Chet:
I've thought a lot about that new tee since being over there both for the Women's US Am and the DeBaufre.
I think it's fair to say without being needlessly critical that the new tee isn't working out that well in practice or in the perception of many golfers--even good ones. The fact is it's just too far to the right for what's out there on the drive to be really effective for much other than some fairly high demand and possibly rather strange primary tee shot options. But you and the club may not feel that way.
I hear you when you state things and options such as a golfer trying or needing to hit the ball over those trees on the right with a 3 wood or alternatively trying to hit something hard and low under them down to the ideal landing area (presumably around 160). But as serious and reasonable options asking that of golfers collectively as reasonable options seems to be on the strange side to me. It’s not that I’d suggest removing those two options just enhancing the hole somehow or balancing the tee shot options somehow to create more than that---but of course not for the purpose of getting to the ideal landing area of 160yds. The purpose would be to balance things with more reasonable low risk tee shot options. The option of placing the ball to the left and on the hill is a beautiful option, a classic one and basically one that creates what used to be known as “indirect tax” situation for the approach shot despite the fact that Byron once holed a 1 iron from there to basically win the 1939 US Open!
When I say what I have about the problems and solutions on this hole I should also stress that golf architecture and particularly what all you're trying to do with that hole falls into a lot of gray area--definitely not black and white. And furthermore, what you have on that hole, with what you're trying to do is a whole series of very closely connected and nuancy strategic problems that certainly have no obvious or easy answers or solutions, the basic reason being the topography of the hole and the fact it slopes down so much over the hill and to the right.
And so the solutions for how best to solve the problems of what you're trying to do on that hole needs to be done very diliberately and carefully basically following a very careful process. The absolute worst and wrong thing to do, at least at first, would be to remove trees on the corner FIRST, although ultimately given other connecting solutions that might end up being the thing to do. The reason I say that is simple because those trees are large and central to the way the hole is working now (although maybe not ideally with that back tee that far right) but if you removed those big trees now, particularly those two to three that are really big wood, you run the risk of gutting the hole for the next 75 years because if you cut those mothers down you wouldn't get their effect back for about that much time!
And if they were cut down the solutions of what to do to reenhance the all important corner on that hole becomes really complicated in a design workup sense. One could put bunkers further along the corner over the hill but they'd be going far down the hill and probably necessarily to the left somewhat even into what might be far right-side fairway at present to recreate the same basic tee shot demand as those trees do now. And furthermore blind bunkering that is central to a primary strategy is considered far less than ideal--at least in architectural principle.
I realize that I may not even be catching your drift on this hole and what you and the club thinks needs to be done with it. If you’re suggesting that the way it is even with the new tee to the right is still too easy to suit the club, I must say I don’t know that I’d agree with that. My take on the hole with the new tee is that two primary options to get the tee shot to the ideal landing area are just a bit too high risk or even weird for an otherwise great hole like that, but you certainly know the way the hole plays and plays now 1000 times better than I do. But if that’s what you’re saying that the hole still plays too easy even with the new tee, then perhaps you may want to consider planting a tree or two back up on the hill at the perfect apex to intensify that low cut shot down to the ideal landing area of 160.
But if it’s not concern with the hole being too easy but concern about that new tee creating unnecessarily odd primary tee shot options then my advice would be to think seriously about expanding that fairway out to the left, maybe even big-time to the left and down the hole. What that would accomplish would be to give the long ball hitter who choose not to or didn’t cut the ball enough to the ideal landing area a safer out on his tee shot—safer meaning his next shot could be more than a chip out. I assume you’re suggesting that hitting that shot out into what’s now heavy rough isn’t cutting it or is really unpopular.
(continued on the next post)