Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on May 10, 2015, 11:29:18 AM
-
When a golfer is standing on the tee of a hole that ascends slightly in front of him, that crests and then descends, such that the golfer can't see the DZ from the tee, how disingenuous is it to have the blind fairway lines differ significantly from the visible fairway lines ?
In other words, a golfer on the tee thinks he's driving down the center of the fairway, when in reality, he's driving down the far left or far right side of the fairway.
Ergo, a drive that he thinks he's executed perfectly, ends up in the rough.
Gimmickie ?
Legit ?
-
Like the old saying goes Pat, a blind shot should only be blind once.
Your description made me think of #12 at Crystal Downs. The fairway rises in front of you and gives the appearance the hole runs straight away. After the crest of the hill, the fairway cants right to left and bends to the right. A well struck center drive can run through the fairway quite easily.
After one play, you stand on the tee with a shade of doubt. On multiple plays, conditions and wind direction add to the decision of target and ball flight. I believe it to be legit and a challenge to overcome the mental obstacle placed in front of you.
Now for the courses that present the same challenge but have a hidden water hazard or out of bounds well within reach off the tee for most players, that crosses the line. If you can't pull off the tee shot properly, you shouldn't be punished to the point of needing another ball.
Ken
-
I've played a hole like what you are describing. I didn't enjoy it.
I'm generally not a fan of deep rough, so my distaste in your example starts there.
It would be hard to attach the word dishonest, but deception is appropriate.
-
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
-
To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter
-
I have no problem with this as I believe there should be some advantage for local knowledge. I do however think that the lost ball possibilities should be kept to a minimum.
Jon
-
After further consideration, I have to say it isn't the mystery I mind (in fact, I love that), it's the fact that someone decides to cut the grass(or not) at some differing height to provide a perceived, odd sort of interest. More and more I'd rather not have that be in the way of fun golf.
-
This isn't something I like, not least because I hate the idea of losing balls on blind shots where you hit the shot you meant to.
Deception - as the golden age guys used it - was all about depth and distance, not about hiding tricks and hazards. As always, Tom Simpson had a good quote that differentiates between the two types. Can't recall the detail though. Perhaps someone else has it to hand?
-
Like the old saying goes Pat, a blind shot should only be blind once.
Ken,
That statement isn't true as it implies that all circumstances are identical and that the golfer possesses a photographic memory
Your description made me think of #12 at Crystal Downs. The fairway rises in front of you and gives the appearance the hole runs straight away. After the crest of the hill, the fairway cants right to left and bends to the right. A well struck center drive can run through the fairway quite easily.
After one play, you stand on the tee with a shade of doubt. On multiple plays, conditions and wind direction add to the decision of target and ball flight. I believe it to be legit and a challenge to overcome the mental obstacle placed in front of you.
Now for the courses that present the same challenge but have a hidden water hazard or out of bounds well within reach off the tee for most players, that crosses the line. If you can't pull off the tee shot properly, you shouldn't be punished to the point of needing another ball.
Ken
-
I'll add a factor to the circumstances.
Now suppose that the fairway only in the invisible DZ slopes significantly toward the rough that protrudes from the visible fairway lines.
Now, it's a double whammy.
-
To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter
Casablanca or Maltese Falcon?
-
18 at Merion come to mind Patrick?
-
8)
Don't think you should have a short porch on a blind hole but certainly having to bend it or know the play isn't that much to ask. Totally on board with you are a stranger but once on a golf hole.
Lehigh CC, a neat Flynn outside Philly , has a fairway that's really hard to hit , semi blind and uphill where you almost have to snap,hook it to find the sweet spot in the fairway . ths new equipment has changed the dynamic a bit as the young guys can fly it so far but you just need to,hit a better second shot .if you don't bend it like Beckham . It challenges your skill , a good thing!
-
A course I play has this exact situation on the 17th hole. A blind tee shot to an offset fairway with a pond jutting into the LZ about 240 yards out on the left. Then someone had the great idea to route the cart path between the light rough and the pond. So you can hit a slight draw to the left center of the fairway, bounce once or twice, hit the cart path and bounce in the pond. You end up searching for a ball that you think was in the fairway and is now probably in the pond, but isn't known or virtually certain. If you could see it happen it would piss you off but least you can drop up by the pond, however since it's a blind shot it can leave a bad impression with one hole to go. I've seen it happen to the group behind us and it can really back up play.
So yes, I feel it is dishonest and it does mess with you psychologically in the few holes leading up to it and even after your round. In this case, even local knowledge is only good for saying "No it's not lost it probably bounced in the pond." At least give me some rough to slow down a ball that lands in the fairway, as I have no problem with a bad swing resulting in a big hook ending up in the pond.
Definitely seems like a gimmicky hole to me.
-
Yes, when blindness is on the table, the architecture and maintainance should be more forgiving. I think this is rule 33.
Ciao
-
To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter
Casablanca or Maltese Falcon?
Bill - sad to say, I went to look it up and we're both wrong.The sentiment is indeed from Casablanca, but I got the line wrong: what Bogie actually says to Lorre is "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one."
So, in short, my post was useless as an analogy!
-
If the fairway is blind on a new course, one can usually depend on the fact that the fairway is going to follow certain norms. When those norms are violated, I would consider it dishonest. Whether the dishonesty adds to or detracts from the quality of the hole depends on the hole.
Examples I have not liked generally involve penalty strokes. My one round at Angeles National finished on a hole with an uphill tee shot. I hit it a bit shorter than my playing companions and it turned out I was dry and they were in a pond for which there was no indication that a pond existed. Big Fish has a canted fairway that somewhat fits the description with some blind bunkers in the middle of the fairway. I know of like them but I am not sure I can defend them. Many holes have hidden slopes that can provide an advantage with local knowledge. I definitely like those.
-
Is #2 at Lawsonia an example? I was under the impression I hit the correct shot, but was taken for a ride once I saw where I ended up. When I go back, I won't be fooled again.
-
Pat,
Reminds me of Pete Dye's 12th at Stonebriar here in DFW. Blind tee shot, a valley cut in the hill seems to indicate the middle of the fw, and a cluster of bunkers to the right. Somehow, I knew Pete meant the correct line to be over the bunkers and hit it that way, and was right in the middle of the FW. Going through the valley would have put me left edge and further from the par 5 green, maybe the left rough.
On blind shots, I generally prefer a clue, and somehow this arrangement gave it to me, which is fine every once in a while. Had the obvious line put me in a pond or something, it would be bad. Generally, when forced into a blind tee shot, I tend to mark the route with a valley in the ridge, target bunkers framing, etc., and then leave more room for a miss, wider fairways, etc. It is up to the golfer to know via experience whether to shade to one side or the other.
Of course, my preference is for no blind shots, but sometimes you must, and if required, it does make for interesting variety.
-
The 4th at Royal New Kent would be a good example of this, From the tee all you can see of the landing zone is a grouping of fairway bunkers and a sliver of fairway immediately to the left. The illusion is made stronger by your view of the green in line with the fairway bunkers in the distance and a large grass covered mound that obscures your view left of the visual line. Upon first playing I believed the line must be just left of the fairway bunkers, which is playable, but the preferred line is over the middle of the large mound to the center of a fairway that is nearly 50 yards wide.
To me, it was an introduction into something different and put me on high alert the rest of the round questioning what I was seeing. Of course I should have probably realized that after playing the blind par 3 3rd. As it was brought up prior, You are only surprised by that once. I have no issues with the architect providing visual tricks that make the player question what they are seeing, as long as the punishment for not reading the allusion correctly is a lost ball.
-
The problem I have with the "you have to play it once" theory is that it equally excuses both well and poorly conceived blind holes. I love using local knowledge but I agree with Jeff that the best blind holes should offer some sort of clue, no matter how subtle and difficult to discern, of the most intelligent way to proceed.
-
This forum continues to be totally obsessed with how a course presents itself to the golfer who has never seen it before. I guess that makes sense (as John K. might say) on a site that's of, by and for hit-and-runners.
-
This forum continues to be totally obsessed with how a course presents itself to the golfer who has never seen it before. I guess that makes sense (as John K. might say) on a site that's of, by and for hit-and-runners.
And the bigger question is, how does the hole play, after you know the deception? i.e. once you understand the line(s) to take, is the hole good, bad, ugly?
-
I think the 18th at White Bear Yacht Club qualifies under this description. Even after playing it 4 times I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with the shot. The hill in front of the tee box goes up 20-30 feet and is marked by a rock in the middle/middle-right to mark the middle line of the fairway on the dog-leg right hole, but a strong (270+) drive straight over it still goes through the fairway and up into heavy rough and pine trees with the driving range on the other side. Alternatively playing a fade with the driver brings the small unseen water right of the fairway into play. For the most part I believe the play is a long iron or hybrid to avoid both going through or bringing the water into play.
I'd be curious to hear the other MN GCAers thoughts on the hole, but it's probably the only hole out there at WBYC that I don't really like as a result.
All that being said, if it wasn't the 18th, I wonder if I would like it more as another unique hole that needs to be played more than once.
-
8) I'd like to know what course prompted this thread, and the score... and how honesty is involved in gca, let alone evaluated or of interest.
hit & run for some but certainly not all
-
Ally
Bob Crosby is the man to help. Simpson used a couple of latin phrases to describe what he meant. If I recall correctly one meant to suggest something while the other was to deceive.
Pat
With the terrain we have in Scotland, I’d suggest most older courses have at least one situation like this and in almost every example I can think of there is generally more latitude given in the landing areas than would normally be the case. Of whether they were designed to give more latitude or whether they became that way over time, I can’t say.
The one modern course in Scotland where I don’t think they do it is ironically Castle Stuart on the drive on the last hole. I say ironically because the fairway is plenty wide enough, it’s just nowhere near where you expect it to be standing on the tee. Unless they had a caddy or a strokesaver I doubt many golfers would intuitively know where they were going. It’s also ironic that on a course where the designers have gone to so much effort to give it an old fashioned feel using sleepers etc, that they didn’t think to use the traditional Scottish method of simply sticking a marker pole in the ground to let players know where to go.
Niall
-
Pat
I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways. If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....
Rich
-
I only enjoy the blind shot when there is a bell in the landing area that you have to ring for the next group:) I thought that was unique to my quirky home course in VA until I saw the same concept at Sunningdale Old and Rye.
-
To me this sounds like more of a maintenance issue perhaps. Though it would be interesting if an architect chimed in here that had designed exactly this type of hole and could give their thoughts of why and if indeed it was intended to be maintained in that manner.
Pat, I'm guessing you take caddies on most of your rounds and when you don't know a course they would surely point out the line of play and explain why. Or you would have a member with you telling you that. Then it's no different from any other first play on any course with a blind shot.
Like many have said it's only blind once and then not even once unless you are alone or with others that have no idea how the hole plays.
I have no issue with this I guess. It may not be my favorite kind of hole but I do like blind shots when you know the course and or have seen it once. I like the added challenge of trying to imagine the fairway/green and how your ball needs to fly to hit it.
-
As Niall notes above, this issue goes way back. Tom Simpson distinguished suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Simpson says:
"The strategic golf architect, in a word, hides his hand as much as he possibly can, and likes to keep the scratch player guessing. But if he is inclined to press the advantage of suppressio veri it does not mean necessarily that he will go to the length of suggestio falsi."
Bob
-
When a golfer is standing on the tee of a hole that ascends slightly in front of him, that crests and then descends, such that the golfer can't see the DZ from the tee, how disingenuous is it to have the blind fairway lines differ significantly from the visible fairway lines ?
In other words, a golfer on the tee thinks he's driving down the center of the fairway, when in reality, he's driving down the far left or far right side of the fairway.
Ergo, a drive that he thinks he's executed perfectly, ends up in the rough.
Gimmickie ?
Legit ?
Did the architect have the option of keeping the hidden fairway lines more or less aligned with the visible ones?
If so, that would seem like a bit of a crutch used to make the hole tougher.
How do you (and others) feel about the flagpole behind the third green at Yale and the dartboard in the tree behind the ninth green at Cascades?
-
To me this sounds like more of a maintenance issue perhaps.
Agreed
Though it would be interesting if an architect chimed in here that had designed exactly this type of hole and could give their thoughts of why and if indeed it was intended to be maintained in that manner.
Pat, I'm guessing you take caddies on most of your rounds and when you don't know a course they would surely point out the line of play and explain why. Or you would have a member with you telling you that. Then it's no different from any other first play on any course with a blind shot.
What the eye sees often overrides accurate recall.
And, caddies don't stand in the middle* of a fairway and identify the perfect line.
# 2 at NGLA may be the exception.
Like many have said it's only blind once and then not even once unless you are alone or with others that have no idea how the hole plays.
I don't buy that argument because tee markers are moved, hole locations are moved, winds shift and memories fade or are faulty.
I challenge anyone to play # 3 at NGLA from the fairway just short of the center bunker, and tell me where they'll hit their approach without the benefit of other indicators.
I have no issue with this I guess. It may not be my favorite kind of hole but I do like blind shots when you know the course and or have seen it once. I like the added challenge of trying to imagine the fairway/green and how your ball needs to fly to hit it.
How many times would that theme have to reoccur before you objected to it ?
-
Pat
I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways. If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....
Rich
Rich,
this is one of the great things about TOC and its bias towards local knowledge. Lots of blind tee shots and many, many severe blind bunkers.
Jon
-
Pat
I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways. If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....
Rich
Rich,
this is one of the great things about TOC and its bias towards local knowledge. Lots of blind tee shots and many, many severe blind bunkers.
Jon
The odd thing about TOC is in my experience the blind bunkers are rarely an issue because most players are usually hitting more toward the right. I think the only blind bunker I ever found at TOC is behind the 16th green. In fact, even though the course is fairly heavily bunkered, the contours remain its best and most deceptive defense.
Ciao
-
I've seen the scenario Pat describes a few times. One factor perhaps worth considering on older courses is when new tees have been added later on at different angles when lengthen a hole?
atb
-
Rich Goodale,
This isn't about a "blind" tee shot, it's about the misleading visual signal sent to the golfer's eye by the mowing patterns of the straight fairway lines which are clearly visible, which indicate the boundaries of the fairway as the golfer stands on the tee.
Then, once out of sight, the fairway lines shift significantly, such that a drive hit down the middle of the visible fairway lines, ends up in the rough.
Let me also add that these are straight holes, not doglegs, and that the trees flanking the fairway continue their pre-crest linear nature, adding to the deception.
-
This isn't about a "blind" tee shot, it's about the misleading visual signal sent to the golfer's eye by the mowing patterns of the straight fairway lines which are clearly visible, which indicate the boundaries of the fairway as the golfer stands on the tee.
Then, once out of sight, the fairway lines shift significantly, such that a drive hit down the middle of the visible fairway lines, ends up in the rough.
Let me also add that these are straight holes, not doglegs, and that the trees flanking the fairway continue their pre-crest linear nature, adding to the deception.
But if it were visible you would have no problem I take it. Perhaps the GCA wanted the golfer to use their course knowledge, imagination and intelligence when trying to take on this hole.
Jon
-
Jon,
I don't think it's an architectural issue.
The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices
-
Jon,
I don't think it's an architectural issue.
The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices
Patrick,
how do you know this. Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions. His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great ;)
Jon
-
This is definitely suggestio falsi rather than suppressio veri though..... So I'm with Patrick on this one..... And Tom Simpson
-
Jon,
I don't think it's an architectural issue.
The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices
Patrick,
how do you know this.
Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions.
His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great ;)
Jon,
How do I know this ?
I know it because I've been playing the course for about sixty (60) years and have the architects original schematic of the course along with his detailed hole drawings.
The shifting of the fairway lines is a more recent occurrence and not a product of the architect's original design.
Hope that helps ;D
-
Pat,
Would you consider a skyline green that has bunkers behind it and are therefor hidden from view from the fairway an example of "architectural deception" & or "dishonest?"
-
Pat,
Would you consider a skyline green that has bunkers behind it and are therefor hidden from view from the fairway an example of "architectural deception" & or "dishonest?"
Phil,
No, to the contrary, I'd view rear bunkers on a "skyline" green to be a form of an architectural safety net.
I think that one of the greatest "skyline" greens that I've ever played is the 4th at Arcola.
From the moment you walk onto the tee and gaze upon the hole, you're struck by a singular feature, a flagstick, in the distance, waving in the breeze, set against the sky.
From the DZ, the approach shot is visually intimidating because you don't know what lies beyond.
A bunker behind the green would save balls from running further away from the green, which, if they did, would make the recovery even more challenging.
-
Jon,
I don't think it's an architectural issue.
The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices
Patrick,
how do you know this.
Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions.
His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great ;)
Jon,
How do I know this ?
I know it because I've been playing the course for about sixty (60) years and have the architects original schematic of the course along with his detailed hole drawings.
The shifting of the fairway lines is a more recent occurrence and not a product of the architect's original design.
Hope that helps ;D
So if you could post them that would be interesting to see.
Jon
-
Jon,
I wish I was adept at posting maps and photos.
I'll try to get the schematic to someone capable of posting photos and maps.
Having played the course for about 60 years, you'll have to trust me on the maintenance issue.
-
Patrick,
I have no reason to not trust you but it would have been interesting to see the GCA's original ideas compared to how the hole has evolved.
