Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Topp on December 15, 2014, 03:27:22 PM
-
I know Tillie built a number of par fives with a hell's half acre type bunker complex similar number 7 at Pine Valley. I(t seems as though many of those designs were softened over the years - presumably due to complaints from shorter hitting members.
Does such an approach work in a modern design on a private golf course? I can see some novelty and thrill associated with such a hole but any sort of substantial carry is going to kill short hitters or high handicaps. Also, unless the complex is placed at precisely the right distance, I see it more as a penal distraction than an interesting strategic hazard.
Should such a design be included in a modern golf course?
-
Lord I hope so since we are looking at restoring/adding the Hells Half Acre Flynn put in and Tillie took out.
Does it work as a part of modern architecture, I think so.
-
Lord I hope so since we are looking at restoring/adding the Hells Half Acre Flynn put in and Tillie took out.
Does it work as a part of modern architecture, I think so.
Ed: I view restoration as a slightly different question but I am interested in whether you think restoring the feature will make for a more interesting golf hole. If so, why?
-
Pro-rata in comparison to yee olde days when such hazards were built and given the distance the modern ball carries after being hit by a modern club swung by a 2014 size person, how many yards wider would an equivalent hazard need to be these days? And should such a hazard be equally increased pro-rata in depth or face height?
Atb
-
Years ago Tommy Naccarato had a similar thread. At the time, I said not. Not even sure it worked back then in the days of lesser carry. Yes, scary. But the angled fairway with a safe way around still makes more sense to me than any sort of forced carry.
That is more true, especially if not natural (i.e., Cypress 16, which does have a safer way) but specifically built. I sure wouldn't go out of my way to build an artificial one, but might accept it on a sandy site where it occurred naturally.
I think even Tillie called it one of his pet ideas, implying he knew it was out of the norm (well, he had to, I guess) Yeah, he is famous, yeah he is great, but it doesn't mean that every pet idea he had was great. Maybe worth restoring, but that is about it.
-
I know Tillie built a number of par fives with a hell's half acre type bunker complex similar number 7 at Pine Valley. I(t seems as though many of those designs were softened over the years - presumably due to complaints from shorter hitting members.
Does such an approach work in a modern design on a private golf course? I can see some novelty and thrill associated with such a hole but any sort of substantial carry is going to kill short hitters or high handicaps. Also, unless the complex is placed at precisely the right distance, I see it more as a penal distraction than an interesting strategic hazard.
Should such a design be included in a modern golf course?
By the #s:
Pine Valley HHA in 1930 ≈ 1.5 acres
Pine Valley HHA in 2011 ≈ 1 acre
The way they apparently shrunk it actually may have made it harder: it appears to have been narrowed (but not shortened) via tree encroachment.
-
Eddie B. - Which course?
-
Of course it works and works well. It was in our MP plan and in Doak's MP plan for Cherry Hills (it was Flynn's original design concept for Cherry Hills taken from #7 at Pine Valley). Tom's team restored it and it worked well in the BMW Championship! We have a "Hell's Half Acre" concept at my home club (Lehigh CC), an old Flynn design and it is my (and many others) favorite hole on the golf course.
-
Of course it works and works well. It was in our MP plan and in Doak's MP plan for Cherry Hills (it was Flynn's original design concept for Cherry Hills taken from #7 at Pine Valley). Tom's team restored it and it worked well in the BMW Championship! We have a "Hell's Half Acre" concept at my home club (Lehigh CC), an old Flynn design and it is my (and many others) favorite hole on the golf course.
Mark: How do high handicaps deal with it? Does it present difficulty for better players? It seems to me that it would be very difficult to create such a hazard for a wide ranging membership that can be negotiated by high handicaps while still forcing the low handicap player to worry about it.
-
Of course it works and works well. It was in our MP plan and in Doak's MP plan for Cherry Hills (it was Flynn's original design concept for Cherry Hills taken from #7 at Pine Valley). Tom's team restored it and it worked well in the BMW Championship! We have a "Hell's Half Acre" concept at my home club (Lehigh CC), an old Flynn design and it is my (and many others) favorite hole on the golf course.
This aerial tour of Lehigh must be out of date - 11? http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lehighcc/aerial.htm#
The Cherry Hills complex is a lot more player friendly than the Pine Valley version - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/cherryhillscc/aerial.htm#
-
The Hell's Half Acre is one of my favorite hazard types. I think they work great on the second shot of par 5s that are unreachable for most or that have recoverable trouble surrounding the driving zone.
My old home course has a par 5 with a water hazard of a Hell's Half Acre size in the traditional Hell's Half Acre location. If you hit a good drive, the second shot across the hazard is a simple one. Hit your drive into the rough though, or the old fairway bunker on the hole, and you're faced with a choice of laying up for a 200+ yard 3rd shot or risking disaster to try and set up a wedge approach. It's one of the most exciting shots on the course. I also love the more traditional Hell's Half Acre hazards at places like Dormie Club's 17th.
It's frustrating that so many great architectural features only really are enjoyable when you hit the ball as intended - a Redan is a big letdown when you come over the top and pull one left of the green and miss the chance to use the architecture. As someone well capable of puking all over myself when I play a great hole, I appreciate that the Hell's Half Acre is most in play and most exciting for a player who hits a crappy tee shot and leaves himself with an exciting decision as a result.
-
Of course it works and works well. It was in our MP plan and in Doak's MP plan for Cherry Hills (it was Flynn's original design concept for Cherry Hills taken from #7 at Pine Valley). Tom's team restored it and it worked well in the BMW Championship! We have a "Hell's Half Acre" concept at my home club (Lehigh CC), an old Flynn design and it is my (and many others) favorite hole on the golf course.
FYI, the membership has asked to soften that feature.
Just putting in a cross bunker on a par-5 hole is hard enough to justify nowadays. The ones on the 17th at Streamsong (Blue) attracted a lot of attention and praise, I think just because you so seldom see such features anymore. But building a feature that requires 75 yards of carry just kills the average woman golfer. Pine Valley doesn't have to care about that, but most clubs do!
-
Can someone tell me how HHA works for a lower speed player who carries it 60-100 yards?(a real and relevant part of golf's population)
What strategy exactly are they employing?
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
-
Jeff,
So I've been doing a little math. Half an acre is about 50 yards by 50 yards. Make it a square HHA and that's your problem done and dusted. I wonder how many HHAs are really an acre or more. There could be a nice run here for Lionel Hutz once he's done suing the marketers of "The Neverending Story."
-
Jeff,
So I've been doing a little math. Half an acre is about 50 yards by 50 yards. Make it a square HHA and that's your problem done and dusted.."
I'm taking the over on that....
-
I'm expecting at least partial credit for showing my work:
1) 50 yards * 50 yards = 2,500 square yards
2) 1/2 acre = 2,420 square yards (according to here: http://www.asknumbers.com/acre-to-square-yard.aspx )
3) or ~ 49 yards by 49 yards
4) I win! YASSSSSSSS!!!!!
-
I'm expecting at least partial credit for showing my work:
1) 50 yards * 50 yards = 2,500 square yards
2) 1/2 acre = 2,420 square yards (according to here: http://www.asknumbers.com/acre-to-square-yard.aspx )
3) or ~ 49 yards by 49 yards
4) I win! YASSSSSSSS!!!!!
At least you're showing your work.
I'm going off a round I played there in 1992!
-
A related thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55674.0/html
-
I am not saying the HHAs should be built, but if found and used, I am having a hard time seeing the issue. Sometimes, the greater percentage of golfers has to be ignored if greatness is staring the archie in the face. This is why forward tees should exist. Think of Calamity Corner. It would be a calamity if an archie decided that hole shouldn't be included because some people can't make the carry. There are many examples of fine holes of this nature. Again, sometimes it makes sense to make weaker players walk forward to a shorter tee. All holes can't be all things to all golfers.
Ciao
-
All (I believe) of the aerials in the thread that Mark Saltzman posted (reply #17) showing HHAs have 17 other holes without any bunkers in their fairways. Seems like a waste to concentrate so many bunkers in one place if you aren't going to move more of the others on a course inward instead of having them all on the edges.
I don't mind an HHA, although I like this better
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5200290334_56c78048b9_b.jpg)
-
Thanks for the link, Mark. Interestingly a number of the aerials seem to show true half-acre HHAs. I wonder if Tilly's HHA sizes grew over time.
Here's another, by Tillinghast and Lees, at Hempstead:
(http://psychobunny.smugmug.com/photos/i-D73CZzv/0/XL/i-D73CZzv-XL.png)
According to the most-recent aerial on Google Maps, it is NLE, a data point in support perhaps of the argument members don't like HHAs.
