Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Bryan Izatt on December 26, 2011, 02:49:13 AM
-
Professional or amateur - all are welcome to critique this hole. You don't even have to have been here to take a run at it. Is this hole good, bad or ugly? I'll give the architect later, if case no one guesses it.
First, an aerial with yardages.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Wy2Aerialcopy-1.jpg)
From the tee, requiring a forced carry over a quarry.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1126.jpg)
From the left side landing zone.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1133.jpg)
From the right side landing area.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1129.jpg)
From behind the green
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1134.jpg)
-
I guess the one thing that sticks out to me is that there doesn't appear to be any apparent advantage in hitting one particular side of the fairway or the other, since you have a similar shot over pot bunker regardless of where you place your tee ball.
As a result, there doesn't seem to be much risk/reward in challenging the centerline bunker or the left side of the fairway, which from the tee appears to be a harder shot to pull off. So I don't see any benefit in playing aggressively off the tee.
I don't think it is a bad hole but I do think it could be a better one if the green was angled or bunkered differently.
-
#2 at Wyndance. I personally think its a decent hole. Not horrible but not great.
-
Bryan,
Looking at the pictures, the hole looks fine... it's a short hole so an exacting approach to an angled green with a run-off behind is interesting.
I agree completely with what Frank said about the tee shot... that quarry on the left and the centreline bunker make you think the ideal line is down the left... but in truth, ideal is probably up the right, though anything that isn't in the centreline bunker will do.
Playing the hole at ground level, I think the hole is pretty bad. The approach is too exacting with no bail-out. And I hate to use the word fair, but that approach is unfair to anybody but low cappers. Especially downwind, many players will find it almost impossible to carry the deep front bunkers and then stop the ball before the ball runs off the slope behind the green.
The green probably should have been angled left-to-right instead of right-to-left. Frank's probably right, getting rid of those front bunkers would be an improvement... as would lowering the level of the green... I just don't think a tabletop works here.
-
It appears that it might be a better hole if you take out at least one or more of the bunkers in front of the green. I like a golf hole that plays easier or harder depending on hole placement. But all that bunkering in front of a shallow and diagonal green makes the hole play hard every day regardless of hole placement.
The short grass expanse that wraps around the green is a little excessive - there is a lot of bent to maintain there way beyond the scope of it's usefulness.
-
The 10th at Riverfront, in which I started a thread, does this type of hole very well (shortish par 4 w/centerline fw bunker & angled green). Missing in the centerline bunker makes for an iffy appraoch shot though it is only 110 yards or so to the middle of the green. When the pin is in the front the best drive is to one side of the bunker & the opposite when the pin is back. That is because the positioning of the green side bunkers carefully guard different sections of the green relative to the angle of the approach shots. Missing in the green side bunkers are highly problematic. The easier green side miss zone is not obvious from the approach shot areas.
-
The only thing I find odd is that there really isnt any advantage to hitting boldly down the left side. I think that if the green was angled and bunkered differently to reward the tee shot down the left, I think I would like it better.
Appears to be a fine hole otherwise.
Mark
-
What purpose does the right hand fairway bunker serve?
What advantage is gained by going left from the tee?
Why not incorporate the quarry more into the green site?
Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?
1. Move center line bunker a tiny bit right creating a more realistic left side option from the tee
1A. place another smallish bunker 25-30 yards beyond and left of the repositioned center bunker challenging the big hitter who goes left by pinching it in at the longer distance.
2. Eliminate the right hand fiarway bunker and while you are at it the other right bunker as well.
3. Move the green over to the edge of the quarry
4. Place perhaps a single deep bunker at the front right forcing those playing "safe" on the right to carry the bunker and perhaps bring the quarry (long) into play on the approach.
5. Slope the green from front right to back left... again making the approach from the right difficult
6. Provide some green level bail out on the right with the left and rear maintaining their fall away slopes of the current green.
-
I don't know where Wyndance is, but what is the rationale behind the two different styles of bunker on the same hole?
One look at the aerial photo first, and the angle of the green, and I thought that it was a hole that suckers you into playing down the left side when in fact the better line for nearly any player would be down the right. The fairway bunker on the right makes sense, from that perspective. But, I agree with Greg that given the nature of the quarry, it would have made more sense to design the hole to reward the player who dares to go left off the tee ... unless, of course, there are several other holes of that persuasion at Wyndance ... wherever it is.
-
Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?
Answer A:
Wind
Answer B:
Because no two golfers are the same.
-
Answer C: to confuse;
Answer D: to give options;
Answer E: why not?
