[Tom_Doak]

I am curious, you and I have sparred in the past about trying to restore "design intent".  I like to try to do so when and where it is possible and makes sense.  You stated that:

"The original short-cut route along Reynolds Channel required a 200-yard carry to get to the island fairway [much more daunting in 1918 than today!] and ran out of real estate at about 280.  We will still build that tee, but for a really good player today it would be 4-wood, 5-iron or something like that, which was surely not what Macdonald had in mind."

Given you likely could restore what Macdonald had in mind, will you try and if not, why not?

Kalen:


Thanks for your question! 


Our goal for Lido is to let people play all of the holes exactly as Macdonald built them, so the "1918" tee will be 505/466 yards as it was.


However we have had to space some of the parallel fairways further apart E-W so that golfers don't kill someone on another hole - the original fairways were just too close together.  By councidence, the 4th hole plays east to west, and spacing out those other fairways has put the 3rd green considerably farther from the 4th green, so there's room to put in a new back tee where we want.


Which brings up the interesting question -- how far back would Macdonald have wanted it for today's players?  Would he want the carry to the island fairway to be 220 yards or 250 or 275?  Would he think about a scratch golfer or the +7 modern Tour pro?


And that's precisely why I try not to get into all the b.s. some designers put out about "doing what Macdonald would do today" - because nobody has any clue what Macdonald wpuld do today!  We only know what he did do, and I try to stick with that most of the time. 


But we will have room to add tees (forward and back) to the Lido, and I don't have any qualms about doing that as long as it doesn't mess up playing the original design as it was.  I'm just not going to pretend to channel C.B. Macdonald . . . even on the Channel Hole 

[Tim Martin]

Building Lido to spec but having the option to stretch it out covers all the bases. I’ve looked at photos and drawings of Reynolds Channel and Tom’s adaptation is of great interest. I can’t wait to play.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Having the ability "to stretch it out" (which means adding new tees) is always the first thing you look at.  But saying you are not trying to restore design intent by adding those tees is not really sincere.  That is why you are adding the other tees, to bring back the original intent.  On many classic courses, that isn't an option (to stretch it out) as there is no place to do so. 

Tom,
Thanks for addressing Kalen’s question   Remember you are the one who said very confidently you were sure this was "not what Macdonald had in mind" on that hole.  I think it is ok to admit it is not rocket science to figure that out and if you can address it, it is ok to do so.  I do agree however that too much guesstimating of what the original architect intended can be a bad thing but frankly studying these guys and doing the research is part of what we are getting paid to do.  The important thing is to make clear what you are proposing to restore or at least trying to restore.  The thrill of that carry as Macdonald wanted from his original tee is not quite the same or what he envisioned so what did you really restore?  You should still have that tee there but it helps to have others.


I can’t remember if you restored it or not but on the par three 15th hole at Cherry Hills there was an original tee near the stream that I wanted to restore to allow the hole to be played as it was in the 1920’s. I got some resistance (it was a short tee) but finally agreement from the club to restore that tee just so the hole could be played from the same spot as Flynn had envisioned. 


At Oyster Harbors we had debate with the club about a fairway bunker on the first hole that I wanted to move down range because it had turned into a serious hazard for the higher handicappers and the better players didn’t even know it was there.  The bunker had already been altered in size and shape by another architect (not Ross) and there was no landform that it was built into.  In my opinion it would have restored what I believe was Ross’ intent for that hazard.  Again maybe there is no right or wrong answer but your guys left it in place.  We can debate it all you want but if Ross saw that hazard today and watched only weaker players hit it in that bunker, I am not sure he would be happy.  We will never know for sure but what we do know is it would not have played that way in the 1920’s. 


In my opinion, restoring design intent is something that should at least be evaluated (unless you are just restoring courses for pure historical sake or as museum pieces or forcing golfers to play with equipment from that time period). 