-
Thanks for the link, Mark. Interestingly a number of the aerials seem to show true half-acre HHAs. I wonder if Tilly's HHA sizes grew over time.
Here's another, by Tillinghast and Lees, at Hempstead:
According to the most-recent aerial on Google Maps, it is NLE, a data point in support perhaps of the argument members don't like HHAs.
Is your aerial of an earlier course that moved to a new location - Tilly and Lees Hempstead seems to be going strong - but I didn't notice a HHA - so you meant the hole itself, not the complete course? :)
http://www.hempsteadcountryclub.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=264114&ssid=129538&vnf=1
-
Can someone tell me how HHA works for a lower speed player who carries it 60-100 yards?(a real and relevant part of golf's population)
What strategy exactly are they employing?
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
I don't mind cross bunkers but think they are much more playable by all on a diagonal. That way you can make the crossing carry when you want to, not when you have to.
-
Thanks for the link, Mark. Interestingly a number of the aerials seem to show true half-acre HHAs. I wonder if Tilly's HHA sizes grew over time.
Here's another, by Tillinghast and Lees, at Hempstead:
According to the most-recent aerial on Google Maps, it is NLE, a data point in support perhaps of the argument members don't like HHAs.
Is your aerial of an earlier course that moved to a new location - Tilly and Lees Hempstead seems to be going strong - but I didn't notice a HHA - so you meant the hole itself, not the complete course? :)
http://www.hempsteadcountryclub.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=264114&ssid=129538&vnf=1
Jim, yes -- the feature, not the hole or the course.
-
Stephen Kay's par5 HHA @ Blue Heron Pines, Galloway, NJ (1993)
(http://blueheronpines.com/home/wp-content/gallery/golf/7z1a0443.jpg)
-
Of course it works and works well. It was in our MP plan and in Doak's MP plan for Cherry Hills (it was Flynn's original design concept for Cherry Hills taken from #7 at Pine Valley). Tom's team restored it and it worked well in the BMW Championship! We have a "Hell's Half Acre" concept at my home club (Lehigh CC), an old Flynn design and it is my (and many others) favorite hole on the golf course.
FYI, the membership has asked to soften that feature.
Just putting in a cross bunker on a par-5 hole is hard enough to justify nowadays. The ones on the 17th at Streamsong (Blue) attracted a lot of attention and praise, I think just because you so seldom see such features anymore. But building a feature that requires 75 yards of carry just kills the average woman golfer. Pine Valley doesn't have to care about that, but most clubs do!
Tom, please remember the 18th at Riverfront .... more than a 75 yard carry. (for those of you not familiar, it is a wetland - hazard all the way across the fairway at the +/-350 yard mark)
-
I am not saying the HHAs should be built, but if found and used, I am having a hard time seeing the issue. Sometimes, the greater percentage of golfers has to be ignored if greatness is staring the archie in the face. This is why forward tees should exist. Think of Calamity Corner. It would be a calamity if an archie decided that hole shouldn't be included because some people can't make the carry. There are many examples of fine holes of this nature. Again, sometimes it makes sense to make weaker players walk forward to a shorter tee. All holes can't be all things to all golfers.
Ciao
Sean,
How would a shorter tee help a lower clubhead speed player on HHA?
The hazard exists from the 285 mark to the 380 mark.(according to Ran review on this site)
There are many regular golfers who do not carry the ball 95 yards and that's not a driver (which =s about 125-145 total yards)
Are you going to walk 385 yards up and play a 190 par 5?
Calamatity is a fine hole as you say because a shorter tee can be located where the carry can be made and the lower speed player can experience the same type of thrill.
HHA is a 95 yard carry according to Ran and that assumes an absolutely perfect layup and that isn't going to happen so the carry is effectively 10-15 yards more than the actual carry.
-
I like the idea of throwing in a big fairway cross bunker now and again but a Hell's Half Acre feature is certainly near the bottom of my favourite's list, even more so if the wings and rest of the site isn't native, sandy vegetation and scrub.
-
I am not saying the HHAs should be built, but if found and used, I am having a hard time seeing the issue. Sometimes, the greater percentage of golfers has to be ignored if greatness is staring the archie in the face. This is why forward tees should exist. Think of Calamity Corner. It would be a calamity if an archie decided that hole shouldn't be included because some people can't make the carry. There are many examples of fine holes of this nature. Again, sometimes it makes sense to make weaker players walk forward to a shorter tee. All holes can't be all things to all golfers.
Ciao
Sean,
How would a shorter tee help a lower clubhead speed player on HHA?
The hazard exists from the 285 mark to the 380 mark.(according to Ran review on this site)
There are many regular golfers who do not carry the ball 95 yards (which =s about 125-145 total yards)
Are you going to walk 385 yards up and play a 190 par 5?
Calamatity is a fine hole as you say because a shorter tee can be located where the carry can be made and the lower speed player can experience the same type of thrill.
HHA is a 95 yard carry according to Ran and that assumes an absolutely perfect layup and that isn't going to happen so the carry is effectively 10-15 yards more than the actual carry.
Jeff
Yes, I know what you mean. A carry shot in the fairway doesn't allow alternatives for poor golfers. HHAs are on the extreme end of penal architecture, but I still think there may be a place for this sort of feature if the area isn't too rough. It wouldn't be my favourite feature and in general I think bold carries are better from the tee, but I would be very hesitant to eliminate the idea of the odd very penal fairway shot because a large percentage of golfers will have to rely on luck to cope with it. Of course, I think the idea is better if an avenue exists to skirt the trouble, but sometimes archies don't have that luxury of width. As I say, all courses can't be all things to all people.
Ciao
-
Bayonne has an interesting modern version on the par 5 4th hole - HHA comes into play on the 2nd shot and then another large bunker complex guards the front/front left of the green - not a long hole, and can be comfortably played my most in three shots, but a poor 2nd or 3rd will end up in the bunker complexes. I think it's well done and adds to the variety of the course - despite the features, the biggest issue on this hole is OB along the entire left side.
-
I would point out that the fridge full of Half Acre Brewery's Daisy Cutter makes the stupid wait at my barber shop worth it.
Yeah, off topic....
-
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w252/pwarms/pcc14-692x432_zpsae57d66f.jpg
Not sure how to post photos, but this is the link from the linked thread to Mark Salzman's recent thread (post 17 here) and photos shown by Powell Arms in his post no. 10 there, of the Tillinghast Wissahickon course. It perfectly illustrates the strategic nature of the hole on the left of the HHA. There is a carry, but you accomplish something better than if you don't. On the HHA hole, you must carry something just to advance the ball. Further, the worse the shot you hit off the tee, the more impossible the second. If you top a tee shot, that distance loss is enough punishment (Hard to reach in regulation) without the forced penalty of a long sand shot.
IMHO, the only reason for the HHA is for something different, but conceptually, its a weak feature that doesn't promote strategy and isn't hard for decent players, but does punish the hack far too disproportionally.
Some other interesting thoughts, but I wonder if Tillie cut back the sand amount in this one vs. a naturally sandy PV after seeing how hard it is, because a sandy waste wouldn't fit a Parkland course, or just because the client couldn't afford a half acre of bunker sand shipped in from somewhere. My guess its a bit of all three, with the last being the biggest factor and the first being the smallest.
-
How would a shorter tee help a lower clubhead speed player on HHA?
The hazard exists from the 285 mark to the 380 mark.(according to Ran review on this site)
There are many regular golfers who do not carry the ball 95 yards (which =s about 125-145 total yards)
Pine Valley's Hell's Half Acre is 95 yards long. I don't think Tillinghast took a tape measure with him and measured the ones he created to the same size...
There are plenty of "Hell's Half Acre template" hazards that require a shorter carry. Pine Valley was specifically designed to be a very difficult course that made few attempts to coddle weak players, thus the severe carry. If a course built for the average market features a 50 or 60 yard Hell's Half Acre hazard in the right spot, I think that's perfectly reasonable. There will always be a small percentage of players who can't make the carry, but in order to have truly interesting and compelling holes, an architect has to accept a certain tradeoff in playability in order to foster challenge. Every great course has to decide to choose a level of feebleness beyond which it won't accommodate.
-
Keith Phillips, here is my photo of that HHA at Bayonne from April of 2007, still growing in back then. I don't think it is very deep, but it does go across the entire fairway. In addition the uphill nature of the HHA to a mostly blind landing area, makes that feature a great one on that course.
