Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: JESII on December 20, 2004, 12:09:57 PM
-
Has anybody played a two-shot hole in which the second shot is longer than the first?
Discussing the new back right tee at Philly Country #17 got me thinking about a hole design mentioned in writings by William Flynn in which all caliber of players are essentially forced into the same area off the tee before dealing with a long demanding approach shot. Obviously there must be some circumstance that prohibits the very long hitter from using his distance as an advantage off the tee.
Does this make for a good hole design?
-
Sully,
On several occasions I've seen guys with a longer 2nd shot than the 1st on #2 of the "C" Nine at your own course HVCC.
That hole drives players crazy. I've always thought that it would be a great risk reward hole if the trees on the left were cleared so a player could try carrying the ball over the creek. I think I heard that the trees could not be removed because of some environmental issues...do you know if that is the case?
-
The second hole at Meriwether in Hillsboro Oregon was a 5-iron off the tee and a 2-iron to the green for me when I used to play it back in the late 1970s. There was a large lake that cross the entire fairway and required a layup off the tee.
I'm sure there are plenty of other par 4s where hazards cross fairways and cause this.
-
That is the best example I know of to describe this type of hole. I don't think the intention when he designed it was to force this situation because there were no trees on the interior of the dogleg at the time and I don't believe he planted any. Environmental restrictions are the reason they were all left there when it was restored. I think it was an interesting risk / reward hole at the time, but would not be much of a risk today for someone capable of carrying the ball 225 or so.
Does the hole in its present state suffer because of this cart before the horse setup?
Jim
-
I'm not sure the hole number because they have resequenced it a few times, but there is a hole on the worst course in the world, The Country Club of the Poconos at Big Ridge, by Jim Fazio where a drive any further than 140 yards goes into wetlands (you can't play around them because there are deep wood on both sides) which leaves you a 200+ yard blind approach over tall, reedy wetlands that run all the way to the green.
(http://www.ccpbigridge.com/images/course/hole4.gif)
An artists conception of the offending hole. At the site, they claim it's 397 from some non-existent back tee, but 347 from the "whites".
That is just a phony attempt to get some card yardage beyond the 5900 yards listed on what has to be a 1000 acre sites, with 12 MILES OF CART PATHS (this is actual...no exaggeration). There is no back tee on the 4th hole...just thick woods.
It plays as I mentioned...140 to the wetlands, 207 to the hole from there.
Nice.
-
The 2nd hole on the "C" at HVCC is a bit awkward but it never really bothered me. It's just plain difficult. I'm usually of the mindset that you have to play what is in front of you, whether it is awkward or not. I've found that by doing that, enough other players will get upset and play poorly because they don't care for a particular hole or course, etc.
I was always interested in seeing the scores on the "C" nine during the Lynnewood Hall, there was always alot of moaning about that nine, and invariably alot of high scores as well.
-
Does this make for a good hole design?
First hole at Links of Union Vale, NY Par 4, I think I have hit 5 iron short of waste area and 5 wood in.
First hole at The Orchards - Par 4, forget the yardages to and over the creek.
First hole at Cobbs Creek - see The Orchards.
4th hole at Long Island National, 235 to end of fairway before a big waste area from the gold/member tee, then a par 5, so you hit three wood.
I don't think any of these were great design as the risk reward at least for me was not there to go for it, especially on the 1st hole. Have not played Cobbs in years, is it easy to hit over it now on #1 ?
-
I would have to say, Mike, that your example would take the cake. It may actually be tha cart before the donkey though ;D.
Jamie,
I guess that explains your success there. Well done.
We have heard bitching about that hole from day one, my opinion all along is that the second shot is one of the best, most demanding and most attractive shots you will ever find so that being said how else are you going to get everyone to hit it other than by not giving them any other option?
Jim
-
Half the dogleg holes at Palmer's The Carolina course down in Pinehurst are like this. Nothing like a few 7iron - 3wood holes. Makes you feel like Moe Norman.
-
Brian
Maybe it makes us envy Moe Norman. I can assure you that the second time I have to hit a 200+ approach after being forced into a 150-200 tee shot I would have serious questions about the architecture.
I think this is an interesting hole, but one whose type should be used sparingly and really only with the benefit of terrain that will lead to a first rate approach shot.
Jim
-
Half the dogleg holes at Palmer's The Carolina course down in Pinehurst are like this. Nothing like a few 7iron - 3wood holes. Makes you feel like Moe Norman.
Brian,
Just curious - which holes do you feel fit this mold at the Carolina? I can't imagine you hitting any 3 wood approaches there. The 6th hole is pretty bad, but a 3 wood?
If anything its more like 4iron - 9iron.
But I agree about the course - the 1st, 6th, 10th, and 12th holes are just plain bad.
Pete
-
There you go again Pete, trying to make me remember courses that I tried so hard to put out of my memory ;) I just looked at their website (since I don't want to go back to the course) and I think #8 and #15 fit the mold. #15 definitely seemed to be a very long shot (uphill) for the approach.
-
There you go again Pete, trying to make me remember courses that I tried so hard to put out of my memory ;) I just looked at their website (since I don't want to go back to the course) and I think #8 and #15 fit the mold. #15 definitely seemed to be a very long shot (uphill) for the approach.
Sorry Brian, you have to realize I am the defender of bad courses. ;)
Regarding the 8th & 15th at Carolina...the 8th is only about 350 yards so I can't imagine you had a 3 wood approach. I would hit a 3W or 3I and a 9-iron or wedge. Maybe you played to the left fairway? I wouldn't be able to reach the right fairway with a short iron.
15 is a 310 yard par 4...again, can't imagine you hit a 3W in there. Maybe 3W/wedge.
Now I'm wondering if you played the nines in reverse order - b/c I think the major problem holes are the 6th and 17th. 6 fits the mold as I mentioned earlier (approach is ~175) but you don't need to lay up on 17 tee - the wetlands are immediately in front of the green & the fairway is decently generous. Not a good hole by any stretch, but not a 7I-3W.
I think Finley's 10th could fit this criteria, but you do have the option of hitting a fade off the tee to get a shorter approach.
-
4th hole at Long Island National, 235 to end of fairway before a big waste area from the gold/member tee, then a par 5, so you hit three wood.
Mike - I've played there, and I don't remember teeing off on a par 4, and then the hole changing to a par 5. ??? ;D
-
The second hole at Meriwether in Hillsboro Oregon was a 5-iron off the tee and a 2-iron to the green for me when I used to play it back in the late 1970s. There was a large lake that cross the entire fairway and required a layup off the tee.
I'm sure there are plenty of other par 4s where hazards cross fairways and cause this.
A bizarro hole if there ever was one, the 2nd at Merriweather National. I can't tell you how many times I have played there! But of course you already knew that!
-
Jamie,
#2 at HVCC C-nine is pretty close to that, if your drive is not left of center of the fairway. Right side of fairway will do that. The closer to the left (and far) edge of the driving zone, the shorter the approach. I think I hit 3-wood, 5-iron there to the right front (from back tees). Pin was back left, I should have hit 4-iron.
For Pete B., #10 at (new) Finley.
The old #14 (must be #5 now) at the Virginia Tech course was pretty close, especially if you were on the outside of the dogleg. Some brave souls tried to drive the green through a small hole in the trees.
Same with #11 at Wake Forest GC, if your tee shot is outside the dogleg (happens often when protecting from going in creek on inside of dogleg and you turn the ball over on too-frequent occasions)
-
I think the short shot - long shot design concept isn't a very good one, especially since 1) the need to set a maximum distance on the tee shot ends up hurting players hitting from forward tees the most and 2) there is usually some kind of water feature involved, which can lead to long, annoying second shot carries (Mike Cirba's fan-tastic Poconos example is an excellent case in point.
There are two particular holes I've played, though, that Jim Sullivan's criterion and were at least close to good. I say were because both have been changed.
