[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

I'm not up on any other secret tees - sorry.  The one on 4 is right down there below the back tee.

And you are a wild man re the other side of the cliff shot!

 

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is a rough rendering of what Torrey South No. 4 might have looked like if was modeled as a reflection of Pacific Dunes No. 4.  

David,

Thanks for the outstanding work.  I do think this picture shows how tight the hole becomes in the landing area is you simply assume the bunkers are properly placed...and I think they are given the many tee boxes to choose from.  

[DMoriarty]

David,

Thanks for the outstanding work.  I do think this picture shows how tight the hole becomes in the landing area is you simply assume the bunkers are properly placed...and I think they are given the many tee boxes to choose from.  

John, as pictured unmodified, the actual "landing area" looks to be around 28 yards wide, narrowing to around 25 by the second bunker-- unless you consider the rough part of the landing area.

In order to drive it off the cliff at the narrowest point (about the front of the second bunker) from the tee back, the golfer would have to carry the ball approximately 305 yards and hit approximately 40 yards off line (from middle of the fairway.)  

In order to hit it off the cliff at the widest point (front of the front bunker) the golfer would have to carry the ball 260 yards, approx. 60 yards off line.  

In my limited experience at Torrey the hole plays longer than the yardage.   With the dense rough, the slightly uphill nature of the drive and the prevailing wind, I doubt the ocean ever enters the minds of most golfers, except to look at.  Sure it is possible to hit in it, but for these guys it would probably be a fluke.
____________________________
But more importantly John, even if ocean is on their minds (which I doubt) and causes them to aim away from the ocean, there is no offsetting advantage or temptation encouraging them to hit it close to the ocean.  In fact, they have a better angle if they hit away from the ocean, and a worse angle if they get close to it.   The ocean is only in play on a horrible, fluky shot.

Therein lies the strategic difference between the holes.
1.  The ocean is much more in play at PD. . .
2.   At PD, the golfer is tempted to flirt with ocean in order to get a better angle and closer to the hole.  At Torrey South, the golfer aims away for the better angle, if he considers the ocean at all.

Rather than being "mirror-images" strategically, the are complete opposites strategically.

[Tom_Doak]

You can't putt or chip off the cliff edge at Torrey Pines, can you?

That's what makes the hole at Pacific Dunes.  You have to be careful not to hit your second shot off the green and overboard, so ideally you would like to hit your tee shot right, so you can aim away from the cliff with your second and let the slope of the green bring it back in.

That "hidden" tee at #4 was someone else's idea, which I didn't like because you were hitting blind to a landing area where you needed to see the right edge of the world.  They don't maintain it, because I made them take out the access to it so that no one would go down there.

There are hidden tees on #1, #4 [back by the halfway house], #5 [much shorter], #11, #15, and #18.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually I always thought the 4th at Pacific Dunes was a copy of the 7th at Ballybunion (Old), to the original green which fell off the cliff there.

[SPDB]

The obvious difference is that Pacific is a lot better looking then Torrey.  Without a doubt, at that.  Pacific has a better hole #4 then Torrey, and one of the best hole #4's in the entire world...plus though David did a good job he forgot that Pacific Dunes #4 has a tee stretching on a bluff over the ocean.

See what I mean.

Jordan - When was the last time you were at 1) torrey pines, and 2) pacific dunes ?

[Jordan Wall]

"Jordan - When was the last time you were at 1) torrey pines, and 2) pacific dunes ?"

It doesnt take a genius to tell which hole is better.  Do you have to golf at CPC to tell its a great course?? NGLA?? ANGC??  Its just obvious which hole is better.  And to me, PD is more beautiful and certainly more natural, rugged looking then TP.  Name one person that would want to play TP over PD.  I rest my case.

[Tom Jefferson]

One point that hasn't been mentioned about PD4 that REALLY adds to its tightness is how the fairway from one end to the other feeds towards the cliff................so that ANY ball that even looks like it could flirt with the edge DOES almost all the time get there!  Add the slight slope to the speed of the fairways and there you go, dropping another ball and adding one to the total.  Wind direction doesn't matter....its gonna happen.

Also those fairway bunkers left are a perfect distance off the tee...............layup short and it's a long way into the green...attempt to carry them and, well...go ahead.