View from fairway
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/IMG_1062_zps2c536451.jpg)
View from Rough mounds on the right
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/IMG_1061_zpsc45eeb6d.jpg)
-
I like the idea of throwing in a big fairway cross bunker now and again but a Hell's Half Acre feature is certainly near the bottom of my favourite's list, even more so if the wings and rest of the site isn't native, sandy vegetation and scrub.
That said, When I played Boston GC, the Par-5 15th was perhaps my favourite hole and it had this feature which added to the aesthetic for sure. The hole is made great by the second shot landing area and green site though.
-
Jason,
Your aerial version of Lehigh’s #11 is correct! You were just expecting to see “sand” in the area of “Hells’ Half Acre”. At Lehigh, the sand is replaced by a steeply sloped hill that is cut at rough height. Trust me, it is a great “hazard” and serves the purpose well. It also allows for a recovery shot which is nice as well. The beauty of architectural design concepts is that the same concept can be articulated (presented) many different ways!
The same goes for the 17th hole at Cherry Hills. That hole was designed by Flynn to model the design concept of #7 at Pine Valley. At Cherry Hills, Flynn “softened” his version here of the “Hell’s Half Acre” feature. And at the green he surrounded it with a water hazard rather than sand as it is at Pine Valley. Still the same design concept holds at both holes - you need to cross a hazard in the fairway and you need to cross a hazard that surrounds the green.
To Tom Doak, if you look at our MP version for Cherry Hills for the #17 hole, we had the fairway cross bunkers shifted slightly to the right so there was some fairway all along the left (If I wasn’t traveling I would post the plan). A higher handicap golfer (any golfer for that matter) could actually play along the left side of the cross bunkers with a putter if they wanted to and avoid the hazards. We also wanted the entire hole corridor to be wider (we wanted to remove both Cottonwoods on the right to open up that area and allow more width to place the bunkering and mounds). If the membership wants to soften this hazard :'( , maybe you should propose this approach? I would hate to see them revert to what was there before :( At least the trees were removed from the around the island!!
The Hell’s Half Acre design concept is used MANY MANY places on MANY MANY holes. I could literally list hundreds (Carl cites just one example where Tom Doak used a cross hazard that requires a long forced carry at Riverwalk on the 18th hole). Doak used one like that at the 18th at Stonewall New as well.
The secret is not to use the same design concepts over and over again on the same golf course. If for example, every hole at Cypress Point was like the #16 hole there or even the #15 hole (both require forced carries of more than 75 yards to get to the green), the course would be considered terrible by most and totally unfair (I actually hate the word unfair). I would instead just call it poorly designed as there is no such thing as fair or unfair in golf.
By the way, the early version of Pine Valley’s Hell’s Half Acre was mostly sand. They have started to clear out some of the clutter that has grown up in it over the years (I would post a photo if I was at my office). If you can't carry the acre at PV, you just played your next shot out of the sand, so be it, it’s golf and there is often sand on golf courses!
Too many people are hung up on “fairness” and that is sad. The best golf architecture comment anyone ever gave to me was from Gil Hanse. When I was working with Forrest on our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards, Gil told me, “Mark if you can accomplish one thing with your book, I would like to see the word “fair” fall out of use in association with hazards”!
If you read the interview we did with Gil for our book, his thoughts on hazards are quite interesting. He loves centerline hazards of which Hell’s Half Acre certainly qualifies ;)
Mark
-
The Bayonne HHA calls to mind that on the 5th at Royal New Kent. To answer the thread title question: the HHA at RNK definitely works.
-
Jason,
Your aerial version of Lehigh’s #11 is correct! You were just expecting to see “sand” in the area of “Hells’ Half Acre”. At Lehigh, the sand is replaced by a steeply sloped hill that is cut at rough height. Trust me, it is a great “hazard” and serves the purpose well. It also allows for a recovery shot which is nice as well. The beauty of architectural design concepts is that the same concept can be articulated (presented) many different ways!
The same goes for the 17th hole at Cherry Hills. That hole was designed by Flynn to model the design concept of #7 at Pine Valley. At Cherry Hills, Flynn “softened” his version here of the “Hell’s Half Acre” feature. And at the green he surrounded it with a water hazard rather than sand as it is at Pine Valley. Still the same design concept holds at both holes - you need to cross a hazard in the fairway and you need to cross a hazard that surrounds the green.
To Tom Doak, if you look at our MP version for Cherry Hills for the #17 hole, we had the fairway cross bunkers shifted slightly to the right so there was some fairway all along the left (If I wasn’t traveling I would post the plan). A higher handicap golfer (any golfer for that matter) could actually play along the left side of the cross bunkers with a putter if they wanted to and avoid the hazards. We also wanted the entire hole corridor to be wider (we wanted to remove both Cottonwoods on the right to open up that area and allow more width to place the bunkering and mounds). If the membership wants to soften this hazard :'( , maybe you should propose this approach? I would hate to see them revert to what was there before :( At least the trees were removed from the around the island!!
The Hell’s Half Acre design concept is used MANY MANY places on MANY MANY holes. I could literally list hundreds (Carl cites just one example where Tom Doak used a cross hazard that requires a long forced carry at Riverwalk on the 18th hole). Doak used one like that at the 18th at Stonewall New as well.
The secret is not to use the same design concepts over and over again on the same golf course. If for example, every hole at Cypress Point was like the #16 hole there or even the #15 hole (both require forced carries of more than 75 yards to get to the green), the course would be considered terrible by most and totally unfair (I actually hate the word unfair). I would instead just call it poorly designed as there is no such thing as fair or unfair in golf.
By the way, the early version of Pine Valley’s Hell’s Half Acre was mostly sand. They have started to clear out some of the clutter that has grown up in it over the years (I would post a photo if I was at my office). If you can't carry the acre at PV, you just played your next shot out of the sand, so be it, it’s golf and there is often sand on golf courses!
Too many people are hung up on “fairness” and that is sad. The best golf architecture comment anyone ever gave to me was from Gil Hanse. When I was working with Forrest on our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards, Gil told me, “Mark if you can accomplish one thing with your book, I would like to see the word “fair” fall out of use in association with hazards”!
If you read the interview we did with Gil for our book, his thoughts on hazards are quite interesting. He loves centerline hazards of which Hell’s Half Acre certainly qualifies ;)
Mark
Thanks Mark: I like both of your eaxmples because there are a number of options that prevent the HHA hazard from imposing a strong likelihood of an X. The Cherry Hills version gives a big area in the middle that would be an option (although it would leave an extraordinarily difficult 3rd) and the Leghigh hole is short enough (and I assume downhill) so that, while the player would clearly want to get over the rough, there would be some hope if she fails to make the carry. For the long hitter, it appears that reaching the hole in two is a real temptation.
I have always thought of the hazard in terms of a death carry - where a huge number becomes a possibility due to bunkers, scrub and other nasty things in the carry area. To me it is not a question of fairness but rather whether the hazard presents interesting golf for most people that play the course. A death carry that one has no chance of making or one can easily make does not seem that interesting to me. Forcing people that cannot make the carry to venture among the wilds is similarly not that interesting.
Softening the hazard from the original is one way to make the hole more pleasurable for a higher percentage of rounds while maintaining the challenge if one wants to reach the green in regulation.
-
When you boil it down, Hell's Half Acre is simply a design feature that requires a "forced carry" and that design concept is used zillions of times (to different extremes) throughout golf course design! Again the secret is not to overuse any single concept on the same course.
-
Mark,
Haven't seen your CH master plan in a while, but if you left a sliver of FW down one side, it is slightly better than a full forced carry.
I think a forced (vs. optional) carry is especially not great when its a fairway wood in the golfers hand. Par 3s are best - on the tee with an iron, and other tee shots (ball on tee with driver) are probably the most frequently used forced carries these days.
it does seem as if ESA's are forcing our hands to create more forced carries now than in the Golden Age.......
-
A couple questions:
I'm not clear how #17 at Cherry Hills is (or was) a Hell's Half Acre Hole in the sense that Pine Valley's is. Yes there is a forced carry (3 in fact, 2 cross bunkers and a moat green) but do those really make it a "Hell's Half Acre Hole"? Seems to me a very different concept when there's grass in the 100+ yards vs. sand and other stuff as at Pine Valley. The demands and decision making of Cherry Hills #17 are in many respects better and more interesting than #7 at Pine Valley, where one has no choice but to hit it over the hazard.
Mark Fine, how did #17 "work well" in the BMW Championship?
