Who Did This??

[Roger Tufts]

Is there any reason why I wouldn't intentionally play my second shot to the adjacent fairway to the right, for my third shot in? The proper fairway looks awful skinny if I'm thinking I have to lay up.

Sorry if discussing strategy is off topic.

Joe

Exactly what I did and was saying. The long grass between the fairway on the left and the green isn't grown out yet, so there is no penalty for heading over there, and you get a great angle to the green. I birdied from over there.

I'll also add that #8 is a great hole. Probably the only that I truly enjoyed. Maybe #3 as well.

[paul cowley]

From the photo the course exudes a little of what I call horizontal vertigo......but it might play great, which is the  important test.

[Voytek Wilczak]

My friend just played this golf course, sent me the photo, and refuses to tell me what it is. Funny guy. Any ideas on the name or architect?

This hole is way too busy visually.

[John Kavanaugh]

In defense of Silva, I don't doubt this is the kind of stuff Raynor would have done with modern equipment.

[Gary Daughters]

where do you hit your drive?

[Roger Tufts]

The 260-290 hitter will have his ball land about even with the small bunker on the left. I believe Brad was on the upslope of that mid-fairway berm. The tee shown is the ladies tee, you tee off from about 150 feet above the fairway.

[Mike_Cirba]

After playing what might be the most penal, narrow, target-golf, layup-inducing, forced-carry conundrum that I've probably ever seen today (at about 100 degrees and 90% humidity with 90% of the course in a low-lying river floodplain), the width and elevation change on this hole looks like heaven at the moment.

The slope rating of the course in question is 140, but that's about 30 points too low (and yes, I know the max is around 155).  

Did I mention that the routing takes you through what seems about 8 miles of cart paths?   On one stretch, from 2 green to 3 tee, it was about a five minute drive.

I think I finally found a course that would get me to quit the game if I had to play a steady diet.  

I won't mention the name here, but those who have been there will recognize it.   Those who haven't been there...you can't imagine how good the hole pictured here really is in contrast.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Raynor had the same equipment that's being used today.

Question for those who don't like the hole.

If the water feature was a sand feature how would your opinion differ ?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  I look at this hole and I see a par 5 quarry hole. And although it is quite likely 100% manufactured I see great balance in the way the hole relates to the surrounds. The pond left and the big far bunker look like large pits that could have supplied the material for the rest of the hole. I like the S shape and strategies involved. I think I would enjoy the course overall.

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley said:

"From the photo the course exudes a little of what I call horizontal vertigo......"

I love that description!!!!

Is it possible to find examples of "horizontal vertigo" in raw nature?

I'd think so, and if so, why not use it now and again in golf and golf architecture?

What is this "art" principle BS of needing to focus the eye? Where does that come from?

Probably from painting art or landscape art and architecture.

I can see Vincent Van Gogh attempting to focus the observer's eye in one of his painting so the viewer's attention won't start to wander over to the painting of his buddy Gaugin next door----but why do golf architects have to focus the golfer's eye, particularly if it's on where he HAS TO or SHOULD hit the ball?

I say make him use his eyes to look around and if he has to turn his head back and forth to figure things out---so much the better.

Isn't that the way of Nature?

"Horizontal Vertigo"?

I love that phrase.

If a golf architect can get a golfer to become dizzy before pulling a club---great. Maybe he could do horizontal vertigo in architecture so well he could actually get the golfer to fall over from dizziness before pulling a club.

I guess the only problem is "horizontal vertigo" could be a little expense in land and maintenance costs. But so what? Every course should have at least one hole that creates some really good "horizontal vertigo".

PaulC----think #8 in Maryland.

If we do that right the golfer will have at least 157 yards of fairway width to scan in front of him and if he can scan that and instantly figure out where to hit the ball without moving his eyes or turning his head I'd say he has some pretty spectacular peripheral vision.  

[Chris Cupit]

I still stand by my first impression--I like it.  Looks like a lot of fun.  I also agree and think that one of the jobs of a good hole is to pull your eye AWAY from where you are supposed to go.

I hate a focal point or a course that "tells you" what to do as if there is one right answer.  There's enough "framed" holes already!

Anyway--I'd travel to play this place anytime.

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley also said:

"......but it might play great, which is the important test."

And of course he's right about that.

I don't know how long that hole is or how well the apparent options work together but I think I can say that the apparent higher risk option of carrying over the bunkers and pond to that narrow and shallow looking stretch of fairway on the second half of the hole better be balanced pretty well with the more obvious option of playing short or out to the right off the tee.

If that apparent higher risk shot doesn't work well because that fairway stretch is too shallow where a good and long tee shot would too often just keep going into the bunkers out to the right near the green then that hole probably needs some work and adjustment on that higher risk option.

In my mind the trick is to "balance" available options or cast them into a state of "equilibrium" where the golfer has a hard time on the tee of deciding what to try.

This is the essence and the key to the beauty in play of a hole like Riviera's #10----eg all it's tee shot options work well enough and are used enough to be in a state of equilibrium with one another.

The converse is----an apparent option that is rarely if ever used in play is not a good option and therefore makes for a hole that isn't all it could be or should be.

[Ray Richard]

The Renaissance Club started out with all the "bells and whistles" and bigtime plans. Work slowed down as the money got tight, than the original developer got foreclosed. The new owner bought the place at a good number, finished the course, and seems to be doing OK, but golf course housing in New England is in a slump.

