17 @ Royal Liverpool to be redesigned...

[Brett Meyer]

Is it OK if the bailout area is a bunker?

That's fine as long as the shot from the bunker isn't too severe, i.e. the likelihood is low that off a decent shot, the ball won't either roll back in your footprint or roll off the other side of the green. It looked like the odds of doing one or the other from most of the bunkers on the 17th hole were pretty high for normal golfers--the slopes running into those bunkers were awfully steep and it looked like they'd collect balls that were even a little bit off target.

Flattening the area between the green and one or two of these bunkers would be one way to improve the hole.

[Niall C]

Brett


What about the option of going out sideways that would avoid the possibility of the ball rolling back into the bunker ? Yes, that would entail an extra stroke but it is meant to be penal.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Something I did like about the 17th.
Wouldn't have a problem with more of this elsewhere on links (and heathland) courses.
In fact I'd rather see it than deliberately opened-up sandy areas in spots where shots are unlikely to ever end up.
atb
PS - well done to Matt Fitz for his ultimate recovery.

[Brett Meyer]

Brett


What about the option of going out sideways that would avoid the possibility of the ball rolling back into the bunker ? Yes, that would entail an extra stroke but it is meant to be penal.


Niall

I haven't played the hole so I could be wrong, but it looked to me like if you played out sideways from the bunker, you'd still be at the bottom of one of these 8 foot deep, 30+ foot long hollows from where you could easily hit a shot that comes back to your feet. And if you hit it a bit too hard or a bit off line (depending on where you are), you could easily send it off the other side and do the whole thing again.

So maybe you're not back in the bunker, but you're basically in the same situation.

[Sean_A]

Is it OK if the bailout area is a bunker?

That's fine as long as the shot from the bunker isn't too severe, i.e. the likelihood is low that off a decent shot, the ball won't either roll back in your footprint or roll off the other side of the green. It looked like the odds of doing one or the other from most of the bunkers on the 17th hole were pretty high for normal golfers--the slopes running into those bunkers were awfully steep and it looked like they'd collect balls that were even a little bit off target.

Flattening the area between the green and one or two of these bunkers would be one way to improve the hole.

I guess my point is harsh is ok elsewhere, why not Hoylake? On more than one occasion I have failed to get out of the Hoylake bunkers in the past. It's a nil point on the card. Accept it and move on. That's part of the nature of links golf. It's not my bag, but it suits Hoylake. I care far more about the transition.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

I guess my point is harsh is ok elsewhere, why not Hoylake? On more than one occasion I have failed to get out of the Hoylake bunkers in the past. It's a nil point on the card. Accept it and move on. That's part of the nature of links golf. It's not my bag, but it suits Hoylake. I care far more about the transition.

Ciao

I don't mind natural harshness so much, like if a green is located on a hilltop and an architect kept most of the natural grade. But the 17th green at Hoylake is clearly constructed. Those severe slopes around the green didn't look like natural grade to me. And if they were going to construct something, they could have constructed something that isn't unplayable for half the golfers who will play it.

Between the weather conditions, long grass, bunkers, etc. links golf usually has enough challenges. It doesn't need an architect to try to outdo it by building something that would be unplayable for many even if the conditions were always good.

[Tom_Doak]

Was anything wrong with what was there before?

I really liked the old 13th hole, which played backwards from the new 17th.  Very tough shot playing downwind, with a couple of bunkers at the right front that were tough to play over and still hold the green.

[Sean_A]

I guess my point is harsh is ok elsewhere, why not Hoylake? On more than one occasion I have failed to get out of the Hoylake bunkers in the past. It's a nil point on the card. Accept it and move on. That's part of the nature of links golf. It's not my bag, but it suits Hoylake. I care far more about the transition.

Ciao

I don't mind natural harshness so much, like if a green is located on a hilltop and an architect kept most of the natural grade. But the 17th green at Hoylake is clearly constructed. Those severe slopes around the green didn't look like natural grade to me. And if they were going to construct something, they could have constructed something that isn't unplayable for half the golfers who will play it.

