[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

The sequence of three photos you see -- thanks to Scott B in posting -- comes from the par-3 15th hole at the newly opened design of Dr. Michael Hurdzan called Bully Pulpit in Medora, North Dakota. I played the course this past summer and it merits a look by those who may not be familiar with it.

The hole ranges in yards from 92 to a max of 161 with a sequence of different tee pads and angles. I believe Scott will post the photos on a separate thread and I can certainly start a discussion on the merits of that superlative hole there.

[DMoriarty]

Matt Ward,

Who said anything about a high handicap player?  I said single digit, then said low to mid.  Typical Matt Ward.  You are so distancentric that you see a short driving distance and immediately conclude high handicap.  

My comments about six hour rounds were addressed to Matt K. and were part of a general exchange about the occassional thrilling hole.  They have nothing to do with the course photographed.  

So again Matt, what tee would you have the short hitting low to mid handicap player play?  

[Matt_Ward]

Doug S:

The situation of "forced carries" you refer to is not going to impact the player you speak about provided they play the appropriate tees. From 499 or 472 yards the hole is well whtin their range. I mean if you want to take the approach you are saying then don't send any of those folks over to Pine Valley because much of what you say would no less apply to the world's #1 golf course.

David M said:

"... Matt complaining because people don't see it his way.  Why do people have such a problem with open discussion?  

Let's set the record straight -- I am entitled -- no less than you -- to offer an opinion. My opinion, specifically on the case of the 18th hole at Lakota Canyon comes from more than just the photo you have opined upon -- it comes from actually playing the hole. Big difference. I don't have to guess or make rough estimates on what the hole is really about -- I can do that from an actual playing experience and from observing a number of other groups who played it while I watched from the clubhouse above the green.

David M also said ... "the kind of certain death which this hole repeatedly presents."

That is utter rubbish. If you know your game well and know your limitations the hole will reward your play accordingly. I saw senior citizen players who were mid teen handicaps play from the front tee markers and skillfully execute three sound shots to make the green and wak off with a par.

What's wrong with the thought that people need to execute sound golf shots. Oh -- I forgot -- we need holes that reward people for horrible shots. Now I get it -- that's the mark of a superior hole.

Let's also clear the air on what constitutes "all golfers" as the "ultimate test" for good design. How about we take account of the guy who is a 40+ handicap and simply grounds every other shot? I mean let's make sure we have courses that can handle this type of person as well. Frankly, such courses could never be designed / built on any land that is sufficiently hilly or offers an array of obstacles -- natural or manmade or both.

This egalitarian approach sound great on paper, but when you encounter some of the more spectacular settings in golf from my experience the likelihod that Joe "I am a 40+ handicap" Sixpack can be accounted for sounds nice but really doesn't happen. If you have dead flat sites with no rough and no forced carries and no serious contours I am sure then a course can be created to handle this type of player. Let me know where it is so I can be sure to avoid it at all costs.

In regards to your question I can ony a-s-s-u-m-e that the person you speak about can either play the hole at 499 or 472 yards. That's his prerogative. If he should play from the extreme back tee then distance (or his lack thereof) is part of the equation as it should be. Given the fact that he's a single digit handicap player he is just as likely to make birdie from playing a 3rd shot to the green as I previously stated as someone who may opt for the green in two blows and hope to get down in two strokes.

[SPDB]

Matt - If I'm 260 out (a reasonable distance given the altitude), can you describe my options (including distance width of LZ's etc)?

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

You have to tell me which tee you're playing from for a direct answer.

There are three men tees ...

556 yards
497 yards
472 yards

If you play from the championship tees you likely will not be able to go out the green with your second shot. I see no problem with that because distance is an issue when playing from the championship / tip tees.

If you play from the next tee box ay 497 yards then the game is on. You must decide if the risk for going for the green in two is worth it. Clearly, with a 260 yard drive you have a shot to get home. It just has to be letter perfect -- the slightest pull or push can mean some interesting outcomes.

If you opt for the bailout area to the right you then have to decide how close to play it and for what distance you are comfortable with. I'm guessing that many players would like to hit a full SW into the target for maximum stopping power. From what I saw of the hole and the people who opted in that direction many had no more than 75-100 yards left into the hole. The width of the lay-up zone is no less than 50 yards across.

