What is wrong with this hole? What is the obvious fix?

[Mike Schott]

Why not move the tee to the right of the previous green? Take out the bunkers on the right and put one on the left to discourage tee shots to that side but short enough that long hitters can carry it. Change the green to make it more receptive to shots from the right by reducing the size of the bunker and extending the green on that side.

[MClutterbuck]

Why not move the tee to the right of the previous green? Take out the bunkers on the right and put one on the left to discourage tee shots to that side but short enough that long hitters can carry it. Change the green to make it more receptive to shots from the right by reducing the size of the bunker and extending the green on that side.

Expensive. And it is a good green site. I will post some pictures, the bunker is really tough, but not monstrous.

[Mike Schott]

Why not move the tee to the right of the previous green? Take out the bunkers on the right and put one on the left to discourage tee shots to that side but short enough that long hitters can carry it. Change the green to make it more receptive to shots from the right by reducing the size of the bunker and extending the green on that side.

Expensive. And it is a good green site. I will post some pictures, the bunker is really tough, but not monstrous.

Thanks. The main issue is the house on the left and the hole is designed to favor a tee shot to that side. I suppose moving the tee and changing nothing else is viable and less expensive.

[MClutterbuck]

This is probably my worst attempt at photography, but the phone is all I had in flat winter light. The course is also presented at the worst time of year.


From the main tees playing over the waste area, to a visually shallow fairway. Natural tendency is to try to draw the ball.



Beginning of fairway and home, showing the ideal landing area hugging or over the waste area:



Short landing area:



Second right fairway bunker and green complex:



Close up of green complex:



From first fairway bunker, this is sometimes a long iron shot to the green. Tough to clear the lip.



Perspective from top of second bunker lip showing angle of attack into green, shallow from this angle.

[MClutterbuck]

Eliminate the front half plus of the right side green bunker would go a long way.  All it does is punish the high handicapper.


As TD says, take out the fairway bunkers, or at least the first one if the visuals are important. Can't tell from photo.

First of all I'm stunned 30% play it in par or better...especially with green elevated and prevailing wind in.
Not that there's anything wrong with that-just suprised it's that high.

Lose about 7/8 of the volume of sand.
Don't really understand what the two right fairway bunkers protect anyway-a bad angle?
Instead maybe one small bunker on the left area of the fairway (or none) and
shrink that monsterous bunker on the right greenside(by a LOT) which only tortures the poorer player and no doubt is a pain to rake.

I'm guessing there are 17 other holes which could use the same treatment...

Jeff,


I am only considering 16 and under handicaps. I algo guess this is a course that yields a lot of pars and birdies, but gets tough because it yields a ton of doble, triple and cuadruple bogeys.


With respect to same treatment, there is another par 4, the third, that could also probably loose a fairway bunker, but unlike this hole where you improve the strategic intent, loosing the bunker on the third screws up the strategy. The only reason would be to make the toughest hole easier.


If you referred to large bunker getting reduced, the only other large bunker is between 13 and 18, and it is much less penal on the side of 2 greens.


And you have given me an excuse to show I can take good photos as well.

[Garland Bayley]

... Lets say there is a large enough gap between a full driver and a 3-wood that makes you choose a driver. Lets say that when driver is well hit, and no draw, the best shots get rewarded with a very tough bunker shot and a very tough line to the green.

Lets say ditch the 60 degree wedge as we are not Phil, and put in a 2 wood for this hole.

[cary lichtenstein]

Just take the fairway bunkers out.  Between the bunker at the green and the length of the hole, there's plenty of trouble for anyone coming in from the right, if they are trying to make par ... but at least you'd give the average player room to head there, and then tack back to his left to make bogey.


Plus the bunkers even make it harder for players to get from the cart path to the fairway, slowing play.

The guy with the house and pool on the left would also probably prefer it if more people drove to the right.  Maybe you could get him to pay for the work.

Agreed, the huge green side bunker reminds me of 11 at Pebble Beach

[Michael Felton]

Looking at your first picture there, the line that feels safe to me from the house is about 5-10 yards left of the second fairway bunker. If I aimed it there, I wouldn't hit the house (99% of the time anyway). I think what you need to do is encourage people to aim it over there. Couple of thoughts on how you could do that. I'd make the waste area more punishing. Right now, if you hit it in there it sounds like you're better off than in the fairway bunkers. Why not put more scrubby type plants in the waste area so that if you are in there, you have a high risk of having no shot. Then I'd take out the two bunkers on the right and put them on the left past the waste area. That would leave you with a hole where the braver you are the better your second shot is but if you're brave and you miss, you're in the waste area or the fairway bunker, not the house. If you open it up to the right you can hit a safer shot over there and take your trouble on the approach shot.


