[Ryan Farrow]

In light of recent events and childish behavior on Golf Club Atlas, I have decided to do my part in attempt to bring this discussion board and its knowledgeable members back on track. With your help and suggestions I will be hosting a new golf hole bi-weekly where we will discuss its architectural merits.

I will start things off tonight with a wild course, Mike Strantz's True Blue. While not as good as its sister course, Caledonia, I do believe it has the best golf hole of the two. #10 will play as a 3 shot hole for most, but it starts off with a slightly downhill tee shot. The cross bunker is in play for the super long hitter, and could cause trouble for the second shot of a short hitter. The layup shot is best played to the far left, as it gives you the best angle into the green. A marsh (recently mowed down when I played) runs in front of the green and might discourage players to go at this one in two. The green is typical Strantz and a joy to play. I could see this hole being played at least a dozen different ways, thanks in part to the wide fairway and interesting green contours.





-Tee shot. Much like the rest of the course (minus the island green), wide fairways give the hack lots of room to maneuver.


-Cross bunker which kind of reminded me a bit of Seminole, interesting hazard and shaped to perfection. But I'm not 100 percent sold on its exact location. I'm still trying to figure it out.


-Lay-up right center.


-Lay-up left, note the much better angle.


-As you can see, the typical large sweeping Stranz green slope. The large slopes could very well dictate angle of play alone depending on pin position.


Have at it!

[Matt_Cohn]

At first it looks interesting. But the more I thought about it, I'm not so sure.

It seems too long to reach in two, which would eliminate the temptation to take a reckless line from the tee. The cross bunkers, then, would be unlikely to affect my second shot. The green looks interesting but I don't see that it would cause me to aim my second shot anywhere besides the center of the fairway. I could be wrong about that.

From the perspective of my own game, I'm not sure if it would really be an interesting hole upon repeated play - the first two shots would be the same every time, right?

I think it probably has more interest for a mid handicapper, particularly with the line of bunkers putting pressure on the drive and the second, and the wild green putting (bearable) pressure on the third shot and creating some fun shots around the green.

[Sean_A]

The aspect I find odd about the hole is the relationship of the diagonal bunkering with the green.  If the left side of the fairway is the correct line into the green, why is this the shortest carry over the diagonal bunkering?  I can understand the diagonal bunkering a bit if it is intended to be a red herring - you know, placing a goal in front of players and they go for it without questioning the goal.  I can think of a few holes where this works very well, the 16th at Littlestone for example, but the effort to maintain this ruse seems a bit ott.  It seems to me that if diagonal bunkering were to be used, it should cut into the fairway from the left heading back to the tee. 

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of par 5s which can't really be reached, but require a 3rd shot over a water hazard, consequently, this hole doesn't do much for me. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

I've never been out on the course at True Blue, so I will get in trouble if I question your choice of holes too much -- but I suspect there are better holes out there than this one.

The green in particular doesn't do anything for me.  I'm not really a fan of Mike's holes from 50 yards in ... generally you're either playing out of a bunker, or you're on a big green with no internal contours, just big tilts (and the occasional five-foot elevation change).  That doesn't make for a lot of small-scale interest in chipping and putting, and on the bigger greens such as this one, it doesn't make position play before the approach that important, either.  I'll gladly stand corrected if someone wants to explain it to me.

[CJ Carder]

I'm actually surprised that you selected the hole as the best hole between True Blue and Caledonia because I honestly thought it was one of the weaker ones on the course.  Matt hit the nail on the head about the first two shots - I can't see myself playing them any different each time out.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure the left side is the correct angle into the green.  I don't have a picture of the right side of the green, but if I remember correctly, I recall it being more pinnable in a number of different spots.  As a result, they likely use that side more often.  If that's the case, coming in from the left side would almost seem to bring the hazard more into play as opposed to simply going over it if you come in from the right.  Additionally, if the pin in on the right, going up the right side allows you to get closer to the green and the player can shift more into attack mode rather than simply playing for a GIR and 2 putt.

If my assumptions work there, then how we perceive the 2nd shot changes entirely.  I believe the left side is the easier carry because it's closer to the tee and therefore allows the mid-high handicapper some chance to get back into the hole on the occasion that he hits a less than ideal tee shot.  It'll still be a challenge to reach the green and get the ball close, but it's doable.

