News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark Bourgeois

"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« on: July 23, 2007, 10:54:00 PM »
This is the 285 / 264 / 250 yard par 4 14th hole on Westfields in Clifton, VA.  Designed by Gene Bates and Fred Couples, it's driveable, but if you miss you likely have a not impossible but challenging up and down.  It's a "baby" hole: not long and not penal.

But that doesn't mean it's not a lot of fun -- or a pushover.

I like it because it kills via the subtle method of "unreasonable expectations:" eagle and birdie are real options here even as 6 and 7 aren't (or shouldn't be!), but the golfer who pulls driver or 3 wood calibrates his expectations to eagle so that even birdie may disappoint, par and bogey eviscerate.  How many holes have you played driver off the tee with the expectation of eagle?! There's obviously no rule you have to hit driver instead of, say, two consecutive baby wedges, but the view from the tee is red meat to the caveman golfer that lurks somewhere in the brain of every golfer. We can't help ourselves.

The risk doesn't appear so great from the tee -- there's no great heroism asked of the tee shot -- the penalty for a missed drive is inherently strategic rather than penal: a missed tee shot presents an approach shot made harder due the challenging angle to the green.

The best way to drive the green is via a slingshotting "ground fade" (for righties).  The green entrance is front left and is positioned to receive a tee shot bounding down the hillside -- assuming proper angle and spin.

View from right side of tee, where easier tees normally are placed; from this angle the play is a slingshot fade that uses the severe sidehill as a guide down to the green


The hole is made more difficult from the two back tees not so much via length but via angle.  Instead of an easy-on-the-eyes slingshotter from the right side, back tees are placed to the left, asking the golfer to hit a reasonably straight "fade" (i.e., a pro fade not a chop's "power fade").  The trees on the left pretty much eliminate the option of a cut fade or outright slice.

It gets interesting when the golfer actually stops to think what type of shot he must hit with the driver.  For many of us, this thought process literally is too little too late.  Upon setting eyes on the hole, most will dispense with anything approaching "decisionmaking," choosing driver immediately, it's so obviously short and easy!  But then a subtle and therefore highly corrosive half-conscious thought process begins.  First thoughts of "bomb it" segue to "sling shot it" and finally -- not realizing he's been drawn into the subtlest of traps, the "oh I'll hit it anyway trap" -- "baby fade it." Three thoughts on one tee, uh oh.

View from left side of tee -- marker shown defines right edge of teeing area


Part of the challenge is visual: golfers take in the slingshot fade that must be tacked on at the end of their shot and what do they do?  That's right, they process the "fade" part of the information and proceed to jack a big block or block fade. And then you're dead, you just don't know it yet: a little flip wedge shot out of the rough to an elevated green with a bunker in front.  Furthermore, this position presents a shallow green. Ugly!

Closer view of slingshot approach and green; green is a good 10-15 feet lower than hill


In sum, this is one of those holes that make you want to march right back up the fairway and immediately play again.

Mark

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2007, 12:15:10 AM »
Mark, when they hold the Open there someday they'll call it a par 3 and make it a much worse hole.

What do you think of the course?  Is it worth a drive over from the cool side of the river?

PS Someday soon, when I'm allowed to play again, I am hoping to head up to PB Dye with Jerry K. You interested? It must be wicked bouncy/fast up there these days.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2007, 03:17:33 AM »
Its your own fault if you "expect" eagle from 285 yards away.  I don't even expect eagle when I bomb one on a short par 5 and have a wedge into the green.  I might think I've got a good chance of it, but I know from experience I have a nearly infinite variety of ways to get down in 3 or even 4 strokes from inside 150 yards, let alone 285 ;D
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Peter Carroll

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2007, 05:10:14 AM »
Mark

I really like the look of this hole.

I can only imagine that
1.  A drive starting well left is propelled forward not just sideways right.
2.  A straight shot at the left edge of the green hardly feeds right at all.
3.  Greenside bunker is not an easy up and down.

It seems like a good example of where a professional architect would use all their skill to get the slopes and balance right, and it would be so easy to get it all wrong.

Peter

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2007, 07:17:59 AM »
Doug and Peter,

All you have to do is place your tee shot in a "general vicinity" landing area and, provided you've hit it with good pace (not a popup) and you will not only have an eagle putt, you will have a makeable eagle putt!

Andy, it depends on what you prefer. My own personal preference:
PB Dye = 7 rounds
Westfields = 3 rounds

Most golfers -- healthily "normal" golfers -- probably would reverse that ratio.  Dye's greens are wilder and the shots more interesting. Westfields looks like a "proper" golf course and is very pleasant to play.  It has a few interesting holes (and one really interesting one!) and is an easier walk. Dye is polarizing; Westfields will generate no great feeling one way or the other.

