The 16th at Sleepy Hollow

[Kyle Harris]

Adrian,

More great greens have shrunk or have been softened for the purpose of allowing a triplex mower to turn than I care to even think about. I believe the triplex mower has done more to set architecture back than any other piece of maintenance equipment.

At Mountain Lake we didn't have too many issues with walk behind aerators or the tractor mounted designs and some of those greens have similar configurations. All the tractor has to do is carefully back into position and drive off the ramp - it takes a skilled operator and a little forethought, but it's doable.

I think the marginal increase in the labor required is worth restoring and maintaining the shot demands of the original hole.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

With all respect, the issue of what was original or not, isn't the question. The question is very simple: is this hole well designed? There is no need to tell people to get over the CB/Raynor look, that isn't the issue.

Which direction is the next tee from the green? Is the entry/ exit point logical in that regard?

Considering the yardage and the size of the green, is the original wrap-around bunker necessary, or would more natural use of the slopes surrounding the green be more intimidating? Is the wrap-around bunker in effect a safety net for poorly struck shots?

Thanks,

Joe

[Adrian_Stiff]

kyle- I agree about the triplex mower in many respects, I see things as a golf architect working with courses with lower budgets, so we need to save time and money and I have to integrate cost effective features or my clients will go bust. That old style green with a wrap around bunker looks cute and it might work maintenance wise at 20,000 rounds. In the UK or areas where there are dormant seasons no way.
The older architects did not know that these courses were going to have the greens mown ever day and rounds were much less, I am sure if they had to do these greens today they would not be able to build them quite as quirky.
Joe- I was really just answering the initial question, to me its a clear NO. (although I do think the hole is pretty)

[Kyle Harris]

Adrian,

I think Sleepy Hollow does just fine with that green and labor and cost. ;-)

[jeffwarne]

Joe,

I never was very good at knowing the question...
But I sure have all the answers

I think it's a pretty good hole.

The setting is spectacular-obviously.
The green is great with a lot of movement.
It's only 120-155ish dep on tees played, so the ravine is way out of play-unless you hit it 1/2 way there.
The ravine's got to be crossed to get to the last 2 holes.
The next tee is to the right.
It's a short iron for ALL players so how much strategy is needed.
If you like #6 at NGLA it's hard to see how you wouldn't like this

If it's a bad hole there are a lot of bad holes out there

[Patrick Kiser]

Reminds me of the 3rd at Yeamans (e.g. pushed up green with a circled bunker green ring, clear background to challenge depth perception).

I see this hole and immediately think Raynor.

Sure a little formula like, but certainly different from the typical "natural" par 3 you might see.  "Natural" as if the hole just presented itself and was already there without much need for designing.

But more importantly ... does it look like fun?

I say yes.  Plus not your everyday par 3.  Variety is the spice of life as they say.  So somewhat refreshing despite being formula like.  You also sense an old school charm to it, even if you did not know how old this hole was.

I likey  

Is this a well-designed hole?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well for what its worth:

Water behind is beautiful, like PB 17 but always more in play if lateral or fronting (a la PB 18)  So, it it the best use of lakefront land?

The island green does present mowing and access problems, which as Adrian points out, wouldn't work most places, but might work here.

And, frankly, while I love the Raynor look, of all the places the Raynor squared off look and template holes wouldn't work, it would be on a naturally scenic and rolling site like this one.  It makes me wonder (or shudder) to think what Cypress Point might have looked like had Raynor lived to do the job.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
"lakefront land" ?

that's the Hudson River...

behind the green is the 17th fairway,then 3 holes on the short course and then at least a 1/2 mile to a mile from the Sleepy property line to The Hudson.

It's a backdrop

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

I think Sleepy Hollow does just fine with that green and labor and cost. ;-)

Kyle- You have missed the point; Read the initial question.

[Kyle Harris]

Adrian,

I think Sleepy Hollow does just fine with that green and labor and cost. ;-)

Kyle- You have missed the point; Read the initial question.

I did - the client apparently got what they wanted. I think the Raynor design is far more interesting than the previous design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
"lakefront land" ?

that's the Hudson River...

behind the green is the 17th fairway,then 3 holes on the short course and then at least a 1/2 mile to a mile from the Sleepy property line to The Hudson.

It's a backdrop

Which is why we should never judge a hole from pictures!

That said, I think its still a case where the square look is more "jarring to the eye" than in most cases of the Raynor look.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Which is why we should never judge a hole from pictures!

Jeff,

Agreed.

The hole looks different from the golfer's eye.

Your focus is on the hole, not the backdrop, as you play the hole.

But, if you've never seen the real deal, you wouldn't know that from the pictures.

It's a wonderful little hole, with good internal putting surface contours/slopes, wind, bunkering, a target that's tinier than it appears and a unique fear factor for such a short hole.

Those that criticize it without ever having played it are uninformed at best.  

[PCCraig]

Looks a lot like the 12th at Shoreacres...but a little longer. It certainly is pretty.

I just read the book "Cinderella Story" by bill murray, which he mentions Sleepy Hollow as his home course a bunch.

Pat

[TEPaul]

I think the hole looks really neat the way they did it.

I also think the club should name the hole "Dessert" as I've definitely never seen a golf hole that looks as much like a mold of green jello in the middle of a plate of milk as does that one.

Some might suspect that remark is intended to be critical of the hole and the look of it.

No way. I mean how often can an architect pull off making a golf hole look exactly like a humongous green jello dessert in a humongous plate of milk?  

I have played that course and hole but I don't exactly remember what it looked like when I did. I might play it again this year and when I do I hope I'm not too hungry or I might just eat a fairly significant piece of the right side of the green.

