Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Morgan Clawson on December 30, 2010, 07:49:53 PM
-
Keller Golf Club is located in the St Paul, MN suburb of Maplewood.
Keller is a public course that is run by the Ramsey County Park System. Greens fees are only $35.
Keller was built in 1929 by Paul Coates, an engineer with Ramsey County. With insufficient funds to hire a Professional GC Architect, he volunteered to design Keller on his own. He educated himself with visits on his own dime to both private and public courses around the country. He relied heavily on “Golf Architecture in America” by John C. Thomas Jr. and spent time with Donald Ross at Pinehurst during one of his trips. He stated that he owed Mr. Ross a great deal for the encouragement given by him. He eventually did 16 different routings until he found one that satisfied him. Paul Coates continued to design golf courses in the region through the 1950’s.
Keller was named a “Top 10 public course built from 1895-1930” by Mike Cirba in his interesting thread from last summer:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44812.msg977703.html#msg977703
Keller has hosted more professional tournaments than any other course in Minnesota, with professional events (including 2 PGA Championships) played nearly every year from 1930 to 1980. Keller winners who also prevailed at The Masters include Horton Smith (’31 – St Paul Open), Sam Sneed (’49 – Western Open), and Ray Floyd (’65 – St Paul Open Invitational). The LPGA took over from 1973-80, with Beth Daniel winning the last 2 Patty Berg Classics.
I first played Keller in the late 80s, and frankly it was in terrible shape. Paul Diegnau has been the superintendent since ’96. He has done an amazing job at improving the condition of the course and adding beautiful native areas to portions of the course. Paul has confessed that he is a GCA lurker!
The great / terrible par 3 is hole #4 which is 150 yards from the back and 130 yards from the middle tee. The hole is extremely unique and controversial because there is a giant oak tree that sits in front of the green. The oak is believed to be as old as the course is, if not older.
1st timers are a bit confused when they see the hole, because it is so unique, and at first glance appears “unfair”. Despite the visual confusion, a well struck iron with the proper trajectory will make it over the mighty oak.
Here’s the hole from the back tee: (http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae156/morganclawson/KellerTreeMiddleTee.jpg)
And from the middle tee:
(http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae156/morganclawson/KellerTreeFrontTee.jpg)
This shot from the side of the green shows that there is plenty of room between the back of the tree and the front of the green:
(http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae156/morganclawson/KellerTreeFromSide.jpg)
Here’s another shot from behind the green:
(http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae156/morganclawson/4thholefrombackright.jpg)
Here’s a satellite photo. After clicking below, click the plus sign/zoom-in on the map for a closer look. You will see that the right side of the green is twice as deep as the left, making it the safest play. And you can see how much room there is between the tree and the green.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Keller+Golf+Course,+Saint+Paul,+MN&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=20.702819,62.314453&ie=UTF8&hq=Keller+Golf+Course,&hnear=St+Paul,+Ramsey,+Minnesota&ll=44.999608,-93.056999&spn=0.002246,0.007607&t=h&z=17
I think this is a great par 3!
If you make a good swing you will probably make par. If you miss hit your ball it will bounce around in the tree and you’ll have to scramble to get your bogey.
I do think the hole could be even more interesting by bringing some ground options into play. They could do this by 1) eliminating the sand trap, 2) mowing the rough that lies between the tee box and the green to fairway height, and 3) mowing the hill to the side of the green to fairway height. This would allow the crafty player to bounce the ball onto the green by playing it under the tree or off the hill on the right.
Maybe those are terrible ideas. After all, the whole idea is to get it over the tree!
-
Looks like rough hole for women, seniors, and kids.
-
Sorry but I can't agree :(. I think its horrible. I know I could most likely have no problem playing the hole as I usually make solid enough contact to hit it over the tree. But I think of the hole for my wife or father-in-law and it's unplayable.
-
I actually like the look of the hole. The bunker has to go. No need for it. I agree that fairway in front would enhance the hole, as it would add another playing dimension, as long as the course is not kept too soft. FWIW, the evergreens right of the cartpath at the tee look terrible. I've never seen trees growing in a perfectly straight line in nature.
