[Kyle Henderson]

Providing a suitable counterpoint to the short 2nd, the 14th is a drivable par 4 (276 meters) that calls for a fade (left-to-right). Those unable to reach the green should play well to the left, as shots down the right side will set the stage for an uphill approach over massive bunkers (note the scale-providing maintenance cart) to an obscured flagstick.

[Matthew Mollica]

Funny how nobody complains about the 14th being too easy in relation to par, just about the 13th being too hard.

Interesting Tom. Mind you, I've never found 14 too easy!

The same thing you describe happens at Newcastle 3rd & 4th Tom.

A long par 3 which is a half par with it's par rounded down. Followed by a short five, which is really a 4 for all practical purposes.
People sometimes think - just get through that stretch in 8 shots and don't read the card. Some hate that approach.

In my experience, people don't like half par holes when the par on the card is rounded down.

MM

[Mike_Clayton]

And, when 13 is into the wind 17 is downwind and quite easily reachable in two.

[Bruce Hardie]

The problem as I see it is just over that next ridge, Mark.



I have no real problem with it being a par 4.5 rounded down though. Swings and roundabouts.

[Scott Warren]

At 180m from the back tee, I measure heavy rough left to heavy rough right at 82m.

205m from the back tee it's 97m, 240m from the back tee it's 61m.

Granted, the fairway is a hogsback, but that is a pretty mammoth amount of width, with a decent strip of light rough to stop the ball before the heavy rough.

And as the old adage goes, it's only blind once.

[Kalen Braley]

I've never seen the harm in having 1, 2, or even 3 ball buster holes on a course. 

Its only when its hole after hole after hole of ball busting slogging that it becomes no fun.

[Bruce Hardie]

And as the old adage goes, it's only blind once.

With the heavy contouring in the blind landing zone in the 200-250m zone you'll never really know if you played it well or badly or got lucky or unlucky. I've found my ball 80m from where I expected it to be. That gap in the red lines is oblique to the tee position so falling of the left or right can be something of a lottery in that zone.

[Scott Warren]

Bruce/MattM/David E/Mike C/Ferg,

In your experience, do balls that land in the middle 30-40m strip of the 60 to 100-metre-wide fairway end up lost in the rough with regularity, or just balls that land toward the flanks and get a bad kick?

[Bruce Hardie]

I can't answer that. I've never seen the first bounce of a ball on that fairway.

[Mark_F]

In your experience, do balls that land in the middle 30-40m strip of the 60 to 100-metre-wide fairway end up lost in the rough with regularity, or just balls that land toward the flanks and get a bad kick?

Scott,

It is only balls that land toward the flanks, and especially those with the wrong kind of spin on them.



However, I have rarely seen balls in the right hand rough.  Anything heading that way is usually still on the fairway.

It is those who have taken an incorrect line along the left that end up in the gunk.  If you are going to go left, you either have to know you can hit it past 235m, or hit a fade that doesn't cut it too close to the edge.  When you have played the hole a couple of times, you get a feeling for where to aim on the tee.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott,

Balls that land in the strip you are talking about never finish in the rough - only marginal shots miss.
And what does 'dead' mean
Left and right of 15 at NSW is dead - i.e lost or unplayable.
There are no unplayable lies at 13 off the fairway and a lost ball here is a lost ball on 90% of holes on the sandbelt.

I can say that every drive i have ever hit off the tee has finished exactly where i thought it would. There are not too many surprises up there.
You have to hit a great drive to reach in two shots - to reach in three you can almost hit it anywhere - within reason.

[Scott Warren]

Thanks guys, that fairly well confirms my instinct having played the hole just once: that a well placed shot with respect to the golfer's length and shot shape and the daily conditions doesn't receive an unduly severe rub of the green as a result of the shapes in the (generously wide) fairway.

I do struggle to understand how on a course as wide as StAB and with the generous downhill tee shots at 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17 and 18, one slightly scary semi-blind drive to a fairway that measures 60-100m in the driving zone is somehow a problem.

Especially when the hole measures 425-450m depending on the tee used - meaning many golfers aren't getting home in two anyway.

It seems to me that some people who lament a perceived lack of interest on the drive and/or second shot are also criticising a feature that creates a hell of a lot of interest and challenge on both.

[David_Elvins]

Scott,

I would think almost all balls that land on the fairway and miss right are in light rough.  

Balls that miss left can be a bit more random.  I haven't seen the vegetation down there for a while but it is a bit random.  Sometimes you can end up in a shrub, but I think a lot of it depends on where the ball bounces.  

I think the real issue that most players really have with the hole is that the trouble left is blind and hard to see, and players on their first time round aim ALWAYS aim too far left.

The most unfortunate part of the hole IMO, which no-one else seems to comment on, is that into the wind, the slightly shorter than average hitter cannot clear the hill and a drive can role back 20m towards the tee.  Maybe the line in these conditions is further left? I don't know.  

I am as eratic a driver of the golf ball as there is, and I have never felt that the drive here was too hard.  And like Clayts said, off the clubface, you know where the ball will finish.  

