The 16th at Sleepy Hollow

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Thanks again for your detailed reply to my questions--my only disappointment is that you didn't include some red ink with the green in the spirit of the season  

Did you think that my reply would be my last post on this thread ?[/color]

I could see from the pictures that although they appear to be deeper, the old bunkers were less in play than the new.  I supposed that in the old configuration the usual maintenance choice was to leave those grassy areas long.  I always feel like my chances are better out of a bunker than in long grass near the green.  Hence my comment that the new bunker seems like a manageable hazard.  Looking at Ran's review after I posted my comments, I see there are plenty of steep and deep bunkers elsewhere on the course, not necessary on this hole as it has other things going for it as you describe.

I'm guessing that a sensible player--unless mandated by his standing in a match or tempted by a desire to minimize strokes-- would never ever put enough club in his hands to fly it over this green, and therefore occasionally--or more often than not, depending on skill level and experience with the hole--have to deal with a recovery shot from the bunker.  

Your assumption assumes that the player, irrespective of his being labled as "sensible" has absolute control over his swing and the wind, and that he is so precise that he can bring the ball to rest a few feet below the hole.

When the hole is located along the perimeter, in the back of the green, with wind in your face, that's a very difficult shot.

Who wants to leave themselves with a difficult 30-40-50 foot putt ?

Feeling the wind in your face on the tee and seeing the flag sitting near the back shelf, most golfers will take extra club.
Should the golfer flush his iron, pull it, or should the wind abate for a moment, and the result may well be a shot long of the green, with a next to impossible recovery.

Get too conservative and you'll leave yourself a long, long putt over a difficult putting surface.

The hole is more difficult than the yardage would lead you to believe.

It's a perfect setting for the "short" hole, with a ferocious looking gorge fronting the green and the skyline effect behind it.

The 5th hole is a PERFECT candidate for a skyline green.

If the club cuts down the trees behind the 5th green, the hole would become exponentially better, and the approach would become "frightening"[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick: Some of those pictures were taken from the 4th tee which is considerably higher and directly behind the regular 16th. This was done in order to get a better photo.

Some of my pictures were taken from the hill in front of the 15th green which is also higher than the regular 16th tee, a slightly offset view.

George,

That's what I thought.

The view the golfer sees is different from the photos and the green is easily the focal point of the golfer's attention, if he's paying attention.

KBM,

The photo doesn't depict what the golfer sees as he stands on the tee.

The photo, taken from higher elevations, was meant to have the river, mountains and sand come MORE into view for a more spectacular photo op.

It's a "signature" hole photo.

It's a striking photo, but, it doesn't portray what the golfer's eyes see as he prepares for his tee shot and that may account for the misunderstanding on the part of those who've never played the hole.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm curious about that wonderful bridge, that looks very narrow.  If groups of players and caddies cross in opposite directions playing #3 and #16, is there room for them to pass?  Or do the outbound groups give way to the inbound groups (a la the Old Course double greens)?

[TEPaul]

"The 5th hole is a PERFECT candidate for a skyline green.
If the club cuts down the trees behind the 5th green, the hole would become exponentially better, and the approach would become "frightening"."

Patrick:

Would it be as good a candidate as the 1st hole at Pine Valley as a skyline green if they cut down all the trees behind it to make a skyline green framed in the rear by perhaps one of the tackiest residential communities the world has ever seen?  

[wsmorrison]

"The photo doesn't depict what the golfer sees as he stands on the tee.

The photo, taken from higher elevations, was meant to have the river, mountains and sand come MORE into view for a more spectacular photo op."

Why wasn't the hole designed so that the golfer standing on the tee for the hole would have the view that is depicted in the misleading photographs?  Was an opportunity to do so missed?  It is implied that the hole in play does not make best use of the setting from a visual perspective.  Why doesn't someone post a photograph of the hole from the playing perspective?

[George_Bahto]

Pat, you said: "The 5th hole is a PERFECT candidate for a skyline green.

If the club cuts down the trees behind the 5th green, the hole would become exponentially better, and the approach would become "frightening""


we're working toward that end - they've been very good about tree removal at sleepy, but I think we have to let them catch their breath a bit (but you never can keep track of what happens over the winter months can you?    

