[Ulrich Mayring]

Sorry, then I misread David's entry or he edited it after I read it

My impression was that the hole could not be played with, say, 140 meters off the tee, another 150 meters second and wedge third. If it can, then there are more options than were apparent to me at Buda. Maybe I overestimated the carry to the fairway, because there certainly was a lot of junk

Ulrich

[David Davis]

Sorry, then I misread David's entry or he edited it after I read it

My impression was that the hole could not be played with, say, 140 meters off the tee, another 150 meters second and wedge third. If it can, then there are more options than were apparent to me at Buda. Maybe I overestimated the carry to the fairway, because there certainly was a lot of junk

Ulrich

Ulrich,

Nothing edited I think you may be confusing the hole or something, you could hit the fairway with a putter or lob wedge. Well, you'd need to be a pretty good putter ;-)

[David Davis]

Christian,

Excellent points. I'm hoping some of the opposition here will chime with valid architectural points as to why this hole is not a strong finishing hole. Not just the guys that played it once or twice poorly.

[Mark Pearce]

You already have a course that is proudly (and correctly) identified by its membership as one of the hardest in Europe.  Why does it need to be harder?

[David Davis]

You already have a course that is proudly (and correctly) identified by its membership as one of the hardest in Europe.  Why does it need to be harder?

Mark,

While the membership is proud of the course for sure, I doubt few of them are proud of it because it's the hardest and I know that perhaps with the exception of a small few they don't even have an idea it's one of the hardest.

I've explained why the back tee is being moved back. That only brings the dog leg and bunkers back into play for the really top players. The rest could and will choose one of the other 4 tee boxes to play at the yardage they see fit. The Netherlands has done away with men's and women's tees so for all those interested in playing a game where you hit driver or 3 wood and wedge or a chip on most holes that's also possible.

[Michael Whitaker]

While the membership is proud of the course for sure, I doubt few of them are proud of it because it's the hardest and I know that perhaps with the exception of a small few they don't even have an idea it's one of the hardest.

I was proudly reminded by everyone I met how difficult the course plays. This was obviously the primary promotion of the course... the most difficult in The Netherlands. Nothing wrong with that, per se. It's just that everywhere I visited in Holland the members only discussed how difficult their courses were, or how they intended to make them tougher. There seemed to be a fixation on difficulty. Maybe there is a natural tendency for self-flagellation:  http://www.rug.nl/news-and-events/news/archief2009/154_09?lang=en

[Mark Pearce]

I didn't get that anywhere else other than Noordwijkse.  At Noordwijk, however, all the members I spoke to discussed the diffuiculty of the course.  Like Ward I think the easiest way to improve the 18th would be to sort out the jungle short left of the green, where almost every group I saw play the hole appeared to lose at least one ball.

[Cristian]

While the membership is proud of the course for sure, I doubt few of them are proud of it because it's the hardest and I know that perhaps with the exception of a small few they don't even have an idea it's one of the hardest.

I was proudly reminded by everyone I met how difficult the course plays. This was obviously the primary promotion of the course... the most difficult in The Netherlands. Nothing wrong with that, per se. It's just that everywhere I visited in Holland the members only discussed how difficult their courses were, or how they intended to make them tougher. There seemed to be a fixation on difficulty. Maybe there is a natural tendency for self-flagellation:  http://www.rug.nl/news-and-events/news/archief2009/154_09?lang=en

Interesting point on religious bases for self punishment and its effect on golf. Calvinism in the Netherlands still has its influence on Modern day society, true; It is seen as a virtue in our society to work hard and not complain, although at the same time complaining we are very good at! However religious influences have diminished over the past few decades with fewer people being registered as belonging to any church than in virtually any other western European country. In other words: Even dutch people now like to have fun on the golf course, and not loose balls all the time. (Being tight by the way is another 'virtue' of Calvinism ;-) )

I would also like to add a comment on the rough left of the green; as said the rough is only very severe from late May till early August, the rest of the year it is not hard at all to find one's ball, although recovery can be difficult as the surrounds of the green tend to be (too) lush (a fair criticism I think). However this does not make the hole penal.