Between the weather conditions, long grass, bunkers, etc. links golf usually has enough challenges. It doesn't need an architect to try to outdo it by building something that would be unplayable for many even if the conditions were always good.

I find myself sort of playing devil's advocate because if I were the King of Hoylake I wouldn't have built the new hole. I would have jazzed up the old hole. However, philosophically, I am not against a hole like 17 regardless if it is natural or man made. There are plenty of existing harsh, penal holes, old and new. Not all golf should be playable for all golfers. Hoylake is a championship course so it should get some leeway on the playability spectrum. I am not at all convinced this was the location to push the boundaries, especially given the sacrifice of a terrible transition. But hey, maybe the members were in favour of the work. For all the hype, I remain unimpressed.

Ciao

[Matt_Cohn]

I was just confused why you'd artificially elevate the green of a flat hole when there's a view in the background.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I was just confused why you'd artificially elevate the green of a flat hole when there's a view in the background.

My understanding is that it’s meant to be an homage to the little hilbre island that rises in the distance behind it viewed from the tee.

[James Reader]

I was just confused why you'd artificially elevate the green of a flat hole when there's a view in the background.

My understanding is that it’s meant to be an homage to the little hilbre island that rises in the distance behind it viewed from the tee.

Except you can’t see the island from the tee because you’re looking uphill to the green. Now from a drone, which is what has been used for almost all the photos you’ll see of the hole, (or indeed sitting in the stand behind the tee as i did last week) it looks great.

[Duncan Cheslett]

James,


This is exactly why I found the hole to be a huge disappointment.


I’d seen the drone footage and it looked fantastic. The reality is the kind of quirky uphill par 3 to a knob green that you’d rather enjoy on a rustic 9 holer with an honesty box.


The hole has no place on a classic championship links such as Hoylake.

[Tom_Doak]

But hey, maybe the members were in favour of the work. For all the hype, I remain unimpressed.

That seems to be the point of all this -- they probably weren't really in favor of the work to start with, but felt like they had to go along with it because their consultant made the recommendation and they didn't want to risk saying no to something and not getting another Open.


The truth is that most changes to a golf course have to be forced through club memberships.  You can get them to vote 60-40 or even 80-20 but you are never going to get 300 members of a club to agree on anything.  That's one reason I have grown to hate the work unless it's a real restoration -- which won't be unanimous, either, but at least I know that the original architect liked it that way.

[Adam Lawrence]

I was just confused why you'd artificially elevate the green of a flat hole when there's a view in the background.

My understanding is that it’s meant to be an homage to the little hilbre island that rises in the distance behind it viewed from the tee.

Except you can’t see the island from the tee because you’re looking uphill to the green. Now from a drone, which is what has been used for almost all the photos you’ll see of the hole, (or indeed sitting in the stand behind the tee as i did last week) it looks great.

This is, for me, the key issue. It's not a hole that was built to make the golf course better: it is a hole that was built to make the golf course look sexier in photographs. Not a good trend anywhere, but even worse at Hoylake, which is not, and never has been, a sexy course. Hoylake is low-profile and hard. That's its nature, and imo it shouldn't be changed.

[Niall C]

I was just confused why you'd artificially elevate the green of a flat hole when there's a view in the background.

My understanding is that it’s meant to be an homage to the little hilbre island that rises in the distance behind it viewed from the tee.

Matt (1) - not sure why you'd be confused. They obviously thought the hole would be better with a raised green. For one thing it is a short par 3 and by elevating the green it allowed them to increase the difficulty by a) making the target less visible, and b) by increasing the height it allowed them to make the bunkers and the fall-offs deeper and therefore increase the penalty for any miss. If you had "regular" bunkers or a "regular" green for that length of hole it would be a bit of a nothing hole.


Matt (2) - I'm not sure homage is the right word. I think in time honoured fashion that they simply named it after a handy nearby landmark. They could just have easily named it 27 Stanley Road 




Niall

[Thomas Dai]

It's not a hole that was built to make the golf course better: it is a hole that was built to make the golf course look sexier in photographs. Not a good trend anywhere….

+1
Well said Adam.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

The green did not look any higher than the dunes running along the adjacent hole, so while the green site might have been raised from the ground below, it did not look out of character for its surroundings.

I found the hole very compelling for the pro's to play. For a hole of a diminutive stature, not being able to see the bottom of the pin from the tee and having no reference point behind the green to gauge distance provided a challenge for the players to hit their yardage. Considering past conversations about how we challenge the best in the world without building longer and longer golf courses, a shot like the one they faced on the 17th seems to be a good strategy.

I was actually concerned watching the hole on Thursday and Friday that it might end up playing too easy, but by weeks end that settled out. As I said before, the scoring distribution ended up pretty close to perfect for what I expect the R&A was looking for.

As for how the members play it. If the open played the hole from ~130 yards, I'd very much hope the members play the hole from 100 or less and the women from ~50 yards. That would provide a more equivalent challenge to them. But my concern is the women play the hole from ~100 yards and find it deeply unfair. So if the hole needs any changes, its most likely to add more short tees for the members play.

[Matthew Rose]

if they want a hard, borderline controversial par-three, maybe they should just restore the original Dowie.

[Brent Carlson]

if they want a hard, borderline controversial par-three, maybe they should just restore the original Dowie.

This 100%.  Lean into what's best about your course.  #3 and 18 (Open routing) were the most exciting holes.  Bring back Dowie and Royal too, even if you need to install a net to protect vehicles. 

[Matt_Cohn]

[The planned changes were] news to Ebert. He wasn’t aware of any changes in the works. Royal Liverpool said it wasn’t, either.

“There are no plans to modify the 17th,” a club representative told GOLF.com by phone.

Link: https://golf.com/travel/architect-of-17th-hole-at-royal-liverpool/

[Philippe Binette]

Felt like a 2 foot high bank and a 5% fairway slope running away on the right off the green would have been :
A- enough of a hazard for the championship... leading to a lot of : chip to 8 feet, miss putt = bogey...


B- puttable and playable for the members..


On links courses, you have to consider the potentially really firm ground and the 20mph wind or more in the design...


The hole is probably impossible downwind for a weaker player with a 7 iron in hand

[David_Tepper]

I wonder how much tougher this hole is than #2, #6 or #10 at Royal Dornoch?

[Ken Moum]

I wonder how much tougher this hole is than #2, #6 or #10 at Royal Dornoch?

Aw, 10's not so hard, I know a guy...


Two, on the other hand, when I saw Stan lay up I knew it was something else.


But 17 at Hoylake doesn't offer a bailout, which I see as a flaw.

[Daryl David]

I wonder how much tougher this hole is than #2, #6 or #10 at Royal Dornoch?

Aw, 10's not so hard, I know a guy...


Two, on the other hand, when I saw Stan lay up I knew it was something else.


But 17 at Hoylake doesn't offer a bailout, which I see as a flaw.

I also know a guy…. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Felt like a 2 foot high bank and a 5% fairway slope running away on the right off the green would have been :
A- enough of a hazard for the championship... leading to a lot of : chip to 8 feet, miss putt = bogey...


B- puttable and playable for the members..


On links courses, you have to consider the potentially really firm ground and the 20mph wind or more in the design...


The hole is probably impossible downwind for a weaker player with a 7 iron in hand

I think this is spot-on. I can see this hole having to be artificially over-watered to keep it softer than the rest of the course. The green is 350m2 with no way to run one up and death over the back. It’s also slightly uphill therefore reducing descent angle and stopping power.


If that anecdote about players moving from 16 green to 18 tee is even partially true, then the hole is a failure in the bigger scheme, regardless of its perceived value for an Open Championship.