Southern Hills Hole 4 discussion

[Chris_Clouser]

Hole 4 – 372 yards

As with the third, the fourth hole at Southern Hills is another mid-length par four of a varied nature.  The fourth is much less rigorous in its requirement of accuracy from the tee.  But it is much more stringent in this regard on the second.  The tee shot is out to what appears to be a blind landing area.  Truthfully the landing area will run dramatically from left to right.  The longer hitters will gain an advantage as they will be able to possibly clear this depression if the wind from the south is not too vigorous.  
In most cases, the approach will be a short-iron or wedge into the wind, depending on the club taken off of the tee.  Players will be confronted by an awkward lie, with the ball below their feet.  Those in the depression and to the right will have the more severe lies.  This will complicate the shot into the green.  Full wedges could be a problem as they could easily spin off of the front part of the green and roll into the bunkers in front.  Also the wind could be tricky and create a situation where a ball will fly over the green and into the hazards behind.  
The elevated green is an example of Maxwell’s philosophy of using the elevated portions of the course as much as possible.  This green is possibly the steepest sloped putting surface on the course after the changes to the ninth and eighteenth holes.  So anything above the hole could be adventurous, thus increasing the need to guess correctly on the approach.  Due to the length of the hole, chances are all the pins will be tucked close to the sand hazards around the target.  As a side note, this hole may have been the inspiration for the seventh hole at Augusta when Maxwell laid out the new green in 1937.

Here is the hole layout from the club's website.


Here is the view from the tee.  Note the bumpy terrain in the fairway.


View from behind the green.  From behind the green you can see much better the tilt of the fairway and make out the low area that is a strategic element to the hole.


Again, here is the routing for reference.


Link to third hole.

Also a special thanks to George Pazin for providing me education on how to put up links this week.

[wsmorrison]

Sean,

I see what you mean...I think.  Either the course doesn't photograph well or there really isn't anything that surely lets you know this is a great course based upon photographs.  Photographs can be deceiving or revealing.  It is hard to say after only 4 holes, but so far it seems that I am missing something as well.  I would think the green surfaces must be outstanding...this is Perry Maxwell after all.  However, it is not yet evident in the photos.  The bunkering looks systematic in look and placement and the trees are simply awful so far.  I await something that sparks some interest.  Is this why there haven't been many responses?  

[Matt_Cohn]

I think the movement of the land is washed out in some of the photo's. I mean, it's not Southern Flats.

For example, #4 looks nearly flat in these pictures and that is not at all the case - that green is really perched well up above the fairway.

And, yes, the greens are what you'd expect from Maxwell, so there's a lot going on there.

The course has a very good look to it, despite the plain-looking bunkers. The trees are certainly never far away but they're not really in play for normal shots, either, Tiger Woods' shanked wedge on #9 in the US Open notwithstanding.

As far as the systematicness (?): The greens and bunkers all look pretty similar from afar but I think you'd admire the number of different looks you get into and around the greens. Already in the first four holes you have: a front-to-back green and a steeply back-to-front green; one that's open in front and another that's perched over a huge bunker; one L-R and one R-L.

Southern Hills doesn't bowl you over with it's looks, but it is certifiably pleasant, and the greens really do make it quite a good examination.

[Chris_Clouser]

I think part of the problem is the course probably doesn't photograph well unless you really know how to use the camera.  At least that is my explanation for the quality of the photos.    Plus several of these were taken with just a 35mm in less than ideal conditions.  And as I have said before, I agree about the trees.

But as Matt says, there is quite a lot of movement in the greens and quite a bit of variety even in the first four holes.  There is a lot there, but unlike Oakmont not everybody and their brother is chiming to comment.  

As for participation, I would hazard a guess that a similar number on this site have played Southern Hills as have played Oakmont.  But it's cool to post something on an Oakmont thread but not quite as cool to post about Southern Hills even if you haven't played it.  

[Peter_Herreid]

I am selfishly bumping this back up in hopes of not letting these hole discussion die too quickly....

This green site does seem eerily similar to what little footage of the approach to ANGC #7 I've seen over the years.

I'm also feeling that the trees outlining the fairways on this hole don't seem quite as claustrophobic as on a few of the earlier ones....

Of course, I see them in some of these pix of Southern Hills and the first thing I think of is some well-deserved shade and relief from the heat--I bet architectural intent seems a little less concerning when broiling and boiling away in Tulsa in July and August...

[Matt_Ward]

Chris, et al:

Any ball that finishes above or requires a major side swing when putting will face a very tough time on the hole.

The 4th appears easy to people who have never played it. I can tell you from the several times I have played the hole that the 4th bites more often than it gives up.

You cannot EVER minimize the nature of the green contours at Southern Hills.

P.S. The tree aspect though is a fair point made by some already.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne Morrison,

I think that some courses aren't photogenic, and Southern Hills may be one of them.

The two dimensional camera tends to flatten things out.

Southern Hills is a wonderful member's golf course.

While # 4 appears benign, a careless mistake can result in bogey or worse.

[wsmorrison]

I agree, Pat.  I only referred to the impression one gets from the photographs and recognize that they aren't always telling.

As for Southern Hills being a member's golf course, I'm not sure I understand what that means especially given the tournament history there.

I don't know too many holes where a careless mistake doesn't result in bogey or worse.  I self-inflict those mistakes all too often on a variety of courses.

[CHrisB]

Chris,

I'll bet if we were just weeks away from the PGA at Southern Hills, and not just weeks away from the U.S. Open at Oakmont, participation in these Southern Hills threads would be higher. But I am enjoying them even if I've never played the course and don't have many opinions to offer.

One general question about course conditioning: Will the course play firm-and-fast for the PGA Championship? It's one thing to get F&F conditions in June for the U.S. Open, but is it a bigger challenge to get F&F in August after 2+ summer months?

[Matt_Ward]

Chris, et al:

Southern Hills plays much differently in a June or after September time frame. Keep in mind what Ray Floyd shot when he won the PGA there during an August time frame.

When Southern Hills hosted the Tour Championship I can remember a vastly different course -- much faster and much more demanding because of wind patterns and because of extremely fast and firm conditions.

The best thing going for Southern Hills is the extreme care and sensitivity demonstrated by Kerry Haigh in preparing venues for the last major. The situation at Southern Hills should allow for some serious scoring opportunities when the boys deserve it and take away from them when they don't.