[Phil McDade]

To Others,

To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole?  That's been done a lot.  This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind.  What's bad about that?

Because it's silly, and doesn't take advantage of the terrain and features -- most of which, if not all, I like -- that are there in the first place.

First, I'd start with the premise that good golf holes (let's rule out par 3s for this discussion to keep it simpler) ought to provide at least a couple of options on how to approach playing them. Not all holes -- I'm all in favor (channelling Sweeney here, I think, from a long-ago thread) of holes that scream: "You want options? Here's your option -- hit a drive 250 yards over gunk to even find the fairway, and then get out a long iron for your approach shot, or you end up with a big number." Hard, long, tough holes are fine.

But that's not this hole. It's of modest length -- 381 yds from the tips! -- and offers plenty of width in the playing corridor. OK, cool. Now what to do with it? Why not provide one corridor for the bolder, riskier (better?), more adventurous player, and a different avenue for the golfer just looking to get around the course without blow-ups and disasters? I look for holes like this all the time on golf courses; there honestly aren't that many of them. (Sure, the ones we study and debate to death here on GCA, but most courses are pretty one-dimensional, even some very good ones.) I think the architect pretty much concedes this this is his approach with the placement of the centerline bunker. Why else do architects place centerline bunkers, if not to create separate playing corridors that create different strategic options and approaches? Otherwise it's just a thing -- like a pond or stream -- that has to be crossed on the journey toward the green. (I'd note this centerline bunker has the added virtue of being able to be carried on the fly by the bold golfer sure with his driver.)

Doesn't the architect want to create some interesting choices for the golfer? Instead, this hole offers up something along the lines of a one-time visual deception, in that -- perhaps -- your eye is drawn toward the line of charm and the green in the distance, and the direct route there, but instead the safer, prudent and wise choice off the tee -- for both the drive and approach shot -- is to go right.

Like George, I'm a pretty wayward player, and short to boot, and thus this hole has a lot of potential appeal to someone like me. But standing on the tee, there's no way I'd go for the option left, knowing what lies ahead with the fronting bunkers, angled green and table-top approach (and that's not even knowing the severe fall-off on the backside). I'd choose the right corridor every time; taking on the narrower corridor left, successfully executed, provides no gain. But make that approach into the green easier from the left side, and on a good day with my driver I'm tempted to take the left side corridor (even more so, given my tendency to hit banana slices -- give me an option left, and I know I don't ever have to think about that bunker along the right side of the fairway).

Thus, from my perspective, the fault of the design is that it doesn't make me think on the tee. A good opportunity wasted.

[George Pazin]

What if there's another hole on the course that provides the more standard approach?

I have no problem with any hole favoring a certain drive all the time; to me, that's infinitely preferable to the occasional "hit it 250 to find the fairway or else". I don't think those holes really should ever exist. There should always be a way for a shorter golfer to get around. And I'm not particularly short.

Looks like a fine hole to me. There's no need for every hole to offer multiple options, as long as some do. There's no need for every hole to make you think on the tee, as long as some do.

I don't view the left side as an area one would choose, merely as fairway available should someone not execute. To me, flipping the orientation of the green would simply flip the side of the fairway I'd always favor. And I'd rarely hit either...

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I suspect that you wouldn't like the course.  There are many bunkers and three distinct styles.

I'd agree to take out the right greenside pot.  There could be more of a ramp to play in that side.

You could combine the two front bunkers into one to reduce the number of bunkers.

If you did those two things the green complex would look an awful lot like a Redan with the runoff on the back replacing the back bunkers on the Redan.

I don't see much point in moving the 2nd right-side bunker further up and eliminating the 1st right-side fairway bunker.  The one remaining bunker would basically be out of play for all players, playing from the proper tees.  I think the first fairway bunker is functional.  The one nearer the green could go or stay as far as I'm concerned.


To Others,

To those of you who want to angle the green away from left to right, does that not make it a standard template centre-line bunker risk reward hole?  That's been done a lot.  This one breaks the mould a bit, and it adds a bit of confusion to the player's mind.  What's bad about that?

Bryan

I was hoping my idea of eliminating the first right fairway bunker and pushing the second back to about 300 yards to reach from the back tee would effectively make the landing zone look smaller and thus perhaps make the left side a bit more of an attractive option (sort of hoping to pick the lesser of two evils - visually anyway).  In all, the hole would look much better as its very visually messy at the moment.  It also doesn't make much sense from a playing perspective.  I understand what you are saying about getting outside the box, but this looks to be a very interesting hole location and with that going for it there is no need to step outside the lines - especially if there is a centreline bunker in play. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Phil McDade,

Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."

I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.

It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.

[Greg Tallman]

Phil McDade,

Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."

I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.

It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.

So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?

[Kyle Harris]

Phil McDade,

Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."

I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.

It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.

So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?

Sure, why not? I'm not exactly sure what "bad" really means, anyway... do you?