Hope this helps answer your question.

[SPDB]

Matt - Thanks, but that doesn't really address what I was looking for.
Let's assume a 290 yard drive dead center. Leaving me with 265 into the green, 85 to the end of the fairway. I decide I don't want to go for it. What are my various distances into the bailout LZ (since it appears that the LZ grows considerably in width further out from the player).

You say that the LZ is 50 yards wide, but you can't possibly mean the front half of the LZ, can you? How wide is the entry to the bailout?

What's the name of this hole - "Hobson's Choice" ??  

[DMoriarty]

First of all Matt, I recall asking many questions about this course, but I dont recall offering many opinions.  I'm just going by what you told us about the course.   Perhaps you could point me toward my opinions about this course, other than those which can be easily gleaned from your posts?

Matt, the complaining I was referring to was your stuff like:

"The reality is that the small grouping of snobs that exist on GCA do favor only brand "X" when it comes to golf course designs. "

I agree that this is an opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.  But really Matt, does this add anything at all to the dialogue?   It reads like pointless whining to me . . . in my opinion.  

 

My opinion, specifically on the case of the 18th hole at Lakota Canyon comes from more than just the photo you have opined upon -- it comes from actually playing the hole. Big difference. I don't have to guess or make rough estimates on what the hole is really about -- I can do that from an actual playing experience and from observing a number of other groups who played it while I watched from the clubhouse above the green.

You have got to be kidding me!   You have Scott post a photo, tell us about the hole in great detail, then get self-righteously indignant when we question and comment.   What do you expect us to do?  Just accept your opinion as gospel?  What a joke.

And by the way Matt, if you are curious where I got the idea that this hole repeatedly presents the possibility of certain death, how about you READ YOUR OWN POST.  Remember the bit about the canyon as a roach motel:  enter but dont ever get out?  Remember the terrifying approach from the left?  Remember the fear the small blind green causes?  Remember the harrowing shot from the right, where little fat is certain death?

Matt, it is bad form to criticize someone for merely taking you at your word.  

What's wrong with the thought that people need to execute sound golf shots. Oh -- I forgot -- we need holes that reward people for horrible shots. Now I get it -- that's the mark of a superior hole.

Yes Matt, now you get it.  This is exactly what I am looking for.  Rewards for people who hit terrible shots.  Thanks for really making an effort to understand my point of view.  

Let's also clear the air on what constitutes "all golfers" as the "ultimate test" for good design. How about we take account of the guy who is a 40+ handicap and simply grounds every other shot? I mean let's make sure we have courses that can handle this type of person as well. Frankly, such courses could never be designed / built on any land that is sufficiently hilly or offers an array of obstacles -- natural or manmade or both.

I disagree.  But suppose you are correct that it is difficult or impossible to fully ace this test . . . does this difficulty in and of itself itself mean that we give up on the goal, and/or ignore the issue when evaluating courses?    

This egalitarian approach sound great on paper, but when you encounter some of the more spectacular settings in golf from my experience the likelihod that Joe "I am a 40+ handicap" Sixpack can be accounted for sounds nice but really doesn't happen. If you have dead flat sites with no rough and no forced carries and no serious contours I am sure then a course can be created to handle this type of player. Let me know where it is so I can be sure to avoid it at all costs.

Somehow I think you and I might not agree on which are "some of the more spectacular settings in golf."

Anyway, I didnt say anything about easy or fair.   While I enjoy the occasional forced carry, I just tend to be suspicious of any design where the average golfer may lose a green fee's worth of golf balls.  

Matt, you know quite a bit more about ANGC than me (I've never been there), but I dont recall reading about many huge forced carries on MacKenzie's original course.   Sure No. 16 is a big forced carry, but then MacKenzie's No. 16 didnt have a lake, did it?  Just little old Rae's Creek, a few yards wide . . . one might even be able to retrieve or play one's ball.  Hardly a 'roach motel' of a hazard.   With mowed grass it seems like it might just have been a pleasant place to play.  

[DMoriarty]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  

Assume that you (Matt W) and our hypothetical short hitter are playing a mid-am qualifier at Lakota Canyon Ranch.  Where should the tournament committee place the tees?   Whereever they choose, is the design of this particular hole equally good for both of you?  

