[Garland Bayley]

OK fess up guys! What's the handicap of each and every one of you hole supporters.

[Kirk Gill]

Is not all the drama still there by routing the hole around that second lower cliff to the right of the current fairway? The difference being that you have a recovery if you go off it.

I see your point, Garland, and believe me, I'm not necessarily a proponent of penal or heroic architecture as a regular diet. But this hole, I think, carries the feel of something very special, something very memorable. I don't know that a fairway like the one you describe would have that feeling for me, especially if "recovery" meant the kind of mountain-climbing that it seems like it would. The existing fairway certainly cants away from the cliff, so the architect is giving you some chances to avoid losing that ball, provided you can manage to land it on the fairway. The fact that the cliff is to the left side makes things easier than if the cliff was on the "slice" side, at least for us righties.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm curious. Does anyone have Alister's rules for GCA handy. Did he put that righty slice thing in there, or is that a modern invention?

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
But yet, it hardly holds up against anything at Fernadina Beach."


Garland:

Oh yes it does. The only thing that Fernandina Beach Muncipal has on that golf hole is at Fernandina Beach Municpal every now and again you might spot a 9 foot tall Timucuan Indian rustling around through the Live Oak and Spanish Moss.


Look Garland, if you really are serious about those questions you asked above about that remarkable looking hole I think both you and the people who are seriously questioning it have gotten to a point where you are Waaaay over-thinking a whole lot to do with golf course architecture.

And since you are, here's what I suggest you and the others on here who have gotten into far too much over-thinking should do. You all rent a very large room somewhere like a medium sized auditorium, you all go in there together. Bring your wives and girlfriends, your children and dogs and cats too if you want to but lock the doors, take off all you cloths and GET DOWN and GET EMOTIONAL until you rid yourselves of all this over-analyzing. If it takes two or three days then it just does.

And no bathroom breaks either.

[Mike Nuzzo]

This is a good example of commenting on the difficulty of a hole out of context with the rest of the course.
There is no way to know if it is too difficult - it could be the easiest hole on the course or the hardest.

I'm all for it from the pic.

Cheers

[Michael Blake]

It certainly is less intimidating and less penal for a righty as opposed to left minority.

A lefty who slices their driver may consider hitting 7 iron-7 iron into the green, at 320yds.

How wide is the FW Garland?

[Brian Laurent]

I like this hole, especially at 320.  Given that the vast majority of players hit a slice, I think they got it right.  Flip it around with the cliff on the right and it's questionable. 

Brian,

I am, as many on this site are, a lefty.

I understand your grudge with this hole now.  Aim right!

[Charlie Goerges]

Since you all are ganging up on my man Garland, I created a flashy graphic to distract you while he conks you over the head with his wedge.  







The main thing I noticed was if you go right it looks like you'll have a terrible angle, but more importantly, you won't see much (if any) short grass on which to lay up short of the green.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It's the 'championship' course at Sand Hollow Resort in Hurricane, Utah, which is in the lower SW corner of the state, a couple of hours NE of Las Vegas.

Garland,
Notice the rope, probably to keep carts off the fairway.

I'm a lefty who prefers to draw the ball, but the hole doesn't look any easier to my eye because of that, and the approach looks to be better  from the left side of the fwy..  
I see no difference in losing a ball in the woods or over a cliff and at worst
the hole should be looked at as one of those GCA 'Guilty Pleasures'.

[Will MacEwen]

Shouldn't the approach be better from the left side, to reward the daring player over the safe player?

[TEPaul]

To be honest with you and never having been there, just looking at that photo it's definitely not the tee shot that going off the world would concern me it would be going off the world on the approach.

[Philippe Binette]

To Garland...

I said 7 iron, it could be 5 wood, 3 wood, a putter whatever, I mean use your head and play smart,

the picture that write terrible angle from there, nobody says you are forced to go for the green from there...

By the way Garland... I once was a 2 handicap who had fallen of the world who had a hard time breaking 85 and a shooting in the 90's 7-8 times because I couldn't hit a fairway...

It all came back when I played ugly low cut 3 wood off the tee and then punch 7 iron on second shot all day (even 200 yards from a green) for a couple of weeks.. just getting the ball in play... shooting in the low 80's then high 70's

It's not pretty, but it's about playing golf, not hitting a golf ball.


I'm not going to back off my comments on that one...
it's the basic of the game... play your game and only your game. Nobody teaches that anymore...

