Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Adam Lawrence on December 03, 2017, 11:44:58 AM

Title: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Adam Lawrence on December 03, 2017, 11:44:58 AM

St Enodoc has been doing some work to the famous/notorious (delete as appropriate) tenth hole. They have cut back the trees at front left of the green, and created a water feature in there (I assume the area is/was wet generally).

Thoughts?

(photos from St E Facebook page)

(https://i.imgur.com/MhssSK6.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/bU1si68.jpg)
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Craig Disher on December 03, 2017, 12:16:14 PM
This is in line with Tom Doak's recommendations for the hole. The issue, I believe, was whether the owners of the adjacent property would permit the club to cut back the trees. Apparently they agreed. The water was always there, just hidden by trees and grasses. I think this is a great improvement. It appears that it will now be possible to consider an approach in from the left.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Jon Wiggett on December 03, 2017, 12:32:12 PM

Looks like an improvement to me. It will certainly help to make clearer the fate of a shot that goes left.


Jon
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Scott Warren on December 03, 2017, 04:28:54 PM
The holeís supposed merit lay in its quirk, didnít it?


Now itís just a really long narrow par four with water fronting the green, entirely out of character with the nine before it and eight after it.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Tom_Doak on December 03, 2017, 05:26:00 PM
The hole has been out of character with all the rest (in a good way) for a very long time - it is the only hole that dates all the way back to the original (I think it was 1907) layout.


It has been steadily overtaken by trees for many years but I don't believe that was its original character (though it was pretty overgrown even when I first saw it, 35 years ago this week).  But to imply that my idea has turned it into a modern hole is ridiculous.  All they have done is cut a thicket of shrubbery.  And I doubt it will look like a pond by this time next year; it's just a raw wound now, but that is certainly not the final intent.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Thomas Dai on December 03, 2017, 05:27:00 PM
As I recall there are/were a series of humps and mounds down the left off the tee, ie between the fairway and the stream. Are these humps and mounds still there or does the left side clear out only commence further along the hole?


As an aside, ever wondered what the house behind the trees at th3 9th green is like or what else is visible there about, well have a look at the 360* instantstreetviews views here - https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.554985,-4.92622,37.56h,-0.67p,0.93z (https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.554985,-4.92622,37.56h,-0.67p,0.93z)


Atb
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Tom_Doak on December 03, 2017, 05:44:43 PM
The big mound in the landing area is intact.  Most of this work is further up.  The stream is also right on the property line (as is a busy public footpath) so multiple parties have to sign off ... indeed my reason for suggesting the clearing was so that players in the fairway might see the walkers they were about to hit into as they came around the corner up by the green.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Scott Warren on December 03, 2017, 11:41:37 PM
But to imply that my idea has turned it into a modern hole is ridiculous.


Hi Tom,


My response was from reading Adam's OP alone, so I wasn't aware you were involved with this work. Seeing as I appear to have upset you, allow me to explain my post a bit more thoroughly.


The 10th at St Enodoc was as funky a links hole as I've seen anywhere, and as out of character with the rest of its course as I've seen. But it is also an essential connector given the piece of land they have between 9 green/16 tee and the 11-13 loop at the church.


It basically ticked none of the boxes anyone would apply to a quality golf hole, and yet plenty of good judges liked it -- seemingly because it was so outrageous/quirky/one-of-a-kind. Being what it is, on the land its on, it's never going to be a textbook "good golf hole", so for my money, by removing the trees you basically just make it less unique, without making such a significant change that it starts to fit with the rest of the course or ticks the usual boxes that make a good golf hole.[/size][size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Thomas Dai on December 04, 2017, 04:36:40 AM
The big mound in the landing area is intact.  Most of this work is further up.  The stream is also right on the property line (as is a busy public footpath) so multiple parties have to sign off ... indeed my reason for suggesting the clearing was so that players in the fairway might see the walkers they were about to hit into as they came around the corner up by the green.


Thanks Tom.
The vision aspect, especially the way modern society has moved, is key. Only takes someone on the footpath to get a 1:68 projectile in the teeth and a big can of worms is opened.......maybe even to the extent of StE back to using some of the (rather nice) land on the Holywell course, where once upon a time some of the main course was.


Atb
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Sean_A on December 04, 2017, 04:38:54 AM
Is it possible to see the green now from the narrow neck of fairway...level with the large mound on the right?

Ciao
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Tom_Doak on December 04, 2017, 06:09:57 AM
Is it possible to see the green now from the narrow neck of fairway...level with the large mound on the right?

Ciao


I'm not sure, as I haven't been back to see it.  That's one of the odd things about some of the consulting we are doing in the UK, they don't necessarily want to pay us to supervise ... which was just the way MacKenzie had to work over here 100 years ago.


You would not be able to see very much of the green surface, because the neck is so low and you're playing up over that little shoulder on the inside.  But you might be able to see the flag on the right half of the green.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Sean_A on December 04, 2017, 06:26:45 AM
Is it possible to see the green now from the narrow neck of fairway...level with the large mound on the right?

Ciao


I'm not sure, as I haven't been back to see it.  That's one of the odd things about some of the consulting we are doing in the UK, they don't necessarily want to pay us to supervise ... which was just the way MacKenzie had to work over here 100 years ago.


You would not be able to see very much of the green surface, because the neck is so low and you're playing up over that little shoulder on the inside.  But you might be able to see the flag on the right half of the green.

I don't know St Enodoc well enough to know if the green is in view...though I wouldn't have thought so.  In one sense, cutting those trees will make more people play further left for their second...unless you can see folks walking on a path.  One good thing is that there will be more over-hooked balls found than previously. 

I do find it surprising that what can be seen once the trees were cleared wasn't a talking point prior to tree removal. 

Side bar...It is disappointing that Ran gave the 16th green a thumbs up.  The old green location was much more interesting.  I wonder if the club even considered making the hole a par 4 for the odd comp they host with good players rather than cange the hole.

Ciao
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Charles Lund on December 14, 2017, 03:10:21 PM
I played five rounds there in August.  Here is a link to some photos of the hole, taken with different zoom from different locations:


https://photos.app.goo.gl/XBWbif0FzJuWc4cC2


Hope the visuals clarify aspects of the challenges associated with the hole.


Charles Lund
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: ward peyronnin on December 14, 2017, 03:48:01 PM
I personally love the 10th at St Enodoc and regard it as ticking many of the good golf hole boxes i employ such as strategic complexity, a breathtaking panorama, and interesting movement and topography. I do not understand how a patch of scrubby brush and weak choked out trees are the critical element making for a quirky links hole? Is the enchanting wildflower meadow the club maintains on hole 7 I think a detraction?

Further I believe hazards should be visible when possible; particularly water hazards in order to properly apply the rules of golf. Why is ten not not in keeping with the rest of the course; is 11 then as well because it is a flat transition hole?

Scott to me your are mounting a rather high horse with ill supported generalizations to get you there.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: jeffwarne on December 14, 2017, 07:53:55 PM
The holeís supposed merit lay in its quirk, didnít it?


Now itís just a really long narrow par four with water fronting the green, entirely out of character with the nine before it and eight after it.


my first thought
played it 5 wood-5 wood
seemed pretty cool to me


be great to see some ipictures of the finished product from a wider perspective
or better yet, go check it out myself again ;D
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Peter Pallotta on December 14, 2017, 10:22:34 PM
Charles, thanks much for those photos. I can see why the 10th has garnered its fame/notoriety - what a striking hole it is, not one to be easily confused with any other. 
Peter
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Charles Lund on December 15, 2017, 12:07:24 AM
I was fortunate to have planned a two week trip that included some early options during my stay at nearby Wadebridge. 


St. Enodoc offers a five day ticket and I had planned playing it two to three times.   On my arrival, I immediately made the decision to get a five day ticket which allowed me to play five rounds in seven days.  Ran wrote a detailed review of the course which provides extensive detail and a hole by hole summary. 