On this website I have learned that a penal hazard does not make a hole penal as long as there is a safe side to aim for. Although the valley left of the green is not a hazard, I appreciate that it plays like one especially in the months when the rough is up. Most importantly: It is entirely possible to aim 20+ yards to the right of the left edge of the green and still make a relatively straight forward par. Missing left normally happens to people who do not know the hole or who are too eager to go for a pin on the left side of the green. For me that does not disqualify the hole architectually.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I think there are a few topics being mixed up here, and I'm not really sure what point is.

Here's what I think.

I don't have now problem with the lengthening of the hole. 400-m isn't that long for the very low guys nowadays. Anyone that hasn't played with a + HCap player should go out some day and watch them play your home course. I played with two (+0.8 and +1.3) in August during our club championship. The distance they drove the ball was just astonishing. When I hit a good 230-240-m drive, these guys were a full 60-70 meters past me. A 400-m hole for these guys is like a 300-m hole for must of us.

Having said that, I don't like the fact that the walk back will be even longer. The new tee will also bring the road and the 17th green more into play (safety issue). I drove once into the first bunker and also drove once just over it. I had no shot from the rough and tried to hack it out, but only managed to shift it a couple of yards. I can't fault the hole for my silly play; I shouldn't have been on the right side. There's plenty of room left and short of the bunkers. It was very playable off the yellow tee and should be an easy 5 if you play sensibly. Isn't this the case with all par fours? The hole itself isn't a bad hole; it's quite a decent finish, but could be improved like many of the hole at Noordwijkse. I don't feel that it allows much opportunity to run the ball up, much like so many other holes on the course.

I didn't think Noordwijkse was too tough. I didn't play well during the BUDA, but I can differentiate between playing bad on a difficult course and playing bad on an easy course. I didn't play well but scored well at De Pan, whereas at Noordwijkse I played poorly and scored poorly. It's a stern challenge, but not a hard slog. I'd put it in the same category as Silloth (where we played off the yellows and lost plenty of balls) at BUDA X. The difficulty with Noordwijkse does not lie in the length of the course; no, it's the elevated greens that repel any shot that isn't struck high and precisely.

As a 6 HCap player I don't for one second believe that I'm good enough to play off the back tees at any course. When David mentioned that we should play the back tees at Royal Hague, I had no interest in doing so. Bill had no interest either, and he plays off 3. I also disagree with the notion that to really appreciate a course, you need to play off the back tees (e.g. Royal Hague). If I play off the back tees at my home course, all the hazards and strategy are thrown out the window, as the fairway bunkers cease to be in play. I do play off the back tees at my home club, but only so that when I play off the yellows in competition, they will be feel a bit easier. I'm not long enough, straight enough, good enough or stupid enough to play competitive games from the back tees by choice.

[Cristian]

I think there are a few topics being mixed up here, and I'm not really sure what point is.

Here's what I think.

I don't have now problem with the lengthening of the hole. 400-m isn't that long for the very low guys nowadays. Anyone that hasn't played with a + HCap player should go out some day and watch them play your home course. I played with two (+0.8 and +1.3) in August during our club championship. The distance they drove the ball was just astonishing. When I hit a good 230-240-m drive, these guys were a full 60-70 meters past me. A 400-m hole for these guys is like a 300-m hole for must of us.

Having said that, I don't like the fact that the walk back will be even longer. The new tee will also bring the road and the 17th green more into play (safety issue). I drove once into the first bunker and also drove once just over it. I had no shot from the rough and tried to hack it out, but only managed to shift it a couple of yards. I can't fault the hole for my silly play; I shouldn't have been on the right side. There's plenty of room left and short of the bunkers. It was very playable off the yellow tee and should be an easy 5 if you play sensibly. Isn't this the case with all par fours? The hole itself isn't a bad hole; it's quite a decent finish, but could be improved like many of the hole at Noordwijkse. I don't feel that it allows much opportunity to run the ball up, much like so many other holes on the course.