Ever heard about the guy who never broke 90and his buddies were betting he would not on that particular day, Tommy Armour said he'll caddy for the guy and would pocket half the money if the guy breaks 90...

That guy ended up shooting 79 that day... was he a better hitter of the ball all in one day, no... just a sharp mind managing

[Garland Bayley]

...
It all came back when I played ugly low cut 3 wood off the tee and then punch 7 iron on second shot all day (even 200 yards from a green) for a couple of weeks.. just getting the ball in play... shooting in the low 80's then high 70's
...

Sounds to me like you still don't get it. If players of my caliber could consistently play anything, we would be happy to play an "ugly low cut 3 wood off the tee and then a punch 7 iron on the second shot all day". A cut is my natural predominant shot. Unfortunately, trying to play that shot over and over results in everything from dead pulls, draws (don't understand how), cuts (fades), slices, and banana balls. And those are just the shots I get when I make relatively solid contact.

[Brian Laurent]

Since you all are ganging up on my man Garland, I created a flashy graphic to distract you while he conks you over the head with his wedge.  







The main thing I noticed was if you go right it looks like you'll have a terrible angle, but more importantly, you won't see much (if any) short grass on which to lay up short of the green.

It must be something about Friday the 13th, because isn't this type of design element normally praised on this site?  Seems to be great strategy created here...take a little risk by playing close to the cliff and you're rewarded. 

I retract my statement of this being questionable if the cliff were on the right side.  I would still like the hole.  Is #17 at CPC a bad golf hole?  Seems to have similar playing qualities. 

[Garland Bayley]

Brian,

This is nothing like #16 at CPC. #16 at CPC is choose to bite off as much as you think appropriate to carry from a perfect lie. A shot hit off line is not guaranteed death.

This hole is like building an OB fence down the edge of a fairway. If I were to find and post such a hole, there would be a high degree of condemnation. A bunker running down the left edge of the fairway would be about a half stroke penalty. A lateral water hazard and a forest down the edge would double that. OB and unplayable cliffs down the edge doubles that.

[Scott Witter]

Garland:

There is for me no way to know what part of the site is best for golf...for I am just looking at one shap shot, so you could be right, but without seeing the whole site and studying the routing, it is impossible IMO to pass judgment on whether the hole is good, bad, average or whatever.  If this picture is a good indication regarding the character of the remaining site, then I suspect it had great potential.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
The hole is short and looks pretty wide. Golf is at least partially about avoiding interesting hazards--if the hole were narrow with serious trouble right then I think you'd have a point. As it is I think its a bad example of what you're trying to prove (if I understand your point).

[Lyne Morrison]

Garland - your right in that this hole is likely more intimidating for the average lefty.

Any chance you can you take a look at google earth or other source to see how things set up from the tee that you would be playing from? - it may be a different perspective and length. Also, it is difficult to gauge the width of the landing zone from the image - how much room is actually out there for you - from your tee?

As you know there are many ways to play a golf hole and there is nothing wrong with playing smart to the green for three if that is what works for you on this hole - a couple of putts and your done with no major damage. You can walk away then, comfortable with your course management. Others will love to bite off more - that's their choice .

Cheers -- Lyne

[Philippe Binette]

OK Garland..... One last call

what do you think of the 16th at St Andrews... It has OB right by the fairway on the right side...

AT SOME POINT ARCHITECTURE CANNOT COMPENSATE FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE BAD SHOT...  IF SO, WE WOULD ONLY BUILT FLAT OPEN HOLES DEVOID OF ANY HAZARD, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHALLENGE AND ALSO... ANY FUN AT PLAYING THE GAME



What happen at Cypress if you hit your ball in the ocean on the 16th at cypress, you miss the carry to the green by 5 feet or block your tee shot right with your ball not crossing the hazard line? I'll tell you what happen,

the hazard is marked as Yellow (frontal hazard, it's not a lateral)... which means you have to:
A) re-tee (just like a OB)
b) drop in the rough in front of the tee and play front there (you gain 8 yards but you have a bad lie)
So you re-tee at 3, just like a OB

That's the real rules of the game

[Jim_Kennedy]

This hole is like building an OB fence down the edge of a fairway. If I were to find and post such a hole, there would be a high degree of condemnation.- Garland

Perhaps, in some situations, but as this photo shows (Royal dornoch) pounding a ball into the gorse that's hard up against the edge of a hole is no less a penalty than sailing one over a cliff. At least you won't be wasting any time looking for the latter.


