The Jekyll & Hide potion - The Wind

[JESII]

...and if someone is kind enough to post the aerial of #10, please include, or add, #14 so that Patrick can recall that the 14th fairway (from 85 - 145 yards from the green) is directly bordered by ponds and is between 25 and 35 yards wide in that range as well.

At those widths I would be surprised if anyone actually tried to cozy their layups adjacent to a pond for a slightly better angle to a corner hole location...I could see them playing the hole strategically lengthwise however, to favor a particular approach shot into the green based on the hole location...

Maybe a better question, Pat, is...would you attempt a riskier layup in hopes of carrying the right hand pond to get an improved angle to a front left pin if it resulted in a difficult half wedge from 60 yards or so?

This probably can tie back to the 10th hole (I agree with all of your comments from the first post...probably why I diverted to #14).  On the difficult days you talk about with a North/Northwest wind, do you consider flirting with the right hand bunker when the hole is left or front-left? That would seem to result in an approach more cross-wind, which might help get the ball over to the left half of the green, but it also might help get it all the way to the water...

I think #10 has ample width to offer this characteristic, I do not think #14 does.

#12 does, #15 does, #6 does...but on each of them it is the green that dictates whether or not it is necessary to use it

[Michael Moore]

Seminole - 10th hole






Seminole - 14th hole

[JESII]

You're the best.

Thanks for indicating the prevailing wind as well. I think that has to be really close.

[Michael Moore]

Indeed, I am the best, but please know that I put the cartoons in just to clown around and make a mockery out everything and that they are not there for informational purposes.

[TEPaul]

The prevailing wind at Seminole? Unless Seminole is in some kind of constant weather microcism, I remember the basic prevailing wind (during the season) as being out of the Southwest.

And as far as strategically playing to the left or rigth side of the 14th fairway for a third shot in----Patrick, you are either very very good or completely over-thinking the situation!!

There's not a damned thing wrong with playing the third shot into that green from the middle of the fairway or the right of that fairway OR the left of that fairway.

How many times have I played that hole? Probably a couple of hundred and what always concerned me was avoiding that open conduit on either side of that fairway short of that green!  

Not just that but it seems like as often or not I'd see an aligator in one of those conduits. One time he was facing north and he seemed to be napping so I snuck up on him and gave him a good swift kick in the ass!

And that's why I still walk with a limp.

[TEPaul]

"Pat
Did you ever ask a question, in your posts on this site, that you didn't already know the answer to?"


Lloyd:

You need to rephrase that. It should read:

"Pat
Did you ever ask a question, in your posts on this site, that you THINK you didn't already know the answer to?"

Patrick is almost always wrong about most everything. Note the title to this thread. He spelt Dr Jekyll correctly but he sort of slipped and fell on his ass with the spelling of Mr. Hyde!

[Patrick_Mucci]

...and if someone is kind enough to post the aerial of #10, please include, or add, #14 so that Patrick can recall that the 14th fairway (from 85 - 145 yards from the green) is directly bordered by ponds and is between 25 and 35 yards wide in that range as well.

I'm keenly aware of the two flanking ponds having played a 3-iron just short of them a week or so ago.  However, since the hole was cut to one side, I favored the other with my second in order to give me the best angle of attack on my approach.

At those widths I would be surprised if anyone actually tried to cozy their layups adjacent to a pond for a slightly better angle to a corner hole location...

That's where the WIND comes into play.
The WIND brings tremendous variety to the hole.

Certain winds have you ignoring and flying those ponds by a wide margin.
Other winds have you playing well short of them.
Other winds have you challenging them if you're playing up to it.

I could see them playing the hole strategically lengthwise however, to favor a particular approach shot into the green based on the hole location...


Why wouldn't you want to maximize the optimum angle of attack into the green irrespective of whether you play long or short of the flanking ponds ?

Maybe a better question, Pat, is...would you attempt a riskier layup in hopes of carrying the right hand pond to get an improved angle to a front left pin if it resulted in a difficult half wedge from 60 yards or so?