I didn't think Noordwijkse was too tough. I didn't play well during the BUDA, but I can differentiate between playing bad on a difficult course and playing bad on an easy course. I didn't play well but scored well at De Pan, whereas at Noordwijkse I played poorly and scored poorly. It's a stern challenge, but not a hard slog. I'd put it in the same category as Silloth (where we played off the yellows and lost plenty of balls) at BUDA X. The difficulty with Noordwijkse does not lie in the length of the course; no, it's the elevated greens that repel any shot that isn't struck high and precisely.

As a 6 HCap player I don't for one second believe that I'm good enough to play off the back tees at any course. When David mentioned that we should play the back tees at Royal Hague, I had no interest in doing so. Bill had no interest either, and he plays off 3. I also disagree with the notion that to really appreciate a course, you need to play off the back tees (e.g. Royal Hague). If I play off the back tees at my home course, all the hazards and strategy are thrown out the window, as the fairway bunkers cease to be in play. I do play off the back tees at my home club, but only so that when I play off the yellows in competition, they will be feel a bit easier. I'm not long enough, straight enough, good enough or stupid enough to play competitive games from the back tees by choice.

Wise words.

[David Davis]

Gentlemen,

You're killing me here. You are right about this being a cultural thing however wrong about it being about self flagellation in my best estimate but you are perhaps getting into very non-architectural areas. Nevertheless let me try to explain in a few words what you have experienced in NL. It's a deep routed Calvinistic tendency. Without out going into great detail I can tell you that it can be explained lightly with statements like "act normal and you are acting crazy enough". (Doe normal en doe je gek genoeg!)

This tendency keeps one humble, let's say you just played the best round ever and your ego is highly inflated and you are jumping up and down and bragging about it, the Dutch response would be one to bring you back down to size. Like a sarcastic imagine how good you could of scored if you could actually play the game/actually putt/chip etc etc.

If you come in as a guest after first playing a course or you are about to go out. They warn you in advance that the course is hard to make you feel better. Bring you down if you are too inflated and have sympathy for you when you didn't do well or are about to get shocked. That pretty much fits in with both your recollections. Welcome to Calvinism.

Let's not forget that The Netherlands utilizes the USGA Slope and CR rating system. According to the head of the EGA (who's Scottish) the Dutch raters are among the most qualified so the slopes should be relatively accurate.

The slope of Noordwijkse is 141, arguably (and I have proven this point together with the Head of the EGA) our slope is slightly off and that's before you account for the wind.

I understand that you guys probably complain about all courses above a certain slope being too difficult. I'd could suggest many courses to stay away from, including pretty much any of the well known Pete Dye courses, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Olympic Club and I imagine the list is really really long.

I know you guys had a hard time at Noordwijkse and I can sympathize with that. I was hopeful this would be more of an architectural discussion where some merit where the nay sayers explained architecturally their criticism of the mentioned hole rather than one of the ancient self flagellating practices of certain religious sects in the North of The Netherlands. I assure you we could find sects pretty much anywhere that were partaking in rather strange things.

A side note for you Michael, I have a spreadsheet of the slope and rating system and how it applies to every course in The Netherlands. Noordwijkse was rated the 21st most difficult course here. Believe it or NOT!


....until, I helped them straighten it out.  

[David Davis]

Donal,

I'd like Frank to chime in on Royal Hague as if I'm not mistaken that course was initially set up from the back tees. That is the only reason I suggested we play it from there. This is what I was told by members of their own green committee a couple years ago when I needed to rate and review the course.

As I've also mentioned in the beginning of this post the hole is not exactly how I'd like to have it either, I spoke of the bunkers and the rough behind them. The new back tee is at a different angle and trust me the 17th green would be completely impossible to hit and in fact the players are the 17th are safer due to the angle even than they are from the other hole. The road could be in play but it's OB and other than majorly snap hooking a drive into the wind myself I've never seen anyone actually hit it OB left. There is a lot of space there.