[Bill Seitz]

Don't know if it qualifies for this discussion, but depending on the conditions, I use both sides of the center line bunker complex at Kingsley pretty routinely.  With a pretty big tailwind, I'll try to carry it, but with little wind in any direction, the right side is my preferred option, with the chance of rolling it down the hill.  Into a pretty decent wind, I'll go left.  It fits my ball flight better into a headwind, and with the tree gone at the far right point of the left rough, I can bend a hybrid or 3-wood up the fairway.  There's more room right, but into a wind with a fade, there's a chance I could be well back, or even worse, just get pushed right up into the sidehill rough.  Also, if it's the second or third round of the day, no matter what the wind is doing, I may just not want to walk up the hill.

[archie_struthers]

 


I haven't seen very many good ones in all my travels. The most interesting  variant on this design feature would be on a par five where a heroic angle might be better employed while leaving a safer route to the green.

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't seen very many good ones in all my travels. The most interesting  variant on this design feature would be on a par five where a heroic angle might be better employed while leaving a safer route to the green.

Actually I think the best design would you give the shortest route and best angle to someone who can hit the ball very straight, and punish those who miss that fairway, while giving a wide berth for players taking the long way around.  My sense is that's what the hole at Lido was, originally.  If you missed the island fairway, you couldn't get across the water in two and had to chop out back to the end of the island.

[Phil Burr]

Bill Seltz,


What is your handicap?  You've offered a discussion of a hole at Kingsley that I'd expect to hear between Bryson & his caddie.  I have no doubt as to the merit of your strategy.  As a 4 handicap I realize I'm not fully analyzing all of my options.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Bill Seltz,


What is your handicap?  You've offered a discussion of a hole at Kingsley that I'd expect to hear between Bryson & his caddie.  I have no doubt as to the merit of your strategy.  As a 4 handicap I realize I'm not fully analyzing all of my options.

I was thinking the same thing. No way I bomb it over the bunkers except on my second shot!!

[Dan_Callahan]

It may be gimmicky, but the Gambler at King's North is a legit split fairway, where the hole plays significantly shorter if you risk trying to hit the island.

[Bill Seitz]

Bill Seltz,


What is your handicap?  You've offered a discussion of a hole at Kingsley that I'd expect to hear between Bryson & his caddie.  I have no doubt as to the merit of your strategy.  As a 4 handicap I realize I'm not fully analyzing all of my options.

I'm about a 4 and not an especially long hitter.  if you're familiar with Kingsley, I can clear the hill on #17 from the blue tees in up to maybe a very light headwind, but I can't clear it from the either gold tee (maybe the upper gold in a really strong tailwind).  I've never reached #13 off the tee.  But I can carry the bunkers on #1 in the right wind.  You have to go a bit right anyway, because carrying directly over them is just going to leave you in the left rough at the bottom of the hill.  I've reached that green in two maybe three times in ~100 plays. 

[Tim Martin]

See new post. Sorry!

[Joe Zucker]

Fowler's Mill (Pete Dye course that was featured in the Gourmet's Choice of the confidential guide) outside of Cleveland has two split fairway holes, #9 and #12 (Lake/River).  The ninth is a legitimate split fairway where the player can go to either side and depending on pin position, one side can be much better.  The 12th is a bit choked with trees these days and it's very hard to get to the left fairway.  With the lower right tee box, it might be possible.  In my 200 plays there in college, I don't think I ever say anyone go left on 12, but 9 was always a decision. 

[Tim Martin]

Wonder what you guys think of this one by Fred Couples at Carolina National? No clear cut best route IMO. The tee shot is played over water or sand as well as the approach being played over water or sand. For those that like the play from the right side because of the water they play the approach over a Lion's Mouth bunker instead. A semi terrifying hole for many.

[Tom_Doak]

Wonder what you guys think of this one by Fred Couples at Carolina National? No clear cut best route IMO.

Tim:


That's exactly the sort of hole I dislike.


It's a relatively short par-4, but with two forced carries on the left-hand route, there's no way any B player can go that way.  Instead, they go right, and either have to carry a bunker right in front of the green, or aim between the bunker and the water to miss the green left and try to get up and down from there.  Ick.


Honestly, if you're good enough to go left, then carrying the green front bunker in two is no big deal, so why would you go left?

[Tim Martin]

Tom-I played maybe twenty years ago and remember hitting my tee shot in the sand and making a five. It played as our 18th hole of the day and left everyone in our group sort of baffled. In retrospect it was more of the same with no shortage of heroic shots required during the round.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()