I will say I like the 14th so much that's what drew me out there for the first time in several years.  Sure enough, the anticipation began on 1 tee! (There's no hole really like it at Dye.)

Peter, your slope and balance comment is interesting.  I would say Bates / Couples got the proper combination of fairway tilt, green-opening width, and green angle.  The golfer on the tee is like a safe cracker trying to dial these three tumblers.

Sean, welcome to DC golf! PB Dye and Mattaponi Springs. I haven't played the latter but Craig Disher gives it a good rec.  Of course, it's practically in Richmond, but that's a short drive in comparison to the flight over.

Mark

Ray Richard

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2007, 08:02:37 AM »
As a "left to right" player I would vote to cut down a few of the trees on the left side.

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2007, 05:01:01 PM »

Strawberry Fields (I really liked the back 9)


Dear Bunkerman -- or is it "Mr. LSD?" Strawberry Fields = Raspberry Falls? Nice tyop!

What's your view on the bunkers? Did you get into any of the named ones, for example "Lee's Bunker?"





Anyway, lessee, worthy courses near DC...how high are your standards? You've seen about the best already, there's nothing better. You could play at my housing and bunker infested course, but I'm not sure I could take the bunker crit! But there's usually drinking and gambling, does that help?

Signed,
Focus Markus

PS Andy H: I am always up for golf!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 05:01:41 PM by Mark Bourgeois »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2007, 05:17:17 PM »
You like killer "baby" holes?  How about the 301 yard 17th at Crystal Downs?  :o 8)



The drive is from an elevated tee.  Everything slopes hard right to left, with a steep slope on the right at about 210 yards. (Somehow my well struck driver bounced into a clump of fescue at the very top and stayed there!  ::)  This left a 70 yard chop out with the ball two feet above my feet.)

An iron or hybrid hit 180-190 yards gets into that flattish area short of the slope.  Anything hooked or pulled goes down into potential perdition.  Here's the pitch to the horizon green with nothing but trouble anywhere but on the very steeply sloping green:



I love little holes like this one.  301 yards looks pretty easy on the card!

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2007, 05:37:12 PM »
Oh no, Bill...tiny green! Stay away from them!

They'll rip your score out Jim...

Kyle Harris

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2007, 05:38:29 PM »
Oh no, Bill...tiny green! Stay away from them!

They'll rip your score out Jim...

I'd like to meet his tailor.

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2007, 05:41:43 PM »
Oh no, Bill...tiny green! Stay away from them!

They'll rip your score out Jim...

I'd like to meet his tailor.

Try Trader Vics...

Jimmy Chandler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2007, 06:22:24 PM »
I like it because it kills via the subtle method of "unreasonable expectations:" eagle and birdie are real options here even as 6 and 7 aren't (or shouldn't be!), but the golfer who pulls driver or 3 wood calibrates his expectations to eagle so that even birdie may disappoint, par and bogey eviscerate.

I think you're overstating most golfer's expectations a bit.  I don't know many people who ever expect to make eagle.  Birdie, maybe, but not eagle.  Unless you play with much better golfers  than I do! :)


In sum, this is one of those holes that make you want to march right back up the fairway and immediately play again.

Mark

I think you nailed it on the head with this point. I usually feel I have failed when I've finished this hole and I want to try again.  Definitely a hole that looks easier than it plays most of the time. I think one of the keys is that many drives get hung up on the left hill, particularly because the rough is usually thick, and the angle into the green from there is not conducive to making birdie, especially when the pin is on the left (which is where it's been every time I've played the course, if I remember correctly).

In fact, I think Westfields has a number of holes that look easier than they play.


PS Andy H: I am always up for golf!

So am I! (I live in Arlington, VA.) Email or PM me anytime.

Jimmy Chandler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2007, 06:38:00 PM »
Aren't there any other worthy courses closer to DC other than this PB Dye joint (what a dodgey name!)?  

Ciao

Sean—

DC is a rather large metro area, so it depends where you are and how far you’re willing to drive. Assuming public courses within an hour’s drive of the beltway, I’d say these are the most worthy of your time:

    * Shenandoah Valley Golf Club
    * Laurel Hill – a very nice new muni by Bill Love built on the old Lorton Prison grounds, only drawback is it’s not very walkable
    * Glenn Dale – see threads: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=13885;start=msg236852#msg236852 and http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=21005;start=msg379597
    * Whiskey Creek (very near PB Dye)
    * Musket Ridge

My favorite place to play in the area is Shenandoah Valley GC, considering the price (highest fee is $50 on a weekend morning, as little as $12 to walk after 2 PM Mon-Thrs), good conditioning, generally a fast pace of play, a friendly staff, and the course itself: mountain-style course, no water hazards, no fairway bunkers, but tight, rolling fairways, smallish greens on the old 18 (larger greens on the newest 9), and a nice routing that provides variety. Plenty walkable unless it’s very hot and humid.

