[Garland Bayley]

...
short/driveable!!? par 4 15th

I've played 4 Harbottle courses. He has a drivable par 4 on each of them. Although pretty, this one is about the weakest of them. The best known better one would be Golf Mountain Olympic #18.  Unfortunately Jordan didn't include a picture in his In My Opinion piece, but wrote "#18, Par 4, 325 yards- How often do you find an 18th hole that is drive-able? Not many, but this one is. That is, if you want to carry a ball 290 yards over a large water hazard, then a large bunker, and on to a shallow green. If you lay up don’t go left, because you will be in a water hazard. A wedge shot is fairly easy on this hole, as the wind isn’t usually blowing hard by the green. This hole is always fun, and when you get on the green it becomes funner! A putt from front to back on the green is very fast, and a golfer should happily take three putts. Take your par-or birdie- and enjoy the round you have just played. You will not soon forget it!!"

[Jordan Wall]

...
short/driveable!!? par 4 15th

I've played 4 Harbottle courses. He has a drivable par 4 on each of them. Although pretty, this one is about the weakest of them. The best known better one would be Golf Mountain Olympic #18.  Unfortunately Jordan didn't include a picture in his In My Opinion piece, but wrote "#18, Par 4, 325 yards- How often do you find an 18th hole that is drive-able? Not many, but this one is. That is, if you want to carry a ball 290 yards over a large water hazard, then a large bunker, and on to a shallow green. If you lay up don’t go left, because you will be in a water hazard. A wedge shot is fairly easy on this hole, as the wind isn’t usually blowing hard by the green. This hole is always fun, and when you get on the green it becomes funner! A putt from front to back on the green is very fast, and a golfer should happily take three putts. Take your par-or birdie- and enjoy the round you have just played. You will not soon forget it!!"

Garland,

I fail to see the basis behind anything you say.  This is a better hole than 18 at Gold Mountain, the best short-4 of Harbottle's I've seen.  And I've seen more of his courses than you have.

Why is this the weakest of the one's you've seen?

[Garland Bayley]

I fail to see the basis behind anything you say.  This is a better hole than 18 at Gold Mountain, the best short-4 of Harbottle's I've seen.  And I've seen more of his courses than you have.

Why is this the weakest of the one's you've seen?

One would think there would be a significant element of danger to trying to drive a drivable par 4. As you know the 18th at Gold Mountain Olympic does indeed have that in significant quantities. Where is that here? The only danger is actually to driving it up the middle. There is a significantly wide swath where you can drive your ball unencumbered down the right side onto the green. What happens if you hit it too far? It is contained by the hill behind. Maybe you can tell me what I don't get about this hole, because I see little of interest here.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Garland,

I found #15 to be a much better risk/reward driveable par 4 from the back 2 tees, which were on the left side of the 14th green vs.
the tees where the pic above was taken, which was right of the 14th green.  I took a pic from the 2nd-from-back tee on 15 (but
haven't uploaded them to post yet), so here is an aerial shot that includes the 15th hole at upper left.  You can see the back 2 tees
at left of the 14th green and how far the drive must carry the gunk when trying to drive the green.  If you pull it slightly or mishit it,
you're in the gunk.  If you head straight for the green, the front bunker is in play.  I pushed mine slightly, cleared the bunker just right
of the green, leaving a short pitch in...had I mishit it slightly, I'd have been in the bunker with a long explosion shot.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have not played either hole in question, so stop reading if you don't care to hear an opinion from the uninitiated.

Reading the description of the 18th at GM doesn't make it sound too 'reachable' to me,  i.e., 290 yard (carry) over a large water hazard, then a large bunker, and on to a shallow green. If you lay up don’t go left, because you will be in a water hazard...."

....whereas on the15th at PR there looks to be a reasonable amount of trouble (on the left side of the hole, the front and left at the green, and long right/left), just enough to draw a wider range of players into pulling the driver out of the bag than would the the set-up at GM.

That, to me at least, makes for a better all-around short par 4.