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

You asked me initialyl about a 260 yard tee shot and I answered what the options are.

Now for your next question ...

Now you are asking me about 290 yards from the tee ... again, I ask you, what tee box are you playing? That makes a huge difference.

The bailout area is more tha wide enough for people to reach. I would say it's no less tha 50 yards across and I think it would behoove people to hit to specific areas of the bailout to provide the maximum angle of attack depending upon pin position and the proper yardage for a full wedge play.

The entry to the bailout area is no less than 40 yards across. The photo makes it look smaller but that's not the case as I personally paced it off when there. I also watched several groups -- high and low handicaps alike -- and those who went that direction had no problem in getting to the LZ from a range of positions in the fairway.

The maximum width of the entire bailout area is no less than 50 yards in a given spot and simply tapers down to about 30 yards if you went to the deepest end.

Can you help me out with all these questions -- are you suggesting there is no strategic choices to be made?

David M:

Let's cut to the chase shall we.

From my observations -- and countless others -- there is a definite tilt / bias, call it what you will, towards certain specific architectural styles here on GCA. That's not whining that's my belief. If you disagree so be it. Like I said David all we can agree upon is that we both write point of views on GCA -- little else is shared.

You may huff and puff and say that's not the case but clearly there is a tilt. If the hole at Lakota Canyon Ranch were designed by someone from the "most preferred listing" the net result would be far different. Again, my opinon.

In regards to the hole David I'm not going to concede for a New York minute the hole is poor. What's needed is some clear thinking and execution. Frankly, I'm not interested in holes geared for the 40+ handicap who could not hit the Oklahoma side of the border if they were standing on thje Kansas line. Maybe folks like that should take a few lessons.

David -- I don't doubt the attempt to embrace different levels of players should be something people / architects try to do. However, I am not a zealot or idelogue who says the very defintiion of a great hole or course is wedded in every single manner to this situation. When you have land with any type of major contouring / movement and the juxtaposition of various hazards --native to the site or manmade -- the issue of accomdating the 40+ handicap person will be most difficult if not impossible. If it can happen great -- but I'm not dismissing courses that don't. As an example go to many Irish course and check out the propensity of rough that is fundamental to their design -- the average Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass cannot handle these types of demands without some modicum of golf skill. I, for one, would not change these courses in the slightest.

David -- the position of the canyon is most certainly death. Nothing wrong with that in my mind. When do hazards have to be "get out of jail card free" zones? Hazards, IMHO, should not provide sort of automatic lie / stance or shot -- you enter them and guess what David -- there's a strong likelihood you could be reloading.

You can most certainly speak about I have written -- just try to post it to its fullest context. The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch is a RISK & REWARD TYPE HOLE. David -- do you know the meaning of risk / reward? The player is faced with a unqiuely positioned canyon that intercedes on three shots (two if you go for it) to the putting surface. Nothing wrong with that because it's a style of hole copies by many architects and courses throughout the globe. If you take the risk and pull it off you will get the reward. Fail and the results are no less clear and obvious -- as they should be IMHO.

Clearly, from what I can infer from your comments you would then have to demote (using Moriarty logic) the essence of shch demanding layouts as Winged Foot / West, Bethpage / Black and The Ocean Course, to name just three.

David -- you embrace the style of Mackenzie -- fair enough. I embrace other styles of full range of architects -- particularly many of whom are designing today who may be a bit more intense int heir thinking from tee-to-green. Mackenzie style layouts from the ones I have played tend to emphasize the green contour aspect and less so the need for high octance driving and even iron play.

Regarding the 18th at Lakota Canyon -- the reality is that since I have played the hole -- you and others have not -- the benefit of the doubt rests with me. All you can assume or even speculate about is how it plays -- I don't have that liability hanging around my neck. Clearly, you can disagree but your disagreement centers around assumptions not hard facts from actual shots played.

[cary lichtenstein]

Nice to know the new stardard is 40+ handicaps

[Don_Mahaffey]

Matt,
Are you saying that Lakota Canyon is better then the Mackenzie courses you've played?