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony,
If you'd like to see this course under construction go to...
http://maps.live.com/

....and type in:  154 E. Broadway, Haverhill, Ma

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Ryan Farrow:

Obviously you don't understand the rules of engagement here. People get to write whatever they want while knowing nothing about the subject. Just because people thought this was a par-4 does not preclude them from picking apart the strategy of what is par-5.

I've played the hole twice, both times in the company of people who have played or seen hundreds of courses and all rave about this hole.

Attention Chris Cupit: The hole is loads of fun!

There is wonderful strategy built in if balls are hit off line or if the conservative route it taken off the tee and on the approach, with big rewards for the bolder player who excutes properly. Notice none of that was discussed. Instead there are phrases like "fairway rolls that look artificially random." Yeah, Raynor and Macdonald had those too. The rolls add a wonderful degree of chance where golf balls are relatively near each other do not lie the same with the mouding serving to direct balls in all sorts of directions.

And as you probably know, if this course was designed by someone with Favored Nation Status (Gil, Doak, etc.) there criticism would not be as harsh. Now there is going to be lots of cackling about the last point and the ones that chirp the most will, most likely, be the biggest offenders.

Peace out,

Anthony

[Mike Sweeney]

I'm with Tony on the Silva fan club. Here is his 17th hole at Cape Cod National. At 459 yards from the back, it is a great par 4.5 hole. The drive is uphill to a ridge, if you catch the right line over the directional bunkers to the top and down the hill, you are looking at 150 into the green. Otherwise a very difficult long shot over or next to an environmental hazard. Fairway is a roller coaster similar to nearby Eastward Ho!



I did not love two holes at CCN, and when I questioned Brian about these two holes, there were two very logical answers why things were done. If there were no environmentalist....

I put Silva and Kelly Moran in a category of "modern traditionalist". Both are unique, but seem to fit somewhere between a Raynor and Jim Engh. They are not afraid to piss you off a few times a round. I think either would have been a bold choice at Bandon.

[Don_Mahaffey]

This thread is quite amusing; who do you guys think you are? I am really surprised how much hate has been given to this course and especially you guys that are trying to pick apart the strategy when you assumed the hole was a par 4 to begin with.

Ryan,
You like the look of the hole? When you are a Doak associate are you going to build ponds that look like that?

Or do you have no comment on the architecture other than criticism of those willing to critique a hole on a course they know nothing about?
For the most part, this is a laymen’s golf architecture website, it’s not on the ASGCA site. The folks who offer an opinion here just might be the type you could be working for in the future, if your fortunate.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Don,

My question would be how do you know the pond was built and not a wetland that had to be worked around by the architect?

Anthony

[Don_Mahaffey]

Anthony,
I haven't a clue about the pond, other than I think it looks horrible. If it was built, I don't like how they  (whoever they are) built it. If it wasn't and needed to be left alone, I don't like how it was used.

My question to Ryan was fairly simple and straight forward...I think. Is it confusing to you? I'll take any editorial advice if I didn't do well making my point.

Don

[Brian Laurent]

Another question for the group about this hole...is there too much or not enough strategy to the drive?  

With a driver in hand, it looks like the long-hitters have no option but to play it out to the right over the bunkers leaving themselves a shot that's really no shorter to the pin with more trouble in front of them.  

Looks like the smart play for the bombers is to lay it up at the small bunker on the left and try to go 3-wood/3-wood to the hole with a better angle.  

Would a risk reward option to the left off the drive make this a better hole?

Overall, I think the average consumer would look at this as a nice hole...

[Ryan Farrow]

Don, there are some things that I like about the hole in question and some things I do not. But without actually seeing/playing the hole I am not going to comment one way or the other. I just think some of the earlier responses were distasteful considering these guys really knew nothing about the hole in question. I'm all for criticism but you need to know what the hell you are talking about before you start to offer some up.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Brian,

The strategy on the drive is to take it as far left and up the left side as you can to give the longer hitters - I'm not included - a shot to go for it in two. My eye was drawn to the safe bailout area to the right. (I pulled my drive into the hazard left.) From the right side the second shot is much more difficult because of the angle from which the second landing area is approached. I hit my penalty shot over the bunkers on the inside of the dogleg and was left with a testy 6-iron that I pulled into the junk left of the green and did not make up and down. The pin was middle left.

The strategy of the hole works out very nicely from what I've seen and experienced.

Don, I think you are way off base. To laud or evicerate a hole you have not played judging simply from one photo (how would  the shot look if it was taken by talent such as Larry Lambrecht on bright early morning with shadows splayed across the view serving to illustrated the contouring with a different lens at very slow speed with flowers in bloom?) seems to make no sense.  Ryan appears to have a great understanding that if he is going to work in the field commenting about something he has never seen would surely call his integrity into question. While it is a common practice for architects to comment on work they have never seen, I think Ryan's approach is a far better one. Hey, but that's just me.

Anthony

[JESII]

Anthony,

If I am going to carry the ball 300 yards (it is 150 feet downhill apparently, so back off!), where do I aim my tee shot?

[Joe Hancock]

Just by looking at the trees in the background, and their relationship to the elevation of where the picture was taken from, I'm going to venture a guess that the elevation change from tee to fairway is nowhere near 150 feet.

Bust it, Sully!

[Roger Tufts]

Picture was not taken from the back tees. It was taken from just above the ladies tees... maybe at like the whites. The drop-off I gave was from the back tees. It's probably like 120 feet. I'd have to look into the actual change, but its very significant.