The 17th at Lederach and Questions of Width

[JNC Lyon]

I played Lederach with a GCA lurker today, and we got into an interesting discussion about the merits of the 17th at Lederach.  The 17th is a long par four with fairway split by a large complex of mounds.  To my eye, the tee shot appeared very similar to that at the 17th at Brora in Scotland.  The golfer has a choice between going low and left of the mounds and high and right.  The low left route contains a very wide fairway protect on the left by wetlands.  This fairway gives the player a good angle up the throat of the green, especially when the pin is on the left.  Because of the brilliant mounding in front of the green, however, the best view of the green is from the right portion of the fairway.  Furthermore, hole locations on the right side will best accept an approach from the right.

The strategy here seemed very sound and compelling on a day-to-day basis.  There is just one problem: the right side is extremely narrow.  The right portion of the fairway is only 10 to 15 yards wide in the primary land area, meaning that a slight miss will find the mounds or one of two deep fairway bunkers to the right.  The lack of width on this side of the fairway makes the high-right option less viable and takes away from the strategy of the hole.

Why wasn't more width built here?  How much width do architects need to use to make centerline hazards like the one at Lederach's 17th effective?

[Kyle Harris]

I played Lederach with a GCA lurker today, and we got into an interesting discussion about the merits of the 17th at Lederach.  The 17th is a long par four with fairway split by a large complex of mounds.  To my eye, the tee shot appeared very similar to that at the 17th at Brora in Scotland.  The golfer has a choice between going low and left of the mounds and high and right.  The low left route contains a very wide fairway protect on the left by wetlands.  This fairway gives the player a good angle up the throat of the green, especially when the pin is on the left.  Because of the brilliant mounding in front of the green, however, the best view of the green is from the right portion of the fairway.  Furthermore, hole locations on the right side will best accept an approach from the right.

The strategy here seemed very sound and compelling on a day-to-day basis.  There is just one problem: the right side is extremely narrow.  The right portion of the fairway is only 10 to 15 yards wide in the primary land area, meaning that a slight miss will find the mounds or one of two deep fairway bunkers to the right.  The lack of width on this side of the fairway makes the high-right option less viable and takes away from the strategy of the hole.

Why wasn't more width built here?  How much width do architects need to use to make centerline hazards like the one at Lederach's 17th effective?

JNC:

It's a trap!

I don't think that width is their to present an option but more to make the fairway the frame instead of the bunker.

Didn't we talk about that the night before?

[Sean_A]

JNC

I would think 15 yards of fairway to gain a big advantage over a simpler option is ample width.  Perhaps the problem isn't width, but a lack of advantage considering the risk.  

Ciao

[Michael Blake]

John,

I don't know the answer and I'd guess Kyle is correct.
Hopefully KBM will chime in.

But I do know that after 30+ rounds there in my golf league I've never seen anyone intentionally go to the right off the tee.
The regular players there aren't analyzing the hole THAT much.  They're simply trying to 'hit' that fairway and 'hit' that green.

[John Shimony]

When I stand on this tee, the old slicer in me only sees the houses on the right, if I am recalling the proper hole.  And the feature for me that sticks our is the small mound in the middle of the green.  Love it.  Am I thinking of the correct hole?

[Tags:]

Tags: