Ojai #16. Myyyyy Goodness

[David Ober]

Just a fantastic hole. Played it last year in the Ojai Senior Cup and I can tell you that our group stood on that tee late in a tournament round, and every one of us remarked: "Wow. What a great par-3..." Or something to that effect. Just crazy good. Pin was back right. All four of us managed to hit the green in the middle portion, just to the left, leaving ourselves 25 to 45 foot putts.


There's something about that green configuration with the OB hard to the right side and the fall-off to the left that must be difficult to replicate, because I have played few par-3 holes that have given me such a "what a great hole" feeling.


For those of you that have played it, what are some similar holes late in a round that inspire both fear of the shot and appreciation for the architecture?

[MCirba]

I haven't played Ojai, but the par three that came to mind based on your description, David, is the 15th hole at the Wissahickon course of Philadelphia Cricket Club.   OB comes in tight on the right and the land falls off the the left quite a bit, including a redan-ish bunker along that side.   It used to play 201 from the tips but it's been extended to about 240, if memory serves, during the relatively recent course restoration.   

[David_Tepper]

David -

Oddly enough, #16 at both Soule Park and the Ojai Inn are both par-3's. I am pretty sure you are referring to #16 at Ojai Inn.

There is a video of the hole here: https://www.ojaivalleyinn.com/golf/golf-course-videos-2

Maybe too many bunkers?


DT

[MCirba]

Aerial hole videos with stirring music must be the latest vogue.

Found a similar one for 15 at Philly Cricket.

https://www.philacricket.com/club/scripts/custom/custom.asp?NS=PG&PAGECFG=COURSETOURV2&CID=741#/hole15

[Greg Smith]

If I understand correctly, holes 16 and 17 at Ojai were originally Thomas' 3rd and 4th.  If you look at Dan Wexler's Lost Links book, you can see that the bunkering schemes from the 1999 restoration do not resemble the Thomas original configuration.

Therefore it's not a restoration, right?  The 16th is a very nice looking hole, but it's no longer Thomas.

Going to the Ojai website (which proudly touts the Thomas original design and his Bel Air/LACC/Riv connections), their course history link states the course was "toughened" in 1988 by Jay Morrish.  Then it cites their "Lost Holes" project in 1999 which "brought back" the 16th and 17th.  But I can't tell from their website who was responsible for the 1999 work.  Any ideas?

[Kalen Braley]

179 from the Whites?  With no where to bail out, seems more than a bit penal for the average joe at that distance. 

[Garland Bayley]

David,

You've been brainwashed by Tommy Naccers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, I'm sure if you go back 20+ years on this site you can find some passionate discourse on this course.  Jay Morrish's reno was panned by Geoff Shackleford, which probably got the 1998 restoration off the ground.  I think Jay put back several bunkers on that hole based on an old photo, but wasn't all that concerned about matching the style closely.  Geoff was always a good advocate of preserving Thomas' work, and it paid off in this case.


There were a couple of other holes that for some reason had been rerouted, and don't recall the entire story.

[Pete Lavallee]

It was Ben Crenshaw that shamed the resort into bringing the holes back. The first Morrish redesign didn’t include either and Ben rooted around and found the remains of the original hole and brought it to the resorts attention with the caveat that “jeez there was a picture of it Thomas’s book Golf Architecture in America”, how could you not include it. The par 3 it replaced was pedestrian by anyone’s standards.


The nines have been flipped so many times it hard to assign a number to the holes.

[Brent Carlson]

With all the excellent Thomas restoration recently there's no reason not to call Doak, Hanse, or another excellent architect and get Ojai done right.  60% of the course is recoverable.  The golfing world deserves a public Thomas.

[John Emerson]

I’m surprised they’re even allowed to call it a Thomas....legally.  No cease and desist orders on the way?

[Dan Grossman]

#16 right now is not a particularly good hole. Bunkering is uninspired and it’s a bit of a do or die hole. I don’t believe that was Thomas’ original intent.


There has been some great analysis of the original course versus wha t is there now recently, although I can’t remember where it was published.  I think it was part of The Fried Egg, although not 100% sure. Ojai (the resort) is a great place to stay and relax, although I think I’d rather drive down the road 5 mins and golf at Soule Park.