-
By the way, the early version of Pine Valley’s Hell’s Half Acre was mostly sand. They have started to clear out some of the clutter that has grown up in it over the years (I would post a photo if I was at my office). If you can't carry the acre at PV, you just played your next shot out of the sand, so be it, it’s golf and there is often sand on golf courses!
Mark
(http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/ag266/croselle726/InternetExplorerWallpaper_zps9b02379d.png) (http://s1370.photobucket.com/user/croselle726/media/InternetExplorerWallpaper_zps9b02379d.png.html)
I believe this is what HHA used to look like back in the day and this is far less intimidating compared to what one faces today IMO.
-
Lord I hope so since we are looking at restoring/adding the Hells Half Acre Flynn put in and Tillie took out.
Does it work as a part of modern architecture, I think so.
Ed: I view restoration as a slightly different question but I am interested in whether you think restoring the feature will make for a more interesting golf hole. If so, why?
Fair question Jason,
I think it will be better because it puts thinking back into the golf hole that is not there now. It also will introduce a blind landing area for those who wish to fly it over the bunkers. Personally I like the idea but fully understand I may be in the minority.
It takes away that there really is no punishment for a poorly hit shot. If you thin one or top it you now have no real consequence other than a longer third shot. Add in the crossing hazard and now there are real consequences to a mis hit shot.
-
Eddie B. - Which course?
Concord a ring around the collar club outside of Philly. One of GCAs ex members has the original plans and wow is it neat looking.
ed
-
Jeff,
My Master Plan for Cherry Hills (at least the rendering for #17) is posted on this site somewhere. A copy is also in my Bunkers, Pits, & Other Hazards book. Also in the book is a copy of Flynn’s original design plans for the hole as well as an aerial of what he actually built. As I said, in our MP plan, we allowed some room on the left to create an option of no forced carry.
Doug,
Flynn patterned #17 at Cherry Hills very much after #7 at Pine Valley all the way from tee to green. If you saw side by side aerials of the two holes (which I have posted on this site and is also in my book) you would see an eerie comparison. There are two other holes at Cherry Hills that were patterned after Pine Valley as well.
Chris,
Great photo but that actually looks scarier than what is there today.
-
Chris,
Great photo but that actually looks scarier than what is there today.
Mark I guess the reason it looks scarier to me today is because of the foliage and vegetation that has encroached on both the left and the right sides of the entire length of the hole but I think we can both agree that you don't want to be in there in either 1930 or 2014.
-
An interesting point Chris.
I think the depth of the HHA sand pits in 1930 look far worse. Something that I would have to bring a wedge in with me. Today I think its more likely to have a longer advancing shot if you get a good swing without any brush in the way.
It's almost as if the challenge of the PV HHA has shifted.
Mark
-
8) ;D
The "half acre"at PVGC is closer to an acre , approximately 100 yards by 50 yards. It's still a a great feature today with new equipment and bigger people.lol. It doesn't work everywhere , but thats ok too. Not all golf course are championship courses , despite their length.
It's a great feature , but doesn't need to be replicated too,often . Most clubs don't need features that can slow play and discourage players. Pine Valley Is a unique place that works on many levels as a championship course , but wouldn't be my choice for daily play. I love it as many know but there are no carts , no women , and it takes no prisoners .
-
Doug,
Flynn patterned #17 at Cherry Hills very much after #7 at Pine Valley all the way from tee to green. If you saw side by side aerials of the two holes (which I have posted on this site and is also in my book) you would see an eerie comparison. There are two other holes at Cherry Hills that were patterned after Pine Valley as well.
Thanks Mark I will look at it in your book, though I don't get it unless Flynn planned something ugly and not green grass between the cross bunkers.
Also, you didn't answer this question: how did #17 "work well" in the BMW Championship?
-
I found Mark's Cherry Hills drawing from a 2012 thread. A very cool history of the hole although I agree with Doug that this is a softened version from the original and, even then, someone must not have liked the original at some point.
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c43/mkfine/CherryHills17ChronologyTwo.jpg)
-
From this tour it appears that the bunkers start at 225 from the middle of the green and laying up short of the final cross bunkers leaves you 150 yards. There would be a significant incentive to carry them all if possible.
http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/cherryhillscc/aerial.htm#
-
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
Jeff, This is a question, because I don't know. Has Rees ever designed a HHA? Also, if he hasn't how do we know he would be crucified if he didn't try? I know for a fact, I'd love to see him get out of his normal comfort zone and design one. But this would mean less uniformity in a style that he seemingly relies on quite often.
As far as being the slower lesser players, I know for a fact that I would love having that element of blindness and degree of naturalness that a HHA usually brings, as well as the exciting thrill of the carry. But that's me. For instance, at Rustic Canyon's 10th, the HHA is sometimes an excellent warning for me to check my alignment, because the angle favors a push into the same hazard that runs up the right side of fairway towards and short right of the green.
To some extent, I also look at the 14th at Rustic to be of a similar HHA nature, when carrying the sandy, scrub creek bed. This shot off of the tee is my undoing of many a round at Rustic Canyon, yet, I look forward to trying to conquer it each and every time I play there. I want to accept the challenge and beat the hole.
From the aesthetics standpoint, the beautiful nature, with its sandy scrub, mounds and shapes of sandy interest speaks volumes to me in the art of the architecture, which I think is also most very important.
-
Running a little late to the party, but here is another Tillie HHA hole - No. 6 at Lakewood Country Club in Westlake, Ohio - that fits the earlier description of a hazard that is not much in play for the better golfer who finds the fairway. But hit it in the rough or short off the tee and you are certainly laying up, leaving nearly 200 yards into a small, well-bukered green. If you decide to take it on, more often than not, you will be hitting from the sand or off an awkward lie on one of the grass "islands" in the hazard, which is considered a waste bunker.
Here is a shot taken from the landing area of a solid tee shot. The hole only plays about 525, so you are about 250-275 from green, and 150-175 to clear the hazard. Given the flatness of the property, the carry looks a little less intimidating than it really is. But there is another 80 yards of fairway on the other side, so you can take plenty of extra club to carry it.
(http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/rr345/MGMarch_2009/18_lakewoodcc__06approach.jpg)
Here is a shot from the right rough taken during the Cleveland Open event earlier this year.
(http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/rr345/MGMarch_2009/LakewoodCC_no6HHA.jpg)
You can see the aerial view here:
http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lakewoodcc2/aerial.htm (http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lakewoodcc2/aerial.htm)
The hazard was restored a few years ago to bring it back closer to Tillie's original plan. They did a pretty good job. In the below shot of the revised study, the HHA is at the top of the course, just under Tillie's title.
(http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/rr345/MGMarch_2009/LakewoodCC_RevisedStudy.jpg)
-
8) ;)
Tommy speaks of architectural beauty and challenge. There is no doubt that the original HHA at Pine Valley is special! I'm not even sure that it is an original concept of Crump's , as he may have borrowed it from somewhere in the Emerald Isles. Likewise the concept works aesthetically at Bayonne and I'm sure at Rustic .
As to the question if it works? I might say in very limited circumstances. It has to flow naturally out of the site, and not just get stuck in for effect. i guess that's what sometimes messes with me re: template holes. Realizing that no idea is unique, it's still not good to look to force pieces into,the jigsaw puzzle, even if you can cut and paste them .
-
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
Jeff, This is a question, because I don't know. Has Rees ever designed a HHA? Also, if he hasn't how do we know he would be crucified if he didn't try? I know for a fact, I'd love to see him get out of his normal comfort zone and design one. But this would mean less uniformity in a style that he seemingly relies on quite often.
As far as being the slower lesser players, I know for a fact that I would love having that element of blindness and degree of naturalness that a HHA usually brings, as well as the exciting thrill of the carry. But that's me. For instance, at Rustic Canyon's 10th, the HHA is sometimes an excellent warning for me to check my alignment, because the angle favors a push into the same hazard that runs up the right side of fairway towards and short right of the green.
To some extent, I also look at the 14th at Rustic to be of a similar HHA nature, when carrying the sandy, scrub creek bed. This shot off of the tee is my undoing of many a round at Rustic Canyon, yet, I look forward to trying to conquer it each and every time I play there. I want to accept the challenge and beat the hole.
From the aesthetics standpoint, the beautiful nature, with its sandy scrub, mounds and shapes of sandy interest speaks volumes to me in the art of the architecture, which I think is also most very important.
There is no argument here by me against cross or diagonal hazards, or even bunkers "inspired by HHA"
I'm talking about a true half acre of sandy scrub such as the size and conditions of PV's.