Your response to Dave M. tells me a lot about what you value in golf design, basically you like to see a strong test off the tee as opposed to defending par at the green, right? Although I like the opposite it helps to know what you like in an effort to make better sense of your reviews. Thanks.

[Matt Kardash]

In an effort to save Matt

Don, how much are you twisting what Matt is saying?? All he said was that this hole puts a premium on driving the golf ball, he didn't say this hole was better or worse than anything Mackenzie designed.

And there is a bias on this site. If a fairway is not 100 yards wide, shaved around the greens, and with large green countours then the hole is less than ideal. From all my years here, that is the impression I get. People can try to deny it, but you won't chnage my opinon on this.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

You failed to answer my question about where the tee should be placed in mid-am qualifying to accomodate both the long and short hitter.   Not talking about a 40+ handicapper, but someone whose index is low enough to get into the field.  

. . . It is not that I favor certain styles, but rather I abhore courses which confuse butt-puckering glory golf with good architecture.  

This is risk-reward golf?   Doesnt risk reward usually allow one to chose to forgoe the possible reward by avoiding the risk?   Who but the longest hitter has real choices on this hole?   What if I choose to forsake the chance at reward by not taking the risk . . . what am I to do, putt up the path?  

Of Bethpage Black,  Winged Feet (shouldnt they be called left and right?), and the Ocean Course I've only played Bethpage Black.   I dont remember many roach motels.  Refresh my recollection . . . .  Dont remember seeing many canyon type features on the recent Am coverage at Winged Foot either.  

Just what exactly is "high octane driving and . . . iron play" anyways?   No wonder I suck, I've been putting the wrong fuel in my clubs.  

Lakota is a public course isnt it?   Suppose any 40+ handicaps show up to play?  

[DMoriarty]

All he said was that this hole puts a premium on driving the golf ball, he didn't say this hole was better or worse than anything Mackenzie designed.

He has said a fair bit more than that.  

I think Don's is a fair question.  

And there is a bias on this site. If a fairway is not 100 yards wide, shaved around the greens, and with large green countours then the hole is less than ideal. From all my years here, that is the impression I get. People can try to deny it, but you won't chnage my opinon on this.

Are you intentionally giving us an example of what you consider your own bias?  

[cary lichtenstein]

The 40+ handicap can always buy another sleeve at the turn

[Joe Hancock]

The 40+ handicap can always buy another sleeve at the turn

And he/ she can have a miserable time trying to negotiate demanding, ball-losing shots all day and never come back.

Joe

[cary lichtenstein]

Maybe that's good, it will speed up play

[Matt_Ward]

Don M:

I never said Lakota Canyon is superior to the select few top tier Mackenzie courses I have played. Don -- please don't categorize my tastes as an "either or." I do enjoy courses that feature some wild and unique greens. I also like to see the skill in driving the ball and in iron play be part of the equation as well. My sense of reviews is quite frank and to the point -- maybe it's the preference of others that needs to be examined? I have opined on a fuller range of courses than many on GCA -- it's sooooooooooo E-Z for people to whine on about Ward only favoring 8,000+ yard courses with 80 CR and 160 slopes. How laughable because that's not the case and it simply is distorted by the range of courses I think are superb.

Here's what I said ... "David -- you embrace the style of Mackenzie -- fair enough. I embrace other styles of a full range of architects -- particularly many of whom are designing today who may be a bit more intense in their thinking from tee-to-green. Mackenzie style layouts, from the ones I have played, tend to emphasize the green contour aspect and less so the need for high octance driving and even iron play."

I never said Lakota Canyon is better than say Cypress Point and Crystal Downs, to name just two. However, I do believe it's better than Valley Club of Montecito and Pasatiempo. The driving requirements at the last two clubs I just mentioned are not comparable to what you find at Lakota Canyon. I also believe Engh has done quite well with the greens he provides for his layouts and the ones at Lakota Canyon are on par -- although not superior -- with what you see at Valley and Pasa. They have sufficient contours and do require a deft touch with the approach.

Matt K:

You are quite correct -- unless courses are as wide as Texas and have little rough or any degree of danger or difficulty but have greens with elephant like contours or something in that vicinity then such designs are ruled out by this elitist crowd of posters here. What's amusing is that these same folks then do the artful tap dance and say that's not the case. Why don't they simply say it's what it is and move on. If that's what floats their boat so be it. Mine, and likely yours too, is a bit wider than that.

