Two analyses of the same hole

[Scott_Burroughs]

Inspired by some recent threads, but also from reading GCA
for a number of years, here are two analyses of the same hole:

Here's the 11th hole of a new Fazio (or Nicklaus) course I just played:



"What's with the faux hairy bunker look?   Trying to finally play catch-up with the Minimalists?"

"What's with the Sand Hills-wannabe look with the tall, brown grass off the tee?  It's not even in play."

"Framing galore.  Bunkers framing the landing area.  Trees framing the green on the approach."

"Ugh.  Fairway bunkers on each side of the landing zone, pinching it smaller?  What is this, channeling Robert Trent Jones, Sr.'s butchering of Oakland Hills?  They force you to only one option, straight down the middle."

"Why is there a tree in the middle of the bunker, and two right behind it?  That's a double (and triple) hazard?"

"What is the purpose of that extra fairway jutting out to the right, 50 yards short of the green?  Seems like of waste of mowing."


Now, the 2nd analysis:

Here's the 11th hole of a Doak course I recently played:



"Love the natural look of the bunkering."

"Love the Heathland look of the fescue off the tee."

"Love how the bunkers make the big hitters think twice about hitting driver.  3-wood off the tee is the preferred option here.  Flogging the driver all day should come with risks."

"Love the natual setting of the green, benched into the side of the hill."

"Love how they left that tree in the waste area....avoid hitting right at all costs."

"Love that extra fairway short of the green.  If someone blocks their approach short right, and the pin is on the right behind the bunker, they'll be able to get spin on the ball to stop it."

[Sean_A]

Scott

I would agree with the first analysis much more than the second.  I despise the trees around the right fairway bunker.  All in all, the Forest Creek photos look more interesting than this photo.

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

I always thought that hole was an old Donald Ross design.

It used to be a brilliant skyline green before the trees grew up.

The bunkers were simple and effective before some Mackenzie disciple came in and prettified them.

And, even if you still like the hole, it was probably done by McGovern.

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

Why are you perpetuating this hoax upon us?

[JohnH]

There are only so many ways to spruce up a straightforward hole with no risk/reward options.  I agree with the first scenario also.

[Jason Topp]

I like the post.  I have no idea of the extent to which my preconceived notions impact my reaction to a particular hole.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Rich,

Audible yuks on the 'skyline green' comment.

Hook.

Sean,

I had a hard time coming up with a positive spin on the trees
in/behind the bunkers.

Line.

Mike,

Although you deleted your post (something like: "If you had
said C&C, 'Love' would have to weak a term"), I used Doak for
a reason.  The statement I said in my first post: "Here's the
11th hole of a Doak course I recently played" is 100% true.  

Sinker.

I just changed a bunch of people's opinion on the hole above.  

The approach shot and green are quite good on this hole,
BTW (IMO).  The rest of the course is quite good, as well.  Also IMO.

[Chris_Hunt]

Just a couple of thoughts:

-The bunkering is staggered in the fairway.  Any discernable 'pinching' must reduce the fairway to only 35 yards wide.  

-I do not have any problem with a tree being in a bunker, acting as 'double hazard.'  Any different from having to punch out sideways from a pot bunker?  It counteracts the notion that everyone in that bunker should be faced with the same prospects for recovery.  It is certainly a better spot than being in the water on the left side of the hole.

-The fairway right and short of the green ties into the tee on the next hole, essentially a wide, short-cut walking connector if you aren't playing the back tees.  Certainly makes the flop shot harder over the bunker, I believe.

-The greenside bunker is not my favorite look, but the green itself is excellent, and it fits into the hillside much better than the term 'benching' would indicate.

-Full disclosure:  I am a card carrying minimalist.

 

[Scott_Burroughs]

Just a couple of thoughts:

-The bunkering is staggered in the fairway.  Any
discernable 'pinching' must reduce the fairway to only 35 yards wide.

You're right, the finger jutting out on the left is about 25
yards past the finger on the right, but you can't tell easily in the pic.

Certainly makes the flop shot harder over the bunker, I believe.

You can get more spin from the rough than from fairway?  
Certainly it's easier to mishit (skull, chunk) from the fairway, but I just mentioned spin.

-The greenside bunker is not my favorite look, but the
green itself is excellent, and it fits into the hillside much
better than the term 'benching' would indicate.

Bench, shelf (Ran uses it in some course profiles), whatever.  
The hill was too steep, so they cut into it (or raised the
front) and made it flatter.  Pick your term for it.

[Andy Hughes]

OK, am I the only doofus who doesn't know what course/hole this is??  Is it Lost Dunes?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Is it Lost Dunes?

Yes.  The pic is from Ran's course profile.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm no more of a fan of that tree/bunker mixture on the right side than the rest of you guys. However, I think there exists a perfectly valid and maybe even underused type of Par 4 design that gives a really wide landing area and then narrows like a funnel as you get closer to the green. That feature seems to be present in the hole presented.

I guess the downside to that design is that the scale of the funnel shape is optimum only for one certain strength of player. If you start the narrowing 200 yards from the green, perhaps appropriate for someone who hits a 5-iron 200 yards, you won't produce a proportional effect on the strategy of someone who uses a 3-wood from 200 yards. Having shorter tees won't get it done in that case.

But it's a cool way to add second-shot interest to a dead straight hole.

[Jason Blasberg]

Anyone have any Lost Dunes pics that are not on Ran's review?  

I've had my eye on LD for some time but haven't seen it in person yet.

[Jason Blasberg]

btw, if you go to www.doakgolf.com and look under the course list, there's a photo of the 11th at LD from a different angle, essentially what the player would see if they hit it down the left side of the fairway, or left rough.  

The right to left tilt on the right side of the green is more pronounced and the bunker looks absolutely menacing.  

To me it's a more interesting look at the 11th green.

[George Pazin]

Hate the trees, don't care who did it or whether they were there originally.

Would have made a more interesting study if you didn't make up people's opinions. This is like Huck's making up putting numbers to justify the mind numbingly wrong conclusion that flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens. I can make up opinions that would say literally anything - that's the definition of making it up.

Check out Tom MacWood's bunker study thread to see what I mean.

[Tom Huckaby]

This is like Huck's making up putting numbers to justify the mind numbingly wrong conclusion that flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens.

I made up no numbers, and what I said was that VERY highly contoured greens are a leveller rather than a separator; that is, that the worse putter will come closer in total number of strokes to the better putter on highly contoured greens than on flat ones.  And I remain as right about that as what you just posted putting incorrect words into my mouth is wrong.  Some day this will all strike you.  I just want to be there to hear the "eureka!"

 

[RJ_Daley]

Thanks Jason for calling attention to the other view of the 11th on Doak's website.  Scott makes an interesting point in his juxtaposition of potential commentary from diverse points of view by imaginary critics based on the one photo.  Yet, your calling attention to a second photo angle is as instructive in emphasising the limits to evaluation from one photo of one hole.



I will admit that the more photos from various angles is additive in being able to critique.  But, no critique will ever be complete and totally valid without personally inspecting the hole via play or study on site.

[George Pazin]

It was awhile ago, but I do recall you making up numbers to support your argument. Perhaps I read it wrong, and you were simply trying to illustrate your argument, rather than justify it.

I'm still waiting to get together with Ben Crenshaw at a course with flat greens and at Augusta so we can settle the argument. Ben, Hootie and I keep playing phone tag - I call them and somehow manage to miss their return calls. Strangely enough, they don't even seem to be leaving messages.

 

[Scott_Burroughs]

Would have made a more interesting study if you didn't make up people's opinions. This is like Huck's making up putting numbers to justify the mind numbingly wrong conclusion that flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens. I can make up opinions that would say literally anything - that's the definition of making it up.

Check out Tom MacWood's bunker study thread to see what I mean.