[Garland Bayley]

Are we discussing the hole with the sand moat again? The only thing I can say is that it looks better than when Rees had control and put all those Japanese  bathtubs in instead. I guess the most positive thing is that it adheres strictly to Joshua Crane's doctrine of fair bunker creation.

[Eric_Terhorst]

It's a wonderful little hole, with good internal putting surface contours/slopes, wind, bunkering, a target that's tinier than it appears and a unique fear factor for such a short hole.

Mr. Mucci,

I appreciate your comments on how the whole plays--similar to your posts on Oakmont's 7th the other day, it's helpful to get that information, for those of us who haven't played it and are just looking at the picture.  However, may I challenge you to be a little more specific?  It seems to me that many many short holes could be described as wonderful against the broad criteria you list--including from my experience short holes at prominent courses, but also to short holes at local municipal 9-holers that I enjoy.

Is the hole designed to take advantage of the prevailing wind goldj described as coming off the river--i.e. is the player tempted to take more club, perhaps to bring the falloff at the back into play?  Does it play downhill, further confounding the player?

Do the putting surface contours offer many challenging hole placements that, for members playing the hole over and over again, result in variety from day to day?  Does the contouring work against expectations that the shortest hole on the course is a routine "birdie hole?"

I gather you prefer the new bunkering.  Based on the before and after pictures, I like the unique "look" better, but the new bunker looks like a pretty simple out for a decent player.  Obviously your chances of getting up and down depend much on where you miss relative to the pin position and the contouring that may require a very precise recovery shot, but in terms of difficulty of extraction, the bunker doesn't look (in the picture!) like much of a hazard really. I guess the main design purpose is to increase the "fear factor" when the hole is placed near the edge of the green?  Does the new (vs. the old) bunkering heighten the perception that the target is "tinier than it appears?"  

Thanks!

[Kyle Henderson]

I'm card-carrying member of the "ignorant" group that is judging soley based on  the picture.

But from the pictures I've seen of Raynor's courses, I get the impression that they would all be fun to play. -- yet aesthetically, I think they look very artificial. I'm not a fan of how they photograph, this hole included.

Garland: I agree that the new version of #16 is better looking in the photographs provided than the previous iteration.

[Jordan Wall]

Wow.

I guess my view is a bit different than some here.
In my opinion, the hole looks a ton better now then it was before.
Of course, I am intrigued by template holes, as I have never actually played or seen any personally, and so maybe my intrgue is a cause for me to like the hole as it is now?

I just think its the coolest looking short hole.  Great background (!), really cool bunkering, and what looks to be a green full of contour.

That sand sure is white though..

Cheers,
Jordan

[TEPaul]

Garland:

What do you think looks better in golf architecture----surronding bunkers that look like Japanese bathtubs or a green that looks like a humongous mold of green jello in the middle of surrounding bunkers that look like a humongous plate of milk?

[John Kirk]

Here are Ran's remarks:

Sixteenth hole, 155 yards; One of the most photographed holes in the northeast of the United States has been returned to its original glory. Just a few years ago, the green surrounds suffered from artificial mounds and small bunkers, totally out of place with the grandeur of its setting. The hole looked fussy, but mercifully, Hanse and Bahto's work has been done in a manner to compliment, as opposed to compete, with nature. Coupled with the wind and some of the best interior green contours on the course, this is far from just a glamour hole.



No hype required when a hole enjoys a setting like this. The task on this Short hole is clear as the tee and green are located along two ridges, which are separated by a deep gorge.

My remarks:

You might make the argument that the front lip of the green matches the ridge behind the Hudson River, which makes a nice, artistic match.

I will go out on a limb and say this is a case where the bright green grass and bright white sand work well to accent the golf hole against the muted tones of the water, land, and sky.  Better than having tan sand and brown grass.

I admire Ran for his ability to verbalize what he sees.  It looks fun to play.  The green looks like it has lots of good pin placements.  I say it's better than what it replaced.

[TEPaul]

John:

Do you think the hole would more naturally match the Hudson River if the architects decided to forego the surrounding sand bunkering and just turn that part into a moat?

The thing that surprises me so much is Gil Hanse in his new construction has got to be one of the most natural looking architecture producers in the world today, but somehow he can create a hole that looks like a humongous green jello in a humongous plate of milk.

I actually saw Gil last night and even though he seemed AOK at first glance I did notice on closer inspection that he exhibited a few involuntary twitches from time to time that kinda tells me he may've gone slightly schizzo!

Perhaps he's been bouncing around in those big dozzers too much and too long and his brains are getting lightly scrambled. At the very least I might recommend he grow his mustache back to see if he can get somewhere back in the neighborhood of normal.

 

[John_Cullum]

A couple of months ago at Dixie Cup in Madison GA I took a few minutes to walk around town one afternoon. For those who have not been to Madison, it is an idyllic as a small southern town can be. The residents have put an enormous amount of money into renovating/restoring their homes, a very pleasant blend of Victorian, Antebellum, and early 20th century styles. Their lawns and fences are maintained immaculately.

Right in the middle of town their is an old brick community building. On the community building's front lawn are several modern art sculptures crafted out of scrap iron and the like.

This green is about as out of place as that crap on the lawn in Madison.

[John Kirk]

Yes, Tom.  I think the golf hole would better match if a water hazard was placed in front of the green, though it should angle a bit to the right, so that the front left was closer than the front right.  Do we really want it to match exactly?

But water hazards are no fun.  You can't play your next shot from underwater.  So you put a bunker there instead.

John C,

That is really funny, and Joe Hancock is wrong when he says there isn't a decent balance of opinion on this thread.

[Joe Hancock]

John Kirk,

The thread has had a lot of fresh, strong opinions since the time I used it as an example in another thread. I like the discussion going on now.

Joe

[John Kirk]

Thanks, Joe.

I can't stop laughing every time I read John Cullum's post.