I actually did a photoshop "removal" of those trees behind 5-green (itz around here someplace)

it would not quite as frightening as ngla now but shcc-5th would be quite nice as a skyline, wouldn't it?


Bill Mc: it was indeed my pleasure, guy!!

[Bill Brightly]

Wayne,

You get that view when you stand on the 4th tee. The 4th hole goes away from the Hudson River, but you can't help but look back at the 16th hole and the river, and take THAT picture if you have a camera...(I did the very same thing when Corey showed me the work they were doing!)

It is actually a pretty cool routing techinque, IMO. You get a good view of the hole, but you have to wait two hours to play it!

I'm certain that many people suggest playing the 16th from the 4th tee, making it a 170 yard par 3, but that would defeat the Short Hole concept.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The 5th hole is a PERFECT candidate for a skyline green.
If the club cuts down the trees behind the 5th green, the hole would become exponentially better, and the approach would become "frightening"."

Patrick:

Would it be as good a candidate as the 1st hole at Pine Valley as a skyline green if they cut down all the trees behind it to make a skyline green framed in the rear by perhaps one of the tackiest residential communities the world has ever seen?  

TEPaul,

Those home are far below the level of the green, as seen from the golfer in the fairway.

The 5th at SH would be a superior Skyline green due to the severe uphill nature of the approach.

By the way, when I was referencing Chimps with 30 years of experience, I was thinking about those that don't live too far from the Philadelphia Zoo.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Those home are far below the level of the green, as seen from the golfer in the fairway."

Patrick:

Uh huh!?!  

It's just like you to think of something like that and make a half-cocked remark like that.

If they took all the trees down behind that green what do you think it would look like to golfers standing just in front of and more importantly ON THAT GREEN??  

[corey miller]

Wayne

I have only played the course 10,000 times, well maybe played 5000 and walked/ran the property 5000 times.  I am not exactly sure what level that posted picture is taken from.  I think it could in fact be the far left of the back teeing area.

Behind this area is the teeing area (higher on the ridge) for the fourth hole going out.  Frankly, the closer one gets to the green, with a shorter shot (and closer to the gorge with less elevation) the more ominous the shot becomes.

Gil and George rebuilt the teeing area ~110 yards and at this angle with a back flagstick, you are unable to see any green-space beyond the flag.  It is flush up against the Palisades.  This also becomes a problem with long uphill putts to a back pin position as the putt looks like it will roll forever if long.

I probably should not admit this considering the skill level of golfers on this site but I have been long and had almost 100 yards shot coming back because of the steepness of the area beyind.

Bill Mcbride

the picture of the bridge GB posted is taken from the 16 green, 3 teeing area.  The third hole is the branch of the bridge to the right. Straight ahead gets you to 16 tee and the rest of the property.  It is possible to pass others but because of the routing the major part of the span is only used in one direction. Our grounds crew does a great job of maintenance here (there is a longer and higher span near #12) but it is a hoot to watch people on them for the first time.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The photo doesn't depict what the golfer sees as he stands on the tee.

The photo, taken from higher elevations, was meant to have the river, mountains and sand come MORE into view for a more spectacular photo op."

Why wasn't the hole designed so that the golfer standing on the tee for the hole would have the view that is depicted in the misleading photographs?  

Because that would put the golfer on the 4th tee, which is a terrific hole in it's own right.

You appear to advocate form over substance.

Since when does a striking photo of collateral elements, some far removed, dictate the architectural configuration of a hole ?[/color]

Was an opportunity to do so missed?  


Absolutely NOT.[/color]

It is implied that the hole in play does not make best use of the setting from a visual perspective.  

Who implied that ?
Or, are you just wishfully infering that ?

You have to remember, as you locate the tee higher up, you're going further back, so far back that the hole ceases being a "short" hole with all of it's interconnected features.

I liken the situation to the 17th at Sand Hills.
From the back, highly elevated tee, you get one hell of a view and a hole that's just too ferocious for golfers to handle.

The hole as it existed in the 1912 photo and as it exists today is a wonderful "short" hole.[/color]

Why doesn't someone post a photograph of the hole from the playing perspective?

I asked that in another thread[/color]

[corey miller]

Bill b

Easy to tell you are a green chairman, you can read the average member's mind  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Those home are far below the level of the green, as seen from the golfer in the fairway."