  

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

That explains why long hitting Jordan sees a different hole than I do (or that Paul saw and took a picture of). However, it would not be of the caliber of Golf Mountain IMO.

[Richard Choi]

Jim, 290 carry is a bit mis-leading as that is from the far back tee and the hole plays pretty severe downslope. Also, if you go left or right around the water, the carry is significantly less. I play from the blue tees where the yardage is 270, and the carry is about 240, but it really plays about 20 yards less than that because of the elevation.

The real trouble with the hole is not actually the hazard you have to carry, but the hazard you will face if you go off-line and go long. You can lose your ball easy if you go too far left or right.

It is a great risk reward par 4, one of my all time favorite. Haven't played Palouse Ridge yet so I can't compare, though.

[Garland Bayley]

I have not played either hole in question, so stop reading if you don't care to hear an opinion from the uninitiated.

Reading the description of the 18th at GM doesn't make it sound too 'reachable' to me,  i.e., 290 yard (carry) over a large water hazard, then a large bunker, and on to a shallow green. If you lay up don’t go left, because you will be in a water hazard...."

....whereas on the15th at PR there looks to be a reasonable amount of trouble (on the left side of the hole, the front and left at the green, and long right/left), just enough to draw a wider range of players into pulling the driver out of the bag than would the the set-up at GM.

That, to me at least, makes for a better all-around short par 4.



  

Jim,

I should have warned that Jordan had the details all wrong. Apparently he didn't have a picture to work from, as he didn't post one in his "My Home Course" piece which Ran has moved to "In My Opinion" with the reorganization.

There is no water hazard in front of the green. There is a field of bunkers on a hillock in front of the green. The water hazard is to the right of the green. There is fairway extending all the way up the left, but if you drive it green high there you are facing a short pitch to a green running away towards the water hazard.

The distance he gave is from the way back black tees. For the blues it is 280 to the center of the green, from the whites it is 250 to the center. I play whites and by extending by backswing further back than normal, I can make a 250 carry.

EDIT: See Richard's description. He would be the one most knowledgeable. Since both he and Jordan mention water hazard short of the green, it must be that the stream bends into the line of play somewhere, but in my recollection not anywhere where it would come into consideration for being difficult to carry. It is the field of bunkers that one must worry about on the carry.

EDIT2: I checked google earth. The water hazard is not a concern in the carry. It is a concern for missing right.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Keep in mind that the 18th at Gold Mountain was originally the 9th hole.  They flipped the nines in preparation for the amateur or some such.

[Garland Bayley]

Keep in mind that the 18th at Gold Mountain was originally the 9th hole.  They flipped the nines in preparation for the amateur or some such.

That would be the amateur public links held on the two courses there.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Richard and Garland,

Thanks for the info. The GM hole sounds less severe than in Jordan's description although I'm still left with the impression that the hole at PR would tempt more players into using the driver.    


edit: I had a look at the aerial view of the 18th at GM and I don't think it would tempt me to pull the driver out of my bag. It looks too risky for the small chance of attaining the green in one.

[Garland Bayley]

For me at PR, it was a green light driver from the get go. Saw little reason not to pull it.
For me a GM, it was a big debate to pull driver, but I still came out ok.

Took me 4 strokes in each case.

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

I wrote that review of Gold Mountain as a very enthusiastic 16 year old.  Unforunately, my description of the 18th at Gold Mountain is not entirely accurate.

However, I believe the 15th at Palouse and 18th at GM to both be good holes.  I don't feel the need to compare because they are very different, but in all I do believe the short-4 at Palouse provides more options off the tee and around the green. I think if you played the hole from the left tee box you might look at it differently, in a better light.

Paul, thanks for the photos.  I'm glad you liked the course, it's definitely a good one.

Oh, and as per the sixth hole, if the tee box were directly behind the fifth green, it would be far too difficult.  It's already 256 yards, no need to add twenty more while having the hole play up a huge hill.  Just my two cents.  I don't mind the walk up, either, considering you'd have to make it one way or another.

