From the photo the course exudes a little of what I call horizontal vertigo......but it might play great, which is the  important test.

In defense of Silva, I don't doubt this is the kind of stuff Raynor would have done with modern equipment.

The 260-290 hitter will have his ball land about even with the small bunker on the left. I believe Brad was on the upslope of that mid-fairway berm. The tee shown is the ladies tee, you tee off from about 150 feet above the fairway.

JakaB,

Raynor had the same equipment that's being used today.

Question for those who don't like the hole.

If the water feature was a sand feature how would your opinion differ ?

Paul Cowley said:

"From the photo the course exudes a little of what I call horizontal vertigo......"

I love that description!!!!

Is it possible to find examples of "horizontal vertigo" in raw nature?

I'd think so, and if so, why not use it now and again in golf and golf architecture?

What is this "art" principle BS of needing to focus the eye? Where does that come from?

Probably from painting art or landscape art and architecture.

I can see Vincent Van Gogh attempting to focus the observer's eye in one of his painting so the viewer's attention won't start to wander over to the painting of his buddy Gaugin next door----but why do golf architects have to focus the golfer's eye, particularly if it's on where he HAS TO or SHOULD hit the ball?

I say make him use his eyes to look around and if he has to turn his head back and forth to figure things out---so much the better.

Isn't that the way of Nature?

"Horizontal Vertigo"?

I love that phrase.

If a golf architect can get a golfer to become dizzy before pulling a club---great. Maybe he could do horizontal vertigo in architecture so well he could actually get the golfer to fall over from dizziness before pulling a club.

I guess the only problem is "horizontal vertigo" could be a little expense in land and maintenance costs. But so what? Every course should have at least one hole that creates some really good "horizontal vertigo".

PaulC----think #8 in Maryland.

If we do that right the golfer will have at least 157 yards of fairway width to scan in front of him and if he can scan that and instantly figure out where to hit the ball without moving his eyes or turning his head I'd say he has some pretty spectacular peripheral vision.  

Paul Cowley also said:

"......but it might play great, which is the important test."

And of course he's right about that.

I don't know how long that hole is or how well the apparent options work together but I think I can say that the apparent higher risk option of carrying over the bunkers and pond to that narrow and shallow looking stretch of fairway on the second half of the hole better be balanced pretty well with the more obvious option of playing short or out to the right off the tee.

If that apparent higher risk shot doesn't work well because that fairway stretch is too shallow where a good and long tee shot would too often just keep going into the bunkers out to the right near the green then that hole probably needs some work and adjustment on that higher risk option.

In my mind the trick is to "balance" available options or cast them into a state of "equilibrium" where the golfer has a hard time on the tee of deciding what to try.

This is the essence and the key to the beauty in play of a hole like Riviera's #10----eg all it's tee shot options work well enough and are used enough to be in a state of equilibrium with one another.

The converse is----an apparent option that is rarely if ever used in play is not a good option and therefore makes for a hole that isn't all it could be or should be.

Tony,
If you'd like to see this course under construction go to...
http://maps.live.com/

....and type in:  154 E. Broadway, Haverhill, Ma

I'm with Tony on the Silva fan club. Here is his 17th hole at Cape Cod National. At 459 yards from the back, it is a great par 4.5 hole. The drive is uphill to a ridge, if you catch the right line over the directional bunkers to the top and down the hill, you are looking at 150 into the green. Otherwise a very difficult long shot over or next to an environmental hazard. Fairway is a roller coaster similar to nearby Eastward Ho!



I did not love two holes at CCN, and when I questioned Brian about these two holes, there were two very logical answers why things were done. If there were no environmentalist....

I put Silva and Kelly Moran in a category of "modern traditionalist". Both are unique, but seem to fit somewhere between a Raynor and Jim Engh. They are not afraid to piss you off a few times a round. I think either would have been a bold choice at Bandon.

Don,

My question would be how do you know the pond was built and not a wetland that had to be worked around by the architect?

Anthony

Another question for the group about this hole...is there too much or not enough strategy to the drive?  

With a driver in hand, it looks like the long-hitters have no option but to play it out to the right over the bunkers leaving themselves a shot that's really no shorter to the pin with more trouble in front of them.  

Looks like the smart play for the bombers is to lay it up at the small bunker on the left and try to go 3-wood/3-wood to the hole with a better angle.  

Would a risk reward option to the left off the drive make this a better hole?

Overall, I think the average consumer would look at this as a nice hole...

Brian,

The strategy on the drive is to take it as far left and up the left side as you can to give the longer hitters - I'm not included - a shot to go for it in two. My eye was drawn to the safe bailout area to the right. (I pulled my drive into the hazard left.) From the right side the second shot is much more difficult because of the angle from which the second landing area is approached. I hit my penalty shot over the bunkers on the inside of the dogleg and was left with a testy 6-iron that I pulled into the junk left of the green and did not make up and down. The pin was middle left.

The strategy of the hole works out very nicely from what I've seen and experienced.

Don, I think you are way off base. To laud or evicerate a hole you have not played judging simply from one photo (how would  the shot look if it was taken by talent such as Larry Lambrecht on bright early morning with shadows splayed across the view serving to illustrated the contouring with a different lens at very slow speed with flowers in bloom?) seems to make no sense.  Ryan appears to have a great understanding that if he is going to work in the field commenting about something he has never seen would surely call his integrity into question. While it is a common practice for architects to comment on work they have never seen, I think Ryan's approach is a far better one. Hey, but that's just me.

Anthony

Just by looking at the trees in the background, and their relationship to the elevation of where the picture was taken from, I'm going to venture a guess that the elevation change from tee to fairway is nowhere near 150 feet.

Bust it, Sully!