-
Tom: Wyndance is just north of Toronto and you're right, the bunker styles are all over the place on multiple holes.
-
I guess I felt that the hole would get a little love here both because it offers some strategic choince and because the surrounds on the side and back provide some options for recovery. It's a little strange that Seminole is held up as great architecture at least partly because the greens are difficult to hit and hold and recovery is no sure thing. And that the 6th at Pacific Dunes is also held in high esteem at least partly because it is a small hard to hit table top green with a penal bunker on one side and a closely mown runoff on the other.
That said, many of you have focused in on the perceived shortcoming of the strategy of the hole; the risk/rewards of either side of the centreline bunker. To me, the design of the tee strategy is almost a misdirection. People assume that the left side, being narrower and with death in the quarry nearby must have a significant reward to justify the risk. As most have noted, that is not the case. The reward is a shorter second shot, a short iron to wedge for most. This is good for hitting the table top green. However, there are two downsides to the left approach. The green is shallower from over there and the surface is completely blind. The right side provides a longer (but not hugely) second. But, it also provides some view of the surface and the angle looks down the legth of the green, so there is more room for error. The fairway bunker to the right provides at least some risk (for the membership, if not pros) for those bailing out to the right off the tee, so they don't get a totally free ride.
As to positioning the hole nearer the quarry, the course has 3 or 4 other holes that use the quarry more closely. I guess the architect was trying to not be too repetitive.
Mark,
I'm not sure why you think the hole too exacting. It is a short par 4 and most people will have a short iron to wedge in hand for their second shots. Given it's short, shouldn't there be some challenge for the second shot. Brings me back to courses like Seminole and PD that have exacting greens - more exacting than this even.
Bradley,
I'm not sure if taking out the front bunkers would make it easier or fairer. I suppose that if the ridge were fairway cut then there would be some chance to run a second shot up, but how many players in North America would even try that. I've seen a number of people blow up their scorecard trying to recover from the closely mown area in the back. If the front were the same, there would be double the opportunity. Now, many people final those front bunkers penal. They are deep. But there should be some risk for a short par 4.
As to maintaining the extra bent area in the back, I don't think that is significant. All the fairways are bent, so it's just some more. I kind of like it because it is rare in this neighbourhood to have green surrounds that aren't bluegrass rough or hazards. Nice to have a change of pace.
Greg,
Why design a hole with different lines of play with neither giving a clear advantage?
To get in players' heads. The proper strategy for each player isn't precisely clear.
1A. place another smallish bunker 25-30 yards beyond and left of the repositioned center bunker challenging the big hitter who goes left by pinching it in at the longer distance.
I think that's overkill. The hard to spin half shot off short grass is probably just as difficult for the long hitter from a bad angle as it is to play out of a bunker.
2. Eliminate the right hand fiarway bunker
It helps keep the right side from being a complete free ride.
5. Slope the green from front right to back left... again making the approach from the right difficult
Actually it is sloped that way (but not to Redan portions). There is also a crease running from back right to front left providing some more interest to the green.
6. Provide some green level bail out on the right
Bailing out right, if you miss the bunkers, results in a rough lie. Just a little more variety and challenge. Getting it out of there to a sort side pin on a green sloping away is a tester.
I guess I like the hole because it provides some subtle challenges. I'd bet many players leave it frustrated after a bogey or worse on what looks like it should be a short easy hole. And, I like it because I had a 2 on it this summer. ;D
The architect, in case anyone is wondering, was Greg Norman.
-
I don't know where Wyndance is, but what is the rationale behind the two different styles of bunker on the same hole?
One look at the aerial photo first, and the angle of the green, and I thought that it was a hole that suckers you into playing down the left side when in fact the better line for nearly any player would be down the right. The fairway bunker on the right makes sense, from that perspective. But, I agree with Greg that given the nature of the quarry, it would have made more sense to design the hole to reward the player who dares to go left off the tee ... unless, of course, there are several other holes of that persuasion at Wyndance ... wherever it is.
Ooops, our posts crossed.
As Frank says, it is north east of Toronto. The majority of bunker in play are in the style of the ones in front of the green. The ones on the edges backing into rough are more the natural look. There are also five or six other holes with waste areas that are different looking again. At least there are no RR tie bunkers. This was a working quarry not too long ago and the waste areas were probably an expedient way to deal with some of the transitions to some areas of the quarry. I'll post some more bunker pictures, because I am intrigued by the style. They are essentially deep coffin bunkers, but the sides are upholstered in grass and are very steep. They look like they'll be a maintenance nightmare. some have already collapsed. I'm not sure I've seen this style anywhere else. They certainly don't look like Australian bunkers.
