I've seen the 2005 list....

[PThomas]

Alex -- from Mike's diagram it looks like the water on the 2nd shot would be factor for all but the best players to be careful of...

[Jerry Kluger]

Regarding number 11, it is downhill and the bunkers left obscure the landing area beyond them and that landing area is pretty narrow.  I played with one of the assistants and she suggested playing it right of the bunkers and lay back about 80 to 100 yards and not bring the water into play on the tee shot.  This does however raise the possibility of a downhill lie into the green with water right which is the natural direction of a right handed player's shot from a downhill lie.  The other strategy is to play it over the bunkers with the possibility to drive the green.  In one case it is the tee shot which is the challenge and the other it is the second shot - this is what I consider risk/reward and thought provoking.  What bothered me a bit about the hole was that it is short with water right which is similar to number 6 although on 6 the bunkers are right.  On the other hand, 14 is a great short par 4 and I must've chipped 6 balls up the hill trying to get to a front pin.

[Mike_Cirba]

Alex,

As Jerry Kluger points out, I think there are a number of different strategies/options on the 11th hole.  You make it sound as though carrying the tee ball 250 yards over the fairway bunkers on the left into a narrow neck of blind fairway between rough on the left and water squeezing diagonally in from the right is a piece of cake!  

It would require an almost perfect shot to pull that off, controlling not only direction, but distance and roll.  It's certainly not a high percentage shot.  THe person who misses right is wet and the person who misses left is in the rough, pitching over a bunker at a tough angle, with the green running away towards the water

For most mortals, the question is where to lay up.  A drive of about 220 yards that challenges the bunkers successfully leaves a good option, a full sand wedge, and a better angle from a more level lie.

Any drive further than that, particularly the further right you go, and you risk a VERY touchy "half shot" off a downhill lie to a sliver of diagonal green.  Also, a ball could easily run into the water if you're not careful with distance.

I enjoy the hole because a long hitter (or anyone playing from the proper tees) will be very tempted to give it a go, yet it is not a hole that can be played with mindless or inexact shots.  The long, narrow, offset green itself is fairly quick and undulating, with any number of excellent hole locations, which ensures that even a perfectly placed drive is not a routine, kick-in birdie.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I just think TN is over the top...and I have played it........I guess we agree to disagree on this one

Don,

I'm trying to figure out exactly where we disagree.  

Could you tell me what elements about the course at TN that you find to be "over the top"?  

Are you talking stylistically or in the demands it places on the golfer or both?  

[Alex_Wyatt]

jerry and mike, i can't really explain any more about how i disagree. i don't think anybody would try to drive the green unless they were 4 down in matchplay or something really extreme. and the play over the bunker is easy, especially because the left rough kicks balls back down toward the fairway and even if you stay up there you have 100 yards or less. there APPEARS to be strategy, but in practice i assure you there isn't. that's my point.

[Mike_Cirba]

jerry and mike, i can't really explain any more about how i disagree. i don't think anybody would try to drive the green unless they were 4 down in matchplay or something really extreme. and the play over the bunker is easy, especially because the left rough kicks balls back down toward the fairway and even if you stay up there you have 100 yards or less. there APPEARS to be strategy, but in practice i assure you there isn't. that's my point.

Alex,

A couple of things...

First, you mentioned that the land in that area tends to kick balls back towards the fairway, but doesn't the general slope also tend to kick balls towards the water?

Second, if your ball hangs in the rough, you are then left with a downhill lie, less than 100 yards, water awaiting a "squirter" on the right, and a diagonal approach to a green with water behind awaiting a long "flier", as well.

Third, isn't the strategy of the hole to either flirt with the better angle on the left by carrying the bunkers or laying up back by those fairway bunkers?

Once the golfer makes a decision to drive 250 or longer yards from the tee (from the tips, or 230 from the middle tees) they are bringing the water into play.  If you make that decision and drive it accurately down to the blind leftside fairway, you are rewarded.  If not, you're either wet or left with an awkward approach.

Laying up at 220 is a good option, but requires a full sand wedge approach that still needs to cross and flirt with water and can even risk spinning back into the drink.  

I call this strategy, even if you don't.    

