One of my favorite holes at Sebonack resembles the

[Patrick_Mucci]

6th at Pacific Dunes.

It also resembles, though not topographically, but strategically, the 5th at Newport.

I like the decision the golfer has to make and the risk/reward associated with that decision.

Did the 3rd at NGLA set the precedent in the U.S. or was it the 1st at GCGC ?

[Mark Chaplin]

A question 99% of the DG will never have the opportunity to consider. How about a tread on your favourite less than $50 public tracks?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A question 99% of the DG will never have the opportunity to consider.
How about a tread on your favourite less than $50 public tracks?

Mark,

If you'd cite those courses that would meet your criteria in the Metropolitan New York City area, i'd be happy to accomodate your request.

Thanks

[Michael Ryan]

A question 99% of the DG will never have the opportunity to consider. How about a tread on your favourite less than $50 public tracks?

Is there an inside joke here?  Apologies if there is.  If there isn't then this is my response to Mark Chaplin:

What a ridiculous response to Patrick's post, it's sad to see this website spiral downward.  A great question that is met by a childish response.

Mike

[Brad LeClair]

6th at Pacific Dunes.

It also resembles, though not topographically, but strategically, the 5th at Newport.

I like the decision the golfer has to make and the risk/reward associated with that decision.

Did the 3rd at NGLA set the precedent in the U.S. or was it the 1st at GCGC ?

I can see the comparison between PD's 6th & Sebonack's 10th both strategically and topographically considering they have the same architect enhances the linkage.  But Newport's 5th doesn't strike me as bearing strategic relevance to the same holes.  Maybe I cannot oversee the fact that elevated greens at PD & Sebonack both severely alter how I have thought about the approach shots whereas I didn't feel that at Newport.  How are you viewing it differently?  I presume the topic we are discussing is deciding which is the proper line off the tee given the risk of not executing vs. the reward factor of having severely advantageous angles into the green. I believe the elevated green exacerbates this dynamic.

[Will Lozier]

Patrick,

Not having played Sabonack, nor being able to find a good pic of the back right of the green, it is hard to make the comparison to PD's 6th.  I definitely see a resemblance off the tee, but, the SEVERE fall-off to the right of the green at PD #6 is for me what makes that decision on the tee relevant.  Can you describe the greensite or provide a photo?

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Will,

I wish I had the capability of posting pictures, but, when it comes to computer tech, I"m not well versed.

There is disaster looming to the right of the 10th at Sebonack, but, not the dramatic falloff you mention.

The fairway bunker at Sebonack confronts the golfer off the tee and he must make a choice.

I love the dilema presented on the approach when the golfer decides or is forced to go to the left of the fairway bunker.

Even then, he's faced with additional choices.
1.     to play a redan like shot to the right side of the green
2.     to attack the hole directly.

Both shots are fraught with difficulty and adverse consequences should the shot go awry.

And, the putting surface is no easy matter once you're on the green.

It's a great hole for every level of golfer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can see the comparison between PD's 6th & Sebonack's 10th both strategically and topographically considering they have the same architect enhances the linkage.  But Newport's 5th doesn't strike me as bearing strategic relevance to the same holes.  Maybe I cannot oversee the fact that elevated greens at PD & Sebonack both severely alter how I have thought about the approach shots whereas I didn't feel that at Newport. 

I think the lack of similar elevation at the green end mutes your perspective on Newport's 5th.

If you look at the angles into the 5th green, going right presents that uncomfortable green shoulder which makes getting close to certain hole locations more than difficult, while drives hit left, challenging the bunker are rewarded with a far more benign approach.

If you elevated # 5 or lowered # 10 & # 6, I think the similarity would jump out at you.

How are you viewing it differently? 

The elevations at PD and S certainly alter the trajectory of the shot, but they don't alter the significance of the angles of attack and the receptiveness of the greens from those angles.

I presume the topic we are discussing is deciding which is the proper line off the tee given the risk of not executing vs. the reward factor of having severely advantageous angles into the green.

Correct

I believe the elevated green exacerbates this dynamic.

Agreed
[/quote]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Interesting that you compared the 10th at Sebonack to the 6th at Pacific Dunes.  I had never thought of the two together, because hardly anyone ever thinks about driving the green at Sebonack, whereas at Pacific Dunes that is often on players' minds [and often causes a wayward tee shot!].

The hole at Sebonack was one of those that went through several design changes during the construction of the course.  Originally, I didn't have the fairway bunker in the right-center ... I was content to let a poor tee shot bounce away down to the right, but Mr. Nicklaus wanted to add the bunker.  There was also, briefly, a narrow upper tier at the right of the green, but I didn't like the shot to that hole location, or the recovery shot ... so I suggested we abandon it but keep the slope up to it as part of the green.

I do like how the green turned out.  It's a difficult one to read because a portion of it drains out the back right, which you aren't expecting it to do.  

P.S.  There IS a hole at our new Streamsong course which is modeled after the 6th at Pacific Dunes -- it's the 13th on the Blue course.  I hope you have a chance to make the comparison yourself.

[Brad LeClair]

[/url]

Here is a photo of the 10th that i believe is taken from the right side of the fairway. If you look closely you can make out the visible right edge of the green whereas the left edge isn't visible but is behind the bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

Thanks for the photo.

It seems to be more from the center or right center of the fairway.

I love the options into the green, especially as wind directions and velocities change.

It's not an overwhelming hole, distance wise, but, offers plenty of challenge, especially for the unwary.

Tom Doak,

Wind direction and velocity is such an integral part of playing both courses that I can see the very long golfer trying to get to the 10th green.  Visually, going up the right side is intimidating, but, the slope of the fairway is helpful to drives hit to the right, but, not right of the ridge line.

To golfers who aren't excessively long, and, I played with two young fellows, both 12 handicaps, who drove it long, so handicap alone isn't a qualifier, that bunker presents a real dilema.

One of our opponents was going to challenge it but his caddy wouldn't let him, and, the caddy was right.

Go further left off the tee and you're faced with a more difficult approach, go right off the tee, and you have a more benign approach if you're successful.

I'm not sure that I liked that second, right side, fairway catch bunker that gets fed by the adjacent fairway, that seems like a very penal result for a tee shot that clears the crossing fairway bunker on the far right side.

In any event, I love the hole.

11 is simply great, but, a bear into the wind, especially a strong wind.
One day I hit 5-iron, another 2-iron, and another I could have hit 3-wood, but didn't want to get the ball up in the air, so I hit 2-iron trying to run it down to the green.

Likewise, # 12 played very difficult, from 138 to 155.

# 17 was even more difficult due to it's additional length.

While # 4 played the longest of the par 3's, the green and area around the green provide generous margins.

The collection of par 3's is terrific, with # 12 and # 17 being holes that can produce large numbers to the unwary.

October should be an ideal month for F&F and I'm sure that you'll enjoy the course.

Please look at # 14 green and let me know your thoughts as to its configuration.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I would love to see the 10th hole set up so that players would be tempted to drive toward the green for one round of a four-day event.  But, since the wind rarely blows hard out of the east -- except during a nasty storm -- you are unlikely to see it unless they move up a tee or two.  I'm not sure there is a tee available that would allow the women to go for the green, but for the men, it's certainly possible.

[jeffwarne]

Patrick:

I would love to see the 10th hole set up so that players would be tempted to drive toward the green for one round of a four-day event.  But, since the wind rarely blows hard out of the east -- except during a nasty storm -- you are unlikely to see it unless they move up a tee or two.  I'm not sure there is a tee available that would allow the women to go for the green, but for the men, it's certainly possible.

Tom,
I caught that hole with the wind over the right shoulder and drove it (wasn't really thinking about doing it but I was aiming quite a bit right)
To give you an idea of the wind, I had L wedge into 11. We were alternating odd even tees all the way back with, the second from the back so I don't remember the card yardage
12 certainly played hard downwind

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I didn't really make a connection between those two holes, especially considering the more than slightly blind nature of the approach on #10 at Sebonack vs. the approach on #6 at PD.  I fanned my drive down into the very right edge of bunkering--down in the hole.  It took my best effort of the day to save what was my best par of the day.  It is certainly a fun hole and the 10-12 stretch is certainly among the two best three-hole stretches on the golf course.  16-18 being All-world.

[Bill_McBride]

A question 99% of the DG will never have the opportunity to consider.
How about a tread on your favourite less than $50 public tracks?

Mark,

If you'd cite those courses that would meet your criteria in the Metropolitan New York City area, i'd be happy to accomodate your request.

Thanks

A short if non-existent list....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I would love to see the 10th hole set up so that players would be tempted to drive toward the green for one round of a four-day event.  But, since the wind rarely blows hard out of the east -- except during a nasty storm -- you are unlikely to see it unless they move up a tee or two.  I'm not sure there is a tee available that would allow the women to go for the green, but for the men, it's certainly possible.

Tom,

When the wind is out of the North, # 5 might be drivable.

I've come to the conclusion that being long on # 5 isn't a bad thing.

I think one of the joys of playing Sebonack is playing the course under different wind conditions.
Ditto Southampton, Shinnecock and NGLA.

I liked the dual fairways and in some cases the Tri-fairways (3, 2 & 18)

Jeff,

The 11th and 12th greens present scarey approaches under any wind direction/conditions.

[jonathan_becker]

#10 from the tee

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

Thanks.

I just love this hole.

[Jim Johnson]

Pat, here's a pic of #6 at Pacific Dunes, taken in 2009 ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Thanks for the photo.

As you can see, the further left you hit your drive  the more you're confronted with the deep left greenside bunker and the more you challenge the right side features on the drive the more you're rewarded with a favorable approach into that green.

Could this be a Doak "template" ?   

[Mark Pearce]

What a ridiculous response to Patrick's post, it's sad to see this website spiral downward.  A great question that is met by a childish response.

That's it?  That's your contribution to this thread?

FWIW, Mr Mucci has a long history of starting threads that appear, deliberately, to exclude those not privileged enough to havce access to the courses he does.  Of course it is possible to start threads that discuss these great courses and holes on them in a way that allows the majority to at least follow the thread.  Mr Mucci chooses not to.  There may be a downward spiral here but, if there is, Mark Chaplin isn't reflecting it, you are.

[Jay Cox]

FWIW, Mr Mucci has a long history of starting threads that appear, deliberately, to exclude those not privileged enough to havce access to the courses he does.  Of course it is possible to start threads that discuss these great courses and holes on them in a way that allows the majority to at least follow the thread.  Mr Mucci chooses not to.  There may be a downward spiral here but, if there is, Mark Chaplin isn't reflecting it, you are.

Enough people on the site have played Sebonack that it is clearly possible -- as this thread reflects -- for Pat's question to spark an intelligent and interesting discussion.  Personally, I find it interesting even though I've never played Sebonack, although I understand if you disagree with that.  But if you disagree, why not just ignore the thread, and start a similar discussion about another course?

Many of the most interesting discussions on this board are discussions of the playing features of individual holes.  There are hardly any holes that a majority of posters will have played.  The solution to that problem isn't to castigate those who start arguably "exclusionary" threads, or to require that every question be posed in a way that is maximally accessible to people who haven't played a course.  It's to make sure that there is enough intelligent discussion of architecture to keep everyone engaged.

How would you have phrased Pat's question differently to get at the same interesting question -- the playing similiarities of two interesting holes -- without the purported problem you identified?  I can't really think of a way.

[Mark Pearce]

How would you have phrased Pat's question differently to get at the same interesting question -- the playing similiarities of two interesting holes -- without the purported problem you identified?  I can't really think of a way.

Have you read the OP?  I assume not, since if you had the answer to this question would be blindingly obvious.  Since you haven't, what I would do is DESCRIBE THE HOLE AND THE FEATURES.  That way, even someone like me can at least follow the discussion.

[Jay Cox]

Have you read the OP?  I assume not, since if you had the answer to this question would be blindingly obvious.  Since you haven't, what I would do is DESCRIBE THE HOLE AND THE FEATURES.  That way, even someone like me can at least follow the discussion.

I think this is an important point, so I'm going to resist the urge to be churlish in response to "I assume not" and "blindlingly obvious" to address it.

If you started with a post describing some specific features of the hole, what you'd get is a discussion of those specific features of the hole, rather than a discussion of the general question Pat wanted to ask.  Already, there are plenty of replies that go into detail about what features of the 10th at Sebonack are and are not like the 6th at Pacific Dunes.  If Pat had started by saying "here are what I think are the defining features of the 10th at Sebonack," he wouldn't have gotten that discussion; he would have gotten a different one, about whether he's right about what the defining features are, or about whether those asserted defining features are present on the other hole.

Besides, if there is an interesting discussion to be had, why should an initial poster have to write something long laying out all of the details to start the discussion?  Threads about specific holes and courses are my favorite part of this website.  Setting the standard that, if you're going to start such a thread, you need to try to make it accessible to everyone in the initial post would make it a lot less likely that such threads will get started - andw would have ruled out probably half of the discussions had in the first few years of the website, before the supposed downward spiral.

[Michael Ryan]

What a ridiculous response to Patrick's post, it's sad to see this website spiral downward.  A great question that is met by a childish response.

That's it?  That's your contribution to this thread?

FWIW, Mr Mucci has a long history of starting threads that appear, deliberately, to exclude those not privileged enough to havce access to the courses he does.  Of course it is possible to start threads that discuss these great courses and holes on them in a way that allows the majority to at least follow the thread.  Mr Mucci chooses not to.  There may be a downward spiral here but, if there is, Mark Chaplin isn't reflecting it, you are.

Mark,
I have discussed this further through direct message with Mark.  The activity on this thread shows me that you and Mark are out of line and that this is a great thread that many members are interested in.  I have not contributed as I have not played 2 of the 4 courses in discussion-however as a fan of GCA, I am following the responses here with great interest.  I'm a muni golfer and proud of it.  When people discuss the strategic options presented at Cypress Point, do I chime in and ask that we move the focus to Pacific Grove GC because it's public? You two should take your whining somewhere else and let some people interested in GCA enjoy this site.