I'd agree on the left side being a sucker play.
There are two par 3's where the green hugs the quarry edge and a par 4 and a par 5 that run along the edge of the quarry as well. So using this hole might have been overkill.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1136.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_1137.jpg)
-
Bryan: Your point about hitting a bump and run shot into the green is one of the exact problems I have with this hole. Wyndance is so exposed to the wind and it is usually very windy there. I've played the course three times and each time it has been helping on this hole making the approach, due to the conditions and hole features even with a wedge, too severe.
-
Kyle and Mark,
Yes to answers A - E.
Frank,
Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker. Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.
Right here in Toronto.
-
Kyle and Mark,
Yes to answers A - E.
Frank,
Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker. Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.
Right here in Toronto.
Sounds fair.
-
It appears that it might be a better hole if you take out at least one or more of the bunkers in front of the green. I like a golf hole that plays easier or harder depending on hole placement. But all that bunkering in front of a shallow and diagonal green makes the hole play hard every day regardless of hole placement.
+1 Eliminate the one on the far left hand and the two right of the green, leaving a lions mouth front center. Forces a decision off the tee which line to take. depending on the hole location. Even better if the back 25% of the green was eliminated. The current depth doesn't really necessitate tee shot placement.
Bogey
-
Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I don´t see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.
-
Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I don´t see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.
To me, the fairway pot bunker is one of the best things about the hole. It's placed in a true Principal's Nose bunker position -- room on both sides, but cleary a narrower and riskier avenue one one side (in this case, the left side.)
It's the rest of the hole that's screwed up. I agree with those who suggest the risk of going left of the fairway pot bunker ought to be rewarded in some way -- and in this case, it's penalized, which is the exact opposite of where you place a centering, Principal's Nose bunker (see this:
(http://www.standrews.org.uk/App_Themes/SALT/graphics/scorecard/oldcourse/16.jpg)
The green should be angled in the opposite way that it is -- from front left to back right -- and the left fronting bunker at a minimum eliminated, with possiblly the other left-fronting bunker moved slightly rightward. Not sure about the table-top green -- it may not be that penal if played with something around a 9-iron for an approach. But, hard to judge from photos.
-
The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.
-
Looks like a pretty good hole to me. I don´t see much use or justification for the fairway pot bunker but if that were eliminated I think it could be classified as a solid short golf hole. The course maintenance conditions look excellent if your into green and healthy.
To me, the fairway pot bunker is one of the best things about the hole. It's placed in a true Principal's Nose bunker position -- room on both sides, but cleary a narrower and riskier avenue one one side (in this case, the left side.)
It's the rest of the hole that's screwed up. I agree with those who suggest the risk of going left of the fairway pot bunker ought to be rewarded in some way -- and in this case, it's penalized, which is the exact opposite of where you place a centering, Principal's Nose bunker (see this:
(http://www.standrews.org.uk/App_Themes/SALT/graphics/scorecard/oldcourse/16.jpg)
The green should be angled in the opposite way that it is -- from front left to back right -- and the left fronting bunker at a minimum eliminated, with possiblly the other left-fronting bunker moved slightly rightward. Not sure about the table-top green -- it may not be that penal if played with something around a 9-iron for an approach. But, hard to judge from photos.
+1
-
I like the plateau green. I like the centreline bunker. I like the ramp up to the green.
I don't like the two styles of bunkers. I think at least the left greenside and first right fairway bunker can go.
I would push the second fairway bunker back about halfway between where it now is and the first bunker - making it visually seem like there is less room to go right.
I would think about removing the right greenside bunker as well. It sort of helps create a distance control mechanism at odds with the drop-off to the rear.
Essentially, the hole isn't bad, just over-cooked. I fail to see how a hole with a centreline bunker and a raised green needs anything like six bunkers.
Ciao
-
Kyle and Mark,
Yes to answers A - E.
Frank,
Downwind, you definitely want to be far right by the FW bunker. Stopping a wedge from there down the length of the green shouldn't be a problem if you hit it crisply.
Right here in Toronto.
It is a problem if the pin is front right...even if hit crisply the slope of the green won't stop the ball from going over in a helping wind.
Sure, downwind a front right pin position will be inaccessible from almost anywhere if the green is firm. Golf is not always fair. I was just saying that it is possible to stop it on the green in those conditions. Maybe not where you want it, but it is possible to hit the green.
-
Sean,
I suspect that you wouldn't like the course. There are many bunkers and three distinct styles.
