18th at Olympic - US Women's Open

[David_Tepper]

Thru 3 rounds the 18th hole is playing as the 6th toughest hole on the course.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/championships/2021/u-s--womens-open.html#!course-stats

[Thomas Dai]

From a different perspective during play and 1938 aerial (credit Garrett Morrison's Twitter a/c)
atb



1938

[Brad Lawrence]

Thomas,


It has been 30 years since I played Olympic, but my memory is that #18 used to look a lot better. Honestly, I think it looks awful. The bunker presentation is way over the top.

Really?  The approach shot to 18 is comfortably the most attractive shot on the property, in my opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sort of OT, but since many master plans these days focus on turf reduction, I have found a surprising number of courses where the fw width between typical landing zones is as wide as it is in the landing zones.  Given how few balls land in between, and the fact that stats show the average player can keep even a 3 wood in between 30-35 yards, anything wider is kind of a waste of maintenance resources. 


This hole seems to show how certain landforms can make that look goofy, but even on flat ground, there is a bit of aesthetic compromise in narrowing fw between the green and landing zone.  And, the typical way out of that is to just narrow the landing zone, too!

[Tim Martin]

If Lexi stumbles early watch out for Shanshan. At five back she’s in the mix.

[Jon Sweet]

Thomas,


It has been 30 years since I played Olympic, but my memory is that #18 used to look a lot better. Honestly, I think it looks awful. The bunker presentation is way over the top.

Really?  The approach shot to 18 is comfortably the most attractive shot on the property, in my opinion.

Agreed, fantastic looking golf hole. Tons of character and a little quirk.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Remember this is a US Open set-up, so what you’re looking at isn’t really representative of what is played on a regular basis, especially in regards to the rough. Yes, this fairway should be wider (so should all of the fairways). Yes, that leaning pine needs to go (as do scores of other trees). Yes, those bunkers are over-the-top (all of the bunkers are over-the-top!). Yes, the green is small (it’s been neutered and re-neutered since the ’98 Open). There are other current and former members here that can describe the history of this hole, but at one point (e.g. ’66 US Open) the fairway ended at the base of the hill and it was rough all the way up to the green.
As Matt Cohn said, the current play is whatever gets you to the flats at the bottom of the hill preferably on the left half of a narrow fairway (don’t think it plays much wider than what the women played)… I’m now using a 3W instead of a 3H! For the longest players, the option to blast driver is certainly in play if you can at least get into one of the front bunkers. Removing that tree, restoring the bunker 30 yds. short of the green, and reinstating some width might tempt others to “go for it”.
It is a fantastic looking golf hole, and a great finisher for major championships (and even with long irons and wedges, it’s not a birdie-fest). What will Hanse do? That’s an excellent question and one I hope to see answered sooner than later!

[David_Tepper]

The hole finished the USWO as the 6th hardest hole, with a stroke average of 4.323. #5 was the hardest. #7 was the easiest.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/championships/2021/u-s--womens-open.html#!course-stats

The stretch of holes #2 thru #5 proved to be the 2nd, 5th, 4th and 1st hardest holes on the course, which does not surprise me at all.

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas,


It has been 30 years since I played Olympic, but my memory is that #18 used to look a lot better. Honestly, I think it looks awful. The bunker presentation is way over the top.

Really?  The approach shot to 18 is comfortably the most attractive shot on the property, in my opinion.

Different taste, I guess, though perhaps in one sense we agree. I recall thinking Olympic was about shotmaking and not aesthetics. Also thought #18 had both.

[Jason Thurman]

I didn't watch quite as much of the tournament as I'd hoped... I have a hard time staying awake when golf is on, especially when I turn it on after teeing off at 7a that morning.


But how do we think this hole played?


I liked what I saw. I'll stand by my impression that it's perfectly fair to ask for two very well-played, accurate shots from a player closing out a round in a major. And I like that this is a hole that asks for those accurate shots without also asking that the player cover 450+ or whatever yards of distance.


I'd even say that, with modern equipment, there's an argument that the driver might be the easiest club for a high level player to hit under pressure. Huge face, tons of forgiveness. By asking for two well-struck shots with shorter clubs, you're also asking for more precision in the swing while mitigating the pure advantage of a power player.


I thought the rough was an appropriate penalty. Clearly not unplayable. The fairway is probably on the small side, but in this case I'm not sure where I'd want it widened. Maybe widen to the right, but the tree is still going to block out a lot of shots... short grass lies might open the door for some amazing recoveries though. But I don't think I'd want the left side widened a whole lot further, at least relatively speaking. I think I like that, on a shot where you need to keep it left to avoid the tree, the landing area to catch a fairway lie is pretty small.


Still, 22 yards just seems tiny.


Part of what I like might just be that it's a hole that poses some of the same questions my home course does. We have a handful of short, tightish par 4s (all wider than 22 yards though!). They're not hard holes, but they come with plenty of uneven lies and bad spots that are easy to get into with an almost-good tee shot and can bite you if you get out of position. I felt like I recognized the challenge presented, and recognized it as a much more manageable one than the more common long par 4s that major championships tend to get built around. There's something sorta refreshing about a more technical finisher.

[Kevin_Reilly]

It is a different flavor of a finisher, that is for sure.


But compared to the "tour standard" 18th where it is blast and then short iron, even for iconic finishers like Riviera, it is a welcome bit of variety.


Over the years, this short hole in competition has eaten up Hogan (we've all seen the photo), Watson (he had a wedge in 1987 and didn't hit the green IIRC), Greg Norman in the 1993 Tour Championship (he flew it over the back of the green and couldn't get up and down, losing to Jim Gallagher, Jr.) and now Lexi.


For regular member play, it is a fun short hole, with most regular players using their 220 yd club (for many that is a driver) and just hoping to give themselves a reasonable wedge to short iron approach.  After a long series of demanding long par 4s throughout the course, it is fun to end up with a hole like that, even though it doesn't fit the "template" of a heroic par 4 or par 5 finisher.


I like the 18th at Pasatiempo also, so maybe it is just me!

[jeffwarne]

It is a different flavor of a finisher, that is for sure.


But compared to the "tour standard" 18th where it is blast and then short iron, even for iconic finishers like Riviera, it is a welcome bit of variety.


Over the years, this short hole in competition has eaten up Hogan (we've all seen the photo), Watson (he had a wedge in 1987 and didn't hit the green IIRC), Greg Norman in the 1993 Tour Championship (he flew it over the back of the green and couldn't get up and down, losing to Jim Gallagher, Jr.) and now Lexi.

I thought the hole was excellent