I’m not surprised from your list that you’re not very impressed w/DC-area golf, but the next time you’re in town, try one of these courses and I think you’ll be happier.

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2007, 09:49:10 PM »






Awesome Lines!!!  I love that look.
Jim Thompson

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2007, 09:01:32 AM »
I like that stretch on the front nine down in the valley: 4-7, although they should cut back the trees a little on 6 to show the green and tempt stupid play.

That course has an element of deception I should add to the catalog: visual compression. The bunkers look so much closer than they are! I think its done by hiding ground, either junk between tee and fairway or swales in the ground. Still, for some reason it seems to work better out there.

Hmmm...Lucy in the strawberry fields with diamonds forever, dude.

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2007, 09:08:51 AM »
Oh and I hate faux tradition, but the bunker naming scheme works well out there because they made those bunkers they named so incredibly harsh they earn moniker status. The scheme doesn't work when you name random bunkers, no more than do hole naming schemes. I think features and holes have to earn their names, not have them tagged by a marketing dept, don't you?

Jimmy Chandler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2007, 09:33:19 AM »
I like that stretch on the front nine down in the valley: 4-7, although they should cut back the trees a little on 6 to show the green and tempt stupid play.

Hmmm...Lucy in the strawberry fields with diamonds forever, dude.

Mark --

Do you like #5?  I find it to be a rather pedestrian par 3, maybe the weakest hole on the entire course.

And I like your idea of cutting down the trees on #6, though I'm not sure how stupid the play would be to go for it; is there enough trouble for it to be a true risk/reward?  It would also slow down play, on a course that already plays waaaaaay toooooooo slooooooooow. ;)

I wish I had photos, but by far my favorite strecth at raspberry falls...er, I mean strawberry ;) is 10-13.  #10 I think is close to world-class, with plenty of width off the tee, the safe shot is left short of the water, but that makes for a more difficult second with the green fronted by a deep bunker and the water on the left.

My biggest problems with this course are the pace of play and the odd conditioning -- hard greens, most with open fronts but often the ground approach is over watered and soft.  I used to play here a few times per year but I've pretty much given up.  Oh, and it was also more impressive before I had played true links golf at Bandon.

Mark Bourgeois

Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2007, 09:52:09 AM »
Jimmy,

I'd probably agree on 5, I just liked that stretch through the floodplain. Most floodplain holes are the worst on the course, that little stretch is a nice walk in the park.

As for 10-13, yes! 10: Jimmy, what's the right drive there? you'd think right, b/c of water left, but from over there you've got a skinny green to deal with, and that hideous front-left bunker! From the left you've got a fat green but it's all carry. I think you'd want to be right if the flag is front, but left otherwise.  The water's a problem, no doubt, but it's that front bunker you really need to play around, huh?

Bunkerman would like 11 for its complete lack of tee-to-green bunkering, and 12 for its complete lack of greenside bunkering. I like both of them for their benched greens.

And 13 uses that water hazard pretty effectively, doesn't it? Not to mention that horror bunker in front.

I played there a few days ago and there was plenty of run. I had to factor it in. On the other hand, although the greens weren't soft, they were frustratingly slow. So score another point for "odd conditioning." Must be the drought and heat...

The worst thing about it in my opinion is its utter inability to be walked. If those holes were next to one another, it truly would deserve status as one of the very best courses in the DC area, public or private.

Jimmy Chandler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Baby" Golf Holes: Killing Us Softly With Expectations
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2007, 10:04:06 AM »
Mark --

I think the correct play on #10 is down the right, but that does bring those right bukers into play.  For me, it is a less intimidating approach shot into the green, with bailout available short and right, though it's not an easy up-and-down.

If I remember correctly, the "hazard" on 13 is more of a ditch with stones, at least in front of the green I don't remember there being any actual water.  But the look is visually intimidating -- another example of the use of deception (the green appears to be more difficult to hit than it is).  I have often played the course in the late afternoon, and then that tee shot is straight into the setting sun, which also makes it tough to judge.

I also like the variety/contrast of 11 and 12.  11 is notable for being a long, uphill par 5 with only a big rock in the fairway, as you note no bunkers, but then the elevated green is guarded by massive bunkers that are scary.  One of the best bunker shots I have ever hit was from the base of the face in the front bunker there -- I opened my 60d-wedge and swung as hard as I could and the ball bounced off the face onto the putting surface!

As for not being walkable, that's true about most of raspberry's ccfad competitors as well, unfortunately.

I may be beating a dead horse here, but have you tried either of my current favorites, Laurel Hill or Shenandoah Valley?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back