time.

I stand by (albeit subjective) assessment that the whole is more penal than strategic, and relatively speaking a card wrecker...!

Of course a tour pro wouldn't call it as such, but then again they are playing at a different level to me at least.

[SteveOgulukian]

Patrick,

Because of the hole being so flat, you can only make out the fairway if you aim left off the tee.  Everything straight and to the right fairway gets blocked out by the tall grass/weeds/bushes/bambo/etc that line the waters' edges.  The same holds true for your second shot from most spots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()