Colorado Golf Club - pre Solheim pics

[John Kirk]

I don't understand why they are having so much trouble determining the point of hazard entry for two players on the 16th hole.  During the last segment, it sounded like the players and observers acted as though they had no idea where the balls entered the hazard.  Strange.

That's a fun hole, by the way.  When I played that hole a few years ago, from the second set of tees, that hole was reachable in two using either fairway.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's a stall job. Payback if you will.

[John Kavanaugh]

Worst officiated international event since the 1972 Gold Medal basketball game in Munich.

[Joe Bausch]

Worst officiated international event since the 1972 Gold Medal basketball game in Munich.

Dear John,

I'd like to disagree with you, but most of the facts are on your side.

Sincerely,
Doug Collins
-----------------------------

[Jeremy Rudock]

Worst officiated international event since the 1972 Gold Medal basketball game in Munich.

1988 Olympic boxing comes to mind, but not much else.

[Phil McDade]

I love watching this on this course, particularly the loooong rollouts around the greens and how slopes and contours are really coming into play.

But the 16th is really a goofy hole -- a pimple on an otherwise spotless course.

[Matt Kardash]

In the clubhouse after the round the golf was on in the background and I saw the approach shots into 16. I saw one group play and one lady hit it left of the green and the ball ended up missing the green to the right! The next lady hit it left of the green in the rough, then couldn't keep her next chip on the green as it raced through the green down into a hazard-like area. Was it basically playing like this for the entire tournament? I don't think I have ever seen anything quite that ridiculous. I'm guessing the greens were running a lot faster than the design calls for.
At least the redan at Shinneock might no longer be considered goofiest tournament hole.

[Jud_T]

The comeback at Colorado?  Portent in Parker?

[Thomas Dai]

Worst officiated international event since the 1972 Gold Medal basketball game in Munich.

1988 Olympic boxing comes to mind, but not much else.

The 2013 Masters wasn't exactly impressively officiated as I recall and over the years numerous rugby, cricket, soccer etc matches have been ruined by poor officiating. I have an element of sympathy for some officials though, unpaid volunteers or certainly lowly paid in comparison to the sportsfolk their supervising and in sports with bucket-loads of cash floating around and constant TV coverage at micro level. The recent introduction of TV intervention/replays to aid referee's/umpires by reviewing key decisions is helping in some sports, but even that still isn't perfect.
All the best

[Matt Kardash]

In the clubhouse after the round the golf was on in the background and I saw the approach shots into 16. I saw one group play and one lady hit it left of the green and the ball ended up missing the green to the right! The next lady hit it left of the green in the rough, then couldn't keep her next chip on the green as it raced through the green down into a hazard-like area. Was it basically playing like this for the entire tournament? I don't think I have ever seen anything quite that ridiculous. I'm guessing the greens were running a lot faster than the design calls for.
At least the redan at Shinneock might no longer be considered goofiest tournament hole.

Matt, sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think the players didn't play the hole correctly or pull off the shots they needed to. We are talking about getting an eagle chance on a par 5 - it's not supposed to be easy.

I think it's a great looking hole and disproves this notion that you need bowling alley, tree-lined corridors like at Oak Hill to force a player to drive straight and shape the ball / control the trajectory. Yes, the fairway is a mile wide but if you don't hit it down the right side, you will have to pull off a perfectly executed high draw to get close for your eagle chance. If you do execute the drive down the right, you will be rewarded with the correct angle to approach that green and a more favourable bounce.

What I love about holes like these, and designers that make courses and holes like these, is that the person who doesn't pull off the perfect drive still can pull off the high tariff flare shot to get on the green. At courses like Oak Hill, a wayward drive (which, effectively a shot hit on the left portion of 16 fairway is at Colorado) will end up in the rough behind a tree / overhanging branches with no shot but to hack out. Which are you calling "goofy"? Which sounds the more fun for ALL players?

Also, the lady that hit her chip into the hazard (a) chose the wrong lofted club (b) hit it slightly thin.

My sample size was incredibly small since I only saw maybe 3 players play the hole. The third player that I didn't mention in my earlier post also missed the green left in the rough and BARELY kept her chip on the green. I am just trying to wrap my head around how you think this is a great green if shots the come in from the left of the green end up missing the green to the right? And shots that go too far left and get hung up in the rough are essentially dead because you can barely keep a bump and run chip on the surface. Either the green is too severe or the greens were running way too last. If the best players in the world had that much trouble how would people like us even begin to deal with it? It's such an easy and obvious position to blame it on the pro golfer and say they just played the hole incorrectly. What I saw was shocking.

