[MClutterbuck]

This is a tough par 4, only 425 yards from the tips, but plays much longer into the prevailing wind and a slightly elevated green. When it blows, it is quite strong, maybe a 3 club wind. However, it does not always blow and completely calm days are plenty. Only 30% of players handicap 16 and under play this hole in par or under, making it the 4th toughest on an already tough course (75.6 rating par 72, 145 Slope).


The fairway is relatively flat but 3 feet higher than the waste area on the left. The 2 cross bunkers are on the face of a massive mound but start at fairway height. Both have a very high back lip requiring a 9 or wedge depending on ball placement. The right greenside bunker is 200 feet long and the green is 125 feet deep diagonally, and 44 feet wide between bunkers. OB stakes surround the fences of the houses on the left and the right.


I feel this can be a much better hole, probably a really good one if it were fixed.


I would rather not name the course, at least not yet. It would probably not be well liked in this forum due to water, housing and it being similar to many Florida courses, but it is a good course that has hosted many professional tournaments and convenient to where I live, with close to the best conditioned greens I have seen year round.


1. What is wrong with it?
2. How do you fix it without spending too much?


I have strong views but donīt want to contaminate opinions.

[Tom_Doak]

Just take the fairway bunkers out.  Between the bunker at the green and the length of the hole, there's plenty of trouble for anyone coming in from the right, if they are trying to make par ... but at least you'd give the average player room to head there, and then tack back to his left to make bogey.


Plus the bunkers even make it harder for players to get from the cart path to the fairway, slowing play.

The guy with the house and pool on the left would also probably prefer it if more people drove to the right.  Maybe you could get him to pay for the work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Eliminate the front half plus of the right side green bunker would go a long way.  All it does is punish the high handicapper.


As TD says, take out the fairway bunkers, or at least the first one if the visuals are important. Can't tell from photo.


If there was a way to extend the width of the green on the front, it would help, too.

[Jim Hoak]

I hesitate to follow someone as superior-to-my thinking as Tom, but I'd suggest breaking up the massive green-side bunker into a few more interesting bunkers.  Not only would it make entry and exit easier for players, it would also allow for a more interesting green complex, more chance in the results for a ball hit to the right, and more opportunities for more creative bunkering.  It might also make course maintenance more efficient.  I think that bunkers of that size are superficial and uninspiring.  (Actually, I feel better now that Jeff said as I was typing what I said.)

[MClutterbuck]

I hesitate to follow someone as superior-to-my thinking as Tom, but I'd suggest breaking up the massive green-side bunker into a few more interesting bunkers.  Not only would it make entry and exit easier for players, it would also allow for a more interesting green complex, more chance in the results for a ball hit to the right, and more opportunities for more creative bunkering.  It might also make course maintenance more efficient.  I think that bunkers of that size are superficial and uninspiring.  (Actually, I feel better now that Jeff said as I was typing what I said.)

Iīll comment on TD last, but that is an interesting idea Jim on the green side bunker that I dontīt think has been addressed by anyone at the club. The large bunker is actually quite attractive visually on the course, but it is the toughest bunker for high handicappers, and like Jeff pointed out they are the ones left with the long bunker shots.


From the aerial, the shape seems like if a large front bunker was connected to a small back bunker sometime during construction, and that it might be a candidate swath to be grassed over... it would make it easier for some wayward shots.


But the large bunker, while tough, is not the primary concern or issue with the hole.

[Peter Pallotta]

MC -
at the risk of sounding like a copy cat, not only do I agree with Tom D but for me (an average golfer) those kind of bunkers are the biggest pet peeves in golf. And it's not only because they might make the hole harder (I hit it fairly straight these days, and so don't long for more room on the right); it's more because of the *principle* of the thing.
Either good architecture/design means something, or it doesn't. An architect either commits to (and believes in) the time tested strategies and choices that make for a challenging but thought-provoking game, or he doesn't.
On this hole, the architect seems to have been either unsure of himself and/or very cynical, i.e. believing that most golfers would just accept this as another 'hard' hole and not think too much about it (as an 'architectural' failure). 
But, the simple 'fact' (and solid design idea) is this: if a golfer chooses to flirt with/risk the waste areas on the left, he'll be rewarded with a clear look/angle into a green that runs in the same direction; but if on the other hand he decides to play safe and go off to the right, he'll not only have to come over that big green-side bunker but he will be flying it to the narrowest part of the green (one at right angles from that line of play).
*That's* the equation; that's the promise even, or at least the traditional and time-tested *bargain*. The safe choice is already costing the less brave and/or less skilled golfer a tougher second shot (and likely, because he is less skilled, at least one extra stroke). Why in goodness name would the architect want to cost him *two* strokes by having him hit out of those bunkers?
On what proven design principle is *that* calculation based?  And plus, after playing the golf hole even once, why would *any* golfer ever choose the so-called safe route again?
In short, those fairway bunkers on the right make for a worse hole, in every sense.
I think any architect would know that; I think whoever did this must not have actually cared; maybe he thought/thinks that golfers don't know any better, and would instead equate an ass-kickingly poor design with a great golf hole. 
Peter   