I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot. There could be more of a ramp to play in that side.
You could combine the two front bunkers into one to reduce the number of bunkers.
If you did those two things the green complex would look an awful lot like a Redan with the runoff on the back replacing the back bunkers on the Redan.
I don't see much point in moving the 2nd right-side bunker further up and eliminating the 1st right-side fairway bunker. The one remaining bunker would basically be out of play for all players, playing from the proper tees. I think the first fairway bunker is functional. The one nearer the green could go or stay as far as I'm concerned.
To Others,
To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole? That's been done a lot. This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind. What's bad about that?
-
To Others,
To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole? That's been done a lot. This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind. What's bad about that?
Because it's silly, and doesn't take advantage of the terrain and features -- most of which, if not all, I like -- that are there in the first place.
First, I'd start with the premise that good golf holes (let's rule out par 3s for this discussion to keep it simpler) ought to provide at least a couple of options on how to approach playing them. Not all holes -- I'm all in favor (channelling Sweeney here, I think, from a long-ago thread) of holes that scream: "You want options? Here's your option -- hit a drive 250 yards over gunk to even find the fairway, and then get out a long iron for your approach shot, or you end up with a big number." Hard, long, tough holes are fine.
But that's not this hole. It's of modest length -- 381 yds from the tips! -- and offers plenty of width in the playing corridor. OK, cool. Now what to do with it? Why not provide one corridor for the bolder, riskier (better?), more adventurous player, and a different avenue for the golfer just looking to get around the course without blow-ups and disasters? I look for holes like this all the time on golf courses; there honestly aren't that many of them. (Sure, the ones we study and debate to death here on GCA, but most courses are pretty one-dimensional, even some very good ones.) I think the architect pretty much concedes this this is his approach with the placement of the centerline bunker. Why else do architects place centerline bunkers, if not to create separate playing corridors that create different strategic options and approaches? Otherwise it's just a thing -- like a pond or stream -- that has to be crossed on the journey toward the green. (I'd note this centerline bunker has the added virtue of being able to be carried on the fly by the bold golfer sure with his driver.)
Doesn't the architect want to create some interesting choices for the golfer? Instead, this hole offers up something along the lines of a one-time visual deception, in that -- perhaps -- your eye is drawn toward the line of charm and the green in the distance, and the direct route there, but instead the safer, prudent and wise choice off the tee -- for both the drive and approach shot -- is to go right.
Like George, I'm a pretty wayward player, and short to boot, and thus this hole has a lot of potential appeal to someone like me. But standing on the tee, there's no way I'd go for the option left, knowing what lies ahead with the fronting bunkers, angled green and table-top approach (and that's not even knowing the severe fall-off on the backside). I'd choose the right corridor every time; taking on the narrower corridor left, successfully executed, provides no gain. But make that approach into the green easier from the left side, and on a good day with my driver I'm tempted to take the left side corridor (even more so, given my tendency to hit banana slices -- give me an option left, and I know I don't ever have to think about that bunker along the right side of the fairway).
Thus, from my perspective, the fault of the design is that it doesn't make me think on the tee. A good opportunity wasted.
-
What if there's another hole on the course that provides the more standard approach?
I have no problem with any hole favoring a certain drive all the time; to me, that's infinitely preferable to the occasional "hit it 250 to find the fairway or else". I don't think those holes really should ever exist. There should always be a way for a shorter golfer to get around. And I'm not particularly short.
Looks like a fine hole to me. There's no need for every hole to offer multiple options, as long as some do. There's no need for every hole to make you think on the tee, as long as some do.
I don't view the left side as an area one would choose, merely as fairway available should someone not execute. To me, flipping the orientation of the green would simply flip the side of the fairway I'd always favor. And I'd rarely hit either...
-
Sean,
I suspect that you wouldn't like the course. There are many bunkers and three distinct styles.
I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot. There could be more of a ramp to play in that side.
You could combine the two front bunkers into one to reduce the number of bunkers.
If you did those two things the green complex would look an awful lot like a Redan with the runoff on the back replacing the back bunkers on the Redan.
I don't see much point in moving the 2nd right-side bunker further up and eliminating the 1st right-side fairway bunker. The one remaining bunker would basically be out of play for all players, playing from the proper tees. I think the first fairway bunker is functional. The one nearer the green could go or stay as far as I'm concerned.
To Others,
To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole? That's been done a lot. This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind. What's bad about that?