-
There is a tree fronting the 17th green (also a par three) of the Meadow Valleys course at Blackwolf Run (Pablo "Pedro" Dye design). I have three holes from Delaware Park in Buffalo that have this one beat...two are tree carries and one is a tree tunnel.
-
I agree that the tree-bunker combo is overkill and unfair. Mill Creek near Rochester, NY has a par five (#11) that terraces up a glacial moraine, ending a brilliant hole in a tree-bunker combo...absolutely unfair to guys and ladies who have navigated the first 2/3 of the hole.
-
Two similar holes in Wisconsin...
The short par 3 12th at Janesville Riverside, a muni about 30 miles south of Madison. A simple wedge over a massive oak tree to a fairly large green. Interestingly (to me), the hole plays differently, and perhaps a tad more difficult, from the white tees (second photo, 96 yards) than the blues (first photo, 108 yards):
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr120/philmcdade/fontana/riverside/riverside094.jpg)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr120/philmcdade/fontana/riverside/riverside095.jpg)
The par 3 6th hole at the virtually unknown Country Club Estates, a 9-hole Bendelow near his more acclaimed Big Foot CC in Walworth County, halfway between Milwaukee and Madison:
No. 6 (par 3, 180 yds)
The green sits on a line past the tree and telephone pole; the flag on this day was directly between them. The play is actually directly over the tree, to a large green surrounded by mounding.
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr120/philmcdade/fontana/fontana039.jpg)
A thoughtful reminder.
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr120/philmcdade/fontana/fontana040.jpg)
-
Phil,
Good pics. My guess is the hole was built before the utility pole was installed and certainly before the tree was planted!
-
Morgan:
The course dates to the late 1920s; I'm not entirely sure even the road was there. What I like is that the course hasn't changed the hole, despite the addition of the telephone/electrical pole, the tree, and possibly the road.
I've never had difficulty with either hole, although the one at Country Club Estates can be a bit intimidating (for me, it's about a 5/6-iron, and thinned a bit means a likely encounter with the wood. :D)
-
Morgan...I think its great but not for most courses. I would lose the bunker as you have suggested and encourage the running game. Its as quirky as the Dell at Lahinch...good post.
-
Morgan-Say goodbye to the bunker and everyone can find a way to play the hole. It is currently an aerial shot or X.
-
Morgan,
Into the wind, do you get a lot of balloon shots? I don't like the idea of being forced to hit the ball up in the air.
-
Morgan,
I don't like the idea of being forced to hit the ball up in the air.
Jonathan:
One of the reasons I really like the short par 3 at Riverside (the first set of photos I posted) is that the course offers a variety of par 3s during its 18 holes -- this is the shortest, but four holes before this one the golfer is confronted with a long, level par 3 that requires for most a fairway wood, and can be approached with a run-in shot along the ground. I'm always a bit reluctant to criticize a particular hole without knowing the context of how it fits in with the rest of the course. In this case, I think it's fine for the course to demand a target shot with a wedge/9-iron, because it offers a host of other demands for the golfer.
-
Morgan
Each to their own but I dislike the look of that hole from the photos.
Appreciate it's a short hole - but if they wanted to challenge the golfer why not just build a smaller green ?
Lose the tree - I say.
-
Bad hole -- the large majority of seniors and ladies can't generate enough clubhead speed to hit a ball that high. And the farther forward the tee, the more clubhead speed required to achieve the now steeper trajectory. I guess it could work without the bunker, but it's still a bad hole.
And what's all that shade at least part of the day do to the green?
Sorry, Morgan!
-
Jonathan,
This hole never seems that windy. It is pretty well guarded by large trees on both sides.
The course and this hole borders parkland which cuts the wind as well.
-
Bill,
That may be true. I haven't played with seniors or ladies at this course. I think a decently struck hybrid would work for the shorter hitter.
My experience is that most mid range handicappers don't have trouble hitting it high enough. They usually don't hit it far enough so they end up hitting the back half of the tree as the ball starts descending.
The one shady photo was taken at about 7:15 am, so the sun was still rising. That green seems pretty healthy to me; it must get enough sun. Since we are so far north our summer days are very long.
Gene Sarazen didn't like the hole either. In John Daly at Pinehurst fashion he took a 10 on the hole and walked off the course during a tournament in the '30s!
-
Gene Sarazen didn't like the hole either. In John Daly at Pinehurst fashion he took a 10 on the hole and walked off the course during a tournament in the '30s!
Yes, and the tree was either a whole lot smaller or non-existent 70+ years ago!
-
Morgan,
I've played probably 20-25 rounds at Keller with about 8 of them being tournaments. I'm not a big fan of the hole because of the tree. But what I have found more difficult is the trouble that lurks long with a green that is very shallow.
The tee shot has to be high enough to clear but not too long or its a lost ball. HOWEVER, I don't think the tree should be removed because it would then become a very boring hole. I think they should eliminate the bunker and replace it with a closely mowed approach.
-
I love quirky par 3's like this - although that bunker should definitely go.
Most would still go for the high lob but the option of a low shot under the branches of the tree should be available.
-
I don't know; I kind of like the bunker, because it says to the player: "You have to hit this kind of shot!"
One of the funnier lines I've ever read on the Discussion Board (maybe from Sweeney) was in discussing a long par 4 in which the writer -- tired of wide fairways, varied lines of play, and options galore -- wrote something along the lines of (paraphrasing broadly):
"Options? You want options? Here's your option -- hit a driver over 250 yards of crap and land it on a narrow fairway, or you're gonna' take an X on the hole."
Aren't holes like this a bit like castor oil -- necessary on occasion, to force the player into doing something with which he's uncomfortable?
-
Morgan,
I've played probably 20-25 rounds at Keller with about 8 of them being tournaments. I'm not a big fan of the hole because of the tree. But what I have found more difficult is the trouble that lurks long with a green that is very shallow.
The tee shot has to be high enough to clear but not too long or its a lost ball.
Shane Wright
Shane,
My guess is that they put the pins on the left side of the green for tournaments. If you hit it too long on the left side it's pretty easy to go into the hazard. Click on the sattelite picture if you haven't. It's interesting to see how much deeper the right side of the green is compared to the left. Also, there are banks behind the green in the middle and right side to keep the ball in play. Interesting little details...
-
ON this one you hit over a pond, a tree and a bunker.
A miss
http://www.oceanicogolf.com/our-courses/portugal-the-algarve/oceanico-old-course/hole-by-hole.html
(its hole 4, the link doesn't go straight to it.)
-
Disney Golf!
-
Sometimes aesthetics alone should be THE clue about a hole and this par 3 fails miserably. It is one of the ugliest holes I have seen a while and for that reason alone it gets an F.
Ciao
-
I have played the hole many times and really like it.
I believe it is simply fun to hit a ball over something. Many revered holes offer the same challenge - the Himilayas at Prestwick, the bunker on the 4th at Royal Melbourne West, the Dell hole and the short par three at Painswick.
Similar challenges are rare in the US. Thus - hitting a short iron over a tree is a memorable change of pace, even if it is unfair to women and seniors. Take away the tree and no one would remember the hole.
-
Sometimes aesthetics alone should be THE clue about a hole and this par 3 fails miserably. It is one of the ugliest holes I have seen a while and for that reason alone it gets an F.
Ciao
Sean - Hard to understand why the aesthetics are objectionable. This is muni golf which should be right up your alley - $30 or so. You are not going to get charming bunkers or attention to other aesthetic details at that rate in the US, especially on rich soil on a course that gets heavy play.
-
Sean - Hard to understand why the aesthetics are objectionable. This is muni golf which should be right up your alley - $30 or so. You are not going to get charming bunkers or attention to other aesthetic details at that rate in the US, especially on rich soil on a course that gets heavy play.
[/quote]
The cost of taking a chainsaw to the tree would surely not raise the green fee over $30. ;)
If muni courses are a way to provide those new to the game somewhere to start out, then blocking them with a tree is not really going to entice them to come back. I dont suppose your best shot straight up the middle of the hole ricocheting around a tree is much fun.
-
So is this feature an actual requirement for Wisconsin courses? It would also explain agreat deal about Jerry Kelly's swing! ;D
-
The cost of taking a chainsaw to the tree would surely not raise the green fee over $30. ;)
If muni courses are a way to provide those new to the game somewhere to start out, then blocking them with a tree is not really going to entice them to come back. I dont suppose your best shot straight up the middle of the hole ricocheting around a tree is much fun.
Ross:
I see the purpose of municipal golf as providing affordable golf, not necessarily golf for beginners. Although this course is playable for beginners, it has also hosted major championships it also has a rich tournament history:
"Keller Golf Course has been the home of several PGA and LPGA golf tournaments and was a regular stop on both professional tours. Keller was the host of the St. Paul Open 1930-1968; the National PGA Championship 1932 and 1954; the Western Open 1949; the Patty Berg Golf Classic 1970-1980; and the National Amateur Publinks Championship was held at Keller in 1931. The displays in the clubhouse showcase Keller’s proud heritage. Photos of golf’s historic champions grace its walls as they once roamed the hallowed fairways of Keller Golf Course."
-
I kind of like it. If we talk of designing to encourage or require "all the shots" then certainly one hole requiring a high loft short iron is okay in my book.
I agree there needs to be more of a run up bail out to make the hole better. Losing the bunker and trimming some bottom branches might do it, as would extending the green left or right a bit to provide the option of getting somewhere on the green without negotiating the tree. Maybe even adding a nursing slope to kick those shots on the edge of the green.
If most greens have an open middle easy to access, and tucked edge pins protected by bunkers, what is wrong with the occaisional green where the middle is guarded, and the easy access is to one of the edges?
-
The nine hole par 3 course at Valderramma has a near identical hole of about 90 yards (from memory). I think I'm right in saying the par 3 course was by Robert Trent Jones who did the big course. A great bit of fun after the main event.
If I recall my solution was to tee up the driver and smack the ball into the canopy of the tree in the hope that the ball might get through to the otherside (as I say, a bit of fun after the main event !). From memory the ball dropped stone dead in front of the green where I managed to chip in.
Niall
-
Fascinating-looking hole. I wouldn't eliminate all of the bunker, personally, as I like the color contrast. Instead, I would get rid of the right half of the bunker and try to maintain that whole area under the right side of the tree as fairway and maybe re-contour it a bit to make a run-up a viable option so that those who avail themselves of the punch shot don't have to worry about the bunker but those who go up and over the tree might.
Or, you could make the cart path about ten yards wider and extend it down the hill so that players could use it as a run-up option. If it's gotta be there, at least incorporate it into the hole! :P
-
There appears to be a kickplate that slopes down toward the green on the right hand side. If so, this is the first photograph of a legitimate Treedan posted on the site.
I like it.
MIke
-
Morgan - thanks, and a question: if that tree is indeed as old as the course, where do you think Mr. Coates would've gotten the idea for it? The story you share about him makes him seem an appealing and dedicated fellow, i.e. volunteering his services and then travelling on his own dime to educate himself via visits to private and public courses around the country, spending time with Donald Ross, and reading “Golf Architecture in America”. But in all that, where do you think he would've picked up this unusual and whimsical idea of having a tree right in front of the green, especially on a course that (as one might expect from a serious 'student') was in other was so grounded in good and traditional principles/styles?
But maybe I'm making too much of this, and Mr. Coates simply had a sense of humour to go along with his engineer's brain.
Peter
-
I kind of like it. If we talk of designing to encourage or require "all the shots" then certainly one hole requiring a high loft short iron is okay in my book.
The tree would have to be much taller to make anyone in single figures even think about needing to alter the trajectory of a standard strike with a short iron. All you do is cause a real hit and hope situation for the slightly weaker player.
If you really want to require the player to hit the shot you describe then why not do it with the size, shape or contour of the green? That way 20 handicappers don't have to play tree pinball.
-
A local course to me, Hazel Grove, had a par 3 hole where you had to play across a road up to a raised blind green in a tiny clearing in the forest on the other side of a valley. A small hole in the tree canopy was all there was to aim at. There was literally only one shot possible on this hole, and it had to be perfect. Anything less resulted in a lost ball.
Unfortunately the hole is no more, as half the course was lost to an aborted road-building scheme, but it was legendary in its time and is still spoken about with awe by senior players throughout the region who remember it. Proof that par 3's do not have to offer options to be good holes.
It's architect?
One Dr A. MacKenzie...
