The search for distance and its drawbacks

[Michael Felton]

Hi all,

I had the pleasure of playing (badly) at Wee Burn Country Club in Connecticut on Monday in the Met Open qualifier. The course was immaculate and was a very enjoyable layout. It was actually quite surprising and unusual to find a course in the area that didn't appear to have any template holes on it. It's a Devereux Emmet course. Anyway, to the reason for my post.

Below is a picture of the 6th hole. It's a 587 yard par 5 from the back tees (where we were playing). There is a stream/pond that runs across the fairway and cuts back towards the tee on the right hand side and then swings away again. From the back tee, the nearest part of the stream is 300 yards away and the part that runs across the fairway is 330 yards away. Consequently, you stand on the tee and even downwind, in the soft conditions, you can just whale away at driver, sure and certain in the knowledge that you won't make the water. Then it's too far to go for the green, so you wind up laying up (at least I do) and then wedge it on. As a result, the hole becomes fairly boring and it's hard to imagine doing much worse than making 4 or 5 depending on your wedge play every time. Now, had the hole been shorter by around 70-80 yards such that you might be tempted to have a go at carrying the water or laying up as close to it as you can, then I would think the hole becomes much more interesting. It gives you the risk/reward of going for the carry and plonking it in the water and if you clear it you are in a great spot to make birdie.

It feels like the course has been lengthened to make it meet some ideal for distance and not with the best architectural intentions at heart. The one thing that does give me pause on that front is that you don't have to walk back to the tee and the tee feels in the right spot with respect to the previous hole (a wonderful bunkerless 450 yard brute), so I'm not sure how that fits in. I just find it hard to believe that Emmet would have built the hole that way, especially not back in the early 20th century.

What say ye people?

[JESII]

Michael,

I don't know the course so I pulled it up on Google Earth to get an idea.

The elevation says it's about a 50 or 55 foot drop from tee to fairway...does that seem close? That would certainly make 300 more reasnoable so you'd have to consider the right water off the tee.

GE also says the green is about 10 feet above the fairway landing area but open in front...if the soft conditions you cite were firmed up I'd think I could hit a 310 or 320 drive down that hill and be left with 250 or 260 to the center of a green that's open in front...I'm going for it almost every time.

I think I prefer this to the shorter tee solution of a 290 carry over water which would leave a 195 shot.

[Jason Thurman]

Michael, your post reminds me of a round I played last fall at Idle Hour in Lexington, KY. It's a monstrously tough test from the back tees with only three par 4s under 430 yards, and only one under 400.

The third hole is one of many huge par 4s, at around 450 yards from the back tees. Water crosses the fairway around the 300 yard mark, and I know that I can hit my driver hard without getting near it. My playing partner also pulled out driver. He's a huge hitter and competitive tournament player and I was confused by his club selection until he made contact, and calmly smoked a ball over the crossing hazard and left himself 130 yards in.

The water is out of play for me (I can't reach it) and out of play for my buddy (he doesn't even notice it until he walks across the bridge on the way to his 330 yard drive), but it's in play for someone in between us. The water you're referencing would give my buddy pause, as he can easily reach it with a flushed drive, especially if the hole plays downwind or if he pushes his tee shot just a little. I think you're making the mistake of condemning a hazard that is out of play for you, a good player who doesn't sound like he hits it an otherworldly long way, as out of play for everyone.

On a 590 yard hole, I'm not sure that you really need a risk/reward tee shot as a mishit or offline ball is probably penalty enough for most players. Likewise, I'm not sure that the world would be a better place if it had another 520 yard eagle opportunity with a carry over water off the tee that isn't in play for players like my buddy but forces weaker players to layup even farther out. Complaining that the hole is a "fairly boring... 4 or 5" for you is one hell of a humblebrag.

[Kevin_D]

Michael,

I understand your sentiments, but if thinking about architectural intent, could anyone clear the water when the hole was built?  My guess is no.  So adding some length so that is still true for almost all golfers doesn't seem too inappropriate to me.

Also, if you're really a bomber but can hit your irons pretty straight, isn't the play on the hole more like 3-iron, 5 iron, wedge?

Kevin

[Michael Felton]

Jim,

There is quite a drop from tee to fairway. It was also playing downwind. I hit a good solid drive to about the top of the yellow line by the 300 that I added to the picture. Not much run from it. The fairway is pretty wide and that water on the right really isn't much of an issue. I lasered it from there and had 301 to the flag (which was a little back of centre granted). Going for it just wasn't an option for me. I guess if I'd got a powerful draw going down the left side of the fairway I could see having a chance to get there.

If the ground was genuinely firm I think you'd have to be concerned about getting a big bounce forwards into the stream.

Jason,

I freely admit that I don't hit it very long, but it's quite unusual for me to be consistently outdriven (not unheard of - played with a kid from my club back in England who had me by about 40 yards every hole). In any case, the fact that I can hit my driver and your friend would have to reach for his 3 wood or hybrid just makes my case more doesn't it? By removing any possibility of making the carry, you make everyone play it as lay back from the water and lay up and then hit it on. Granted the very long players would be able to hit the green from 280 out short of the water.

I guess my point is more that if the hole was shorter, I think the scoring would be higher, because I think more would be tempted to have a crack at clearing the water and get themselves in trouble. If that allowed someone who hits it 310 in the air to make mincemeat of it, then so be it. By removing all semblance of chance to clear it you take away that opportunity to put yourself in trouble.