It depends on the WIND, the location of my tee shot and how I've played the preceeding 13 holes.. and the distance from my tee shot to the landing area I'd like to get to.

I'm probably not the one to ask since I like 60 yard approach shots.
60 yards is a slightly choked L-Wedge for me.

This probably can tie back to the 10th hole (I agree with all of your comments from the first post...probably why I diverted to #14). 

On the difficult days you talk about with a North/Northwest wind, do you consider flirting with the right hand bunker when the hole is left or front-left? That would seem to result in an approach more cross-wind, which might help get the ball over to the left half of the green, but it also might help get it all the way to the water...

If you're talking about # 10, a good degree of the decision, for me, is the distance, velocity and direction of the wind, firmness and speed of the green, the position of my tee shot, and, how I played the first 9 holes.

On my last play I was 137 yards from the pin, which was cut far left, but, I was in the left center to center of the fairway.  I thought about playing a high draw to the far right of the green, toward the tower, but, opted instead to choke down and punch a 6 iron, which I hit 15 feet below and slightly right of the pin.  The last thing I wanted to do was to roll the shot or block it out, leaving me in the water left or bunker right.  Being in the right bunker is a great formula for a double bogie or worse.
I thought a good knock down was my best option and I was fortunate to execute it properly.  Unfortunately, the putt broke slightly more than I expected and I missed the birdie, but, truely enjoyed making par.

I think #10 has ample width to offer this characteristic, I do not think #14 does.

You have to remember that one's a relatively short par 5 and the other a relatively short par 4.   Few are going to drive # 10, although, downwind, I wouldn't be surprised if some have.  On # 14, hitting the green in two, is quite common, which means that the flanking ponds have little impact on one's play.

#12 does, #15 does, #6 does...but on each of them it is the green that dictates whether or not it is necessary to use it.


I'd disagree, especially at # 12 and # 6, where Hogan used to play up toward # 4 tee.  On # 15, that green is so bland that you could approach it from the ocean and it wouldn't matter.
# 12, while the fairway has more than ample width, it gets buffeted by strong winds.
I've seen many shots from that elevated tee go with the south/southeasterly wind into the condos.  I've also seen dozens upon dozens of errant tee shots taken into the 14th fairway by a strong wind make easy pars.

So, the configuration of the green, while difficult, is receptive to an approach from almost anywhere, left, right or center.  It's width that makes Seminole humm when it's windy, the green complexes are the icing on the cake.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Seminole - 10th hole



Seminole - 14th hole

Michael Moore,

Thanks for posting the aerials.

I just lost a lengthy description of both holes.
I'll try to repost it tomorrow.

[JESII]

Pat,

Thank you for that second to last post, and I look forward to the redo of the two hole descriptions. On the Log-In page there is an option you can click on "Always Stay Logged In" that I believe eliminates the times when the computer will time you out...I am not positive it works, but I think so. there are few things more anoying that writing a long post only to have the system disconnect you because that initial page says to stay logged in for 60 minutes.


As far as what is in that post, your description of the 15th green explains it all...width doesn't matter without a green that requires accurate play to the approach point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Thank you for that second to last post, and I look forward to the redo of the two hole descriptions. On the Log-In page there is an option you can click on "Always Stay Logged In" that I believe eliminates the times when the computer will time you out...I am not positive it works, but I think so. there are few things more anoying that writing a long post only to have the system disconnect you because that initial page says to stay logged in for 60 minutes.

I think I may have X'd out of it in error as I was running several programs simultaneously and may have accidently X'd out of my response.  It sure is frustrating.

One of the things I mentioned in the lost post is the configuration of the putting surfaces and the sharp elevation of the 14th green, none of which can be seen in the aerials.

From the aerial the approach into # 10 doesn't look ominous, but, from the fairway, with a good wind from the north or east, it's a frightening approach, especially if you've played there before.  This may be an example where ignorance is bliss, sorta like the approach into # 1 at Pine Valley.

