[Joe Bentham]

[Jon Wiggett]

Is this the normal angle of play. The bunker seems a little out of the way.

[David Druzisky]

The green looks flat, the tree is gone from the front left at the lake, you can see the path beyond, and Jon is correct about the bunker placement.

It is probably a great hole.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its a 7/10 hole but could easily be a 9/10 one, its a lovely setting but the construction is just too basic and with more thought the hole could look more pleasing and I am sure the visibility could be better with just a metre more contour change.

[Jason Topp]

Impossible to tell from the picture and without knowing the dimensions.  Looks like an attempt to replicate 12 at Augusta.

[henrye]

From the pic, it looks great!

[Jason Connor]

I like the bunker.

The weak player is likely to hit short & right.  So instead of hitting the bank & bounding into the water, common mishit shot is helpful in that it'll stop a ball from getting wet.

[Bill Brightly]

My two cents:

Lose the bush/tree near the water behind the trap, it is a distraction and detracts from the visual.

And as mentioned earlier, if you could hide the cart path by building up the mound in the back/left of the green, it would look much better!

[Tim Nugent]

When asking ?'s like this, why not provide at least a little information so a ratiional answer could be given.  Like how long, what's the wind direction, where it falls in the routing, etc.  Without, one has to assume too much.  Given the plain vanilla appearance, I would assume it is probably a mid-length hole (145-180). Therefore, IMHO no.  Just take one or two more clubs.  All trouble is frontal (bunker actually saves a mishit).  Green looks pretty flat, so long looks safe.  Weaker players are at a disadvantage.  If you know your club distances, the sideways green allows for pulls and pushes to land safely on the green.  If you're going to make a par 3 all carry, then loose the grass bank, drop the green several feet and get it right on the water's edge, While you're at it side it more to the right, elongate it on a front-left, back-right axis to narrow the target and make it more than just one club deep.  If a bunker is desired, cut one in middle left and for heavens sake, put some contour into the green - the surrounding landscape is to sweet not to be emmulated in the green. 
All-in-all, a classic case of a missed opportunity.

[Pete_Pittock]

The bunker provides an overall balance to the shot. Agreed the bunker will help keep a weak/right shot out of the water, but that could also be accompllished by medium rough.
I don't think this is tied to ANGC 12. This green is a drop shot, definitely not so at Augusta. Yes, it does go across a pond.
If this is #12 at Druids Glen near Seattle, it is a good hole, which could have been slightly better . There it serves as a transition to a different level of the property.
http://www.druidsglengolf.com/sites/images/297/hole.asp?id=12

[RJ_Daley]

It looks vaguely like that Stanley Thompson par 3 hole at Banff.  Although the surrounds don't seem as well situated.

[John Moore II]

I would venture to say this is an average hole on an average golf course. The green looks dead flat, as has been said, the bunker is actually anti-penal, there is a huge backstop which lets you just fly something in there and if its long, it just rolls back onto the green. Great setting, potential is there for a very great hole, it just turned out very average. I wouldn't say bad, but I wouldn't necessarily say good either.

[JESII]

I would venture to say this is an average hole on an average golf course.

Is that better than being a crap hole on a good course (sort of a black sheep?)? How about being one of the better holes on a dog track?

I think I'd like to be a bad hole on a good course more than the other three options for the same caliber hole...at least there's a chance to pick up some scraps...

[henrye]

When asking ?'s like this, why not provide at least a little information so a ratiional answer could be given.  Like how long, what's the wind direction, where it falls in the routing, etc.  Without, one has to assume too much.  Given the plain vanilla appearance, I would assume it is probably a mid-length hole (145-180). Therefore, IMHO no.  Just take one or two more clubs.  All trouble is frontal (bunker actually saves a mishit).  Green looks pretty flat, so long looks safe.  Weaker players are at a disadvantage.  If you know your club distances, the sideways green allows for pulls and pushes to land safely on the green.  If you're going to make a par 3 all carry, then loose the grass bank, drop the green several feet and get it right on the water's edge, While you're at it side it more to the right, elongate it on a front-left, back-right axis to narrow the target and make it more than just one club deep.  If a bunker is desired, cut one in middle left and for heavens sake, put some contour into the green - the surrounding landscape is to sweet not to be emmulated in the green. 
All-in-all, a classic case of a missed opportunity.