[Greg Tallman]

Phil McDade,

Not every golfer can be placed into the dichotomy of "aggressive and bold" vs. "conservative and plodding."

I, for one, do not necessarily mind lofting a high approach over bunkers. If I'm hitting a draw that day, I'm aiming for the bunker and using the fairway left. If I'm cutting it, aim at the bunker and using the fairway right.

It's still my skill set against the course or opponent. The options change with context. The center line bunker forces a decision, that doesn't mean the greensite needs to judge that decision.

So under that thought process there is no such thing as a bad centerline bunker?

Sure, why not? I'm not exactly sure what "bad" really means, anyway... do you?

Black and white defnition as related to GCA? Of course not... but i know it when I see it. 

[Bryan Izatt]

To All,

I guess, based on the comments, I'm getting more intrigued by what Norman (or his associate) was thinking with this hole.  It seems to appeal to some and not to others.  That's not really surprising.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  But, what were the architects thinking or trying to do?

The number of bunkers are a style thing.  The course is heavily bunkered.  Maybe that's what the owners wanted.  Or maybe that's just the way Norman does courses.  The bunkering is, by and large, probably very difficult for the membership.

Everybody seems to be overlooking the tee shot.  It is pretty intimidating.  The forced carry over the quarry is probably the first thing on most people's mind on the tee.  There is some mental relief in the extra wide fairway, but that pesky bunker in the middle of the fairway, with a guarantee of one stroke wasted, eats into that relief.

For this hole, maybe they weren't trying to create a traditional centreline bunker hole with two clear cut options/strategies.  Maybe it was about a dogleg hole left around the centre bunker, and they decided later to ease it up and provide a safe fairway lie if you missed left.  But, then decided to penalize you with a more difficult approach shot if you did miss left.  The fairway is 80 yards wide, so there needs to be some penalty for missing on the wrong side.  Who knows, but it's fun to speculate.  I wonder if there are other centrline bunker holes on Norman courses that more closely match the traditional risk/reward approach.  

For those wondering if there was another more traditional centreline bunker hole on the course, the answer is sort of yes and no.  four holes after this, far removed from the quarry, there is another par 4 with a centreline obstruction.  In this case pine trees.  This hole is a long par 4 and there is a definite risk/reward on one side vs the other.  It fits the tradition much more closely.

[Mark Saltzman]

Bryan,

6 isn't even worthy of discussion, especially not it's 'centreline' hazard -- it is just plain poorly designed.

I've played Wyndance some 20 times, and not once have I seen any player try for the left route.  Look at the angle, you have to go through the trees to get there.

Norman et. al. really missed the mark on 6... as they did on much of the course.

[Kyle Harris]

Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?

[Bryan Izatt]

Mark,

Why have you gone back 20 times if you don't like it?

I kind of like the 6th.  Different strokes and all that.

I've played the left side several times and seen others play over there.  The second shot is usually a long iron and approaching from the left does provide an opportunity to run it on.  

From the white tees the trees cut down the perceived landing area on the left.  From the blue tees, the centreline trees are not really in the way.  From the back tee block, they're not at all in the way.  The hole does suggest a fade off the tee to go the left way.  There is risk of being too far left, but there is a much better view of the green, with no bunkering in the way.  A classic risk/reward play.  If you can play a controlled hook, you can go around from the right side and get to a pretty good place.  Or, if you're playing off the right tees, it is possible to fly the trees.  They are not really tall.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?

Can you expand a bit on that.

[Mark Saltzman]

Bryan,

Sorry, that came off sounding harsher than I intended

I do like Wyndance -- a different experience than most courses in the GTA -- but I think much more could have been done with the site.

I don't think the quarry was used effectively.

[Kyle Harris]

Has anyone considered that the fairway also exists as a way to eliminate a "frame" to the hole?

Can you expand a bit on that.

When grass is mown short, you add a line/frame to an area of the golf course (the contrast between rough and fairway). By pushing the fairway around a bunker to contain it, you move the frame from being the fairway cut to being the bunker. This pulls your eye to the bunker. In fact, I'll bet that the bunker would be easier to avoid if only the upper portion of the fairway in the first example were cut and the hole "doglegged" around the bunker.

[Kyle Harris]

Furthermore, the "lower" fairway may also allow the golfer to feel like attempting for the green when maybe that is outside their skillset. If that portion were cut as rough, the golfer would be more prone to take some medicine and play conservatively.

[Frank M]

Mark, I don't think there is any reason to apologize. We are all having friendly discussions. I completely agree with your opinion of the 6th. The centerline hazard is pointless IMHO and maintaining the left side as fairway the same. There is no way hitting that sliver of fairway on the left of the trees provides anywhere near the payoff required to attempt it. I don't think there is any payoff whatsoever.

[Carl Rogers]

This hole falls in the category of many "risk-reward" holes because the aggressive choice offers way too much risk for insufficient reward.  If the aggressive line is chosen and not successfully executed, then there should be some possibility of recovery, not just an 'X' on the card.

