Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Parker Page on November 04, 2017, 11:25:12 PM
-
I was listening to The Fried Egg's podcast with Kyle Hegland the other day, and the conversation touched on a subject about which I've been wondering and would like to get the board's opinion. I had the great pleasure of playing Sand Hills twice this summer, and no one needs me to say that the course is a masterpiece. However, #13 stuck out as a question mark in my mind (we played the course from the back tees), and this question came back into my mind when Kyle mentioned during the podcast that he often suggests that players play the hole from the members' tees.
So my question is: is #13 a great hole? At 220 yards and uphill (into the wind both times we played it), the green complex seems a bit unbalanced in comparison to the kind of shot required to reach it. The green is deep and tilted from back to front, but it's at an angle to the tee, so the benefit of the green depth is not entirely felt. And because of the uphill, you can't run a ball onto the green. It's also protected left and right by bunkers -- the one on the right being very deep, and the one on the left leaving a very difficult up-and-down to a green that slopes away. Are there risk/reward elements that I'm missing?
It's certainly one of the grandest holes on the property and maybe the game. It feels like it should be great, but I can't get past the above questions. Maybe it should just always be played from the members' tees. Maybe it's just a 3.5 par that should be played with a shot short of the green to the fairway below and hope for an up-and-down (as Ran suggests in his write up).
Is the 13th a great hole?
-
I was a big fan of 13. It's certainly the hardest par-3 there, especially from the back tees, and maybe the hardest hole on the course relative to par, but the fairway in front of the green provides reasonable recovery options... both times I played I left it short right, and I was left with a tough but fair chance at getting up-and-down (failed both times). I just loved the look of the tee shot and also thought the green was very good
I believe I recall reading (maybe from the Little Red Book?) Doak say that he likes the 11th at Ballyneal better from the 2nd tee, instead of the furthest back tee. Maybe this is the case at Sand Hills too, and it's just a better hole from the members' tee? The holes are similar in that they play from one dune to another, though I think 13 at SH is a harder hole
-
It's kind of funny that you can't just say you think there's a hole at Sand Hills is not great, and feel like you have to hedge.
Also I don't remember the quote about #11 at Ballyneal. I'm sure it is not in the Little Red Book, as I went over every piece for that multiple times. It's possible that I said it at some point on GCA. It's a hard hole for me from that back tee, seems like I never hit a good shot to it ... but not all the back tees were built for me to begin with.
-
This year I watched a tee shot on 13 that landed near the 14th tee and funneled back to the green and realized that is the secret to 13. If you hit it to the left side of the green over the bunker the ground works to funnel the ball onto the green. If you hit it to the right side, which looks like the safer line from the tee, the ground repels the ball away from the green.
I think it is a terrific hole.
-
Ok, I'll bite.
I think the 13th hole at Sand Hills is not the best hole on the course, and may be a poor hole. In fact the collection of par 3's may be slightly disappointing given the remainder of the holes on the course, mostly due to the fact that other than #17, they all play to a similar yardage.
#13 is a hole that I only saw par made by anyone once during my visit. Most any ball that flew to the green bounded through and the back of the green actually slopes away and then down to a dirt cart path.
I felt the hole may have a better fit if they made it longer...240-260ish, making it a driver for some. Widen the green surrounds and allow a bowl like effect. This would fit the description of the ball that hit near 14 tee and came down to the green a reality. Somewhat like #5 at Dismal River from the back tee.
-
It's kind of funny that you can't just say you think there's a hole at Sand Hills is not great, and feel like you have to hedge.
Tom, it really wasn’t a hedge as much as a genuine question. I had heard it described as a great hole, and it certainly LOOKS like a great hole. There’s no doubt that it’s a hard hole. But I couldn’t figure out how it was a great hole because there’s not that element of risk/reward and options.
Do you think it’s a great hole? I had not noticed the kicker beyond the left bunker that Jason pointed out. Is Jason correct?
-
It's kind of funny that you can't just say you think there's a hole at Sand Hills is not great, and feel like you have to hedge.
Do you think it’s a great hole? I had not noticed the kicker beyond the left bunker that Jason pointed out. Is Jason correct?
I don't think it's one of the best holes on the course.