The walk back, yep, I also mentioned not liking that myself. Noordwijkse is set up on quite a large property and there are few longer than normal walks, especially if you are playing the back tees. The medal tees are not bad at all, the red tees are even easier for those that don't enjoy the extra beautiful stroll.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Make the current yellow tee the new back tee, move the yellow to the current red and build a new red tee more forward. Then move the green in front of the clubhouse, as Frank suggested. This should give a hole of appropriate length and avoid the lengthy walk (and the unsavory rough left of the current green).

Plus, Frank could probably build you a great par 3 in the place, where you are now building the new tees for #18. There is room back there and I believe no safety issues for a par 3, which you could easily slip in between #14 and #15. Then you have an extra hole and can easily close another hole for renovations and still have 18 holes left.

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

Great idea, Ulrich.

My problem with the existing hole is that it's yet another (uphill) approach shot to an elevated green.  The course has enough of those and this isn't the strongest of them.  You want to improve the hole?  Improve the green complex is where I would start.  Also, by doing as Ulrrich suggests, not only do you get the benefit of getting the green by the house but, I imagine, it could stretch the hole to be a short but uphil par 5.  Elite players will feel they need to birdie it whilst mortals like us can play well for a solid par.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I haven't looked at the aerial images, but I suspect pushing the 18th green back to the caddie/pro-shop would raise some safety issues for those on the 16th green. I think the green location is fine; it just could be a bit more interesting. I'd like to see a run-up shot have a better chance of getting there. Maybe a little softening of the approach is all that is needed plus less watering. Expand and cut the rough in the left hollow to fairway length; could be interesting to see some putts or pitches from there, rather than hack outs. I'd also like to see some fairway behind the bunkers so that there is more of a reward in carrying them. [You shouldn't be knee deep in rough when you hit an awful slice that just carries the first bunker by 1 foot as I did]  

The view of the 18th from the clubhouse could be remedied if they built a new one, but I'm not for that at all. I think the clubhouse is just perfect, despite what some members think.

To be honest, there are a few other holes on the course that need more immediate attention (e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 12th all need to be opened up a good bit) than the 18th.

[Jon Wiggett]

I have not seen the course so I wondering in relation to the rough just short and left of the green could they not just cut it

Jon

[Sean_A]

DD

It is not clear why you are being killed (replying as a Dutchman might  ).  I read several archie reasons why folks are not overly keen the 18th.  What exactly were you expecting?

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Make the current yellow tee the new back tee, move the yellow to the current red and build a new red tee more forward. Then move the green in front of the clubhouse, as Frank suggested. This should give a hole of appropriate length and avoid the lengthy walk (and the unsavory rough left of the current green).

Plus, Frank could probably build you a great par 3 in the place, where you are now building the new tees for #18. There is room back there and I believe no safety issues for a par 3, which you could easily slip in between #14 and #15. Then you have an extra hole and can easily close another hole for renovations and still have 18 holes left.

Ulrich

Like your idea of the new par 3, although I think the tees of hole 15 might be in the way.
The new par 3 could also replace the particular dreadful par 3 13th hole. (you could keep the tees and use them as raised tees for the 14th hole)

See GE pic below for details, also on hole 18.
(David feel free to re-measure the distance between the green centre and clubhouse edge, it really is 80 m  )



Only one problem, I don't consult with the club, so Mr Ebert will have to do it......

[David Davis]

Frank, that may make sense but I didn't start counting from the centre of the green because I was not planning on hitting my lob wedge from the building. I stood at the end of the fringe and walked it off.

I still think that is awfully close can you tell me any really good courses that are considerably closer and 5-10 meters can't be a make or break here.

Ulrich, I like the fact that you and Donal are at least are thinking in the lines of architectural adjustments, btw did you know that we already have 3 extra holes? We always use hole 1A when there is a hole out of commission so we are almost never without a full 18 holes.

