I've just got to blow off some steam after playing a lousy par 5 finishing hole yesterday.  It looks to me the hole was forced into the routing in order to get "72" on the scorecard.  

The hole is about 580 from the back tees and 520 from the middle tees.  There is a forced carry (wetlands) about 190 from the tee.  You either bust a drive 250 to carry the hazard or lay up with a 7-iron (my choice).

My real frustration with the design is that there is NO reward for carrying the hazard.  The shallow green is surrounded by water and is meant for a wedge approach.  The player has to hit a high/soft shot from 270+ yards... an unlikely option for most golfers.

It appears the hole is supposed to be played either:

- 7 iron, 3 wood, wedge (this is what I did yesterday)
- Driver (over hazard), short iron, wedge.

The finishing hole left a bad taste after 17 decent holes.  I hate lay-up tee shots.  Why do architects allow them in their design?

The best (infamous) one of these is found on the third hole at Macoby Run. I'll let Mike Cirba extrapolate.

The White Course at PSU seems to be falling into a similar adding length for the sake of adding length trap - turning two difficult par 4s into creampuff par 5s for the sake of adding two shots to par. The 6th went from bad to worse (see the picture in My home course) and 18 was probably the hardest par 4 on either course, and a decent finish. All told, the course went from Par 70 to Par 72, but only got an additional half stroke added to the rating, which is probably more attributed to the lengthening of other Par 4s.

What is truly pitiful is that the changes in each of the holes completely goes against what was designed there. The sixth green was designed by Willie Park to accept a downhill 200 yard approach (it was a par 3). However, the subsequent changes to the par 4 and now the par 5 leave the golfer with either a long, blind approach or a short wedge shot to the green.

The third at the White Course used to have a HHA type feature that confounded the tee shot. It was a strip of rough about 270 yards out. You could hit 3-wood short, or try to bounce drive through it to reach the fairway on the other side. The advantage to the latter was actually being able to see the green, as the shot would be blind from before the strip. The par five is reachable from before the strip and after, only difference was the blindness of the shot.

They've since mowed it all as fairway, though.  

 Wayne,

  I wish they had let the Am Qualifiers play from that new tee. I think we could then make some judgements. But, they played it up. The low scorer hit driver-wedge.
     Even I can hit a driver from that new tee and have a chance to get home in two---there seems to be strategy to me. I try to hook it off the right bunker complex to get the "turbo" boost. If I go too far left there is still strategy on the second shot. Do I test the bunker short of the green or lay back? The cost associated with a mishit tee shot is the punch out from the right that comes from a push or slice. That sounds like golf to me.


  I don't want these guys getting the idea that this hole in any way takes driver out of your hands.

I played a new course in Sarasota this past winter that presented five par five holes four of which took the driver out of your hands. The forced carries were in the 275-300 range and there was great reward in that the greens were easily reachable in two from the other sside of the hazard. My question is who can consistantly call on that much power? Certainly not me!!
The interesting thing about this course was that it was a totally blank canvas (old horse farm) and the hazards were created.

Michael, may I ask what course this was?

 "Wayne,
    You need to find a copy of the "serenity prayer". I'm afraid you are going to have a coronary over this. Chill "

I don't need anything of the kind, Mike.  I am perfectly at ease and becoming habituated to the illogical at Rolling Green.  That doesn't mean someone shouldn't describe the situation and want to do something about it.  Even if it is never playing from a stupid tee.  I'm going to call Tom Paul and see what I do with scores for handicap purposes.

I have to say that your analysis of the 18th is pretty poor.  I'm glad the Amateurs played from the member tee as a par 4.  Did you talk to any of the contestants?  I talked to a dozen or more and talked about the hole as a par 4 and par 5.  To a man they hated the idea of the back tee par 5 and loved the hole as a strong finishing par 4.  No need to speculate.  I found out.  Whose decision was it to play the middle tees as a par 4?  It was probably the GAP and I think it worthwhile to know the reasons why whomever made the decision.

There is no way you can reach the corner beyond the bunkers from the back tee.  Maybe with a tail wind and firm conditions but certainly not with any regularity and rarely if ever under typical conditons.  You might have a slight opening but for you it'll be a 240 yard uphill shot.  Do you have that?  Not that I've seen.

"I don't want these guys getting the idea that this hole in any way takes driver out of your hands."

That isn't the point though at all on this hole.  Anyone can hit driver though there isn't much of a benefit.  Not that many members play from the back tees, just as at other clubs.  There is no strategy at all in the way the hole is set up.  Are there decisions to be made if the tee shot is errant?  Yes, do I hit a nine or eight iron back to the fairway and leave a nine iron or pitching wedge to the green.  Great strategy.

I agree with Tom Paul by the way and think this trite "taking the driver out of one's hand" is a weak and simple argument.  Perfect for you though  

I didn't equate the 18th at RGGC to the hole that Gary gave as an example of lay-up tee shots.  However I did discuss the  consequence of added length that compromises a design resulting in a lay-up on a second shot.

