[RJ_Daley]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=4900

For a course of such high esteem, not much discussion.  As stated in the link, everyone knows about it, but most have only gotten close enough to fly over it and not played it.  No camera policy doesn't help understanding it much.  Thus, very little discussion...

FWIW, thanks to Scott Burroughs:

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

My goodness the 6th is the hole that made me question how this course was not in the top 10 US. It is a classicical par 4 or the highest order. The tee shot is wonderful. How close to the left bunkers can you keep it. It is very hard to get near the hole locations from the right side of the fairway. The green is set at a perfect angle to maixmize the challenge of the 2nd shot.

[Ian Andrew]

I'm always interested in how golfers theorize about the play of a hole, how they grant themselves amazing powers to hit shots well beyond their ability, you'd think everyone was a +8 handicap.

Pat,

As I said before I can only judge from the one day they made the mistake of letting me through the gate.

I played with a north wind at my back on a very warm day. I was driving the ball very well and we played from the Blue Tees. I understand that I probably caught the hole in benign conditions and may be I missed out of the brilliance of the hole.

Pat, we theorize, because we don't always get access to a course multiple times (particularly that one - which I don't expect to touch foot on again). What we do is judge it by the day we have there. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, as I said to Kye, I likely missed something by going left off the tee and getting lucky.

Concidering you've mentioned this as one of the greatest strategic hole, I've got to question you on this when "without wind" it loses a lot of it's strength. Or am I wrong on that thought too?

[JESII]

Concidering you've mentioned this as one of the greatest strategic hole, I've got to question you on this when "without wind" it loses a lot of it's strength. Or am I wrong on that thought too?

Ian,

I think conditioning and conditions are the most important factor in the playability of any hole. #6 at Seminole increases exponentially in interest and challenge when it is real firm regardless of the wind. Sure, the prevailing wind makes it tough, but I can't think of a wind that makes it easy when the ground is bouncing and the green is quick. If it is soft and slow #6 is good, but the challenge (or "strategic" strength if you will) is greatly minimized.




Pat,

Your response to Rich is misleading. Why can't that "well planned, well executed" shot that succeeds to a front or even middle hole location also be successful to a rear hole location? After all, that hole location makes the 6th at Seminole one of the most difficult holes in the world and 4 would be a great score for anyone. Reminds me of a quote I've read of Bobby Jones when he hears a bunch of guys grousing about a particularly difficult hole location at some tournament..."Sometimes guys, you're just going to have to hit a really good shot to get it close". The back hole location on #6 at Seminole is just that.

[John Kirk]

Alas, this is Pat Jr.

Gee, I just assumed Pat and Pat Jr. were the same guy, posting under a different account for some reason.  
John,

You're correct.[/color]

Hello Pat Jr.  I met and played golf with your dad this September.  He can sure play.  I played him even and he beat me 4 and 1.  He's very confident, isn't he?

That was a nice day at GCGC.  Good weather, good course, good golf and Bill and Phil are terrific fellows.

Let me know if your travels take you to South Florida this winter.[/color]

Hey Patrick...thanks for the kind words.  I thought we were supposed to call Phil Pat, because he liked it better.  I doubt I will make it to Florida this winter, for the same reason you won't make it to Palm Springs, but if you do...  Will you be still be spending time there in March?  Feel free to IM if want to continue this privately.

I have a different question about this famous hole, which I first saw in a picture book when I was a kid.  Holes can be looked at as "par-bogey" or "birdie-double bogey" type holes.  Mathematically, each hole  has a unique scoring distribution, with an average score and a standard deviation.   You get the idea.  Is this a hard par, easy bogey hole, or one where 3 is very possible, but so is 6 or 7?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Concidering you've mentioned this as one of the greatest strategic hole, I've got to question you on this when "without wind" it loses a lot of it's strength. Or am I wrong on that thought too?

Ian,

Seminole without "wind" would be like the artic without snow and Ice.

The wind is an integral component in the design.

And, while I'm sure that there have been benign days, I've never experienced them.

But, even without the wind, it's a wonderful hole.

The interrelationship of the features, the cant of the fairway and green, the elevation changes, the visuals, the angle of the green, the bend in the fairway, all blend or conspire to offer challenge and fun for a short to medium length par 4.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Your response to Rich is misleading. Why can't that "well planned, well executed" shot that succeeds to a front or even middle hole location also be successful to a rear hole location?

