Galloway National: A Fazio Course I ACTUALLY LIKE

[Kyle Harris]

Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought.  With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in.  From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot.  The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.

The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision.  The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective.  However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle?  The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.

What you are describing here is much more closer to a penal setup than a strategic setup, in my estimation of the situation. The strategy you're describing is very one-dimensional and you're even admitting that the bunker is only a factor if the player plays more to the left. The fact that you and Joe can have such varied results without the direct influence of the bunker tells me there are options to consider outside of how close to the bunker one is willing to play. Would a ball hit somewhere in the 35 yards between yours and Joe's shot but along a line 10 yards further to the right find more advantage or less advantage relative to both positions? I can infer with geometry that I can play away from the hazard and have a shot of 150 from an ideal angle based simply on these descriptions. For a better player this can amount to nothing more than a 3wood and 9iron that comes nowhere near the bunker. However, with your distance limitations you were forced to take on the hazard to get closer to the hole. This is similar to a player with distance limitations being much more concerned with a 180 yard carry than a player without those limitations.... see my point?

That sort of wiggle room is the criticism Robert Deruntz was applying to the golf course. There seems to be a large amount of space in the fairway not influenced by the bunker in which players can gain similar advantages to the ones earned by you and Joe with your selected lines.

[Michael Blake]

Kyle,

I hope you get a chance to play the hole.
It may (or perhaps may not) change your theory regarding the nature of the bunker.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I hope you get a chance to play the hole.
It may (or perhaps may not) change your theory regarding the nature of the bunker.

Maybe. Strategy is become an often mis- or overused term in regard to golf architecture. So much so that I believe it is losing meaning.

[Matt_Ward]

GN forces the stronger / better players to club down on a number of holes. Hitting full out with the driver pays little dividends because TF has narrowed the corridors available and you can't be an iota wide right or left of those specific points in order to have the ultimate angle into the target.

Hitting 3-metal likely is the smarter play because you provide yourself with a wider corridor and give yourself as well a larger amrgin of error to play.

Kyle -- let me point out that the hole in question at GN is fairly similar to the 16th at Harbour Town Golf Links. The bunker at the SC-located course does something of a similar sort. No doubt the distance dimension is different -- and the hole at HTGL does feature a solitary tree that stands guard to the right center of the hole.

JNC''s point about the need to cozy up to the bunker is clearly a strategic calculation for him. For the stronger players the decision will be whether to risk driver and get the max out of its overall length and with that possibly sacrifice control. Different options for different levels of players. Both hole aren't pure Cape-type holes but there are choices and it's certainly not in my mind penal.

The thing about GN is that tee game objectives are so crucial because choosing wisely is the key to succeeding there when playing.

Kyle, maybe your understanding of the meaning of the word "strategy" is confused.

[Kyle Harris]

GN forces the stronger / better players to club down on a number of holes. Hitting full out with the driver pays little dividends because TF has narrowed the corridors available and you can't be an iota wide right or left of those specific points in order to have the ultimate angle into the target.

Hitting 3-metal likely is the smarter play because you provide yourself with a wider corridor and give yourself as well a larger amrgin of error to play.

Kyle -- let me point out that the hole in question at GN is fairly similar to the 16th at Harbour Town Golf Links. The bunker at the SC-located course does something of a similar sort. No doubt the distance dimension is different -- and the hole at HTGL does feature a solitary tree that stands guard to the right center of the hole.

JNC''s point about the need to cozy up to the bunker is clearly a strategic calculation for him. For the stronger players the decision will be whether to risk driver and get the max out of its overall length and with that possibly sacrifice control. Different options for different levels of players. Both hole aren't pure Cape-type holes but there are choices and it's certainly not in my mind penal.

The thing about GN is that tee game objectives are so crucial because choosing wisely is the key to succeeding there when playing.

Kyle, maybe your understanding of the meaning of the word "strategy" is confused.

I've outlined my understanding. I am using a closed definition that works for me with no arbitrary qualifiers that solely relate to this hole. I acknowledge there are differences in what determines strategy to different people but I feel the decisions made for this particular hole are more properly deemed tactical and nobody has describing something outside of my model. It is self-evident that a player playing inside of a dogleg will gain a distance advantage over a player playing outside of a dogleg. Unless the bunker is placed in such a way that such a self-evident decision is either changed, as in the 11th hole at Lederach, or there is significant variance in the distance advantage directly caused by the bunker, as in the short 16th hole at World Woods Pine Barrens. I do not view this bunker as strategic. As Joe and John's play has demonstrated, the bunker is not the factor in the ability of a player to gain a distance or angle advantage. From the aerial, it appears that the trees are the major strategic factor.

