[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

My point exactly, "it messes it up".

[George Pazin]

If it is much shorter to play left, then I like the hole even more! I love it when holes present vexing options: a shorter approach, but from a less preferred angle vs a better angle but a longer approach. If everything is clear cut, that's when decision making is easiest.

225, I'm going right at it every time.

It's interesting how folks only seem to dismiss options when they aren't available to them.

Accommodation and vexing choices - that's the best! This is now my favorite short par 4.

Not really, but it was fun while it lasted.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

My point exactly, "it messes it up".

Garland:

See some of my earlier posts -- I really like the placement of the centerline pot bunker. It's the greenside bunkers fronting the left entrance that I think are misplaced.

[Phil McDade]

If it is much shorter to play left, then I like the hole even more! I love it when holes present vexing options: a shorter approach, but from a less preferred angle vs a better angle but a longer approach. If everything is clear cut, that's when decision making is easiest.

225, I'm going right at it every time.

It's interesting how folks only seem to dismiss options when they aren't available to them.

Accommodation and vexing choices - that's the best! This is now my favorite short par 4.

Not really, but it was fun while it lasted.

George:

When I host you at Lawsonia after you've hosted me at Oakmont -- I'll show you a truly fine option-filled par 4 that is my favorite short par 4 that I've played. Langford used visual deception and an expertly placed mound/bunker that "hides" the most optimal line, while providing clear visuals off the tee for the line of charm that is the imprudent path to the green. It's the 8th hole on the front nine, immediately following the more famous boxcar "Short" 7th hole.

[George Pazin]

Phil, I don't doubt there are better short par 4s. I just think it looks like a fun hole to play to me, one that I would not tire of anytime soon.

I should also add that I applaud almost any shortish par 4 that is not a driveable one - I think golf is sorely lacking in interesting 340-380 yard par 4s.

[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

My point exactly, "it messes it up".

Garland:

See some of my earlier posts -- I really like the placement of the centerline pot bunker. It's the greenside bunkers fronting the left entrance that I think are misplaced.

Absent wind preventing it (i.e., just looking at the photos) I see two options. Carry the center bunker, wedge over the greenside bunkers. Not  being able to carry the bunker, not being able to reasonably handle the greenside bunkers. I.e., in the second option, the greenside bunkers "mess it up". With the first option, the hole seems too straightforward. Although my handicap is high, I wouldn't give a second thought to trying to carry the center bunker from the blues.

Of course, Mark has come on here and given us the wind, which totally messes up my analysis.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mark,

The hole rarely plays with any sort of crosswind. It is a very windy site and plays either hard downwind or hard into the wind.

The site is relatively open, so when the wind blows it certainly affects the course (although less so on 3, 4, 5, and 6 which are more treed.  Southern Ontario has relatively mild winds compared to many other really windy areas.  It is calm almost 15% of the time.

My experience is that East winds (in your face on this hole) are the least common in the Southern Ontario.  You must have had unusual winds when you've played there, if the wind was often in your face.    Check out the Buttonville airport wind chart at the NAV Canada site.   http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/publications/lak/OnQc/5-OQ33E.PDF 

In the summer winds are least frequently from the NE, E and SE. The winds are more likely to be calm than to be from those three directions.  Winds from the N, NW and W are twice as likely as NE, E, and SE.

I think this generally makes the second shot more difficult in that it's harder to stop the ball on the green with a tail wind.  An east wind, in your face, would certainly make stopping the ball easier, but makes distance control more difficult.  Wind would increas the difficulty of any hole, regardless of direction.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Phil,

Are you suggesting that an unimpeded low risk short second shot should be the reward for a risky drive executed well?  Or, are you suggesting that the bunkers front, table top green, and runoff back constitute one or two too many risks for a shot that should be rewarded.

One thing that comes to mind is the age old question of how to design a hole that is rewarding to both players like you and me and for scratch players and also for weak players.  It probably can't be done.  This hole will probably appeal more to the better player who is better equipped to handle its challenges.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

How far do you carry the ball?  Are you long but erratic?  Do you usually play tees far enough forward to suit your scoring or to suit your driver length?

I have seen very few players actually carry the centre bunker.  For me it is right on the cusp.  Given it is the 2nd hole of the day, I'm not usually inclined to take it on.  But to the thinking player standing on the tee, it is an option to try to carry it.  A siren song for most, I'd guess.

Anyway, if you, or others are long enough to carry it, you might end up with a side hill lie that increases the interest (or risk) of the second shot.  I have to think that even for the long hitter, the features of the green and the often firm condtions would keep the hole from being boring for them.