Bryan
I was hoping my idea of eliminating the first right fairway bunker and pushing the second back to about 300 yards to reach from the back tee would effectively make the landing zone look smaller and thus perhaps make the left side a bit more of an attractive option (sort of hoping to pick the lesser of two evils - visually anyway). In all, the hole would look much better as its very visually messy at the moment. It also doesn't make much sense from a playing perspective. I understand what you are saying about getting outside the box, but this looks to be a very interesting hole location and with that going for it there is no need to step outside the lines - especially if there is a centreline bunker in play.
Ciao
-
Phil McDade,
Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."
I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.
It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.
-
Phil McDade,
Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."
I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.
It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.
So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?
-
Phil McDade,
Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."
I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.
It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.
So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?
Sure, why not? I'm not exactly sure what "bad" really means, anyway... do you?
-
Phil McDade,
Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."
I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.
It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.
So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?
Sure, why not? I'm not exactly sure what "bad" really means, anyway... do you?
Black and white defnition as related to GCA? Of course not... but i know it when I see it. ;)
-
To All,
I guess, based on the comments, I'm getting more intrigued by what Norman (or his associate) was thinking with this hole. It seems to appeal to some and not to others. That's not really surprising. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, what were the architects thinking or trying to do?
The number of bunkers are a style thing. The course is heavily bunkered. Maybe that's what the owners wanted. Or maybe that's just the way Norman does courses. The bunkering is, by and large, probably very difficult for the membership.
Everybody seems to be overlooking the tee shot. It is pretty intimidating. The forced carry over the quarry is probably the first thing on most people's mind on the tee. There is some mental relief in the extra wide fairway, but that pesky bunker in the middle of the fairway, with a guarantee of one stroke wasted, eats into that relief.
For this hole, maybe they weren't trying to create a traditional centreline bunker hole with two clear cut options/strategies. Maybe it was about a dogleg hole left around the centre bunker, and they decided later to ease it up and provide a safe fairway lie if you missed left. But, then decided to penalize you with a more difficult approach shot if you did miss left. The fairway is 80 yards wide, so there needs to be some penalty for missing on the wrong side. Who knows, but it's fun to speculate. I wonder if there are other centrline bunker holes on Norman courses that more closely match the traditional risk/reward approach.
For those wondering if there was another more traditional centreline bunker hole on the course, the answer is sort of yes and no. four holes after this, far removed from the quarry, there is another par 4 with a centreline obstruction. In this case pine trees. This hole is a long par 4 and there is a definite risk/reward on one side vs the other. It fits the tradition much more closely.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Wy6.jpg)
-
Bryan,
6 isn't even worthy of discussion, especially not it's 'centreline' hazard -- it is just plain poorly designed.
I've played Wyndance some 20 times, and not once have I seen any player try for the left route. Look at the angle, you have to go through the trees to get there.
Norman et. al. really missed the mark on 6... as they did on much of the course.
-
Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?
-
Mark,
Why have you gone back 20 times if you don't like it?
I kind of like the 6th. Different strokes and all that.
I've played the left side several times and seen others play over there. The second shot is usually a long iron and approaching from the left does provide an opportunity to run it on.
From the white tees the trees cut down the perceived landing area on the left. From the blue tees, the centreline trees are not really in the way. From the back tee block, they're not at all in the way. The hole does suggest a fade off the tee to go the left way. There is risk of being too far left, but there is a much better view of the green, with no bunkering in the way. A classic risk/reward play. If you can play a controlled hook, you can go around from the right side and get to a pretty good place. Or, if you're playing off the right tees, it is possible to fly the trees. They are not really tall.
-
Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?
Can you expand a bit on that.
-
Bryan,
Sorry, that came off sounding harsher than I intended
I do like Wyndance -- a different experience than most courses in the GTA -- but I think much more could have been done with the site.
I don't think the quarry was used effectively.
-
Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?
Can you expand a bit on that.
When grass is mown short, you add a line/frame to an area of the golf course (the contrast between rough and fairway). By pushing the fairway around a bunker to contain it, you move the frame from being the fairway cut to being the bunker. This pulls your eye to the bunker. In fact, I'll bet that the bunker would be easier to avoid if only the upper portion of the fairway in the first example were cut and the hole "doglegged" around the bunker.
-
Furthermore, the "lower" fairway may also allow the golfer to feel like attempting for the green when maybe that is outside their skillset. If that portion were cut as rough, the golfer would be more prone to take some medicine and play conservatively.
-
Mark, I don't think there is any reason to apologize. We are all having friendly discussions. I completely agree with your opinion of the 6th. The centerline hazard is pointless IMHO and maintaining the left side as fairway the same. There is no way hitting that sliver of fairway on the left of the trees provides anywhere near the payoff required to attempt it. I don't think there is any payoff whatsoever.