The other thought I had was to change the angle of the green, so the approach is easier from the right than the left. Sounds like that's not really an option. As to the greenside bunker, from the pictures you posted, you could remove the first two thirds of the bunker and it wouldn't really change the optics of the hole that much. That should speed up play some and cut maintenance costs I would think. Leaving people with a 40 yard bunker shot all over bunker is very likely to result in more than one bunker shot and a lot of raking. 90% of the time it's going to penalise the lesser player as that first two thirds is probably not in play for the good player unless they are playing from trouble. If a good player ends up on fairway there, they still have a tough shot over the trap to a narrow green.

[Garland Bayley]

The house on the left was purchased with the knowledge it would be on a golf course. It seems to me the solution is that the owner put up a net to keep balls off his property just like everyone else in the world does that lives in such a situation.

If he hasn't done that on his own already, then good luck getting him to pay for any course modifications.

[MClutterbuck]

The issue of the house was correctly identified and the hole not playing according to its possible strategic intent was as well.



My recommendation to the Board a few weeks ago was to take the following action:


1. Eliminate the second bunker on the right, with the adequate shaping to tie in mound and fairway.
2. Consider eliminating the first bunker on the right, maybe as a second step if needed per actual play.
3. Extend the waste area on the left another 30 yards, with some plants in it.


I believe the work can be done inhouse and it will not be costly. In any event, I believe the course will be not only safer after the changes, but we will have a much better strategic hole. I dont mind the course covering the costs of this.


Eliminating the bunker(s) on the right will allow for a strategic decision off the tees: play safely to the right and face a longer shot to a more angled green, or hug the waste area on the left and have a shorter, better angled shot.


Extending the waste area on the left will eliminate the bomb aimed past the waste area, the kind of shot that was most dangerous to the house.


IŽll post when and if it is done.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

[John Kavanaugh]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

Not if the house is OB at 249 yds.

[MClutterbuck]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

Not if the house is OB at 249 yds.

This plan shifts middle of fairway 20 yards right, reduces the penalty of missing slightly right significantly and increases the penalty of missing slightly left quite a lot. Together with the potential OB penalty for a hard miss left, I think it modifies the equation quite a lot in favor of aiming right of the waste area. We will see...

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

Not if the house is OB at 249 yds.

What if the rules on OB change?

[John Kavanaugh]

Oddly enough I just purchased a house where the property starts 240 yds left of the mens tees. I've owned it for close to a year and approximate that I get 500 balls a year. The actual home sits up and back a few more yards so the house gets hit once or twice a week. Before I made the purchase I used my range finder to calculate distances and I have played the course my entire life so I know what I was getting. What I didn't calculate, and continues to surprise and entertain me, is how many second shots find their way onto my property.


All that being said I am very impressed how the course which is the subject of this thread is taking measures to help the home in question.


As a side note this weekend I had a golfer hit his ball into my yard and enter my fence to retrieve his ball. All fine and good and honestly rare. What is odd about this duck is he not only took his ball but three others. He hadn't noticed me sitting outside and when I objected to him taking more balls than he had hit he invoked finders keepers. I'm never bored when golfers are around and that is worth the price of admission.


I don't think the rules of OB can be changed without less understanding property owners than me objecting.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think the rules of OB can be changed without less understanding property owners than me objecting.

I agree with this.  The USGA would be setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit by changing that Rule in a way that makes golfers less conscious of neighboring property owners.  And surely some of the many lawyers involved with the USGA will realize that.

[MClutterbuck]

All that being said I am very impressed how the course which is the subject of this thread is taking measures to help the home in question.

I don't think we would make any changes if they did not result in a better hole...

[MClutterbuck]

I don't think the rules of OB can be changed without less understanding property owners than me objecting.

I used to play a course in summer that had an extremely tight OB on the right on the par 5 4th. The property owner at 200 yards had a NO TRESPASSING - BEWARE OF DOGS sign on to the golf course. His neighbour at 240 yards had a sign reading: Dear fellow golfer, please come in and retrieve your ball. Next time be sure to try a stronger grip...

[John Kavanaugh]

All that being said I am very impressed how the course which is the subject of this thread is taking measures to help the home in question.