[John Kavanaugh]

My buddy called me yesterday to ask me about the 16th. He played to the right side and then carved a four wood into the green that rolled and rolled until it gave him a short eagle putt. Us "longer hitters" went left and had hybrids into the green. He obviously won the hole and is loving it months later.

I think it is a great short par 5 placed perfectly as the 16th hole. The girls are hitting as little as 5 iron in, it should be tricky and if you miss the green why should birdie be a lock. Please note that even the golfer who finds the water off the tee has a shot at par.

On another matter, this site has long history of bashing alternate fairways. I think it stems from the hit and run reality of most critics. Even if an alternate fairway is the best choice only 20% of the time it may still become one of the .1% shots we cherish and remember.

The 16th is the most fun hole on the course.

[William_G]

Matt.

I love watching a player have a golf shot where without the prior shot being placed properly leaves them an almost impossible shot without any hinderance other than the position they are in.

Often, a bad shot is preceded by a bad shot, yet at 16 at CGC it's still fun to watch for everyone including the players and not a simple hack out.

Fun  

[Phil McDade]

In the clubhouse after the round the golf was on in the background and I saw the approach shots into 16. I saw one group play and one lady hit it left of the green and the ball ended up missing the green to the right! The next lady hit it left of the green in the rough, then couldn't keep her next chip on the green as it raced through the green down into a hazard-like area. Was it basically playing like this for the entire tournament? I don't think I have ever seen anything quite that ridiculous. I'm guessing the greens were running a lot faster than the design calls for.
At least the redan at Shinneock might no longer be considered goofiest tournament hole.

Matt, sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think the players didn't play the hole correctly or pull off the shots they needed to. We are talking about getting an eagle chance on a par 5 - it's not supposed to be easy.

I think it's a great looking hole and disproves this notion that you need bowling alley, tree-lined corridors like at Oak Hill to force a player to drive straight and shape the ball / control the trajectory. Yes, the fairway is a mile wide but if you don't hit it down the right side, you will have to pull off a perfectly executed high draw to get close for your eagle chance. If you do execute the drive down the right, you will be rewarded with the correct angle to approach that green and a more favourable bounce.

What I love about holes like these, and designers that make courses and holes like these, is that the person who doesn't pull off the perfect drive still can pull off the high tariff flare shot to get on the green. At courses like Oak Hill, a wayward drive (which, effectively a shot hit on the left portion of 16 fairway is at Colorado) will end up in the rough behind a tree / overhanging branches with no shot but to hack out. Which are you calling "goofy"? Which sounds the more fun for ALL players?

Also, the lady that hit her chip into the hazard (a) chose the wrong lofted club (b) hit it slightly thin.

I think the comparison to Oak Hill is a misguided one -- Oak Hill has long been (always) a tree-lined, tight course with an emphasis on placement. C&C provide huge amounts of width at CGC, but emphasize the ground game and angle of attack with contours, slopes and bunker placement, it seems.

The apt comparison, to me, would be Wolf Point. Note how Nuzzo and Co. expertly use a creek on these holes:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56254.0.html

There's nothing at WP nearly as contrived as a lateral hazard running through the middle of the entire landing zone of a par 5 as you see at CGC's 16th.

(Bias alert: I can't stand split-option fairways with stroke-penalizing hazards running down the middle. I have yet to have played or seen one that couldn't be improved through eliminating this feature. To me it's lazy architecture.)

[John Kavanaugh]

I think I understand why softball was eliminated from the Olympics.

[Phil McDade]

I think the comparison to Oak Hill is a misguided one -- Oak Hill has long been (always) a tree-lined, tight course with an emphasis on placement. C&C provide huge amounts of width at CGC, but emphasize the ground game and angle of attack with contours, slopes and bunker placement, it seems.

The apt comparison, to me, would be Wolf Point. Note how Nuzzo and Co. expertly use a creek on these holes:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56254.0.html

Huh? I'm aware of their differences and my point was to suggest that placement is important regardless of the trees and rough. You can get out of position but still be on the fairway at a C&C course. Granted it would take something heroic to achieve the same result as what you would from the correct side, but it's better than hacking out.

I don't see how comparing C&C to a similar course like Wolf Point would make the same point.

You probably think CGC is a better piece of architecture than Oak Hill; I'm not necessarily in disagreement. But, given what C&C are trying to do at CGC, I think the 16th -- which you view as a good hole -- appears to be out of character with the rest of the course. I think split fairways with internal, penal hazards running parallel to the line of play is "goofier" than asking a player to hit a tree-lined fairway of 25-30 yards in width.

