Carnoustie #3 - A Thinking Man's Paradise

[Sean_A]

Wow!  This is a massive improvement over the old hole and I think it is one of the best out there if not the best hole.  

POSITIVES: 1) Once again, a good green in which the pin can be placed in a lot of tricky places.  2) The centreline mound which obscures the view is wonderful.  3) The new right fw bunkers which create an extra option of going over them or laying up to left.  The old hole did the typical Carnoustie deal and had the bunkers on the wrong side of the fairway.  4) The burn.  

NEGATIVES: Perhaps the left fw bunker is a bit silly stuck out there in the rough.  

VERDICT: Excellent hole!

SUGGESTIONS: Create fairway to left of fairway bunker up to the burn.  Its mostly an aesthetic issue for me.  

#3  358 yards


TOTAL OF FILLED IN BUNKERS: 3

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean I'm with you on this hole for the most part....

I would leave everything as is and extend the fairway that is right of the two bunkers in the middle of the fairway so it joins the other piece of the fairway.  Thus making the two bunkers centerline bunkers.  As it is one must hit it hard enough to clear the rough, yet stay short of the burn...especially if the course is baked out!!

As for the bunker closest to the green near the end of the fairway, if anything it saves from one knocking thier ball in the burn.

Overall, imo the hole is a little gem.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Couldn't agree more after seeing the images and bits and pieces of it in the Open. This opinion however contradicts my original opinion of the changing of the hole, which I now have to say that even without playing it, I think I'm sold.

I don't know if Irhc Garnsworth Foodale will read this or not, but I had explained to him before that I had once been in the bunkers behind the green. Since that was 1996 and since I'm of a failing mind @ 48 years of age (Please pass me that bottle of Geritol for my aching bones and lack of sufficient iron in my blood) I seemed to have thought I was in sand back there, which cHri informed me that no sand had ever existed back there. However, I see that in this image there are in fact grass bunkers. Is this the same green?

Congrats to the architect who conceived this great hole.

[Sean_A]

Sean I'm with you on this hole for the most part....

I would leave everything as is and extend the fairway that is right of the two bunkers in the middle of the fairway so it joins the other piece of the fairway.  Thus making the two bunkers centerline bunkers.  As it is one must hit it hard enough to clear the rough, yet stay short of the burn...especially if the course is baked out!!

As for the bunker closest to the green near the end of the fairway, if anything it saves from one knocking thier ball in the burn.

Overall, imo the hole is a little gem.

Kalen

You could make fairway right of the bunkers, but then a layup off the tee may give the best angle into the green and I think to the right of the bunkers there is no high ground which causes blindness.  

I was very surprised more of the big boys didn't challenge those right bunkers when the wind turned.  I think I recall Ernie giving it a go and leaving it in rough just past the bunkers.  In general, this is the one aspect of the setup I didn't like.  The R&A left loads of hair around many of the bunkers.  I would have preferred them shaved for the most part.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

i don't know sean... i think kalen's idea doesn't give an easier layup (plenty of tee shots last week were layed up on the right side between mound and bunkers)... it just gives a more inviting opportunity to go for the big drive, creating a very narrow alley and / or a slightly easier carry...

...i like it... love the hole too... this hole used to be flanked by a thick wooded area on the left hand side, didn't it?

[Steve Kline]

In general, this is the one aspect of the setup I didn't like.  The R&A left loads of hair around many of the bunkers.  I would have preferred them shaved for the most part.

Ciao

I was going to say the same thing. It makes those middle bunkers more fearful when you know a shot five or ten yards either side of them could go in them. This week it may not have mattered quite as much with all the rain, but with last year's conditions it would have made a difference.

[George Pazin]

Looks awesome to me, wouldn't dream of making any suggestions.

[Richard Pennell]

This was one of the highlights for me, watching the pros struggle with a hole measuring 358 yards. The patch of rough in the centre not only obscures the view but it seemed to mess with distance judgement, too. I saw a few players tangled up in that, despite it being only 212 yards to clear it, with a decent amount of room the other side. On Thursday Spencer Levin left his on a downslope with a tough lie, but with 120 yards to go no professional is going to turn down attacking from there. Result: in the burn, made 6. The other 2 players made 5.

I think the contouring of the green plays a part in strategy here, too, or at least it would for me if I could hit the ball consistently. Playing short of the fairway bunkers leaves a fuller wedge shot and perhaps better control of distance (or more control of spin?). Of the 10 players I watched close up only Stadler hit it over to the right, into the second strip of fairway (which is surprisingly large). Unfortunately I can't remember what happened next But the presence of 2 bunkers, the burn, the hollows behind, falloff to the left, and the green contours certainly made this for me one of the most interesting of the holes.