Maybe great for a certain class of players, of which I'm not one. To get to the backstop Jason describes, from the back tee, you'd have to fly it about 210 yards over the left-hand bunkers, plus the uphill, and maybe into the wind. I don't know if the shot would hold downwind, because I've never seen a shot like that on that hole.
-
I think Sand Hills has the greatest collection of 18 holes of any course I have played, with the exception of the 13th hole. From that back tee distance it is extremely difficult to hit a high enough ball, and long enough, where it will land and stay on the green. Does an architect ever design hole knowing that a majority of the players will miss the green because of how difficult it is? The holes is much better from the regular tee (roughly 185 yards) which still plays plenty long. To each his own, but I don't think it's a good hole from that back tee.
-
I think it's fair game to have one hole on a course where only the best players can hope to hit and hold the green, from the back tee. I don't think that makes it a bad hole. I just don't think that makes it a great hole, either.
-
I don't remember ever reading an analysis on how this particular former tour pro (i.e. Ben C) might occasionally influence/trend a C&C design towards challenging the better player.
The only such insight I can recall is the suggestion that Ben's own style of play and wins at Augusta tend to foster wide/2nd shot golf courses with a premium on putting.
Is that true/accurate?
And even if it is, is it also true that occasionally the young star golfer he once was rises up from some deep recess of his mind and has him saying "I used to hit that shot - now it's your turn to try"?
-
It's been 15 years or so since I visited Sand Hills but my basic conclusion is along these lines: the course is so great that none of its individual holes have to be. That said, I'd go with the 1st and 2nd being "great." Maybe the 16th as well. The 13th not so much.
Bogey
-
I think it's fair game to have one hole on a course where only the best players can hope to hit and hold the green, from the back tee. I don't think that makes it a bad hole. I just don't think that makes it a great hole, either.
This is basically where I stand. I like the back tee more than the second tee because the visual is pretty awesome, but it's extremely difficult from back there. For me it's in between clubs too, too long for a hybrid, and seemingly too small a target for a fairway wood. I doubt many people, good players included, are that comfy from 213 uphill, often into a prevailing wind!
The course has a bunch of half-par holes, and this one is a par 3.5...ok with me, just not in the top half of SH holes IMO.
-
Have not played SH, but interesting conversation nonetheless. A 213 yard uphill, into the wind hole, is, for most players, an opportunity to try to miss in the correct place to get up and down. I think that makes an OK hole, just cant be 18 of them. I think what moves the conversation is the concept of "par" versus the concept of "course rating", for which a hole like that would not be 3, but some higher number? (IE course could be par 72, but rated 73.8 or something) Such that even though you might feel you failed at "par" when you enter your score, versus course rating, you might get that half stroke back?
-
Yeah, funny too because there is no course rating at Sand Hills. My group guessed at one point at 73.5/135-140 from the tips.
#14 is definitely 4.5 half-par (par 5), and #15 is a 4.5 half-par (par four), so it all evens out.
I think the biggest criticism on #13 may be a general lack of places to miss. It's easy and safe to miss short, but the ball rolls back 50y, and your pitch is 100% blind to a decent-sized green. Left and right is sand (unless you find the slope pin-high left), and long slopes away towards hard ground and tall stuff. Again, just a 3.5 half-par!
-
Yeah, funny too because there is no course rating at Sand Hills. My group guessed at one point at 73.5/135-140 from the tips.
#14 is definitely 4.5 half-par (par 5), and #15 is a 4.5 half-par (par four), so it all evens out.
I think the biggest criticism on #13 may be a general lack of places to miss. It's easy and safe to miss short, but the ball rolls back 50y, and your pitch is 100% blind to a decent-sized green. Left and right is sand (unless you find the slope pin-high left), and long slopes away towards hard ground and tall stuff. Again, just a 3.5 half-par!
Brad, that's definitely the problem, plus it plays into the wind a good portion of the time. There is no good spot to miss, especially when you're trying to hit a shot over 200 yards up hill. If you leave it short and not in one of the bunkers, it comes off the false front and leaves you a very difficult chip shot because it will roll down a good 15 to 20 yards below the green. Left or right you're in the bunkers and they're not easy shots to get close, especially the left one since your well below the level of the green and it runs away from you. Blasting it over the green is the best option, but you have to hope it doesn't go too far into the tall stuff.