Unfortunately, many facilities don't have THAT much real estate to provide these types of courses. I also strongly believe there are other courses that are equal to these and are worthwhile playing.

I have been fortunate to have PLAYED no less than half a dozen Engh designs. I never said all of his designs work at a high level -- Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO is one example I have mentioned. However, I do believe Engh is unafraid to be edgy when necessary / appropriate and he doesn't forget the basic underpinning of any design -- rewarding the good shot and penalizing the poor shot in a proportionate manner to the degree it was played.

If people play the APPROPRIATE tees the qualities and strategic elements that Engh provides in his work will be something for a wide range of handicaps to enjoy and handle. If people float to the tips with a 40+ handicap and expect to be treated in the same manner as when they are playing from the front tees then they are smoking some heavy duty weed.

David M:

Let me try to help your understanding ... a par-5 hole is an opportunity for those with distance (sorry to say that nasty word!) to be "tempted" to try for a target in two blows. See Augusta National's 13th and 15th as two clear examples. The distance needs to be well positioned beyond simply the sheer brute force gained through yardage.

Those who don't have the distance CAN still succeed (did you notice this?) because other options are provided. The 18th at Lakota Canyon provides those options.

When you ask about tee placement frankly it can be played at the 556 yard mark or 492. David -- you seem to have this real hang-up about distance. For those who hit the ball a long ways in conjunction with accuracy it's an advantage no less to them versus those good with the short game and putter. Why should the long hitter not be rewarded when he takes a major chance and succeeds? Frankly, that was the same situation Woods, Nicklaus and others of this type have had in their playing careers.

I don't doubt designing par-5's can be quite daunting today because you are trying to accomodate the fullest range of players from the low handicap to those who may need the width of Texas to play the hole. It's not an easy assignment for any architect. Lakota Canyon provides a very wide fairway (no less than 40 yards across to almost 50 in certain spots that are closer to the tee). You also have a very large bailout area for those opting in that direction.

You're understanding of Bethpage Black is utterly limited -- I guess because you played it only once. There are a number of forced carries at the Black -- both tee shot and approach shot wise. I can name several in which this happens and guess what David -- the Black is still held in high regard even though it possesses likely the most pedestrian of green designs save for about 6 to 7 holes.

Winged Foot is also not for 40+ handicap types because it puts a major premium on driving and is the most demanding approach shot course I have played in the states. Using your "friend of the common golfer" approach I doubt very seriously these types of players would be running back to play either the Black or WF / West given the continual intensity both provide. I would dare say that the Black and WF / West are clearly as intense as you can get and Lakota Canyon is far less minus the rugged nature of the site which seems to be the focus of a number of folks.

There are plenty of "roach motel" locations at The Ocean Course, Winged Foot / West and Bethpage / Black. They are each extremely demanding and likely not the preference of those who prefer a less intense regiment of shot requirements. Nothing wrong with that but at the same time I strongly believe such courses offer more than just sheer difficulty.

Last comment -- the 40+ handicap player is welcomed to Lakota Canyon -- if they venture to the middle or upfront markers it's likely they would have a grand time. I saw many of them at the course when I played and none left without a smile on their face.

[THuckaby2]

I never said Lakota Canyon is better than say Cypress Point and Crystal Downs, to name just two. However, I do believe it's better than Valley Club of Montecito and Pasatiempo. The driving requirements at the last two clubs I just mentioned are not comparable to what you find at Lakota Canyon. I also believe Engh has done quite well with the greens he provides for his layouts and the ones at Lakota Canyon are on par -- although not superior -- with what you see at Valley and Pasa. They have sufficient contours and do require a deft touch with the approach.

Holy shit... OK Matt, until this point I have been following this with detached amusement, as I do enjoy your battles with David M.... but... do you REALLY mean this, or is it just a bit of exaggeration to fuel the arguments here?  Obviously each of Valley Club and Pasatiempo are generally very well thought of, and do quite well in all rankings.  So are you truly saying that Lakota Canyon deserves top 50-100 in the US status, as these two courses generally get?