I don't think it's a bad hole if it doesn't fit my definition of what determines strategy. It is important to note that we are discussing the strategic implications of this bunker, and not the hole itself. The bunker does little to influence the strategy of the hole, especially when compared to the tree lines, angle of the dogleg, width of the fairway, etc.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Kyle has a correct understanding of how hazards function and the use of strategy.  The 4th is a flawed hole that easily could be made into a very strong hole architecturally.  The elimination of the waste bunker and prudent tree removal down the right approach would make the hole solid.  The risk/reward would be carrying the trees for a shorter approach shot. Because the greens usually play very firm, the challenge of the left trees is very viable for access to a right side pin

At some point the weakness of the 7th will be discussed

[Matt_Ward]

Robert MD:

When will the weakness of your belief that GN is not remotely close to a top ten status among all Jersey courses be discussed ?

Hawk Pointe ?

Deal ?

Your move ...

[JNC Lyon]

Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought.  With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in.  From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot.  The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.

The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision.  The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective.  However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle?  The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.

What you are describing here is much more closer to a penal setup than a strategic setup, in my estimation of the situation. The strategy you're describing is very one-dimensional and you're even admitting that the bunker is only a factor if the player plays more to the left. The fact that you and Joe can have such varied results without the direct influence of the bunker tells me there are options to consider outside of how close to the bunker one is willing to play. Would a ball hit somewhere in the 35 yards between yours and Joe's shot but along a line 10 yards further to the right find more advantage or less advantage relative to both positions? I can infer with geometry that I can play away from the hazard and have a shot of 150 from an ideal angle based simply on these descriptions. For a better player this can amount to nothing more than a 3wood and 9iron that comes nowhere near the bunker. However, with your distance limitations you were forced to take on the hazard to get closer to the hole. This is similar to a player with distance limitations being much more concerned with a 180 yard carry than a player without those limitations.... see my point?

That sort of wiggle room is the criticism Robert Deruntz was applying to the golf course. There seems to be a large amount of space in the fairway not influenced by the bunker in which players can gain similar advantages to the ones earned by you and Joe with your selected lines.

Whether or not this shot 10 yards away from the hazard would find an advantage depends on the pin position.  If the pin was on the far right part of the green, my drive would be in a better position.  In general, a tee shot of one exact distance will gain an advantage by choosing a line closest to the bunker.  It's also one of those strange holes where the shorter hitter off the tee will have a better angle into the green if he hugs the bunker.  A longer hitter will have a shorter shot in but will have a poorer angle.

To my mind, the left tree line serves no strategic purpose on the 4th.  Even if the trees were not there, only the longest of hitters could carry the waste bunker.  Even then, it would be useless to do so because such a tee shot would scoot through the other side of the fairway and leave an awkward angle.

Additionally, the terrain in the fairway is quite interesting.  The 4th has a reverse camber fairway, meaning the golfer has to hit a controlled draw to find the spot from which to approach the green.  A good deal of thought is required before playing the 4th.  A golfer cannot simply blast away and assume he will get a good angle into the green.

Besides all of this talk about the strategy of the tee shot, the green at the 4th is quite good, providing an out for the weaker player and reasonable rewards and punishments for the bold. I'm a fan of the 4th, though it's not my favorite hole on the course.

[Kyle Harris]

JNC:

Without the trees, players could decide the shot shape which lands in this very varied ground on the fairway. From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest. Though a player could try an aggressive draw and take the bunker out of the equation and still cozy into position between the spots where your ball and Joe's ball stopped.

Your explanation is just demonstrating how there are other much more critical factors to the shot selection from the tee than that bunker. Can you see the green from the tee? Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?

I mean, it's just that the more I keep hearing about how this hole can be played from you and others, the more I'm becoming steadfast in my feeling that the bunker presents a tactical obstacle and not a strategic one. There just aren't all that many differing options presented by the position of the bunker that influence how one plays the hole.

[Sev K-H Keil]

... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....

... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...

As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?

To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.

GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.

[JNC Lyon]

... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....

... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...

As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?

To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.

GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.

Sev,

Kyle can definitely get part of the way there using geometry for his analysis of the 4th.  I agree, though, that some folks simply need to see the course to fully judge the strategic implications of each hole.  I think Kyle and most others on this board would agree about that.

[Kyle Harris]

... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....

... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...

As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?

To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.

GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.

Sev:

With no intention to sound arrogant, but is my analysis of the ability to hit a fade off the back or any of the tees accurate? Google aerials are useful for determining carry lengths, etc. All of my statements are qualified with "it appears that," etc.