It's just a hole for me (8 handicap) where I stand on that back tee and I say to myself that I don't stand a chance. I'm just hoping to get the ball somewhere around the green that gives me a shot at getting up and down. I don't mind playing a hard hole, but I think a player should be given some options when playing such a long hole. With the 13th, it's a hit and hope for the best.
I know Nick Faldo aced it when out there, so I'm sure he has a much different perspective on the hole than I do, but then again I'm no 6 time major champion!!
-
Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.
I also think 15 at Atlanta Athletic Club and 4 at Blackwolf Run fit this bill of holes that look great but aren’t because of a lack of risk/reward options.
-
8)
Haven't played Sand Hills in a log time but remember the 13th hole vividly.
It's a really difficult hole , so playing the tips might be be beyond the ability level of most players. If you must make a number hit it short and chip and putt. Otherwise blast away and hope for a thrill if you can hit the green!
-
In my opinion, #13 is a great golf hole. I enjoy half-par holes and #13 certainly fits that bill. It demands a good golf shot or you will be scrambling to make par. It still offers a chance of recovery from a poorly played tee shot.
From some of the comments, it sounds as if many are playing the wrong set of tees. Many players insist on playing the back tees and then complain when they don't have the ability to pull off the shot. In reality, the issue isn't with the golf hole but the set of tees the golfer has chosen to play.
-
Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.
That is a really poor conclusion! Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?
If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it. Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.
-
Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.
That is a really poor conclusion! Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?
If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it. Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.
I don't agree with your statement fully. Changing the tee does change the hole. I'm not saying it changes it into a great hole from the regular tee, but it does give me a chance to get the ball on the green. I can hit a hybrid from the regular tee and get enough height to hold that green some times. I don't stand a chance from that back tee because I can't hit the ball high enough with a three wood or driver to hold that green. That's just my game.
I do enjoy playing the back tees at Sand Hills and don't want to play 17 holes from the backs and then one hole from the regular.
Where I do agree with you Tom is the lack of options around the green where you can hit the ball and stand a decent chance of getting up and down. No matter what tee you play from, there are not many spots around the green that aren't too penal for that second shot. Over the back of green is about it. It does also depend on where the pin position is. Anything on left side of green makes the second shot much more difficult.
-
Scott: So the shot values of the back tees at Sand Hills should be tailored to YOUR game?
-
I looked up a picture online to remind myself of how the hole looks. My recollection was that the hole looks like a long iron shot from the back tee, and it still looks that way to me. I don't think I can actually get it there with a 3-iron like I might have 10 years ago, but I might still hit, knowing the most likely miss is 30-40 yards short on short grass, below the hole. I might try to fade a wood up there, but it seems like the range of misses is worse, and the chances of double bogey or worse come into play.
It sure is a good looking uphill par 3, very enticing, even if it is one of the less spectacular holes on the course. Part of my philosophy about golf is that it has to be hard somewhere, and it is difficult to make par here. It's not my least favorite hole on the course, but I tend to like long, interesting approach shots more than the average bear. I like the 3rd hole at Pasatiempo more than this hole, even though I make a par on PT #3 only about 25% of the time.
If I ever play there again, I think I'd bring along a 2- or 3-iron and try to bounce it onto the green once more.
-
Scott: So the shot values of the back tees at Sand Hills should be tailored to YOUR game?
Nope not at all, but if you don't have an opinion, then what's the point of the conversation. By the way, we're talking about one hole here. I tried to convey that for an 8 handicapper, the hole gives me fits (and it sounds like a lot of other people who have played it) from the back tee because I think with my skill level, it's extremely difficult without a lot of options. You have to hit the ball in such a small target area to make it work, otherwise you're most likely well below the green or in one of the severely penal bunkers. I mentioned before that I don't have a problem with a difficult hole, but give the player some options if they can't hit or hold the green from such a lengthy distance.
Tom, what do you think of this hole? I've heard you disagree with posters on this hole when people say it's not a great hole and they express their reasons why, so what is your opinion. As a golf course architect, what percentage of players would you be happy with that hit the green (and held the green) on their tee shot. Would this be a hole that you would have designed this way? If not, and you're comfortable saying, what do you think could improve the hole?
-
I am personally a fan of having a "do or die" hole on a golf course, especially a place like Sand Hills where just about every other hole offers you all kinds of options. I mean, the hole right after the thirteenth is one that every one feels bad about if they don't make birdie.
