[Carl Rogers]

The hole is too short (for plus 6 golfers) and the bailout is too boring.


Move the tee back into the lake, a 500 yard hole making the tee shot more a pure Cape. Island Tee following the Island Green.l


Remove most of the trees on the right creating more recovery shot options attempting to hit the green.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The hole is too short (for plus 6 golfers) and the bailout is too boring.

They'd still bail out. You'd just be increasing the scoring average. It was already 4.314 or something this past year.

[Matt Kardash]

I agree the tee should be moved back for the professional golfer. The hole was originally 440 yards or so, which was a driver and a mid iron back in the day. Now if someone pulls driver and pull it off they are hitting sand wedge.
I would NOT change the angle of the drive by making it more diagonal. That is a terrible idea. The angle of the drive is 100% absolutely perfect as is.

[Kalen Braley]

Looking at the aerials, can't really move it back per se.

But you could move it west which would make a longer shot (24-30 yards) to reach the same part of the fairway.  And would certainly be a "worse" angle to get there, but given angles don't matter, so much for that.

P.S.  It still currently only plays about 440 yards as the crow flies from the back tee to the middle of the green, but now that Roids boy is no longer on Tour not sure anyone would try that line. 

[Carl Rogers]

I realize what I propose would require a lot of pond digging.  But so what?  $ who cares!


Right now there are few or no recovery options from the trees.

[Andrew Harvie]

In opposition to the usual catchphrases on this site, a difficult, punishing 18th hole that is entrenched in the penal school of design is not a bad hole. In fact, I like it as a finishing hole, and is the perfect closer for a tournament golf course. It works in perfect unison with the ethos of the golf course and what it's meant to achieve, and forces the player to truly hit it on 18 if they want to win. What's wrong with that?

[Jason Thurman]

Right now there are few or no recovery options from the trees.

This statement is not supported by video evidence from the tournament, where recoveries were consistently attempted from the trees with some executed beautifully and others horrendously. I don't love how the trees look visually, but they clearly presented recovery options, risk, and reward.

[Carl Nichols]

Looking at the aerials, can't really move it back per se.

But you could move it west which would make a longer shot (24-30 yards) to reach the same part of the fairway.  And would certainly be a "worse" angle to get there, but given angles don't matter, so much for that.

P.S.  It still currently only plays about 440 yards as the crow flies from the back tee to the middle of the green, but now that Roids boy is no longer on Tour not sure anyone would try that line. 

Kalen, I haven't waded into the "angles don't matter" thread, but your statement/implication here seems to significantly misrepresent the claim being made and attacked there.   I don't think anyone is arguing that angles, generally speaking--including but not limited to the direction that you hit your shots--don't matter.  Indeed, that would be absurd.  Instead, as I understand it, they are making the much more limited argument that trying to get the best angle into a green for your second shot doesn't matter--or really, doesn't matter nearly as much as some suggest.  "Angles" is thus shorthand for "best angle to approach the green with your second shot."


The 18th at Sawgrass might actually be a good example for that position.  For certain pins, the left side of the fairway likely provides a better angle of approach than the right side of the fairway.   But trying to get that better angle seems like a terrible idea, and not just for the best golfers in the world, because the substantial penalty for going in the water is so much bigger than any potential benefit for being in the left side of the fairway.  So players end up aiming (I guess you would say, picking the angle toward) the right side of the fairway even though the angle to the pin might be less good than from the left side of the fairway.


Since it doesn't make sense to aim for what is sometimes the best side of the fairway, does that make 18 a bad hole?     

[Pat Burke]

Looking at the aerials, can't really move it back per se.

But you could move it west which would make a longer shot (24-30 yards) to reach the same part of the fairway.  And would certainly be a "worse" angle to get there, but given angles don't matter, so much for that.

P.S.  It still currently only plays about 440 yards as the crow flies from the back tee to the middle of the green, but now that Roids boy is no longer on Tour not sure anyone would try that line. 