[David_Elvins]

Clayts, Doak, 

Are the trees to the right of the fairway moonah trees?  Are they protected at all?  If not? why were more not pulled out?

[Mike_Clayton]

Dave,

The trees to the right are tea-trees - not Moonah.
It was tricky getting permission to even take out tea-tree but it would be better if it was removed.
Of course, if the local council wanted trees there they should be encouraging the replacement of the tea-tree with moonah.

[David_Elvins]

Dave,

The trees to the right are tea-trees - not Moonah.
It was tricky getting permission to even take out tea-tree but it would be better if it was removed.
Of course, if the local council wanted trees there they should be encouraging the replacement of the tea-tree with moonah.

Thanks Mike,

I think removing a few more would stop people aiming too far left. 

You might want to put this in the crazy basket, but what would you think about removing all of them and extending the right side of the fairway 20-30m right, creating a split level fairway (similar to barnbougle #8) where everyone could play safely to the right, but those wanting to see the green or hit down the length of the fairway with their second had to hit up high to the left. 

[Mark_F]

It was tricky getting permission to even take out tea-tree but it would be better if it was removed.
Of course, if the local council wanted trees there they should be encouraging the replacement of the tea-tree with moonah.

Mike,

It would be even better if the tea tree on the left were to suffer a sudden poisoning mishap - that way the tee could go where it was meant to, and all this controversy would be over.

It seems to me that some people who lament a perceived lack of interest on the drive and/or second shot are also criticising a feature that creates a hell of a lot of interest and challenge on both.

Scott,

I reckon it is the combination of features that added together cause all the discontent.  The lumpiest fairway on the course, a blind drive all of a sudden, a long hole that is generally into the wind.  It creates an interesting challenge, but lumpy fairways are why Sandwich is the least well regarded Open rota course, correct?

[Scott Warren]

Mark: Least well regarded by many pros (not least of all Nicklaus), yes. It still ranks ahead of a few others in the Wolf World GB&I list and in Golf Magazine's world list.

All: Given the effusive praise for the 2nd earlier in the thread, I have a question.

What elevates it above the 14th other than the exposed down down the left helping to make it more photogenic?

Is it the more severe greensite? The fact it plays downwind more often? Other factors?

To play them once and look at pics and aerials, they seem to be remarkably similar in many ways, but with the 2nd asking for a draw and the 14th a fade.

[David_Elvins]

[All: Given the effusive praise for the 2nd earlier in the thread, I have a question.

What elevates it above the 14th other than the exposed down down the left helping to make it more photogenic?

That is not a bad question, Scott. The 14th is a pretty damn good hole.  

The 2nd and 14th might be the best pair of sub 300m holes in the world.  The draw/fade aspect that you mention balances well and as does the fact they they run in almost oposite directions, meaning atleast 1 is normally close to drivable.  

I prefer the 2nd mainly because it seems to be a bit more unique.  I haven't really seen anything like it.   The 14th with its narrow, slightly off centre green sitting on a shelf with big bunkers and trouble right seems a bit less unique.  

The other reason I would prefer the 2nd is the greater range of scores.  The 2nd green gives plenty of opportunity for birdie and even eagle putts, whereas the 14th green is small and repels balls left, right,and long.  The trouble right is so penal that even after a good drive close ot the green, the player is erring to the left with their approach shot, I know I am anyway!  Also, the drive doesnt need to be too exact,  I have hit drives up the left to within 20-30m of the green and, due to the little hump in the front of the green, struggled to get anywhere near the pin with my approach, Conversely, I quite like approaching from the lower right fairway as you know as long as the approach becomes more about distance control than direction control.  

Here is a nice photo from Patrick Kiser,, showing how difficlt it is to approach down the length of the green.

[Mark_F]

Given the effusive praise for the 2nd earlier in the thread, I have a question.

What elevates it above the 14th other than the exposed down down the left helping to make it more photogenic?

Is it the more severe greensite? The fact it plays downwind more often? Other factors?

That's an interesting question, Scott.  I reckon 14 generally sits on the land a bit better than 2, but it isn't anywhere near as good a hole.

From the Clayton black tee the hole is much better - it is only about 20 metres further back, but looks much, much more, with carrying or skirting the central fairway bunker a more onerous task.  The dune along from the tee also hides more of the bowled right hand side of the fairway, making that line a little more nervy.

However, I don't like the second fairway bunker on the left, and I also don't like the greenside bunker extending all the way across the fairway.  I said to Matt M one day that I thought it would be better if half of it was filled in, and then the big hitter could also have the option of driving through to the base of the chipping area to the right and having a chip or putt up.  Not sure whether this would work or not, it was just a thought.

The green on 14 isn't anywhere near as good as 2.  There are a lot of little wrinkles as well as the more obvious contours in the second green, and being a little larger, it also has a greater variety of pin positions.

2 can be driven more often, but I am not sure it is possible to actually stick a drive on 14.  Off to the left edge seems to be the most common resting place.  