I don't think we would make any changes if they did not result in a better hole...

And I think you are. One reason I bought my house is because there is no trouble what so ever in bailing right which is exactly what most golfers do, or attempt. Myself...I hit hybrid because I'm not going to be the guy that finally breaks a window. And it will happen.


Honestly the people who land balls on my roof are 90% young girls playing from the ladies tees. You can not design for how far the young ladies are hitting the ball. They are so damn addicted to shooting low scores they refuse to move back. College resume and all. Have to admit that I didn't see that coming when I purchased the home.

[Pat Burke]

Buy the house on the left.  Make it part of the compensation package for the GM/Head Pro/Supt with a backyard net included.


Remove the fairway bunkers

[Randy Thompson]

The issue of the house was correctly identified and the hole not playing according to its possible strategic intent was as well.



My recommendation to the Board a few weeks ago was to take the following action:


1. Eliminate the second bunker on the right, with the adequate shaping to tie in mound and fairway.
2. Consider eliminating the first bunker on the right, maybe as a second step if needed per actual play.
3. Extend the waste area on the left another 30 yards, with some plants in it.


I believe the work can be done inhouse and it will not be costly. In any event, I believe the course will be not only safer after the changes, but we will have a much better strategic hole. I dont mind the course covering the costs of this.


Eliminating the bunker(s) on the right will allow for a strategic decision off the tees: play safely to the right and face a longer shot to a more angled green, or hug the waste area on the left and have a shorter, better angled shot.


Extending the waste area on the left will eliminate the bomb aimed past the waste area, the kind of shot that was most dangerous to the house.


IŽll post when and if it is done.

Did you present this problem to the original architectural firm or get any feedback from them? I think your ideas are good and inexpensive. These minor changes should improve the hole or lessen the problem but to correct the problem, I think Robin is correct. Probably not economic feasible at this time but maybe in the future. The original design had the waste bunker from tee to green down the left side and I don`t think any cross bunkers.

[Michael Felton]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

Don't you think removing the second bunker would move the line of instinct? I look at the picture and instinctively I would want to hit it about 5 yards left of the bunker if the bunker wasn't there. With the bunker there, I would feel compelled to move that line left (assuming I thought I could reach it).

[Josh Bills]

Just a couple thoughts from someone not near qualified to give them...


1) Could you move the tees up and make it a driveable par 4 about 300 yards.  Looks like there is plenty of room left and right around the green. 


and I hate to say this but...


2) Extend the pond  out from the left side into the course to penalize those who attempt to go left.  Maybe even wrapping it around the property line of the house that is having the problem.  People would not be able to get to the yard and that would really make them irritated if they couldn't go get their ball. 


Good luck.  And it will be interesting to hear how this is resolved.


Josh

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the majority of golfers will play the line of instinct. Therefore, it seems to me that bandages such as removing the second bunker and extending the waste area may have little effect. The bombers will still be taking a line up the left side.

Don't you think removing the second bunker would move the line of instinct? I look at the picture and instinctively I would want to hit it about 5 yards left of the bunker if the bunker wasn't there. With the bunker there, I would feel compelled to move that line left (assuming I thought I could reach it).

Wouldn't the line of instinct most generally be straight line tee to green? Especially with the green angled and bunkered the way it is. This hole has a bit of a cape hole aspect to it that might move the line of instinct to the right some. It seems to me that removing the bunker changes the line of charm, not the line of instinct.

[MClutterbuck]

Did you present this problem to the original architectural firm or get any feedback from them? I think your ideas are good and inexpensive. These minor changes should improve the hole or lessen the problem but to correct the problem, I think Robin is correct. Probably not economic feasible at this time but maybe in the future. The original design had the waste bunker from tee to green down the left side and I don`t think any cross bunkers.

Randy,


With the original architecture firm we discussed a major change on #2 which we implemented (adding a bunker between green and water on a 198 yard par 3 over water to a shallow green with a steep bank towards the water. In 3 Argentine Opens the back tee was never used and it procuded enough scores over 10, as well as ruined so many rounds for members medals so early in the round that we made the penalty for a nearly perfect shot less severe.


At that time we discussed removing a bunker or two in a few spots and they were fine with removing the second bunker, but unfortunately I was not present when that hole was discussed and it was not the focus of the visit. It was also a different design associate.


The original plan I have does not have the waste bunker up to the green, in fact it is a few yards shorter. It did have only one cross bunker on the right, at around 265, leaving a wider target on the fairway shorter of the bunker.