I'm saying a HHA with a 95 yard area 300 yrads off the tee, or say 180 off the tee from an extreme front tee, that must be carried may be a decent one off at Pine Valley, but would make little sense routinely employed.
If it's 180 from the forward tee, a player who drives it 120-140 (many/most women) has to hit a 30-60 yard layup, followed by a 100-130 yard CARRY with a fairway wood (depending on perfection of layup)
Rarely will such a player execute that, and the crap that has been allowed to grow/infest PV's HHA(even after cleaning) would make recovery all but impossible for such a player.
and there's hope Tommy-Rees was involved in a blind punchbowish green running AWAY from the player (well sort've involved) ;)
-
Jeff,
PV's HHA is NOT a "true" half-acre!! It is more than an entire acre.
-
I have only played one HHA (#17 at Dormie). My guess is it is a 50 yard carry, but it is all uphill. Is it unique in that aspect with it being uphill for a HHA? From a difficulty standpoint, is PV hole with a HHA more difficult than Dormie's HHA for the 18+ handi? Elevation is a big problem for weaker players.
-
I'm saying a HHA with a 95 yard area 300 yrads off the tee, or say 180 off the tee from an extreme front tee, that must be carried may be a decent one off at Pine Valley, but would make little sense routinely employed.
If it's 180 from the forward tee, a player who drives it 120-140 (many/most women) has to hit a 30-60 yard layup, followed by a 100-130 yard CARRY with a fairway wood (depending on perfection of layup)
Rarely will such a player execute that, and the crap that has been allowed to grow/infest PV's HHA(even after cleaning) would make recovery all but impossible for such a player.
I'm not sure how the player described here would have even gotten to HHA. The second shot on 2 and the tee shots on 3, 5 and 6 would all probably convince them that they were on the wrong course. Not all courses need to be playable for all players.
A HHA that adds complexity after missing the fairway on the drive is a good strategy on courses that are meant to challenge better players.
-
A variation, and a brutal one at that, is the sixth at PB. The long hill past the tee shot is rough covered and blind for the third. Any tee ball in the left bunkers is SERIOUSLY challenged. That said, shorter hitters, even from the fairway, will likely not be able to carry the distance. Thus the question, 'good or bad?'
Interesting note: in an older yardage book, a pic from the 20's seems to show the 6th with the fairway extending uninterrupted the length of the hole. Why the change, especially if shots failing to gain the upper shelf are left with the awkward lie and blindness?
-
Thanks Jason for finding that chronology of #17 at Cherry Hills. If you look at the evolution of that golf hole, you can see how all the interest and strategy was sucked out of it over the years. I remember walking that hole with Tim Moraghan from the USGA prior to the Women’s Open in 2005. I remember him stating (in front of a lot of members who were walking with us I might add) that he thought the hole, as is, was a zero and if we could get the trees taken down on the island as we wanted and restore the fairway hazards, we could make #17 one of the most exciting and pivotal holes in the 2005 Women's championship! We tried and we had a lot of supporters within the club to help us to make that happen but as Tom Doak will tell you, things don’t move too quickly at Cherry Hills (decisions there need a lot of meetings and committee consideration). We did get a few willows out on that hole that were awful prior to the tournament, but the rest of the work got put on hold until a few years later.
You can see in our MP rendering, we allowed room and an added line of play on the left of the center fairway hazards. Tom elected to go full cross hazards when the work was actually done. You can also see the close resemblance to Pine Valley’s #7. Yes Flynn's version at Cherry Hills was a little more tame (at least in the HHA) but trust me, there was a lot of trouble in that center fairway area. In addition, Flynn's green was surrounded by water and Pine Valley's is surrounded by sand. In some ways, Flynn’s version offered more strategy (and this showed at the BMW) as depending on which tees they used, some of the longer hitters could carry the first line of bunkers and have a mid to long iron into the green. Those who couldn’t carry the hazard, but could get close to it, were in that go no go range where they had to think about laying up or trying to knock it on. Temptation was brought back into the equation and to me, that is one of the aspects of great golf holes!
Jason,
To answer your question about why the hole was changed and dumbed down over the years; I could spend days going through all kinds of reasons why and how golf holes/courses evolve. What I can tell you for sure is that when I presented that #17 chronology to the membership at Cherry Hills, jaws dropped and eyes were opened. Very few, if any, knew what Flynn had originally envisioned and built for #17. It put the wheels in motion at the club to allow the restoration to happen! From what Tom Doak said, it sounds like it still might need a few more tweaks and maybe they will move to more of what we had proposed in our MP version as that opens up a line of play.
To Jim and others,
One of the great aspects of Pine Valley's HHA is that while unpredictable, a recovery shot is eminently playable. Remember, HHA is mostly sand and you can hit into HHA and almost always have a shot (even many times with a long iron, hybrid or wood) and be just fine. If HHA were a pond, it would be a different story :-\
-
John,
Another excellent example of a version of HHA put into practice. It works great at Pebble on #6 and obviously every level of golfer on the plant can deal with it.
Mark
-
Running a little late to the party, but here is another Tillie HHA hole - No. 6 at Lakewood Country Club in Westlake, Ohio - that fits the earlier description of a hazard that is not much in play for the better golfer who finds the fairway. But hit it in the rough or short off the tee and you are certainly laying up, leaving nearly 200 yards into a small, well-bukered green. If you decide to take it on, more often than not, you will be hitting from the sand or off an awkward lie on one of the grass "islands" in the hazard, which is considered a waste bunker.
Here is a shot taken from the landing area of a solid tee shot. The hole only plays about 525, so you are about 250-275 from green, and 150-175 to clear the hazard. Given the flatness of the property, the carry looks a little less intimidating than it really is. But there is another 80 yards of fairway on the other side, so you can take plenty of extra club to carry it.
I was thinking of this hole when reading the discussion. When I played it, the carry was not a problem at all. But it was tricky for my Dad because he is a short hitter and its in an awkward spot for him. Maybe he is playing from the wrong tees, either way its a tough shot for him.
Back to the question, does it work today? I'm not sure what is gained by having a large area of bunkers over just one cross bunker at the right spot/distance. It makes the carry shorter (giving short hitters more options because they can lay up closer to it), but still forces a big carry for the longer hitters trying to get close to the green. And I would guess HHA is unplayable for a substantial percentage of women.
While a cool design feature, in today's world a few cross bunkers are probably more playable and palatable.
-
Key point to make about hazards - if they were all designed to accommodate the abilities of the average golfer, golf courses would be pretty darn bland! As long as features are not overused, what are sometimes perceived as extreme or I really even dread using the word "unfair" hazards, present the most exciting and memorable shots/experiences in the game! Do you know how many balls find the green on #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass in regulation from the "average" foursome? Your guess is probably high! But what a thrill for a shot that lands on the green and stays dry :)
Just like HHA, I wouldn't recommend using that island green feature often, but I sure wouldn't want to see the water removed and the hazard softened just because most players either choke or can't make the 120 yard carry!
-
Key point to make about hazards - if they were all designed to accommodate the abilities of the average golfer, golf courses would be pretty darn bland! As long as features are not overused, what are sometimes perceived as extreme or I really even dread using the word "unfair" hazards, present the most exciting and memorable shots/experiences in the game! Do you know hope many balls find the green on #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass in regulation from the "average" foursome? Your guess is probably high! But what a thrill for a shot that lands on the green and stays dry :)
Just like HHA, I wouldn't recommend using that island green feature often, but I sure wouldn't want to see the water removed and the hazard softened just because most players either choke or can't make the 120 yard carry!
Great example Mark. Recall, however that Pete Dye then had to build a number of identical holes due to client demand. On those versions, the hole loses its originality and still results in a number of lost balls.
-
Philadelphia Cricket Club has a HHA hazard on the 7th hole. I think it works well as long as the player is hitting from the correct tee box. If they play the hole too far up and miss the fairway, most will have a go over the hazard if they are far enough up. Most who hit the shot from the rough will succeed if they play the hole too short.
But from the farther back tees its a different story. A missed fairway off the tee creates a much more difficult shot with a long iron or FW, which really brings the half acre into play.
The last few of the HHA bunkers is about 160-170 out from the green, so if you don't make the carry, you still have a chance at par...though it's certainly an outside chance.
MM
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2hsb2v4.jpg)
-
I have only played one HHA (#17 at Dormie). My guess is it is a 50 yard carry, but it is all uphill. Is it unique in that aspect with it being uphill for a HHA? From a difficulty standpoint, is PV hole with a HHA more difficult than Dormie's HHA for the 18+ handi? Elevation is a big problem for weaker players.