Have you read my definitions and explanations of what I consider strategic and what I consider tactic?

[Joe Bausch]

The hole diagram rendering below is pretty good:

[Mark McKeever]

Kyle,  you could hit a fade on this hole off the tee and find the middle of the fairway.  It's actually quite wide on the right.  

Hopefully you can play the course at some point and see.  Google doesn't quite give you everything...

Mark

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,  you could hit a fade on this hole off the tee and find the middle of the fairway.  It's actually quite wide on the right.  

Hopefully you can play the course at some point and see.  Google doesn't quite give you everything...

Mark

Mark:

My point was that one couldn't fade the ball into the position Joe and John were. For a strategic feature, approaching the bunker is fairly one-dimensional, don't you think? There isn't much strategy to be employed when only one tactic is possible or reasonable. Ask yourself this question: are there any skill sets for golfers that would make playing away from the hazard an advantage? The bunker is next to the position where every golfer would like to be in a position that penalizes poor execution without exposing a poor decision. What is the strategic decision presented by this bunker?

Google doesn't show everything, but playing it isn't likely to change my opinion on the strategic nature of the bunker. Sorry. That bunker does nothing to alter or influence the strategy of the hole, making it a non-strategic hazard. The play is to play as near to the edge of the fairway at the inside of the dogleg as possible, which happens to be defined by a bunker. The bunker is not defining this position as ideal, the fairway cut and tree lines are.

I think a good number of responders on this thread are falling into that trap that a feature that isn't strategic is bad. I think it's a fine hole. Not terribly sophisticated in strategy. All the issues are at the tactical level. But still a hole that requires skill to score on.

[Matt_Ward]

Can someone explain to me -- forgive my ignorance -- but how does anyone opine on a hole / course without really playing it ?

JNC's previous post on this element is spot on.

Analysis needs to be in the first person from playing and seeing firsthand what happens.

Forgive me if that sounds a bit much on my part to expect as much.

[Sean Leary]

Can someone explain to me -- forgive my ignorance -- but how does anyone opine on a hole / course without really playing it ?

Matt,

Have you played Augusta? Both pre and post alterations? You opine on that pretty well....

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

No, I have not played ANGC -- only walked in numerous times since 1976 -- been at 20+ Masters.

Oh, by the way, Doak didn't play all of his courses in CG -- if you see playing as the only way to rate -- that's fine.

Just be sure to apply that standard to all -- including the architects.

If someone can either walk the layout in question or better yet play it that's fine with me.

One other thing -- please explain to me how my comments on ANGC are all wet. Happy to hear your defense of the current 11th hole as pictured in GD's current issue.

[Sean Leary]

Sean:

No, I have not played ANGC -- only walked in numerous times since 1976 -- been at 20+ Masters.

Oh, by the way, Doak didn't play all of his courses in CG -- if you see playing as the only way to rate -- that's fine.

Just be sure to apply that standard to all -- including the architects.

If someone can either walk the layout in question or better yet play it that's fine with me.

One other thing -- please explain to me how my comments on ANGC are all wet. Happy to hear your defense of the current 11th hole as pictured in GD's current issue.

Matt, you called people out about opining about a course that they had not played, yet you opine A LOT and VERY dismissively to others about ANGC which you have not played. Thats it. End of story. Its hypocritical, that is all.

[Kyle Harris]

Matt:

With all respect, I am opining on people's experiences and their conclusions. I am able to reach my own.

How does your own playing of the hole fit with my conclusions, using my definitions? If you're going to say that it's strategic because X then we're just going to disagree and the discussion will go nowhere. Strategic is a word that is incredibly overused and has gotten to the point where it has lost almost all meaning in terms of how a hole actually plays. I'm seeking a more stringent definition which NOTHING any contributor to this thread, who have played the golf course, have been able to meet through their own experiences. I should note that I am not in the camp that glorifies all that is strategic in golf, nor do I think that terms like penal and lack-of-options mean bad golf design. It amazes me how offended people seem to be when I opine that the bunker isn't strategic, as though that were some knock against the design. It's not, nor is it ever intended to be.

I think the "not playing the golf course" retort is a canard. My seeing the hole is unlikely to change my analysis that the bunker is not a strategic hazard. I'm relying heavily on people who have played the golf course's experience and attempting to match my definitions to those experiences. It's all pretty clear to those reading it how I'm defining things and the discussion has moved forward in those instances.

I'll throw you a softball here, don't bother to respond to this unless you're going to discuss the underlying premise of my definitions or attempt to explain how my definitions fit to the bunker in question.

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

I never said you can't reach your own conclusions. The issue is what they are based upon.