Another plus for going up the right side, if they do place the pin on the front left, the pictures would seem to indicate that an approach in from the right might make it easier to use the slope and bring the ball back closer to the hole.  Coming in from the left might require a bit of sidespin to accomplish the same thing.

I like the cross bunkers and the visual intimidation they provide when preparing to hit the 2nd shot, but I truly think that's about all they do. 

Ultimately the hole has some architectural merits, but some of the other par 5's (#4 in particular) I think probably would work better from a strategic point of view.  And I think we could spend a whole month discussing the better holes between True Blue and Caledonia. 

[CJ Carder]

The green in particular doesn't do anything for me.  I'm not really a fan of Mike's holes from 50 yards in ... generally you're either playing out of a bunker, or you're on a big green with no internal contours, just big tilts (and the occasional five-foot elevation change).  That doesn't make for a lot of small-scale interest in chipping and putting, and on the bigger greens such as this one, it doesn't make position play before the approach that important, either.  I'll gladly stand corrected if someone wants to explain it to me.

Tom,

In general I think you're probably correct - Mike's courses seem to always have been about "scale" and visual intimidation with some underlying strategy.  That being said, I can think of a few holes both at Royal New Kent and Stonehouse up here in Williamsburg that would fall into your "short-game interest" category.  And those holes, even with some internal contours, are still more about hitting the correct spot in the green and are a little more geared towards target golf.  I know "target golf" is a bit of a four-letter word around here, but Strantz greens are still fun.   

[Matt MacIver]

Ryan - great idea, and I really like your enhancements to Google Earth. 

I've never played TB...so with a grain of salt...while I appreciate the width, I'm not sure I would play this one differently day-to-day either, unless there was some serious wind. 

I've played two Strantz courses, Caledonia & T-Road.  The latter has tons of movement in most of its greens, while the former seems to save the most for the par 3s with the others more benign. 

My favorite par 5 from Caledonia is #10 - a fun risk-reward second shot, though I guess there are only two options - go or no-go. 

[Phil McDade]

Ryan:

Good idea w/ the spotlighting of a hole.

Thoughts:

-- How far is the tee carry for the average hack (bogey golfer) playing from appropriate tees?

-- I like the look of the diagonal carry bunker, and could see how it could impact the thoughts of the bogey golfer's second shot, particularly with the visual deception that Sean suggests. But hard to tell w/out being on the ground and actually playing it.

-- I really don't like carries to greens over wetlands, for the most part. Does Strantz tend to build a lot of what might be viewed as "heroic carries?" I've never played his courses, but that's my impression. This one looks particularly bothersome, as it includes potentially both a carry over the wetlands (can you play out of it, reasonably?) and a large bunker fronting right.

[Andy Hughes]

CJ, here is the right side of the green:



Ryan, nice job, thanks (though I have to confess I would not have picked this as my favorite hole)

Sean, my impression of the diagonal bunkering has always been that it is less strategic and more obscuring. From the area where my drives have ended up, it is very difficult to see what is going on or where you might wish to go. The top edges of the bunker are higher than the second shot landing area (which I believe is slightly downhill).  In effect, it is a semi-blind shot.

[Ryan Farrow]

I'm actually surprised that you selected the hole as the best hole between True Blue and Caledonia because I honestly thought it was one of the weaker ones on the course.  Matt hit the nail on the head about the first two shots - I can't see myself playing them any different each time out.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure the left side is the correct angle into the green.  I don't have a picture of the right side of the green, but if I remember correctly, I recall it being more pinnable in a number of different spots.  As a result, they likely use that side more often.  If that's the case, coming in from the left side would almost seem to bring the hazard more into play as opposed to simply going over it if you come in from the right.  Additionally, if the pin in on the right, going up the right side allows you to get closer to the green and the player can shift more into attack mode rather than simply playing for a GIR and 2 putt.

If my assumptions work there, then how we perceive the 2nd shot changes entirely.  I believe the left side is the easier carry because it's closer to the tee and therefore allows the mid-high handicapper some chance to get back into the hole on the occasion that he hits a less than ideal tee shot.  It'll still be a challenge to reach the green and get the ball close, but it's doable.

Another plus for going up the right side, if they do place the pin on the front left, the pictures would seem to indicate that an approach in from the right might make it easier to use the slope and bring the ball back closer to the hole.  Coming in from the left might require a bit of sidespin to accomplish the same thing.