[Robin_Hiseman]

The safety margins are what is wrong with the hole. The long axis of the green is pointing at the roundabout behind the house on the left, meaning it is impossible to attain a straight on approach into the green. It is reckless design and/or course management to promote a bold line from the tee that plays so close to a property line.


I think that if the green complex was rebuilt with a reverse orientation to favour a right to left approach, one would have a safer hole, a more engaging design strategy (favouring play to the outside of the dogleg) and a bail out play close to the cart path for the convenience of the golfer.

[MClutterbuck]

Yes Peter. I think by now all have identified, at least what would make the hole better. Tom touched on the problem in his last paragraph: The House. I will add some more data.


The 2 bunkers on the right are really penal. Tough to get to the green from them, obviously if the pin is back right, but also if it is all the way to the front, as their is a collection area left of the green and it is tough to stop the ball.


So what does the good player, and especially the very long player do? Stays far away from those bunkers and rips it over the waste area on the left, and if succesful leaves himself a great angle for a relatively short approach to the green. And if he is short, the lip on the waste area is less than 3 feet and the green is still reachable.


PROBLEM: Even the good players hook it every now and then and as you can imagine, they hit the house often. Several broken windows and dents on the siding after, we have to fix this hole fast!


I am not as long as some of the better players, so I aim further right. But on my best drives I end up in the second bunker on the right. And if I hit a 3 wood off the tees I am too far from the green. A bit unfair.


So the hole is unsafe, sometimes does not play as a slight dogleg by having people bomb it over the waste area, and I think a bit unfair to the 4-12 handicaps.


Obviously I agree with all of you, one or both bunkers on the right have to go. My initial thought is the second bunker needs to go first and then evaluate. It gives the longest hitters and better drives a good chance at a great approach shot over the large bunker to the angled green. Maybe the first bunker can be eliminated as well.


Suddenly the ideal equation for the bombers starts  to shift somewhat to the right. Is it enough?


You might have noticed my emergency notice to bombers on the aerial. We planted 9 Pampa grasses past the waste area the day after the latest broken window and sent out a letter to the members. We also moved OB 10 feet further away from the house, something that I hate on principle. This is temporary.


Any additional recommendations? 

[MClutterbuck]

The safety margins are what is wrong with the hole. The long axis of the green is pointing at the roundabout behind the house on the left, meaning it is impossible to attain a straight on approach into the green. It is reckless design and/or course management to promote a bold line from the tee that plays so close to a property line.


I think that if the green complex was rebuilt with a reverse orientation to favour a right to left approach, one would have a safer hole, a more engaging design strategy (favouring play to the outside of the dogleg) and a bail out play close to the cart path for the convenience of the golfer.

Agree on the highlighted conclusion. To be fair to the architects involved, they might have recommended eliminating the lot where the house currently stands and the developer might have ignored the request.


Stil, expensive fix and membership would not support loosing several months play. The tall mounds protecting the first tee and the putting green at the back would have to be addressed. I still feel this hole can be excellent with no changes to the the green complex.

[Tom_Doak]

This is a fine illustration of why golf holes with housing on both sides, are rarely good golf holes.


It's difficult to create strategy.  If you encourage the golfer to favor either side of the fairway, you're sending him too close to the houses on that side.

[Ronald Montesano]

What kind of hole follows it and where it it? If it is a par three, is there an opportunity to create a par three into this hole's drive zone, and follow it with a par 4, made up of the 2nd 1/3 of this hole and the current par three that follows?


It's a lot of work, but getting rid of sh!t on the right won't help the house. Taking the driver out of golfers' hands will do the trick.

[Garland Bayley]

You say we won't like it, because it is a housing course. By doing so, to a small extent you seemed to imply that fixing it wouldn't be related to the housing.

I agree with Robin. To get the work done, I agree with Tom, get the home owner to pay for it.