As for the addition of water in the area shown in the photos on this thread, you can see from my photos that the dense vegetation that was part of a lateral hazard is transformed into a water hazard.  So a pulled shot that would have gone into dense vegetation that was a hazard would now go into water.  The line of play if playing to the green is out to the right toward the church to a flat area that will kick to the left or run out to the right of the green.  I think I hit layup hybrids on three occasions that left me 70 to 90 yards out on a side hill lie.  I also hit a lay up seven or eight iron that left me short of the hazard on a flat area with about 110 yards in on another occasion, after not hitting my tee shot an optimal distance.  On one day I hit a three metal for my second shot out to the right toward the green and it kicked in short of the green.  The landing area from the tee is fairly generous until it narrows about 260 yards off the tee.  Given my distance of 230 to 240 yards on my better tee shots, I had a generous target.


When I played my first round on the course, I was able to recall each hole in sequence from memory, which is unusual.  Often, even on better courses that I really like, holes seem like a blur until I have played a couple of rounds.  After five rounds, I decided that I didn't think there was a weak or bad hole on the course, although I personally did not like the eleventh hole that much.  I took the time to photograph the sixth and tenth hole because they had more photogenic qualities and were memorable in other ways due to the duneland adjacent to the tenth hole or as an obstacle in the middle of the sixth hole.


From my recollection, some of the water that would be part of the new hazard on the tenth hole also flows in the low spot in the par three fifteenth hole and to the left of the tenth fairway.  I wasn't plagued by my intermittent snap hook on the tenth hole or I could be more precise about where the water flowed.


If I had played the hole from the forward tee box, I might have a better perspective about how the narrowness of the fairway beyond my landing area came into play.


Many other holes were fabulous and memorable, but not that photogenic with the equipment I had.


Charles Lund
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Duncan Cheslett on December 15, 2017, 02:02:16 PM
That's one of the odd things about some of the consulting we are doing in the UK, they don't necessarily want to pay us to supervise ... which was just the way MacKenzie had to work over here 100 years ago.



There is a deep mistrust in the UK of "experts", particularly when they cost money.


It takes a strong person of influence at a non-elite golf club to push through the idea of bringing in an architect even for a one day visit and report. Most members see it as an unnecessary expense.
 

Accompanying Ken Moodie at work at Reddish Vale has brought home to me just how shortsighted that view is.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Tom_Doak on December 16, 2017, 01:42:30 PM

Side bar...It is disappointing that Ran gave the 16th green a thumbs up.  The old green location was much more interesting.  I wonder if the club even considered making the hole a par 4 for the odd comp they host with good players rather than cange the hole.



I agree that the two newer greens [13 and 16] are both disappointing -- the bunkers into the slopes behind the greens are un-links-like.  The 13th will be easier to fix in that regard.


But I can guarantee you the club did not think about changing the 16th to a par-4.  They are already self-conscious about being par-69 instead of 70.  And the funniest part of that is that anyone else would just call #10 a par five and get up to the magic number, but they have kept it a par-4 in spite of that.



Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Lou_Duran on December 16, 2017, 03:18:49 PM
tIf not for the large DH elevation change and fine vistas, would 10 be considered a great hole?  As I recall, #12 was not a fan favorite, but technically, it might be a superior hole, albeit on flat ground.  I too liked #10 a lot.  It requires a long, straight drive middle-right to set up a challenging approach.  For me it seemed much more heroic than strategic.  The changes appear very positive.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Thomas Dai on December 17, 2017, 04:48:50 AM
Given it's location, terrain, angles, other users, etc etc would you be permitted to build a hole like the 10th at StE in the UK these days?
atb
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Scott Warren on December 17, 2017, 05:31:45 AM
Ward,


Itís a 440-yard hole where the fairway is less than 10 yards wide between 230 from the tee and 120 from the green.


At the fat of the driving zone, between 180 and 220 from the tee itís a generous 20-25 yards wide.


If you miss your drive left itís a lost ball or sideways punch out, and if you miss right youíre making a near-baseball swing at your next, in the hope of advancing 100 yards to a 20-yard wide landing zone with water to the left.


The green is a decent size, I suppose.


So if youíre as much of a striper as Jeff Warne you flush two 220-yard fairway wood shots to the green. The rest of us hit a 200-yard bunt, a 100-yard layup and then try to get up and down from 100 out.