Essentially because it's next to impossible to pull off, especially if the prevailing wind is up.

If the wind is at its normal prevailing direction and velocity, formulating the shot is incredibly difficult because the elevated nature of the green hides relevant data necessary for the golfer to plan the shot.  Executing a shot of that magnitude is next to impossible, and, probably not the shot of choice.

Who in their right mind would attempt that shot ?

Most would hit a high fade at the mid-point of the green.

And, going long, on a rear hole location isn't a bad play.

If you think about the following, I think you'll agree with me.

Imagine a back left hole location.

Imagine your ball on the front of the green.

Think about that putt.
You'll probably three or four putt from that location.

Now, think about hitting a shot from 150 yards that will perform as well as that putt.

It's just not a prudent shot.

And, even if it was, only guys who play ginky shots, like me, have the imagination and lack of judgement needed to play that shot.

The back hole location calls for an aerial, not a running shot.


After all, that hole location makes the 6th at Seminole one of the most difficult holes in the world and 4 would be a great score for anyone. Reminds me of a quote I've read of Bobby Jones when he hears a bunch of guys grousing about a particularly difficult hole location at some tournament..."Sometimes guys, you're just going to have to hit a really good shot to get it close". The back hole location on #6 at Seminole is just that.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

John Kirk,

I'd say that the scoring distribution is varied.

You can make a birdie 3, but, you can also make telephone numbers.

And, the hole plays so different when the wind changes direction and velocity.

[paul cowley]

This hole could be the poster child for one my Curves of Charm Theories......the slight 's' curve on a straight away hole with no turnpoint and Ross was a master at that.

Once one truly applies the three main elements of the CofC, it becomes very hard to envision straight line strategies.

Which is very good considering the elasticity required for modern design......fixed point strategies are rarely egalitarian anymore.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mucci (snr or jnr)

How deep are those greenside traps? Would it be a better strategic test if they were deeper? Would it be a better hole if the right hand side fairway bunkers were removed and replaced by greater fairway width instead (ie luring the golfer to the non preferred side)?

By the way, if you like this type of strategy you really need to get to Melbourne and see the Sandbelt - we have a bunch of these types of holes (and we havent ruined them by growing stupid deep rough around the greens)

[TEPaul]

Can you imagine how good this green and entire green-end arrangemtnt (to about 50 yards out) would be at the end of a medium length par 5 (of about 550 yds)?

[JESII]

Can you imagine how good this green and entire green-end arrangemtnt (to about 50 yards out) would be at the end of a medium length par 5 (of about 550 yds)?

Tom,

Why would it work better than today as a 350 - 400 or so par 4?


Do any of you know if those right fairway bunkers are original? They seem redundant considering the green set-up.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mucci (snr or jnr)

How deep are those greenside traps?

The right greenside bunkers are very deep

Would it be a better strategic test if they were deeper?

No, they're very deep and don't need more depth to accomplish their task

Would it be a better hole if the right hand side fairway bunkers were removed and replaced by greater fairway width instead (ie luring the golfer to the non preferred side)?

No,

The presentation from the tee does a sufficient job in luring the golfer to the right.  In addition, the fairway slopes pretty good from high left to low right, so there's no need to pile it on.  In addition, those bunkers prevent balls from going into the dense undergrowth and out of play.

By the way, if you like this type of strategy you really need to get to Melbourne and see the Sandbelt - we have a bunch of these types of holes (and we havent ruined them by growing stupid deep rough around the greens)

There is no deep rough around any of the greens at Seminole.
Most have closely mown surrounds.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Looking at these together might provide a better feel for the design and play of the hole.

[JESII]

By the way, if you like this type of strategy you really need to get to Melbourne and see the Sandbelt - we have a bunch of these types of holes (and we havent ruined them by growing stupid deep rough around the greens)

Shane,

I played Kingston Heath, Commonwealth, Yarra Yarra and Kooringal this time last year and noticed a number of holes with this type of strategy. In every class there is a standout, and #6 at Seminole is as good a hole of this type as I have ever seen.

Contrary to Pat, I do think the right hand fairway bunkers are a bit redundant when you consider what the golfer will face when they are in that position. It's now a double penalty. I asked just above if they were original and have not yet heard an answer. I don't think they "hurt" the hole, the property line is right there so they may have been put in as preventative. Maybe somebody knows.

You can see from the upper aerial posted by Pat that aiming for the 4th tee box (where Ian ended up) is a gamble in itself because the surrounding sandy area is unmaintained so a playable lie is unlikely.


