[Mark_Fine]

Good or bad in golf course design, what do you think?  One of the reasons Lehigh's #11 got questioned was the fairway runs out at 305 yards off the tee (into the prevailing wind).  I guess some of us are fortunate to "have to lay-up" to stay in the fairway even at that yardage.  

#2, the par four on the C nine at HVCC, also requires a "forced lay-up" on the tee shot.  But on this one, even us short hitters like me can only hit a fairway wood at most!  You are then left with a second shot as long or longer and much less fun (we do play golf to have fun don't we) than a second shot going for the green at #11.  

My personal opinion here is in line with what I feel about most design features - I'm generally ok with most of them if they are used in moderation.  Some, however, like this one at #2, don't you have to question?  Maybe Flynn felt forcing someone's hand every once in a while isn't all that bad?  Maybe that is what he was thinking at Lehigh's #11?  

BillV, I wonder what the nine hole Ladies league at HVCC thinks about having to play this hole when the other 18 are tied up?  I know the Lehigh ladies better not go down there.  If someone tops their approach shot here and you might lose the lady as well as her ball  

Mark

[BillV]

Actually Mark, that hole has more options.  There are less trees in play and less chance for cart rollover!  

[Mark_Fine]

Good point Bill about the "cart rollover".  You're always picking up on things I miss  

The tree thing is another matter.  If I recall correctly, if you hit it right you re-tee a new golf ball!  

But besides that, what about the forced lay-up?  

[Matt_Ward]

Mark,

For what it's worth -- I am not a big fan of architects who overly use the forced lay-up or forced carry design technique.

I don't mind if fairways stop at say 300 yards off the tee (i.e. 11th at Lehigh) but there are quite a few designs I've played in the last few years where fairways stop at 250 yards and reaching the other side is nearly impossible and you are still playing a 450 yards hole!

That's more of "gotcha golf."

Many high handicappers always seem to moan (sometimes legitimately) about the forced carry ... the forced lay-up is a cousin in the same sense, in my opinion.

Regards,

[John Bernhardt]

I have always liked a stream that runs at an angle across the fairway creating a risk reward to how much to bite off and the angle of attack on the green. I am not that wild about this when it is wetlands you are alying up too.

[TEPaul]

You may not like the design concept no matter how it's explained but #2 "C" nine Huntingdon Valley is not a hole that has much of anything to do with distance in the tee shot strategy. The tee shot strategy of the hole is to play as close to the left side inline creek as possible with lots of tee shot club selections possible. It probably makes little difference if you do it with an iron or a driver. The design concept is quite similar on the drive to the strategy of #14 Fishers Island! Distance has very little to do with the tee shot but getting as close to the creek does. Maybe not ideal but certainly different. Even if you get as close to it as possible you're still left with about a 190+ uphill approach! This seems to drive golfers nuts and I guess I can feel their pain.

In fairness to the hole now and its inherent restrictions compared to the way Flynn originally designed it back then there was no environmental area (and trees) all along the left side before getting to the creek  and after getting into the open. I'm quite certain that back when Flynn built the hole there were no trees on the left and there certainly were no environmental restrictions so a golfer likely had another option of driving the ball long and left and carrying the creek to the left. So due to the environmental area on the left and the trees it really isn't possible today to get the ball over the creek on the left and shorten the approach shot.

The hole may not be ideal but one should understand the restoration limitations on holes #2, #6 and #7 and why. I'm not really defending them architecurally, simply trying to report the facts and explain what happened. Does anyone really think that because of these restrictions or limitations the "C" nine never should have been restored? I think it should have been restored regardless, and I'm glad it was.

[ed_battye]

John:
I like the 'diagonal' forced lay-up too. In moderation and only when necessary, though.

Mark:
"Good or bad in golf course design?" If it's done well it can be very good, but when it's bad.....
I can't think of a worse shot to have to hit than when there is forced lay-up, with no strategy. Or is there??

[John Bernhardt]

I agree, more often than not there is little to no stategy in a forced layup to wetlands.

[Tom_Doak]

I hate those forced lay-ups.

It's one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of The Prince Course in Hawaii.  Either you play the course from the tips [7100 yards plus trade winds], or you have to lay up 3-4 times and then make a fairly big carry with your second shot.

[richard]

I can think of at least 3 examples very close to my home here that are diabolical.

They are all dog-leg par 5's that have some type of hazard right up to the front edge of the green. Either a lake or deep gorge.

Even when a pure drive is struck, the green is out of reach 99% of the time. As the hazard extends way back down the line of play i'm often faced with a wedge or 9 iron to lay up.
That really is my pet hate in the game.

[harleykruse]

Give the player choices dependent on his/her ability, stategy, and wind conditions of the day etc., but a hole that every time requires a forced lay up is a poor one in my mind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()