-
This hole falls in the category of many "risk-reward" holes because the aggressive choice offers way too much risk for insufficient reward. If the aggressive line is chosen and not successfully executed, then there should be some possibility of recovery, not just an 'X' on the card.
-
I note the distance to the centre line bunker in the example and compare it to the Principal's nose.
At Wyndance, you'd knock it down the right every time and then have wedge/9/8 into the green.
At TOC playing safe short and/or left of the Principal's nose leaves you a considerably longer shot.
-
At TOC playing safe short and/or left of the Principal's nose leaves you a considerably longer shot.
As well as more difficulty along the way, principally the fronting bunkers one is confronted by with an approach from the left side of the fairway -- and arguably a more difficult angle into the green, AND the possibility of a Watson-like iron into that green sailing long and OB. Thus, the safe passage left off the tee is "penalized" with the harder approach shot. The riskier shot off the tee right of the PN bunkers is rewarded with a much easier approach -- no fronting bunkers, less likelihood (I'd argue) of a shot OB on the approach, a more forgiving approach.
-
The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.
It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.
It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.
-
The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.
It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.
It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.
The hole dictates nothing of the sort. There is ample room to accommodate all sorts of shots.
Accommodation, not options, should be favored. That's the missing lesson in golf today.
-
The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.
It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.
It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.
The hole dictates nothing of the sort. There is ample room to accommodate all sorts of shots.
Accommodation, not options, should be favored. That's the missing lesson in golf today.
Perhaps dictates is too strong a word.
It seems to me that 1) there is little advantage to any approach angle, 2) the centerline bunker is going to be carriable for a high percentage of golfers playing the "correct" tee. (Unless it plays into the prevailing wind.) Therefore, it seems the predominate play is to aim for the center playing over/past the bunker, and wedging in. For those golfers that cannot dependably carry the centerline bunker, they begin to be in a range requiring a too low a lofted club to play dependably over the three fronting bunkers. They begin to consider/need to play a lay up for a chip, because going over is not attractive. So it seems to me it is a short par 4 requiring a layup for the weakest hitters. Seems a bad hole to me.
The forced carry from the tee seems in most cases not to be too long, given the perfect lie on the tee.
-
The hole rarely plays with any sort of crosswind. It is a very windy site and plays either hard downwind or hard into the wind.
Playing downwind the prudent is actually not to carry the bunker, which leaves a pitch that will not hold the green, but instead to lay back to full wedge range right of the bunker.
Into the wind, the hole is much better. You really want to have less than 150 into the green but that requires challenging the centerline bunker, which is only carryable by very long hitters into a headwind. From there, the approach is exacting, but if struck well, balls will definitely stop on the green.
Again, the left side is irrelevant as no player would ever hit it there on purpose.
-
There is more to life than angles, as I finally learned at Pinehills Nicklaus this spring.
This hole plays much shorter down the more difficult left-hand side.
-
Garland:
From the photos provided, it looks to be a 225-yd shot to safely carry the centerline bunker from the blue tees (340 yds, where I'd probably play the hole, or 210 yd-carry from the whites, assuming the white tees are 15 yards shorter than the blues). Now, if that was my only choice, I'd still think long and hard about trying to carry the bunker vs. playing short of it -- a 210-225-yd carry is, for me, a challenge. With a favoring wind, maybe -- but I'd have to think about it. On this hole, I'd never think of trying to carry the bunker -- if it in fact is an 80-yard-wide fairway, there is something like 40 yards of fairway between the right edge of the centerline bunker and the fairway bunker right. My play -- everytime absent a strong wind behind me -- would be: aim at the bunker, depend on my usual fade off the tee, and hope I don't banana slice it into the fairway bunker right. Why bother to carry the bunker, when I'm much safer playing off to the right, and carrying the bunker doesn't yield that much more of an advantage (or little that I can detect from the photos and discussion so far)? In fact, depending on the day's pin (say, anything center to left side), I'm better off the farther right I go as long as I stay in the fairway.
Admittedly, this reflects the way I approach most rounds -- getting around the course safely, with goal #1 being avoidance of blow-up holes and Xs on the card. I don't have enough game to go flag-hunting and chasing birdies and eagles. This particular hole is bothersome because it appears to give the lesser player like me the opportunity to do what we so often don't get to do -- gamble on a riskier shot off the tee in pursuit of a safer par or elusive birdie. I can't usually do that on a par 4 of 450+ yards; this hole has some of the attributes to allow me to do that, but messes it up with the bunker placement and green orientation.