Ben,
I don't think Dormie's 17th is remotely similar to HHA, simply because the hazard is so much closer to the green. In Tilly's concept of the Great Hazard, you should not be able to reach the green in regulation on a three-shotter unless you are able to clear the Great Hazard with your second shot (which usually demands a formidable tee shot).
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/The_Great_Hazard.html (http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/The_Great_Hazard.html)
Comparing PV #7 to Dormie's 17th, you see the difference (estimated yardages from Google Earth):
PV Drive Zone to front of green: Assuming a "perfect" drive just at end of fairway, it looks like a 265 yard carry to front. Thus, this would meet Tillinghast's ideal that you cannot get home in 3 unless you cross the hazard (don't think he envisioned 270+ yard 4 woods)
PV End of Fairway before HHA to beginning of fairway after HHA: Roughly 110 yards down middle (about 5-10 yards shorter/longer on left/right)
PV Beginning of Fairway just past HHA to middle of green: Roughly 170 yards. The landing area for the 2nd shot is around 110-120 yards long, so you can have wide variety of 3rd shots.
For comparison, at Dormie, a layup just short of the hazard leaves roughly 115 yards (very uphill), while clearing it leaves <60 yards. The hazard at Dormie isn't as wide, but it appears more formidable because you hit straight uphill to clear it.
Clearing the hazard at Dormie (with two formidable shots) will leave a little pitch in, rather than a full iron, but laying up short of the hazard isn't nearly the punishment that Tillinghast envisioned. Unlike Tillie's template which demands two formidable shots, you can actually get away with hitting a paid of hybrids on Dormie's 17th and still be within easy range of the green, even if you ignore the Hazard. It's a good hole, but really not similar to Pine Valley's 7th (or other Great Hazard examples) in terms of strategy.
Now, if they moved the tees up 100 yards and pushed the green back 100 yards, then this bunker may have been a Great Hazard.
-
I'm saying a HHA with a 95 yard area 300 yrads off the tee, or say 180 off the tee from an extreme front tee, that must be carried may be a decent one off at Pine Valley, but would make little sense routinely employed.
If it's 180 from the forward tee, a player who drives it 120-140 (many/most women) has to hit a 30-60 yard layup, followed by a 100-130 yard CARRY with a fairway wood (depending on perfection of layup)
Rarely will such a player execute that, and the crap that has been allowed to grow/infest PV's HHA(even after cleaning) would make recovery all but impossible for such a player.
I'm not sure how the player described here would have even gotten to HHA. The second shot on 2 and the tee shots on 3, 5 and 6 would all probably convince them that they were on the wrong course. Not all courses need to be playable for all players.
A HHA that adds complexity after missing the fairway on the drive is a good strategy on courses that are meant to challenge better players.
Jim,
I would agree with both statements.
which is why I think PV is overrated and outside my top 10, despite the fact that it suits my game rather nicely.
-
::) ::)
Hey Jeff , if you don't think that Pine Valley is one of the best golf courses on the planet , doesn't even "sniff it". , you need to spend more time there. Every hole is interesting , every green is really exceptional , and it is a wonderful test of golf for all skill levels save the hack from the daily tees. It has stood the test of time and all the advancement in equipment and is still relevant .
Now I don't know what lens you are looking thru , but architecturally , it is a masterpiece. Not the perfect members course for everyday play, but a brilliantly designed test that has all the attributes of greatness in architecture thru-out . Hello ?????
-
Archie,
my commments were a bit harsh.
I wouldn't put it in MY top 10, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't rank it 1 or whatever.
I appreciate PV, it's just not in my top 10-but to be fair I played it just once 20+ years ago
By overrated I should have clarified-it's a great course that many rate #1-since I have it outside my top 10 that's my reason for saying overrated.
and frankly because my impression was that it was a bit one dimensional and that of courses is a taste issue.
sniff was definitely too strong a word
you're 100% right -especially about the part about needing to spend more time there ;) ;) ;D ;D
-
Jeff, I think you and Archie are both right; that WE have to spend much more time there! (I just love including myself, the golf course whore that I am!)
-
While I can see the occasional use, where naturally occurring, I was thinking this morning again and comparing it to a pond vs a stream. If you have a stream crossing, it can guard any particular distance (or if on an angle, a multitude of distances at different angles) just as effectively as the far end of the pond, without the terror to average golfers.
Ditto HHA. If you want to make the second a do or die carry, you can do it at whatever distance you want with a thin strip bunker crossing the fairway. Now, I like the visuals of HHA as much as anyone, but then, I rarely hit the grounder up the middle.
I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.
-
Jeff B,
Even a "creative designer” can’t accommodate all levels of ability all the time. Can it be done, maybe? But rarely, in fact I can’t think of any truly great golf course that accommodates ALL levels of golfers equally on every hole. Wasn’t it MacKenzie who said all his holes should be playable with a putter? Nice thought, but try to play #15 and #16 at Cypress Point with a putter (just to name a few of his holes). It is an admirable statement, but good luck carrying it out. Of course you can add extra tees on holes that end up taking most or all of the interesting/challenging hazards out of play, but if you do that, is it really the same hole??
Just take a moment to think about many of the greatest golf holes in the world as well as many of the greatest and most dramatic hazards in the world. Many of them present a real struggle for the average golfer. #8 at Pebble Beach, #16 at Cypress Point, #11 at Shinnecock Hills, #5 at Mid Ocean, #12 at Augusta, #17 at The Old Course, #16 at Merion, #5 at Lahinch, #3 at Prestwick, #18 at Olympic, #17 at TPC Sawgrass, #8 at St. George’s Hill, and of course #7 at Pine Valley. Yes you can be creative and lessen the challenge with added tees (maybe you put a tee just in front of HHA as an example) but even with different tees, the hazards on these holes still present major challenges for many golfers to finish the hole in single digits.
Mark
-
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
Jeff, This is a question, because I don't know. Has Rees ever designed a HHA? Also, if he hasn't how do we know he would be crucified if he didn't try? I know for a fact, I'd love to see him get out of his normal comfort zone and design one. But this would mean less uniformity in a style that he seemingly relies on quite often.
As far as being the slower lesser players, I know for a fact that I would love having that element of blindness and degree of naturalness that a HHA usually brings, as well as the exciting thrill of the carry. But that's me. For instance, at Rustic Canyon's 10th, the HHA is sometimes an excellent warning for me to check my alignment, because the angle favors a push into the same hazard that runs up the right side of fairway towards and short right of the green.
To some extent, I also look at the 14th at Rustic to be of a similar HHA nature, when carrying the sandy, scrub creek bed. This shot off of the tee is my undoing of many a round at Rustic Canyon, yet, I look forward to trying to conquer it each and every time I play there. I want to accept the challenge and beat the hole.
From the aesthetics standpoint, the beautiful nature, with its sandy scrub, mounds and shapes of sandy interest speaks volumes to me in the art of the architecture, which I think is also most very important.
With regard to 14 at Rustic Canyon, there are angles where you can shorten the carry distance in exchange for a longer second. That strategic design doesn't work at the HHA, because the carry is the same for every shot that challenges the hazard. I greatly prefer the angled options.
-
I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.
Jeff,
Can you think of a single example of a hazard that "accomodates" all levels of players that also includes any drama?
Forget all levels...give me a range from 0 to 18 handicaps.
Obviously, my opinion is that for a hazard to accomodate an 18 it must be nuetered in the eyes of the scratch...and that a dramatic hazard for the scratch is likely death for the 18...
-
I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.
Jeff,
Can you think of a single example of a hazard that "accomodates" all levels of players that also includes any drama?
Forget all levels...give me a range from 0 to 18 handicaps.
Obviously, my opinion is that for a hazard to accomodate an 18 it must be nuetered in the eyes of the scratch...and that a dramatic hazard for the scratch is likely death for the 18...
Jim - the examples are countless:
- Almost every hole at the Old Course but particularly the stream on 1, the 11th, the 12th, the 14th (hell bunker), 16th, 17th and 18th.
- Pebble Beach 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18
- Augusta National - almost every hole. 15 is an exception. 12 may be an exception but I do not think so. An 18 handicap has hope on that tee
- TPC Sawgrass - nearly every hole
- Royal Dornoch - every hole
- Sand Hills - I cannot think of a single hole that does not give the 18 handicapper a good chance
- Royal Melboune West - the entire course
- pretty much every CB Macdonald/Raynor Template
- Crystal Downs - Every single hole
Need I continue?