I don't like the idea of stuffing a par 3 in near the 15th hole. I think the blind 15th is truly a brilliantly fun hole full of different ways to play it with a great green complex allowing all sorts of approaches.

The 18th hole would be terribly boring and bla to start it from the women's tees like has been suggested. You've seen the construction in my photos I played it on Sunday from the women's tees, hit 4 iron 60 degree wedge. That a final hole of a great course doesn't make. Take a look at the ariel photo Frank posted or check this link:

https://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&q=noordwijkse+golf+club&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ei=XzCKUpueLsbAtQbL4YDICg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

Placing the green where are caddy master is would do several things including eliminating needed space, affecting safety issues around the club house, making us also reroute the 16th hole which is a great hole with exception to the green complex which needs to be reshaped in my opinion.

If money was no issue and permits to make changes were growing on trees we could also redo the clubhouse and move it beachfront, not have an issue with our new first hole which has been delayed indefinitely, immediately remove all trees and re shape all greens with one of the world best shapers. One we removed all the trees we could perhaps lay out the course completely differently making better use of the terrain.

However, knowing reality is far different and that this won't happen in my lifetime I'm happy to keep up the good fight to make the most of what we have.

However, as I've mentioned many times in being extremely critical to the course my view is to work towards the following ideal situation:

- Mix of long par 4's, short par 4's and even a driveable par 4
- Have two reachable par 5's and two 3 shot par 5's.
- Mix of long and short par 3's. (for the record I think our part 3's are excellent, even the short drop par 3 12th. Sounds easy to stand 50 meters above the green and hit a wedge, 9 iron or more from 150 yds but I assure you it is not, especially in the wind. I think this is an excellent hole. One we are also changing for the record. Trees will be cleared and the green moved back away from the hill. This for irrigation reasons as the water runs down the hill onto the middle of the green now, completely new shaping will happen.
- Widen the playing corridors, eliminating the areas of unnecessary gorse and thinning out the deep ball losing rough. I don't think the course needs this. (keep in mind we can't cut the rough between like May and September due to the wildlife preservation rules.)
- Eliminate ALL the trees. And this from a tree hugging Oregonian.
- Reroute the first hole as planned, through the dunes to the right.
- bring the driving range back to the women's tees giving us over 300 meters of space and top practice facilities.

Do this and from what I've seen we have a top 100 maybe top 50 in the world course. Some of these things are being done. All are possible without too much trouble if the permits would come in. Some day!!!

[Ulrich Mayring]

The bones are there for a world top 50, the terrain is just fantastic.

Ulrich

[Jon Wiggett]

I still think that is awfully close can you tell me any really good courses that are considerably closer and 5-10 meters can't be a make or break here.

David,

do you mean distance from the last green to the clubhouse? If so then Royal Lytham & St. Annes has just the fringe between the back of the green and the clubhouse.

Jon

[David Davis]

I still think that is awfully close can you tell me any really good courses that are considerably closer and 5-10 meters can't be a make or break here.

David,

do you mean distance from the last green to the clubhouse? If so then Royal Lytham & St. Annes has just the fringe between the back of the green and the clubhouse.

Jon

Jon, I think there are many to be honest however, do you think that helps make or break the architecture of an 18th hole? It's proximity to the clubhouse? I'm assuming you might say no. I can think of a few that aren't too close but still great courses.

Sand Hills
Dismal River (either course)
Pine Valley
De Pan
Royal Hague
Kennemer
Chambers Bay

I imagine the list is immense. Especially if 80 meters from center of green to club house is what we consider far.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

I grew up playing a course where the last green was half hidden from the clubhouse. When players finished they didn't usually wait around to watch other players finish. However, where I did my apprenticeship the dining room, main bar and snooker room all over looked the last green (the clubhouse wall was literally 6 foot off the back of the green) After playing many stayed behind to watch others finish and this added a lot to the atmosphere of the club and course.