But playing the hole in question permits a much more direct connection - you say it's a cannard -- quite frankly, it's a dodge ball retort on your end. You know you can't answer the question from a direct connection -- so you dismiss it as being irrlevant. People who weigh things from nothing more than e-mail chit chat without either playing the hole or at least seeing it fiirsthand by walking the property are essentially deep left field seat observers. You think you have a view of the game from such a far removed perspective -- you may see the outline but you don't see the details directly. Trust me we won't agree here. Nuff said.

Sean:

Yes, playing is the ideal way for people to comment -- but walking is not far beyond. In fact, people have even said that walking without playing allows for a better connection. So long as people are personally on the grounds of a facility and have duly observed all the critical comments I have no issue with that. Sure, playing is the direct connection because you can see how your shots are handled by the design -- however, walking allows for people to not be solely focused on they play or their game is that particular day.

I stand by what I said -- if people have not played or walked a course then doing commentary from photos and third had accounts douesn't cut it.

Let me ask you this -- is Doak also less of an observer because he didn't play all the courses in CG ?

In regards to ANGC -- I have personally walked the property plenty of times -- seen the coursr in the pre Hootie time frame and afterwards. Is it as good as playiing -- no. But it's far better than those who have done neither. Let me also point out that those who defend ANGC need to answer what I have asked -- do the post Hootie changes really align themselves to the original intent of Jones / Mackenzie who wantred a parksland TOC layout. How does the second cut do that ? How does the insertion of those pine trees to clog driving lanes do that ? How does the inane lengthening of certain holes -- the 7th most especially -- do that. These are all fair questions Sean -- they are needed to be answered. I have seen Augusta personally more times than many other people on this site -- I have respect for what the ole Augusta exemplified -- not the one that is touted today. You can characterize it anyway you wish.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

I never said you can't reach your own conclusions. The issue is what they are based upon.

But playing the hole in question permits a much more direct connection - you say it's a cannard -- quite frankly, it's a dodge ball retort on your end. You know you can't answer the question from a direct connection -- so you dismiss it as being irrlevant. People who weigh things from nothing more than e-mail chit chat without either playing the hole or at least seeing it fiirsthand by walking the property are essentially deep left field seat observers. You think you have a view of the game from such a far removed perspective -- you may see the outline but you don't see the details directly. Trust me we won't agree here. Nuff said.

Yet, my analysis is supported by some who have played the golf course. That's why it's a canard, we got beyond your opinion on how playing the golf course helps very early on in this conversation.

What is the question posed that I can't answer?

[Matt_Ward]

Kyle:

Here's the simple FACT -- not question -- you have not played or walked the course. How bout a direct connection before all the comments.

Continue to live in your self-enclosed bubble approach. Like I said -- it's the belief that if we WATCH the game from the deep left field seats we really understand what is taking place on the field.

Under your defiinition of things -- who needs to play or even walk the courses. We can simply take what others have said and then profess our knowledge from what they say and from photos. That is a stretch of epic proportions.

If you want to talk theory -- then by all means knock yourself out.

But, without personal observation and / or playing the course it opens you up to be seen as a distant observer at best and with that a lessening of what you can add.

Kyle, you are a smart guy and generally capable observer -- try to realize that personal connection is a fundamental element to really elevating the conversation beyond the outside / in approach you seem to favor. Just something for you think about.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

Here's the simple FACT -- not question -- you have not played or walked the course. How bout a direct connection before all the comments.

Continue to live in your self-enclosed bubble approach. Like I said -- it's the belief that if we WATCH the game from the deep left field seats we really understand what is taking place on the field.

Under your defiinition of things -- who needs to play or even walk the courses. We can simply take what others have said and then profess our knowledge from what they say and from photos. That is a stretch of epic proportions.

If you want to talk theory -- then by all means knock yourself out.

But, without personal observation and / or playing the course it opens you up to be seen as a distant observer at best and with that a lessening of what you can add.

Kyle, you are a smart guy and generally capable observer -- try to realize that personal connection is a fundamental element to really elevating the conversation beyond the outside / in approach you seem to favor. Just something for you think about.

Matt:

The question is whether or not the FACT that I haven't played the golf course MAKES my observations true or not. Just because I haven't played the golf course, does not mean my analysis is incorrect or unworthy. I would love to hear your personal experiences that invalidate my opinion that the bunker on the 4th hole at Galloway National is not a strategic one.

[JESII]

I've only really read Kyle's last post so I don't really know what the full disagreement is, but if the large bunker on the inside corner or #4 at Galloway is considered to have no strategic importance to the hole I'm really glad nobody asks for my opinion of the word strategic...