It's pretty cool to have the chance at a hero shot every once in a while. And when you pull it off, you'll never forget it. As opposed to just another par 3 with options for you to hit a bad shot and still make par.
-
I am personally a fan of having a "do or die" hole on a golf course, especially a place like Sand Hills where just about every other hole offers you all kinds of options. I mean, the hole right after the thirteenth is one that every one feels bad about if they don't make birdie.
It's pretty cool to have the chance at a hero shot every once in a while. And when you pull it off, you'll never forget it. As opposed to just another par 3 with options for you to hit a bad shot and still make par.
I agree with you, I think we sometimes get too focused on every hole needing strategy and options that we can't appreciate a great hole requiring a tough shot. Like you said, Sand Hills has plenty of holes with endless options. I don't think #13 should be penalized for having fewer options... it fits into the routing well and provides the chance to hit a memorable shot. I would probably put it in the bottom half of holes at SH, but there are plenty of great ones in that half
-
Great discussion everyone.
I am at 10-14 handicapper and have a framed picture of this hole on my wall.
My few rounds at Sand Hills, I was more impressed with the green movement on #13 than the difficultly of the tee shot and it was difficult. I think what SH and CC deliver is that you don’t feel like the difficultly comes from the course trying to twist your arm to where it feels painful. Nature, God, CC built that hole, etc. I didn’t feel slighted when I played it.
I would ask this question, is this hole a better or weak hole at 135 yards?
-
I've played Sand Hills a half dozen times and can't follow this discussion because after the over rated 17th the other three par 3's all blend together. Truth is, without a major water hazard the par three is just that...a par three. One plus two equals three..nobody cares.
-
When I think of great holes at Sand Hills, #13 is one of the very first that comes to mind.
I think the fact that better players don't think it's very fair is one of its virtues. It isn't fair...it's golf.
I think the fact that it rejects all but a great shot is ok on a course where most holes have lots of room for error. Execute or scramble like crazy for bogey, a miracle par, or worse.
Agree with John K that 17th is prettier than great.
-
I just don't understand or agree with any notion that the 13th is "unfair". A properly played tee shot is rewarded. A poor shot is punished, yet you are still given an opportunity to recover and save par. What else more could you want? Should a poor shot leave an easy recovery and not be somewhat punished?
As I said earlier, it's easy to label a hole "unfair" when you don't have the game to pull off the needed shot. For many players, this gets magnified because they are playing the wrong set of tees.
-
Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.
That is a really poor conclusion! Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?
If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it. Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.
Tom, I’ve been thinking about your response here, and I want to push back in order to get some clarity. Jason’s question about the hole being better from 135 started me thinking about the question from the other way around.
Despite John’s assertion to the contrary, 17 is generally regarded as a great hole from 140 yards despite a relative lack of options (you either hit the green or you don’t, right?). But what if C&C decided next year to add a tee from 220 yards? Nothing about the hole would have “changed”, but wouldn’t the hole’s greatness be diminished by adding such a ridiculous tee?
Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?
Or am I just asking the wrong question? Is the better question - would you remove the bunker on the left or the bunker on the right?
-
Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but #13 has a 146 yard tee. For me, the back tee is asking an awful lot on that hole - probably too much for my skill level. However, the middle tee (185) offered a stern, but reasonable test for me. I'll admit, this is my least favorite hole on the course, but it is a good hole from the correct tee.
(http://www.myscorecard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sand-Hills-Golf-Club-Scorecard.jpg)
-
Thanks for the strong engagement on my question. I think my conclusion is that the hole would be better played from the member tees, but the fact that the back tees exist keeps the hole from being great.
That is a really poor conclusion! Anyone who wants to can just bypass the back tee, so how is that tee, in and of itself, a detriment to the hole?
If the hole has a problem it's in the lack of alternative ways to play it. Changing tees does not fix that at all; it just dumbs down the challenge a bit for guys who aren't good enough to play the back tee.
Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?
My feeling is that it's a par 3 so does it really need to provide a balanced, risk reward test? Either execute the shot or don't. Sometimes that's ok. It's not like if you hit a mediocre or bad tee shot on this hole you'll never find your ball. You'll get to hit it again.
Also, 17 used to have a back tee closer to 180 if I remember correctly. It's no longer used.
-
What's wrong with a par 3.5?
