The 8th and 14th holes at The Rawls Course

« **on:** November 02, 2003, 04:27:18 PM »

I wanted to have a discussion on a separate aspect of The Rawls Course at Texas Tech and that deals specifically with the 8th and 14th holes there.

Both are long par-4's -- the 8th is about 476 yards and the 14th is just under 500 yards from the tips. Hats off to Tom Doak for pushing the envelope in creating two long holes that reinforce the nature of the long second to par-4's of this caliber. Clearly, on both holes you must produce two stellar shots in order to gain entrance to the dance floor.

Unfortunately, I played both holes with a NE wind (about 5-10 mph) on my first day and the wind did change slightly out of the more prevailing direction of the SW on the second day. Thankfully, I could understand how they play with the two different playing conditions.

Both holes feature unique greens that simply add to the dynamic presentation. You have plenty of room to drive the ball at the 8th and it does take a stout hit in order to set-up your second. The approach is to a green protected by a series of bunkers that hold tight to the left side of the target. The green has its fair share of break but is not excessive.

The 14th is even more demanding because both the tee shot and the approach must be just a tad better. One of the more unique aspects in playing the 14th is the fairway bunker that cuts in about 285 yards from the tips. It is perfectly situated and the smart play from what I can fathom is to play a slight fade around it and leave yourself a fairly long approach (again depending upon wind conditions). The green has sort of a false front and it is uniquely crafted because your approach must be laser-like to settle near the pin. The slightest push will carry your ball off to that side. If you should pull the ball you face a very tricky proposition to up'n down for a par.

For those who have played Pac Dunes I can see a comparison on what two long holes are more demanding -- the 4th and 7th at Pac (let me also mention the 13th before some of you chomp my head off

) or the tandem I just mentioned at The Rawls Course. In any event -- the two in Lubbock are well crafted and clearly a big reason why The Rawls Course is worth playing when in the neighborhood.

« **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2003, 05:49:14 PM »

476 and 500 yd Par 4s? Aren't you a little disappointed they weren't 525 and 550yds?

« **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2003, 10:00:47 PM »

I'm not so sure what your asking to discuss here, Matt. Since I have not yet been to Bandon, I cant compare.

What you have stimulated me to think is that the rawls course will be a course where your individual hole scores will be much less important than your score for the course. My reasoning is, that keeping 'whitey' under control for extended periods of time, on that course, will be extremely cerebrally challenging.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the wind will be such a big factor, that each holes value of Par, will be insignificant in comparison to the rounds score.

What were your scores? What's the course record?

« **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2003, 10:15:37 PM »

Matt,
Shucks! There goes my bet! I wagered Tom Macwood the first holes you would dissect were going to be two, short par 4's.

I lose, he wins, dammit!

« **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2003, 11:34:44 PM »

No no. You win Tommy...476 and 500 are short par-4s for Matthew.

You get to wear my super short GCA rater shorts for the next year. Wear them proudly.

« **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:47:10 AM »

I believe the record is already down to 66. It's amazing how much easier the course looks when you get a calm day there, but they aren't that common.

The short par-4's are the first, fourth, seventh, eleventh and twelfth, although Matt would have played three of them into the wind. For a long hitter they are much easier that way, because he doesn't have to worry about making the second shot stop where he wants it. Downwind, a couple of them are really tricky.

« **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:52:22 AM »

476 and 500 yards, you say. Is the design of such holes equivalent to buying an alcoholic a drink? Of being an enabler of technology?

Just wondering.

Mike

« **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:56:14 AM »

Mike- Don't you mean a reaction?

« **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:57:54 AM »

« **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2003, 10:07:19 AM »

For all the whiners and weenies who prefer to play executive golf or something closer to miniature do yourself a favor and practice the shot through the clown's mouth and skip the thread.

My point is that Tom Doak decided to push the meter with both of these holes. Both are normally played into the wind and the green complexes for both of them are well done. You also know that in playing The Rawls Course that these holes are still a major part of the success / failure you will achieve.