I like the cross bunkers and the visual intimidation they provide when preparing to hit the 2nd shot, but I truly think that's about all they do. 

Ultimately the hole has some architectural merits, but some of the other par 5's (#4 in particular) I think probably would work better from a strategic point of view.  And I think we could spend a whole month discussing the better holes between True Blue and Caledonia. 

CJ- I think that cross bunker is only for 2 players. One who is really short and the other who goes for the green in 2. You have to admit, that left side would be more receptive to a long shot, and as you see the fairway is pinched in right out there with the long ball shots. My turning points are at 270 - and 200 yards, to give you more of an idea.

But #4? That hole was just plain stupid. The only thing I liked about it was it made me very uncomfortable deciding on weather to hit a 3 wood in 2 or lay up about 170 yards away. But I don't think that makes it a good hole.

In case others are wondering: Here is #4






I also forgot to mention, this series is for the lesser known and never talked about golf courses from around the country. So a random hole from a course like True Blue will be the norm.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ryan:

I've never been out on the course at True Blue, so I will get in trouble if I question your choice of holes too much -- but I suspect there are better holes out there than this one.

The green in particular doesn't do anything for me.  I'm not really a fan of Mike's holes from 50 yards in ... generally you're either playing out of a bunker, or you're on a big green with no internal contours, just big tilts (and the occasional five-foot elevation change).  That doesn't make for a lot of small-scale interest in chipping and putting, and on the bigger greens such as this one, it doesn't make position play before the approach that important, either.  I'll gladly stand corrected if someone wants to explain it to me.

Tom, what I like about his greens is that some of them can be used as backstops. And depending on how comfortable a particular player is with one of his shots maybe they avoid some of these landing areas on the green, or use them to roll a ball back to the hole... etc.... On this particular green, if approaching from the right side or kind of head on the "big tilts" could really send your ball off track (left or right) were you to land on one. If coming in from the left the big tilts would work more in moving your ball towards the hole, or stop it and send it back the other way. I think there is a certain comfort level a player has to have whether they spin the ball a lot or rely on low running shot. There is certainly not a one size fits all approach to this hole.

Yes, there is no small scale interest and for the sake of variety, I'm not sure how I would feel after multiple plays. His courses seem like they attract a one time vacationer and send them into shock. The greens help out a bit in that regard.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike Strantz always seemed enamoured with the big sweeping dogleg-button hook fairway corridors.  Big Biteoff drives, and caped green sites.  Obviously, this is a cape green to the max.  I think it has the quintessential elements of a template cape.  I'm not sure that the longer sweep and tilts on Mike's generally large size greens is a bad thing for the kind of destination, resort courses like True Blue.  Hey, its Myrtle Beach, not a home private club!  So, I agree with Ryan that the nature of the first impression wow factor with all the sand cross bunkering, and waste areas and such is effective, but the safe play would be quickly learned in multiple regular play.  So, I believe Mike hit the right cord in the look is more than the nuance or consistent challenge.  I think True Blue is the perfect compliment course to its sister, Caledonia.  You get two different styles of shot making in one presumably focused place to stay and play.  Although, isn't Caledonia 'semi-private'.  I think one can get on if you stay there, I might be wrong on that. But, they are nicely contrasted in style, IMO.

[Tom Yost]

It looks like the hill on the backside of the green could be used by a low running shot from the left side to direct the ball to a right side pin placement ?  (as opposed to an aerial shot that has to carry the bunker).   

[Tim Gavrich]

I have never been overly enthralled with #10 either.  It's really too long to reach in two, especially since the golf course isn't really a good example of firm-and-fast (at least not when I've played it).  And the fairways--both off the tee and on the layup--are absurdly wide.  From the left side, the big hill serves as a sideboard, and from the middle and right sides, it's a giant backstop, more or less.  I don't think it makes too huge a difference what side of the fairway you're on as long as you are reasonably confident that you aren't going to leave the wedge shot in the front-right bunker.

As for three-shot par f5s, I like #1 best, #15 second, then #10.  #s 4 and 9 are both good, reachable par 5s.

[CJ Carder]

But #4? That hole was just plain stupid. The only thing I liked about it was it made me very uncomfortable deciding on weather to hit a 3 wood in 2 or lay up about 170 yards away. But I don't think that makes it a good hole.