-
Tom, I’ve been thinking about your response here, and I want to push back in order to get some clarity. Jason’s question about the hole being better from 135 started me thinking about the question from the other way around.
Despite John’s assertion to the contrary, 17 is generally regarded as a great hole from 140 yards despite a relative lack of options (you either hit the green or you don’t, right?). But what if C&C decided next year to add a tee from 220 yards? Nothing about the hole would have “changed”, but wouldn’t the hole’s greatness be diminished by adding such a ridiculous tee?
Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that 13’s back tee is ridiculous, but isn’t the hole’s greatness diminished simply because a tee exists that’s too far back to provide a balanced, risk/reward test?
Or am I just asking the wrong question? Is the better question - would you remove the bunker on the left or the bunker on the right?
Is 17 widely considered "great"? As someone else said, it's certainly pretty with all the scruffy framing bunkers, but I've always thought it was a letdown at that point in the round.
-
Is 17 widely considered "great"? As someone else said, it's certainly pretty with all the scruffy framing bunkers, but I've always thought it was a letdown at that point in the round.
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;)), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.
We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.
We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.
If 17 is disappointing...in any way...I think you are playing the wrong game. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. That's what keeps things interesting here.
My other comments were not directed at you - they were commenting on the rest of this thread.
-
If 17 is disappointing...in any way...I think you are playing the wrong game. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions. That's what keeps things interesting here.
My other comments were not directed at you - they were commenting on the rest of this thread.
Thanks for the suggestions but I'm confident I'm playing the correct game. And you are correct, this forum wouldn't be very interesting to anyone but you if everyone agreed that you were always right.
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.
We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.
Derek,
I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"
So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Very interesting post. In the end, it seems to reinforce the notion that, in spite of all protests to the contrary, the vast majority of golfers are not able to separate their thoughts/feelings/rankings from their own games. Just about everyone on here preaches the mantra "I rate courses based on how everyone plays", yet when asked to share specific thoughts, those thoughts frequently contradict the mantra.
Question for the critics of #13: is it tougher than Cypress Point #16? If so, why, if not, why not? Call me crazy for assuming those who've played one likely played the other. :)
Jeff Brauer related a story about designing a course with a tour pro, and I'm obviously paraphrasing here, but the gist of it was that said tour pro wanted to have birdie as an option on virtually every hole, regardless of whether he was in a hazard or not. (If that wasn't the story, Jeff, I apologize, perhaps you can repeat it.) I suspect that deep down, virtually all golfers view holes similarly, if within their own particular limits. Everyone teeing it up on a par 3 wants to think hitting the green shouldn't be unlikely, and neither should par. Curiously, they don't seem to extend this to ball buster par 4s... haven't quite figured out that contradiction myself.
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.
We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.
Derek,
I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"
So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?
Brandon, I'm not presumptuous enough to try to re-design Sand Hills or suggest Coore and Crenshaw should have done anything differently. The golf course speaks for itself.
Keep the discussion in context -- I'm not saying 17 is a poor hole. I'd likely appreciate it better at another point in the routing. But if we're going to play what-if's, if you could slip the 3rd in there with all the different ways you can get the ball onto the green along with the more dynamic putting surface you'd introduce shots that match the variety and ground game stimulation that make 14, 16 and 18 so great.
I understand Brian's argument about pacing and how 17 fits in. I was just surprised by how small and straight-forward it felt to me where that describes nothing else at Sand Hills.
-
Parker / Jason / et al.
If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind. It was more so from the original tee.
As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back. Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?
Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys? Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.
So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round. For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players. A great course should have some of both.
-
Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys?
Yes, which is why I have a framed photo of this hole on my wall.
-
Are we all talking about the same Sand Hills Golf Club?
17 is an excellent hole on its own. It requires a precise short iron to a challenging green. Relatively easy par, tough birdie.
In terms of sequencing and flow, it is even better. Beginning on 13, you play...
13 - very difficult par 3
14 - perhaps the best short 5 in the world
15 - strong par 4, above average difficulty
16 - perhaps the best long 5 in the world
17 - short 3...
18 - another great par 4, above average difficulty
Is this not a great flow and among the best finishes in golf? I'm so confused by some of the comments in this thread. At times it feels like golfwrx, where everyone carries their driver 310 ( ;) ), and at other times anything but a guaranteed par is too difficult. I thought gca nerds just loved to "experience the architecture" and never kept score. ???
