The 16th at Sleepy Hollow

« **on:** December 20, 2007, 07:40:13 PM »

Is this a well-designed hole?

« **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2007, 07:47:08 PM »

Interesting and bold....what's the yardage? prevailing wind?

I would be less likely to enjoy this hole as a high handicapper. A ravine short, then a must carry bunker would frustrate me.

Joe

« **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2007, 08:19:04 PM »

Green design and bunkering remind me of 10th at Chicago Golf. Obviosly a different view in the background.

« **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2007, 08:33:31 PM »

Matt,

If you've played the golf course you should know the answer.

It's a perfect connector in addition to being a wonderful little hole.

« **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2007, 11:03:28 PM »

Cute, teasing, fun, requiring thought, a wonderful view, a zillion cup locations for any possible type of situation. Works for me as a hole I'd like to play over and over.

« **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2007, 11:41:04 PM »

Joe,

Hole plays anywhere between 135 and 160. Prevailing wind comes from the river. Ravine is not in play on this hole but is in play on the 3rd which is just off to the left.

Thanks again to you and Mike D. for your great work at Sunningdale.

Jim

« **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2007, 12:23:57 AM »

Kinda looks like a hole with dumbed-down architecture to me, unfortunately.

Never played it, first time seeing it here.

« **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2007, 12:40:29 AM »

Never played it but I'm a fan.

The back edge of the green that disappears has great subtle movement that to me mimics the gorgeous backdrop of trees and water.

The tiny view of the bunker long and left hints at a dramatic drop off and "death" for any shot played long. I assume it's one big "moat bunker"?

It's hard to see very well, but extreme front left of green and front/middle right of green seem to have really bold movement and slope that looks terrific to me.

I wouldn't want a steady diet of the "crispness" of the bunker lines but I think they make a great "statement" against the gorgeous natural backdrop.

If I had two thoughts they would be:
1. While I like the vertical nature of the bank of the front bunker I think one could leave the sharp bottom sand/grass line and modify the top line to have a little movement that might compliment the soft top line of the back of the green and:
2. I might have made the right "bank" on the right edge of the bunker even higher! If the tip of that bank had a slightly higher top (another 18 inches or so?) I think it might mimic some of the mountain peaks in the distance and tie things in really well.

But the hole looks really great.

« **Reply #8 on:** December 21, 2007, 01:28:30 AM »

Pat,
I definitely haven't played it. I'm judging only from the picture, which is why I posed a question rather than stating my admittedly under-informed opinion. I don't doubt that it's an exacting little hole, though.

Chris,
It's interesting that you used the preposition "against", although I know you didnt meant it as "contrary to", because the bunker lines really do seem to go "against" what is really a one-in-a-million kind of backdrop. What sort of statement (your word) does the bunker make?

All,
Do the visuals blend together more in person than they do in the photo?

Is it a given that an architect who built this hole today would be almost universally criticized for it?

Why is this bunkering better than something that's a bit easier on the eye?

« **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2007, 05:27:21 AM »

Quote from: Matt_Cohn on December 21, 2007, 01:28:30 AM

Do the visuals blend together more in person than they do in the photo?

In person, it blends more into the setting. Ran's picture seems to have a little photoshop in it.

Is it a given that an architect who built this hole today would be almost universally criticized for it?

Either you like MacRaynor bunkering or you don't, which is why Old Macdonald is interesting to me when the public has a chance to play this style of course and bunkering.

Why is this bunkering better than something that's a bit easier on the eye?

See answer #2.

It is a very very good green along the lines of the short holes at National and The Knoll.

« **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2007, 07:53:42 AM »

You can't look at the bunkering on #16 in isolation. The bunkering on the relatively nearby #2 has a similar crispness, and when playing the course I thought they worked together.

« **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2007, 08:05:04 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Cohn on December 21, 2007, 01:28:30 AM

Chris,
It's interesting that you used the preposition "against", although I know you didnt meant it as "contrary to", because the bunker lines really do seem to go "against" what is really a one-in-a-million kind of backdrop. What sort of statement (your word) does the bunker make?

All,
Do the visuals blend together more in person than they do in the photo?

Is it a given that an architect who built this hole today would be almost universally criticized for it?

Why is this bunkering better than something that's a bit easier on the eye?

