[Adam Clayman]

I'll buck the trend and say the hole has better balance without the driveable aspect. While having the teeing ground not too far right.

Tommy, I like the idea of the green side mound on the right as you originally postulaed. It makes playing safe and short of the right FW bunkers problematic, or at least, to the vageries of an unpredictable bounce and the satisfaction of a predictable one.

Hugging the leftside FW then bcomes the desired angle, while still respecting O.B. with distance control. Allowig the player to encounter the fairway mound perfectly placed to either reward a rolling ball towards the center or further left resulting in tree issues.

I'll stop there to see if it makes any sense to you or not.

Michael, Funny you should post. I was thinking the tee strategy looked alot like the right side of the 8th at your home course.

[Mike McGuire]

This hole reminds me of the 4th @ Old Hickory in Beaver Dam, WI (Bendelow)

It is a par five- where if you carry the corner with your drive you end up on top of a hill and you can get home.

If you choose to lay up you will have a blind second to the landing area.

There are no bunkers short of the OB and the one to the left in the driving area is a little more left.

Scary tee shot, The prevailing wind is with you so a lot of the time its hard to lay up even though you want to.

[SPDB]

TEP

I don't recall the 1st at the Creek has any risky layup area (or layup area for that matter). What are the bunkers 300-320 out? Does it?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is getting fun!

Michael, Both you and Adam are getting closer as the hole today is now a par 5 and Adam has the designer right! (not the course!)

So, as the thread continues....the mystery grows! (Well sort of!)

Adam,
The hole seems to have been a quirky one, and I never had it figured out until this last weekend while perusing a certain manuscript about golf architecture in America. More on that later!

BTW, given this course, the idea for the greenside mound was what I'm assuming might have been there, given the use of other mounds around this course and given the terrain of that particular area of the course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Arbs,
Where the trees are on the left is a drop-off into a really natural barranca/creek. and the other side of that is another golf hole--a strengthy one at that--going the opposite direction.

[Kalen Braley]

While this looks like a unique golf hole, wouldn't the FAA have a problem with the hole with the potential of several golf balls being on the runway at any given point in time?    

Especially with all those slicers who would put it over the fence?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Kalen,
Depends on the situation. In this case, it all depends on year!

At the course where Tiger Woods learned to play golf, the Los Alamitos Naval Air Station course, some of the holes are parallel to the runway, as is/was El Toro which is now history. (in a good way!)

[Garland Bayley]

The thing I don't like about this hole (depending on the placement of the bunkers) is that there appears to be too large a differential between carrying all the bunkers into an area that is much wider than just before the left bunker, and playing to an area of at least equal width short of that carry.

I would take out that left bunker.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Depends on the situation. In this case, it all depends on year!

At the course where Tiger Woods learned to play golf, the Los Alamitos Naval Air Station course, some of the holes are parallel to the runway, as is/was El Toro which is now history. (in a good way!)

Interesting clue there Tommy, I take it the airport in question has already seen its better days.

By the way great exercise, these little questions are the ones that keep me awake at night wondering which course its found on.  Please do tell by nights end  

[archie_struthers]

 

All you Flynn guys chime in.!

  Tommy, forgetting the elevation changes, and not knowing the length of yours, there existed a hole that mirrored this one to a great extent. This being the old 2nd at Atlantic City CC.

  I'm guessing that Leo Fraser cut the road adjcacent and developed some lots that narrowed  it appreciably in the driving zone. Having deposited a few pellets into the back yard there in a tournament, and always remembering this fact, it became one of my favorite holes at ACCC. It also had one of the best greens at the club.

Strategy, sans the elevation, dictated hitting three wood or 1 iron ( gasp) so as to take the OB out of play. There were some serious oak trees on the corner, so it was real easy to get totally blocked out on the second shot if you hit it right but short. I know I'm not alone in screwing up this hole early in the round. It eerily resembles the one Tommy has channeled for us.