[Michael Goldstein]

I note the distance to the centre line bunker in the example and compare it to the Principal's nose.   

At Wyndance, you'd knock it down the right every time and then have wedge/9/8 into the green.

At TOC playing safe short and/or left of the Principal's nose leaves you a considerably longer shot.   

[Phil McDade]

At TOC playing safe short and/or left of the Principal's nose leaves you a considerably longer shot.   

As well as more difficulty along the way, principally the fronting bunkers one is confronted by with an approach from the left side of the fairway -- and arguably a more difficult angle into the green, AND the possibility of a Watson-like iron into that green sailing long and OB. Thus, the safe passage left off the tee is "penalized" with the harder approach shot. The riskier shot off the tee right of the PN bunkers is rewarded with a much easier approach -- no fronting bunkers, less likelihood (I'd argue) of a shot OB on the approach, a more forgiving approach.

[Garland Bayley]

The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.

It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.

It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.

[George Pazin]

The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.

It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.

It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.

The hole dictates nothing of the sort. There is ample room to accommodate all sorts of shots.

Accommodation, not options, should be favored. That's the missing lesson in golf today.

[Garland Bayley]

The hole would never be boring for someone as erratic as I.

It seems to me that the hole dictates one play. It is all about carrying the center line bunker and having a wedge in to carry the fronting bunkers. I believe George can carry the center bunker from even the back tees, so his thrills would come from whether he hit it well enough to carry that bunker if he happened to hit it on a line in that direction.

It seems to me that the hole is a snooze fest for the good golfer. Almost every hole can be exciting with the high handicap golfer, because the high handicap golfer flirts with danger a high percentage of time.

The hole dictates nothing of the sort. There is ample room to accommodate all sorts of shots.

Accommodation, not options, should be favored. That's the missing lesson in golf today.

Perhaps dictates is too strong a word.

It seems to me that 1) there is little advantage to any approach angle, 2) the centerline bunker is going to be carriable for a high percentage of golfers playing the "correct" tee. (Unless it plays into the prevailing wind.) Therefore, it seems the predominate play is to aim for the center playing over/past the bunker, and wedging in. For those golfers that cannot dependably carry the centerline bunker, they begin to be in a range requiring a too low a lofted club to play dependably over the three fronting bunkers. They begin to consider/need to play a lay up for a chip, because going over is not attractive. So it seems to me it is a short par 4 requiring a layup for the weakest hitters. Seems a bad hole to me.

The forced carry from the tee seems in most cases not to be too long, given the perfect lie on the tee.

[Mark Saltzman]

The hole rarely plays with any sort of crosswind. It is a very windy site and plays either hard downwind or hard into the wind.

Playing downwind the prudent is actually not to carry the bunker, which leaves a pitch that will not hold the green, but instead to lay back to full wedge range right of the bunker.

Into the wind, the hole is much better. You really want to have less than 150 into the green but that requires challenging the centerline bunker, which is only carryable by very long hitters into a headwind. From there, the approach is exacting, but if struck well, balls will definitely stop on the green.

Again, the left side is irrelevant as no player would ever hit it there on purpose.

[Michael Moore]

There is more to life than angles, as I finally learned at Pinehills Nicklaus this spring.

This hole plays much shorter down the more difficult left-hand side.

[Phil McDade]

Garland:

From the photos provided, it looks to be a 225-yd shot to safely carry the centerline bunker from the blue tees (340 yds, where I'd probably play the hole, or 210 yd-carry from the whites, assuming the white tees are 15 yards shorter than the blues). Now, if that was my only choice, I'd still think long and hard about trying to carry the bunker vs. playing short of it -- a 210-225-yd carry is, for me,  a challenge. With a favoring wind, maybe -- but I'd have to think about it. On this hole, I'd never think of trying to carry the bunker -- if it in fact is an 80-yard-wide fairway, there is something like 40 yards of fairway between the right edge of the centerline bunker and the fairway bunker right. My play -- everytime absent a strong wind behind me -- would be: aim at the bunker, depend on my usual fade off the tee, and hope I don't banana slice it into the fairway bunker right. Why bother to carry the bunker, when I'm much safer playing off to the right, and carrying the bunker doesn't yield that much more of an advantage (or little that I can detect from the photos and discussion so far)? In fact, depending on the day's pin (say, anything center to left side), I'm better off the farther right I go as long as I stay in the fairway.

Admittedly, this reflects the way I approach most rounds -- getting around the course safely, with goal #1 being avoidance of blow-up holes and Xs on the card. I don't have enough game to go flag-hunting and chasing birdies and eagles. This particular hole is bothersome because it appears to give the lesser player like me the opportunity to do what we so often don't get to do -- gamble on a riskier shot off the tee in pursuit of a safer par or elusive birdie. I can't usually do that on a par 4 of 450+ yards; this hole has some of the attributes to allow me to do that, but messes it up with the bunker placement and green orientation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()