The 1st hole at Trull Brook (Tewksbury, MA) is a short par 4 -- maybe 255 yards from tee to green as the crow flies. In the old days, you could try to drive the green, but it involved hitting over / through a not-too-dense strand of pretty tall pine trees about 120 yards from the tee. There were low points or gaps in the trees just big enough to aim for and fairly hard to hit. If you missed and hit the trees, you had a hard but not impossible recovery and still a reasonable chance to save 4. The other option was to hit a 7 or 8 iron off the tee down into a valley way off to the right, and then have a straight 7 iron or so in.
Because of pace of play problems, they moved the tee to right up against a hedge so you can't possibly try the through the trees shot anymore. Now the hole is just pretty terrible. Hitting a nine iron (the hole got shorter, too) off the tee to a pretty enormous landing area is a terrible way to start a round.
The 10th hole at Juniper Hill's Riverside course, a 470 yard par 5 with a slight dogleg left, was one of the most interesting holes I've seen, and a hole that I would try to replicate / improve on given the right site if I were a designer. From the tee you had three choices: 1) lay up with a seven iron short of a pond (starting between 150 and 170 yards from the tee depending on your line), then hit 3 iron - wedge into the green; 2) try to hit straight over the pond, a carry of maybe 260-265 yards again depending on your line (that distance seemed much longer then, hardly anyone I knew could make the carry consistently); 3) try to carry the pond by hitting to the left side of the fairway on the far side, which involved hitting over the edge of a public road and a whole lot of swamp and cut the carry down to something like 245. You aimed the drive at a telephone pole at the edge of the road; anything pulled further left than that was on the road, OB, and gone. If you pulled off either option 2 or option 3, you had an iron into the green.
Now they turned it into a par 4 and moved the tee up, so it's just a boring mandatory water carry off the tee.
If I were recreating the hole, ideally I would leave a little more room for the tee shot (so you could hit, say, a 3 iron, but still not be able to get there in 2, if you layed up) and increase the carry distances a bit from the tips to make up for technology. But I was very sad to see that hole go.
-
...4th hole at Long Island National, 235 to end of fairway before a big waste area from the gold/member tee, then a par 5, so you hit three wood.......
???
What was RTJ jr. thinking here? I never got the chance to ask him about it. I know drainage is an issue on that part of the course. I always thought he could have just narrowed the fairway a bit instead building of a severe drop. I think he told someone that the big hitters could carry the crap. But I don't think even Daly could bomb it that far. With the prevailing wind in your mug the design looks even worse.
The next hole is the best on the course imho.
-
For Pete B., #10 at (new) Finley.
Duly noted Scott, I mentioned this in reply #12. I still think its a bit different, b/c the option of hitting a cut driver off the tee and using the slope to get a short iron in is an option on that hole (there is no hazard to clear in the fairway). I have played the hole both ways so it is definitely possible, but risky...especially for us reverse slicers. ;)
My question is...why is this such a bad design concept, especially for better players? How else can an architect force a good player into hitting a long iron into a par 4? At Finley, a lot of the college players would hit 2-iron - 3-iron from the tips. I'm OK with that.
-
My question is...why is this such a bad design concept, especially for better players? How else can an architect force a good player into hitting a long iron into a par 4?
Why is this a better idea than building 500 yard par 4s?
If you can now hit 3 iron off the tee on even the hard par 4s, will anyone ever hit a driver?
Plus, see my previous post re: the impact on people playing from forward tees. I suppose you could build a hole where only players from the tips are limited in how far you could drive the ball, but that's getting pretty contrived.
-
My question is...why is this such a bad design concept, especially for better players? How else can an architect force a good player into hitting a long iron into a par 4?
Why is this a better idea than building 500 yard par 4s?
If you can now hit 3 iron off the tee on even the hard par 4s, will anyone ever hit a driver?
Plus, see my previous post re: the impact on people playing from forward tees. I suppose you could build a hole where only players from the tips are limited in how far you could drive the ball, but that's getting pretty contrived.
Jay,
The hole that I mention does not have a water hazard that causes the forward tee players to lay back. In fact, the angle of the tee is different, so the hole "straightens out" and there is no reason to layup off the tee. Also note that a faded drive will take the downslope right of the fairway bunker to the 150 marker.
(http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/unc/sport/unc-finley/finley10.jpg)
I would argue that even the 500 yard par 4's don't require a long iron for the accomplished player.
Pete
-
Pete -
Fair enough. I agree that your example solves most of the problems that exist with a lot of "cart before the horse" holes and that there is a place for holes like it on good golf courses.
I continue to think, though, that there is at least as much need to require accomplished players to hit a driver as there is to require them to hit long iron shots into par 4s. If you have to make par 4s 530 from the tips, so be it.
Of course, that would have been terrible for me, as the guy on the team in college who could barely hit it past 250.
Alternately, do something about equipment...
-
Jamie, Jim,
I know that the present 2nd on the C-nine at HVCC cannot duplicate the original shot values due to the wetland considerations--isn't there some kind of rare turtle or something in there? Almost all of the talk is about the shorter tee shot required vs the yardage of the approach shots. What I rarely hear people talk about is the green. In my opinion it is one of Flynn's toughest greens. What are your thoughts?
-
Our No. 2 hole at The Hideout (Utah) is a 540-yard, par-5 with a gamble tee shot that usually only places a driver in the hande of the verrrrrry long and accurate hitter. Most players opt to hit iron from the tee to avoid the creek which crosses the fairway at about 230-yards. The second shot is flanked by a creek to the right; it requires a placed shot...but as long as one cares given the width.
The routing plan shows No. 2 (at top). The photo is taken from just shy of the tee shot landing area. The trees to the right sit within the creek and encourage a tee shot placed to the left — toward the creek which continues toward the tee.
(http://www.golfgroupltd.com/hideout/artwork/hideout_bg.gif)
(http://www.golfgroupltd.com/hideout/artwork/hideout_2.jpg)
-
Forrest,
I don't know if that's a very good example of this type of hole, because a creek at 230 still leaves many golfers not having to take a whole lot off their shot. And anyone with any doubts about their ability to fly it 230 (flying it 230 straight is another matter of course) would be playing a 540 yarder as a three shotter anyway. Lay up to 210 or 220, and you only have 320 or 330 left which is still a fairway wood and short iron even for some fairly short hitters. On the other hand, at only 230 it certainly leaves a quite reasonable option open for longer hitters. Seems like a decent risk/reward hole rather than an example of a Moe Norman hole.
-
The creek is 230 if ypu play all the way back. It's 210 if you play from the regular markers. From our experience observing, the average of players is hitting:
180 4-Iron
210 3-wood
130 7-Iron*
_____
520
This is right in line with how we felt the hole would play.
The course is also at 7,000-ft, which will add 10%+ to length for any golfer.
*And...the hole is slightly uphill, which combined with the mayhem which can happen with the tee lay-up and the second fairway wood, most often leads to a third shot of longer length than a 7- or 8-iron can muster.
-
In the back of their book Cornish and Whitten list a few 'design experiment' that simply weren't successful. One of them listed is the required short iron from tees on dogleg par par 4s and 5s and extremely sharp doglegs etc.
In my opinion, when Flynn designed and built it #2 "C" nine HVGC he probably had a higher risk option of driving left across the creek or hazard area that's practically in-line on the left down the line of of drive (certainly not a good or multi-optional arrangement if the option over the creek has been shut off by trees or something else that makes that higher risk option non-functional).
We believe, though, that the entire idea of "shot-testing" that appears to have been so much more prevalent in the old days of SOME architecture vs today should be better explored and better understood---not that that will make it better appreciated today, however.
What was that old fashioned architectural philosophy of "shot-testing" and what were some of it's conceptual arrangements?
Well, a hole with like PVGC's #7 was certainly one of them and believe it or not so was PVGC's #18. I'm talking here about the intended shot values of the best executed shots of a particular strategy. When PVGC was designed the stategic shot values for even a very good player on #7 was his best drive and his best brassie to safely clear HHA in two and on #18 it was his best drive and probably his best almost equally long shot to gain the 18th green in two. The expectation (intended in a design sense) of any other option or strategy was to lay up somehow on particularly the second shots and make up the shot that was lost distance-wise in some other manner before holing out.
This was the farthest thing from our present basically locked in perception of GIR with mulitiple options!!