Wow.  Tough crowd.  The only safe shot I see is on the green/green edge  or in the bunker.  Long looks like a pretty tough recovery.  Short is trouble and left or right is a big miss and in the nasty stuff.  The contour looks like it makes it a little more playable.

[John Moore II]

JES-My reasoning for saying what I did was that the hole was not entirely poor, just that it was overly average and was likely to be seen on an average course, nothing too special, but not a overly poor golf course, just a fun course, if for the game and not the architecture.
--I do think it would be worse to be a poor hole on a good golf course, as that hole would stand out as bad and be very out of place
--How often do you see an earthshattering hole on an otherwise poor golf course?

[Andy Troeger]

IMO its a pretty tough stretch to tell whether that green is dead flat if all we are judging from is that photo at that size. It could be flat, or it could have a nice slope to add some intrigue. Its flatter than the rest of the slope, but the rest of the slope looks pretty steep.

Would be nice to know how long the hole plays as well. Hard to say much without knowing what kind of shot is supposed to be played. I would like it better as a short-iron hole as the green appears rather shallow and it is an all-carry approach.

[TEPaul]

You know what I would do with that hole?

I'd take that bunker out that looks ridiculously out of place in that setting, and then I'd raise the front of that green up so golfers on the tee shot could see none of the green surface but about 95% of the flag.

Do you think that would piss off about 50% of the golfers who played that hole? I certainly hope so! 

[Michael Dugger]

What interesting things y'all have to say sometimes......

Sure it's a good hole.  It's by and large "heroic" with what I believe is a "saving" bunker, based on what I can recall from reading my RTJII book

If it plays from 100-175 yds it's fine by me, but if it's longer I would like to know how receptive that green/landing area is.  Reminds me of this hole from Muirfield Village.....













The Devils Cauldron it is not, but in the grand scheme of things, I like it. 

[Bart Bradley]

Please ignore my previous post here...I missed something the first time I read through the thread.

The hole looks challenging...no real bail out...and I agree that I would hope this would be a mid or short iron shot.  The green doesn't really look all that flat to me.  It does look a lot like the hole at Muirfield but doesn't have quite the same refinement.


Bart

[Mike_Cirba]

It looks like about 25% of the par threes I played growing up in the Poconos.

[David Druzisky]

Pete,

You scared me there for a moment in wondering if it was 12 at Druids.  I did that hole while with Keith and you are correct in that it could have been better - if it had not been for the original poor contractor effort and interference from one of the previous owners.    It has been a long time since I have seen it and you never know how much the landscape around the hole has grown and changed so I had to go back to the photo and just make sure.  If it is 12, wow, it sure looks different!  12 is a bigger drop and shorter hole by the looks of this one, plus the path does not go around to the back.  There were several otyher trees in the area originally that we assumed were not going to make it through time.  That is a nice area at Druids as you say that transitions across the creek.  If I ws at the office I would add a photo of Druid 12 that I have.

[Sean_A]

Honestly, the hole looks like a waste of good site.  I say scarp it and start over.

Ciao

[Joe Bentham]

Larger Picture

The hole above plays from the angle of the photo from the back tees.  Its 137 yards from the middle of that tee, and it plays slightly downhill.  Most days there is a decent left right cross breeze.  The green is sloped from back to front, but isn't more then a club and half deep.  There is a decent sized hump in the middle of the green, towards the back.  Balls that are long usually stay up there.  And short, unless left, is usually in the water.  With all that being said, I'd agree there isn't much going on here.  Pretty basic stuff.  And yet its always a shot I look forward to hitting.  I'd say the fun factor is pretty high here.

How about this one?

This hole plays 158 from the back box, and at the angle of the photo.  Its about a two story drop from the tee to the green, and the hole is usually into a good right to left breeze.  The green is slightly back to front, and has a "T" like ridge.  Long and left doesn't provide much of an opportunity for an up and down.  The elevation change and stiff breeze make this a tough club to pull.  Is the hole any good?  Is it better or worse then the first one? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()