Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #15 posted)

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

I am not sure I have ever noticed that plaque, and I am fairly ashamed.  Next time I will be certain to look.

And that was a very cool story - many thanks for sharing.  As one who mentions his father on here often also, well... we speak the same language.

Great, great stuff.

TH

[Will Haskett]

Good comments from all. I have only played it once, so it would certainly adjust my thinking the next time. The back tee box sets the tee shot up a little differently, so trying to work the ball down the right side is much more difficult.

I hit the ball fairly long, so I tried to just mash it to the left side of the fairway (even if I hit it through the fairway into the rough) but the wind didn't allow it.

I agree with the theory that good players should be able to work the ball, but can a tree outgrow the intention of the hazzard? In the situations where I have discovered trees in the middle of fairways, the troublesome ones are those that are, likely, 50 years old or more. When the hole was designed, it certainly played easier, with openings for better players to at least have a shot.

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree with the theory that good players should be able to work the ball, but can a tree outgrow the intention of the hazzard? In the situations where I have discovered trees in the middle of fairways, the troublesome ones are those that are, likely, 50 years old or more. When the hole was designed, it certainly played easier, with openings for better players to at least have a shot.

YES YES YES!
Great stuff, long-hitting Will.  Those are my questions also.  Seems to me the overhang on the right at the very least makes the hole not play as well as it might.

TH

[Mike Benham]

It is a great, fun par 4 1/2 hole ... and there is nothing wrong with that ...

[Tom Huckaby]

It is a great, fun par 4 1/2 hole ... and there is nothing wrong with that ...

4.5 for you maybe.  If I am at the tips I take 5 and run.

 

[Will Haskett]

Tom. I agree with you on the right side...

From what I remember from that tee box, the front tees give you a more straightaway view of the hole, which would make the right side a more realistic target. I would aim right at the tree and fade the ball a little.

But when I hit from the back tee box, the fairway was more across, diagonal if you will. A fade is still a realistic shot, but now you have a forced-carry issue, so the left side is the much higher percentage play.

Again, I am not taking anything away from the rest of the hole. Marvelous layout.

[John Kirk]

You aren't living until you punch one under the trees and onto the green.  I've done it successfully a couple/three times.  I've seen guys hit a little driver underneath the trees, if they've got to cut the ball.

[Mike Benham]

It is a great, fun par 4 1/2 hole ... and there is nothing wrong with that ...

4.5 for you maybe.  If I am at the tips I take 5 and run.

 

As a short par 5 - 3 wood, 9 iron over the tree(s), wedge onto the green ... a simple 5 and maybe a 4 3 out of 10 times ... with your handicap, that is a 4 1/2 ...

In a game against you, I'm giving you a shot on the hole.  You play for a 5, make me make par to halve you ... you will win the hole more times then not ...

[Tom Huckaby]

You are very correct about all of that.

HOWEVER... my failure to hardly ever play that strategically or thoughtfully is why (a) I ought to get strokes on about 8 more holes from youl; and (b) if I am playing the tips I am damn happy to escape with 5 any day.

TH

[Ian_L]

Tom (and others), do you think your strategy would change if the scorecard read par 5 instead of 4? 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom (and others), do you think your strategy would change if the scorecard read par 5 instead of 4? 

Hell yes it would, for most golfers anyway!  Call it the Pasatiempo effect in reverse - there they made the hole easier (removed many trees) didn't change the distance at all, changed a number on the scorecard and now the majority of people say it's a harder hole.  Change the number at Stanford and all of a sudden people think of it as easy, play it as Benham advised me to....

TH

[Rich Goodale]

Ian

If it were a 5 everybody would play the hole as a Gralnek.  Boring!

rich

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian

If it were a 5 everybody would play the hole as a Gralnek.  Boring!

rich

Agreed there - it would be boring and ought to be utterly cryit downe.

HOWEVER, if they did change it, well yes Rich is right - the Gralnek method would be favored - one hell of a change over how it is generally played now as most figure they have to get on in two shots....

[John Kirk]

I'd argue #12 is an excellent hole, because of the variety of shots and methods of attack one experiences over a number of rounds.  Without the trees it wouldn't be as good.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'd argue #12 is an excellent hole, because of the variety of shots and methods of attack one experiences over a number of rounds.  Without the trees it wouldn't be as good.

Wow, understatement of the year there.  I'd go so far as to say that without the trees it would be pretty boring.  The trees make the hole.  Just cut that one back a little.... and maybe those guarding the right hazard....