Fairway bunkers are not an issue for high handicappers. If we aim at them, we won't get in them. If we aim away from them, but hit in their direction, no matter because we probably mishit enough to still not get in them. Even if we do get in them, we get into so many bad locations that it really doesn't matter that we are in a bunker this time.

Fairway bunkers are only pertinent to the lower handicapper, and scratch player. These bunkers are too close to the tee to be pertinent to the plus handicapper these days.

[Garland Bayley]

...I am not as long as some of the better players, so I aim further right. But on my best drives I end up in the second bunker on the right. And if I hit a 3 wood off the tees I am too far from the green. A bit unfair.
...

Unfair? Really? You are going to use that word? Your opponents are playing the same hole, so how does that make it unfair? Are you saying the hole is to hard for you compared to people who hit it farther? You want to know what members of this website say to me when I mention my high handicap? They say take lessons, practice, and get better.

So take a lesson or move up a tee.

[Duncan Cheslett]

It isn't just low handicap bombers who can hit houses.


Take away the fairway bunkers and more hackers will be tempted to take a driver rather than a 3 wood or long iron for safety. The houses on the right are then in the firing line for any sliced drive - at least one per 4-ball group in all likelihood.


In any case, low handicappers will still aim left over the house to open up the green. The shot in from the right over that enormous bunker is one that good players will try to avoid.


The ideal solution is Robin's suggestion of re-aligning the green to accept approach shots from the right.


At the very least reduce the size of the greenside bunker by two-thirds to give a view of the green from the right hand side of the fairway. And keep the fairway bunkers.


In truth though, that house on the left is always going to be at risk from the slightly pulled long drive, sitting as it does 275 yards from the tee.  Can the tee not be moved back 50 yards to take it out of range?


I guess the problem then is that it brings more houses on the right into the firing line of slices!

[Duncan Cheslett]

Only 30% of players handicap 16 and under play this hole in par or under, making it the 4th toughest on an already tough course

Only 30%?


Why would anyone in the handicap range 5 -15 expect to par a hole such as this?  I'm a 10 and would undoubtedly be playing it as a 3-shotter. A par would be as a result of a good chip from the open side of the green and a putt.


I suspect that this was the original design intention of the architect.

[Sean_A]

What is wrong with the hole?  Its down an alley of houses.  There isn't a good fix, just options to mitigate the danger.  I think the danger level is too high regardless of what is done. Best fix...buy insurance before playing.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Housing and courses, not really a good match, and an expensive option would be to buy and demolish the house on the left (sic!) but as a less costly way how about -


A) the fairway bunkers on the right encourage players to go left towards the house so fill-in the bunkers and mow the grass on and around the mounds to fairway height so shots will roll forward
B) as the green is somewhat elevated I imagine there's already some degree of defence so completely fill-in the ghastly huge bunker on the right of the green and mow the grass at fairway/chipping area height.


Generally discourage play down the more dangerous left side by making the right side 'seem' easier, including around the green.


atb

[Neil White]

It would appear that the existing centreline is biased toward the left leaving approx. 40yds between the apex and the house - the total corridor width is ~ 120 yds.


Move the centreline to the right ~ 20yds along with the addition of a couple of left hand bunkers to entice the bigger hitter to take on the carry leaving a more open shot into the green - depending on how easy / difficult the waste area is to recover from you could even forgo the bunkers in favour of extending the waste area?


Remove the existing fairway bunkers and widen the fairway to provide ample bail-out room for those not willing to take on the bunkers.


Narrow the fairway on the right hand side just short of the large greenside bunker and at the same time widen the approach on the front-left slightly to offer a larger lay-up for those not able to take on the greenside bunkers.


Widen the approach into the green and extend the collar away from the green slightly.


Widen the green itself slightly at the front-right and remove the rear bunker.  Remove the large greenside bunker and replace with an approach bunker short-right of the green and a greenside bunker centre-right - this could be tucked in more than shown to protect a right-rear pin.  The approach bunker could be just high enough to reduce visibility to the front-right of the green from the right hand side of the fairway.

[Robin_Hiseman]

If the house plot on the left was on the original development plan then the golf architect has screwed up.

If it was added later, but the golf and housing development are owned by one and the same, then the golf architect is in the clear and the developer has screwed up.

If the golf course has sold the plot then it's their bad...and the bad of the planning authority.

I don't see how you can blame the homeowner, or expect them to pay for the hole to be altered. They have a right to be safe within their property line.

The set back to the homes on the right looks to be perfectly adequate, so this spur on the left seems to be an anomaly.