Kalen, I haven't waded into the "angles don't matter" thread, but your statement/implication here seems to significantly misrepresent the claim being made and attacked there.   I don't think anyone is arguing that angles, generally speaking--including but not limited to the direction that you hit your shots--don't matter.  Indeed, that would be absurd.  Instead, as I understand it, they are making the much more limited argument that trying to get the best angle into a green for your second shot doesn't matter--or really, doesn't matter nearly as much as some suggest.  "Angles" is thus shorthand for "best angle to approach the green with your second shot."


The 18th at Sawgrass might actually be a good example for that position.  For certain pins, the left side of the fairway likely provides a better angle of approach than the right side of the fairway.   But trying to get that better angle seems like a terrible idea, and not just for the best golfers in the world, because the substantial penalty for going in the water is so much bigger than any potential benefit for being in the left side of the fairway.  So players end up aiming (I guess you would say, picking the angle toward) the right side of the fairway even though the angle to the pin might be less good than from the left side of the fairway.


Since it doesn't make sense to aim for what is sometimes the best side of the fairway, does that make 18 a bad hole?   

Good point. I had a very good round going in the last round of my first players championship.  I was out early and standing on 18 tee in thinking one more birdie would give me a chance for something special with a forecast of weather coming shortly. A birdie and a windy finish would have been interesting.


Back left hole location, I decided I had to try to hit it left center to have a mid iron with a good angle to hit it on that top tier.
I hit it solid with slightly too much draw and it kicked in the water .


I had to drop it where I had three wood left.
The angles definitely suckered me that day

[Mark Smolens]

I realize what I propose would require a lot of pound digging.  But so what?  $ who cares!


Right now there are few or no recovery options from the trees.

Mr. Hatton might not agree with that assessment based upon his 2nd shot on Sunday...

[Kalen Braley]

Looking at the aerials, can't really move it back per se.

But you could move it west which would make a longer shot (24-30 yards) to reach the same part of the fairway.  And would certainly be a "worse" angle to get there, but given angles don't matter, so much for that.

P.S.  It still currently only plays about 440 yards as the crow flies from the back tee to the middle of the green, but now that Roids boy is no longer on Tour not sure anyone would try that line. 

Kalen, I haven't waded into the "angles don't matter" thread, but your statement/implication here seems to significantly misrepresent the claim being made and attacked there.   I don't think anyone is arguing that angles, generally speaking--including but not limited to the direction that you hit your shots--don't matter.  Indeed, that would be absurd.  Instead, as I understand it, they are making the much more limited argument that trying to get the best angle into a green for your second shot doesn't matter--or really, doesn't matter nearly as much as some suggest.  "Angles" is thus shorthand for "best angle to approach the green with your second shot."

The 18th at Sawgrass might actually be a good example for that position.  For certain pins, the left side of the fairway likely provides a better angle of approach than the right side of the fairway.   But trying to get that better angle seems like a terrible idea, and not just for the best golfers in the world, because the substantial penalty for going in the water is so much bigger than any potential benefit for being in the left side of the fairway.  So players end up aiming (I guess you would say, picking the angle toward) the right side of the fairway even though the angle to the pin might be less good than from the left side of the fairway.

Since it doesn't make sense to aim for what is sometimes the best side of the fairway, does that make 18 a bad hole?   

Carl,

My bad, i thought the attempt at humor for that red bit you pointed was obvious, but perhaps not. 

Next time I'll be sure to do as Dan Kelly advises and use more of these.     

P.S.  I do think a left (westwardly) tee there would be interesting though, as it will make the decision of how much to bit off more pronounced.

[Carl Nichols]

Looking at the aerials, can't really move it back per se.

But you could move it west which would make a longer shot (24-30 yards) to reach the same part of the fairway.  And would certainly be a "worse" angle to get there, but given angles don't matter, so much for that.

P.S.  It still currently only plays about 440 yards as the crow flies from the back tee to the middle of the green, but now that Roids boy is no longer on Tour not sure anyone would try that line. 

