[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree with you but that course requires a lot of work.  I remember talking to Mike about the “natural/native areas” many of which he created.  He said you wouldn’t believe how much effort is required to keep those areas looking as they do. 


I have not been to Tobacco Road since very early on.  It would be interesting to see it now after so long.

[JMEvensky]

Seventy posts in here, and no one has said anything about the short game shots at TR; that's because a lot of holes are not built at the right scale for interesting short game play.

If you get the time,could you please expand on that?


I've never played TR but from the photos and discussion I think I kind of understand why it's so polarizing. Any other courses you could cite where the same scale problem exists?

[Tom_Doak]

JMEvensky:


The Castle Course is one more example. When you miss the green, it's above your head, so there are no little shots where you are accounting for breaks and watching the ball roll out.


MPCC-Shore is another that looked like that, though I have not played it.


A lot of Tom Weiskopf's courses are pretty light on short game intrigue.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks Tom - I was going to ask the same question Jeff did.
I think one thing is now clear to me: you and Ian and AG and Sean etc etc have much broader tastes in design than I do, and a more sophisticated/subtle level of architectural appreciation.
Peter

[Sean_A]

I think TR has short game intrigue, it's just that there isn't much short grass play. There is plenty of scope for long pitch and run on the greens. The one aspect I never liked is the course was always too wet to get the putter out when there was a theoretical opportunity to do so.

For me the issue with the design lies around the awkward holes such as 2, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 plus possibly a few others. I think toning the course down here and there and trying to create a better walk would have likely created a better course. However, I wonder if we would be discussing it today if some safer options were taken. Regardless, The Road is an important design which broadened the scope of architecture. It also made it possible for folks to see what was possible for the Sand Hills courses. On a more practical side, The Road offers a considerably more affordable game than Sand Hills options. Green fees have become silly in that part of the world.

Happy Hockey

[JMEvensky]

Thanks Tom - I was going to ask the same question Jeff did.
I think one thing is now clear to me: you and Ian and AG and Sean etc etc have much broader tastes in design than I do, and a more sophisticated/subtle level of architectural appreciation.
Peter

We may have to invite TD to join us at TR and get our own master class in golf course design.

[JC Jones]

I think TR has short game intrigue, it's just that there isn't much short grass play. There is plenty of scope for long pitch and run on the greens. The one aspect I never liked is the course was always too wet to get the putter out when there was a theoretical opportunity to do so.

For me the issue with the design lies around the awkward holes such as 2, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 plus possibly a few others. I think toning the course down here and there and trying to create a better walk would have likely created a better course. However, I wonder if we would be discussing it today if some safer options were taken. Regardless, The Road is an important design which broadened the scope of architecture. It also made it possible for folks to see what was possible for the Sand Hills courses. On a more practical side, The Road offers a considerably more affordable game than Sand Hills options. Green fees have become silly in that part of the world.

Happy Hockey

Thanks to social media TR now gets up to $200 in peak.  It was $86 a couple of weeks ago in early December; we paid less at both Pine Needles and Southern Pines.

[JC Jones]

my biggest issue with ANY list of golf course rankings is that they are composed by panelists whom have only had one look around    That is never enough to properly judge a golf course even if you are Tom Doak 

That's why I usually go back to see a course again if I think it's got more to it.  But you have to go see a bunch of them once to help decide which ones to dismiss, too.




I've been to Tobacco Road three times, because it's extremely interesting.


I don't think it's a great golf course.  Seventy posts in here, and no one has said anything about the short game shots at TR; that's because a lot of holes are not built at the right scale for interesting short game play.  [Also, as someone remarked, there's not enough short grass around the greens.]  There are also a bunch of holes like 15 and 16 and 17 where the only approach is to fly it to the hole and make it stop relatively, which, of course, lots of golfers can't do.


Its saving grace is that it's short enough that people don't have to try these shots with long clubs in their hands, so they have some chance of success.  There are holes that give golfers at different skill levels the chance for the heroic play; it's not all designed around the scratch golfer.  [In fact, in many places, it actively tries to mess with the scratch golfer.]


At the same time, almost any golfer will come to a dead end out there somewhere, where there is no realistic good play to make.  I've recounted the story here before about playing it with a couple of excellent junior golfers, about 10 and 12 years old:  their dad really struggled to find them a tee on every hole which would test them but not demoralize them.  They could hit it into the narrowest of spaces, which made some holes much more interesting for them than for you or me; but they would also run into forced carries from Hell.  The 2nd and 13th holes were an absolute disaster for them.


I will happily defend art for art's sake, but I don't think that was Mike Strantz's goal for Tobacco Road, and it almost certainly wasn't his client's goal.  So that part has gotta be fair game for discussion here.


I do hope to find a client someday who wants me to build something as out of the box as Tobacco Road.  I've got some ideas for that, which I can't really use anywhere else.

Tom, in my post #51 I mentioned the lack of short game shots but I haven’t dwelled on it as it was tangential to the point I was making.  But, I’m glad to see you bring that up as the discussion has gotten more broad than I intended.