I have no dog in this fight about this golf hole.  I just want to get quite clear how good you feel this course is.  I get to the Denver area semi-often, and if it's that great, well... I just might need to take a long drive.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

I understand your point of view and I'm tickled to see that someone understands that distance when executed properly should be rewarded.

Let me touch upon one point you made ... the 3rd shot approach to the green is a tough play but frankly it's no tougher than what you see players attempt to do with their 3rd at Augusta'a 13th or 15th holes. You have to deal with the obstacle in either case (e.g. the canyon at Lakota, Rae's creek or the fronting pond). There's no way around that.

Dave -- you introduced the term "risk avoidance." I never said any hole should be entirely devoid of risk -- it's the scale of the risk that I spoke about. If you're going to tell me that failure to hit a 80-100 PW or SW should be completely set to provide for "risk avoidance" then we are talking two different things and frankly I don't share your conclusion.

What I said is that the person who avoids the "risk" in going for the green will be left with a shorter -- but still thought provoking -- approach. I find nothing wrong with that or the idea that target golf has its place in the appropriate manner. The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch fits that bill IMHO.



The guy who decides to go for the green in two at Lakota Canyon is assuming a much higher level of risk -- you need to actually see the shot in person in order to better understand it -- the picture gives you a view from on top which is far different than at ground level.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

Not only did I play different shots from different angles I also asked several of the regulars who were playing to do likewise. None of them cried, whined, complained that the 3rd shot over the canyon was some sort of impossible play. In fact, to a person, they loved the challenge it presented because it was WITHIN their means to play it. Let me also mention there handicaps ranged from 12 to 28.

Dave -- what's wrong with people having to play a well struck LW, SW, PW or 9-iron from say 100 yards or so?

I never said it wasn't target golf. How bout you offer a bit more flexibility in your rigid understanding concerning this silly notion of "risk avoidance." All golf shots have some sort of risk attached to them. I have no issue with that. The degree of the risk is what I mentioned here.

I have not spoken or dialogued with Jim Engh. Next time I do I'll be sure to ask.

[DMoriarty]

Matt not much time now, but just wanted to touch on a few things to keep the conversation flowing . . .

However, I do believe it's better than Valley Club of Montecito and Pasatiempo. The driving requirements at the last two clubs I just mentioned are not comparable to what you find at Lakota Canyon. I also believe Engh has done quite well with the greens he provides for his layouts and the ones at Lakota Canyon are on par -- although not superior -- with what you see at Valley and Pasa. They have sufficient contours and do require a deft touch with the approach.

Just wanted to make sure this stays in writing, in case yours and Tom's disappear.  

You still havent addressed the failings of this type of hole in dealing with golfers of the same ability but different distances.  (You again fell back into the low handicapper vs. the crappy golfer, which isnt what I asked.)

Distance should be rewarded and is, by getting the golfer much closer to the hole.   Our real dispute is how much extra the long driver should benefit through punitive damage inflicted on everyone else.  

Please do identify those forced carries at Bethpage Black and Winged Foot from where the golfer has no chance at recovering.  I'm definitely interested in hearing about them.

Which other of Engh's courses are better than the Valley Club and Pasa?

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

You had me in agreement then you threw forward the last post and it makes me wonder what your understanding.

You don't HAVE to go at the green with the second shot. For those playing the hole at 556 yards that option will be there for a very, very small percentage. Put the bulk at 497 and 472 yards and it may come into play more times which I think is more thought provoking for those with lesser skill levels.

If I wasn't within a certain yardage the bailout is the play without any doubt. But to Engh's credit he doesn't allow those who decide to take the bailout without being challenged in another way. The pitch to the green is well within most people's range to hit a very short iron and they need to be precise about it. I'm glad you finally understands that element of the hole.

Just because you hit a big drive the hole doesn't surrender. I have played way too many reachable par-5's and the issue is that the second shot is simply a grip and rip variety and you land somewhere near the target with a mindless chip or putt for the automatic birdie.

Engh didn't allow for that at the 18th at Lakota or for any of his other well designed par-5's that I have personally played. The big hitter on his (Engh) par-5's -- more than on most other situations has to stand and deliver.

What the hell is the problem in unerstanding this?

