[ian]

I couldn't get one of the famous holes that I was after. I choose a local hole by a very well respected architect. As usual one hole is current and in this case is original too. Three other choices have been presented for discussion. I have also removed all bunkering from the hole to explain the landforms, but also to suggest additional options. Offer your opinions on what you like and don't. Offer suggestions on what has not been tried, and you would like to see. I will not try to create everyones alternative, but I hope to paint a few suggestions to visually add to the discussion.

The first image is the hole without bunkers. The tee is about 35 feet above the creek, and the hole rises all the way to the green. The green is almost the same height as the tee. There is a series of small ridges and rises in the fairway, with one very sharp ridge running on an angle from 170 on the left to 210 yards away on the far right (shown with hatching). The right side has a series of bold rolls with the first being about six feet and the last being 10-12 (higher than the centre of the fairway at the landing). The first left roll is softer with the second again being bold. There is an increase in the rise of the fairway through the neck, with a small sharp rise at the green. The green slopes sharply (with very little undulation) towards the fairway. The back of the green droops over and the fall is about 15 feet to the bottom (a very difficult shot). The hole is 315-330 yards (can be driven) and is played into a predominantly right to left wind. I hope that covers it.

no bunkers

alternative one-carry bunkers

alternative two-roll off at green

alternative three-central bunker at 250

alternative four-alternating bunkers

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian;

In the words of my daughter, You ROCK!  

What a great exercise.  I already know what I'd suggest, but I'll wait til tomorrow since the hour is late and work comes early.  

Thanks for taking this site to new heights of interest!

[Doug Siebert]

I don't like alternative 1, it only penalizes short hitters/poor players with those short carry bunkers at 180-200 or so.  Alternative 3 is nasty -- it'd really make this short hole play more difficult for aggressive players, but I don't like how the runup option is taken away.  Between the carry bunker at 250 taking away the long iron or fairway wood tee shot, and the narrow lane to the green taking away the driver, I'm hitting a 4 iron to the left side every time.

Alternative 4 just doesn't look good to my eye somehow, so I'm left with alternative 2.  The two short bunkers could probably be eliminated, but they aren't too bad.  But I really like the placement you've given the others, I might be more likely to pull the driver on that hole than on the bunkerless base design, because they lend a natural target line to the hole, but aren't going to get in the way of a well struck ball finding the green.  Without the bunkers, I'd have a harder time finding my line, and might just punt and hit a 1 iron.  I'm all about holes that have that special look to make you do things you might wish you hadn't after you write down your score on the next tee.  Sorta like some women

[RJ_Daley]

Alternative 3, but eliminate the near right side bunker and mow it as fairway about one-half way through the width of where that unnecessary bunker is.  Then eliminate the two greenside front right bunkers, make the front a bit false fronted and the apron opening a bit more extended to the right.  That leaves the safe iron or fairway metal off the tee short of the mid-fairway bunker and forced somewhat to the greater area of fairway left, but then a second shot more difficult over the bunkers up the left side and on left side of green.  The big banger can either just carry the mid fairway bunker and flirt leaving him and rewarding him with a chip or bump and run that must still climb the false front and risk running through to the reported steep back fall-off.  With less LZ right of the mid fairway bunker, but a more tempting second shot, not over the bunker hazards found on the left of the hole corridor, one still must flirt with what appears heavy rough located in some moundy terrain.  The steep unbunkered right side of the near knoll or plateau green would be tough enough and no bunkers are necessary on that right side of the green approach.

My overall summary, is that you shouldn't put too much overkill on this hole as the 3rd option depicts up the right side.  The mid fairway bunker is great with more room short and left and more hazard up left and guarding green is plenty of hazard with plenty of risk going long and or right, which would be more appealing to try if the more subtle hazard of mounds and long grass are on the right instead of that in your face bunkering.

This is fun, thanks Ian...

[Chris Hervochon]

Alternative two, but put the two short bunkers on the left side of the fairway, and move them into the 215 range.  Then put a bunker on the right of the green and get rid of the one on the left and allow for the run up approach from the left.  Essentially, the bunkers on the left would have to be flirted with to assure the run up approach, and those not taking out the driver would have to flirt with them if they wanted to secure a "full wedge" into the green.  

P.S.- Ian, how did you create these images? e.g. what kind of program did you use?

[redanman]

#1 hard on the weaker player?  I'm not so sure, but otherwise fine

#2 reasonable but not interesting, a concerted "framing" exercise

#3 the Emporer's "Too many notes" (Amadeus)

#4 doesn't appear interesting, once again the "framing " thing

I like the central bunker idea or even random "St Andrews-TOC" bunkering.

Lose a few peripheral bunkers on #3 (Long right and enlarge the central bunker) and I can really support it, especially if few if any greenside bunkers and lots of closely mown area.

[BCrosby]

I would vote for No. 4. The green opens from the left. The left side fairway bunkering is nicely strategic. The slope off the right side of the fairway and green provides challenging and interesting recovery opportunities from that side. No bunkering needed there, so I would remove the lone bunker in the right rough.

I like the clean look of the hole. Minimal bunkering for a hole built on interesting, natural contours.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ian,
I like # 1(no bunkers), especially if I needed a birdie  

Using the #1(no bunkers) photo :
I would let the area between the creek and the fwy grow up/ add some native stuff, etc. but leave that little section before the creek as is.
In the area of the first ridge(210 out on right) crossing the fwy: I would let the rough come in from the right but just on the slope of the ridge, to about 1/3 of the existing fwy.
In the area between the two mounds on the left: I'd add a bunker in the darkened area to catch the "snipers".
In the area to the right side of the green: I'd take this area down to the same depth as the drop off in back and put a flat bottom bunker at the base of it. It would not be really visible from the tee nor would it intrude into the throat of the green.  