Like I’ve said, TR is a point and shoot aerial golf course.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom Doak,


At which point does putting become short game and vice versa?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Like I’ve said, TR is a point and shoot aerial golf course.

Agreed.

And not a difficult one at that, it only looks difficult at first, and plays difficult if you're goaded into things.

[Mark Stewart]

 

[Derek_Duncan]

Tom Doak,


At which point does putting become short game and vice versa?

Ditto. Putting at Tobacco Road is incredibly fun/fascinating/challenging.

[Jay Mickle]

I see the Road as a brilliant art show and psychological thriller wrapped in a quest for par. Weather or not you believe TR is a great course, there is no denying that as you stand on the first tee and prematurely activate your glutes you are aware that you are in for something special.

[Kalen Braley]

Like I’ve said, TR is a point and shoot aerial golf course.

Agreed.

And not a difficult one at that, it only looks difficult at first, and plays difficult if you're goaded into things.

Erik,


I'm guessing your a really good player, low single digit capper.  But given the average joe is somewhere from 13-20, does the course still play easy for them?  I'm guessing not.  If the course plays with sufficient teeth and intrigue for most who play it, isn't that a overall win?

[JC Jones]

Like I’ve said, TR is a point and shoot aerial golf course.

Agreed.

And not a difficult one at that, it only looks difficult at first, and plays difficult if you're goaded into things.

Erik,


I'm guessing your a really good player, low single digit capper.  But given the average joe is somewhere from 13-20, does the course still play easy for them?  I'm guessing not.  If the course plays with sufficient teeth and intrigue for most who play it, isn't that a overall win?

Im closer to a 13 than a 3 (and an erratic driver of the golf ball). As has been pointed out by myself and others, if you can ignore the noise, it is not that difficult.

[A.G._Crockett]

Like I’ve said, TR is a point and shoot aerial golf course.

Agreed.

And not a difficult one at that, it only looks difficult at first, and plays difficult if you're goaded into things.

Eric,

Can you give an example from TR of being "goaded into things"?   I'm not sure I understand the term or the idea.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Can you give an example from TR of being "goaded into things"?   I'm not sure I understand the term or the idea.

The second shot on 11.



It's 200 yards, 30 feet uphill, to a green that's only 10-12 yards deep, with a huge bunker short and more crap long.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Assuming one lies there in 1, with a chance to go for the green and get eagle...at great risk no doubt...isn't this the essence of risk/reward? Especially given there is ample room to layup to the left and still have a decent chance at birdie.  200 yards would even get this hack considering it, as opposed to a 250-260 shot where it would just be an automatic layup with no dilemma.

Overall thou, I don't see how this is fundamentally different from any other par 5 which asks for a precise shot to get the eagle, with a massive penalty for failure.  Would you criticize ANGC 13 similarly with so much trouble around it?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Assuming one lies there in 1, with a chance to go for the green and get eagle...at great risk no doubt...isn't this the essence of risk/reward?

I think for a true risk-reward hole the risk has to be worth the reward, or they have to have some semblance of balance. This is beyond risk-reward, it's beyond even a "hero" shot unless your heroes all come from the Marvel universe or something.

Again, it's 200 yards, uphill ~30 feet, to a green that's ~30 feet deep, with trouble short and long. It's stupid. And for what, a chance to get up and down for birdie? You have better odds of holing out for eagle or getting up and down for birdie - while almost removing bogey and double from the equation - by laying up out to the left with a 7-iron.

Especially given there is ample room to layup to the left and still have a decent chance at birdie.

That's the only sensible play.

200 yards would even get this hack considering it, as opposed to a 250-260 shot where it would just be an automatic layup with no dilemma.

I don't think you're picturing the hole well. The green is three stories up and you don't see any of it. Sometimes you can't even see the flagstick IIRC, and all you're staring at is sand with a staircase to help you get into and out of the bunker.

Overall thou, I don't see how this is fundamentally different from any other par 5 which asks for a precise shot to get the eagle, with a massive penalty for failure.  Would you criticize ANGC 13 similarly with so much trouble around it?

13 is nothing like this, if for no other reason than that the 13th green at Augusta is over 4,000 square feet larger than the 11th at Tobacco Road and, you know, is actually visible from where you're hitting your second shot.


Edit: Remember that photos and cameras in general flatten things considerably:





Again, the risk-reward has to be somewhat balanced. Here, it's not even close, and that's for a better player playing the hole. Note the staircase in the right side of the bunker - the back wall of that bunker is almost vertical, and your ball if just short rolls back to 40 yards, with 15 or 20 feet below the level of the green. And because the green is 30 feet above you, your ball comes in very flat and bounces well over the green, unless it's sopping wet I suppose.

[Sean_A]

Can you give an example from TR of being "goaded into things"?   I'm not sure I understand the term or the idea.

The second shot on 11.



It's 200 yards, 30 feet uphill, to a green that's only 10-12 yards deep, with a huge bunker short and more crap long.