I also pointed out on another thread about how at the facility you do get a wide samplying of different holes. I also mentioned how dynamic all the par-3's are and that the short par-4's you find there (i.e. 5th and 7th, to name just two) feature a good bit of strategic options.

For all you barkers out there -- go play the holes in question and then tell me what you think. Given what the game is today and the charge that Doak was given -- design a course that has the wherewithal to test the top collegiate players --
he did very well. In fact, I would dare say that The Rawls Course will likely rise considerably because the challenge in taking a dead flat former cotton field is a good bit more demanding than in building holes along a beautiful ocean visata(hint, hint -- does anyone know the course I am speaking about?). I can only imagine what others in the design field would have done at TT -- the two holes I mentioned are illustrations of what needsto be included so that a dynamic layout has the elasticity to test all types of players. The 8th and 14th holes at The Rawls Course, along with others, is well done and I look forward to returning and playing them again in the near future.

« **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2003, 02:04:21 PM »

Matt,
What I appreciated about the 8th and 14th, besides their designs, are the positioning in the line up. Provides for a rollercoast of emotions.

« **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2003, 02:55:13 PM »

I can't help but wonder how they may have been received as par 5s....

In all honesty, I personally find it hard to single out any holes as more special or better than any others. Each hole possessed elements that made it thought provoking and challenging.

I swore I'd never go back to school, but Tom's got me thinkin', I'll tell you that.

« **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2003, 03:50:38 PM »

MarkT:

Good point. My only reservation with The Rawls Course was that another long par-4 should have been created to deal with the NE wind that periodically blows through the property -- right now there is only the 5th although I'm sure a case can be made with the 15th as well.

What fascinated me about The Rawls Course was how the course layout compares to the type of land that abuts the property. Very few people in my mind could have come up with grand master plan that didn't bastardize the entire product. I'll be most curious to see the CR and SL numbers when they are announed. I will say this -- #14 may be the most demanding long par-4 that I have seen Doak create thus far of the courses of his that I have played. You need to be on target with all your shots to succeed.

« **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:16:49 PM »

Matt:

I really don't think the 14th at The Rawls Course is the hardest par-4 I've ever designed. It's not hard at all to make a five there; you're just going to have to bear down to reach it in two shots into the wind you missed out on. What I like about it is that the ridge in front of the green has more effect on a guy hitting a six-iron than it does on a guy hitting a 3-wood, because the 3-wood should land short of the ridge anyway.

The eighth is a bit harder, now; but I don't think it's as hard as the seventh at Pacific Dunes or the 2nd at Black Forest, to name just two other holes I've built.

By the way, there was supposed to be another long par-4 into the wind -- the second hole. They asked me to change it into a par five instead, so par would be 72. It should really be played as a four for tournaments, though.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:19:04 PM »

Mike H:

I don't think I'm an "enabler of technology" for building holes that long. If they'll ever do something about the golf ball, they can call those two holes par fives, or move up a tee.

What I have done was include something for everybody. The long par-4's are appealing to Matt and to the long hitters; the short par-4's and the par-3's are more appealing to George and his friends. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

« **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:57:26 PM »

Tom:

Appreciate your take as the man responsible for the course. However, I've got to add that #14 is demanding on the tee shot. That solitary bunker makes you work the ball from left-to-right -- particularly if you are hitting from the extreme back tee.

Just keep in mind this -- when you say it's an easy five that's not my point. My point is on making a par when it counts. Played against the SW wind that normally blows you JUST KNOW you have to groove it for two shots.

The second shot is no bargain unless you PURE it. You can fall off in either direction as I previously mentioned and given the other long par-4's you have created -- especially the ones at Pac Dunes you mentioned I have to say the 8th and 14th at The Rawls Course are no less -- in fact -- may be just a tad better. Tom -- I've played the 7th at PD a few times and when the wind is in your face it's really demanding no doubt. But, I've also played it with the wind down and with it behind you and the demands there are no more than a toss-up IMHO with the two at The Rawls Course.