George,

My made-up comments were just a summary of a lot of what
I've seen in my 4.75 years of following GCA.com, that's all.  I
call 'em as I see 'em.  Some comments were made above, and
some were made - then deleted, after I posted (way too
soon) who designed it.  More recently, part of it was inspired
by the Forest Creek pics thread, part by the Dismal River pics
thread.  I guarantee you (obviously, I can't prove it), that if
those sets of pics were posted with MFA listed as the
archies, there would have been more universal praise.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I made up no numbers.  Since usually-intelligent people were having a very difficult time understanding what actually is a very simple premise (and seemingly continue to do so), I did give examples as to how I thought it would play out, based on numbers of strokes.  I made no representation that such was actual achieved test data, nor did I claim the numbers as any justification.

Not to get into this again, but Hootie wouldn't settle this for us - Masters conditions are too outrageous and must be considered an outlier - which of course I also said before.

TH

[George Pazin]

I guarantee you (obviously, I can't prove it), that if
those sets of pics were posted with MFA listed as the
archies, there would have been more universal praise.

Sure you can. Find some photos and post them with either no architect or intentionally post the wrong architect. That's far better than your guarantee.

Way back when the site was a few dozen people , someone posted construction/early grow in photos of a C&C course in Texas (I think it was Austin Country Club but frankly it was so long ago I don't remember the exact course). People ripped it before the identity was revealed, and they ripped it after.

The bias is much stronger in people's minds than in reality.

Huck -

I definitely don't recall throwing out the Masters, but if it makes you feel better, we'll hold the contest at Prairie Dunes or somewhere like that. I await Ben's call.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Seems there is a lot you're not recalling.  Perhaps it might be better to get one's facts straight before throwing barbs, as well-intentioned as they might be?

 

In any case, I remain right about what I actually said.  As I say, some day, you'll see.  And that won't occur via any test, because of course such will never happen.  What will happen is some day you'll decide to look at this with an open mind... then you'll see how simple it really is.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

George, I'll fess up to that first impression negative comment based on the photos of the Austin CC.  I haven't seen much in succesive years to change my intitial impressions.  Of course, I never took a firm postition of negativity based only on pictures.  

We've since seen many comments on people's diverse views of C&C's Hidden Creek, which seems to be routed across similar flatish terrain.  But, we hardly ever see anyone discuss Austin CC, pro or con.  Is that because it just isn't all that, or that it is so exclusive hardly anyone has seen it?

I'd sure like to see some current photos of that course that must be about 8 years old.

[George Pazin]

In any case, I remain right about what I actually said.  As I say, some day, you'll see.  And that won't occur via any test, because of course such will never happen.  What will happen is some day you'll decide to look at this with an open mind... then you'll see how simple it really is.

So you're right because you're right - that's almost as bad as making up numbers. The only way to convince me is with a test. Pro on flat greens, pro on highly contoured greens, am on flat greens, am on highly contoured greens, add 'em up. Not that difficult a test, really. When you see guys go a few hundred holes on tour without three putting, which almost certainly covers both flat greens and contoured greens, it's pretty tough for me to believe that an amateur with any sort of handicap wouldn't be more affected. I could be wrong, but you could certainly be wrong as well. To simply state that you "remain right" is a bit silly, don't you think? At the very least, it's not encouraging evidence of one's objectivity.

Dick -

I do recall your comments, but didn't want to single anyone out. You're probably the strongest example of someone who doesn't mince words, no matter the architect. As for Austin CC, my other recollection is that it was highly exclusive with a very small membership, so maybe we haven't hit the critical number of people who've played it.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I said that because the last thing I want to do is debate this AGAIN.  And my take was as good-natured as your initial dig was.  Sure it's silly.  But not quite as silly - or harmful - as complete misrepresentation of another person's point, wouldn't you say?

 

In any case, I gather you know a hundred or so willing pros and ams and two perfect sites on which we COULD settle this?

That's what I mean about there never being a test.  We can theorize, we can dream, but of course that's never going to happen.

So since we never are going to have a test, we just live with what we can.  

And when one starts with barbs, one shouldn't expect Miss Manners in return.