[Matthew Petersen]

I like it.

Perfectly reasonable to play to the right side with a hybrid or fairway wood, as doing so doesn't leave you with an impossible shot (still a wedge or short iron) but having to play directly over the front bunker is no one's first choice. Meanwhile  a big, darking drive is rewarded with not just a shorter second shot, but a better angle as well.

[Sean Leary]

Like it.  Agree that the hole could be greatly improved by significantly cutting back the trees on the left.  This would tempt more guys to be overly aggressive and end up shortsiding themselves, not to mention the aesthetic improvement to the hole...

I have played the hole a number of times, but not in 6-8 years. The trees on the left have really grown out. Also the shaping of the hill looks better in person....

[Emile Bonfiglio]

The mounds are pretty consistent with the rest of the courses aesthetics. This is probably the most unique portion of the hole property. The rest was benign farm land shaped with dozers.

[Mike Hendren]

At 356 yards from the tips, the angle of approach is irrelevant unless the green is shallow and oriented from 8 to 2 o'clock.  We tend here to factor such elements for discussion purposes but when actually playing the hole they are irrelevant with a wedge in hand.   The risk/reward proposition here is unbalanced.   Perhaps if the dogleg was more pronounced or the approach was lengthier a meaningful decision would be called for from the tee.   As it is, only the really big hitter is conflicted.  Us mere mortals would simply pick our distance and aim at the small tree (how convenient!) right of the first right-hand fairway bunker.   Quite frankly, the theatrics down the left hand side almost dictate that we do so.

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()