[William_G]

Phil,

Lazy architecture? Are you saying more is better?

Also, what would you suggest for 16 at CGC...we get that you have an opinion, but what is the solution?

Are the 17th at CPC or the 18th at Pebble bad holes as they force you to pick a route around a problem in the middle of the fairway or is that lazy architecture?

Loved watching the golf at CGC this weekend.  

thanks

[Terry Lavin]

I thought the course looked like it was challenging and just a little wacky on the greens, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

Lazy architecture? Are you saying more is better?

Also, what would you suggest for 16 at CGC...we get that you have an opinion, but what is the solution?

Are the 17th at CPC or the 18th at Pebble bad holes as they force you to pick a route around a problem in the middle of the fairway or is that lazy architecture?

Loved watching the golf at CGC this weekend.  

thanks

William (Dr. Bill ):

Get rid of the alternate fairway right. Widen the fairway left, out to where the cart path is. You can even keep the large fairway bunker on the left fairway to make it a centerline bunker. Keep the green where it is, or -- better -- move it to the other side of the creek, so players have to cross it on their second or third shots. Keep the green deep but relatively narrow.

Under this design scheme, the player willing to hug the right side of the fairway shortens his route to the green (on a par 5 where some may be willing to go for it in 2). And the player shading to the right is rewarded with a better angle into the green, as he'll see a green that's deep. But -- he does so at the risk of a wayward drive right that goes into the creek.

The player unwilling to risk going right off the fairway is given a broad fairway left, but a longer route to the green and a less receptive angle into the green. Sort of the reverse image of Augusta's par 5 13th.

I don't have any real objections to the design of either CPoint's 17th or PBeach's 18th. But both feature centerline features fall less penal (trees) than a creek running parallel to the line of play for hundreds of yards.

[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

The fairway is 100 yards wide (with a creek running up part of it). The creek is 2 yards wide. I like my chances. The big booboo was to put a restriction in the creek so that it widened to 15 yards.

[Matthew Petersen]

I have no problem with the hole. I have heard many look at it and ask what the point of the right side is, but the green  under conditions that it was meant to be played at answers that question in spades.

[Andy Troeger]

When I played CGC #16 was my favorite hole on the course. The green is severe, but it is a short par five that is reachable for even regular play within reason. I think both fairways are legitimate options. I prefer #14 at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro which has some similarity as a split fairway tee shot, but there is plenty of room out there to play and the creek is an interesting feature.

I liked the greens at CGC, but they leave room for some interesting pin positions, quite a few of which were used at some point during the Solheim Cup. For match play that works--I don't recall them using some of those pins when the seniors played it a few years ago.

[Tom Ferrell]

Number 16 is a par 4.5 in the classic sense of the word.  Everyone can have an opinion for sure - mine is that keeping the wash dry would have made the hole even better - but I can't see any controversy over this hole.  Bill and Ben have said they would never have designed the 16th green if the hole were a par 4.  But as par 5, the severity is no concern.  For front pins, you will not be able to approach them on the ground from short of the green.  You HAVE to play long and come back.  Easy four.  Nobody has a right to a three-foot eagle putt just because it's a reachable par 5.  Back pins are eagles galore.

Best par 4.5 outside of 13 at Augusta in my biased opinion!

[Matthew Petersen]

When I played CGC #16 was my favorite hole on the course. The green is severe, but it is a short par five that is reachable for even regular play within reason. I think both fairways are legitimate options. I prefer #14 at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro which has some similarity as a split fairway tee shot, but there is plenty of room out there to play and the creek is an interesting feature.

I liked the greens at CGC, but they leave room for some interesting pin positions, quite a few of which were used at some point during the Solheim Cup. For match play that works--I don't recall them using some of those pins when the seniors played it a few years ago.

That's interesting, Andy.

I have not played CGC but have played Saguaro numerous times. From the look of it only, I have to say that the alternate fairway on 16 at CGC is a lot more useful than the one on 14 at WeKoPa. I have experimented with going that way on the WeKoPa hole and not only is it a very difficult piece of fairway to hit (and hold), but it doesn't seem to offer a hugely significant advantage to playing the hole. The hole plays shorter, but it's still a 3-shot hole. I don't get the appeal, so I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Thomas Dai]

Number 16 is a par 4.5 in the classic sense of the word. Nobody has a right to a three-foot eagle putt just because it's a reachable par 5. Best par 4.5 outside of 13 at Augusta in my biased opinion!

Good points Tom although 17 at TOC might hold claim to being the best par 4.5 around.
All the best