Alas , the hole no longer exists, but I'll never forget one putting for seven.

 

[Chris Cupit]

Ok, I'll give it a shot.  Having no architectural experience whatsoever, I assumed the distance was about 370 yards for a short to mid length two shotter.  I used a ruler to measure some distances and widths and if I were player, I don't think there is much choice.

The right bunker edge is about 200 yards from the tee and the fairway is very wide (my ruler if this is to scale guestimated 50 yards wide or so).

To drive the ball in the neck near the OB seems crazy since the fairway is less than thirty yards wide (I guessed 22-26 yards).  The distant fairway bunker started at 260 and to carry it (285 yards) and try and land in a fairly wide area of 35-40 yards or so would still be a huge risk.

If my yardages are right I think it plays as a layup with a five iron or so (you said it was downhill slightly) and if I carried it 185 downhill and it rolled another 20 yards or so, I've hit to land the ball in the widest part of the fairway, taken the bunkers out of play and now have 165-175 downhill, left.  Maybe a 6-8 iron depending how downhill it is.

5 iron then a 7 iron par 4??--that would suck.

I give this honest answer knowing that this has got to be some famous hole that I am ignorant of that will make me look stupid , but if my "calculations" were correct, I don't see what's so great.  Maybe it's beautiful or scenic....

When I first saw it, it did look like part of the 16th and 17th holes at TOC but obviously it isnt.  

In any case, MHO

[archie_struthers]

   


Hey , I didn;t anwer the question! Sorry.

If there is significant elevation change from fairway to green , it works fine. Actually, it's pretty cool laying up short of the bunkers and then flying the second over the OB. Even though you'd almost never hit it onto  the airfield. stranger things have happened. It is golf you know.

Hopefully the layup is at least 230+_ so as to make the tee shot more challenging. Sounds like this might be the case. Would't be surprised at all to see this over the pond.

[Garland Bayley]

You did ask how I would play it didn't you.?Well, I would slice my drive into the trees, followed by a chip out. Then I would pull hook my approach out of bounds right, drop another ball, and slice it into the trees, followed by a chip out. From there, I would pitch on and three putt for an 8*.
















* Equitable Stroke Control

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Getting back to the discussion at large....

Here is an image of the hole taken in 1929. Quite obviously holes like this aren't built much anymore, as it is of a quirky nature. Kalen was correct in assuming the airfield was no longer in use, as this was at a time when most were flying Biplanes to and from Tinseltown, as it wasn't too far from the rooms that housed everyone from Gable & Lombard to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. This particular course and place was a resort for the stars, and frankly I think it's one of the GREAT, more unheralded California courses that close to no longer exist.



when I got this aerial, this particular hole puzzled me for the longest time. It just didn't make much sense as the aerial isn't the best quality, but it does show a lot of other things that p[roved important in what happened, where and when. It also cost me $130.00! (Showing how much interest I've had in the course over the years.) Once again, I think this is~architecturally speaking~a very important golf course in the scheme of Golf oin Southern California.

The whole thing came together this last weekend when sometimes you just can't read deep enough, let alone look at all of the pages.

More on that one later!

Tom Doak, I'm sure your ready to take the floor! (Knowing you've probably recognized where you saw this hole since your last post!)

Arch, Your right, it's a hole one would find overseas and makes it even more understandable why RT and Arbs were suggesting it as such. God knows they never built anything like this is America--NOT!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Arbs,
The length today, the hole plays as a par 5. In the above aerial photo, and I have found this out while progressing with this thread--the hole is just over 400 yards in length.

Regardless, I think we've seen some excellent examples of length and how it cuold change a hole and how it doesn't always have to either!

I'll post the excerpt from the book later.

[Chris Cupit]

A 400 yard Par 5 that plays slightly downhill

Sorry to be the architectural Phillistine here, but unless I am missing something huge, I'd say this hole is Stoooopid.