[Alex_Wyatt]

Fair enough.  I think its the sort of strategy that wouldn't stand a chance in tom doak's architecture contest. And you wouldn't be impressed by it if fazio's courses weren't essentially devoid of strategy generally.

[Alex_Wyatt]

And, by the way, Jerry- I want the names, ranks and serial numbers of the guys who don't like the holes in the open at friars head! Are they nuts?  

[Mike Hendren]

Take out the right-hand fairway bunker (anybody over there is already hosed - no need to incur a 15 yards penalty for piling on).  Take out the first  left-hand fairway bunker (shouldn't the short hitter be given the option of laying farther back to yield the best angle to approach?).  Extend the left side of the fairway all the way over to the cart path through the green and eliminate any trees therein (give the bomber room to have a go, but leave him a dicey pitch over the bunker toward the water if he misses left off the tee).  Would the hole not be substantially better? If so, is it any good as is (judging solely by this rendering)?

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Fair enough.  I think its the sort of strategy that wouldn't stand a chance in tom doak's architecture contest. And you wouldn't be impressed by it if fazio's courses weren't essentially devoid of strategy generally.

Alex,

You're talking to a guy who came up with the term "anti-strategy" to define a number of Tom Fazio courses I've played!   It's not only "no strategy", it's "counter" strategy where a drive successfully challenging a hazard is subsequently punished by a more difficult next shot!    

The fact that Trump National is SOO different than many of his courses and up there with his very best is why I felt compelled to write a very favorable review a few weeks back, before Golf Magazine put the course in its Top 50 in the country.  

It's on a scale with World Woods Pine Barrens in my estimation, even though they are both very different type courses.  Geoffrey Childs liked it better than Fazio's poster course, Shadow Creek.  

Obviously the raters for Golf Magazine were also favorably impressed.

I'm just trying to get you or Don to provide some specifics about what you found objectionable, over the top, or vapid about the design.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Take out the right-hand fairway bunker (anybody over there is already hosed - no need to incur a 15 yards penalty for piling on).  Take out the first  left-hand fairway bunker (shouldn't the short hitter be given the option of laying farther back to yield the best angle to approach?).  Extend the left side of the fairway all the way over to the cart path through the green and eliminate any trees therein (give the bomber room to have a go, but leave him a dicey pitch over the bunker toward the water if he misses left off the tee).  Would the hole not be substantially better? If so, is it any good as is (judging solely by this rendering)?

Mike

Mike,

The bunker on the right serves both the 11th and 12th holes, the latter as a somewhat diagonal carry bunker (257 yards uphill from the tips) for the two furthest sets of tees on a par five.  

I don't agree with taking out the first bunker on the left because I don't believe anyone should get within 100 yards of the target completely risk free.  As it is, laying up short of both bunkers requires laying back to at least 125 yards, which starts making the second shot much more iffy to the narrow, diagonal target.

Generally, I'm not opposed to widening the fairway out to the left, although pitching from rough across grain, over bunker to a diagonal green with water behind is a chancey, dicey penalty for the golfer who risks the left side and fails, or bails too far away from the water.  

Still, I think extending the fairway is a suggestion that has considerable merit.  

[Mike Hendren]

Sorry for the thread hijack.

Mike,

Few mid-cappers can actually place a 200 yards tee shot - think of it this way:  how often to they hit the green on a 200 yards par three?  Even so, a free shot from 100 yards in still leaves a pretty difficult pitch for the mid-capper.  I'd wager from that spot that his doubles will equal his pars, much less birdies.  Maybe leave the first fairway bunker and take out the second, so everybody gets the thrill of carrying it to get the preferred angle.  

In my mind, the pitch from short left is not significantly easier from fairway than rough.  The extra fairway dares more big hitters to have a go.  Not everyone is as bold and restless as our good pal Shivas.

Mike

Please note I'm more interested in design philosophy in general than I am in critiquing this particular hole.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry for the thread hijack.

Mike,

Few mid-cappers can actually place a 200 yards tee shot - think of it this way:  how often to they hit the green on a 200 yards par three?  Even so, a free shot from 100 yards in still leaves a pretty difficult pitch for the mid-capper.  I'd wager from that spot that his doubles will equal his pars, much less birdies.  Maybe leave the first fairway bunker and take out the second, so everybody gets the thrill of carrying it to get the preferred angle.  