Brian, I never said anything about par, distance, scoring, etc.
We are talking about Sand Hills so this is all in context, but to me 17 is the least interesting par-3 there and it's disappointing that it comes at that point in the round.
Derek,
I love sports and personnel stuff and the question I always ask my friends when they say Team XYZ should fire their coach is "If not him, then who?"
So my question to you is if 17 is the least interesting par 3 on the course and a letdown at the end of the round, what would you rather see there?
If the original tee was still there, which was up the hill further to the left, it is a completely different hole. Very difficult, but so much fun. I understood why they changed it, but would love it if they brought that old tee back. JMO.
-
Parker / Jason / et al.
If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind. It was more so from the original tee.
As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back. Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?
Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys? Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.
So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round. For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players. A great course should have some of both.
Tom, I see your point as to what you are conveying. However, you asked if I would rule out a 220 hole if it didn't work for my game. Trust me when I say this. I play several golf holes that don't necessarily work for "my game". I'm definitely OK with that and don't object one bit. Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down. The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.
I asked you a question before, but didn't get an answer on this. I'm curious when you design a par three, do you have in mind a percentage that you would find acceptable for a player to hit the green on that hole? If you had 100 players come through the 13th hole that play it from the back tee, what percentage of those players do you think would hit and hold the green? I would say its fairly low, but maybe I'm wrong. If it is a fairly low percentage, then to me it stands to reason that there would be some options for a player to try and recover with their second shot to save par, however this hole is the opposite. It punishes you in every way unless you go long. I love where it is in the round and I think it fits the routing perfectly. I just think it needs to be softened up a bit around and short of the green
I absolutely love the place, but that hole just doesn't sit well with me from a design standpoint. For those that love the difficulty of it or don't mind it being a "3.5" hole, then I'm glad we can all share our varied opinions.
-
I play a lot of golf with guys who would hit a 6 iron from that back tee,while I would hit a 6 iron from the middle tee. It's a different game for them, so I have no issues at all with the back tee. Is it a bit much for me and my game? Certainly, but it is fun to give it a shot every now and then. Could there be more room to miss? Of course there could be. I'm probably in the minority, but I've played it 5 times. 3 from the middle tees, 2 from the back, and am -1 in those 5 plays, so it can be done. And I'm not that good.
-
Parker / Jason / et al.
If you dig deep enough in the archives here you'll find I'm already on record as thinking 17 is not a great hole, because it offers no options and is sometimes about impossible when played downwind. It was more so from the original tee.
As for 13, I just don't understand how you guys think every hole should be designed to work well for you, from all the way back. Are you going to rule out all holes over 220 yards, even though that's now a 6-iron for the pros?
Have you ever heard the saying about separating the men from the boys? Dr MacKenzie suggested that a great course should offer even the best players the chance to try a shot they had hitherto been unable to play, and I think he was talking about Jones and Sarazen, not you.
So I think 13 at Sand Hills has its place in the round. For some that would make it the best hole on the course; for me there are others that are more interesting to the full spectrum of players. A great course should have some of both.
Tom, I see your point as to what you are conveying. However, you asked if I would rule out a 220 hole if it didn't work for my game. Trust me when I say this. I play several golf holes that don't necessarily work for "my game". I'm definitely OK with that and don't object one bit. Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down. The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.
How hard is it to get up and down from the two bunkers closest to the green? I was not in either of them so do not know for sure, but it would seem that the player would have a reasonable chance from there, as well as behind the green.
I still believe that it is a perfectly fine hole, and doesn't need to be any easier or have more options. It provides a tough challenge, but that doesn't stop it from being an awesome hole.
-
Not sure this has been mentioned yet, but #13 has a 146 yard tee. For me, the back tee is asking an awful lot on that hole - probably too much for my skill level. However, the middle tee (185) offered a stern, but reasonable test for me. I'll admit, this is my least favorite hole on the course, but it is a good hole from the correct tee.
(http://www.myscorecard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sand-Hills-Golf-Club-Scorecard.jpg)
Agree with this. Gosh, the course is almost 7100 yards from the back tees. Almost no one but pros or very low handicappers should be back there. And for them, its a fine test. For the majority of golfers who are middle cappers, 6400 yards is where we should be, and 185 on this hole. Still a fine test.
-
Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down. The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.