At least the quarry is far enough left that the erratic player like you is less likely to lose your ball left.   

[Bryan Izatt]

Mark,

I'm curious how you would have used the quarry more effectively.  Take a look at Google Earth and what the property looked like in 2005 before the course was built.  It looks like a difficult property to me.  The bottom of the quarry is essentially flat.  They must have moved a lot of dirt to get even 14 and 15 down there.  The quarry (gravel) walls on the west and south sides are 40 to 50 feet high and look pretty unstable.  There were three quarry ponds at the bottom where they probably got below the water table and were probably not really moveable.  Would you have preferred a couple of more holes in the bottom where the par 3 course is? 

[Bryan Izatt]

One other thought on the 2nd hole.  The left fairway is about 23 - 25 yards wide.  There was a time when that was a pretty common width for a single fairway.  This one just looks relatively narrow.  What's unfair, or risky about giving a player a fairway option of that width. 

There is another 36 hole club on the west side of the city, The Country Club, built in the 1950's, where many of the fairways are 25 to 30 yards wide.  I can play both the CC and Wyndance and I've got to say that I like the width and options approach better.

[Frank M]

Bryan: Although Southern Ontario has relatively mild winds, Wyndance and Uxbridge sit on a plateau high above the GTA. There is around 750 feet of elevation change from Lake Ontario/Downtown Toronto to Wyndance, and the winds are abnormally high in the Wyndance area.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

How far do you carry the ball?  Are you long but erratic?  Do you usually play tees far enough forward to suit your scoring or to suit your driver length?

...

During primary golf season, I usually carry the ball around 230. If I reach back a little further, I can carry it 250 here at sea level. I am erratic, often considerably off line.
I play a course with next to no choice in tees. At GCA events, I usually play whatever others want to play, which usually means going back from the tees identified for me by handicap.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

Are you suggesting that an unimpeded low risk short second shot should be the reward for a risky drive executed well?  Or, are you suggesting that the bunkers front, table top green, and runoff back constitute one or two too many risks for a shot that should be rewarded.

One thing that comes to mind is the age old question of how to design a hole that is rewarding to both players like you and me and for scratch players and also for weak players.  It probably can't be done.  This hole will probably appeal more to the better player who is better equipped to handle its challenges.

Not in all cases. On this particular hole -- yes, I'd like to see the risky tee shot, successfully executed, rewarded with an easier 2nd shot. And I'd like to see the easier tee shot right result in a tougher approach shot. Given the length of the hole, I don't really mind the table-top nature of the green, or the backside run-off, although those are obviously things I'd like to see on the ground before fully committing to that view. To me, the fronting bunkers left and the orientation of the green are what's wrong with the hole. The shot in with a well-executed drive left is probably 8-iron at most? Maybe 9-iron/wedge for the very good golfer. That doesn't strike me as overly demanding in terms of hitting a table-top green (as long as its re-oriented).

It seems the best golf courses out there, at least those praised here on GCA, are those that find that spectrum of challenging top-tier players while not overly penalizing the average hack. I think Ran's original review of Old Macdonald suggested that was the genius of that course (I haven't played) -- that the average player might find it the most rewarding of the four Bandon courses, while it might frustrate the top-tier player more than any other Bandon course. (I once got in a fairly interesting discussion here with some folks about whether Sand Hills falls into this category -- based on the pictures I've seen, it looks fairly penal, compared to, say, pictures I've seen of Ballyneal. But others disagree quite pointedly.)

Getting back to this particular hole, its length to me offers the opportunity to provide a solid risk-reward hole for a range of players, but would be better off with some changes.

[Jeremy Rivando]

Having played this hole once I remember that going left looked like a bad option.  Going directly at the right side fwy bunker sets up easily and from there the next shot looks pretty difficult especially with a trailing breeze. 

I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot bunker, adding some soft shaping that would allow some shots to bounce towards the putting surface. 

There is also a preference to take out the middle pot bunker and just leave the one on the left.  Slightly expand the runway entrance on the left side but keep a sharp and closely mown ridge in place of the bunker.  Some shots would roll up with the correct bounce and others would stop in their place leaving a few recovery options available to the player.

The shaping of the entire hole takes away from any risk reward options, the left side is not a good choice off the tee but if you miss left its nice to have a chance and not be playing from the rough.  The hole could have been pretty good if the green and two front bunkers were angled the opposite way and shaped to allow approaches to run in up the left side.  That would have made for an appropriate risk IMHO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()