[Jason Thurman]

I flipped to the Honda Classic for a few minutes yesterday over lunch, and heard one of the commentators say that a certain par 3 over water had only been hit in regulation by 33% of the field. I don't remember the hole number, but it features a shallow and slightly angled green with a small bailout area to the left, a bunker just to the left rear, and grandstands close behind the back edge of the green.

I know it was windy, but that GIR number struck me as ridiculous. It was clear to me that if 2/3rds of the field had failed to hit the green, it wasn't because they were all hitting bad shots. For the best players in the world to miss a green with mid irons that frequently, it had to be because many of them were aiming elsewhere. Maybe they weren't intentionally missing the green, but they were focused more on missing the water than hitting the putting surface.

The hole had a stiff penalty awaiting anyone who went at the pin and came up just short or pushed it a bit. It seemed obvious to me that guys must have been purposefully playing to the relatively safe left side, where the carry over the water was shorter and a fairly routine up-and-down from the bailout area or bunker awaited, and a worst case scenario was a pitch from the rough. It also seemed obvious to me that a par 3 where the best in the world won't be suckered into hitting toward the pin is a stupid hole, at least in the conditions of the day. This is an example of a discerning target that has become a stupid target. Are there others?

[Matthew Essig]

The hole you are talking about is #17.

Yesterday, the wind was blowing 30 mph with gusts into the 40s.

I don't care who you are... 30 handicap, scratch, pro, hooker, slicer, low ball flight, high ball flight... whatever...
A small, angled green with water short and flanking the shorter right side with a howling wind coming off the water... Everyone is just trying not to hit it in the water.

P.S. There were two other holes, 10 (which DOESN'T have water) and 11 (which has a pond short) both had smaller GIR percentages. I think 10 had LESS than 20%.

P.S.S. More piss-poor weather today.

[Nigel Islam]

The hole was playing straight downwind and the pin was on he right of the green. Basically you had yo hit the shot perfectly, just barely carry the water, and then it would stay on the green. I think 9Iron was the club of choice from 169. It was the wind that was causing the havoc. I don't think it's a bad hole, but 15 and 17 are very similar which compounds the issue.

[Carl Johnson]

I flipped to the Honda Classic for a few minutes yesterday . . . . It seemed obvious to me that guys must have been purposefully playing to the relatively safe left side, where the carry over the water was shorter and a fairly routine up-and-down from the bailout area or bunker awaited, and a worst case scenario was a pitch from the rough. It also seemed obvious to me that a par 3 where the best in the world won't be suckered into hitting toward the pin is a stupid hole, at least in the conditions of the day. . . .

Not sure what you're getting at.  Golf is an outdoor sport.  Conditions can vary widely.  (Stating the obvious.)  Didn't see the Honda Classic, but my take would be . . . I'd give credit to smart golf by smart golfers, under the circumstances, rather than dumping on the hole.

[Wade Whitehead]

One player said that Thursday's 10 and 11 would be the toughest consecutive holes faced on Tour this year.

WW

[Jason Thurman]

I don't doubt that the pros are playing the hole wisely. I generally trust their judgment with regards to the smart way to play a hole.

I'm not sure that this hole is a uniquely poor one under normal circumstances, which is why I mentioned the conditions and offered plenty of qualifiers in the original post. I just found it interesting that so few pros were even challenging the green on a manageable par 3, and thought it illuminated an architectural "tipping point" at which the shot an architect intends to test becomes negated by the fact that the penalty for attempting such a shot is so severe that players won't take it on. In this case, what would be a good test of accuracy and nerve under more benign conditions has been turned into a 169 yard drive-and-pitch hole.

I also almost never watch televised golf, and so I didn't keep the TV on for long enough to pay attention to the hole's length. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming the hole must've been 200 yards. 33% GIR from 169 for pros is even more ridiculous.

Is this the shortest hole ever where laying up is the preferred play for professionals?

[Brent Hutto]

the teensy little Par 3 at Pebble Beach is nigh unhittable in a howling gale.

In what ways does this 169-yard Par 3 in Florida in a howling gale suffer in comparison?

[Carl Johnson]

Is this the shortest hole ever where laying up is the preferred play for professionals?

Billy Casper won the 1959 U.S. Open at Winged Foot laying up every day on no. 3, a par 3, at 217 yards (longer than 17 at the Honda, but has always been of interest to me):

Excerpt from About.com website:  "The victory by Billy Casper . . . is notable . . . also of his course management skills. . . . The par-3 third hole on Winged Foot's West Course was long and playing very tough. Casper believed that going for birdie was outweighed by the risk of making bogey when players played to the green. So he laid up to the par-3 green. All four days. He laid up to a spot where he knew he could get the ball up and down for par, took his par all four days and moved on."

[Jason Thurman]

Brent, I don't think anybody bails out on 7 at Pebble. Even in the strongest winds, I've never seen anyone aim away from the green and play for an up-and-down. The intended test of the shot remains intact, even if it's a shot that plenty of players can't consistently hit.

On 17 at PGA National, it's pretty clear Nicklaus intended to test a player's accuracy with a short/mid iron to a small target surrounded by trouble. The unique part is that the trouble is so penal, and also so much more severe for a miss short or right than a miss anywhere else, that players are willfully bypassing the intended test and rendering the design intent irrelevant.

[Garland Bayley]

The hole you are talking about is #17.

Yesterday, the wind was blowing 30 mph with gusts into the 40s.

I don't care who you are... 30 handicap, scratch, pro, hooker, slicer, low ball flight, high ball flight... whatever...
A small, angled green with water short and flanking the shorter right side with a howling wind coming off the water... Everyone is just trying not to hit it in the water.

P.S. There were two other holes, 10 (which DOESN'T have water) and 11 (which has a pond short) both had smaller GIR percentages. I think 10 had LESS than 20%.

P.S.S. More piss-poor weather today.

In other words, step away from the keyboard son!

[A.G._Crockett]

If there is one thing I've learned from the pro tournaments that I've seen IN PERSON (as opposed to TV), it's that these guys have a game plan that varies relatively little from player to player.  This, clearly, would be an example.

In this particular case, it begs the question of whether or not a par three could be considered to be a good hole if the best players in the world believe the best way to play the hole is, essentially, to miss the green.  I have a hard time thinking that is good design, I really do.

And that brings me to the into that is being used on the telecast each day about "the bear trap".  I realize that on some level it is just TV hype, but advertising the brutal nature of the course hardly seems inviting.

[Pete_Pittock]

not much different than many holes at Doral during the Thursday of their tournament last year.

[Sean_A]

I don't doubt that the pros are playing the hole wisely. I generally trust their judgment with regards to the smart way to play a hole.

I'm not sure that this hole is a uniquely poor one under normal circumstances, which is why I mentioned the conditions and offered plenty of qualifiers in the original post. I just found it interesting that so few pros were even challenging the green on a manageable par 3, and thought it illuminated an architectural "tipping point" at which the shot an architect intends to test becomes negated by the fact that the penalty for attempting such a shot is so severe that players won't take it on. In this case, what would be a good test of accuracy and nerve under more benign conditions has been turned into a 169 yard drive-and-pitch hole.

I also almost never watch televised golf, and so I didn't keep the TV on for long enough to pay attention to the hole's length. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming the hole must've been 200 yards. 33% GIR from 169 for pros is even more ridiculous.

Is this the shortest hole ever where laying up is the preferred play for professionals?

Jason

The situation you describe is much like the problem with width...this is one of the inherent problems with water usage.  On sites with wind that can crank up to high numbers, how much space to allow for the weather is reasonable?  The general trend is to narrow fairways down without adjusting rough accordingly.  Now, some new courses which are windy areas are built with huge width and some on this board question the wisdom of this design approach.  I think the diversity of opinion further highlights the need for archies to target their audience and make it well known.  For instance, if a course is built primarily for top flight golfers (there can't be too many courses of this sort in the world), then Joe hack shouldn't whinge when he loses a dozen balls.  Archies simply cannot design for the range golfing ability and expect to challenge flat bellies and get 20 cappers round in good time with a smile on their face. 

Ciao   

[Thomas Dai]

Carl's highlighting of the Billy Casper/Winged Foot par-3 story, one of my favourite course management stories, is spot on by me.

If you think a challenge is too severe to take on without a high probablility of success, don't take it on. Logic over ego surely!

I have also heard a story of a short hitting US pro, Paul Runyon maybe?, who didn't believe he could make a certain carry off the back tee in a tournament so instead he hit a short iron to a front tee and played on from there. Did the same thing myself a few times as a small size short hittiing junior playing in men's comps off the back tees whn a long carry was needed.

atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()