14 is a little similar in some ways to 14 at Lost Farm.  If the St Andrews Beach hole had a green as good, it would be as good a hole.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dave,


That would be a good idea I think - and at the same time they could get rid of the ridiculous clumps of grasses planted to the right of the bunkers at the 4th.
At one point I remember saying they - GCP - could have a nice quite practice fairway in there a little like the old one across the 18th fairway at Sorrento.
As it is St Andrews Beach has the best practice fairway in Australia - the 9th and 10th fairways of the Fingal course.
It also has the added advantage of players being able to use their own practice balls and not the rubbish almost every single club in the country serves up as 'practice' balls.

[Ben Stephens]

Hole 13 my driving line was over the middle of the 3 small bushes on the right and still ended up in the middle of the fairway! 

Here is my take of Hole 14


Tee shot


Split level wide fairway


Mackenzie style 'tri' bunkers fronting the green with large run off area to the right

Cheers
Ben

[Matthew Mollica]

There's some points in the preceding posts with which I can't really agree. Excluding Mark & David's words, which I feel sum things up pretty accurately.

As one who once spent two hours camped at the top of that fairway, watching lots of balls off the tee, I've got some sort of experience on this hole few might possess. It also signifies I've got some problems, but we'll deal with those another time.

There's a central portion of "functional" (call it receptive) fairway which is a minority of total fairway cut width. To assert the fairway is easy to hold, particularly in light of a width measurement in excess of 50 yards is a position which reflects limited understanding of the hole. I've used Ross' crowned greens at Seminole as an example of the need for accuracy when discussing this fairway - the receptive area is a fraction of the mown area.

When I observed many groups coming through, some balls rolled dozens of metres sideways. Guys spent many minutes looking forward and back, only to have landed just right of the receptive fairway segment, and have their balls roll 40m right. They finished very lateral to where they though the ball would wind up. Some found them and some didn't. Some guys landed just left of the repetive central fairway segment, and lost their ball left, or rolled off the fairway cut, into a rough depression from which getting to the green in 3 was a feat.

There's areas to the left of that fairway that result in lost balls - there is no question. That is more the case now than ever with flora growth around the course, and limited attention to such.

The correct line from the tee is difficult to determine, and to first time visitors, seems more left than is the case. I think we have reached consensus that much of the fairway cut repels balls sideways. How many quality holes fit this description? How often does a ball repelling fairway feature on a sandbelt course? Or any Australian course of quality? I just don't think that's the best way to provide thrills, enjoyment and challenge to golfers, especially when St. Andrews Beach does it so well at virtually every other step of the way.

The most unfortunate part of the hole IMO, which no-one else seems to comment on, is that into the wind, the slightly shorter than average hitter cannot clear the hill and a drive can role back 20m towards the tee.  

Dave - that's what I'm getting at with previous posts. Mark's posted a photo of the landing zone for the short hitter, in response to my comments on that front. The roll back is one issue. The blind second from that point is another.

MM

[Tom_Doak]

When I first laid out #14, a long time before the course was built, I only visualized that the left half of the fairway would be fairway.  It seemed like a wide enough target -- but, missing into the native in the low area to the right was going to result in a lot of lost balls.

I think it was Brian Slawnik, or possibly Brian Schneider, who suggested making the bowl on the right fairway, too.  I like the change.  The ideal spot to drive it is actually the middle of the fairway, just on top of the ridge; but if you miss just a little to the right, you have an uphill, blind approach to a difficult, narrow target.

I'm guessing people prefer #2 because the second shot is a bit easier and more visible.  Also, a long left-to-right tee shot is not likely to run up to the green on 14, whereas a draw on #2 has a reasonable chance of bouncing up onto the green [and maybe right through it].

[Mark_F]

As one who once spent two hours camped at the top of that fairway, watching lots of balls off the tee, I've got some sort of experience on this hole few might possess.

Actually, Matt, you have experience of watching the hole for two hours, nothing more or less

I think we have reached consensus that much of the fairway cut repels balls sideways.  How often does a ball repelling fairway feature on a sandbelt course? Or an Australian course of quality?

National Old and Moonah?  As these quotes from the club's own website attest:

Strong players have a definite advantage here since they can reach a flatter section of the fairway, whilst weaker drives will tend to roll backwards.

3rd Hole Old

Long drivers will take advantage of the downslope to set up a pitch to the green. Others will be left with a difficult second shot from a downhill lie.

11th Hole Old.

A semi blind tee shot is particularly challenging for shorter hitters who play to the heavily contoured narrower section of fairway.

National Moonah 9.

How many quality holes fit this description?

Off the top of my head, 4 Rye, 13 Silloth on Solway, 3 and 5 Lost Farm, 3 and 9 Barnbougle Dunes, 3rd (from memory)Macrihanish.

There's areas to the left of that fairway that result in lost balls - there is no question. That is more the case now than ever with flora growth around the course, and limited attention to such.

They never should have vegetated the area in the manner they did, but that was something out of Doak/Clayton control.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()