Wine Valley -- Wow indeed !

[Matt_Ward]

Tiger:

You say "love fest" -- OK , but consider the quality of courses played -- I didn't mention the turkeys I played (just yet).

kyegoalby:

True, the 4th can be pushed up with its tee boxes. But I try to look at how the architect views the hole from his original conception -- the 4th is set for 390 yards. Let me point out that other holes at Wine Valley can be changed too. The uphill 14th can be pushed just a bit up and play as a long par-4 -- ditto the 18th which can be played a good bit shorter to do that. All of these "moves" are manipulations and while they can add a good bit to the conversation I try to look at the original intent of the architect and judge the course from that perspective. Do not misunderstand me I still see WV as being a gem of a layout -- has nearly the entire package for what the un-affiliated player is seeking.

Bill McBride:

What I meant to say is simply this -- the 8th is among holes at WV that allow the higher handicap the room to breathe without cluttering up the design with a battlefield of items to either fly over or have to escape -- in short, they can be bogeyed and that level of player can also make pars from time to time. The better payer is challenged through the positioning of the greens -- in the 8th's case it's diagonally set-up and the green has plenty of pitch and contour to mandate a first rate approach to have a go at the birdie putt.

Michael Moore:

Thanks -- but you forgot to mention I was allowed away from the rubber room during this recent visit out west.

[Kye Goalby]

oops- removed.  Will re-post later

[Kye Goalby]

kyegoalby:

True, the 4th can be pushed up with its tee boxes. But I try to look at how the architect views the hole from his original conception -- the 4th is set for 390 yards. Let me point out that other holes at Wine Valley can be changed too. The uphill 14th can be pushed just a bit up and play as a long par-4 -- ditto the 18th which can be played a good bit shorter to do that. All of these "moves" are manipulations and while they can add a good bit to the conversation I try to look at the original intent of the architect and judge the course from that perspective. Do not misunderstand me I still see WV as being a gem of a layout -- has nearly the entire package for what the un-affiliated player is seeking.


Matt,

Since you try to see the hole from the perspective of how it was conceived, I can promise you the back two sets of tees on the fourth were last second additions prior to seeding at the request of the owners. The hole was absolutely created to be a short (under 350) par four with multiple options-including hitting driver at the green.

The back  two sets of tees were added because the owner, a  very good player,  basically wanted scorecard yardage and there was room to go up the hill (also see  post construction addition of back tee on 7) and  they had a bit of concern  that a  potentially driveable hole could create slow play issues.  

Since the length of the hole was conceived to be under 350 does your view change and the alluded to weakness of the course go away?

As someone who sounds like a big hitter I  would also really like to hear how you think you would play the hole from 330 as opposed to 390?  


One other piece of info:

The greens superintendent out there you mentioned is Tyler Daniels, a former golf pro (really good player), who was also on site throughout construction doing just about every possible dirty job (and is a helluva shot with a .22!). I am pretty sure he is still being assisted by another great and talented guy, Chris Borgman, who spent every day on site during construction and his skill and talent was a huge help getting the greens finished to perfection. So, he knows every intricate detail about them - and it sounds like it shows.

Speaking of the greens, I  really appreciate your nice comments about them. A lot of people worked very hard to get all elements of them to come together  strategically, aesthetically and agronomically. It is nice to hear that being noticed.  Thanks

P.S.   The other options you mentioned for adjusting holes (15 and 18) were not the original intent- they were meant to play  just as you played them.

[Matt_Ward]

kyegoalby:

Thanks for the info and inside perspective.

Too bad the original intent wasn't followed -- the owner could have achieved the needed yardage elsewhere.

Yes, what you provided does help me realize what was being contemplated but was aborted for the reasons you cited.

I like the 350-yard equation -- I would opt for the green if circumstances permitted it. The right side gives you room for the tee ball because anything tugged left is not going to provide a real future for the player. The issue though is does the green provide sufficient contours and different sections that would put pressure on players who cannot manage themselves with their approach. I like what the green is but the key for any potential outstanding short par-4 is to have a challenge both on the tee shot dimension and the green. I don't believe the existing green provides that final elemtn.

Your thoughts ?

[Matt_Ward]

WV's 9th hole plays 455 yards -- slightly uphill.