So I would say from a GCA point of view looking at the quality of the course it makes no difference but from a club members point of view for the atmosphere it can make a big difference. BUT if club members have not experienced it it will not matter to them. My home club were quite happy not seeing the green though now after the new clubhouse has been built and the green is visible the clubhouse is much busier.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon

I am in your corner except I would go one step further.  The house is indeed the 19th (it swings like Aces do in some games).  Ideally, the game starts and ends there.  Ideally, the putting green is very close by.  Any design not starting and finishing at the 19th is imo less than ideal.  That doesn't mean there can't be a great course done otherwise, but golf being a social game, properly including the house into the design is important.  Anybody who has belonged to a club where the course is in close view of the house will confirm the benefits derived from such a design.  

Ciao

[David Davis]

Jon and Sean,

I'm definitely with you and I agree that when the hole is visible people stick around etc etc. However, now we transitioned to the 19 hole and in this thread I'm really looking for strong for or against arguments with regards to our 18th hole. I of course don't mind if no-one likes it, everyone has an opinion. However, I'm hoping to debate these findings or be architectural proven and understand why this hole is a weak hole as a few people have said and why there is an objection to lengthening the back tees for example. In terms of our 19th hole, I would be amazed if anyone that attended the BUDA and thus has first hand experience would give a negative critique of our 19th hole. I mean in golf it's rare you can stand out on an elevated deck overlooking literally half of the course in the dunes below. including the 18th green which is literally right below, in fact if it were too much closer it might not be visible from our restaurant and bar. The putting green is also right there.

So far we have:

Ulrich - who didn't think there were enough options for a player of his ability or worse I guess. This was explained that in fact, the hole is really set up for making an easy bogey and I certainly believe this to be true.

Mark - wasn't happy with the rough short and left of the green. Personally I've never been short and left, but I have been left. Short left there does need to be rough because it's protecting OB and the car park which is right there but almost never comes into play. Mark had another experience but I've played now about 400 rounds and have yet to see anyone either go OB left or end up short left. If that area was shaved down so you could putt the ball then left would mean OB I'm afraid. For this we can check the sky view.

- what I don't like about left of this green is that it falls off too severe. I would like this to be raised up a bit, left of the green is definitely a penalty and too be avoided, right is safe. However, I can think of many greens that fall of sharp on the left hand side, some into impossible positions that no-one complains about. Earlier this year we played Royal Worlington the little 9 hole course that is a Doak 9. The great little par 3 5th hole with the extremely tricky green falls off to the left much in a similar fashion to our 18th, equally as far down but even steeper and yes into deep rough. The recovery shot from there is every bit as difficult as it is at our 18th green yet it receives nothing but praise.

Donal - who's comments were actually very similar to my criticism of the hole. Rough behind the bunkers which is some seriously think stuff. I had mentioned this earlier and I'm pushing to have that shaved down actually. Not all parties agree on this issue.

The we have the lack of ability to run it up. I won't argue that the green aprons in front are softer than I would like to see them but don't tell the members you can run it up as that is exactly what most of them do. We have several Irish members and a couple Scotch and they all run it up. Maybe they are just use to is. Not only do they do that on that hole but on all the other holes with raised greens as well. So yes it's soft but that mainly affects you when you are hitting a 7 iron/8 iron and landing it straight into the bank because you missed your intended target. Then I call BS on the run up stuff. Too soft, yes, but not too soft to run it up.

In golf every course is different, you have to figure things out a bit.

Here's another example, Wolf Point, one of my favorites looks and feels like you could use the ground game the same way you at the Old Course for example. Well, if I'm not mistaken it's bermuda grass. Every try to chip and run an 8 iron on bermuda? Think again, it doesn't work, it doesn't work with a 7 iron either, unless you can get the ball rolling on the grass with no spin. Try using a 4 iron, then it start to get possible (read predictable).

Back on target, I'm looking for a debate about the architectural merits of this hole and why it's a strong hole or a weak hole. Yet with all do respect I've not really seen any and the more it's being discussed the better this hole seems to be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()