Hopefully, I'll get some time tomorrow night to repost my thoughts.


As far as what is in that post, your description of the 15th green explains it all...width doesn't matter without a green that requires accurate play to the approach point.


Yet we have a very demanding green at # 12 that seems to accomodate approaches from every angle as well.  However, the premium on accuracy is greater on # 12 because the effective target is so much smaller.

What you fail to grasp on # 14 and # 15 is the size of the green, which is probably a function of their receptiveness to very long approach shots, as par 5's that are hit in two.
Whereas, # 12 usually leaves one with a shortish approach.

Without WIDTH windy sites would be too difficult for the average to better player to cope with, irrespective of the green configuration and/or putting surface.

[JESII]

Pat,

If you think the 12th green is equally approachable from any angle we are really off the page. One would want to approach 90% of the available hole locations from as far right as possible...regardless of the wind.

I suspect there is a very large gray area in your definition of "ample width". 20 yards would always be too narrow, and 60 yards would be more than enough, but that middle 40 just dependes on all those other variables to determine a courses playability in high winds...fortunately, if the greens are interesting and suggestive a golfer can have fun in the wind regardless of the width...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you think the 12th green is equally approachable from any angle we are really off the page. One would want to approach 90% of the available hole locations from as far right as possible...regardless of the wind.

Hole location and wind direction and velocity have a lot to do with that premise.

Certainly hole locations in the front right of that green seem to favor an approach from the far right, as right as the 14th fairway.

AND, that's why you need WIDTH.
If that fairway was narrow, holding the green from the rough would be extremely difficult for most golfers.

I suspect there is a very large gray area in your definition of "ample width". 20 yards would always be too narrow, and 60 yards would be more than enough, but that middle 40 just dependes on all those other variables to determine a courses playability in high winds...fortunately, if the greens are interesting and suggestive a golfer can have fun in the wind regardless of the width...

This is where we disagree.
Let me set the hole locations and put your drive or second shot just a foot into the rough and you'll come to realize that WIDTH is the necessary foundation for windy sites.

[JESII]

Pat,

You are arguing that WIDTH is necessary to maintain playbility...I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

If you have an unplayable golf course in mind, don't go there on windy days.

I am arguing that the green complex is the driving force for the multiple personality characteristic you discussed in your opening post...in concert with the wind. It doesn't always blow in South Florida.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You are arguing that WIDTH is necessary to maintain playbility...I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

If you have an unplayable golf course in mind, don't go there on windy days.

Do you know of any courses on windy sites that don't have wide fairways ?

Some sites have almost constant wind.
Bandon, Newport, Seminole and others.
I prefer to play them as they were meant to be played,  in the wind.

I am arguing that the green complex is the driving force for the multiple personality characteristic you discussed in your opening post...in concert with the wind.


Green complexes are static, constant, thus they don't possess multiple personalities.
It is the WIND that's the catalyst, that creates the multiple personalities

It doesn't always blow in South Florida.

Perhaps at midnight in January.
But, with so many courses close to the water, the wind in South Florida is almost a constant, although it may change direction and velocity.

[TEPaul]

"Green complexes are static, constant, thus they don't possess multiple personalities.
It is the WIND that's the catalyst, that creates the multiple personalities."


Patrick:

You pretty much need me to help you out on every post you put on here but I just don't have the time for that. Didn't you know that not just greens but all golf couse architecture is static and that it's the wind that supplies the catalyst to all of it.

I mean about forty five years ago I thought the entire architecture, greens and all of Gulf Stream G.C. was doing the Watusi one time when I was playing it but that was about forty five years ago and I sobered up some during the round and have never had more than a sip during the day since.

[Joe Hancock]

Greens aren't static. The speed changes, the firmness changes.....they aren't the same from morning to afternoon, let alone changes with the seasons.

Those things above affect the other strategic/elements on the course, including the wind.