As regards the humblebrag, it was in the middle of my shooting a nice smooth 83, where I happened to hit a decent drive, a decent 4 iron (that wound up going further than I wanted it to) and a mediocre lob wedge to about 25 feet from whence I rather unceremoniously lagged a putt up to the hole. It felt easy to make 5 and with a decent lob wedge would have been a good chance at a 4. I have no doubt that my opinion as to how the hole played if I'd hit poor shots (which I did a lot of) or the wind had been in my face would be very different.

[SL_Solow]

If you want the water to be in play so as to provide a greater strategic challenge, why are you playing the back tees?  It seems to me that wherever the stream crosses, it will be in play for some and out of play for others.  Depending on the topography which likely dictated the green site when Emmet was working, the distance between the stream and the green was likely fixed.  thus only the tee varies and no single distance will create the strategy for a variety of players.  a shorter carry may make the hole too "easy" for the long hitter.  I would prefer to know the level of interest in the lay up area.  How interesting is the green and the surrounds.

[Michael Felton]

If you want the water to be in play so as to provide a greater strategic challenge, why are you playing the back tees?  It seems to me that wherever the stream crosses, it will be in play for some and out of play for others.  Depending on the topography which likely dictated the green site when Emmet was working, the distance between the stream and the green was likely fixed.  thus only the tee varies and no single distance will create the strategy for a variety of players.  a shorter carry may make the hole too "easy" for the long hitter.  I would prefer to know the level of interest in the lay up area.  How interesting is the green and the surrounds.

It was in a tournament, so there was only one set of tees to play from. I thought it was a strange choice of tee is all.

I had 188 to clear the last of the three fairway bunkers and hit a 4 iron that wound up going about 230 (I wish I knew how). Beyond those bunkers it was pretty wide open and flat. Into the wind, I think it would be a whole different ball game trying to clear those bunkers with a second shot. That would leave a 150 yard approach shot instead of a 70 yard one and would be much tougher. The green itself has the flanking bunkers and slopes back towards the player. The rest of the surround I don't really remember too well.

For what it's worth, my fellow competitor hit hybrid, hybrid in the left rough, wedge on the green and two putts. Maybe the wind isn't the prevailing one and maybe the intent is that those three bunkers crowd the second shot landing area, so the back tee is necessary to prevent everyone from hitting to the end of the fairway and then hitting over those bunkers.

[Jason Thurman]

Michael, I didn’t mean any offense by calling your “easy 4 or 5” a humblebrag. I just think you have to realize that you’re a better player than most if you can label a 590 yard hole as such. I think there’s a trap that exists when we start discussing architecture only through the lens of better players. The changes you propose might make the hole more interesting for tournament play, but they only make it less equitable for weaker players who are playing against a stronger player in club play. A strong player who hits it longer already has a major advantage over that weaker player, and now you’re looking to move the water hazard to a spot in the landing area that forces the weak player to lay up while allowing the stronger player to cross, which only further exaggerates that disparity.

Personally, I think the primary consideration of a hole should be how it will play 95% of the time during member play, and not how it will play for low handicappers in tournaments. A weak player who’s getting a stroke or two in daily play has a fighting chance on the hole as currently designed, as he and his opponent are both crossing the water on their second shot and his deficit off the tee is no worse than it is on any other hole, and might even be reduced if he’s playing against someone like my buddy who has to lay up. Stick the water in a spot where the bomber can clear it and the bumper can’t, and you’re really screwing the weaker guy.

Also, as you mention, the water comes into play at the 300 yard mark on the right. It also looks from the aerial shot like the ideal angle off the tee would be toward the right to help open up the fairway for the layup. So in fact, water is in play off the tee for strong players who pull out driver for an aggressive tee shot and either push their drive or choose to challenge that right side. As Kevin suggests, I doubt that anyone could reach or clear the water when the hole was built, but it does seem like the water up the right side is easily in play for a lot of good players and adds some risk/reward to the challenge of finding the ideal position.

[Mark Fedeli]

If the back tee is original (1896?), I would guess that the hole was designed to be a true 3-shotter and that the water was initially supposed to come into play on the second shot, where most players would be trying to squeeze their lay-up over the water and short of the bunkers (I'm assuming that very few players back then had the distance to clear the fairway bunkers with their second, let alone reach the green). That second shot would be made even more difficult, a la the 7th at PV, if the drive was at all wayward.

How does that lay-up shot appear from ground level? Any visual trickery?

[Michael Felton]

Jason - I think part of my issue with the hole is that that water is pretty much never going to affect me or my play of the hole (downwind anyway). The only thing it might do is make someone ridiculously long lay up to it, or, for the mid-teens handicap, present a challenge for the second shot. I think bringing it into play from the tee for me would create parity between me and a higher handicap. While playing the hole, I thought that the hole would have better defenses against me if it was just the right distance that a perfect drive would clear it, but a weak one wouldn't. That would get me going for it and I'd probably wind up with a higher average score than playing the hole as it is. If that would mean that there were some people out there who would hit it over the water without a thought, I could live with that.

Mark - you may well be right. The only thing I noticed from ground level is that those bunkers on the right are quite high faced and there are some areas of dead ground beyond them. The rough on the left is not particularly troubling and you could be quite a ways into it and still not have an issue with the trees being in the way. It's definitely not as good of a line in and had it been firm, it would have been a far more troubling shot.