[Erik J. Barzeski]

The hole this course is from is a nice course here in Erie, PA. A few years ago they switched the nines, so what used to be number four is now number 13, and in my opinion the new number is more suitable as it's often unlucky for a good percentage of players.

This course has a lot of very good holes, IMO, but this one could be made better with some reasonable changes.

It's a 525-yard par five, with a split fairway the last third of the hole, with creek running diagonally from left to right down the hole.

It's in this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh_NDnknu0A&t=4m53s

Here's a picture from Google Earth with some markings:


A larger image is here: https://cl.ly/9f8a008cc331/lp.jpg

Here's a URL that should work in your browser: http://bit.ly/2yh7tCE

The yellow line from the tee is 250 yards. From there, it's almost 270 yards to the center of the green, and the fairway measures about 10 yards wide at the narrowest point there. The hill I've labeled is about a 30° slope - when it's dry, balls landing on the top or back side can sometimes bound down into the fairway. When it's wet, or it hits a tree limb or a root, they do not, and you're often playing a ball that's on a downslope with the ball 2'+ above your feet. (The slope doesn't look nearly as steep in the video as it is in real life.)

Left off the tee, you can't see whether your ball is in the hazard or OB, so it's often played as OB because golfers can't be virtually certain that their ball is in the creek. Trees off the tee block your vision, and trees down by the landing area to the left obscure your view of the creek and also can deflect a ball down that would otherwise find the left-center of the 10-yard wide fairway and bounce forward into the slightly wider area.

If you're hitting a driver, needless to say, this hole requires a near perfect tee shot. It can be played in a very boring way - 4-iron, 6-iron, 9-iron or something similar, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Even hitting a 3-wood off the tee to just shy of the "choke point" near the hill makes for a boring hole, as you're still laying up right or left (and sometimes you can be blocked out by the hill - the elevation at the top of the hill just right of the word is about 40' higher than the fairway just to the left.

In my opinion, the best option would be to remove most of the trees on the right-hand side of the fairway, on the hill. Let players hit their ball right, away from the OB, but they'll pay the price by most likely having a horrible lie. For players who lay up but push the ball a little, they'll have to go OVER the hill, but at least they won't have to go over the hill AND avoid the trees on the hill (i.e. the only option now is to hit a short shot, or hit a big slice that stays left of the trees and cuts back right into the fairway and away from the creek).

The second best option is to remove the trees down the left-hand side. This would let people at least take the very aggressive line near the OB/creek area, without also penalizing a ball that would otherwise land safely in the 10-yard wide section by deflecting it OB or into the creek.

But, I'm curious what the many people here think could be done to improve the hole. What would you do? Why? Or, if I'm wrong and the hole is great or good, tell me why?

[David Davis]

Erik,


Looks like a fun hole, I'd do both or at least I'd be pulling for both if I were a member. Open up the left side to allow people to take on the risk of the aggressive line and open up the right side for bailing out. As you mentioned there is already ample penalty for for pushing or missing right. In most cases that will be your higher hcp'ers missing there and further penalizing them with tree issues and lost balls may be too much. I'm not saying I would remove all the trees though as it looks like there are some beautiful trees there. The course would also grately benefit from the added light and air circulation as it looks like much of this hole could have turf issues for part of the year being in the shade all the time. (though it's a guess never having been there)

[Ronald Montesano]

Always seduced by the line of charm, I am. I first saw the left side as the removal option. Let the slicers have a chance at starting their shot up that side. I suspect a lot of them hit hybrid or less off the tee, to minimize the veer. I count at least 8 trees BEFORE you reach the fairway that I would cut down, beautiful as they might be.


Being a Buffalo guy, I should meet you for a round of golf this fall. What's your schedule like?


RM

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Always seduced by the line of charm, I am. I first saw the left side as the removal option. Let the slicers have a chance at starting their shot up that side. I suspect a lot of them hit hybrid or less off the tee, to minimize the veer. I count at least 8 trees BEFORE you reach the fairway that I would cut down, beautiful as they might be.

These trees? On the left here?


As you can see they would certainly "widen" the hole some, but the creek is right over there, too. I don't know if they would do so much to widen the hole but at least they would let people see whether the ball went into the hazard or OB, as well as let balls that are still in the air continue on their flight.

I've always considered the left tree removal the second best option. But not by much.

Being a Buffalo guy, I should meet you for a round of golf this fall. What's your schedule like?

Send me an email or a DM if you'd like.

[Ronald Montesano]

JAYZUS, that is one tight hole. I see what you mean about the right side. It's amazing that they haven't cut anything down. I would haul the wood away if they let me keep it.

[Jim Nugent]

Break it up into two holes: a potentially driveable par 4, followed by a long par 3 to the current green. 

[Mike Schott]

Break it up into two holes: a potentially driveable par 4, followed by a long par 3 to the current green.

This. I like split fairways but there should be a risk/reward scenario and I don't see one here. Blow it up.

[Peter Sayegh]

Erik, how often is the left fairway used? I don't see any advantage to using it unless maybe the pin is on the right third of the green? Plus, the cart path that cuts through the fairway further decreases the room for a layup.

[Thomas Dai]

Commence with removing the trees on the left side of the fairway (but right side of ditch) and also those trees on the hill to the right in the fairway around the driving area.
Then play it for a while before deciding if anything more is needed.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

As a left to right player, like the vast majority of amateur golfers are....this hole is a nightmare from the tee.