[Pete_Pittock]

For those who have played Palouse Ridge where would you place it on the Doak scale?  I usually like Harbottle courses, but it was just too far off my path this week because of time constraints.

Doak 5
Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you’re in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don’t spend another day away from home to see it, unless your home is in Alaska.

Doak 6:
A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn’t disappoint you.

Doak 7
An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf. 

 
 

[PThomas]

For those who have played Palouse Ridge where would you place it on the Doak scale?  I usually like Harbottle courses, but it was just too far off my path this week because of time constraints.

Doak 5
Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you’re in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don’t spend another day away from home to see it, unless your home is in Alaska.

Doak 6:
A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn’t disappoint you.

Doak 7
An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf. 

 
 

a 6 or 7 Peter, and i'm leaning toward the 7

[Garland Bayley]

After Gold Mountain and Juniper, this one disappointed me. A 5 is what I would suspect Tom would give it.

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

I'll take your word on it meriting a possible 7, and the photos do look good. As I recall from reading the CG, a Doak 7 was getting into some pretty rarified air -- if it is a 7, it's keeping company with some awfully good courses. The Harbottle course here in Madison (Hawks Landing, on the city's far west side) is quite polarizing -- some folks really like it, others think very little of it. Surrounded by McMansions.

[PThomas]

Paul:

I'll take your word on it meriting a possible 7, and the photos do look good. As I recall from reading the CG, a Doak 7 was getting into some pretty rarified air -- if it is a 7, it's keeping company with some awfully good courses. The Harbottle course here in Madison (Hawks Landing, on the city's far west side) is quite polarizing -- some folks really like it, others think very little of it. Surrounded by McMansions.

hi Phil

yes, 7 is high...and I could live with giving it a 6/maybe that is the correct Doak #..but definitely not a 5

i'll call it a 6.5!

[Garland Bayley]

It's more likely a 4 than a 5, but we weren't asked to consider giving it a 4.

[Jordan Wall]

This is a quote from Garland in the Chambers bay thread on Page 1.

I've posted here several times my philosophy that if you can play it, you can walk it. That means tee to green. Not green to tee. Therefore, your hikes are of no consequence in my calculation of the difficulty of the walk.

[PThomas]

This is a quote from Garland in the Chambers bay thread on Page 1.

I've posted here several times my philosophy that if you can play it, you can walk it. That means tee to green. Not green to tee. Therefore, your hikes are of no consequence in my calculation of the difficulty of the walk.

very interesting Jordan!

[Garland Bayley]

This is a quote from Garland in the Chambers bay thread on Page 1.

I've posted here several times my philosophy that if you can play it, you can walk it. That means tee to green. Not green to tee. Therefore, your hikes are of no consequence in my calculation of the difficulty of the walk.

very interesting Jordan!

What's so interesting about that. I have no problem walking the various hills you play on the course. E.g. up 9th and 18th fairways.
However, I don't see how anyone would be giving a course with the flat uninteresting greens that one has anything above a 5.

[Craig Van Egmond]

For those of you that have played Gold Mtn Harbottle course it would be interesting to what Doak rating you give in comparison to Palouse Ridge.

[Richard Choi]

I would give it a 7, no lower than 6.

[Jordan Wall]

This is a quote from Garland in the Chambers bay thread on Page 1.

I've posted here several times my philosophy that if you can play it, you can walk it. That means tee to green. Not green to tee. Therefore, your hikes are of no consequence in my calculation of the difficulty of the walk.

very interesting Jordan!

What's so interesting about that. I have no problem walking the various hills you play on the course. E.g. up 9th and 18th fairways.
However, I don't see how anyone would be giving a course with the flat uninteresting greens that one has anything above a 5.

So explain what your issue is with walking the course then, I don't get it.

I also love how the course suddenly became a '5' due to the greens instead of the walkability.

I'd love to hear why you think the greens are flat and uninteresting, because I disagree.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()