[Ryan Farrow]

Is it not ok to take players out of the box if you are still giving them options? Yes you take the drive out of their hands but I don't  see that as an architectual failure. Anyways these people you talk about might not care if the hole is exceptionaly beautiful. People are suckers for good looking holes.

Anyways, I have a date with Talking Stick North, were see if this minimalism thing is all its cracked up to be.

[Mark_Fine]

Jes II,
I'm not sure anyone said it was a bad hole?  Most just said it was not a great one and explained some of its limitations.  Even Kelly's version has some options.  

[JESII]

Have fun Ryan,

And the answer to your question should be yes.

[JESII]

Mark,

You have no idea how many people say it is a terrible hole. One of the worst they have ever seen. I would say the majority of people playing it in it's first five years back said just that. Opinions are beginning to soften however, so that's a good thing.

I'll say this, it certainly is unique.

[Ryan Farrow]

Does anyone have a few more pictures of the examples listed. I'm still a bit unclear on what has already been tried.

[mike_malone]

 If I see #10 at Inniscrone in this light it begins to make sense.

[Mark_Fine]

Ryan,
There are few if any rules in golf course design.  If you wanted, you could build a 450 yard hole that zig zags from tee to green three times forcing the golfer to have to hit three 150 yard shots to reach the green.  That would be fine.  But is it a good hole or a not so good hole?   It is personal opinion but to me that example as well as the hole we are talking about here are both not so good holes  
Mark

[Ryan Farrow]

Jes II,
I'm not sure anyone said it was a bad hole?

It is personal opinion but to me that example as well as the hole we are talking about here are both not so good holes  

So what is the difference between a not so good hole and a bad hole.

The hole now has options, something Tillies example did not have. Which leads me to believe you are completely against what is being proposed. Is not hitting driver off the tee all that bad? If nothing else it adds some variety to the round.

[Mark_Fine]

Ryan,
I think your second drawing is much better.  I misunderstood what hole you were refering to.  I'm not so sure someone would lay back with a 5I vs. 3W just so they could hit Driver off the deck with a better angle of play but at least there are some decisions that need to be considered on the tee shot.  I find if there are no real problems to solve on a particular shot, in all likelihood it is probably not a very exciting or demanding one.  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Seems to me one of the problems with HVGC's C nine #2 is it probably would be more interesting and acceptable if there ever had been the option to drive it accross and over the creek even if a high risk option.

But it seems the other problem most have with it is the only real idea or concept to it seems to be to get the tee shot as close to the creek as possible and it just doesn't take a very long club to do that considering how the rest of the hole sets up with the LZ on the right side of the creek.

There are a lot of holes where the basic tee shot strategy is to just get the ball as close to the hazard or creek as possible but some of the best of those offer a bit more of a reward for the approach shot if you can get the ball both close to the creek and pretty far out there too.

A good example of the latter would be Raynor's #14 at Fishers Island.

Let's just say it was possible to extend the fairway on #2 another fifty yards out there. If someone then hit a longer club off the tee down there they would then probably be out of angle with the cant and kicker onto that green.

Is there any possibility you and Scott could go out there today and add about fifty more yards down that fairway and then go up to the green and turn it about 15 degrees towards the clubhouse?  

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I don't know if the environmentalists allow this, but why not just trim the trees on the left down so that the long hitters can cut the corner.  There certainly would be a lot of iffiness to do so even if the fairway were brought back from the green end towards the creek.  In any case, all the trees to the left of the creek should be taken out.  They serve no purpose at all.

[wsmorrison]

Here is a Google Earth photo of the 2nd hole on the C-nine of Huntingdon Valley CC:



As you can see the complex of streams makes the landing area difficult even if the trees were trimmed down.  I think this is an excellent hole since it is unique and has such an interesting approach shot demand.  The green is large with a complexities of slopes.  There is a kicker on the right side so that shots can be run onto the green despite the upslope to the green.  

The wetland issues prevented any clearing of the trees that encroached during the many decades the course was left alone.  Linc Roden, older Jim Sullivan and others were responsible for bringing the course back about 10 years or so ago.  There were very few trees on the original iteration of the hole and the waterways were very simple allowing for precise draws to clear the creek.

[JESII]

To semi-answer Tom Paul's question, would the hole be better (and better received) if the tee were moved back about 30 yards and moved slightly right so getting the tee shot into the left corner was not quite as awkward?



The architectural answer to the question of "why not just cut down all the trees inside the corner" (replicating what was there 80 years ago) is easy. That would completely 100% neuter the hole. The carry yardages would be anywhere from 225 to about 265 and there would be virtually no risk if you could carry the ball that far. Now all of the sudden you have the top players hitting their drivers to about 75 yards from the green as opposed to trying to figure out how to play a hole they have not seen anything like before. In a time when we all bitch about how far the ball goes, why not have a hole that tests how well the mind works?

In 1927 there was a significant risk/reward to driving it over the creeks because not many people could keep it in the air for 225 yards. Today is a different ball game.

[JESII]

I think we're all a little soggy right about now redanman. Scott did have the place humming for about 3 or 4 weeks straight up until this rain started.

Anyway, glad to hear a good player likes the hole, and the nine for that matter. Few and far between.

[Mark_Fine]

Bill V,
I'm sure your wife enjoys the C nine as much as you do.  I'm guessing she plays hole #2 with a 9I off the tee followed by wood to where she can pitch on to the green and try to make a four or five.  Sounds like a fun hole to me  

By the way, when it rains, turf gets wet.  Sounds like even HV is a little soggy!  You are not going to diss it because it rained are you  

Jes,
The #2 hole on the C nine takes one time around to figure it out.  There is no thought involved (that's part of the argument for this style hole being a weak design).  As others have said, you layup off the tee close to the stream and then play your 200+ yard approach shot into the green.  If you want type approach shot, why not figure out a more creative way to get players into that position in the first place.  Seems to me this second shot might make a good par three design?    

There are lots of ways to make the #2 hole at HV more interesting but other constraints prevent this.  I'm sure it was looked at.  
Mark

[Aaron Katz]

A municipal course in Tucson, Arizona called Silverbell used to have a variation of the cart before the horse hole (I say "used to" because the course was completely redesigned by Ken Kavanaugh a year ago).  The fairway shot straight out from the tee about 250 yards. At about 240 from the tee, the hole doglegged left at a 90 degree angle, but in between the fairway and the green was (1) a shallow wash that was basically an unplayable area; (2) a fairly steep hill containing that wash; and (3) a large lake guarding the green short left.  The Lake basically prevented taking a driver over the wash from the tee, as a shot clearing the wash would almost inevitably find the lake.  And the hill containing the wash made such a tee shot completely blind anyways.  So, the only real play was to take a 2 iron from the tee.  The tricky part was that the wind constantly blew from the left (and hard), so the further right you drove your ball, the longer the shot into the green (going directly into the wind).  But the further left you took it, the more you brought the wash into play.  The ideal tee shot was a straight ball or very slight draw that would hang directly over the wash until the wind gently brought it back to to the left edge of the fairway.  That would leave a shot of about 140 yards into the green.  But even with a 2 iron, that shot took guts.  A safe play to the right middle of the fairway would leave between 175 and 200 yards in.

We all pretty much hated the hole's design, but in hindsight, it presented a unique challenge.

[mike_malone]

Were the  creeks there originally and was the rough just over them part of the original design ? If so, I can see how tree removal would improve the strategy of the hole. Doesn't the bunker complex on the left of the green seem to be designed to test a shot from the left? And what about the slope of the green. Is it more receptive of a shot from the center or right?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I'm not saying cut the trees down (except for those on the right side of the creek--and path).  What I was suggesting is that the tops of the trees be trimmed down 10-20 feet so that the option of trying to carry the corner exists for more than just a handful of bombers that might give it a go today.  

As I've said, I like the hole as it is and I don't care if it gets changed or not.  It is unique and fun to play as are the other holes on the course.  The approach to C-2 green is challenging and can be played several different ways.  However, in order to get some state tournaments to use the C-nine, the overwhelming distaste for the hole (interestingly much more so among the better state players) is to give them something that will allow them to consider the C-nine used in tournament play.  Right now there is no way that is happening.  If the trees are trimmed a bit from the top, the added option might get it done.  Like Linc, I sure would like to see the top district players compete on the C-nine and that is my motivation to recommend a small change.  

The pattern of creeks is a bit different than construction drawings and might make it difficult to allow.  Maybe the course of the creek that runs toward the green end of the hole can be brought closer to the treeline as it shows in the drawings.  I don't know.  My suggestion is only to try and get the nine in tournament play without disturbing the hole as is for most players.

[Mark_Fine]

Bill V,
I already said in an earlier post that I am not a good enough player to appreicate it.  

I wonder how much play that nine gets at HV compared to the other two nines?  

[JESII]

Wayne,

We can put the C-nine into tournament play anytime we want. The golf associations agreed that if we wanted to use the C nine in any of the events we host we should do it. We also host the Lynnewood Hall each year with a pretty good field and we could (and in the past did) use the C-nine as part of the tournament make-up. I see many issues that make the c-nine less than ideal for top caliber events and providing an option for players to go over the creeks towards the green with their drive on #2 is not one of them.

My position is this, the approach from 200 yards or so is so strong that we should encourage play from that area instead of other areas (possibly as close as 75 yards from the green). We can encourage play from that 200 yard area better by softening the angle from the tee to that area. As you know it presently requires a bit of a draw to get into the left corner of the fairway, which is where the 200 yard plate is. Another problem many people seem to dislike is the "cart before horse" nature a,d we could lengthen the hole a bit (so long as we also softened the angle) by moving the tee back and right (as you face the hole). I think this is the current best-case-solution to "improve" the hole because players now will have to hit it about 250 to get to the 200 plate (admittedly downhill so playability is a bit less).

The biggest issue I see with that solution is a common sense thought; asking for a 30 yard longer shot reduces accuracy and control and therefore many more players will not actually get their ball into position to go at the green from the 200 yard area.

My defense of the hole is based on one thing and supported by many others. I think the approach shot from 200 yards out is among the greatest inland approach shots in golf and should be experienced by the players that can handle it.

[JESII]

I wonder how much play that nine gets at HV compared to the other two nines?  

Mark,

Why do you wonder? What diffeerence does it make to you?

[wsmorrison]

Is it a question of difficulty/demand?  Not in my mind.  The real demand and thus difficulty is the ability to hit a long iron or fairway wood to an uphill target with a steep slope and bunkers left but a kicker on the right.  It isn't only an approach that needs to be carried the entire way.  Once on the green the demand is the green itself.  It is difficult...could it be a bit of a reverse #3 green on Merion East?  I don't know the HVCC green well enough but that thought just flashed in my head.

The hole is fine by me and is what the architect(s) present (in this particular case Flynn's original design and a restoration by Ron Prichard with modern constraints due to wetland considerations).  I play what I'm presented with in the best way I can to make the lowest score I can.  That is how I look at golf in general.  If the overriding consideration is GIR, then there can be a problem for some people that see things to compartmentalized.  If you think of the hole in terms of matchplay, isn't it a more agreeable hole as is?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Sorry, I didn't see your reply before my last post.  Very well said!  I agree with you for all points.  But my recollection is that the State Amateur (or was it the Open?) was at HVCC last year.  Linc and some of us tried to get the C-nine used for the tournament.  It seemed the powers that be (club or association, I do not recall) did not want to because of the concerns many have for C2 and to a lesser degree C7.  I love the C nine and HVCC.  It is a marvelous 27 holes and a design that needs to be seen and studied.  

Now as to your suggestion (or whomever's) to move the tee back and to right along the line of play, I think that might make some people feel better about the hole.  It will make hitting the current LZ 200 yard approach tough for many golfers, except for the better ones in the district but that might just be the right method to get it in tournament play more.  I get excited to play that approach like I do the 5th, 13th and all other holes at Pine Valley, the 11th, 18th and all other approaches at Merion and a bunch of approaches at HVCC (especially 7,9,15,17,C3,C5 and C8).  

In any case, you're absolutely right, that 200 yard uphill approach to a difficult green is a wonderous shot.  

[JESII]

Wayne,

You're memory on that subject is pretty good. Linc was pushing really hard to have the C-nine used, and I can understand his interests. He wanted the tournament to test the best players in the state to the fullest extent Huntingdon Valley could. He takes alot of pride in the difficulty of the course. The Pa Golf Association heard from Linc about that desire and had their own opinion that the C-nine might not be quite ready for prime-time. If the tee shot on #2 was part of their concern they did not mention it to me. Their position however was very clear, Huntingdon Valley has full say on which arrangement is used for the tournament so long as it is the same two nines for the entire tournament.

I think the tee shots on #1, and #7 are the primary candidates for improvement before hosting a significant event on that nine again.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

When I mentioned #2 in a previous post I was talking about the concept not necessarily what could be done on that hole.

Last time I was there I looked at that area left of the creek and there's a bridge and a lot more wetland or whatever it is there than I thought. I doubt anything could be done there anyway for all the other reasons---environmental etc.

But I'm just talking about a concept. If trees could be cleared out and it would only take a 225 yds to carry over, well, that's what architectural hazard features are for----to enhance and perfect options and strategies. So they could be added in to make the carry as long and accurate as need be

My point is on that kind of concept there's nothing wrong with offering a high risk option left of a creek on a hole like that one where the right side fairway can't get closer than about 200 yards from the green.

So what if a big hitter is only 75 yards from a green like that if he has to take a real risk to get there? That's what the risk/reward equations in golf architecture are all about. Make him carry the ball 275 or 280 or whatever and accurately by using high grass, creeks, bunkers or whatever that he'd have to carrry that much distance over to get near the green. The safe play to the right fairway is certainly always available to him as a safe tee shot option.

With any concept on a hole you just need to work it out, figure out if it makes good sense and if one thinks so just get it on the ground correctly so it really does work in play well.

That's what options are all about, and one has to remember an option, like that high risk one, that is there but isn't used at all is generally not a good one, for obvious reasons---eg it's too risky or too tough to tempt anyone.

All I'm trying to figure out is how to increase options if that seems appropriate and for better or worse it seems like too many feel that #2 is sort of one dimensional and in a sort of upside down way---eg lay up off the tee bigtime only to be left with a really long shot in at best.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()