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, I think what you describe is very William Langford like... a good thing

[Dan Kelly]

Looks as though a ball hit right will bound away sharply to the right. Right?

If so -- or even if not (we can make it so, can't we? we're not short of money here!):

I like the carry-bunker option ... with two amendments:

Widen the fairway to the left of the bunkers, to give short hitters a bigger target.

Get rid of the right-hand carry bunker.

[Rick Shefchik]

My philosophy on bunkers -- when I take the time to gather my thoughts into a coherent philosophy -- is that the farther off the edge of the fairway and the closer to the tee they are, the more pointless they are.

By that standard, alternative one -- the carry bunkers -- looks great to me. I also like the greenside bunker left, which would protect a hole location on what would otherwise be the safer side of the green, and encourage you to be a little more aggressive hitting at hole locations on the dangerous side of the green.

[Rick Shefchik]

By the way, Ian, please don't post too many of these exercises. I could spend 8 hours a day doing them.

[ian]

Rather than responding to comments (which I'm enjoying), I'm going to follow this for a few days first, then paint a couple of suggested alternatives up on friday and post them.

[Richard_Macafee]

I would go for Alternative.1. without the carry bunkers.

I like the two left hand bunkers up near the green, but this hole just doesn't need any bunkers up the right hand side IMO, either fairway or greenside. Just make sure the rough is kept long greenside right to penalise a block going for the green.

[Brad Swanson]

Sounds to me that several people are suggesting a hole that is similar in some ways to the short/drivable par 4 7th at Sand Hills, especially if you incorporate Redanman's expanse of shortly mown area right of the green down that slope.  I'm totally in agreement with that.  Leaving the rough long by the green right is possibly the lesser of two evils, the alternative being a 20-40yd pitch  up a steep slope with a small green and the likelyhood that a shot of substandard quality will give you the opportunity to try again from the same spot.  IN addition, Doug's suggestion of some ambiguity by taking out traps that serve only to frame the hole would be interesting to try too.
  I guess my choice would be similar to #1, but take-out the leftmost cross-bunker, and mow that slope down short and right of the green (and crown the crap out of the green on the right side).


Brad Swanson

P.S.  Great exercise, Ian

[RJ_Daley]

Brad, I think #7 Sand Hills could be very much like Ian's number three option modified as I described, with the mid fairway bunker and without the bunkers up the entire right side.  But the Sand Hills bunker biting into the front of the green would need to come back into the fairway about 50 yards.  I knew I saw this concept somewhere

[Dr Kildare]

Ian,

These 4 images are great for this forum but i'm sure the last thing you would want to do is provide the members of a course 4 options.
There would never be a decision made.

[Doug Siebert]

Brad,

Actually I was suggesting leaving the framing bunkers greenside in, because they will make us longer hitters more likely to get the big stick out (well, if I hit my driver as straight as you I'd probably do it regardless)  That's a good hole to encourage people to go for the green on, because there are some definite risks there with a big push (granted not a big concern with a prevailing right to left wind) or for my favorite miss, hitting the big hook right into those pine trees short and left, turning a hole I was thinking birdie on to one where I'll have to really work some magic to secure a par.

[ian]

Good Doctor,  I agree, this could be deadly. I have provided options before for renovation. The one issue with the tool is that the more you show in detail, the more people want.

We just did a before and after presentation (including historical photos) last night; the comment from the membership was that this is a very effective way to explain what were trying to do. Plans, in the past, involved too much inturpretation of what we were saying. Question and answer questions are shorter because of it.

[Matt_Cohn]

Option 3, without the front-right greenside bunkers. I like that for the short hitter, high-handicapper, or lay-upper, there's miles of room left. But for the better player, it gets really tight up there. It's a real decision.

Don't all of the other options make it a little harder for the worse players, and a little simpler (if not easier) for the good players? I don't think any of the options are bad...but don't 1, 2 and 4 get it a little backwards?

[ian]

Chris, photo-paint by corel, comes with corel draw

Dan, everything bounces left, please follow up with me

If I didn't address you suggestion, I may not have understood. Send comments and I'll post more if they are asked for.

In response to some suggestions I have posted some more
I eleiminated all right side bunkering off of number three


I have eliminated the carry bunkers off of number two.

[Andrew Roberts]

I personally like the design idea of 6 because it puts an emphasis on putting the ball on the left side of the fairway, but I believe 5 has the greatest potential if you could cut more fairway over to the right.  The fairway is to narrow for that bunker.  I believe many people would be tempted to go right of the bunker with more fairway.  
But danger awaits on the right with the trees, and large mounds.  It also looks as if the view of the green might be blocked on the right side.
Ian the two bunkers long right work well because it tells the better player that he can't just hit driver off the tee.  That makes the middle bunker the main idea of thought going through the player's mind when on the tee.

[RJ_Daley]

I darn well like your revised #3.  I might make the throat into the green just a few more ft wider of fairway cut off to the right for temtation of the big bangers sake.  But, this sort of hole gets my blood circulating.

[Steve Lang]

Ian,
I love these exercises and the opinions drawn out by them.

I personally don't think the "drivable hole" will be a long lived architectural "feature" unless its a par 3.  Concurrently, I can't get excited by a par 3-like tee shot with a  40 yard diameter equivalent green, so I prefer #3  or 5 to give at least some variety to possible tee shots needed for different pin placements.  
 
If you're taking the photos, could you give us the view from a front tee too?  Do your clients request same, or is the greens committee only representing or interested in one set of tees.. i.e., the back ones?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()