I accept that if Tom Doak, Sean Arble & Adam Lawrence like the hole it has something to it that I donít appreciate, but letís not get carried away pretending this hole has some incredible strategic quality demanding study and repetition.


Somehow, despite the maths and geometry of the thing, people dig it. Not because itís a 440-yard hole where most of the fairway is 10 yards wide and thereís penalty shots down the whole left flank.


Again, I donít question that Tomís change improves the hole. The bloke doesnít have a history of fucking shit up. My question was simply whether making the hole less quirky might begin to remove the Empororís clothes.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Adam Lawrence on December 17, 2017, 06:01:41 AM
Scott -- I think you're either being a bit melodramatic or your memory has built the hole up to be something it's not. While it's unarguably true that the part of the fairway from which you can get any kind of view of the green area is narrow, actually getting the ball in play from the tee is not that hard. The hill on the right side contains even pretty bad misses on that side. So long as you don't go left you're generally still in the game.


Why I think the hole is strategically very strong is that if you want to make a safe, reliable four rather than one that requires chipping and putting, you have to lay your drive down the left side, close to the perdition. Only then can you hit your tee shot far enough to leave a second that isn't crazy long -- if you go long and right you're going to be blocked off by the hillside.


Now I think that's a clever hole. It's a classic bogey five really, because to make a five is not hard for most golfers.


My problem with the hole, which stems from having first seen it at the height of the summer tourist season, is just how close Position A off the tee is to the footpath, which is the access to the church and Daymer Bay. I have never, ever had to wait ten minutes on a tee just to try to find a gap between walkers into which I felt comfortable hitting. Only at Falsterbo in Sweden, where the footpath to the point crosses a fairway and is FULL of birdwatchers have I ever seen anything like that number of non golfers walking on a golf course.


So in short I don't see your objection to the hole in golfing terms. Only safety.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Adrian_Stiff on December 17, 2017, 06:34:55 AM
The majority of golfers speak that the 10th hole is the bad hole at SE. They mainly talk of the run of holes from 10-12 being the let down. Hole 4 most consider weak on the front nine.


The Plans and measurements don't lie. Hole 10 with the slopes and narrow bits does not really fit.


The improvements with the cutting back of the trees and bushes look to me to be a great improvement.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Tom_Doak on December 17, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
Scott:


As Adam alludes, one of the things about the 10th is that you don't have to hit the drive into the fairway.  The first time I played there, not realizing the distance to the neck [and with the rough down in December], I hit my drive onto the side of the hill and then got pin high with a "baseball swing" second shot as you aptly described it. 


Many good players would say that having to play a hole in that manner is out of bounds, and that the stance for a second shot from the side of the hill is much too unpredictable.  Indeed, it is ... and those players are welcome to lay back off the tee, or to try for the neck of fairway, instead.  But my principal suggestion for that hole was to keep the rough on the hill mowed with some degree of regularity, so that golfers could try to play the hole in summer the way it does play in winter.


As I mentioned, the tenth is the only hole from the original, pre-Braid 18-hole layout which dates to 1907 I think.  At the time it would have been a much more straightforward, three-shot par-5, as no one would have been able to drive the ball to where the fairway narrows so "unfairly".  I doubt it would have been though of as quirky, back then.  It is interesting how modern expectations sometimes completely change people's view of a hole:  it is a great hole for a lot of players, just not for the longer hitters who think they decide these matters.
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Sean_A on December 17, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
I can understand Scott's point, the 10th is at best ungainly and at worst, for those relying on the convential, an awful hole.  IMO, golf courses need holes like the 10th if only for controversy.  Liking or disliking the hole is immaterial.  That said, for flat bellies today, the hill can be carried making the hole a doddle...I have seen it done. 

Ciao 
Title: Re: Changes to St Enodoc's Tenth
Post by: Garland Bayley on December 17, 2017, 11:10:21 PM
Scott:


As Adam alludes, one of the things about the 10th is that you don't have to hit the drive into the fairway.  The first time I played there, not realizing the distance to the neck [and with the rough down in December], I hit my drive onto the side of the hill and then got pin high with a "baseball swing" second shot as you aptly described it. 

...

As I discovered at Buda, this doesn't quite work so well for lefties. 😉