-
Jeff, I think you and Archie are both right; that WE have to spend much more time there! (I just love including myself, the golf course whore that I am!)
Tommy, you need to fly out east to do that! ;D
-
If Rees designed one he'd be crucified
Jeff, This is a question, because I don't know. Has Rees ever designed a HHA?
Plenty.
They are between green and next tee. ::) ::) ;) ;D
-
Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples. I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole. I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole. I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!
You need better examples if there are any ;)
Mark
-
Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples. I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole. I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole. I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!
You need better examples if there are any ;)
Mark
Mark. - the difference is that everyone has a chance on each of those holes.
-
Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples. I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole. I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole. I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!
You need better examples if there are any ;)
Mark
And I have seen mid teens handicappers escape from Hell first time and get up and down from the Road Hole bunker. So yes, those hazards work for both the world's best and the teen handicapper. In fact, your example proves that Jason was absolutely correct.
-
I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.
Jeff,
Can you think of a single example of a hazard that "accomodates" all levels of players that also includes any drama?
Forget all levels...give me a range from 0 to 18 handicaps.
Obviously, my opinion is that for a hazard to accomodate an 18 it must be nuetered in the eyes of the scratch...and that a dramatic hazard for the scratch is likely death for the 18...
Jim - the examples are countless:
- Almost every hole at the Old Course but particularly the stream on 1, the 11th, the 12th, the 14th (hell bunker), 16th, 17th and 18th.
- Pebble Beach 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18
- Augusta National - almost every hole. 15 is an exception. 12 may be an exception but I do not think so. An 18 handicap has hope on that tee
- TPC Sawgrass - nearly every hole
- Royal Dornoch - every hole
- Sand Hills - I cannot think of a single hole that does not give the 18 handicapper a good chance
- Royal Melboune West - the entire course
- pretty much every CB Macdonald/Raynor Template
- Crystal Downs - Every single hole
Need I continue?
Jason,
Thanks for making the answer for me. Obviously, Jim doesn't have what it takes to be a "creative designer" because, among other things, he makes snap judgments and eliminates possibilities too quickly.
Funny but all the courses you mention are considered great courses, to boot.
Mark Fine
It is not a black and white question, and design rarely ever is. You could certainly pass up certain holes and features and have a duller course than might otherwise be possible on some sites.
However, I acknowledged you could use a HHA if found naturally and damn the torpedo's, as it were. I never said the word always accommodate, or accommodate all players every hole, did I? The great thing about architecture is the variability in every situation and how different architects might handle them.
Of the world's 30,000 golf courses, I am sure many have passed up dramatic opportunities to better cater to the average guys who would play them. And, we have to acknowledge, that while it might be in almost any architects' best interest to create a memorable hole that plays hard, in the end, the clients interest may or may not align. In other words, passing it up might be the right choice, even at the expense of a possibly higher ranking.
I think Jason's examples are more than enough that it is possible to create a great course without any given "pet feature" you might personally like. There are just so many good architectural concepts to use, that I hesitate to use HHA, because its not one of the best. Again, if I found it, I would use it (look at the tee shot on the Quarry at Giants Ridge No. 6, for instance). But that is one of nearly 1000 golf holes I have designed. (there are probably a few more, with environmental ponds out there that I have been forced into)
-
Has anyone ever seen a HHA complex bisected with a friendly strip of fairway- say maybe 10 yards wide- that would allow some targeted relief options for the shorter carry folks? Sort of a centerline fairway, or "split hazard" ;) It might not be aesthetically pleasing enough to try but it might solve some of the issues. It would also be a convenient walkway :)
-
If all the examples that Jason used are fine for the average player (women included) I am not sure why we are even debating about HHA because it is simply a big area of sand and ALL players can eventually recover from sand! What is the problem? If they can't fly over it in one shot, they just go find it in the sand and hit it again till they are out! At least they won't lose a golf ball like they will on #17 at Sawgrass. There they absolutely have to carry it 80 or so yards in the air (even from the drop area) and stop it on the green. It can be a very expensive hole for the average player.
-
I would quote your post #80 Jeff but the quote function seems to just muddy the message...unless you start a rainbow dialogue like Pat which is worse...
So, in response to both Jeff and Jason; the specific line from Jeff which initially grabbed my attention was "selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels". Simply saying Royal Melbourne doesn't address Jeff's comment which seemed to focus on the specific hazard.
Jason's examples are all holes/courses. I have only played Pebble Beach and Sawgrass on his list and would be happy to discuss any specific hazard at them and feel at least comfortable talking about Augusta based on plenty of TV time.
My interest is the hazard itself and its ability to accommodate the 18 and inspire the scratch.
18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?
-
If Mark Pearce's answer in #79 is the position you guys are coming from ie: the 18 handicapper isn't confiscated of his equipment and escorted off the property, then fine, there's not much to discuss.
Maybe it goes back to understanding what is meant by "accommodating" in a golf course...
-
Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.
Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.
The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.
Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?
An HHA seems to do just that.
-
18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?
JIm:
I thought I had posted a response to this a couple of days ago but apparently I did not hit the submit button. 18 at Pebble Beach is a perfect example. The 18 handicapper probably averages at least 7 on the hole but nonetheless has the ability to make a five or six. At 200 yards off the tee he has a 48 yard wide fairway to attempt to hit. A 180 yard shot from there is aimed at a 40 yard wide fairway. From that point it is a 140 yard shot. On each shot there is some advantage to be gained by hitting it close to the danger on the left.
If you want to measure it out - here is the link: http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/pebblebeach/aerial.htm
I don't think a HHH hazard creates the same interest for such a player.
-
Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.
Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.
The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.
Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?
An HHA seems to do just that.
Patrick:
If you were building a course for a club with members of varying playing abilities, would you prefer to build a HHH similar to #7 at Pine Valley or a cross bunker similar to 17 at Streamsong Blue?
To my mind, 17 at Streamsong Blue poses similar questions of the player but presents challenges that are interesting for a wider variety of player.
-
Jason,
Tom Doak designed a HHA at Riverfront (#18 hole!!) and it far tougher and more penal than HHA at Pine Valley. No recovery is possible if you end up in the hazard and it is farther off the tee so the carry is even longer! Plus this is a public golf course.
-
Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.
Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.
The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.
Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?
An HHA seems to do just that.
Patrick:
If you were building a course for a club with members of varying playing abilities, would you prefer to build a HHH similar to #7 at Pine Valley or a cross bunker similar to 17 at Streamsong Blue?
To my mind, 17 at Streamsong Blue poses similar questions of the player but presents challenges that are interesting for a wider variety of player.
Jason,
So much would depend on the topography.
And I see no reason to exclude or include both.
Have you ever seen old aerial photos of Hollywood or Nassau ?
Consider the equipment the members used to navigate those courses.
And, what's the harm of hitting into an HHA ?
Is it better or worse than hitting into a water hazard ?
-
Jason,
Tom Doak designed a HHA at Riverfront (#18 hole!!) and it far tougher and more penal than HHA at Pine Valley. No recovery is possible if you end up in the hazard and it is farther off the tee so the carry is even longer! Plus this is a public golf course.
Well - I guess he screwed up that course. I haven't played it.
I have enjoyed the conversation in this thread. Thanks for chiming in Mark!
-
I would quote your post #80 Jeff but the quote function seems to just muddy the message...unless you start a rainbow dialogue like Pat which is worse...
So, in response to both Jeff and Jason; the specific line from Jeff which initially grabbed my attention was "selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels". Simply saying Royal Melbourne doesn't address Jeff's comment which seemed to focus on the specific hazard.
Jason's examples are all holes/courses. I have only played Pebble Beach and Sawgrass on his list and would be happy to discuss any specific hazard at them and feel at least comfortable talking about Augusta based on plenty of TV time.
My interest is the hazard itself and its ability to accommodate the 18 and inspire the scratch.
18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?
Pebble 18 is an easy 6 for the 18 handicapper. It all goes back to Clint's admonition: "A man has got to know his limitations."
-
Yeah...no doubt Bill.
Jason,
Appreciate the response. I didn't think you were ignoring me.
You certainly lay out a doable task, but I wonder how a hole that likely pulls an average of double bogey or more is seen as accommodating.
I read your post earlier and thought about it while driving and thought through a question. Take the 18 that's aiming for the center of the 48 yards wide fairway. In 20 drives, how many end up in the ocean? How many end up out of bounds? Certainly 1 in 4 requires a new pellet, right? Similar number for the second shot if the first is good? Is it possible that the 18 can lose 8 or 10 golf balls on this hole in 20 rounds?