I have a recent picture of #16 on my phone, but I can’t remember how to post pics.

[David Ober]

#16 right now is not a particularly good hole. Bunkering is uninspired and it’s a bit of a do or die hole. I don’t believe that was Thomas’ original intent.


There has been some great analysis of the original course versus wha t is there now recently, although I can’t remember where it was published.  I think it was part of The Fried Egg, although not 100% sure. Ojai (the resort) is a great place to stay and relax, although I think I’d rather drive down the road 5 mins and golf at Soule Park.


I have a recent picture of #16 on my phone, but I can’t remember how to post pics.

You're right, Dan. It's not a particularly good hole -- it's a great one. ;-) In competition, it's just fantastic.

[Kalen Braley]

David,


I think that's an interesting point.  In a competitive match-play format, I think that would be the case, especially coming that late in the round where the entire match could be decided...

[Pete_Pittock]

David -
Oddly enough, #16 at both Soule Park and the Ojai Inn are both par-3's. I am pretty sure you are referring to #16 at Ojai Inn.
There is a video of the hole here: https://www.ojaivalleyinn.com/golf/golf-course-videos-2
Maybe too many bunkers?
[size=78%]DT[/size]

I agree. What is the architectural purpose of the first set of bunkers?

[David Ober]

David -
Oddly enough, #16 at both Soule Park and the Ojai Inn are both par-3's. I am pretty sure you are referring to #16 at Ojai Inn.
There is a video of the hole here: https://www.ojaivalleyinn.com/golf/golf-course-videos-2
Maybe too many bunkers?
[size=78%]DT[/size]

I agree. What is the architectural purpose of the first set of bunkers?

It's 138, 150, 176. The purpose is to (mildly) punish shots that are short. I love this hole precisely because it's difficult, yet also very playable, since the front portion of the green is wide. If one hits the ball short and is playing the front tee, it's only about 95 yards to the front edge of the green. I believe that's an acceptable "ask" late in the round for any golfer. And it's not like it's water in front of the green.


The hole asks you to hit a simple shot if you just want to merely find the front of the green, but if the pin is in the back, the green narrows significantly and if you want to get it close, then it becomes a "late in the round, step up and execute a shot when the match (or stroke-play round) is on the line" type of hole.


I would agree that the hole could be improved by having just one, treacherous bunker guarding the front, but as-is, the hole is one that really puts you to the test late in a round -- especially in the afternoon when the wind is blowing...


I love that kind of hole -- as long as front bunkering is the exception, rather than the rule on a course.

[Pete_Pittock]

David -
Oddly enough, #16 at both Soule Park and the Ojai Inn are both par-3's. I am pretty sure you are referring to #16 at Ojai Inn.
There is a video of the hole here: https://www.ojaivalleyinn.com/golf/golf-course-videos-2
Maybe too many bunkers?
[size=78%]DT[/size]

I agree. What is the architectural purpose of the first set of bunkers?

It's 138, 150, 176. The purpose is to (mildly) punish shots that are short. I love this hole precisely because it's difficult, yet also very playable, since the front portion of the green is wide. If one hits the ball short and is playing the front tee, it's only about 95 yards to the front edge of the green. I believe that's an acceptable "ask" late in the round for any golfer. And it's not like it's water in front of the green.


The hole asks you to hit a simple shot if you just want to merely find the front of the green, but if the pin is in the back, the green narrows significantly and if you want to get it close, then it becomes a "late in the round, step up and execute a shot when the match (or stroke-play round) is on the line" type of hole.


I would agree that the hole could be improved by having just one, treacherous bunker guarding the front, but as-is, the hole is one that really puts you to the test late in a round -- especially in the afternoon when the wind is blowing...


I love that kind of hole -- as long as front bunkering is the exception, rather than the rule on a course.

David,
I agree with most of what you say. It seems to me that the first bunker on the right (from the tee and the first two lobes of the next bunker on the right are overkill. A good player probably would never be in them, and a high handicapper in them is left with a very difficult shot.