The hole turns softly to the left with a solitary bunker on that side -- in fact, the bunker is roughly 70 yards in length. It appears you have all the room to the right and that is where the architect is baiting the player. The more right you go the more daunting the approach. H20 guards much of the right side of the green with another bunker also thrown into the mix. The close to the left you hit the tee shot the better the approach angle.

Even after doing that -- should the pin be in the right corner the best play is hit to the center of the green. The putt is far from automatic but it avoids putting DB or even worse on the card.

A solid closer to the out bound nine.

[Richard Choi]

Not a big fan of the 9th hole. The large pond is out of characteristic with the rest of the course. There is also a small ridge you have to carry off the drive and if you fail to carry it, you have no idea that the shot that you just hit which you thought was pretty good is now wet.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

Nothing wrong in having detention ponds on any course. If people can rave about County Down and it has the most out of place water hazard one can imagine at the 17th there -- the 9th is fine.

Tough par-4 holes rarely get much love.

Be curious to know your favorite hole at the course and given that you have played Chambers Bay how would you assess the two side-to-side.

Gents:

Just to let people know because I was asked this several times off line -- peak rates at WV are $75 -- you can walk -- power carts are $30. Still when a cart is shared the overall rate is still less than $100. The reply rate during peak times is $40. A solid deal indeed.  Range balls are included.

[Michael Dugger]

I love Wine Valley and I am friends with both Dan Hixson and Slag.  I'd never want to hurt their feelings because in the grand scheme of things the course is killer.

But I yearn/yearned for a drivable par 4 out there too.

Even at 350, I don't consider #4 to be that hole.  It's slightly uphill.  There is a bit of a hump to the side of the bunker to clear.  Nor is the green terribly receptive to that type of shot.  It repels some low burning approach shots, surely a driver will not stick.

I think of a drivable par 4 to be something in the 300 yd range.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Sometimes the issue boils down to the decision to have five par-5 and five par-3 holes. Sometimes in reducing the amount of par-4 holes in total -- you lose that opportunity to insert a quality short par-4 into the mix.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, I have posted my thoughts about Chambers and Wine Valley (and Rustic Canyon) on this thread...

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40356.0/

[Sean Leary]

Matt, I have posted my thoughts about Chambers and Wine Valley (and Rustic Canyon) on this thread...

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40356.0/

But you aren't exactly rational about Chambers, so it isn't really that helpful..

[Garland Bayley]

Michael,

Kye wrote the back tee was to be at 330. Apparently, the next back tees would have been in your wheel house at around 300. I believe that's what the white's are today.

Tee it up there. No one is stopping you. That's what Dan intended for you to do.

[Garland Bayley]

In support of Richard, I would remind everyone that TD has written that if the water hazard did not exist before the course was built, it doesn't belong there.

[Anthony Gray]

Michael:

Sometimes the issue boils down to the decision to have five par-5 and five par-3 holes. Sometimes in reducing the amount of par-4 holes in total -- you lose that opportunity to insert a quality short par-4 into the mix.

  At WV you dont notice there are 5 par 3s and par 5s they blend in and flow very well.

  Anthony

[Matt_Ward]

Anthony:

The issue is not whether they par-5 and par-3 holes blend in well together -- it's whether the cumulative nature of the par-4 holes is at its maximum at WV. I believe one less par-5 and par-3 hole would have added to the combination of par-4 holes at the course. Just my opinion.

No doubt people can move tees around -- but the original intent of the architect simply left off a driveable risk/reward par-4 off when linked to the back tees currently in use.

FYI -- at the 4th one would have to play the hole from the extreme front tee to get a length near 300 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

The 10th at WV is a 600+ yard par-5 that plays back into the prevailing wind -- a decent hole but lacking in any comparable strategic elements you get from the other holes there. There are no bunkers in the drive and 2nd shot areas and I believe if a center-placed bunker(s) were added it would add a bit more thinking when you step on the tee.

Those who opt for the green in two blows -- will need to avoid pulling their 2nd shots to the left -- the approach fromt he left side is quite demanding given the drop-off from that side of the putting surface.

[Matt_Ward]

WV's par-3 11th is one of the weaker holes on the course and in my mind the weakest on the inner half. The green is fairly straightforward it provides a great opportunity for birdie given the stretch of holes that follow.

The uphill 12th is listed at 435 yards but plays at least 25 yards longer given the rise from tee to green.