TH

[Rich Goodale]

John

Firstly, fine story, and I regret that I didn't visit your Dad's tree in October, even though you had told me of it several years ago.  Next time.   Secondly, yes, 12 is an excellent hole, but thinking of it more deeply, I think it would be even more excellent if the driving area trees were replaced by a #2 Carnoustie-style centerline bunker.  Open up both the right and the left, but make the right Position A (maybe put a pot bunker towards the left rough).  Restore the green with the cool Van Dyke beard in the front.  Keep your dad's forward tree as a memory.  As it grows, it might just take on "Eisenhower Tree" fame........

Rich

[Charlie Goerges]

But Rich, the trees reward the player for being able to shape the first AND second shots. How can a bunker do that?

[Tom Huckaby]

But Rich, the trees reward the player for being able to shape the first AND second shots. How can a bunker do that?

I'm with Charlie on this.  Bunker would also have to be so penal to make it feared as to make it TOO much of a penalty.

In any case, bunker would be better than NOTHING.  My thoughts were toward if they just removed the trees and left it as fairway... that would be fairly boring.

TH

[Jon Spaulding]

John Kirk; thank you for the story. I enjoy the stories that surface and touch our hearts when loved ones pass on. It's often the little things. That plaque in the grill room is certainly impressive.

We can see from the original aerial comparison the width to the right of the trees, and the lack of forestry on that side as compared to a current view. Also note the size of the original green surface and the proximity of the greenside bunkering. Fascinating, and a fabulous golf hole.

[Bill_McBride]

John Kirk; thank you for the story. I enjoy the stories that surface and touch our hearts when loved ones pass on. It's often the little things. That plaque in the grill room is certainly impressive.

We can see from the original aerial comparison the width to the right of the trees, and the lack of forestry on that side as compared to a current view. Also note the size of the original green surface and the proximity of the greenside bunkering. Fascinating, and a fabulous golf hole.

So Jon, you just knock the driver OVER those trees, right?  From what I saw 10 days ago, that would be an option for you!

[Tom Huckaby]

Oh heck yeah Bill - that 310 marker is there just for Jon's ego-boost.  He's over the last tree with three wood.

I have never played with anyone who plays a game with which I am less familiar than young Jon.

But these are great pics anyway!  Getting it like it was in the B&W one -room on the right -that is what is needed.

TH

[Ian_L]

Tom (and others), do you think your strategy would change if the scorecard read par 5 instead of 4? 

Hell yes it would, for most golfers anyway!  Call it the Pasatiempo effect in reverse - there they made the hole easier (removed many trees) didn't change the distance at all, changed a number on the scorecard and now the majority of people say it's a harder hole.  Change the number at Stanford and all of a sudden people think of it as easy, play it as Benham advised me to....

TH

Interesting!  If anything I would be more inclined to go for it on a par-5 since it's quite rare that I get a chance at an eagle putt.  But I've been trying to cut down on looking at the scorecard for guidance on how to play a hole...

[Patrick Kiser]

Jon's before and after is quite interesting.  Thanks for sharing Jon.

Now how bad does that golf cart path look from above!  Yikes!

I haven't played the 12th yet, but the way it feels to me is that the trees effectively create a split fairway ... where there wasn't one to begin with.  Rather creative I'd say.  It adds interest, variety, and options off the tee for the day's pin placement and conditions (e.g. wind).  For those reasons, I like it.  I feel this is quite different from say ... the 18th tree at Pebble.

The bunker center mid short of the green from the old days is brilliant. 
It seems to effectively work with the split fairway.  Go left of the fairway and the bunker eliminates the right side short of the green.  Vis versa if from the right side of the fairway.  Why did that get removed?  Just like down in Soule Park I guess.  Gil had one there.  I think it was the 14th.  Maybe David Stamm can confirm this.

[Jon Spaulding]

Bill, unfortunately I spent most of our time together in the SCA equivalent of Stanford's 9th fairway

Huckaby, finally seeing the light. The hole is very good the way it is.....just better and more "fun" in the 1930 version.

Technology has made this a better hole for the longer hitter. The two long trees are very much in play and dictate one's strategy more off the tee today than they did 15 years ago. I like the fact that you have to work the ball on the second shot; or run it in. Just wish the green was bigger and the mow lines made some damn sense.

I would love to someday see more ground level shots of the golf course in its original form. There are a couple floating around the locker room which are impressive. From the air, this is some of the most impressive bunkering ever done by Bell.

[Mike Benham]

The current green is 42 yards deep, and probably 20 yards or so wide.  Compare that to the original where the green is 10,000 - 11,000 square feet.