[Bill Shamleffer]

First, TV is the worst avenue to judge a golf hole.

Second, the 18th hole at Cherry Hills looks terrible to me just from watching on TV.

So I am asking those who have played Cherry Hills to give their opinions about this hole.

The issue I have from watching on TV is that it seems like the only way to play the hole is by hitting 2 career perfect shots.  Also, it appears there are no alternatives to playing the 2nd shot other than by hitting a VERY high and VERY perfect 2nd shot that lands on the first few inches of the green.

I have no expectation that all well hit shots should always be rewarded, but it looks like way too many well hit shots towards the 18th green at Cherry Hills are not rewarded.

Of course I realize that my vantage point is very limited.  So any of you that have played this hole or seen this hole in person, please offer your thoughts.

Thank you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Before Hi-Tech it was a good hole.

Today, these kids bomb the ball so far that I'm not sure it presents a meaningful challenge in the context of today's finishing hole expectations.

If it wasn't for the firm to hard greens, I think inability of courses to defend themselves would become more apparent.

[Brian Colbert]

The fairway is narrow but you because that hill pushes everything back to the left, as a player I wasn't worried about the right rough at all.  The tee shot is tough but reasonable in my opinion.

The second shot is a bit different. With the F&F conditions the USGA has chosen to present the course in, it is tough to hold that green with much more than an 8-iron. In the stroke play the pin was tucked left behind the bunker and I (stupidly) hit a shot which was right at the flag. The shot landed next to the hole and bounced over the green. In fact, all three players in my group found themselves over the green after landing shots on. The important thing to remember here is that the hole is a member's par 5.

FWIW, that hole was 2-iron 7-iron for me and I am anything but long. I hit my tee shot down the left side of the fairway and it ran about 70 yards down the fairway before finally diving left into the water. From there, I was able to drop in the fairway and blow my shot over the green, failing to get up and down for bogey. The tee shot had nothing to do with it being a difficult shot and everything to do with making a terrible swing. The approach shot was a stupid decision to try and make a cheap par after finding the water off the tee. It's a tough hole but certainly not terrible. I think in the typically (?) softer conditions which members play the course under offer a more playable solution, especially considering they are playing it as a three shot hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

My recollection was that the fairway and right rough acted as a banked backstop, redirecting balls back to the left and as such, you could give the water a wide berth.

[Bill Shamleffer]

I did not realize that the 18th is a par-5 for everyday play.  From what I have seen on TV, the hole makes much more sense as a par-5 under normal conditions.

[Matthew Petersen]

I think it's a wonderful hole that is actually a rare example of a hole that is good as a "member" par 5, but also really works as a championship par 4.

Certainly with the extremely firm conditions for this year's Am it became an extremely difficult green to hit, especially due to it being well above the level of the fairway. But overall I think it's a wonderful hole with a lot of risk/reward options off the tee. Even the top ams ended up hitting everything from long irons to very short irons in to the green, based mostly on how much they were willing to challenge the water on the left with their tee shots.

As a member hole, it's also excellent. You can challenge the water to make the hole short and get home in two, but if you bail right you still have a reasonable option of it being a three-shot hole. The finger of lake that sticks out is excellent in this regard, however, because you can't merely bunt your ball down the fairway--if you've bailed out into the rough high up on the hill, then you have to decide if you can clear the water to leave a short pitch in, or if you have to lay up, which leaves a much longer and significantly uphill shot.

Incidentally, this appears to be one of the holes least changed from Flynn's original design (I don't believe the greenside bunkers were in his plans but I do recall there was at least a deep hollow short right where the "Birdie Kim" bunker is today.)