Patrick:

Uh huh!?!  

It's just like you to think of something like that and make a half-cocked remark like that.

OK, OK, I'll simplify if for you.

The 1st hole fairway and green sit well above the land directly behind the green.  And, when you remove the trees directly behind the green nothing is visible behind the green for TWO reasons.
       
        Those houses are well below and FAR to the left of the
        line that's created by the golfer in the fairway and the
        center of that green [/color]


If they took all the trees down behind that green what do you think it would look like to golfers standing just in front of and more importantly ON THAT GREEN??  

See my answer above.

If you're still confused, call the Architectural HOT LINE at  
1-800-INO-GTIT [/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I don't wish for anything regarding Sleepy Hollow, except to take my buddy up on his offer and play there with him sometime.

I asked a question why the tee wasn't situated in a place that took advantage of the view.  The fact that nobody posted a photograph of the hole from the actual tee (true in the old and Rees iteration ground photographs as well) could imply that the view from the actual playing ground wasn't as compelling.  I don't know the course and I don't know the routing, so I didn't know what was involved in getting to the location found in the photographs.  That is why I asked.  Not because of some agenda.  

You asked why I felt it was implied that the hole did not utilize its setting to the best advantage.  You yourself mentioned that the hole as built did not provide nearly the vista as seen in the photographs posted.  You don't find it curious that there are multiple photographs of the hole but none from a perspective of how it is played?  

As far as the hole being a template Short Hole.  What was the typical club hit into that green when it was first built?  What is the club being used today?  What yardage would the hole have to play for the same club to be used as at inception?

When was the last time you were at Pine Valley, Pat?  I went there soon after you posted the notion of the 1st being a skyline green.  My gut reaction at the time was that you said it was that you were dead wrong.  I've been out there plenty of times since with your proposition in mind and you really are way off the mark.  Taking those trees down would be a terrible mistake and would not create a skyline effect.

[corey miller]

Wayne

The view is substancially the same from either spot.  The Rees photos are from the regular/back tees of the course.  The photo posted at the beginning of this thread I am not sure about.  

Based on the fact that I can't tell, I would guess the views are pretty similar .  The hole looks more ominous from a playing standpoint the lower and closer one gets IMO.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm not going to argue with you for the simple reason that what you say is just so funny.

For your info if they took all the trees down behind #1 green golfers standing on the green would be looking at a really big chain-link fence and Atlantic Ave which passed directly behind the 1st green and perpendicular to it with some really bad looking houses on the other side of the road. It's not more than about 25 yards from the back of the green to the street and you cannot believe how close the back of the 2nd tee is to that road. I doubt you've ever walked back there but somehow I think you probably realize I have.  

[Adam Sherer]

The transformation over the years is remarkable. It seems as though Hanse and Co. had quite a task to restore the course.

Who did the work?

[Bob Jenkins]

I am likely missing something but when I look at the photo posted at the top of this thread, I see nothing but target golf. Hit is high and try not to be long. No bounces or rolls to play for, no areas in bunkers that are "jail". No options.

The hole does not do much for me except the view. I am assuming from the discussion this is a Raynor and on the west coast we do not see his work so maybe I truly am missing something.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Pat would get a very good look at the train tracks before Atlantic Avenue as well.  That would enhance the experience  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I don't wish for anything regarding Sleepy Hollow, except to take my buddy up on his offer and play there with him sometime.

I asked a question why the tee wasn't situated in a place that took advantage of the view.  

Wayne,

The view from the 16th tee is more than adequate, but, why incrementally improve it at the expense of the 4th hole ?[/color]

The fact that nobody posted a photograph of the hole from the actual tee (true in the old and Rees iteration ground photographs as well) could imply that the view from the actual playing ground wasn't as compelling.  

From recollection, I didn't drive to Sleepy Hollow to take in the views, I drove there to play a very good golf course.

Whilst walking to and on the 16th tee, I noticed that the views were very nice.

Then, I did what I came for, I played the hole.[/color]

I don't know the course and I don't know the routing, so I didn't know what was involved in getting to the location found in the photographs.  That is why I asked.  Not because of some agenda.  

You asked why I felt it was implied that the hole did not utilize its setting to the best advantage.  You yourself mentioned that the hole as built did not provide nearly the vista as seen in the photographs posted.  