This was much more the era of straight match play (far less expectation of "par GIR") and the era of basic match play or design concept, strategies or philosophy sometime referred to as "the tortoise and the hare". This was also the era of far less flexible tees!
The difference between the intended concepts of the strategies and shot values of those kinds of old fashioned "shot testing" holes is there really never was any forced lay-up off a tee for even the good player with that one-dimensional "shot-test", or more specifically, combination of two "shot-tests" one right after the other. Even the good player, particularly the good and strong player, was expected to accept the risk and 'blaze away" off the tee and if he executed that well to "blaze away" again for the green or to overcome some other hazard in two shots often with his most distance gaining club.
The only strategy available to the tortoise was to play conservatively and gain the green in one more shot than the hare might if he successfully executed those two combined "shot tests".
The whole point of this kind of one dimensional "shot testing" at least in a match play context, is that if the "hare" was not successful in either of his two "blaze away" shots than he would be back on a par or even worse off than the tortoise who's strategy was as much to lay in wait for the hare to over-reach himself as it was for the tortoise to play conservatively and cautiously.
The prevalence of far more flexible tees and the entire architectural concept of far more multi-optional ways of more players gaining "par GIR" has done away with the popularity and excitement of this kind of one dimensional "shot testing" hole and design concept which pretty much always only related to the "hare" (the good and long player and not the tortoise (the shorter of physically weaker player).
This type of thing is interesting to understand for exactly what it was and what it was intended to do. This was probably golf and strategies back in the day when golfers were expected to come to terms realistically with their own limitations---when designers did not necessarily offer them designs and strategies that were "politically correct" equality---at least not in the sense of gaining a green and such in the same "par GIR" number (of strokes)!!
-
TEP,
I have often thought about the 7th at PVGC and the fact they are essentially forcing eveyone to produce two shots in which the second must carry to a point 400-425 from the tee while the tee shot has a length restriction. This particular instance is interesting because the 'length restriction' is still pretty long (250 from the front tee). I would question, as you suggested, the very good player of the day needing his best drive and brassie to clear HHA, but I have no evidence as support. Does this really count as a cart before horse hole? Most people are able to hit there two longest shots before approaching the green with their third.
"Shot-testing" is however at the heart of the 'cart before horse' strategy and at HVCC the shot-tested is a 190-215 shot up a substantial hill. There are a couple of dynamics on this hole that make it more strategic and playable than 190-215 uphill might sound. Answering Wayne's question of the quality of the green on C-2, I don't know if it is one of his toughest greens (#8 RGGC, #10 HVCC, #7 SHGC) but I think it is a perfect green for this hole. The banked area to the right that gathers balls onto the green from up to 7-8 yards to the right provides some relief, while missing that bank leaves a playable shot (no hazard of any kind) but a very difficult up-and-down. I feel this set-up plays into the tortise and hare philosophy quite well, because there is very little trouble to get into playing the hole as a three-shotter while attempting the "GIR par" provides some level of risk as well as the obvious reward.
Jim
-
"I would question, as you suggested, the very good player of the day needing his best drive and brassie to clear HHA, but I have no evidence as support. Does this really count as a cart before horse hole? Most people are able to hit there two longest shots before approaching the green with their third."
Jim:
To answer the second part first, no, I don't view a hole (or the intended strategic concept of it) in the same way as the "cart before the horse" type you mentioned (a required shorter shot off the tee and a longer second). I would view a hole like #7 PVGC in that sort of analogy as maybe "two really strong horses and then the cart" ;) .
-
Jim:
As for the first part--eg did the intended strategy actually require even a good player to hit his best drive and his best brassie to clear HHA in two shots? For me to say that may be stretching it some for obvious reasons (ie if that really were the case most golfers would probably screw up the hole most of the time, and obviously that wasn't what Crump/Tillinghas envisioned exactly).
This concept is best explained by Tillinghast in his entire chapter in "The Course Beautiful" (chapter 41) entitled "The three shotter".