[Phil McDade]

I was pretty impressed by the hole, from watching it on TV, and I'm one who typically loathes holes with lateral water hazards. It seemed to be a hole that made golfers think on the tee -- how far left to go, bail out right to play safe, even what kind of club to play off the tee -- which is always a good thing. The semi-blind element of the 2nd shot was also appealing, and the green seemed like a really good one, on a course with a bunch of good ones. Weaver -- not the longest of players in the US Am -- played it the last day w/ 3-wood/8-iron, so its demands don't seem onerous, but it does seem like a hole that rewards well-executed shots and punishes poor ones. And it even seemed like a hole where a recovery out of trouble -- Cox's approach on the 36th hole from a bad lie in the rough -- was possible with a well-executed shot.

Matthew -- curious how this plays as a par 5 for the members. Does it have a conventional lay-up area? That slope leading up to the green looks really severe. Does everyone simply go for it in two?

[Matthew Petersen]

I was pretty impressed by the hole, from watching it on TV, and I'm one who typically loathes holes with lateral water hazards. It seemed to be a hole that made golfers think on the tee -- how far left to go, bail out right to play safe, even what kind of club to play off the tee -- which is always a good thing. The semi-blind element of the 2nd shot was also appealing, and the green seemed like a really good one, on a course with a bunch of good ones. Weaver -- not the longest of players in the US Am -- played it the last day w/ 3-wood/8-iron, so its demands don't seem onerous, but it does seem like a hole that rewards well-executed shots and punishes poor ones. And it even seemed like a hole where a recovery out of trouble -- Cox's approach on the 36th hole from a bad lie in the rough -- was possible with a well-executed shot.

Matthew -- curious how this plays as a par 5 for the members. Does it have a conventional lay-up area? That slope leading up to the green looks really severe. Does everyone simply go for it in two?

I have never played the course, but walked it numerous times throughout the years. Keep in mind that the course has probably not been as firm (except when frozen in the winter) as it was this past week in the past 50 years or so. In the Am conditions, that slope might not have even held a ball. In normal member play conditions, it would be just fine. Is it an ideal place to lay up to? I suppose not, but in the end we're talking about a par 5 that cannot play any longer than 490 yards, at altitude. Member tees are more like 450. This is a pretty short par 5. I imagine most good players do tend to go for the green, provided they hit a good drive. If you don't, or just aren't long enough to ever get there, then you have many options. You can try to play over the finger of the lake to leave yourself the shortest possible shot. There's a fairly flat area just beyond the lake, otherwise you're playing a pitch from an uphill lie. You could lay back of the lake entirely. Or, you can even just try to tack around the lake. It only juts out about halfway into the fairway and the club now maintains the fairway all the way up through the green, including with a relatively wide swatch around the lake. That is a change from Flynn's original plan as well, but probably a good one for many of the less accomplished members playing the course today.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I was awed by it as a finishing hole.  I played it as a par five and found both the drive and second shot to be pretty demanding.  I just can't understand how some folks hit it so far that they are hitting 8 irons into the green.  Talk about a game with which I am unfamiliar. 

[Adam Clayman]

The home hole green, from my perspective, is truly a Flynn. From the flanking bunkers to the sloping sectioned green, I feel as though it's the only place I felt a sense of GA.

IMO, The abortion is the penultimate hole.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think it is a great hole. I am not long enough to make the distance call. It is a driver for me period. but there is clearly a challenge the lake for better angle very hope the hill brings you back to the middle. You are toast in the rough. The green complex is a great one as well. It is a long uphill shot. wow

[Matthew Petersen]

The home hole green, from my perspective, is truly a Flynn. From the flanking bunkers to the sloping sectioned green, I feel as though it's the only place I felt a sense of GA.

IMO, The abortion is the penultimate hole.

Adam,

Have you seen it since the cross bunkers were reintroduced? If so, what is it that you still do not like about the hole?

I agree the version lacking cross bunkers was a pretty terrible hole. A dead-straight par 5 to an awkward island green. The cross bunkers have brought back interest to drives and second shots, and I think the island looks better now, as well.

I will say for me personally the look of the cross bunkers is still not ideal. Flynn's original plans for the hole, as well as a 30s-era photograph (both can be seen in the "Nature Faker" book) show a much scruffier looking area, more reminiscent of the Hell's Half Acre type of idea, albeit with an island of fairway. You had two sets of cross bunkers, but also some mounding, and it seems like the middle section of fairway was offset somewhat.