Ryan,

I'm not saying it's a great hole either, but I was thinking of the strategy more from the "where do you layup" angle.  From what I remember, the slope of that green is pretty good.  A layup to the 150 marker would give you more of a straight on look at the hole with the green sloping more back to front.  The closer you get to the green, the more it begins to slope right to left and you better be much more spot on with your wedge shot, else risk a pretty quick downhiller.  That's all I was thinking.

#4 is very much a "pick your poison" approach whereas I don't think you need to be quite as exact on #10.

[Tim Nugent]

The thing I liked best about #10 was it was just after the halfway house.  To me, it's kinda  a missed opportunity.  The tees are elevated which should afford a great overview but the vegitation on the inside of the hole obscure the second half of the hole.  I think for crossing bunkers to work, the options should be visable.  On paper, I can see what MS was attempting to pull off.  Fade a big drive down the inside of the hole and you get the opportunity to go for it in two.  Only this isn't the Tour and not many resorters are in that league.  Perhaps if there was only a forced carry on the left side and a runway approach on the right...
When I (bogey golfer 12 hndcp) played it, I was too busy with opening my beverage of choice and didn't analyze the layout.  Just hit driver, laid up, hit wedge over, and probably either 2 or 3 putted (I tend to remeber my birdies).
Normally, I'm a great fan of crossing bunkers and this has all the tools but it just didn't pull it off.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tim, my only problem with #1 is that it is the first hole!!!!! I hit three good shots and still bogeyed that hole. I just think the green site is kind of absurd for a starting hole.

I have to say that I have enjoyed the discussion and I am pleased that a number of you have actually played the hole, all of whom have pretty much said they didn't think it was that great. But what the hell, this whole golf architecture thing is only what I do for a living now.   

Sarcasm aside (we will save that for political conventions), I think this brings up a great point. What I think is crap, someone else might think is gold, and vice versa. When it comes down to a micro level (hole by hole) consensus of what is great, is truly in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps golfers can more easily agree on what collection of holes is better, which 9 is better or simply what golf course is better than the next. From what I have heard, it really seems that individuals evaluate a golf hole on how they would play or how they played a specific hole. So in the end, does golf course architecture come down to art? Are the subtleties of what makes a hole great, really that hard to understand? If my opponent hits the ball half as far as I do, will we ever agree on what makes a great golf hole? Whats the point, Why do we even try?

Anyways, Tim how close do you think this hole is too greatness?

CJ, how many ways can you really play #4?

Tom, I know you get it. And you practice what you preach.

RJ, Caledonia is as public as it gets, and about as good as it gets. If the safe play is easy to figure out on 10, what would be the risky/best way to birdie this hole?

[CJ Carder]

CJ, how many ways can you really play #4?

Well, assuming I hit it down the middle of the fairway everytime, 1.     But if I make the large-leap assumption that I can hit the green as often from 150 as I can from 95, then I might start to think about where I want my 3rd shot coming from depending on the pin location. 

All the way on the back/left side of the green?  I might prefer a more straight on approach where I might have a better chance of controlling my left or right versus my exact distance.  At that point, I might leave it back at something more on the 135-150 range.  From there, I can go more at the pin rather than having to worry about hitting it too far and winding up in the water.

Conversely, put the pin on the front/right/somewhere in the middle, and I'm more apt to go at it from a shorter distance where I can fly it all the way to the hole and spin it some.  That way, if I fly it a little long, no big deal, I can still 2-putt. 

Granted, all of this is based on exact ball-striking and pure theory, but for me, that's how I might think about it.  In reality, I agree with you - there's really only 1 way to play that hole, and I myself would likely play it that 1 way every single time.

I think we agree, I'm just trying to throw another wrinkle in there.

[Andy Hughes]

While not a big fan of #4, I think you both are wrong about there being only one way to play the hole. I don't recall the length, but this is a reachable hole for golfers with some (not necessarily a lot of) length, the decisions start on the tee--if you are going to lay up the second shot as CJ says above then there is no reason to challenge the water, nor even hit driver. But a drive down the left certainly brings the green within range. And that's a scary shot, as is going for the green with a 3 wood or 3 iron. 
Maybe this is a better match play hole, as a 3 is very do-able as is a 7.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()