-
Phil,
My point exactly, "it messes it up".
-
If it is much shorter to play left, then I like the hole even more! I love it when holes present vexing options: a shorter approach, but from a less preferred angle vs a better angle but a longer approach. If everything is clear cut, that's when decision making is easiest.
225, I'm going right at it every time.
It's interesting how folks only seem to dismiss options when they aren't available to them.
Accommodation and vexing choices - that's the best! This is now my favorite short par 4.
Not really, but it was fun while it lasted.
-
Phil,
My point exactly, "it messes it up".
Garland:
See some of my earlier posts -- I really like the placement of the centerline pot bunker. It's the greenside bunkers fronting the left entrance that I think are misplaced.
-
If it is much shorter to play left, then I like the hole even more! I love it when holes present vexing options: a shorter approach, but from a less preferred angle vs a better angle but a longer approach. If everything is clear cut, that's when decision making is easiest.
225, I'm going right at it every time.
It's interesting how folks only seem to dismiss options when they aren't available to them.
Accommodation and vexing choices - that's the best! This is now my favorite short par 4.
Not really, but it was fun while it lasted.
George:
When I host you at Lawsonia after you've hosted me at Oakmont ;D -- I'll show you a truly fine option-filled par 4 that is my favorite short par 4 that I've played. Langford used visual deception and an expertly placed mound/bunker that "hides" the most optimal line, while providing clear visuals off the tee for the line of charm that is the imprudent path to the green. It's the 8th hole on the front nine, immediately following the more famous boxcar "Short" 7th hole.
-
Phil, I don't doubt there are better short par 4s. I just think it looks like a fun hole to play to me, one that I would not tire of anytime soon.
I should also add that I applaud almost any shortish par 4 that is not a driveable one - I think golf is sorely lacking in interesting 340-380 yard par 4s.
-
Phil,
My point exactly, "it messes it up".
Garland:
See some of my earlier posts -- I really like the placement of the centerline pot bunker. It's the greenside bunkers fronting the left entrance that I think are misplaced.
Absent wind preventing it (i.e., just looking at the photos) I see two options. Carry the center bunker, wedge over the greenside bunkers. Not being able to carry the bunker, not being able to reasonably handle the greenside bunkers. I.e., in the second option, the greenside bunkers "mess it up". With the first option, the hole seems too straightforward. Although my handicap is high, I wouldn't give a second thought to trying to carry the center bunker from the blues.
Of course, Mark has come on here and given us the wind, which totally messes up my analysis.
-
Mark,
The hole rarely plays with any sort of crosswind. It is a very windy site and plays either hard downwind or hard into the wind.
The site is relatively open, so when the wind blows it certainly affects the course (although less so on 3, 4, 5, and 6 which are more treed. Southern Ontario has relatively mild winds compared to many other really windy areas. It is calm almost 15% of the time.
My experience is that East winds (in your face on this hole) are the least common in the Southern Ontario. You must have had unusual winds when you've played there, if the wind was often in your face. Check out the Buttonville airport wind chart at the NAV Canada site. http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/publications/lak/OnQc/5-OQ33E.PDF (http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/publications/lak/OnQc/5-OQ33E.PDF)
In the summer winds are least frequently from the NE, E and SE. The winds are more likely to be calm than to be from those three directions. Winds from the N, NW and W are twice as likely as NE, E, and SE.
I think this generally makes the second shot more difficult in that it's harder to stop the ball on the green with a tail wind. An east wind, in your face, would certainly make stopping the ball easier, but makes distance control more difficult. Wind would increas the difficulty of any hole, regardless of direction.
-
Phil,
Are you suggesting that an unimpeded low risk short second shot should be the reward for a risky drive executed well? Or, are you suggesting that the bunkers front, table top green, and runoff back constitute one or two too many risks for a shot that should be rewarded.
One thing that comes to mind is the age old question of how to design a hole that is rewarding to both players like you and me and for scratch players and also for weak players. It probably can't be done. This hole will probably appeal more to the better player who is better equipped to handle its challenges.
-
Garland,
How far do you carry the ball? Are you long but erratic? Do you usually play tees far enough forward to suit your scoring or to suit your driver length?
I have seen very few players actually carry the centre bunker. For me it is right on the cusp. Given it is the 2nd hole of the day, I'm not usually inclined to take it on. But to the thinking player standing on the tee, it is an option to try to carry it. A siren song for most, I'd guess.