Great hole..................who designed that course?

Tom

[Sean Leary]

Tom J,

I was thinking exactly the same thing, particularly if people play a cut to start it away from the cliff..........

[Tom Jefferson]

Sean..............well, great minds and all that!!

Tom Doak is correct (for once!!) in mentioning the importance of playing the tee shot to the right side to gain advantage playing the second off the left front of the green.  A dicey line but of value.  To do the opposite, that is to play to the left off the tee in pursuit of safety only compounds the difficulty of the second.

Tom

[Norbert P]

John, yes they are opposing mirror images.  TP # 4 is a garage floor grease spot whereas PD # 4 illumidates and inspires.  Little Alice would not venture into the Sorry Nines lookingglass but would surely dive in to the wonderland of Bandon.  

[DMoriarty]

Barney,

Your juxtaposition of these two holes is very informative, but not for the reasons you suggest.  

Torrey South No. 4 may be symbolic of what is wrong with that course and so much post WWII architecture.  The cliffs and the ocean setting provide a tremendous opportunity to build a great golf hole, but the natural attributes have been completely neutralized by boring, uninspiring architecture and maintenance.   The course does not utilize the unique features of the place, but rather ignores them and buffers them, taking them almost completely out of play.  We are left with a relatively mundane golf course with nice views.

It surprises me that you could have played both PD No. 4 and TPS No 4 and still make this comparison.   TPS No. 4 is wasted opportunity.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave,

I think it's equally informative in the sense that it's John's attempt to show that Rees Jones and his re-design work at various famous courses is just as talented, imaginative, and creative as Tom Doak.  I think it's just a veiled attempt to prove "bias" on this board.

I read his whole thrust here to essentially say, "See...you guys are playing favorites again.  Yes, you all expound on PD and yet you trash TPS, which based on hosting an exciting professional tournament is a great course, as well.  Why, if you think about it, what's the difference between #4 at PD and #4 at TPS?"

John, am I wrong here?

[Philippe Binette]

Maybe they are similar as far as site configuration... but one of the two holes (like the rest of it's course) looks like s

Looking at the coverage last week, I had a hard time figuring that somebody actually payed Rees Jones for what he did there... and then paid to execute his plans. The shaping is downright awful

[JohnV]

I think that John has asked an excellent question here and I think his motives are not important.  As he said in the question, to "laymen" these holes appear similar.  The analysis of why TPS #4 is nowhere near as good as PD #4 has been great and I think it should be used as a way of making it clear to "laymen" why we like holes such as PD #4.

Making the comparison doesn't mean he agrees that they are the same.

I'd like to see more examples like this where two similar holes are used to point out the important differences between good and not so good architecture.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I agree with you that Barney definitely has an agenda, although I might define it slighly different that you.   But I also generally agree with JohnV, and do give Barney credit for trying to advance his agenda through actual discussion rather than just pointing the "bias" finger while avoiding all substantive conversation.  

In the end, whether he has an agenda or not, the I think the best way to react is by exposing the flaws in his comparison through honest discourse.  

I'd like to hear again from John whether he really thinks these holes are of similar quality and character, and if not why not?

[John Kavanaugh]

One thing this thread proves...I'm either genius, and idiot or just lucky.  Torrey Pines was on TV this week and I played Pacific Dunes last week.  The holes are both number four in the routing and run adjacent to the Pacific Ocean...It is quite simple to compare the two.  This is not an agenda driven thread, if so I would be far more subtle..give me a little credit.

Even I learned something about the two holes from this thread that I will take with me if I ever play either of them again.  I promise you if I do..both tee shots will be struck with the ocean's presence firmiy in my mind and on my grip.  As my ball flys through the air towards a hazard it has little regard for what lies underneath.

[Tom Huckaby]

One thing this thread proves...I'm either genius, and idiot or just lucky.  

You're all three.  

As for the two golf holes, I am not kidding when I say I never considered the ocean at all - ever - playing TP-S#4.  The ocean was a constant threat on PD#4.  It has to due with the difference in conditions and how far away the ocean is on each... It's just not really in play at TP-S except for the wildest of pull-hooks.  

I've seen you play.  If the ocean is on your mind on TP-S #4, then you've got some crazy pessimistic thoughts running through that noggin of yours.

But maybe I just solved this?