The entire concept of what he (and apparently Crump) called the 'true three shotter' was very interesting and perhaps even unique. The one requirement (of Crump's) we can tell from written documentation is that the two par 5s on his course (PVGC) was that neither par 5 could EVER be reached in two shots by ANYONE!
Tillinghast said this about the first two shots required to clear HHA---".....but the big break (HHA which he specified must be about 100 yards in length and forced) prevents any half topped second from getting within range of the green and it offers a respectable carry for a well hit second which is to follow a good drive." The far end of HHA from the tips also measured no less than 400 yards which was not an insignificant distance to be required to CARRY a second shot in the teens!!
We also know that Crump was a virtual fanatic about requiring a good and long drive on many of his holes to produce a reasonable expectation of accomplishing the "ideal" option of the second shot. This obviously was only true of those holes on his course that were "long". Crump loved his driver and he and his friends even had a name for it----eg "Bolivar".
If you have that Tillinghast book read about his "three shotter" concept----there was a lot more to the concept than just what I've tried to explain here.
Jim:
You should also understand that this concept even relating back to the distances of that day probably weren't considering a great drive and brassie for golfers of your comparable length other-wise where would that have left golfers like me at my best when I had to play against you on an equal footing! But I'm sure you can see the basic idea behind that virtual one dimensional "shot testing" philosophy back in that day. Obviously it couldn't be conceived around the longest hitters of the day or it would've left the rest in quite a pickle even if they produced their very best. Some of Crump's strategic concepts were very demanding for that day but not so demanding as to be ridiculous for the majority of decent players.
-
TEP
Interesting comments about "Bolivar" and Crump's goals to reach the ideal position for approach. That makes it pretty clear what his golas were at PVGC. I was not mistaking the distances current players hit the ball for those from the teens and twenties, but it seemed to me to be much to severe a penalty for those that did not / or could not reach the second portion of the 7th fairway to surrender essentially an entire stroke. I would say that the stories I have heard about the original intent of PV (only high quality players to play there) is supported whole-heartedly by these statements from both Tillinghast and Crump.
Until now I had never thought of Pine Valley as a severe driving test other than the fact that you cannot hit the ball way off-line. The course is relatively short with quite generous fairway width's, but if you think about the course and the forced distance / carry off the tee to get into the ideal approach position you get a very clear picture of how demanding it would have been 80 years ago.
#1---Over or around the right corner---230-250
#4---Over the hill---225-240 uphill
#6---Over any portion of the sand area---220-250
#7---Over HHA in two strokes---400+
#9---Into the deep right corner past the catchers mit---230
#11---Over the crest in the fairway---200
#13---Lower tee---220 or so to the plateau left center
#16---Over the right side of sand-225-240
These are estimates of the yardage needed to get into the best possible approach to the green, part of the genius is that on every one of these holes there are plenty of other options.
I look forward to reading The Course Beautiful. Tillinghast is one of my favorites, primarily for what I have seen at Winged Foot West considering the property. I have not yet seen the East or Quaker Ridge, but I doubt they will diminish my perception.
Jim
-
"......but it seemed to me to be much too severe a penalty for those that did not / or could not reach the second portion of the 7th fairway to surrender essentially an entire stroke."
Jim:
That's true but that's the way it was intended to be. Some, perhaps many, don't think that's an example of classic strategic golf and probably not----but it is what I described---an example of something that was occasionally done on a course like that back then--eg one dimensional "shot testing" and occasionally in a back to back combination sense.
-
Jim:
Added to your estimates is approximately what those holes are now with the new tee length additions;
#1---Over or around the right corner---230-250---can't add
#4---Over the hill---225-240 uphill---app 265-280
#6---Over any portion of the sand area---220-250---can't add
#7---Over HHA in two strokes---400+---app 440-465
#9---Into the deep right corner past the catchers mit---230--app 260+
#11---Over the crest in the fairway---200---can't add
#13---Lower tee---220 or so to the plateau left center---265+
#16---Over the right side of sand-225-240--app 255-270
#15 will have app 30+ added
#14 will be over 205
#3 will have maybe 10-15 added
-
I love the notion of lengthening the long holes on a course when making those type of changes, ie 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16 & 18.