Anyway, if you, or others are long enough to carry it, you might end up with a side hill lie that increases the interest (or risk) of the second shot. I have to think that even for the long hitter, the features of the green and the often firm condtions would keep the hole from being boring for them.
At least the quarry is far enough left that the erratic player like you is less likely to lose your ball left. ;)
-
Mark,
I'm curious how you would have used the quarry more effectively. Take a look at Google Earth and what the property looked like in 2005 before the course was built. It looks like a difficult property to me. The bottom of the quarry is essentially flat. They must have moved a lot of dirt to get even 14 and 15 down there. The quarry (gravel) walls on the west and south sides are 40 to 50 feet high and look pretty unstable. There were three quarry ponds at the bottom where they probably got below the water table and were probably not really moveable. Would you have preferred a couple of more holes in the bottom where the par 3 course is?
-
One other thought on the 2nd hole. The left fairway is about 23 - 25 yards wide. There was a time when that was a pretty common width for a single fairway. This one just looks relatively narrow. What's unfair, or risky about giving a player a fairway option of that width.
There is another 36 hole club on the west side of the city, The Country Club, built in the 1950's, where many of the fairways are 25 to 30 yards wide. I can play both the CC and Wyndance and I've got to say that I like the width and options approach better.
-
Bryan: Although Southern Ontario has relatively mild winds, Wyndance and Uxbridge sit on a plateau high above the GTA. There is around 750 feet of elevation change from Lake Ontario/Downtown Toronto to Wyndance, and the winds are abnormally high in the Wyndance area.
-
Garland,
How far do you carry the ball? Are you long but erratic? Do you usually play tees far enough forward to suit your scoring or to suit your driver length?
...
During primary golf season, I usually carry the ball around 230. If I reach back a little further, I can carry it 250 here at sea level. I am erratic, often considerably off line.
I play a course with next to no choice in tees. At GCA events, I usually play whatever others want to play, which usually means going back from the tees identified for me by handicap.
-
Phil,
Are you suggesting that an unimpeded low risk short second shot should be the reward for a risky drive executed well? Or, are you suggesting that the bunkers front, table top green, and runoff back constitute one or two too many risks for a shot that should be rewarded.
One thing that comes to mind is the age old question of how to design a hole that is rewarding to both players like you and me and for scratch players and also for weak players. It probably can't be done. This hole will probably appeal more to the better player who is better equipped to handle its challenges.
Not in all cases. On this particular hole -- yes, I'd like to see the risky tee shot, successfully executed, rewarded with an easier 2nd shot. And I'd like to see the easier tee shot right result in a tougher approach shot. Given the length of the hole, I don't really mind the table-top nature of the green, or the backside run-off, although those are obviously things I'd like to see on the ground before fully committing to that view. ;) To me, the fronting bunkers left and the orientation of the green are what's wrong with the hole. The shot in with a well-executed drive left is probably 8-iron at most? Maybe 9-iron/wedge for the very good golfer. That doesn't strike me as overly demanding in terms of hitting a table-top green (as long as its re-oriented).
It seems the best golf courses out there, at least those praised here on GCA, are those that find that spectrum of challenging top-tier players while not overly penalizing the average hack. I think Ran's original review of Old Macdonald suggested that was the genius of that course (I haven't played) -- that the average player might find it the most rewarding of the four Bandon courses, while it might frustrate the top-tier player more than any other Bandon course. (I once got in a fairly interesting discussion here with some folks about whether Sand Hills falls into this category -- based on the pictures I've seen, it looks fairly penal, compared to, say, pictures I've seen of Ballyneal. But others disagree quite pointedly.)
Getting back to this particular hole, its length to me offers the opportunity to provide a solid risk-reward hole for a range of players, but would be better off with some changes.
-
Having played this hole once I remember that going left looked like a bad option. Going directly at the right side fwy bunker sets up easily and from there the next shot looks pretty difficult especially with a trailing breeze.
I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot bunker, adding some soft shaping that would allow some shots to bounce towards the putting surface.
There is also a preference to take out the middle pot bunker and just leave the one on the left. Slightly expand the runway entrance on the left side but keep a sharp and closely mown ridge in place of the bunker. Some shots would roll up with the correct bounce and others would stop in their place leaving a few recovery options available to the player.
The shaping of the entire hole takes away from any risk reward options, the left side is not a good choice off the tee but if you miss left its nice to have a chance and not be playing from the rough. The hole could have been pretty good if the green and two front bunkers were angled the opposite way and shaped to allow approaches to run in up the left side. That would have made for an appropriate risk IMHO.