Slaying the Sacred Cow

[Ian Andrew]

Ira-It begs the question of whether you should be entitled to a clear shot to the green after a solid drive from the middle of the fairway? If Ian Andrew sees this I wonder if he would render an opinion on the tree in the fairway on 14 at Agawam Hunt Club as I know he has been doing work there. Lots of good holes on this golf course but this one was a bit of a head scratcher for me.

Tim,

In the plan I provided for the club - the tree goes . Bunker work gets added on the left (think 12th in reverse).

There are no trees in the middle of fairways that I find "charming." This includes Pebble Beach's 18th too. Most Sacred Cow's tend to be trees. I found the bunker example unusual. The worst ones are man-made ponds.

[Kalen Braley]

As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.

It doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the hole anywhere in the round. "Too much pride to bail out" means it's the hole's fault? You can bail and get up and down for par. Consider yourself related to Billy Casper in 1959.

It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.

Mike

I would have thought the correct line is highly individual. If we are going to measure the quality of a hole by the number of golfers who can play the correct (straight?) line to the green a lot of good holes will come out poorly. To my way of thinking a carry par 3 (4 or 5) with the option of a lesser carry or no carry is usually a good idea.

Ciao

Sean I was thinking similar.  If this is so, guess we gotta chuck one of the most iconic holes in all of golf in the rubbish bin....#16 at CPC

[Mike Schott]

It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.

I mean, at some point, that's going to be awfully limiting.

Since when is the "correct line" the same for all abilities levels in the first place? Is this not a fundamental element of so-called strategy?

Kyle


Nonsense. Using the Longleaf principle Mike should be able to play from a tee half way up the fairway so that he can hit the green just as easily as the flatbelly from the back tee. 


Niall

I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3? When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair. You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip. The huge bunker on this hole is death for higher handicap players and the bail outs are not that attractive. The revised hole seems more fair although I agree the scale of the new bunkers is off.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3?

Do they "have" to bail as much here as on 17 at TPC Sawgrass? Or can they choose to take a line at the flag and risk not pulling it off? And if they don't pull it off… they're in a bunker. I saw a bogey golfer hole out for birdie from a bunker 25 feet below the green one time when I was a junior golfer.

You're over-stating how much a bogey golfer has to "bail." That's their choice. There's nothing forcing them to bail except their own lack of skills and their decision-making.

When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair.

There's nothing unfair about the previous (or current) green.

You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip.

So your definition of fair is "poor shots shouldn't be punished much"?

[Grant Saunders]

Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.


I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.


The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.

[Rob Marshall]

Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.


I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.


The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.

Not a fun bunker shot from the front bunker to a back right pin!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.

How about long? Pin high or farther. A "bail out" shouldn't lead to an easy par for a bad player.

[Charlie Goerges]

At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.

I just liked the larger scale of the bunker. The aerial you posted seems to show the bunker is far larger than any bunker on the holes near it. I like the idea of playing with the scale like that once in a while. It was no great work of art before, but it had some distinctiveness and certainly some challenge, both of which are now gone.

[Jeff Schley]

Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.


I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.


The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.

I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.

Does there always need to be a bailout? Still, I'm not going to mourn this, but I kind of like the occasional Lovecraftian bunker just for variety (and to be able to think to myself that I've conquered it.)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's a 105-yard carry over the bunker from the middle tees, folks. My goodness.

[Jeff Schley]

I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.

Does there always need to be a bailout? Still, I'm not going to mourn this, but I kind of like the occasional Lovecraftian bunker just for variety (and to be able to think to myself that I've conquered it.)

No not at all, I'm just stating where others are saying where to bail out, I don't see any.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The entire hole is 150 from the back tees to the middle of the green.

https://earth.google.com/web/@-37.75059061,175.25781031,22.97286087a,323.50639578d,35y,198.90586455h,0t,0r

[Mike Schott]

I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3?

Do they "have" to bail as much here as on 17 at TPC Sawgrass? Or can they choose to take a line at the flag and risk not pulling it off? And if they don't pull it off… they're in a bunker. I saw a bogey golfer hole out for birdie from a bunker 25 feet below the green one time when I was a junior golfer.

You're over-stating how much a bogey golfer has to "bail." That's their choice. There's nothing forcing them to bail except their own lack of skills and their decision-making.

When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair.

There's nothing unfair about the previous (or current) green.

You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip.

So your definition of fair is "poor shots shouldn't be punished much"?

Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.

I did no such thing. I asked you some questions and told you where I disagree, Mice.

[Mike Schott]

Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.

I did no such thing. I asked you some questions and told you where I disagree, Mice.

Lets agree to disagree Eric.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Lets agree to disagree Eric.

Sure thing, Mice Skhott. I disagree that you always need an easy bail-out, particularly on a hole that's like 150 yards.

[Mike Schott]

Lets agree to disagree Eric.

Sure thing, Mice Skhott. I disagree that you always need an easy bail-out, particularly on a hole that's like 150 yards.

A bail out is not my primary concern Eric.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric.

🤦🏼‍♂️

[Ryan Van Culin]

To me, this is all summed up by the fact that people think golf should be fair, which really just means easy for them. If this was an island green, it would be the "signature hole" on the course, and everyone would be touting it and showing pictures to all who haven't seen it.


Water is way more penal than sand, right?


I also disagree about the "double penalty". Having water with a tree in it provides an aerial hazard and a ground hazard in the same spot. Is that worse than if both were presented in separate locations? Either way, they are hazards to be avoided. It could be argued that they are easier when put together because you can avoid both at the same time.

[Charlie Goerges]

It could be argued that they are easier when put together because you can avoid both at the same time.

That's the kind of thinking I like to see! I don't know if I agree with it, but it's certainly worth thinking about.


I think it's fair to evaluate whether (especially in the tree example) a particular double hazard is a good one, but to simply dismiss something because it is a double hazard removes some of the potential sportiness of a design. It's also philosophically untenable. If you can't have a double hazard, 15-17 at CPC wouldn't work because many of the shots could feature both sand and water as hazards at the same time (i.e. you're in the sand and either have to fly some water or have water as the backdrop).