 

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I wish I knew what I was missing..but from the pictures the landing area between the bunkers at Torrey Pines looks no wider than 50 to 70 yds.  Do you have any idea how Rod Pampling made his double bogey and wouldn't you agree that for the tour level player the bunker scheme at Torrey Pines makes more sense.  I think David's revision of the greenside bunker with the added width makes the hole too easy in some peoples mind.

[Tom Huckaby]

I have no clue how Rod Pampling made a double.  But there are such things as three-putts and blown chips and pitchouts from heavy rough, you know.  

As for what ifs about the two holes, that's not my bag.  I will say David's drawing correctly reflects the reality of how TP-S #4 would be if it were designed like PD#4 is.

I am just here to tell you that unless they REALLY changed things since I was there - and remember, I only played it pre-redo - well... for a decent player the ocean really isn't a thought on the hole at TP-S, whereas as you know, it is a constant threat at PD.  That's not to say the hole at TP-S isn't difficult - it is - but it's not really because of losing a golf ball over the cliff.  There's just way too much there to stop that from happening.

TH

[George Pazin]

I can understand why you'd think added width would make the hole easier - lots of simpletons think that way - but how does David's bunker revision make it easier?

There's no bunker to save a ball too far left, the bunker would guard against the bailout right, and if you're in it, you're blasting out toward a cliff (not a problem for a pro, but a problem for the rest of us).

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

David's bunker revision makes the hole easier because there is no bunker between the player and the pin if he hits any part of the fairway.  I understand the intent is to make the player want to hug the coastline, but I would guess the fairway bunker accomplishes that already.  David's  design makes the hole about nothing but the drive where as the current hole requires not only a great drive but a difficult approach to the green from all angles.  Sometimes limiting options or the type of shot that can get close to the hole may be a good thing on a championship course.  

[Pete Lavallee]

I'll agree that David's redesign of Rees's redesign looks good on paper. However the area to the left that David made fairway is very sloping; falling off by as much as 10-20 feet before hitting the canyon area. Balls really would end up on Black's Beach as once one started hooking, there would be nothing to stop it rolling right off the edge. In order to make his scheme work there would need to be a massive landing moving effort. Would you shave down the fairway to match the left edge's elevation, or try to build up the left side to be somewhat parallel with the existing fairway? Keep in mind that the entire site is red clay with 6 inches of top soil spread on top. The land at the cliff edge is probably inherently unstable to begin with; earthmoving could result in an incident somewhat like what occured at Trump's course in Palos Verdes.

Therein lies the problem with the site on which the 2 golf courses are built at Torrey Pines. The cliffs gradually roll over at the edge, there are no well defined vertical cliffs like Pebble Beach or Bandon Dunes. The height is such that it is very dangerous to bring the general public very close to the edge. And how do you sculpt a site that is red clay with a 6 inch layer of top soil?

This could certainly be one of the most valid complaints against both courses at Torrey Pines. Although the site gradually slopes towards the Ocean there are no micro undulations in the fairways or significant topography to build off; save the big dip that is utilized on the 11th, 12th and 13th holes on the South, and the down then up nature of the 5th, 6th and 7th on the North. It's this lack of interest on the fairway that forces them to cut the fairways to the ridiculously narrow ribbons we see each Jan., in my opinion.

By the way the toughest pin on the 4th at Torrey is on the ledge to the left that is a full 2 feet lower than the green on the right. The best angle to that pin would have you challanging the fairway bunker on the right with your tee shot, thus avoiding a carry over the greenside bunker on the left; although I doubt many Tour Pros would attempt that shot, thay all have indicated that there is too much risk to try that shot, even with an 8 iron in your hands.

Could Billy Bell Jr. or Rees really be faulted for not try to sculpt something of interest in the red clay? Is this even possible?

[John Kavanaugh]

Pete,

Is the hazard on the left side of the 4th hole at Torrey Pines in play or not...In the fairway or at the green..

[Pete Lavallee]

John,

The hazard is not in play off the tee, you'de have to hit it 40 yards left of where your aiming to cross the red line. However, imeadiately left of the fairway is not good. Ball well above your feet (possibly at waist level) in very thick grass with along club in your hand.

The hazard is definetly in play around the green; both to the left of the green and behind it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()