Whistling Straights #5 - bad hole?

[JWinick]

The review suggests this hole ("The Snake"), a 584-yard par 5 featuring water in play on all three shots, is a bad hole.   I understand why some may not like the penal nature of this hole, but why is this considered a bad hole?

I liked this hole because the player has a tough decision to make on each shot.  On the drive, how much of the water do you plan on cutting off to give you a chance to get there in two?  If you decide to lay up, where?

Birdie, Par, Bogie, or double are all a possibility.  To me, that's what makes a great Par 5.

For the hole overview, visit http://www.destinationkohler.com/golf/ws/straits_detail.html

[Ed Oden]

I don't know that it is a bad hole.  But I also don't think it really fits with the rest of the course.  The water hazard seemed strange for an otherwise links course.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall that water hazard coming into play on any other holes.  The day we played this hole was into the teeth of the wind, making it extremely difficult.  It might be a great hole on another course.  But in the context of Whistling Straits, it was more out of place than bad.

Ed

[RJ_Daley]

The story goes that the county land planner, and corp of engineers forced the design due to environmental concerns and demand for mitigation of some other wet land that was filled in, etc.  The hole is a square peg in a round hole that was understood from the start that it would be, but they had no other choice but to site the ponds and grade it and shape it up as they did.  I've come to think it is a pretty good par 5 actually and would work good at Ponte Vedra...  

[Eamon Lynch]

I'm with Ed on this. I didn't think it was a bad hole, it's just on the wrong course. It's a bit aesthetically jarring and seems like it would be a much more natural fit down the road at Blackwolf Run. A caddie there told me that the water hazard was added to #5 as an environmental requirement to balance out water drained elsewhere on the property.

That said, there is a tendency on this site to do autopsies on individual holes that feature water hazards that are otherwise rare on that course (see: #8 at Sebonack, #17 at Royal County Down, #18 at The European Club).

[John Moore II]

I would have to agree with RJ, it looks like it was forced due to drainage issues or something of that sort. The overhead also looks like its for drainage. Its not a bad hole though.

[Peter Nomm]

The WI Department of Natural Resources has become one of the most out-of-control agencies in the state, and this the reason a lot of the hazards exist.  The 2nd hole on the Irish Course has the same thing and totally doesn't fit with the rest of the course.  

But at least they are early in the round and don't disrupt the flow as much if they had been on the closing holes.

We had to deal with the DNR extensively when building our club in 1999-2000, especially because of the surrounding wetlands on the property.  We were forced to add a wetland to the right of the landing area of our par-5 15th hole, largely not visible from the teeing grounds.  It worked out OK (as did most of the rest of what we wanted to do) but there is no way that hazard would have been built had it been up to us.

[Ally Mcintosh]

to me, it looks like a bad hole from the course diagram but it's probably over dramatised and out of scale... a ninety degree dogleg to a sliver of land with water over the other side doesn't really appeal... surely it doesn't play as hard as it looks?

[Andy Troeger]

I didn't think it was a bad hole strategically as many of the others have said, its wider than it must appear on the diagram, Ally, at least from what I remember. You have a pretty generous fairway off the tee or can try to cut it a bit if you're super long. I played it as a three shot hole and made my only birdie of the round.

It doesn't fit with the rest of the course and is probably the weak link on the front nine, but its a good nine holes. Its MUCH better than the awful 18th which is quite possibly the worst hole I've ever seen out of Pete Dye (and its rare that I don't like any of his stuff). The lay-up area short and right needs to be twice as wide for those who don't have a 180 yard carry shot from the end of the first fairway. Either that or maybe I missed something.

[TaylorA]

Peter Nomm is exactly right - it was the Wisconsin DNR that brought about the 5th hole and its "unique" stature on the course. It was actually the Corps of Engineers that ultimately helped Kohler and Dye get done what they felt they needed to do. Gary D'Amato wrote an article about it for the Journal-Sentinel prior to the 2004 PGA Championship.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=250033

[Brian Cenci]

The feel of the hole is a little out of place with the rest of the course but overall it is a very good hole regarding risk/reward options.  Remember the 04' PGA Championship....I remember a lot of drama unfolding on this hole as players attempted to go for it in two.  But, overall the feel of the hole with the water and wetlands is a little inconsistent with the remainder of the course.  As a once wiser man than myself once told me, "I wouldn't design a hole like this for this particular golf course, but then again I wouldn't take it out."

-Brian

[John Mayhugh]

I tend to think that if a hole doesn't fit the course it's on, it's a bad hole.  The fifth at WS might work on another course, but just does not belong there at all.  It really interrupts the flow of the course.  I hated it.

[Phil McDade]

The 5th at WS is pretty much a result of a wetlands "trade" (remember Bush I's "no net loss of wetlands" policy?). A small portion of wetlands on the area Dye routed for the course was traded for the wetlands surrounding #5. Dye, in interviews leading up to the PGA, acknowledged the hole was somewhat out of character with the rest of the course, but said without it, the course would not have been built.

It gave Loren Roberts, in contention for the US Senior Open last year at WS, a lot of trouble. I haven't played it, but it looks like it has semi-blind landing aspects to both the drive and second shot.

[JWinick]

I agree that it's somewhat out of character, but most courses have at least one hole where there is a water hazard.   WS has two holes (5th and 18th) that feature water.   Is Bethpage Black's only hole featuring water a bad hole then?  I'm not defending 18, but 5 is a good hole.  

Moreover, how dispruptive is it to play one hole, a Par 5, that uses water to protect par?    

[Tags:]

Tags: