#13 at Sand Hills

[Jason Hines]

Great discussion everyone.

I am at 10-14 handicapper and have a framed picture of this hole on my wall.

My few rounds at Sand Hills, I was more impressed with the green movement on #13 than the difficultly of the tee shot and it was difficult. I think what SH and CC deliver is that you don’t feel like the difficultly comes from the course trying to twist your arm to where it feels painful.  Nature, God, CC built that hole, etc. I didn’t feel slighted when I played it.

I would ask this question, is this hole a better or weak hole at 135 yards?

[John Kavanaugh]

I've played Sand Hills a half dozen times and can't follow this discussion because after the over rated 17th the other three par 3's all blend together. Truth is, without a major water hazard the par three is just that...a par three.  One plus two equals three..nobody cares.

[MCirba]

When I think of great holes at Sand Hills, #13 is one of the very first that comes to mind.

I think the fact that better players don't think it's very fair is one of its virtues.   It isn't fair...it's golf. 

I think the fact that it rejects all but a great shot is ok on a course where most holes have lots of room for error.   Execute or scramble like crazy for bogey, a miracle par, or worse.

Agree with John K that 17th is prettier than great.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I just don't understand or agree with any notion that the 13th is "unfair".  A properly played tee shot is rewarded.  A poor shot is punished, yet you are still given an opportunity to recover and save par.  What else more could you want?  Should a poor shot leave an easy recovery and not be somewhat punished? 

As I said earlier, it's easy to label a hole "unfair" when you don't have the game to pull off the needed shot.    For many players, this gets magnified because they are playing the wrong set of tees.

[Parker Page]

Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.

That is a really poor conclusion!  Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?


If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it.  Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.

Tom, I’ve been thinking about your response here, and I want to push back in order to get some clarity. Jason’s question about the hole being better from 135 started me thinking about the question from the other way around.


Despite John’s assertion to the contrary, 17 is generally regarded as a great hole from 140 yards despite a relative lack of options (you either hit the green or you don’t, right?). But what if C&C decided next year to add a tee from 220 yards? Nothing about the hole would have “changed”, but wouldn’t the hole’s greatness be diminished by adding such a ridiculous tee?


Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?


Or am I just asking the wrong question? Is the better question - would you remove the bunker on the left or the bunker on the right?

[Brian Finn]

Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but #13 has a 146 yard tee.  For me, the back tee is asking an awful lot on that hole - probably too much for my skill level.  However, the middle tee (185) offered a stern, but reasonable test for me.  I'll admit, this is my least favorite hole on the course, but it is a good hole from the correct tee.

[Brandon Urban]

Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.

That is a really poor conclusion!  Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?


If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it.  Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.

Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?

My feeling is that it's a par 3 so does it really need to provide a balanced, risk reward test? Either execute the shot or don't. Sometimes that's ok. It's not like if you hit a mediocre or bad tee shot on this hole you'll never find your ball. You'll get to hit it again.

Also, 17 used to have a back tee closer to 180 if I remember correctly. It's no longer used.

[George Pazin]

What's wrong with a par 3.5?

[Derek_Duncan]

Tom, I’ve been thinking about your response here, and I want to push back in order to get some clarity. Jason’s question about the hole being better from 135 started me thinking about the question from the other way around.


Despite John’s assertion to the contrary, 17 is generally regarded as a great hole from 140 yards despite a relative lack of options (you either hit the green or you don’t, right?). But what if C&C decided next year to add a tee from 220 yards? Nothing about the hole would have “changed”, but wouldn’t the hole’s greatness be diminished by adding such a ridiculous tee?


Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?


Or am I just asking the wrong question? Is the better question - would you remove the bunker on the left or the bunker on the right?

Is 17 widely considered "great"? As someone else said, it's certainly pretty with all the scruffy framing bunkers, but I've always thought it was a letdown at that point in the round.

[Brian Finn]

Is 17 widely considered "great"? As someone else said, it's certainly pretty with all the scruffy framing bunkers, but I've always thought it was a letdown at that point in the round.

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

[Derek_Duncan]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.


We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.

[Brian Finn]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.


We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.

If 17 is disappointing...in any way...I think you are playing the wrong game.  Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions.  That's what keeps things interesting here.

My other comments were not directed at you - they were commenting on the rest of this thread.

[Derek_Duncan]

If 17 is disappointing...in any way...I think you are playing the wrong game.  Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions.  That's what keeps things interesting here.

My other comments were not directed at you - they were commenting on the rest of this thread.

Thanks for the suggestions but I'm confident I'm playing the correct game. And you are correct, this forum wouldn't be very interesting to anyone but you if everyone agreed that you were always right.

[Brandon Urban]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.


We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.

Derek,

I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"

So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?

[George Pazin]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Very interesting post. In the end, it seems to reinforce the notion that, in spite of all protests to the contrary, the vast majority of golfers are not able to separate their thoughts/feelings/rankings from their own games. Just about everyone on here preaches the mantra "I rate courses based on how everyone plays", yet when asked to share specific thoughts, those thoughts frequently contradict the mantra.


Question for the critics of #13: is it tougher than Cypress Point #16? If so, why, if not, why not? Call me crazy for assuming those who've played one likely played the other.


Jeff Brauer related a story about designing a course with a tour pro, and I'm obviously paraphrasing here, but the gist of it was that said tour pro wanted to have birdie as an option on virtually every hole, regardless of whether he was in a hazard or not. (If that wasn't the story, Jeff, I apologize, perhaps you can repeat it.) I suspect that deep down, virtually all golfers view holes similarly, if within their own particular limits. Everyone teeing it up on a par 3 wants to think hitting the green shouldn't be unlikely, and neither should par. Curiously, they don't seem to extend this to ball buster par 4s... haven't quite figured out that contradiction myself.