Pat,

Your answer to my question about 5 or 8 posts ago missed the point of my suggestion. I think for a pin in that back corner, noone in their right minds (this obviously exempts you) should think they should aim for that pin. I think players should try to make four with a long two-putt. I know it's a tough two-putt, but it's the best route to a par.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Contrary to Pat, I do think the right hand fairway bunkers are a bit redundant when you consider what the golfer will face when they are in that position. It's now a double penalty.


Not really.

When you consider that without the bunkers, balls would run into the dense woods and be lost or OB, creating a huge penalty.

Those bunkers are catch bunkers and serve to assist, not penalize the golfer.

I asked just above if they were original and have not yet heard an answer. I don't think they "hurt" the hole, the property line is right there so they may have been put in as preventative. Maybe somebody knows.

An old aerial would help, can anyone post one ?

You can see from the upper aerial posted by Pat that aiming for the 4th tee box (where Ian ended up) is a gamble in itself because the surrounding sandy area is unmaintained so a playable lie is unlikely.

It's more than a gamble, it's a stupid if not insane play, especially if you overcook it.

Pat,

Your answer to my question about 5 or 8 posts ago missed the point of my suggestion. I think for a pin in that back corner, noone in their right minds (this obviously exempts you) should think they should aim for that pin.

I didn't say that they should aim for the pin.
I said that they should hit to the center of the green with a fade.

However, I think the most prudent play may be to take it to the back pin or long.  The recovery back toward the pin is fairly benign when compared to other recovery shots on that hole.

I think players should try to make four with a long two-putt. I know it's a tough two-putt, but it's the best route to a par.


That green is like an hour glass so hitting to the middle is no easy task, and, when the hole location is back, going long may not be such a bad play.  You'll probably have an uphill chip or pitch, or if you execute your approach well, a putt of 20 feet or less.

[Joel_Stewart]

I was looking for some digital photos of my girls for a Christmas card and came across this photo of #6 showing the 2nd shot.  The entire hole has danger, especially the green.  

My playing partner that day hit driver-8 iron in the middle of the green.  The pin was middle left leaving him a straight 15 footer.  He putted the ball into the bunker, blasted out and 3 putted for a 7 (triple bogey).  It was amazing.

[BCrosby]

Thinking about the 6th, there is nothing much from tee to green that is very unique. Left to right sloping fairway, bunkers left and right.

What is special is that the green is all of the following: (a) set at a diagonal, (b) higher than the fw and set behind diagonal bunkers that make distances hard to gauge, and (c) very shallow.

A shallow green set at a diagonal that is partially hidden from the LZ seems to me at the heart of the matter.

Yet it is so simple. Why aren't more greens built like it?

The 6th green is a kissin' cousin of the 8th green at ANGC, another shallow green set at a diagonal that pays huge dividends to a well positioned drive.

Bob    

[Joel_Stewart]

Two holes later you have a great par 3.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Joel Stewart,

That's the 5th hole, the hole prior to # 6.

What makes the golf course and each hole and each feature so interesting is the variations in play created by the changing direction and velocity of the wind.

Seminole's design and variation in play represents Ross's genius.

[BCrosby]

Through the palms behind the 5th green in Joel's picture you can clearly see the left to right cant of the 6th fairway.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

BCrosby,

You can also see how far the 4th tee is removed from the centerline of the 6th fairway.

The slope of the fairway is considerable, but, because the line at the green horizon is fairly straight, you don't appreciate the slope in the fairway from Joel's photo.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Why would it work better than today as a 350 - 400 or so par 4?"

Sully:

Not necessarily to say better, just interesting to consider as a concept. Imagine a good player out there at 250 or so looking at that entire green-end arrangement? Think of the various options and strategies available. Imagine going for that green from that distance. How about laying up? Where would you try to do that?  

I think there could be a lot of very interesting options to consider and maybe even in some form or equilibrium, and that's what it's all about to me.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Your concept is lacking in a critical area.

You've forgotten about the prevailing wind which would make the shot next to impossible from 250.

[George Pazin]

It's a shame there aren't more holes like this (in the US anyway! Another reason to get down under) - the concept seems so clean and thoughtful.

I remember reading that old book on the 18 best holes, and the 2 that really stuck in my mind were #6 Seminole and #7 PV.

Thanks for the discussion and photos.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()