[Peter Pallotta]

Phil - re your post #61:

It strikes me as a sad day when a golfer who presumably loves the game and who plays it well enough to compete in a Mid Am finds himself at a classic old course like Beverly and then sours on a golf hole simply because it asks him to make a choice off the tee.  

No wonder golf architects defend their courses so vigourously, i.e. because they're confronted constantly by bozos like your playing partner who will go out of their way to blame the design instead of admitting their deficiences or stop making excuses. Heck - it's as if golfers like that one will grouse even if the design demands nothing more from them than that they occasionally have to think.  

You have a Par 4 of less than 400 yards, with a perfectly safe play right down the middle from 230-250 leaving a mid-to-short iron from a good angle. But one pretender who believes it's his God-given right to blast driver on every hole, but who -- and this is the best/worst part -- has neither their skill to work the ball right to left nor the nerve to take on the corner still feels he's justified in complaining about an OB fence and in starting a conversation on the (medicore) quality of the golf hole.

Stories like the one you shared make me almost sure that last people/golfers who should be raters or allowed on golf rating panels are men over 50 who are good enough to qualify for Mid Ams, but who are not nearly as good as they think. The judgments of a bunch of spoiled 4-8 handicappers regarding what characterizes good golf course architecture aren't worth very much it seems to me.  

I wonder how many hundreds of golf holes like the 4th have been changed over the years because of guys/club members just like the one you played with -- delusional egomanicas with neither the skill nor the smarts to handle the golf course. And for what -- why all those changes? Simply because the notion of "playing the golf hole as you find it" would never occur to golfers like that.

I say: leave the 4th unchanged and completely as it is, including the dying tree. I expect to see it there -- still dying -- if/when I ever have the chance to play the course!

[Andrew Lewis]

A final thought -- from me, at least -- on the fourth hole to expound a bit further on my comment that “something will need to be done” after the tree dies:

The seventh at Pinehurst and fourth at Beverly may differ in many ways, but one similarity I observe is that both are dogleg holes requiring an appropriate risk-reward balance.

At Pinehurst, after seeing Danny Lee et al bomb driver over the corner to the green without any real punishment for errant shots, it was clear that the risk-reward balance was upset.  Thus, the inside corner bunker complex was strengthened and an original Ross bunker was restored short of the green on the outside of the dogleg -- in the line of play for long-hitters who carry the corner, but no more than eye-candy for those who laid up.  Balance between risk and reward was restored for the better golfer, while maintaining playability for the weaker golfer.

At Beverly, I fear that when the tree goes the risk-reward balance for the better player will become similarly strained.  By extending the inner-corner trap and placing a bunker on the outside of the landing area would, risk-reward balance for the better player could similarly be restored without unduly punishing the weaker player.

[J_ Crisham]

Andrew,  I agree with everything you stated. I still believe this is one of the more difficult approach shots on the course even at 125-150 yds. It is almost always a crosswind at the green. The prevailing South wind can easily push marginal shots into the Rt bunkers or even worse against the fence. The bunkers are some of the deeper ones on the course and the balls always seem to roll out long and left.

[Phil McDade]

Pete:

In defense of my playing partner (and a bit of clarity to my post): the round was played as a media day outing, well before the actual Mid-Am championship, and organized by folks at Beverly to acquaint media golf types with the course, and its recent improvements and renovations, as the course prior to the Senior Mid-Am hadn't hosted any tournaments of note for quite a while. The golfer in question wrote for one of the area golf publications.

And to be fair, he wasn't upset so much as mystified -- kind of a "my ball hit the wall???" reaction; I honestly am not sure he thought he could reach it (he was a pretty long hitter, and at times not that accurate -- he flew one on to W. 91st St. off the tee at 13).

As I mentioned, I like the hole, even as someone for whom reaching that wall is out of the question (so maybe I don't see the truncated nature of the tee shot faced by others), as is taking on the bunker/dogleg and cutting it short. Beverly in most cases -- this is going to come off badly, but I believe it's pretty much true -- isn't a course that makes you think when you're on the tee; it's a course that makes you execute your shot from the tee once you've chosen the club appropriate for you. On most holes there (a few very good exceptions to this coming up!), the golfer isn't faced with much of a choice off the tee; #4 is one hole where there is a choice -- and as one who likes courses (and things) that force you to zig when you are in the habit of zagging, I like it.

The approach shot is wonderful; demanding, and requiring an aerial approach, but again Beverly has several holes where one can either approach the green with a running shot, or not be terribly penalized if one comes up short -- #4 is likely to penalize the badly executed approach shot. I don't think that's inappropriate for a hole that plays @ 400 yards from the tips, and probably 15-20 yards shorter than that for most member play.

[Paul OConnor]

"At Beverly, I fear that when the tree goes the risk-reward balance for the better player will become similarly strained.  By extending the inner-corner trap and placing a bunker on the outside of the landing area would, risk-reward balance for the better player could similarly be restored without unduly punishing the weaker player."

When those big trees on the left go, bringing the inner-trap into play would require it being extended 50 yards up the fairway, and I suspect placing a bunker on the outside of the landing area would be welcomed by many, as it would be easier to escape from a bunker rather than from up against the wall, behind all those trees. 

When the large tree(s) on the left die, this hole will probably get better.  For those standing on the third tee however, things will probably get a bit more dangerous. 

[Paul OConnor]

Maybe the tee on #3 should move up 50 yards, might make it possible to open up the whole left side of #4.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil - thanks for the additional details/insights, and for reining in my excess zeal. On your point about having the occasional hole that simply and directly penalizes a badly executed shot, if you haven't read Ran's recent "interview" with Donald Ross I think you'll find it relevant. To me at least it seems pretty clear that Mr. Ross had nothing at against such penalities throughout a round, and nothing against providing options for lesser players IF they were willing to get to the green in three shots instead of two.

Peter

[Andrew Lewis]

It's nice to see such thoughtful discussion and respectful disagreement on the architecture of what by consensus is one of the weaker holes on the course.

Leaving the horse that is the fourth hole with a few breaths left for anybody who has not yet taken their kick (or for those who want another crack), I'll move on to one of the better holes on the course and my favorite on the front nine...

Hole #5 (Par 4, 412 yds / 398 yds)

The drive – The player walks straight off the back of the fourth green to find the fifth tee wedged in the far northwest portion of the property.  The hole turns 90 degrees to the south and canvasses a flat basin before returning to and climbing a steep hill to the green.  This will mark the player’s second encounter with said hill – the first occurring on the second hole – unless, of course, he suffered the misfortunate of an approach hit long on hole number one.  

Noise from Western Avenue and the Dan Ryan Woods by now have ebbed from earshot, only to be replaced by the chugging of trains on commercial tracks that frame the Bev’s western border to the right.  And for a high blocked drive, those tracks can come into play.
The fairway follows a fairly straight line to the green and is disrupted only by a single bunker that cuts in from the left around 225 yards from the tee.  Challenging the trap off the tee can open a better angle into the green, but an approach from the right or right-center of the fairway is equally serviceable.  Trees loom in the rough on both sides and can require working and/or flighting one’s shot on the recovery.

The approach – The green is perched boldly on the edge of the hill.  It takes on a skyline look as one nears, but from longer distances the back edge of the green visibly juts up, ominously announcing the back –to-front slope of the green.  The elevation change makes the approach shot play longer than the yardage.  (Insider’s Tip – The back-of-the-green yardage plus half a club and you will generally put you around the middle of the green.)

Other defenses include two traps on each side of the green.  On the left, the first lies near the base of the hill, and the second is tiered below the front-left corner of the green.  On the right, they sit as terraces up to the front right corner of the green.  No traps flank the sides or back of this hole – the sharp back-to-front slope of the green makes recovery shots challenging enough.

The approach (Part 2) – Many approaches fall short of or spin off the front of the green, leaving a 30-yard shot from the base of the hill near the first trap on the left.  You will know the spot by the Normandy-like series of trenches carved into the ground.

Options for recovery include a flop, low checking wedge, bump-and-run seven iron, a putt, etc.  It all depends on player preference and nerves.

The green – The back-to-front slope glimpsed from the fairway is confirmed.  This and the greens on 11, 12, 17 and 18 make the most obvious cases for staying below the hole at Beverly.  (Insider’s Tip – Although the aforementioned greens are rightly terrifying from above the hole, the green that perhaps causes the most consternation in this respect is the 13th.)

Chips (and putts for that matter) from above the hole can be especially difficult to middle or front pins; too much pace or too direct of a line will, in Chutes and Ladders style, deposit the player back to The approach (Part 2) noted above.   Shots from the right side of the green to back and middle pins can be played off the back-left bank-board that was reclaimed during the restoration in the 2000’s.

Putts from below the hole are very makeable, and anything from above the hole requires delicate, defensive putting.  Par is a good score, birdie is a great score and it is not unusual to see bogey at least halve the hole.

[J_ Crisham]

#5 may be the best hole on the course and arguably one of the top 10 in Chicago. Not on the level of #3 or #14 at OFCC north , but close. Par is a very good score and rarely is it achieved from the collection area short left.

[Josh Tarble]

We have several greens of this type on my home course and for me, there are few things in golf more nerve-wracking than a back to front sloping green with a severe false front.  It takes precision from the approach and recovery to leave the ball below the hole yet above the false front and takes a deft touch to keep putts from above the hole on the green. 

[Phil McDade]

#5 may be the best hole on the course and arguably one of the top 10 in Chicago. Not on the level of #3 or #14 at OFCC north , but close. Par is a very good score and rarely is it achieved from the collection area short left.

A really good hole -- my third favorite par 4 on the course, and really one of the better par 4s you'll find. Just a very good piece of routing -- the corridor all the way to the green site on the ridge line just seems to fit perfectly. Interestingly, not a hole featured in Ran's write-up of the course (he gives nods to #4 and #6 ).

[J_ Crisham]

Phil, one could argue that 5 is actually easier now then back in the Western Open glory days in the 1960's. The hole was like a tunnel lined with mature oaks and maples. The renovation created a better hole with improved turf and recovery options. The hole was so tight back in the day that Tom Wieskopf would only use a 1 iron off the tee during competitive rounds.

[Ken Fry]

Certainly my favorite hole on the front nine.  The tee shot provides some challenge to get yourself in position for the approach, but the real fun is the approach shot and the green.  Dialing in your yardage for the uphill approach is one thing, but the constant thought of "don't go long on this" stays in your head.  If your approach shot is positioned well, no problems.  If you're out of position either putting from above the hole or chipping from the right side of the green, par is difficult.

Visually a stunning hole.

Ken

[Terry Lavin]

The fifth hole is a good example of the Prichard restoration. Over planting of trees had turned the tee shot into a tunnel vision hall of boredom and difficulty. Recovery shots from the trees was nearly impossible, leaving a lot if short, lateral punchouts the main option. Prichard cut down around 60 trees, created some playing angles in the process and put a nice fairway bunker about 230 from the tee. The plateau green got 20% larger after recapturing lost green space from maintenance practices. It's a treacherous green, especially with a front hole location. Great mid-length par-4 hole. FWIW the eighth at Skokie is a very similar hole, but 40 yards longer with a steeper rise to the plateau green.

[Matthew Sander]

Terry and Jack,

Prior to the tree removal on 5, could you see the green complex in its entirety from the tee? Currently, the sight of that green from the tee makes the hole so visually striking.

[Terry Lavin]

It was still pretty visible IIRC.

[Matthew Sander]

It was still pretty visible IIRC.

Gotcha. Nevertheless, fewer trees = better sight lines...IMHO.

[Andrew Lewis]

Hole #6 (Par 3, 181 yds / 169 yds)

The drive – The player sidles left off the fifth green, crosses a cart path shaded by the limbs of old trees and, after stopping at the cooler to select a refreshing beverage, continues a few short paces to the sixth tee.  The hole turns back against the fifth to play north and down the hill. 

To the right, the golfer will see forecaddies from the group ahead spotting drives on the seventh hole as they crest the ridge of the hill, then players putting on the first green and perhaps a group beginning its descent of the hill on two.  To the left, the fifth green, then the 70-yard-long expanse of grass that is the eight green, with the ninth tee beyond.  And straight ahead, from near to far, the target for six, the tee on seven just off to the right, the second green in line with the seventh tee, and the fourth green back in line directly behind the sixth. 

It’s a wonderful vista from which one can glimpse at least part of each hole on the front nine and, not by coincidence, it’s also where a bar is set up during member events.

The shot itself requires a crisp strike of a mid to long iron to pierce the ever-present wind, yet land softly enough to hold the green.  Three traps line the left, right and front of the green and most definitely are in play.  The tree line separating the hole from the fifth fairway sees its share of the action, as does a pocket of grass 10 yards short-right of the green.  The downhill nature of the hill exaggerates mishits. 

(Insider’s Tip – Despite running downhill, six tends to play only a half-club shorter in calm conditions and, due to the wind, can play up to two clubs longer.)

The green – The sixth green is rectangular with the front and back presenting as shorter edges.  It also is one of the flatter on the course.  A few small ridges break up the space, with a nice back-right shelf offering interesting pin locations.  Recovery shots from the traps and rough on the left or right are challenging due to the relative shallowness of the green from those directions.  The mild back-to-front slope of the surface is seemingly offset by the presence of the hill.  Reading pace thus can be tough, and many putts hit toward the front of the green will pull up a foot or two short.

With member play, birdie or par will win the hole but the hole is far from a pushover.  During the Senior Am, it played to a 3.494 average during the two stroke play qualifying rounds, was the most difficult hole on the front in relation to par and was the second most difficult overall.

[Terry Lavin]

This is the hardest #17 hcp hole I've played in Chicago. The green is well- bunkered and hard to hit. It was flattened out in the 70's, but it's still hard to putt, mainly because one tends to over read breaks. This is one of the few greens without any east/west tilt. Take a look at the gca profile of Beverly to absorb the tree removal here:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/beverly-country-club/

[J_ Crisham]

To add to Terry's comment regarding the difficulty of #6. Statistically this was the hardest hole during the 2009 US Senior Am. We had an east wind most of the week that is a right to left cross wind and as such the target was elusive.

[Paul OConnor]

It seems extraordinary that a fairly straightforward 180 yard, downhill par three could be that difficult.  It's not like the green is really tiny, or has severe contours, or that the bunkers are so ominous.  Why was this hole so hard?  I have always found that club selection is a little difficult, and with the line of trees all along the left of the hole, I suppose the winds could swirl a fair bit, but still, it's 180 downhill.

Did the US Senior guys really score better on #17, 220+ apparently INTO the east wind, than they did on #6? 

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

I think this is just an uncomfortable tee shot -- the tee on top of the ridge, to a green down below, and a tee shot that could very well go above the tree line on its path to the green, which means the wind can play havoc with it; the downhill nature of it, making correct club selection uncertain; the visual intimidation of a pure target hole. I'd say this is quite easily the most uncomfortable tee shot of Bev's 5 par 3s.

[J_ Crisham]

It seems extraordinary that a fairly straightforward 180 yard, downhill par three could be that difficult.  It's not like the green is really tiny, or has severe contours, or that the bunkers are so ominous.  Why was this hole so hard?  I have always found that club selection is a little difficult, and with the line of trees all along the left of the hole, I suppose the winds could swirl a fair bit, but still, it's 180 downhill.

Did the US Senior guys really score better on #17, 220+ apparently INTO the east wind, than they did on #6? 

Yes, 17 was statistically easier- hard to believe but true. The pin on 6 was 2 paces off the front edge during one of the rounds and the front bunker saw a minimum of one ball per group in it. Very difficult to get up and down when short sided in that bunker. As Andrew said they were playing it at 185 and despite the downhill nature ,it's only about a half club subtraction. When 6 green is firm the balls run to the back and a 2 putt is pretty good.

[Sven Nilsen]

Paul:

I'm with you on this one.

Contrast 6 at The Bev with 16 at OFCC.  Both downhill, but one would think that 16 with its longer length, smaller green and water in play would be a much tougher hole.  For whatever reason, I tend to play 16 better than 6.  

On both holes, I find a lot people tend to under club.  They think the downhill will have a greater effect on distance than it actually does.  When giving advice on 16, shot trajectory is important.  I'll tell a player that hits a high ball to just factor in the wind, but a player that hits a lower boring shot should take something off for the downhill.  

Sven

[Terry Lavin]

I've played 16 at OFCC hundreds of times over the years. I had my first of 3 Olympia aces on 16 some 20 years ago.  I've played 6 at Beverly countless times. OFCC North 16 is a better hole. Better terrain, more trouble with the winding creek and OB/lost ball possibility left. 6 at Bev looks more innocent, but to me anyway, it's harder. The green is harder to hit and harder to hold. Maybe Paul O'Connor would call it a pig and look for lipstick, but it's a very stern test of a medium-to-long one-shotter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()