On the train on the way up I'd read somewhere that the new 3rd didn't fit in with the rest of the course, but I think it fits in perfectly. It gives you a couple of options on how to play it but the element of danger is always present. Great short par 4's are often discussed on here with the same examples (rightly) given - 10th at Riviera, 8th & 9th at Cypress Point. Is this hole a modern addition to sit alongside those classics?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Sean,

How old is this version?  I played the course-once-in June last year and this looks familiar, but I don't remember a grass-covered mound in the middle.  I enjoyed the hole (especially with a par ) , and certainly remember the effect of the burn on my play of it.

Why do you feel this is a "thinking man's paradise?"  Any hole that is pock-marked and surrounded by hazards on which you can put 7 or 8 iron in your hands after hitting a fairway metal off the tee seems like a good bet for most people to leave the driver in the bag.  Does the wind play havoc with that second shot?  The course played downwind on 6 the day I played it, so I think that means it played dw on this second shot as well, yes?  Did I catch it on an easy day?

I personally wouldn't think too long about this one...get something in the fairway, get it up near the green, take your par    and be happy with a bogie if you miss, and move on...

[Rich Goodale]

I was disappointed how this hole played at the Open, in that virtually all of the pros seemed to choose Number 7c. (mid-iron left) from the Chinese menu of options offerred on the tee.  There was no benefit from trying to carry the gunge in the middle of the fairway, so they didn't try it.  The green is great, but it always has been, even when and if it had the Naccaratos (those Flying Dutchman anti-thinned lob wedge back bunkers).

Sorry to get a few weeks ahead of ahead of you Sean, but this is also my verdict on #17.  I got tired of watching guys hit iron/rescue club to the right part of the fairway (How the hell did Romero screw that one up?).  Thank god Daly lasted long enough to bomb one over all the burns to the throat of the green......

[Sean_A]

Eric

I think this version was just completed for the Open.  People mainly talk about the fairway hump, but the two right bunkers are new and the green was significantly reshaped (to a 3 leaf clover shape essentially) with a bunker added on the right and the green extended closer to the burn (I think).  I also don't recall such a sharp dropoff on the left front side of the green, but that could be a memory issue.  

The way I see there are two layup options (somewhat unusual in itself): 1) short right to get at a short left or long left pin easier OR 2) long left which is a safer bet still and easier to get at the right side pin - especially long.  There is the option to go over the pair of bunkers on the right and have a very short shot in.  Due to bunkers and a burn all three options carry their risks as is probably reasonable for such a short hole - its only something like 345 from the daily tee.  Also, the risk is calculated differently with diferent winds.  Often times this isn't really the case for shortish par 4 that aren't quite reachable.  

I wasn't at all disappointed at how the hole played for the Open.  It had a nasty sting in its tail. The one thing that did surprise me  was that so few (seemingly) players took on the pair of bunkers.  Even on Sunday when the wind switched guys didn't go for it - besides, I wouldn't have thought that carry was too bad anyway.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I don't agree with this at all.  In have a problem with No 3 in that it spells out to the golfer what his options are.  It gives him clearly defined landing areas and asks him to take one of a number of clear options.  It doesn't encourage him to think, other than to select which of those clear options to take.  I'd like to see at least one of the hazards which so clearly define the options removed to allow more room for thought.  My preference would be to cut the tongue of rough in which the double bunkers lie as fairway and to fill in at least one of those two bunkers.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm rather surprised no one is questioning the idea of an island of gnarly rough in the center of the fairway.  I don't see anything wrong with it, but I would have thought someone here would.

I wonder what the reaction would be, both here and amongst typical US golfers, if a new design had a hole like this with that sort of feature.

Perhaps it might be easier for US golfers to get used to the idea of an island of rough in the middle of the fairway, rather than a bunker in the middle of the fairway.  Heck, they are mostly OK with trees in the middle of the fairway, so why not see more of this?  The only example I can think of off the top of my head is that strip of desert on the back nine par 5 on the TPC course in Scottsdale, though I'd really consider that more of a split fairway than a central hazard because it is so long front to back and you can't carry it (or at least you couldn't when I played there 10+ years ago, I don't remember how far it was so I don't know if that's possible these days)

The reason I like the centerline hazards so much is that it adds so much choice to what would otherwise be a rather formula shortish par 4.  Now you have to think about which side you want to play to, or whether you try to go over it or lay short of it.  If the hazard is placed correctly the "right" answer changes depending on the conditions of the day and how well you are hitting the ball.

One advantage of using rough instead of a bunker is that it is less threatening to average golfers, while hurting the good players more -- the key to this feature is that it is a hump, so you not only play from the rough you don't get a good lie, and often have a downhill lie which no one wants out of rough to a green fronted by water!  You'd just have to watch that you don't make the rough too deep to where it'd slow play.