I much prefer that look overall, but understand it wouldn't totally fit with the golf course as it exists today. The Cherry Hills of Flynn's day was a much scruffier place. Not just due to the practices of the day, but also the way the creek flowed through the property with natural sand banks that really look wonderful in the plans for holes like 15, 13, and 12, among others. The creek cannot be restored to that condition due to flood concerns, so some of the natural sandy-dune look is simply not possible to restore, which is a shame. (The "short" 15th especially would be wonderful to see return, but it would be difficult to make work with today's restrictions on the creek.)

[Adam Clayman]

Matthew, I played the course about two years ago. I think it was with the cross bunkers, but, it was the island like green that I found particularly odd. Maybe it was the blind nature of the fronting water, but the whole island green concept struck me as forced, there.

Perhaps I was in a bad mood because I was disappointed (my fault) due to the lack of strategic use of that riparian that runs through the course and that some arborist had gone nutz, all over the property. You are correct that a scruffier sandy look would be more in keeping with the natural appeal I find paramount.

But, hey, how about that locker room? Just great. 

[Ross Harmon]

Here's an old print of Cherry Hills #18 that I have. Looks very flat in this print, but that's not the case in person!

I think overall it's a good finishing hole. Requires a good tee shot and good approach shot, but not overly difficult. Several ways to play each shot and the green right by the patio is a nice place for members to greet each other after a round.

[Jeff Spittel]

I'd echo what some of the other fellas have said. It's a great risk-reward par 5 for the members. The last time I played there, I hit it over in two with a five iron as a 9 handicap. If my sorry ass can manage that, I'd assume that it was more than fair for the young bucks to play it as a par 4. It is a USGA event, so I don't think it posed too much of a challenge for players that talented due to the firm conditions. 

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew, I played the course about two years ago. I think it was with the cross bunkers, but, it was the island like green that I found particularly odd. Maybe it was the blind nature of the fronting water, but the whole island green concept struck me as forced, there.

Perhaps I was in a bad mood because I was disappointed (my fault) due to the lack of strategic use of that riparian that runs through the course and that some arborist had gone nutz, all over the property. You are correct that a scruffier sandy look would be more in keeping with the natural appeal I find paramount.

But, hey, how about that locker room? Just great. 

The creek was better used on Flynn's original holes as well, according to his drawings. very much in play on 1, 5, and from 12-16. Now you sort of encounter it there but rarely in a way that it's much in play. But, again, that seems to be due to restrictions for flood issues. I don't know if they ever did have it flood out in the past or if it's just a restriction based on scenarios. I agree it's always seemed a shame that the creek is not used more. I think seeing the original intent made me feel sort of better about that--at least I guess I know the reason now.

I do agree that the island 17th is odd. I can't think of another island green quite like that one anywhere else. I have never read much about why Flynn deiced to create the feature--it was certainly very rare at that time.

[Brian Colbert]

On a somewhat related note, I noticed something which I found to be very odd at Cherry Hills. On the second hole, you are actually below the water level of the lake on 18 by about 5 or 6 feet when you stand in the fairway. This is particularly strange because the green goes right next to this lake and actually sits below the level of the water as well.

[Matthew Petersen]

On a somewhat related note, I noticed something which I found to be very odd at Cherry Hills. On the second hole, you are actually below the water level of the lake on 18 by about 5 or 6 feet when you stand in the fairway. This is particularly strange because the green goes right next to this lake and actually sits below the level of the water as well.

That is always a disconcerting feeling. I have played a number of holes where there is water above me, but almost all of those involved manufactured ponds (in most cases, made for the golf course, but in at least one it was a pond made for agriculture and the course came later). Is the lake at Cherry Hills natural? Or did Flynn (or someone before him) dam the creek to create it? if the creek was dammed that could account for why two sits where it does.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()