-
Morgan,
You are correct, for tourneys, it is typically a front middle or front left pin. Front left brings the ob seriously into play on the left.
Like I said, the hole is boring without the tree, but I think some other changes need to be made because of the tree. I have had several plinko shots with the tree that I felt were pure and kick in birdies coming off the clubface.
But in a casual round, it is kind of fun to think about the shot and direction to play it.
Thank you for sharing the photos and breakdown,
Shane
-
Morgan,
Cool looking hole - I dig it - classic old hole you'd never see designed these days. It's 130 from the middle - if you can't get over, well, go around to the right. Seems to me it would be quite boring without it.
-
Russ,
I understand why it is not considered great architecture by many. I agree it does nothing to the better player (in common with most hazards) and by counting "flagstick heights" it appears the tree may be 70' high. I know average players get the ball that high (better players are 90-110 feet) so its a tweener for many average players in my mind.
That said, I do think that kind of challenge does need a different way to play, and I offered a few options - trimming up lower tree limbs and taking out the bunker, or extending the green each way with kick plates. I think it would be fun to hit the green with a "non standard" shot in that way and would make the golfer feel he really pulled one off.
-
Morgan,
Thanks for the pic and analysis. I'm surprised at the visceral reactions of those who don't like the hole--the only thing that offends me about it is the cart path on the right side. I agree that the rough should be mowed to fairway height, then it seems to me anyone could play the hole just fine. Would I want to play this hole every week? No, I think the novelty would wear off. Removing the bunker is a waste of money, because you'll need it when the tree is dead and gone.
By those who say that certain players can't play the hole, I'm reminded of the 9th at Kingsley. I was fortunate to be part of a group discussing it with Mike DeVries. In response to some complaining about the hole, he said "Why are you trying to hit the green?" :D
-
Peter,
I really don't know too much about Paul Coates, and where he got the idea.
Perhaps he came up with it on his own.
-
The tree would have to be much taller to make anyone in single figures even think about needing to alter the trajectory of a standard strike with a short iron. All you do is cause a real hit and hope situation for the slightly weaker player.
If you really want to require the player to hit the shot you describe then why not do it with the size, shape or contour of the green? That way 20 handicappers don't have to play tree pinball.
-Ross
Ross,
You are correct. The tee shot doesn't require anything special; just a good solid strike. Even a 20 can get it over the tree with a 7 iron. Again, most mid handicappers are capable of hitting it high enough, they just don't hit it far enough. That's usaully the issue for mid handicappers on holes with and without trees!
-
Thanks for the pic and analysis. I'm surprised at the visceral reactions of those who don't like the hole--the only thing that offends me about it is the cart path on the right side. I agree that the rough should be mowed to fairway height, then it seems to me anyone could play the hole just fine. Would I want to play this hole every week? No, I think the novelty would wear off. Removing the bunker is a waste of money, because you'll need it when the tree is dead and gone.
By those who say that certain players can't play the hole, I'm reminded of the 9th at Kingsley. I was fortunate to be part of a group discussing it with Mike DeVries. In response to some complaining about the hole, he said "Why are you trying to hit the green?"
-Eric
Eric, players definitely have a love hate feeling toward this hole, which is why I thought it would be fun to post it.
I think it would be fun to try to get there under the tree, but it would be the more difficult shot for most players.
#9 at Kingsley is definitely more difficult then this hole! When I played from the west tee, I thought just short and left of the green was the right play.
-
Morgan,
Cool looking hole - I dig it - classic old hole you'd never see designed these days. It's 130 from the middle - if you can't get over, well, go around to the right. Seems to me it would be quite boring without it.
No, these days they offset the middle tees a little so you just have to clear the bunker.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j282/bokuhan_hagaromo/HunterRanchGC/HR08S1.jpg)
This is a these days monstrosity, Hunter Ranch, Pasa Robles, CA, where they make you hit the most desirable shot over trees on six of 18 holes.
-
90 years ago when the course was built the tree was no bigger than a 2' shrub.