Dave -- I hit the ball a good ways off the tee -- I will take every liberty I can with my distance unless there is a counterweight of sufficient force to deter me. Engh does that -- most other risk and reward type par-5's are simply laughable because the better player CAN get away with too much versus the remaining alternatives for those who lack the distance. The 18th at Lakota doesn't allow that type of golfer to get away without hitting a superb second. I have no problem with that -- maybe you're the one who does because you want the option in going for the green but don't want to pay the price (sometimes the ultimate one!) in the event you fail.

There's no rule in golf that says all par-5's must be reached in two -- the golfer who attempts to get there in two should know there is a penalty for even the slightest mistake. I don't doubt that at Lakota's 18th if you make a mistake it's saying goodbye to your golf ball. Big deal -- the time for thinking about that was BEFORE you pulled the trigger not after.

Dave M:

I know what I said and I don't need to be reminded. I have played Valley and Pasa on a few occasions and I enjoy them both. I simply said the totality of what I encountered at Lakota Canyon Ranch was a bit more complete for the reasons I indicated than the other two. I also think Valley and Pasa benefit from Digest inserting "tradition" and "walking" points into their overall assessments.

David -- I answered you question on the different types of golfers who play the hole. It's possible you can have some brawny football player type who has a 25 handicap and simply busts the ball occasionally. That player may opt to go for the green if he plays the middle or front tees. I have explained the differences here and frankly it bores me to keep on typing about it.

The punitive damage you speak about -- hello Dave -- do you think that just because someone bombs a tee shot they get an exemption? No way jose! I stood over my second shot and I was really intimidated by what I saw. That's why I rave about the hole and what Engh does to the head of the better player. Simply bombing the ball in the ideal location doesn't mean you then get a free pass and Joe Sixpack is stuck with a high score.

At Bethpahe Black you must deal with the forced carries at the following holes ...

the 1st -- just try getting to the fairway and if you should push you shot a hair to the right the trees block you.

the 4th -- the golfer MUST negotiate a cross bunker that acts like as chain reaction event based on one's tee shot.

the 5th -- the golfer must carry a bunker that cuts into the hole.

I can list a few more -- let me mention this notion you inserted about no chance for recovery. I can argue the point that if you land in certain sections of the Black you may have a club in your hand for a shot -- but that shot will be nothing more than a whack out with a PW or SW AT BEST and you'll be most fortunate to get back anywhere near the fairway. Just because the finished result at Lakota 18th's may well be a lost ball in the canyon that doesn't mean you don't face a similar fate at the Black given the high rough and grueling terrain.

Your last question -- I see Lakota Canyon Ranch as Engh's best design that I have played from the half dozen I have played.

[Brian_Gracely]

Dave,

The day I played it, #10 at Lost Dunes was a Par4.  I think it was something like the "black" tees were a Par4 and the "white" tees were a Par5 (the location of the tees were flipped from the 17 other holes).  Sadly, I took the "must get home in two since it's a Par4" mentality and didn't even notice the fairway to the left which could have been used for a layup.  

Strange how the "Par" of a hole will consciously or subconsciously get into your head and dictate your shot-selection or strategy, especially your first time around a course.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave S:

I appreciate your take but you and a few others are really hung up with this lost ball concept that's part and parcel of the hole. I see nothing wrong with that.

Too many par-5's I have played within modern design are simply throw-away holes and simply cave in too quickly to the long hitter who makes the hole surrender SIMPLE because of the tee shot. Heck -- for those short knockers out there I'm taking your position.

I credit Engh for juxtaposing the canyon in such a unique way. It's no different than when you see Cobb's Creek coming into play several times on a hole like Merion / East's famed 11th.

Dave -- the bailout area is BIG -- I was there and measured it and personally witnessed the 99% of the players who went that direction. End of story on that point.

Dave -- I AM THINKING about the other person who bails out and have said -- time after time after time -- that asking that person to hit a very short 3rd approach 80-120 yards to a green angled in their direction over a canyon is something they should be able to handle. If not -- then go to the range and start practicing.  My God, I'm only talking about either a LW, SW, PW or 9-iron approach at best.

Is the shot tough. Well -- it should be. Just because you don't go for the green in two doesn't mean you get a total 100% free pass with the rest of the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()