A double loaded hole corridor is, as Tom rightly points out, the enemy of strategic design. You can only slightly wobble the playing strategy from the straight and narrow. Bold diagonals such as this just don't work. Neither can you safely take a tee back, as Duncan suggests, to take the house out of driving range. It's only on the tee that you have the golfer contained. They're off the leash after that and can be playing shots from anywhere. Better to get them forward and past the hazard, or as Ronald mentions, split the holes before the pinch point.

I've had to deal with this kind of crap more often than I would have liked, and often with developers who want to crowd homes in as close as possible to the line of play, so please forgive my forthright views.

[David Davis]

This doesn't inspire me to want to be an architect. Looks a right mess.


There are many options that would make the homeowner on the left happy I don't think. Moving fairway bunkers and centerline to the right just brings the other house into play more I'd guess. Removing house on the left opens it up more for sure.


Guess you could break up the hole and create two par 3's ha ha...maybe that would keep most housing relatively safe except for the occasionally extremely wild Barkly Bank.

[MClutterbuck]

What kind of hole follows it and where it it? If it is a par three, is there an opportunity to create a par three into this hole's drive zone, and follow it with a par 4, made up of the 2nd 1/3 of this hole and the current par three that follows?


It's a lot of work, but getting rid of sh!t on the right won't help the house. Taking the driver out of golfers' hands will do the trick.

It is a 9th hole returning to a Club House. I don't think there is an option to change the routing. It is preceded and followed by 2 reachable par 5's. I don't think making the hole easier is a needed objective.

[MClutterbuck]

...I am not as long as some of the better players, so I aim further right. But on my best drives I end up in the second bunker on the right. And if I hit a 3 wood off the tees I am too far from the green. A bit unfair.
...

Unfair? Really? You are going to use that word? Your opponents are playing the same hole, so how does that make it unfair? Are you saying the hole is to hard for you compared to people who hit it farther? You want to know what members of this website say to me when I mention my high handicap? They say take lessons, practice, and get better.

So take a lesson or move up a tee.

I hesitated to use the word unfair. Lets say there is a large enough gap between a full driver and a 3-wood that makes you choose a driver. Lets say that when driver is well hit, and no draw, the best shots get rewarded with a very tough bunker shot and a very tough line to the green.

[MClutterbuck]

It isn't just low handicap bombers who can hit houses.


Take away the fairway bunkers and more hackers will be tempted to take a driver rather than a 3 wood or long iron for safety. The houses on the right are then in the firing line for any sliced drive - at least one per 4-ball group in all likelihood.


In any case, low handicappers will still aim left over the house to open up the green. The shot in from the right over that enormous bunker is one that good players will try to avoid.


The ideal solution is Robin's suggestion of re-aligning the green to accept approach shots from the right.


At the very least reduce the size of the greenside bunker by two-thirds to give a view of the green from the right hand side of the fairway. And keep the fairway bunkers.


In truth though, that house on the left is always going to be at risk from the slightly pulled long drive, sitting as it does 275 yards from the tee.  Can the tee not be moved back 50 yards to take it out of range?


I guess the problem then is that it brings more houses on the right into the firing line of slices!

Yes Duncan, moving back the tees would be a problem for houses on the right that on this hole currently are safe. This is important, houses on the right have no issues currently and we would not want to make that an issue.

[MClutterbuck]

Only 30% of players handicap 16 and under play this hole in par or under, making it the 4th toughest on an already tough course

Only 30%?


Why would anyone in the handicap range 5 -15 expect to par a hole such as this?  I'm a 10 and would undoubtedly be playing it as a 3-shotter. A par would be as a result of a good chip from the open side of the green and a putt.


I suspect that this was the original design intention of the architect.

I am not criticizing the tough aspect of the hole. It is just a fact so that people get an understanding this is not an easy hole and ranks 4th toughest under the par or less metric. I personally believe this is a well placed tough par 4 in the routing.

[jeffwarne]

Eliminate the front half plus of the right side green bunker would go a long way.  All it does is punish the high handicapper.


As TD says, take out the fairway bunkers, or at least the first one if the visuals are important. Can't tell from photo.

And we'll just have to agree here!


First of all I'm stunned 30% play it in par or better...especially with green elevated and prevailing wind in.
Not that there's anything wrong with that-just suprised it's that high.


Lose about 7/8 of the volume of sand.
Don't really understand what the two right fairway bunkers protect anyway-a bad angle?
Instead maybe one small bunker on the left area of the fairway (or none) and
shrink that monsterous bunker on the right greenside(by a LOT) which only tortures the poorer player and no doubt is a pain to rake.


I'm guessing there are 17 other holes which could use the same treatment...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()