No, that's not correct.
I never used the phrase, "not nearly the vista", that's your categorization.

There's a decremental difference between the higher vantage points and the 16th tee, in terms of the photographic presentation.  And, as Corey indicated, the angles at the actual tee are different from those in the photo, which further distorts your impression of the hole.[/color]

You don't find it curious that there are multiple photographs of the hole but none from a perspective of how it is played?  

No, I don't.
I think the explanation is that someone wanted to post "WOW" pictures.[/color]

As far as the hole being a template Short Hole.  What was the typical club hit into that green when it was first built?


At 110, I'd imagine an 8-9 iron.
[/color]

What is the club being used today?  

Probably a wedge from the same distance.[/color]

What yardage would the hole have to play for the same club to be used as at inception?

It would vary depending upon the player, but, I don't think it's much different than the 10th or 13th at Merion in terms of being land locked.[/color]

When was the last time you were at Pine Valley, Pat?  I went there soon after you posted the notion of the 1st being a skyline green.  

I never said that the 1st green was a skyline green in its present form.

I said it had the potential to be a skyline green if all the trees behind the green were removed or topped.[/color]

My gut reaction at the time was that you said it was that you were dead wrong.  I've been out there plenty of times since with your proposition in mind and you really are way off the mark.  Taking those trees down would be a terrible mistake and would not create a skyline effect.

I disagree[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I'm not going to argue with you for the simple reason that what you say is just so funny.

For your info if they took all the trees down behind #1 green golfers standing on the green would be looking at a really big chain-link fence and Atlantic Ave which passed directly behind the 1st green and perpendicular to it with some really bad looking houses on the other side of the road.

That's not true.

There are trees at the same elevation as the green, they're in back of the green.  Removing those trees would assist in making the green skyline in nature.

The green sits well above the the second tee, which sits well above the RR tracks and Atlantic avenue.

You can't see 6 ' golfers standing on # 2 tee, so why do think you'd be able to see anything lower than that elevation ?

Leaving topped trees behind the 2nd tee would continue to screen the view of the tracks and Atlantic Ave.  In addition, there's ONLY TWO houses behind the 1st green, which sit well below the green and is at the intersection of Atlantic Ave and Pierce Ave, and Atlantic and Weikel Ave.  There are NO OTHER HOUSES behind the 1st green, and the house on the corner of Weikel is off to the right of the 1st green while the house on Pierce is slightly left of the 1st green.

Removing the trees at the green level would dramatically improve the hole.

Crump obviously intended skyline greens to abound at PV.

# 2, # 9 and # 17 are perfect examples of his intent.[/color]

It's not more than about 25 yards from the back of the green to the street and you cannot believe how close the back of the 2nd tee is to that road. I doubt you've ever walked back there but somehow I think you probably realize I have.  


I have too.
And, the drop off from the 1st green, to the 2nd tee, to the tracks, to the street is quite steep, thus hiding anything behind the 2nd green.

Keeping the brush and trees behind the 2nd tee and 1st green at heights below the level of the green is easy, and it removes the framing trees directly behind the green making the approach more difficult visually and mentally, while at the same time acting as a visual barrier for golfers standing on the green and the 2nd tee.

Since your memory and Wayne's memory seem to be fading as the year comes to a close, might I suggest visiting Google Earth to refresh your memories and sort fact from fiction.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am likely missing something but when I look at the photo posted at the top of this thread, I see nothing but target golf. Hit is high and try not to be long. No bounces or rolls to play for, no areas in bunkers that are "jail". No options.

The hole does not do much for me except the view. I am assuming from the discussion this is a Raynor and on the west coast we do not see his work so maybe I truly am missing something.

Bob,

Could you name me a par 3 that isn't "target" golf ?[/color]

[John Kirk]

Patrick,

There are par 3s like #5 at Pacific Dunes where, for front and middle pins, you play left of the green and let it bounce in.  If you go right at the flag and either push it or cut it, you end up in the deep right greenside bunker.  So the better option is to play left, because the margin of error is greater.

#6 at Colorado Golf Club offered this option as well

However, I like the fact that The Short Hole calls for a specific shot, an aerial short iron dart, certainly part of the overall examination of skill.

I believe I'm off to watch "It's A Wonderful Life"