-
Can anybody confirm the tree has been there from day one and was the intention of the original architect. Looks to me like something a greens chairman would do to leave his, "Mark!" Any one shot hole requiring only one specific shot falls into the weak catagory in my book. Not much difference than an island green except you stlll have a reasonable chance to make par if you don`t excute the perfect prescribed shot. Not realistic to think there exsist a second type shot such as I am going to hit this low under the branches and stop it on the green, with or without the bunker. I just don`t see an architect at the start of a project, planting a tree to create design strategy. It would be be different if I encountered the best routing and had what I considered 17 good solid holes but such a tree or similar was located on a par three. I would probably leave the tree but try to design around it and leave one portion of the green requiring such a shot but the other side accessible without tree interference. Actually just finished constructing such a hole, the left side has a sixty or seventy year olds native tree in front of it so that pin position will be the same as in the picture. The middle is open and the far right side has a smaller tree but not as massive by any means. The middle of the green slopes to the right and anything rollinng on to the green will go right and find that pin position. Left side pin postion will require the prescbied shot but high handicappers can still play to the middle of the greens or even f they end up right still have a chance at two putting. Have not posted pictures in a while but will go back and see if I still know how and post.
-
All I can say is I've played it a few times and my feelings are mixed. But other than the first and tenth holes, this is the only one I can readily remember from the course.
-
The cart path is a bigger eyesore than the tree, that's for sure. (Kickboard usable or not ;-) )
If it is indeed heavy ground I do not see how a low shot (or kickboard) option could work year round (depending on climate) without some considerable investment. (which probably is a no-no at a local muni).
I do not know how fast Oaks grow, but my guess is the designer did not have the current picture in mind.
If the tree continues to grow, which it will, since it is not dead, it is not a question if the tree needs to go but rather when it needs to go.
Also the bunker combined with a shallow green already requires a high lofted shot.
That's 4 reasons to start up the chainsaw...
-
Saw the course in '74, while watching the LPGA tournament there. Unfortunately, I was more interested in Laura Baugh's architecture than of the course itself.
-
Well, you did say an Amatuer designed the course....
It looks like the Ravine behind the green caused him some troubles in the routing and my guess is that he left the tree to try to add something to what he felt was a weak hole. Is it an Oak? The vase-like shape and the thick, white streak down the trunk makes one think it could be an American Elm. Both can live well past 100 yrs and this tree has undoubtly reached it's mature size.
Features on a course should have some reason for being. It is up to the golfer to ascertain what that reason is. In this case there exists 2 Features However, given the horizontal nature of the green, it is redundant with the frontal bunker as both require a high arcing shot. I would imagine that most players know about how FAR their clubs go but not how high or where the apex is.
Being in the camp that only one option is actually no option, I would vote this to be a poor design. As Mr McBride states, it's too hard for slow clubhead speed to generate enough height to clear it and there is no ability to go under or around. Plus, one on the tee is indeed sheltered from wind but, given the height of the tree, a ball hit over it will encounter wind that is all but impossible for the player to gauge.
I also disagree that it would be a boring hole without the tree. Just leave the bunker and eliminate the artifical mounds behind the green to highlight "death beyond" and it would be an equally psychologically demanding hole. Being a public course, a shelf bunker or grass ledge depression could be cut into the slope behind the green as a Saver.
-
Tim Nugent -
The tree is definitley an oak as it kicks-off acorns in the fall. I personally think it is a Bur Oak which is part of the White Oak family. Bur Oaks don't seem to grow as tall as American Elms in this part of the country. Jeff Brauer estimated in this thread that the tree is about 70' high and I think he is right. I believe that there are some American Elms on the course between holes and they are really hard to hit over from my personal experience.
The 17th hole is a short par 4 and it also has a tree (I believe it's a Bur Oak also) in the middle of the fairway. There are definitely more options on that hole to get to the green, and I have rarely hit it (I can not say the same for this hole!)
So, clearly the designer was drawn to this sort of thing!
I think your design suggestions for the hole without the tree are excellent. Note in my email discusion below with the super that the trees days may be limited. Your ideas may need to be implemented sooner than later:
"In the 15 golf seasons I have been at Keller, we have had dead wood removed from it on two occasions by arborists who know what they are doing. I noticed the other day that there is more dead wood in that tree that should be removed. My gut tells me that “the oak” may be entering the decline phase of its life." - Paul Diegnau
-
The short par 3 12th at Janesville Riverside
I made my first par on that hole :)