A bunker running down the left edge of the fairway would be about a half stroke penalty-Garland

Maybe, but if you are going to keep it apples to apples and use the same 'player' throughout, then this same player is probably not going to have mad bunker skills, so the penalty is likely to be more than a half stroke.

A lateral water hazard and a forest down the edge would double that.-Garland

The water hazard is at least a one shot penalty. The forest could be a half shot if there is no underbrush, a one shot if all you can do is chip out, and a two shotter if you can't find the ball.

OB and unplayable cliffs down the edge doubles that.-Garland

They're no worse than the gorse or the trees, or possibly no worse than  the result of the player with the poor bunker skills as he fumbles around in the sand.

[Charlie Goerges]

Shouldn't the approach be better from the left side, to reward the daring player over the safe player?

Yes, it should reward the daring play, and it would appear to. My point with the image was that over to the right and down in that gully-like area, it might very well look like there was no way to keep even a lay-up shot on the planet. Being that it might be a blind layup to the area short of the green as well, it's going to be tough for a mid to high handicap player to play over there to leave a decent third. Therefore, if there's no decent layup (besides the putter) the quality of the hole is at least debatable.

I do like the look of the hole, but as Tom P. mentioned, that second shot might be very scary even for someone as good as he. Again, I'm not saying that it's not a good hole, it might be a great one, but it will never be considered great until it can withstand this level of scrutiny.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Charlie,
If you go to their website and look at the drawing of the hole it shows fairway below and left of the green. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Jim, I went to look at the website and I see what you mean. I think that image shows much more ground available for the lay-up shot. Very good use of visual deception. Not related to the discussion, but if I didn't know what the hole number was, I would never have found it on the course map. Their site depicts one bunker on that hole and the image Garland posted shows at least three.

[Garland Bayley]

OK Garland..... One last call

what do you think of the 16th at St Andrews... It has OB right by the fairway on the right side...

AT SOME POINT ARCHITECTURE CANNOT COMPENSATE FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE BAD SHOT...  IF SO, WE WOULD ONLY BUILT FLAT OPEN HOLES DEVOID OF ANY HAZARD, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHALLENGE AND ALSO... ANY FUN AT PLAYING THE GAME



What happen at Cypress if you hit your ball in the ocean on the 16th at cypress, you miss the carry to the green by 5 feet or block your tee shot right with your ball not crossing the hazard line? I'll tell you what happen,

the hazard is marked as Yellow (frontal hazard, it's not a lateral)... which means you have to:
A) re-tee (just like a OB)
b) drop in the rough in front of the tee and play front there (you gain 8 yards but you have a bad lie)
So you re-tee at 3, just like a OB

That's the real rules of the game

Would not agree that the fairway to the left on 16 is far wider than the fairway to the right on the hole pictured? I think your analogy here does not work at all.

As I wrote above, your analogy to the 16th at CPC does not work either. You earlier were advising me to know my limitations, but now you seem to implicate that I should be trying to drive the green.

[Garland Bayley]

This hole is like building an OB fence down the edge of a fairway. If I were to find and post such a hole, there would be a high degree of condemnation.- Garland

Perhaps, in some situations, but as this photo shows (Royal dornoch) pounding a ball into the gorse that's hard up against the edge of a hole is no less a penalty than sailing one over a cliff. At least you won't be wasting any time looking for the latter.


A bunker running down the left edge of the fairway would be about a half stroke penalty-Garland

Maybe, but if you are going to keep it apples to apples and use the same 'player' throughout, then this same player is probably not going to have mad bunker skills, so the penalty is likely to be more than a half stroke.

A lateral water hazard and a forest down the edge would double that.-Garland

The water hazard is at least a one shot penalty. The forest could be a half shot if there is no underbrush, a one shot if all you can do is chip out, and a two shotter if you can't find the ball.

OB and unplayable cliffs down the edge doubles that.-Garland

They're no worse than the gorse or the trees, or possibly no worse than  the result of the player with the poor bunker skills as he fumbles around in the sand.

Thank you Jim for finally bringing what I feel to be a more suitable analogy. To complete the analogy is there an alternate routing that would offer a hole of similar quality, and not have the penalty of the gorse?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()