I'd say that the only way to "protect" par is to have a goofy, gimmiky, tricked up hole--one that should be a par 4 but that is so bad, the architect has decided to give you an extra stroke to account for the fact that there was not enough room to really build an acceptable golf hole.

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chris,
TODAY....TODAY the hole plays as a par 5. Back in the 20's it was a par 4, but with that:

Would you consider the Old Course #17 a stooooopid golf hole? Most* consider it one of the most challenging holes in the world, and ironically it was formerly a par 5 that is now considered a par 4--not that any of that should matter. Frankly speaking, there isn't much difference between it and the sample hole shown above.

I ask: What difference should par make? Why would you be critical to put a number on it?

*Forrest Richardson considers the Road Hole it to be a stoooopid golf hole.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Would you consider the Old Course #17 a stooooopid golf hole? Most* consider it one of the most challenging holes in the world, and ironically it was formerly a par 5 that is now considered a par 4--not that any of that should matter. Frankly speaking, there isn't much difference between it and the sample hole shown above.
...

     
The road hole has a short carry across the corner to a bunkerless fairway in the landing zone. There is much more room and no trees on the left of the road hole. The left side of the green is guarded by a bunker at the road hole, whereas this hole is guarded on the right by a mound. Other than the corner, I don't see much similarity.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Garland,
The point is that both holes require a daunting carry over O.B. How much more similar do you need then that?

[Michael Robin]

So Tommy, we're saying a Thomas course, still standing today, near an ancient airport, in SoCal, that now plays as a par 5. Might this be on the front side at Ojai? Sort of looks like the 18th at Harding too, but I don't remember it ever being a resort.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
The point is that both holes require a daunting carry over O.B. How much more similar do you need then that?

I get it, it is like "The Arbs Version".

[Chris Cupit]

Tommy,

No, I don't consider the 17th at TOC a stupid hole.  I have played TOC about 10 times including a couple of rounds in the St. Andrews Links Tournament--a stroke play event just prior to the Amateur Championship.  The reason I mention this is because I think I have a very good perspective of TOC--I've played it (mostly) for fun AND under tournament conditions when every stroke counts.

Anyway, there is no way the hole depicted is similar to 17. (Thank you Garland for pointing this out as well). The 17th at TOC does present a daunting shot over OB on the tee shot IF YOU CHOOSE to try and get a much better angle into the green.  There is PLENTY of room to bail left away from the OB.  I guess there is still a slight carry but the fundamental diffrence between the two holes is that there is NO ROOM on your picture while there is all kinds of room given a player on #17.

Also, the second shots are completely different.  The 17th at TOC actually rewards a low running shot coming in to the right of the bunker.  There is a cool funnel effect that sweeps the ball into and left on the green.  Of course, a shot played too hard will race over the green and onto the road but perfectly judged, the ball ends up remarkabley deep into the center of the green.  Most players lay up short and right and see this effect on the long lag putt.

Anyway, the mystery hole has a mound at the front right that seems to deflect shots (maybe more like the mound short on hole #4 at TOC?).  Anyway the "mystery mound" seems pretty harsh--you have to carry between OB short and right and a gulley on the left and anything just short can hit the mound and go anywhere.

17 at TOC at least allows a conservative short shot or run up option.

#17 at TOC = room to make choices and bail out
The mystery hole = no room between OB and unplayable on the left.  

(My one caveat is that I do not know the precise width but it looks very, very narrow).

I am aware that in 1964 the Links Trust converted Par from 5 to 4 at TOC.  Do you think it's the same???  Is DECREASING par on a 461 yard hole from 5 to a 461 yard  par 4 in response to a more modern game the same as INCREASING par on a slightly downhill 400 yard hole from 4 to 5 in your mind

I really, really don't get your point.  In fact, you seem to be making my point--that the hole at 400 yards was so riduculous they added another stroke for "expert play"?