Kalen, I haven't waded into the "angles don't matter" thread, but your statement/implication here seems to significantly misrepresent the claim being made and attacked there.   I don't think anyone is arguing that angles, generally speaking--including but not limited to the direction that you hit your shots--don't matter.  Indeed, that would be absurd.  Instead, as I understand it, they are making the much more limited argument that trying to get the best angle into a green for your second shot doesn't matter--or really, doesn't matter nearly as much as some suggest.  "Angles" is thus shorthand for "best angle to approach the green with your second shot."

The 18th at Sawgrass might actually be a good example for that position.  For certain pins, the left side of the fairway likely provides a better angle of approach than the right side of the fairway.   But trying to get that better angle seems like a terrible idea, and not just for the best golfers in the world, because the substantial penalty for going in the water is so much bigger than any potential benefit for being in the left side of the fairway.  So players end up aiming (I guess you would say, picking the angle toward) the right side of the fairway even though the angle to the pin might be less good than from the left side of the fairway.

Since it doesn't make sense to aim for what is sometimes the best side of the fairway, does that make 18 a bad hole?   

Carl,

My bad, i thought the attempt at humor for that red bit you pointed was obvious, but perhaps not. 

Next time I'll be sure to do as Dan Kelly advises and use more of these.     

P.S.  I do think a left (westwardly) tee there would be interesting though, as it will make the decision of how much to bit off more pronounced.

Kalen, I assumed this time was a joke, but you seemed to say the same thing seriously a few times on the other thread.

[Kalen Braley]

Well not to re-hash that enormous back and forth cluster %^&

But I think one of the primary complaints a few of us had was the labeling in that thread...the blanket statement of "Angles Don't Matter" <Full Stop>  Splashed as a proactive banner without further context or explanation or detail.  The thread title 13 pages in still says just that.

And of course several qualifiers were eventually stipulated several pages in as exceptions like if conditions are fast and firm, or if the green is narrow and angled diagonally, of if you are playing away from water/ OB, etc. I'm not sure we reached a comprehensive list of exceptions and their nuances, but I'm not sure it really matters at this point. 

But certainly the angle of say a water hazard that you are presented with on the tee, without choice of starting point, I would think does in fact matter as was proposed for the new tee on 18, hence the obvious "but angles don't matter, so much for that"

Hope this helps..

[Ally Mcintosh]

It’s quite simple:


Angles for the second shot (the strategic school of design) don’t really matter.


Angles for the first shot only matter when you are chasing a shorter distance for the second shot through carrying a diagonal (the heroic school of design), not a better angle for the second shot.


The other thread went to 13 pages because some people couldn’t stop taking the title of the thread so literally. The headline was indirect, partially emotional, partially click bait. It was a generalised truth to tease the opposite to what most people believe. It was marketing for what came after.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But I think one of the primary complaints a few of us had was the labeling in that thread...the blanket statement of "Angles Don't Matter" <Full Stop>  Splashed as a proactive banner without further context or explanation or detail.  The thread title 13 pages in still says just that.

And of course several qualifiers were eventually stipulated several pages in as exceptions like if conditions are fast and firm, or if the green is narrow and angled diagonally, of if you are playing away from water/ OB, etc. I'm not sure we reached a comprehensive list of exceptions and their nuances, but I'm not sure it really matters at this point.

This is disingenuous (and OT here, so I'll be short).

1. The topic title is just a topic title, and it was a quote from someone who isn't a member here (Lou).
2. The exceptions have been stated many, many times and well before the thread you're talking about.

And this:

The other thread went to 13 pages because some people couldn’t stop taking the title of the thread so literally. The headline was indirect, partially emotional, partially click bait. It was a generalised truth to tease the opposite to what most people believe. It was marketing for what came after.

[archie_struthers]

 


Doesn't look like the easiest shot to me, particularly as more and more tour pros tend to cut the tee shot. However if you needed to do something a gnarly center-line bunker at about 300 yards out might be the ticket

[Mike_Clayton]

They could make it 330 yards and drivable.

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago .....
atb

(photo per Michael Bestor on Twitter)

[Matt Kardash]

Wow that looks cool.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()