[Derek_Duncan]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.


We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.

Derek,

I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"

So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?

Brandon, I'm not presumptuous enough to try to re-design Sand Hills or suggest Coore and Crenshaw should have done anything differently. The golf course speaks for itself.


Keep the discussion in context -- I'm not saying 17 is a poor hole. I'd likely appreciate it better at another point in the routing. But if we're going to play what-if's, if you could slip the 3rd in there with all the different ways you can get the ball onto the green along with the more dynamic putting surface you'd introduce shots that match the variety and ground game stimulation that make 14, 16 and 18 so great.


I understand Brian's argument about pacing and how 17 fits in. I was just surprised by how small and straight-forward it felt to me where that describes nothing else at Sand Hills.

[Tom_Doak]

Parker / Jason / et al.


If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind.  It was more so from the original tee.


As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back.  Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?


Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys?  Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.


So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round.  For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players.  A great course should have some of both.

[Jason Hines]

Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys?

Yes, which is why I have a framed photo of this hole on my wall.

[Scott McWethy]

Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club? 

17 is an excellent hole on its own.  It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green.  Relatively easy par, tough birdie. 

In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better.  Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty

Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf?  I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread.  At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult.  I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score.   

Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.


We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.

Derek,

I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"

So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?

If the original tee was still there, which was up the hill further to the left, it is a completely different hole.  Very difficult, but so much fun.  I understood why they changed it, but would love it if they brought that old tee back.  JMO.

[Scott McWethy]

Parker / Jason / et al.


If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind.  It was more so from the original tee.


As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back.  Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?


Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys?  Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.


So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round.  For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players.  A great course should have some of both.

Tom, I see your point as to what you are conveying.  However, you asked if I would rule out a 220 hole if it didn't work for my game.  Trust me when I say this.  I play several golf holes that don't necessarily work for "my game".  I'm definitely OK with that and don't object one bit.  Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down.  The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down. 

I asked you a question before, but didn't get an answer on this.  I'm curious when you design a par three, do you have in mind a percentage that you would find acceptable for a player to hit the green on that hole?  If you had 100 players come through the 13th hole that play it from the back tee,  what percentage of those players do you think would hit and hold the green?  I would say its fairly low, but maybe I'm wrong.  If it is a fairly low percentage, then to me it stands to reason that there would be some options for a player to try and recover with their second shot to save par, however this hole is the opposite.  It punishes you in every way unless you go long.  I love where it is in the round and I think it fits the routing perfectly.  I just think it needs to be softened up a bit around and short of the green 

I absolutely love the place, but that hole just doesn't sit well with me from a design standpoint.  For those that love the difficulty of it or don't mind it being a "3.5" hole, then I'm glad we can all share our varied opinions.


 

[Scott Szabo]

I play a lot of golf with guys who would hit a 6 iron from that back tee,while I would hit a 6 iron from the middle tee.  It's a different game for them, so I have no issues at all with the back tee.  Is it a bit much for me and my game?  Certainly, but it is fun to give it a shot every now and then.  Could there be more room to miss?  Of course there could be.  I'm probably in the minority, but I've played it 5 times.  3 from the middle tees, 2 from the back, and am -1 in those 5 plays, so it can be done.  And I'm not that good.

[Ted Sirbaugh]

Parker / Jason / et al.


If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind.  It was more so from the original tee.


As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back.  Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?


Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys?  Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.


So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round.  For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players.  A great course should have some of both.

Tom, I see your point as to what you are conveying.  However, you asked if I would rule out a 220 hole if it didn't work for my game.  Trust me when I say this.  I play several golf holes that don't necessarily work for "my game".  I'm definitely OK with that and don't object one bit.  Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down.  The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down. 

How hard is it to get up and down from the two bunkers closest to the green? I was not in either of them so do not know for sure, but it would seem that the player would have a reasonable chance from there, as well as behind the green.


I still believe that it is a perfectly fine hole, and doesn't need to be any easier or have more options. It provides a tough challenge, but that doesn't stop it from being an awesome hole.

[Rick Lane]

Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but #13 has a 146 yard tee.  For me, the back tee is asking an awful lot on that hole - probably too much for my skill level.  However, the middle tee (185) offered a stern, but reasonable test for me.  I'll admit, this is my least favorite hole on the course, but it is a good hole from the correct tee.

Agree with this.   Gosh, the course is almost 7100 yards from the back tees.   Almost no one but pros or very low handicappers should be back there.  And for them, its a fine test.   For the majority of golfers who are middle cappers, 6400 yards is where we should be, and 185 on this hole.   Still a fine test.   

[George Pazin]

Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down.  The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.

If you were given free reign, what some of softening would you like to see?

[Scott McWethy]

Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down.  The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.

If you were given free reign, what some of softening would you like to see?

I would like to see that false front softened a little bit.  It's a tricky area up there.  If you hit the ball on to the green but it doesn't get over the false front, the ball will pick up speed and roll way down the hill.  I think if that was not such a severe slope, the ball wouldn't roll down as much, still giving the player a difficult second shot but not one that ends up well short and below the green.  There is a shelf up there just below the green that the ball will stay on, but that's more luck than skill as far as trying to leave it on there when playing a 200+ yard shot.

With regard to the bunkers left and right, I like them.  Pin position for the most part will determine the success of getting up and down out of those.  They're hazards so you take what you can get.