I will say this...the ocean absolutely inspires the scratch! Not so sure it accommodates the 18...although it does not force him to hit it in the air for 100 yards.
-
Jason, you right (at least about that particular hole at Riverfront). It is pretty bad. The rest of the course is actually very good (some trememdous holes and green sites). However, IF that hazard on #18 was primarily a sand hazard like HHA at Pine Valley, it would have worked much much better. Unfortunately, that was NOT a design option as the area of the hazard is an environmentally protected wetland. That still doesn’t excuse what is an EXTREMELY PENAL almost unplayable finishing hole. It’s not good!
-
Yeah...no doubt Bill.
Jason,
Appreciate the response. I didn't think you were ignoring me.
You certainly lay out a doable task, but I wonder how a hole that likely pulls an average of double bogey or more is seen as accommodating.
I read your post earlier and thought about it while driving and thought through a question. Take the 18 that's aiming for the center of the 48 yards wide fairway. In 20 drives, how many end up in the ocean? How many end up out of bounds? Certainly 1 in 4 requires a new pellet, right? Similar number for the second shot if the first is good? Is it possible that the 18 can lose 8 or 10 golf balls on this hole in 20 rounds?
I will say this...the ocean absolutely inspires the scratch! Not so sure it accommodates the 18...although it does not force him to hit it in the air for 100 yards.
Jim - the difference is he has hope before he hits the shot. The results might not be materially different but that hope and temptation makes the game more interesting for any of us.
-
Interesting points involving PB 18, and 5 pars in general, for the 18 hdcper.
The greatest problem for most average players is the driver. Yet they just bang away with little regard for how the hole sets up.
Take the 5 par, specifically PB 18. Assume a 500 yard length. They are not reaching in two, so the next best thing is three. Sounds obvious.
if you back out a 120 yard approach, that leaves 380 yards. Divvy that by two and you have two plays of 190 yards. For many players, that is a 3 or 4 wood. Shorter shafts and more loft create less spray and more playability.
Of course, that is one rational for the HHA-type hazard. And in those cases, differing strategies might be in order to deal with the brute. However, and thankfully, they are (IMO a delicious) rarity.
IF YOU'RE AN AVERAGE PLAYER, NEXT TIME UR OUT JUST CRAPPING AROUND, PLAY A FULL ROUND WITHOUT UR DRIVER. AND IF U DO, INCREASE UR WAGERS, CAUSE UR GONNA PLAY BETTER AND SHOOT LOWER SCORES.
-
Jim - the difference is he has hope before he hits the shot. The results might not be materially different but that hope and temptation makes the game more interesting for any of us.
Jason, you may be debating something I'm not disagreeing with. The ocean at Pebble certainly gives the 18 handicapper more options (and hope) than does HHA. No Question!
But does options equal accommodation? How does the road hole bunker accommodate the 18? By simply letting him avoid it with an extra stroke or two? I think that's where we're headed but just want to make sure we're on the same page.
-
If the natural terrian and land permit I dont see any problem with the concept.
I understand that it certainly does eliminate the ground game and as such perhpas a portion of players, but sometimes that can be the result of attractive architecture.
Davis Love and co at Diamante used three areas that could be described as Hells Half Acre like.
The secong shot into number nine dictated by the natural rojas is a firced carry over flat natural desert area and a smaller area used to be carried over on number 15 now unfortunatelyy removed.
The tee shot on #17 is more like Hells half mile but is a beautiful looking area to carry.
So I think there is a place for such features if natural and not forced into the design.
-
Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.
Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.
The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.
Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?
An HHA seems to do just that.
Patrick,
I agree most architects use a forced carry on tee shots far more than second shots, but it makes sense. Ball on tee AND you can control the distance via multiple tees for all length drivers (providing they cooperate and play the "right" tee. We use it even more on par 3 holes, with controlled distance, ball on tee and shorter than driver club in the golfers hand.
It gets problematic for average golfers on second shots. Not only do all hit different distances, so many hit different distances on their tee shots, as I pointed out on another thread. Many 230 yard tee shots are from guys who slightly miss but could hit it 260 with full contact. This leads to a problem that no, there is no such thing as "only a 90 yard carry." That is only with a perfect tee shot, while others might have to carry 2x or more of that. And, the forced layup after a missed shot is not fun. (as a better player, how would you feel about a forced layup?
Really, no one likes those any more than a forced carry, and the HHA forces many players into one or the other (or both) of some of the least interesting shots in golf.
Well, I think you get the idea that I wouldn't go out of my way to build one, but I am certainly not advocating removal of any that still exist. I agree with MWP above, with the possible caveat that you wouldn't build on in any case on courses aimed at mid level public play, even if found naturally (unless natural and really spectacular, which reminds me of Terri Hatcher and the last Seinfeld episode.....but that is another story.....)
-
Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.
Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.
The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.
Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?
An HHA seems to do just that.
Patrick,
I agree most architects use a forced carry on tee shots far more than second shots, but it makes sense. Ball on tee AND you can control the distance via multiple tees for all length drivers (providing they cooperate and play the "right" tee. We use it even more on par 3 holes, with controlled distance, ball on tee and shorter than driver club in the golfers hand.
It gets problematic for average golfers on second shots. Not only do all hit different distances, so many hit different distances on their tee shots, as I pointed out on another thread. Many 230 yard tee shots are from guys who slightly miss but could hit it 260 with full contact. This leads to a problem that no, there is no such thing as "only a 90 yard carry." That is only with a perfect tee shot, while others might have to carry 2x or more of that. And, the forced layup after a missed shot is not fun. (as a better player, how would you feel about a forced layup?
Jeff, the problem you and other are having is that you're equating the games and scores of the good golfers with the games and scores of the mediocre to poor golfer.
9, 14, 19 and 25 handicaps aren't supposed to par the 7th hole at PV with any degree of regularity.
They're not supposed to routinely hit the green in regulation.
For them, a drive, followed by a lay up, followed by a third shot over HHA, then an approach to the green.
One putt for a par, two putt for a bogey.
HHA is more of an impediment for the better golfer because it places an enormous premium on the tee shot., since the 0, 3 and 6 handicap should par the 7th with a degree of regularity.
Really, no one likes those any more than a forced carry, and the HHA forces many players into one or the other (or both) of some of the least interesting shots in golf.
HHA's require the golfer to "THINK", something that seems to be a lost art with the advent of high tech.
Well, I think you get the idea that I wouldn't go out of my way to build one, but I am certainly not advocating removal of any that still exist. I agree with MWP above, with the possible caveat that you wouldn't build on in any case on courses aimed at mid level public play, even if found naturally (unless natural and really spectacular, which reminds me of Terri Hatcher and the last Seinfeld episode.....but that is another story.....)
And yet, we see an abundance of ponds and creeks fronting greens.
At what point do you cease catering to the LCD ?
-
''HHA is more of an impediment for the better golfer because it places an enormous premium on the tee shot., since the 0, 3 and 6 handicap should par the 7th with a degree of regularity.'' +1. Pat, asking someone to put their tee shot in the fairway off the tee is asking a lot these days...
''And yet, we see an abundance of ponds and creeks fronting greens.
At what point do you cease catering to the LCD ?'' +1. Those get a pass for irrigation and beautification, lol ::)
Senior Mucci, have you played Dormie? If you haven't I would be curious to get your opinion, for it isn't a traditional replica but it presents the golfer with decisions and rewards two good shots with a shorter 3rd, and you don't lose your golf ball (what a thought) :). I also like the staircase feeling Dormie's 17th provides.
-
BC,
Unfortunately, I haven't played "Dormie"
Maybe next summer.
-
''HHA is more of an impediment for the better golfer because it places an enormous premium on the tee shot., since the 0, 3 and 6 handicap should par the 7th with a degree of regularity.'' +1. Pat, asking someone to put their tee shot in the fairway off the tee is asking a lot these days...
''And yet, we see an abundance of ponds and creeks fronting greens.
At what point do you cease catering to the LCD ?'' +1. Those get a pass for irrigation and beautification, lol ::)
Senior Mucci, have you played Dormie? If you haven't I would be curious to get your opinion, for it isn't a traditional replica but it presents the golfer with decisions and rewards two good shots with a shorter 3rd, and you don't lose your golf ball (what a thought) :). I also like the staircase feeling Dormie's 17th provides.
I think of the 10th at the Dormie Club as a true HHA hole, as you pretty much have to take on that wasteland every play. At the 17th it's not a bad play at all to lay up, leaving a 6 or 7 or 8 iron, where if you layup or tack way right on 10 you will not be able to get home in three.