One other thing -- I enjoy a wide variety of holes but I often think the long par-4 is often neglected because a superior long par-4 is more than just adding length.

One last thing -- you're right about the 2nd. It could easily be changed to a long par-4 if the facility opted to do that. It would then be a helluva par-70 design!

« **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:14:34 PM »

Matt
Extreme back tee? Isn't that your middle name?

« **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2003, 08:15:58 PM »

Tom -- they also have the whiner and weenie tees at The Rawls Course too if you prefer to play it from there.

« **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:43:13 PM »

Tom Doak,

Of course there's nothing wrong with that. It appears that courses in the British Isles followed your formula many years ago, with routings dominated by two shot holes of widely varying length playing to par +/- 1/2. All too often it is the exception to find a two shot hole today that is less than 360 and more than 420 for the "average" player like me. Assuming no wind and 15 yards difference per club, that requires only four different irons, other things being equal. I love the occasional 450 yards hole when it is balanced with a 300 (nah, make that 265 - I am still intoxicated by driving the 18th green at Kilspindie, a two shotter (?) measuring 252 from the tips!) yards two-shotter.

All said, the distance issue is like the weather - everybody talks about it but nobody is willing to do anything about it. It's neither thee nor me, but rather the fellow behind the tree that is to fault.

I guess what I was really asking is whether architects have a dog in the technology hunt.

A wheenie, but no whiner,

Mike

« **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2003, 10:24:51 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 03, 2003, 07:16:49 PM

The eighth is a bit harder, now; but I don't think it's as hard as the seventh at Pacific Dunes....

I was going to say that if those holes were as tough as the 7th at Pacific then they are some mean holes.

I've played the 7th hole 6 times - all down wind - and figuring out how to run the ball onto the green and stop it made for one of the most challenging and fun second shots that I have ever encountered. It must be brutal into the wind.

« **Reply #20 on:** November 04, 2003, 09:51:35 AM »

David:

Fortunately, the 7th at Pacific Dunes isn't into the wind very often. When it is, unless I've killed my tee shot, I'm usually inclined to lay up short of those knobby bits in the fairway and leave myself 100 yards to the green for my third.

If you hit a wild second shot 50 yards short of the green there you are headed for a big number, downwind or into the wind. That's why I called it tougher than either hole on The Rawls Course. Matt's probably right, day in and day out, that the 14th at TTU is a harder four for a scratch player, but I'd still bet his stroke average would be higher at Pacific Dunes for 18 tries on each hole. In fact, if you broke 80 playing that hole 18 times, you'd be gaining on the field.

« **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2003, 09:53:53 AM »

P.S. to Mike H.: You'll have to get to Tasmania sometime. The fourth hole is going to be about 300 yards, and the twelfth is 275, both into the wind; but 8-9-10 are 495-435-470 downwind. And all of them (except maybe #10) have a LOT more going on between the tee and green than any hole at Texas Tech.

« **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2003, 10:37:39 AM »

The winter winds (from the south) make #7 into the wind at PD. I believe the winter winds are more prominent throughout the year than the summer winds (short summer). I was there in a May for winter winds.

Tough hole if you're spraying the ball.

« **Reply #23 on:** November 04, 2003, 10:56:04 AM »

Tom, your forgetting to add to Matt that par is irrelevant.

« **Reply #24 on:** November 04, 2003, 11:01:47 AM »

Tommy -

Par isn't irrelevant - why, it'd be a helluva course as a par 70.

News:

Matt_Ward

eye_on_stocks

A_Clay_Man

Tommy_Naccarato

T_MacWood

Tom_Doak

Mike Hendren

A_Clay_Man

Mike Hendren

Matt_Ward

MarkT

George Pazin

Matt_Ward

Tom_Doak

Tom_Doak

Matt_Ward

T_MacWood

Matt_Ward

Mike Hendren

David Kelly

Tom_Doak

Tom_Doak

Scott_Burroughs

Tommy_Naccarato

George Pazin