In my mind, the pitch from short left is not significantly easier from fairway than rough.  The extra fairway dares more big hitters to have a go.  Not everyone is as bold and restless as our good pal Shivas.

Mike,

The problem isn't the mid-handicapper..it's the low handicapper.  By removing the first bunker, you provide him/her the option of hitting a 215 yard shot risk free followed by a level lie, preferred angle, and full sand wedge approach.  Put a nine-iron in their hands back at 125 and beyond and they have to start thinking, especially with a little wind out on that open stretch of the course.

As far as the short pitch from the rough or fairway, I'd generally agree that for most players, the half-shot (especially considering the angle and downhill lie) would be dicey with either fairway or rough.

Better players are more affected by rough, however, which tend to remove their spin and control advantage.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Hendren,

Nice to see that at least one person wants to actually discuss architecture!  

Apparently Don Herdrich and Alex Wyatt have left the building after providing us with reams of valuable critical information and qualitative detailed analysis.    

I was thinking about your idea and agree with you that I'd like to see fairway out to the left of the bunkers towards the cart path.  However, I don't agree that it should extend all the way to the green.  Instead, I'd like to see the fairway bowed out around the bunkers but then come back and meet the existing fairway/rough line beyond.

I think the appearance of more fairway room on the left would make that option more attractive and tempting.  It would also create another option of trying to layup left and adjacent to the bunkers, which would be an awesome angle in, although once again, needing to challenge the bunkers to gain that optimum positioning.

[Don Herdrich]

some of us do work or have more important things to do than debate Trump National till the end of time.........it is great that so many people love the place, I don't.........

Mr Criba,
maybe you should mortgage your house and pony up the $350K to join...........if it is so great, seems like a no brainer!

[Mike_Cirba]

some of us do work or have more important things to do than debate Trump National till the end of time.........it is great that so many people love the place, I don't.........

Mr Criba,
maybe you should mortgage your house and pony up the $350K to join...........if it is so great, seems like a no brainer!

Don,

It's Cirba, not Criba.  

Since you're here anyway and offered a rather critical opinion, I just thought you might like to tell us specifically what's "over the top" about the golf course at Trump National.  Seriously, I'd like to hear and I always find something to learn from opposing viewpoints, whether or not I agree.  

To me, you seem rather hung up on the initiation fee.  I can't afford Old Sandwich either, but that wouldn't affect my view of the golf course.  

[Jerry Kluger]

I think one feature of the hole which has not been fully discussed is what one sees from the tee.  The hole plays downhill but my recollection is that the neck of fairway beyond the left bunkers is not visible from the tee which makes the shot even more intimidating.

Also, there are other factors which make it a good short 4.  First, the option to go for the green when you need to make 3 and possibly 2 is good for your typical Sunday nassau or 4 ball, and is also there for the really good player trying to make a move on the back 9 in stroke play.  Another factor is that you've just played the par 3 10th which can produce a birdie but also can produce an "other" , although we don't need to discuss the merits of 10, the point is that the position of the hole within the round can also play a factor in its design.  I think 14 is a really good short 4 but I don't think that it has the risk/reward option of 11 and while short, is not a strong chance for a 3.

[Don Herdrich]

Sorry about the name type Mr Cirba ......it was an oversight I promise.......as far as being hung up on initiation fees, believe me, you could afford the one at OSGC.........it is about a 1/12th of TN for a national member........

As far as going into details about TN, I will have to think of specifics that deem it over the top.......I just didn't like the feel of the place

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry about the name type Mr Cirba ......it was an oversight I promise.......as far as being hung up on initiation fees, believe me, you could afford the one at OSGC.........it is about a 1/12th of TN for a national member........

As far as going into details about TN, I will have to think of specifics that deem it over the top.......I just didn't like the feel of the place

Don,

No problem on the name...you can't imagine how it's been butchered over the years...worse than a typical Rees Jones "restoration".  

I'll be interested in your detailed thoughts when you get a chance.  I'm serious about always learning something from dissenting opinions and besides, this site wouldn't be much fun if we always agreed.

Thanks,
Mike