If you were given free reign, what some of softening would you like to see?
-
Just give me some options, that if I don't hit the green, I have a chance to get up and down. The hole is hard enough as is, but since it is so penal around and short of the green, there aren't many places you can miss and still have a chance to get up and down.
If you were given free reign, what some of softening would you like to see?
I would like to see that false front softened a little bit. It's a tricky area up there. If you hit the ball on to the green but it doesn't get over the false front, the ball will pick up speed and roll way down the hill. I think if that was not such a severe slope, the ball wouldn't roll down as much, still giving the player a difficult second shot but not one that ends up well short and below the green. There is a shelf up there just below the green that the ball will stay on, but that's more luck than skill as far as trying to leave it on there when playing a 200+ yard shot.
With regard to the bunkers left and right, I like them. Pin position for the most part will determine the success of getting up and down out of those. They're hazards so you take what you can get.
-
Thanks for the response. (btw, "some" was supposed to be "sort", not sure if I typed it wrong or my phone "fixed" it...)
So, if it were softened to a 20 yard false front, instead of 40-50, would that suffice? Or would 10 be better? Any chance it was simply the conditions of the day that determined the greater than intended penalty?
-
Thanks for the response. (btw, "some" was supposed to be "sort", not sure if I typed it wrong or my phone "fixed" it...)
So, if it were softened to a 20 yard false front, instead of 40-50, would that suffice? Or would 10 be better? Any chance it was simply the conditions of the day that determined the greater than intended penalty?
I think a 20 yard false front is fair for a hole of that length. It still requires a fantastic shot even just to get that point. I've been fortunate enough to have played several rounds at Sand Hills, so I've seen all types of weather conditions. It certainly affects the way the hole is played, but the slope of that area in front of the green is weatherproof from what I've seen.
I know I've commented quite a bit about this hole and have been critical, but I don't think it's a bad hole. It's a very hard hole and like others have said, if you can pull off a great shot, it is a great feeling. I've just seen way too many players (mostly 10 or less handicaps) not execute the perfect shot and end up making a big number more often than not.
I think it's the one hole that doesn't really fit in with the other 17 holes out there. The course is very fair and playable from the back tees on the remaining 17 holes. Just my opinion. With that being said, I still think it is the best collection of golf holes I've ever played.
-
The false front isn't really 40-50y, you have to hit a shot well short of the green for the ball to roll back down the hill. There's a little false front to the green but also a shelf before the hill that balls that roll off the false front end up staying. I find that spot short of the green as well as the green side bunker on the right as the 2 places to miss that give you the best chance to get up and down for par. Hard hole? Absolutely. IMO the hardest vs par on the course. Bad hole? Not even close in my mind.
-
George,
Have you been to Sand Hills? Last time I asked, in 2012, you said you hadn't. Is a red head feeding you questions?
-
What's wrong with a par 3.5?
George, there's nothing wrong with a 3.5 par. I just wish there were some options. Even something as brutal as #17 at Whistling Straits lets you miss right as far as you want, but to get to that back pin placement, you'll need to take on Lake Michigan. #16 at Cypress is the obvious other candidate for this question. I didn't dare raise the question, though, because I've never played it.
Tom, it's helpful to hear that you wish #17 had more options. It seems like designing a short par 3 with options would be one of the most difficult challenges in the field. Not to blow sunshine in your face, but I think #3 at Ballyneal is a good example of a short 3 with options. #7 at Pebble seems like the best example or maybe #11 at Shinnecock.
-
What's wrong with a par 3.5?
George, there's nothing wrong with a 3.5 par. I just wish there were some options. Even something as brutal as #17 at Whistling Straits lets you miss right as far as you want, but to get to that back pin placement, you'll need to take on Lake Michigan. #16 at Cypress is the obvious other candidate for this question. I didn't dare raise the question, though, because I've never played it.
Tom, it's helpful to hear that you wish #17 had more options. It seems like designing a short par 3 with options would be one of the most difficult challenges in the field. Not to blow sunshine in your face, but I think #3 at Ballyneal is a good example of a short 3 with options. #7 at Pebble seems like the best example or maybe #11 at Shinnecock.
Can you explain what you believe the "options" are on 11 at Shinnecock? I've played there twice in the last year and I don't see any options other than hit the green. Likewise 7 Pebble though I haven't played Pebble in a few years.