Man, you are a pro. A duffer like me has taken that shot on successfully. In any case, there is a bailout left. If anything, I don't fancy the bailout. To get in a position to approach up the gut of the green is almost as difficult as going for the green in two. Let's not forget, short is still in play. I recovered from down there for a bogey. Not buying it. The 11th is an awesome hole precisely because there isn't a comfortable choice for the second shot unless one is happy to bop a few shots down the fairway and play for a bogey.

Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I think the most interesting part of your last post is the word sensible, which is surely highly variable.

Going back to ANGC 13, sure the pros can get on in 2, but how sensible is that shot for the average guy?  A hanging downhill lie above your feet, begging for a cut shot, with a creek front and right and forest and bunkers long and left? I wouldn't even call that sensible for one with your abilities.

So even if that shot on TR #11 may not be 'sensible', you don't think a pro would shred it?   Hell they'd be hitting 6-7 iron in there and even with a smallish target, they'd make quick work of it.

P.S.  The other thing I noticed from the pics, as a predominant left to right ball hitter, that porch looks to extend out another 10-15 yards closer as a landing spot where the ball could land and roll to the front left portion of the green.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

P.S. I woulda thought you'd bring up #9.  With the various pictures and aerials i've studied and the posts I've read on it, its a head scratcher in wondering how the jimney-christmas the average guy is gonna get a par on that hole, especially if they can't make the carry to the fat part of the fairway.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Man, you are a pro. A duffer like me has taken that shot on successfully.

Must've been a nice soft day and one of your better hybrids. I'll stand by my comments about the risk vs. the reward on that hole. They're way, way out of balance.

In any case, there is a bailout left.

There is, and a bit further left of that is basically where everyone should hit their second shot. It's not as uphill, you can hit a 6- or 7-iron, you're left with a simple pitch or chip-and run down the length of the green, and you have a LOT of short grass.

To get in a position to approach up the gut of the green is almost as difficult as going for the green in two.

Bollocks. You must define "almost" with a much, much broader scope than I do. It's more than three times as difficult, particularly given the penal nature of the miss.

Let's not forget, short is still in play. I recovered from down there for a bogey.

Right: you "recovered" to make a bogey… Some players are gonna be playing out sideways from there. Who doesn't love a 45-yard bunker shot over a wall 15' tall?

Not buying it. The 11th is an awesome hole precisely because there isn't a comfortable choice for the second shot unless one is happy to bop a few shots down the fairway and play for a bogey.

Hard disagree. The relatively easy second shot is right here:



7-iron, maybe a 6-iron if you tug your drive left, and about 30 yards less than you need to go for the green. It's also only about 20-25 feet uphill, too, so it's easier to judge. Oh, and it's an area about 4x larger than the green, and likely not as firm as the green, either.

Going back to ANGC 13, sure the pros can get on in 2, but how sensible is that shot for the average guy?

From what set of tees? And let's say it's also 200 yards: it's to a target that you can see (relatively flat), with bunkers left and long. It's an easier shot with less risk (if they're the same length).

If the amateur is coming in from 240 at the 13th at Augusta, by all means, lay up.

A hanging downhill lie above your feet, begging for a cut shot, with a creek front and right and forest and bunkers long and left? I wouldn't even call that sensible for one with your abilities.

With a 5-iron or a 4-iron in hand? I'm going for that one almost every time.

So even if that shot on TR #11 may not be 'sensible', you don't think a pro would shred it?

A PGA Tour player should absolutely go for that shot. That's not what we're talking about.

P.S.  The other thing I noticed from the pics, as a predominant left to right ball hitter, that porch looks to extend out another 10-15 yards closer as a landing spot where the ball could land and roll to the front left portion of the green.

And yet if you wipe it just a little, you're in that bunker 15 feet below the green from which Sean_A "recovered" to make a bogey. If you're gonna lay up, just lay up another 30 yards left and hit a little chippy shot in.

P.S. I woulda thought you'd bring up #9.  With the various pictures and aerials i've studied and the posts I've read on it, its a head scratcher in wondering how the jimney-christmas the average guy is gonna get a par on that hole, especially if they can't make the carry to the fat part of the fairway.

It's 210 yards from the back tee. I birdied that hole the last time I played it. The approach was a bit lucky, up to ten feet. Even a 240-yard tee shot from the back tee leaves < 150 in (uphill quite a bit, yeah).

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Using your original aerial as a reference point, i launched Google Earth, and measured the carry to that front porch portion I mentioned.  It puts the carry at about 165.  Are you saying you wouldn't consider a 165 yard carry shot with a fade to find the front left portion of the green?  Its effectively the same distance you have to your grayed out lay up position in your last pic.

If you don't have a fade in the bag, that's fine, because i openly admit I can't hit a draw to save my life. 


P.S.  I will admit trying to play on a direct line to the middle or top portion of that green seems fairly difficult...

[Carl Rogers]

The D R A M A of TR No. 11 is incredible!
I am not ashamed to take the bailout left & made 4 from there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()