Joe

[JNC Lyon]

Is it not the test of a great architect to create day-to-day variety without consistent wind?  Seminole is a windier locale than most, meaning Ross should have and did design for the changing wind directions.  However, the exposed property makes a designer's job easier.  A hole like 10 at Seminole is certainly good elsewhere, but it loses something without the wind.  Therefore, shouldn't a golf hole be praised because it varies from day to day WITHOUT the presence of wind?  Does the 10th at Seminole really reach the potential of its windy climate?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it not the test of a great architect to create day-to-day variety without consistent wind? 

That's pretty difficult to accomplish since the hole is static save for the tee and hole locations.  It's not as if you can move the bunkers and salient features.
On a site swept by almost constant winds, it's critical that variety be created if greatness is an objective.

Seminole is a windier locale than most, meaning Ross should have and did design for the changing wind directions. 

I believe he succeded brilliantly.

However, the exposed property makes a designer's job easier.  A hole like 10 at Seminole is certainly good elsewhere, but it loses something without the wind. 

Agreed, but, quantifying the loss, absent the wind is the key.
On a windless day, hole locations can make the hole play in a great variety of ways.
While the wind exponentially increases the variety and the challenge, there remains a core challenge absent any wind.  Hole locations at the perimeter of that green allow the hole to retain a good deal of the challenge without the wind.

Therefore, shouldn't a golf hole be praised because it varies from day to day WITHOUT the presence of wind? 

That's almost impossible.
Could you cite 10 holes that vary in play from day to day without changing the location of the hole ?

Does the 10th at Seminole really reach the potential of its windy climate?

Not sure what you mean by the above question, but, the general environment in which the 10th hole presents itself for play is a windy environment.  The hole plays radically different with differing wind directions and velocities.  I don't know what more you would want from a hole that appears so benign on the scorecard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greens aren't static. The speed changes, the firmness changes.....they aren't the same from morning to afternoon, let alone changes with the seasons.

Joe,

The architecture of the greens is static.
As to conditions, when a club seems to mandate 10+ on the stimp, morning, noon and afternoon, there's not much in the way of change, especially when you consider that the winds serve to dry those greens out pretty quickly.  There may be change associated with unusual rains, but, for the most part, Seminole keeps their greens at a fairly consistent pace.  No one tees off at 7:00 am for daily play and the course closes early, so the variable that might exist elsewhere, don't necessarily exist at Seminole.

There are no seasons at Seminole, it's essentially a November to April golf course.


Those things above affect the other strategic/elements on the course, including the wind.


Not to the degree you imagine.
Seminole is pretty consistent.
You realize that when you first see the brownish/yellowish/greenish fairways and greens, wall to wall.

They really, really, really get it at Seminole.
The playing conditions are probably amongst the best in Southeastern Florida, day in and day out.

It's a very special golf course.  ....... especially prepared for "golfers"

[JNC Lyon]

Is it not the test of a great architect to create day-to-day variety without consistent wind? 

That's pretty difficult to accomplish since the hole is static save for the tee and hole locations.  It's not as if you can move the bunkers and salient features.
On a site swept by almost constant winds, it's critical that variety be created if greatness is an objective.

Seminole is a windier locale than most, meaning Ross should have and did design for the changing wind directions. 

I believe he succeded brilliantly.

However, the exposed property makes a designer's job easier.  A hole like 10 at Seminole is certainly good elsewhere, but it loses something without the wind. 

Agreed, but, quantifying the loss, absent the wind is the key.
On a windless day, hole locations can make the hole play in a great variety of ways.
While the wind exponentially increases the variety and the challenge, there remains a core challenge absent any wind.  Hole locations at the perimeter of that green allow the hole to retain a good deal of the challenge without the wind.

Therefore, shouldn't a golf hole be praised because it varies from day to day WITHOUT the presence of wind? 

That's almost impossible.
Could you cite 10 holes that vary in play from day to day without changing the location of the hole ?