The more I look at the bunker lines the more I think they may actually blend! At first glance there does appear to be a very geometric shape set in the middle of this beautiful natural backdrop. But the more I look at the white sand and the line it makes with the grass edge the more I think it mimics the line the water's edge makes with the mountains!?! Crazy? Maybe. My "suggestions" were to try and "blend" the look a little more but maybe a thesis is that contrary to first glance, this architecture "blends" much better than it appears at first glance.

I like more natural looks but have always loved MacDonald bunkering and this seems impossible! Maybe the genius of his bunker style was that unlike a forced geometric shape that really is out of place or contrary to what the eye expects, maybe his "geometry" blends better than a first glance gives??? Or maybe it is appealing as it fits the eye when you think it shouldn't? Just a thought.

I was using "against" in two ways--1. As a preposition meaning next to and 2. I think I was trying to describe how the two ideas (geometric/linear vs. natural) seemed to still "fit" despite being opposites. Not a very good word choice but the notion of "contrary to" was a part of what I was trying to say--I should have paid more attention to my English Composition teacher and I'd have been able to express myself more clearly!!

« **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2007, 08:35:26 PM »

I think Mike sums it up best

Quote from: Michael_Hendren on December 21, 2007, 01:02:30 PM

Are good golf holes holes necessarily well-designed?

I'm prompted to ask this based on the thread on Sleepy Hollow's 16th hole. Looks like a good hole that I could have designed in the 7th grade.

Mike

« **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2007, 09:08:23 PM »

Is that a ravine of sorts in front of the tee. In any event it looks like the product of poor routing to me.

That's a hell of a spot to waste on a 135 yard hole

« **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2007, 10:08:27 PM »

John Cullum,

Perhaps a glimpse from Google Earth would give you a better perspective, especially as it relates to the routing, location of the hole and topography of the entire golf course and # 16.

« **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2007, 10:16:13 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 21, 2007, 10:08:27 PM

John Cullum,

Perhaps a glimpse from Google Earth would give you a better perspective, especially as it relates to the routing, location of the hole and topography of the entire golf course and # 16.

It is an interesting thought. If you moved the par 3 back one hole, so 15 tee would be the par three, the next hole would be a 4/5 where your second shot would be from the punchbowl area of the current 15 to the 16 green. The 16 green would have to hold its place. Not saying it would be better, just different:

« **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2007, 10:16:53 PM »

Quote from: John_Cullum on December 21, 2007, 09:08:23 PM

Is that a ravine of sorts in front of the tee. In any event it looks like the product of poor routing to me.

That's a hell of a spot to waste on a 135 yard hole

Actually John,

I think most modern architects would have merged 15 & 16 into a long, "gambling" par five, and would have filled the gorge with water.

It would have been a single very mediocre, rote hole instead of a very cool, blind punchbowl short par five followed by a plateau to plateau par three to a green totally exposed to the wind with a very distracting background.

The "horseshoe" type bunkering employed by Macdonald/Raynor might not be as fussy, sophisticated, and/or natural looking as other bunkering types, but it also is a very cool piece of great early American architecture that should be preserved and restored as a significant pioneering part of our collective golfing heritage.

I would also mention that the bunkering that was placed their prior by the "Open Doctor" was beyond comment.

« **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2007, 10:36:59 PM »

Mike Sweeney,

Take a look at Sleepy Hollow via Google Earth and let me know if you think your idea would fly. I don't think it would, based on the topos.

« **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2007, 11:42:47 PM »

Because Grandpa Joe H. called for a few practical/critical responses to this hole on another thread.

I think the photo is beautiful - as is the setting.
The hole is striking and unusual.
The green surface looks beautiful - it is a template short hole - like NGLA.

I don't like the battleship tee in the foreground.
I assume the bunker was originally dug to build up the back left corner of the green - or at least thats where the dirt went.

I definately like this hole in the big world theory.
I would almost never build a hole like this, but I would be proud of its quality if I did. I don't know what I would have done otherwise as a natural green in that area may have been too tiny of a target.

I'd love to see a picture from the back.

Cheers

« **Reply #19 on:** December 22, 2007, 08:21:11 AM »

Quote from: Mike Nuzzo on December 21, 2007, 11:42:47 PM

Because Grandpa Joe H. called for a few practical/critical responses to this hole on another thread.

Sleepy was a real mixed bag of Rees, Tilly and MacRaynor before the work. With the exception of number 10, it is pretty streamlined in the MacRaynor model.

Does anyone prefer this?

Mike N,

It is a pretty steep dropoff in the back as in, "don't be long."

« **Reply #20 on:** December 22, 2007, 09:01:02 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on December 22, 2007, 08:21:11 AM

Sleepy was a real mixed bag of Rees, Tilly and MacRaynor before the work. With the exception of number 10, it is pretty streamlined in the MacRaynor model.

Does anyone prefer this?

Mike N,

It is a pretty steep dropoff in the back as in, "don't be long."

I think if you eliminated the three front bunkers, which served no useful purpose anyway, and left the green alone, it would be a better hole. I see a false front and runoffs to the left and possibly rear. It sits very naturally in its place.

The current version, being as geometric as it appears, sits starkly on that beautiful landscape.

I see this hole as a foul up brought about by adherence to an arcane template design method. Blow the SOB up.

« **Reply #21 on:** December 22, 2007, 09:04:26 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on December 22, 2007, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: Mike Nuzzo on December 21, 2007, 11:42:47 PM
Because Grandpa Joe H. called for a few practical/critical responses to this hole on another thread.

Sleepy was a real mixed bag of Rees, Tilly and MacRaynor before the work. With the exception of number 10, it is pretty streamlined in the MacRaynor model.

Does anyone prefer this?

Mike N,

It is a pretty steep dropoff in the back as in, "don't be long."

This is much better design. The actual one has several flaws which make the green hard to maintain; this one has multiple in and out routes for traffic and machinery, whilst retaining the overall sense of the initial one

« **Reply #22 on:** December 22, 2007, 09:11:21 AM »

Adrian,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement re: machinery.

The back left corner of the current green allows for a trailer and walk mower to be parked, I'd also imagine the quick coupler is there for hand watering.

The bunker is easily hand raked or done with a sand pro and the faces can be fly mowed in 5 minutes.

In the older configuration, the bunkers are not easily or safely accessed by machinery nor are the faces and grass bunkers easily maintained with fly mowers or a sidewinder.

« **Reply #23 on:** December 22, 2007, 09:22:06 AM »

Kyle- I will try and expand a little. The area around the green is just too small to allow greens mowers to turn, just being able to hand mow is not 'good design' also consider that greens need other aeration equipment this design will empasise compaction problems. The limited 'ins' and 'outs' for golfers will also cause similar problems and severe turf grass wear, the configuration of the bunker means that the hole could take quite a long time to play as well as the golfers have a long walk around. As a hole I think it looks nice, but good design..absolutely not.

« **Reply #24 on:** December 22, 2007, 09:28:28 AM »

The bunkers that were there when I worked there were Tillinghast flashed up looking bunkers. (I'm sure Corey will correct me if they were designed or inspired by someone else)
They looked quite nice and I thought it was a wonderful hole.

The bunkers in the pictures from the Rees bastardization Mike Sweeny and John Cullum reposted were awful and I think we can all agree needed to go.

The green is and was a fantastic green-It is and was the most important feature on the hole. How the bunker looks has little to do with the strategy of the hole and is merely a question of aesthetics or frankly EYE CANDY. I will admit Rees version of eye candy was so bad it had to go..

That said, I really like the current version of the "eye candy" AND... that's the way the hole was ORIGINALLY.
Many people don't like the look of CB/Rraynor's geometric bunkers . Get over it. CB was the original architect and the the course was restored/renovated in a CB inspired theme.
In the case of this hole it was merely a restoration.
This was probably one of the simplest decisions they had to make!
Any other version would be logically questioned if Hanse's charge was to restore when possible and design in the CB theme when not possible.

Now look objectively at the bunker and notice how the bunker wraps around the green in a similar way the Hudson River wraps around the Palisades. I happen to think this version looks great!

I think it's a geat look, it's a restoration(not all holes could be restored as Tillinghast added 5 holes to the original routing), and all we're talking about is a shape of a bunker that's been there in every version.

Jeff

News:

Matt_Cohn

Joe Hancock

J_ Crisham

Patrick_Mucci

David_Madison

goldj

Jed Peters

Chris Cupit

Matt_Cohn

Mike Sweeney

David_Madison

Chris Cupit

Paul_Turner

John_Cullum

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Sweeney

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Mike Nuzzo

Mike Sweeney

John_Cullum

Adrian_Stiff

Kyle Harris

Adrian_Stiff

jeffwarne