-
I'm not sure why people are surprised at all the different opinions. I think that is partly why golf is beautiful. Groupthink is so boring.
I have had lots of discussions with friends about our favorite holes at Sand Hills. And my buddies all know that 13 is one of my favorite holes at Sand Hills. I think it is a stunning hole. I think it is a world class par 3. If you think it is too hard, I just think you need to put on your big boy pants and stop whining. You are at Sand Hills after all. It's OK if a par feels like a birdie. At a minimum, I would think this group would care less about par. There are so many half par holes at Sand Hills in the right direction for the player (1,7,8,14) that I don't understand why one half par hole in the other direction is a bad thing.
At the end of the day, none of you (with a couple of exceptions) are going to get paid to play golf. So do you really want all easy par 3's for your ego? Because your 74 at Sand Hills is not a 74 during a tour round at TPC whatever.
I think the hole has a beautiful setting. I think the green is MORE than ample for the length of the hole. I think the bunkering is a work of art. I think the left side of the green gives you a good spot to come into. I think the hole is deceiving, land it too short and it is coming back, land it just past that and you have an easy up and down. Push it because of the wind and you are screwed. Yank it left and it's bogey minimum. Go long and there is room. But at the end of the day, if you somehow get a 3 on 13, you will feel like the rest of the round doesn't matter quite as much, or that bad hole you had earlier is now negated.
At the end of the day, I think architecturally, it's really hard to design a really good long par 3. This is one of them.
As a good friend used to say to me, "If you are scared, buy a dog."
-
Can you explain what you believe the "options" are on 11 at Shinnecock? I've played there twice in the last year and I don't see any options other than hit the green. Likewise 7 Pebble though I haven't played Pebble in a few years.
The options are going to be within a tighter shot pattern because you have a wedge/short iron in your hand. But with 7 at Pebble, you have options to play a variety of shots because of the wind. You also have a choice to play to the middle of the green or try to attack a back or right hand pin placement. You could also play it quite safe in the front left corner but leaving yourself a long putt or chip.
11 at Shinnecock asks a bit of a different question. If you have to favor a miss, what kind of recovery shot would you prefer? A deep bunker shot into a receptive slope, or a putt/chip from short grass to a green sloping away from you? To me, with a short iron in your hand, this is an interesting strategic question.
-
Can you explain what you believe the "options" are on 11 at Shinnecock? I've played there twice in the last year and I don't see any options other than hit the green. Likewise 7 Pebble though I haven't played Pebble in a few years.
The options are going to be within a tighter shot pattern because you have a wedge/short iron in your hand. But with 7 at Pebble, you have options to play a variety of shots because of the wind. You also have a choice to play to the middle of the green or try to attack a back or right hand pin placement. You could also play it quite safe in the front left corner but leaving yourself a long putt or chip.
11 at Shinnecock asks a bit of a different question. If you have to favor a miss, what kind of recovery shot would you prefer? A deep bunker shot into a receptive slope, or a putt/chip from short grass to a green sloping away from you? To me, with a short iron in your hand, this is an interesting strategic question.
I think both examples are a major stretch.
7 at Pebble offering options because of wind is no different than 17 at Sand Hills. Also that green is small and your talking about playing to different parts of it as an intentional miss. That's just not realistic for 99% of all golfers especially in a windy setting. Having the option to chase tucked pins vs going for the middle of the green is no different than any other golf hole par 3 or not.
Your 11 Shinnecock example is even worse imo. I cannot ever imagine anyone choosing to hit a shot over that green and trying to get up and down from there.
-
I would agree that #7 at Pebble and #11 at Shinnecock offer no real options other than try to hit the green.
Haven't been to Sand Hills but #13 sounds like a cool, very difficult hole.
-
I spent a week at SH about eight years ago. Interestingly enough Bill Coore was there. I had played 13 about six times and never had held the green from the member tees. I didn't know how to play the hole and neither did the three other guys in my group, all single digit players. At dinner Bill came over and said hello to our host, whom he knew. He sat down for a bit with us. I asked about that hole. I simply asked, "Bill, what kind of shot did you envision for the tee ball on 13?" He smiled and said, "Well, we just smoothed out the dirt a bit and threw grass seed down." Ok. Done . Answered. Still don't know how to play it. It is the one hole that gives me the most fits.