I understand some of the hang-ups over "par" and this is no doubt due to the fact that, more and more, stroke play has become predominant over match play,  BUT...

The Rules of Golf specifically address situations where the competition is based on "par"--Rule 31, Bogey, Par and Stableford Competitions.  Moreover the USGA defines par as "...the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole.  Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green..."

Unless the corridors of the mystery hole are far more generous than I think, yeah, it's stoooopid




 

[Kalen Braley]

Chris,

I can understand there are some fundamental differences between 17 at TOC and the mystery hole. But what this hole does remind me of, at least in terms of layout, is the 8th hole at Pebble Beach. I see a handful of strategic similarities to these two holes. The 2nd shots are very similar in that its basically all carry to the green, and the penalty for missing is severe.  In addition, just like on #8 you can bail out left with your 2nd shot, the same appears true on the mystery hole. The greens on both holes are small targets and the penalty for not hitting the green makes for a tough chip shot. The only big difference would be the blind tee shot on #8 vs the downhill tee shot on said hole.  

So if you also think #8 at Pebble is a stoooopid hole, then I will at least understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree with you.  

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,

I can understand there are some fundamental differences between 17 at TOC and the mystery hole. But what this hole does remind me of, at least in terms of layout, is the 8th hole at Pebble Beach. I see a handful of strategic similarities to these two holes. The 2nd shots are very similar in that its basically all carry to the green, and the penalty for missing is severe.  In addition, just like on #8 you can bail out left with your 2nd shot, the same appears true on the mystery hole. The greens on both holes are small targets and the penalty for not hitting the green makes for a tough chip shot. The only big difference would be the blind tee shot on #8 vs the downhill tee shot on said hole.  

So if you also think #8 at Pebble is a stoooopid hole, then I will at least understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree with you.  

Kalen,

I am glad you see some fundamental differences--I'm not sure Tommy would agree

I have not played at Pebble although I am looking at Tom Doak's "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" book where there is a picture and description of the 8th hole.  While there is a dramatic carry, it seems that the left side at PB is framed to gather and protect the player bailing out.  Also, because of the angle of the fairway on the second shot--it is very wide for the player laying up at PB.  

PB's 8th hole looks like a beautiful, dramtic hole--I hope to play it one day.  I don't see any similarity in the second shot though.  PB has trouble on one side and plenty of room to safely play left if you want to.

On the Mystery hole there is OB right and a gully left.  Also, if the hole is slightly downhill, shots that did clear the OB  would seem to run away towards the left side gully.  It seems very narrow and hemmed in on both sides and with it being downhill it sounds like it could play even narrower.  It seems from the aerial photo that the whitish area is the demarcation where the ground would begin to slope down the hill to the left.

Again, it is hard to tell alot from a picture but I just don't think it looks like much of a hole, particularly as a 400 yard par 5!  Can anyone explain why TODAY, the hole is a slightly downhill 400 yard par 5?  How is the hole "supposed" to be played?

Sean,

The hole makes more sense as a par 4.  When I learned it was a par 5 I assumed it was because the area past the neck of the OB was even more narrow than I first thought and par was adjusted to make up for this fact.  
 
One last thought--if the gully on the left is not marked as a lateral hazard then you would have a green surounded on both sides by stroke and distance penalties!  Ouch.  I believe the left area was described as "creek like" and "filled with Oak Trees".  I sure hope there is some water there

[Kalen Braley]

Hi Chris,

1st off, I would not claim that the mystery hole is equal to the 8th at PB, or even in the same class, just that the strategies to play it are similar.   Just wanted to make sure before someone thinks I'm equating the two  

The layup/bailout on the 8th is no bargain either.  There is only a small ribbon of fairway and if you don't hit that you will have a lie on the side of the hill that is now in the rough and below your feet.  With the cliff looming right and throw in all of the bunkers that surround the green that is no bargain either.

And for the record, I still think the other 2nd shot comparisons are valid as well.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()