You think what you like.  I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.  Why do you bring up the previous hole?  Is it because you think I don't want to see back to back par 5s?  Hardly.  I want to see a great finishing hole.   While I think the routing and flow of holes presented is one of Flynn's great strengths, for this purpose, let's confine ourselves to this hole independent of the others.  

You have some flaws in your analysis and contradicted yourself in your last post.  Shall I point it out or let you continue on?  I think I'll point it out since there are a number at the club that listen to you.

 "A well stuck shot usually ends up in the area just before the dogleg. The yardage to the green is 220 ish. This entices most midhdcpers to go for it, even though they have a sidehill lie. Their attempt to fade that shot is generally a failure , but hope springs eternal."

We're talking about the back tee.  How many mid-handicappers play from back there?  If they did, do you think they would hit 290 even though it is mostly downhill?  How many mid-handicappers with a draw lie think they can hit a long fade uphill over a bunker short of the green even if their hope does spring eternal?  Agreed the side slope is greater before the bunkers and less afterwards.  I maintain that mid-handicappers, if they play the back tee don't come close to reaching the more level ground so that yardage and slope prevent them from realistically being able to pull off the shot.  

"A very good teeshot gets a turboboost down to 190-or even 170ish. But you must go near the bunkers and the trees to get this result."

So the landing area difference between a "well struck shot" and a "very good tee shot" is between 30 and 50 yards.  That seems to be a wide margin.

"I feel we need to do what we can to get the majority of teeshots from good players to land in this area."

I can on ocassion hit one to the far lengths you speak of here but the number of people at the club that can do it with regularity is zero.  But they can from the tee I suggest certainly not the new back tee you endorse.  Who are the good players that have a majority of their tee shots in the 190-170 yard range from the new tee?  You're talking a 320 to 340 yard drive (admittedly downhill) with a canted fairway reducing overall length.  Look, they played some par 4s over 500 yards at Merion and nearly that on a couple holes at Philadelphia Country Club.  Let the top amateurs play the former back tee as a par 4 when they come in.

"Excuse me for continuing to believe that because most players EXPECT to get a good score on this hole and fail most of the time--having fun all the way--that this is a great hole."

What is the expected score for a scratch golfer on this hole?  For a finishing hole it should be at or above the designated par not well below.

"Adding TEN yards and moving the back tee a few feet left hasn't changed things much."

It is 30+ yards back from the tee I think should be a par 4.  The bunkers and the turn makes this 30 yards pivotal and stymies strategy.  You don't get it.

"Moving up the tee and forcing the good players OVER this area WASTES the charm that Flynn found on the hole."

What?  The back tee forces the overwhelming number of players short of the turn and the bunkers.  Clear out the first line of trees on the right and challenge them to go over from the 485 tee.  It is a long carry.

See you Friday at the regular table?  

Gary,

Thanks.  I don't mind adding length at all if it is well advised.  Looking for scorecard length in of itself can be problematic.  It sounds like added length on the hole you describe would alleviate the problems.  Adding 100 yards would make it a 680-yard par 5.  Wow, that's long but I guess if you want the landing area before the wetland to be about 290 yards or so, that's what it would be.  Is there room?  Is there the means to get it done?  That's pretty expensive but you have to get back to the clubhouse so I guess the general routing is fixed.

Too bad the "signature hole" is so poor.  Sounds like a shorter carry par 4 would work.  Just start hitting it from the middle of the first fairway and maybe the idea will spread...kind of like me playing 18 as a par 4 at my course  

The hole that really seems to irk good golfers the most around here is the second on the C-nine at Huntingdon Valley.  It was resurrected from oblivion after about a seventy year hiatus.  Permitting issues made the exact return of the fairway corridor impossible.  Basically it is a 4-iron then 3-wood.  I don't mind at all, it only happens once and it is quirky but fine.  However good golfers (i.e. not me) bitch and moan.  Maybe they can lower some trees and give long hitters a chance to hit over the sensitive area.  But it is what it is and that's alright with me.

Kyle,

I agree, to tempt players there has to be fairway brought back to the creek.  I kind of like the idea of lowering the height of the trees to give the good players a better option since they seem so derisive in their comments about the hole and I believe this leads to a lack of consideration for the nine in tournament play.

Bill V,

In your mind, what is a near perfect tee shot and the resulting near perfect approach?  Is a good 3 or 4 iron near the stream a near perfect tee shot for you?  I know it takes a heck of a good 3 or 7 wood depending on conditions to get up to that difficult green on the approach.  Or do you think a near perfect drive is a long high draw over the trees, creek and rough onto the second fairway?  I know Jim Sullivan has either accomplished this or has seen it done.  That's got to be one of the highest demand tee shots in golf.  Like Kyle, I think the fairway should be brought back for a reward for giving in to the temptation.  A slight miss is trouble.  


Interesting that a tree hater like you would leave things as is.  I like strategic trees and think HVCC was a great example of Flynn's use of trees (see Lincs feature interview or opinion piece).  Yet I'd lower some of the trees a bit and getting rid of all the trees on the near side of the creek before the turn.