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

"Without changing the hole location" is key.  Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations.  However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location.  The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin.  How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved?  Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change.  From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds.  Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety.  The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

Does the 10th at Seminole really reach the potential of its windy climate?

Not sure what you mean by the above question, but, the general environment in which the 10th hole presents itself for play is a windy environment.  The hole plays radically different with differing wind directions and velocities.  I don't know what more you would want from a hole that appears so benign on the scorecard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

[TEPaul]

"Greens aren't static."

Joseph The Nose:

Is that right? Have you actually seen a green physically move? 

I have but I already admitted I was halucinating.


Patrick:

If you asked the simple question "Why?" on here and someone answered you with "Because" I believe you would actually try to argue with them!  I've noticed judging from your numerous threads on here about the wind that you seem to be unusually fixated on that subject. Consequently, would it be save to say you are a "Wind Bag?"

[JNC Lyon]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

Good to hear, I think firm and fast conditions, while unchanging give the player the most options if presented in moderation.  A golfer can choose to fly it in or run on it under the same conditions on different days.  But you already know that.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

Yes, but how much does this strategy change based on hole location?  Because the hole is a shorter four, golfers have multiple club selection options.  However, these usually change, at least in my experience, based on no more than the golfer's comfort level with a certain club on a given day.  For the hole layout, I can see gambling to the right when the pin is left to gain a better angle. Yet would the line change with a lay-up from day to day?

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

In the case of 7 at Pebble or 8 at Troon, I would surmise that both gain their fame/greatness from:

1) Presence on a well-known championship course.
2) WINDY locales.
3) Great hazards surrounding the green.

What variety is there without changing wind.  How much strategy is really thought out from the tee.  A 'hit the small green or else proposition' doesn't lend itself to much variety.  This is especially true when the holes hazards are readily apparent.

Personally, I am more partial to short par threes like 2 at Garden City, where variety is created from an angled green that changes the club and shot selection every day.  My favorite type of short three is something like 3 at Yeamans Hall or 4 at Oak Hill (West).  On both holes, the golfer is presented with a large green with several small areas on which to cut pins.  The golfer has a bailout option that will make a three tough but will make a four reasonable.  Ultimately, the golfer is given a false sense of security over the shot, because hitting the large green won't necessarily result in par.  Furthermore, the strategy of the hole changes every day with different pins.  4 at Oak Hill (West) contains tremendous variety without the effects of wind.

For me, a par three with a large green that creates different options is more of an architectural achievement than a hole like 8 at Troon or 7 at Pebble.  I think, with all things being equal, a hole like 3 at Yeamans would be more fun on a day-to-day basis because of its variety.

As for a tiny green, I think they are great for variety within a round.  A golfer is best tested if he is forced to look at different sizes of targets.  This can easily throw off one's mental focus.  However, large greens are archiecturally better for creating variety within the hole.  It also makes it easier to maintain good conditions around a given hole location.

[JESII]

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Your words Pat, your words.

It certainly changes when the wind changes but without a green complex that suggests different angles of approach to different hole locations it doesn't make it more interesting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Your words Pat, your words.

It certainly changes when the wind changes but without a green complex that suggests different angles of approach to different hole locations it doesn't make it more interesting.

JES,

You can't ignore the proximity of the water to the fairway and green.

Anytime you place a hole location closer to the water the approach and recoveries become more difficult.

But, when you add the WIND, it exponentially enhances the hole, especially with variety in direction and velocity.

I'm sure you've heard some golfers complain that Seminole is over rated and that it's too easy of a golf course after they've played it on one of those unusual days when there's no wind.

But, the same golf course develops a frightening new personality/ies when the wind picks up.  As the velocity increases, so does the challenge.  As the wind changes direction, the entire course assumes a new personality.

It is the WIND that's the primary element inherent in Seminole's design.
Without it, many question Seminole's ability to challenge

[Tags:]

Tags: