[Kyle Harris]

I stopped attempting to determine the capability limits of accomplished players long ago. Somewhere, sometime, a better player than I will prove me wrong. Call this "The Harris Assumption" of Golf Architecture, since I'm my own favorite beard-puller.

It is still reasonable to ask an expert golfer to hole the ball in three shots by navigating around the tree. Furthermore, it is reasonable to ask an expert golfer to consider the tree from the tee and play the first shot accordingly. These thoughts are my own smell tests for a feature and if they pass, I start to think that the controversy surrounding a particular feature roots itself in the weakness of the critic and not the weakness of the feature.

Those pining for more "interest" or "excitement" in this type of recovery by removing the feature and effectively adding width are doing so to invite mediocre tee shots to still have a shot at a 3. I don't find the tree overly demanding in negating a recovery.

[Thomas Dai]

Having not played the hole I probably shouldn't get a vote....but if I am permitted to have one, then, based on the photos above, the two very well written initial remove/leave posts and the analytical thoughts of those posting thereafter, I would vote to remove the tree.

Great thread, photos, analysis etc. Just the sort of subject it would be nice to see more threads on.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QVOQvGAkqZo

Atb

[David_Madison]

Kyle,


I think you are missing the point... the tree doesn't much factor in the play of an "expert" golfer, unless that "expert" can't hit a drive 240 or 250 yards gently uphill. They don't need to navigate around the tree; they can just blast past it. They're all hitting little wedges, and without much of a risk/reward calculation. Dumb me took three or four plays to figure it out, so maybe if I only played the hole once a year that tree would still vex me as I continued to try to fit my hybrid into the left side of the fairway. But that's over with now. It's the average and weaker players, or those better players who upon initial observation think the hole has to be played strategically who have to deal with the tree. That's why I'm voting to remove it and then beef up the green's defense from the right side approach. That would do a far better job of enforcing the need to stay left off the tee for the better player while still giving everyone else a better opportunity to go directly at the green which then invites all kinds of potential mayhem.

[Kyle Harris]

David,

And the tree is doing the job of identifying expert play. Without it, that definition is far more muddied and is basically answered solely at the putting green. I have no problem with one hole taking the recovery from a marginal tee shot out of play and forcing that player to give up a chance at 3 for a chance at 4. Suppose in a match Player A is in your ideal spot left and Player B stymied by the tree right. Player B maneuvers the ball into position left of the putting green to leave a touchy pitch to the right-side hole location. PLayer A stuffs your so-called easy pitch shot to about 4 feet. One the next play, Player B knocks his third shot - a pitch - to a kick-in distance and is in for four.

How much longer did Player A's putt for the win just become? How much mettle/skill/acumen did Player B show in forcing Player A to take advantage of his better position from the tee?

That's the interest the tree can provide. Eliminate it, and you're just turning the hole into who can hit the highest/closest shot with a wedge.

That can be proven on the Driving Range.

[David_Madison]

Kyle,


You present a good example of when the tree does matter. And that's about it, and this is where we differ.

I do not believe the tree is identifying "expert" play. It is identifying two things. First, players who can drive it 240 or so uphill. Once you can do that and hit the ball within a 40-45 yard or so wide area, it doesn't much matter. Second, it rewards players who cannot hit the ball that distance who can then hit it into the left hand portion of the fairway.

So what we have is a tree that has strategic value for some expert seniors as well as average and weaker players. Maybe in an ideal world you could put in a new back tee that brings the tree into play for "experts" But you can't there. So why not restore the hole's full strategic value for every level of player by taking the tree down, and doing a little bit of work in front of the green on the right side? Then you get the added benefit of regaining a wonderful cupping option that just isn't viable now.

[Tom Fagerli]

 10th at Riveria
Does this hole need a tree planted because it's too easy?

Different hole with some shared similarities.  So now everything has to be like 10 at Riveria?  You could say why is a fairway bunker on the right needed with the diagonal green, meaning overkill?  It is just there for weaker player, just as tree is at MP. 

#17 at Franklin (2 original Ross Trees) Double hazard but its original and Ross never made a mistake



is there anyone who plays the course on a very regular basis voting here to keep the tree? For the golfer who plays the course maybe once or twice a year, being forced to comply with a dictated route isn't such a bad thing. But play the hole over and over, and I think it would be a lot more fun having the greater variety available going at the different pin placements from different parts of the fairway.  Kinda' took the fun out of the hole as it's a pretty mundane shot hitting a low skanky thing up near the green or onto the left edge

I find this reply a bit conceded for someone who has yet to reply to my points.  Nobody has a dictated route, the average guy had been dumbed down to not think about fairway cant, how the tee ball reacts to fairway slope.  22 yards wide on only a section of the golf hole for a 300 yard hole is really not asking too much.  It asks the player to know his game and to think from the green back to the tee and also how the ball reacts to the ground.  Hitting a punch 9-7 iron is much more fun then flopping a wedge in the air for the umpteen time like every 80s and 90s course.  The average player just pulls his driver and doesn't use restraint, but this hole requires it.  I'd call it a breath of fresh air.  I think a bit of fairway short of the left hand bunker should be created and those small pines and a few others should be whacked.  Including the tree that is 8 paces to the right of the green (Form over function)

I am a member and play MP many times per year and I want the tree to stay

[Kyle Harris]

David,

You are using what I believe to be fallacious reasoning in defining "expert" player. Expertise is strictly a reflection of score across multiple rounds and to ask what is reasonable/unreasonable for an expert player shall not be done as you do: with specific shots in mind. Suppose a player could shoot 70-75 playing a 40 yard slice from the tee that only carries 200 yards. You and I would both agree that is an example of expert play regardless of the course features which potentially challenge that particular shot.

Architects, and critics, get into reasoning traps when attempting to look at a particular feature through the lens of one style of play or shot, as you are doing.

The 240+ yard tee shot on the hole in question is only rewarded if the player can further take advantage of the situation. Furthermore, the tree is only overly punitive if it strictly and absolutely prevents the player from using skill and cunning to recover a 4 from the situation. Therefore, it is the combination of various features that intertwine in the greater context of scoring on the hole which defines the value of the tree - or any other feature on the hole. I recognize you could further make the argument that removing the tree allows a player along the right to demonstrate skill to take advantage of the situation, however, it seems to me the tree adds a more interesting set of variables that separate the demands from each position on the subsequent shots.

Also, have you looked at this from the perspective of the left-handed golfer? They count, too.

Since a basis for the tree's removal is Ross's intent, I feel applying the same thinking to the situation at the green is important. You're a proponent of bolstering the right side with some sort of higher bunker or re-contoured green. If Ross had intended that, why was the green not restored/renovated as such? I know who to ask and perhaps he is reading this and will contact me but until such point you are committing the same sin against intent with which those calling for the tree's removal are bolstering their position.

How does it work one way and not the other?

[Charles Lund]

Does anyone have the yardage guide with playing tip for the hole?  Can you scan and post?

Charles Lund

[David_Madison]

Kyle,

I've yet to meet a player who regularly plays a 40 yard slice, carries it at most 200 yards, and shoots 70-75. Of course it's theoretically possible, I guess, but surely pretty rare to say the least. I do know plenty of fine golfers who can move the ball either way 40 yards and shoot those scores, but that's not their everyday shot. And I'm certainly not looking at just one style of "expert" play. I'm pretty much saying anyone who has a reasonable level of refinement to his game and who can hit a driver 240 slightly uphill should do so. They can draw it, fade it, hit itstraight, doesn't much matter. Lefty, righty, I don't care. Ideally the player would hit something that flies right to left and lands softly so as to better hold the left side of the fairway. But if not, just get it past the point where the tree is in the way while keeping the ball in play, hit a 50-80 yard wedge, and move on. Why lay back with a shorter club when the less risky play is with driver? There is no way to hit a low punching 5-9 iron, land it on the green, and stop it. All the player who has to work around the tree can do is scoot something up by the green and then work for a 1-putt part.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have to consider the tree when I'm playing with my hickories. I can't regularly get it past the tree even from shorter tees and every so often do have to hit a low running second shot into position as you describe. I find that shot to be pretty tedious, actually. Lots of room for error and a pretty similar result no matter what kind of shot I hit. The far more interesting and challenging shot is a "normal" approach to the green, as that really separates good from mediocre from bad shots. And that's also the place where the hole offers a risk/reward proposition - - hit the safe shot into the center of the green, or go pin hunting and face who knows what for even a tiny miss.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about which set of shots or potential shots poses the greatest level of variety, interest, and challenge. As for why during the recent restoration the tree wasn't removed and the green complex modified as I'e described, I can't tell you. But I will ask Kyle next time I see him. (By the way, he and his team are doing some great work across the street at Pine Needles, so I really will ask him.)

[Jay Mickle]

Does anyone have the yardage guide with playing tip for the hole?  Can you scan and post?

Charles Lund

Charles,
I don't believe that what you are looking for exists but perhaps I can provide what you are interested in.
Distance from the tips is 310 yards, from the regular tees is 285. If you can drive over 250 yards a shot aimed at the tallest tree on the left horizon is the target. If you can get up at green level the ball will funnel left onto the front of the green. For the other 90% shot should be started at the point where the waste area intrudes into the fairway. At that point you will be left with an approach of about 95 yards (see earlier photo). Do not fade the ball as even a ball landing 5 yards right of the waste area is likely to end up on the right side of the fairway when conditions are firm and fast.

[Charles Lund]

Thanks.

I have a box of yardage guides at my condo in San Diego.  I will take a look when I am down there in a couple of days.

I played Midpines a couple of times and think I recall the hole.  I don't have a specific memory of the tree as an obstacle or obstruction.

Many short par fours are memorable due to having a smaller preferred landing area and the tree seems to minimize the landing area for all those with modest length and lower swing speed.

I've enjoyed the disussion.

Charles Lund

[Dunlop_White]

Without the tree, the front bunkering, native sand-scapes and the green's steep fill-slope right would be better exposed and more inviting. Golfers would be tempted to take a more aggressive, direct approach to the hole right smack into the jaws of these features. When holes promote aggressive lines of play, their scoring spectrum usually grows wider. The hole would likely produce more low numbers and more high numbers. When this is the case, scoring averages usually go up as well.

Currently, the tree visually reinforces the bunker, screaming to the golfer "don't go this way". Golfers in turn attempt to tac their way left around the tree and most of the trouble. This conservative approach will often squeeze the scoring range around par and scoring averages will tend to be lower altogether. Happens most all the time. MP is likely promoting this conservative approach to the left, so their villas to the right will not get bombed.

When discussing a tree's merit, this exercise is further evidence that it takes a tree's negative "agronomic" impact before you can gain any kind of meaningful consensus. You can get all sorts of opinions on how it interacts with a hole's "strategy" as shown above.

[Philip Hensley]

The hole would likely produce more low numbers and more high numbers. When this is the case, scoring averages usually go up as well for all play.

I agree and think the high numbers would greatly increase and be more frequent. Right now the tree saves the hackers from their own stupid play. A 20-handicapper is trying to "keep a lob wedge under the tree". He either blades it over the green or gets it knocked down by a branch.


The golf hotel villas would definitely get hit more.


Right now the tree also provides an aiming point for the better player. He can use it as the right side of a goalpost to hit through, or aim at the tree and draw it off. Without the tree there it would become just a touch disorienting and put some doubt in the mind of that player.

[Kyle Harris]

Dunlop and Philip,

I think removing the copse of trees closer to the tee accomplishes your sight-line goals better than eliminating the one tree in question.

[Dunlop_White]

That's where I would start.

[Philip Hensley]

Dunlop and Philip,

I think removing the copse of trees closer to the tee accomplishes your sight-line goals better than eliminating the one tree in question.

I'd like to remove the entire right side of trees and open up some views of Lake Doncara 


Just to officially "vote", I would remove the tree. Although if they ever did I'll be the first guy complaining about pace of play slowing on that hole because hackers are hitting stinger wedges through the windows of the golf villas.

[Joe Sponcia]

Without the tree, the front bunkering, native sand-scapes and the green's steep fill-slope right would be better exposed and more inviting. Golfers would be tempted to take a more aggressive, direct approach to the hole right smack into the jaws of these features. When holes promote aggressive lines of play, their scoring spectrum usually expands wider. The hole would likely produce more low numbers and more high numbers. When this is the case, scoring averages usually go up as well for all play.

Currently, the tree visually reinforces the bunker, screaming to the golfer "don't go this way". Golfers in turn attempt to tack their way left around the tree and most of the trouble. This conservative approach will often squeeze the scoring range around par and scoring averages will tend to be lower as a whole. Happens all the time. MP is likely promoting this conservative approach to the left, so their villas to the right will not get bombed.

When discussing a tree's merit, this is just further evidence that it takes a tree's negative agronomic impact before you can gain any kind of meaningful consensus. You can get all sorts of opinions on how it interacts with a hole's "strategy" as shown above.

Dunlop,


To your point, I think if I played it more/regularly, I would be more apt to hit hybrid, SW...then it would be super boring.  The shorter the par 4, the more options one should have.  Laying up to a par 4 like this is like a forced lay-up on double-dog leg par 5. 

[Chris Gibson]

As a member, I play Mid Pines 15-20 times per year. I believe the tree on the 4th hole adds variety to both the tee shot and second shot. As a better player, who doesn't hit it all that far, I have hit everything from driver down to 5-iron off the tee. Club selection being dictated by wind, firmness of the fairway, confidence and the tree(always looming in the back of my mind). Obviously, with that said, I have hit different clubs for my approach shots. If the tree is taken down, I would hit driver the vast majority of the time and follow that with a 60 degree wedge, which is pretty boring if you ask me. I vote for variety and keeping that glorious tree!

[Chris Buie]

It is interesting to note that Ross took an unusual approach to working with trees on this particular course.

[Jeff Loh]

The condos are not in play. They receive no guests--only ghosts of people who made 6 thinking they were going to make 3.


Chris
If you hit a good drive the second second is most likely a lob wedge. 99% of the time. Almost always. I find that a little boring.
However, if you slightly mis hit the same drive and end up on the right hand side of the fairway (or worse) your ONLY option is to go under the tree. I find that REALLY boring. No real chance of recovery. No options.
If there is no tree and you think you can hit a really skinny green from a funky angle/lie I think you should be able to try it. Because if you miss it right or long...

[Chris Gibson]

Jeff,


So what you're saying is the tee shot is a test. A test to keep it left of the tree. If the tree is taken down, it's lob wedge every single time. What's wrong with having to play a ball back into position when the previous shot put you out of position?


Love this debate BTW!

[Bruce Wellmon]

I'd rather they fix #3...........

[BCowan]

I'd rather they fix #3...........

We have a winner. I said that in the begining of the thread.  Fix 3 and whack 1000 other trees

[BCowan]

As a member, I play Mid Pines 15-20 times per year. I believe the tree on the 4th hole adds variety to both the tee shot and second shot. As a better player, who doesn't hit it all that far, I have hit everything from driver down to 5-iron off the tee. Club selection being dictated by wind, firmness of the fairway, confidence and the tree(always looming in the back of my mind). Obviously, with that said, I have hit different clubs for my approach shots. If the tree is taken down, I would hit driver the vast majority of the time and follow that with a 60 degree wedge, which is pretty boring if you ask me. I vote for variety and keeping that glorious tree!

Chris,

    Agree 100%.  Also the fallacy is someone who hits it over 250, always hits it straight, lol. Typical gca black and white, Hickories or modern equipment. Try persimmon and ballatas instead.  The average player doesn't think as well as u, they wanna dumb everything down to an aerial game. 

[David_Madison]

Ben,

I'e played MP with a number of good players and also watched a bunch during various competitions. Rarely do I see them using anything but driver. And yes, they are pretty much all driving it past where the tree matters and then hitting flips. The fun part is seeing how many of those shots don't get onto the green. More than once I've seen groups of very good players all hitting short shots from the fairway yet the average score in the group is 5+.

This is exactly what Dunlop White said would often happen as did I earlier intros thread. Given your reference to "typical gca black and white, Hickories or modern equipment" I assume you are talking about me as I'm the only one who has mentioned both extremes. As I think back on it, my scoring average on the hole with the two sets of equipment is pretty close even though I'm six or so shots better with modern equipment over the course of a round. But as Dunlop predicted, the standard deviation of the scores is tighter with the hickories.

Next time you come to the area, please bring an old steel shafted persimmon driver and a few balata golf balls and we can try out the hole with those. Could be interesting. We can also go out to the right side of the fairway past where the tree is in play and let's see how many time out of ten you hit a lob wedge onto the green 25' or less from the pin, and we can also try to hit shots to a hypothetical front right pin and a back pin and let's see how we do. I suspect you'll find that the shots aren't quite that boring. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()