I would remove as many trees on the left as possible to at least give guys like me a chance to risk taking on the creek again in the 2nd shot.  As it looks now, I couldn't see playing more than a 5W and just laying up every time for the 2nd shot.  It also looks like it should be opened up to the right a bit more at the pinch point, and then guys can challenge the creek if they want a shorter 2nd shot.

[Garland Bayley]

Widening the hole one the right is less optimal. It creates an angle where dealing with the creek is more of a distance issue than a directional issue.

Take out trees on the left and let the player risk as much as he wants. The only purpose of the trees is to protect the houses. They have no golf purpose. Let the houses put up nets. They chose to have a house on a course. It is their property. They should be responsible for protecting it. It should not be the courses responsibility t protect it.

[Rick Lane]

agree, take out that clump of trees on left.    Also consider shortening the hole so that 250-270 flirts with that creek if you are planning to give it a go in 2......

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Break it up into two holes: a potentially driveable par 4, followed by a long par 3 to the current green.

Let's assume the hole has to remain a par five (or at least a par four) as they have 17 other holes they like, and ideally, would want to spend less money than this would cost.

Erik, how often is the left fairway used? I don't see any advantage to using it unless maybe the pin is on the right third of the green? Plus, the cart path that cuts through the fairway further decreases the room for a layup.

Quite often. Laying up leaves you… 100, and if you hit a driver 265, your layup is only 150 yards. So with about 240-250 to the green, a lot of guys will hit a hybrid or 3W to the left side. And as the tee is elevated, you can sometimes get out to where your second shot is from 220.

Commence with removing the trees on the left side of the fairway (but right side of ditch) and also those trees on the hill to the right in the fairway around the driving area.
Then play it for a while before deciding if anything more is needed.

That's what I'm thinking. I've said if you can only do one thing, remove the trees on the right. If you can do two, remove both sets of trees.

Some of the trees on the left that appear to be overhanging the property may actually be off the property, and thus, not able to be cut down by the golf course. The collection of 6-8 trees right of the creek short of the landing zone are on the property, though. Even if you cut those down, though, the "fairway" is going to be about 21 yards wide. You're not gaining much - the creek is right there.

Widening the hole one the right is less optimal. It creates an angle where dealing with the creek is more of a distance issue than a directional issue.

No, it's very much a directional issue.



This isn't about distance. Carrying the creek is not the issue at all. Heck, a 100-yard tee shot carries the creek. I've seen players nearly top the ball and carry the creek. Widening the hole to the right doesn't change that.

Take out trees on the left and let the player risk as much as he wants. The only purpose of the trees is to protect the houses. They have no golf purpose. Let the houses put up nets. They chose to have a house on a course. It is their property. They should be responsible for protecting it. It should not be the courses responsibility t protect it.

Most of the trees - except the clump just short of the landing area - are not on the golf course property.

agree, take out that clump of trees on left.    Also consider shortening the hole so that 250-270 flirts with that creek if you are planning to give it a go in 2......

FWIW, players can reach it in two right now. It requires anything from a 3W, hybrid, or a 4-iron to do it, but they can.

--------

Really, thank you for the responses. I should have noted the bit about many of the trees along the left being off the golf course (their trunks, anyway - the limbs hang over the golf course) earlier, but I didn't for whatever reason. Honestly with an unlimited budget, they should do something very different with this hole IMO, but it's interesting to hear what y'all would do with a smaller budget, and I'm loving the discussion and the ideas so far.

My points above were mostly to add a bit more information. In general, I'm agreeing with much of what everyone is saying. For example I don't disagree with making it two holes at all, I just probably could have been clearer that I've always just considered what you could do without a huge budget or changing the # of holes.

Thank you all so far. Great comments so far. Thank you.

[Tal Oz]

Armchair archie checking in so take everything with a grain of salt.

My initial inclination was to clear the left side trees to the right of the creek. Then clear a few on the right @ 250 out and mow it at fairway height. But with the recent info about these trees on the left being off property I thought of a different idea.
Move the teebox to the right of the creek and shorten this hole to a long par 4. It looks like you can't quite stretch it out to a par 5 because of the previous hole. Tip it out at 420 ish and clear out the trees on the right and widen the fairway.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Armchair archie checking in so take everything with a grain of salt.

My initial inclination was to clear the left side trees to the right of the creek. Then clear a few on the right @ 250 out and mow it at fairway height. But with the recent info about these trees on the left being off property I thought of a different idea.

The ones to the right of the creek are on the property. Just some of the overhanging ones to the left (particularly near the tee) are off the property (the trunks).

My idea, btw, is this:

• Cut down the trees on the hill. This way if you bail out, you're faced with a screwy lie (ball about two feet above your stance, and often on a severe downslope too).

• Cut down the clump of trees by the creek at about 240.

• Widen the fairway five yards to where those left trees were, but leave the rough so balls don't roll into the creek (the fairway is narrow enough as it is - normally I like a ball rolling into a hazard, like a bunker, but not with a 20-yard wide fairway).

• Move the left green side bunker to short-right. This will entice golfers who have a lie to give it a rip from their second shot, and will add more interest to what is otherwise a pretty boring second and third if you have to lay up.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()