The thing about the 12th is that the green is quite deep -- almost 40 yards so with any pin placement near the rear you need to make sure you have sufficient stick in your hand. A very tough hole that starts the concluding series of holes that makes WV so very special and fun to play.

[RJ_Daley]

The 10th at WV is a 600+ yard par-5 that plays back into the prevailing wind -- a decent hole but lacking in any comparable strategic elements you get from the other holes there. There are no bunkers in the drive and 2nd shot areas and I believe if a center-placed bunker(s) were added it would add a bit more thinking when you step on the tee.

Those who opt for the green in two blows -- will need to avoid pulling their 2nd shots to the left -- the approach fromt he left side is quite demanding given the drop-off from that side of the putting surface.

This brings to mind the placement of the bathtub size bunker on the 13th at Rustic Canyon.  Not a big gathering bunker, but with enough influence to get one's attention.  But, at what distance to place such on such a long hole; maybe at the 240 forward tees, 280 back tees? 

Matt really, how many folks reading this explanation of 'those who opt for the green in two blows' take that comment to heart?  Unless it is some serious downhill tee to green elevation change, I'm thinking less than 1/2 of 1% of golfers relate to that! 

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

I like what Doak did w the 3rd at Pac Dunes. You can have two bunkers placed 60 or so yards apart to account for the different wind directions. Either way they are present and give the player a bit of thought before pulling the trigger.

RJ, if you saw the firm and fast conditions at WV you'd be surprised at how close someone can get there. I grant you it's a very, very small percentage but others can get near to the target -- having another bunker nearer to the lay-up area would also be a plus.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, I agree with that concept yo explain at PD.  Do you think this is one 'suggestion' for future consideration at WV that would be taken seriously in the future?  I would like to hear what Kye has to say about such original design modification in this one particular regard of setting a moderate centerline B configuration on such a hole design.  

This same idea can be thought of on Wild Horse 6th, the bunkerless par 5.  But, in that case, there is enough ground movement in elevation change and angles off tee and second shot, along with a very well crafted green, that in that case, I don't think a center line bunker would be needed.  One, very small one (again in the vain of the Rustic Canyon bathtub on 13) but in the very wide second shot layup area at WH 6th, might be a notion to ponder.  But, I don't necessarily want to second guess the design intent, as it was always a solid and cohesive one from the start out there at WH.   The sum at WV may be also of this concept of not to tinker.

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

I can't say for certain what will happen in the future - but the 10th and 11th holes at WV are a bit of a lull in the overall course. I don't view corrective actions as a "tinker" but more as an awareness on how to make a hole better than what is there now. Given the 10th's length -- it generally plays into the prevailing wind -- the feeling may bave been that less is more and that players have enough to tackle without adding more minefields.

[RJ_Daley]

I don't know how current this photo is of the 12, but it looks like that was mown with a 7 gang.  But, that may be just after grow in.  Most of the other FW photos look like triplex.  But, if the idea might be efficient mowing considerations, maybe the design intent had to be sparing with mid centerline bunkers.  Again, I'd like to hear from Dan or Kye or Slag on that aspect of keeping the bunkering numbers down and mowing times and crew lean. 

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

The problem with photos and their interpretation is that it often fails to mirror what is THERE.

I'm sure the folks in the know can respond to your comments.

My point was that the 10th might be helped by such an addition -- it doesn't mean it has to be.

In regards to the 12th -- it is what I mentioned previously. A demanding hole calling for two quality shots
to get to the target and then a fine touch to hopefully leave with a par in hand.

[Bill_McBride]

This brings to mind the placement of the bathtub size bunker on the 13th at Rustic Canyon.  Not a big gathering bunker, but with enough influence to get one's attention.  But, at what distance to place such on such a long hole; maybe at the 240 forward tees, 280 back tees? 

Thanks for bring up that hole at Rustic.   I love the center bunker and the central Lion's Mouth bunker at the green.  Depending on where the pin is located, you are steered to one side or another, but the second set of fairway bunkers can suddenly make what seems like a hundred yard wide fairway seem very narrow!

[jeffwarne]

Michael,

Kye wrote the back tee was to be at 330. Apparently, the next back tees would have been in your wheel house at around 300. I believe that's what the white's are today.

Tee it up there. No one is stopping you. That's what Dan intended for you to do.

That reminds me of the members who complain that a certain hole is too short-and they are playing one-two tees up