However, if I were to carry on like YOU do I would be saying you are unable to prove what you claim and so should withdraw it. This site is supposed to be a discussion board where people can put up for discussion ideas and thoughts. It should be possible to discuss in an open way based on acceptance of the other persons point of view being a genuine opinion. This site is not a court of law where every idea is to be challenged by others demanding proof and when proof is given then altering the argument to be able to insist on more proof to the point where through ridiculous and insignificant points become un-provable so as to win a petty argument.
Patrick, you start a lot of interesting threads but the way you attack other people's ideas and the pedantic, boorish nature of you posting do ruin many a thread on this site. I do not know if architectural deception is honest or not but I do find posting in a discussion in a way designed to shut down the open and frank exchange of ideas to be not only morally bankrupt but from the ethos of this discussion group also highly dishonest.
I am sure I am not the only poster who would welcome a change in your posting style and who knows, maybe someone would even help you post the plans and photos which would I am sure be most enlightening.
Jon
-
Patrick,
I have no reason to not trust you but it would have been interesting to see the GCA's original ideas compared to how the hole has evolved.
However, if I were to carry on like YOU do I would be saying you are unable to prove what you claim and so should withdraw it.
Jon, the difference is that I can prove it by providing photographic evidence.
My issue is not being able to transfer photos from my phone/camera to a thread.
But, that mechanical inadequacy does not alter the facts.
Hence, I'm not about to withdraw a thread that I know, without fear of contradiction, is factually correct.
This site is supposed to be a discussion board where people can put up for discussion ideas and thoughts. It should be possible to discuss in an open way based on acceptance of the other persons point of view being a genuine opinion.
Why should I accept a premise, idea or thought that I believe to be flawed or false ?
This site is not a court of law where every idea is to be challenged by others demanding proof and when proof is given then altering the argument to be able to insist on more proof to the point where through ridiculous and insignificant points become un-provable so as to win a petty argument.
Substantiation of your premise lies at the core of legitimizing that which you postulate.
Shouldn't opinions be subject to scrutiny and held to some standard of proof
Patrick, you start a lot of interesting threads but the way you attack other people's ideas and the pedantic, boorish nature of you posting do ruin many a thread on this site. I do not know if architectural deception is honest or not but I do find posting in a discussion in a way designed to shut down the open and frank exchange of ideas to be not only morally bankrupt but from the ethos of this discussion group also highly dishonest.
So, you object to the process of scrutinizing and analyzing any and all opinions ?
We should just accept that which is postulated ? ? ?
I am sure I am not the only poster who would welcome a change in your posting style and who knows, maybe someone would even help you post the plans and photos which would I am sure be most enlightening.
I'm sure that many object to my posting style, whatever that may be.
But, I've never been big on "style points".
Maybe the East German Judge was on to something.
Now, is there something of value you'd like to add to this thread ?
Jon
-
Patrick,
classic you ::)
I do not accept your inability to post your evidence is the reason behind not putting it up. I think it is just that your proof does not exist so you should either post it or withdraw your fantasy.
Jon
-
Partrick--
This thread reminds me of one from eight years ago which I started (and in which we had a bunch of back-and-forth discussion) about the 14th at Hidden Creek, whose green is described in the review on this site as follows: " From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is." (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27338.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27338.0.html))
Reading that thread again now, I'm not sure I entirely agree with my then-16 self, but regardless, I'm struggling to square your objection to the shifted mowing lines in the case of this blind-tee-shotted golf hole with your initial response to me from that thread:
Tim,
The first time I played HC, the deception on # 14 was so good that I thought the bunker at the back of the green, fronted the green.
Why should I have been entitled to know exactly where the hole was located.
That's what your eyes are for, and mine aren't good.
Some golfers want to be spoon fed, shortcutting or undercutting all of the challenges.
I prefer that some responsibility remain on the golfers shoulders, eyes and brains.
Now, I understand that total blindness isn't the driver of the deception on the hole at Hidden Creek, but it seems that after one play, you or your caddie at this course should be able to suss out a spot in the distance or foreground that points to the more important fairway lines: the ones that are out of sight from the tee.
Or, the club could place one or two march stones before the fairway dips out of sight to indicate the unseen fairway lines. I think that would be an interesting feature, but it might be an example of "entitlement" or "spoon-feeding" per your quote above.
-
Patrick,
classic you ::)
I do not accept your inability to post your evidence is the reason behind not putting it up.
Jon,
First, I really don't care what you think or accept.
You're really irrelevant concerning this issue.
Secondly, I recently had three guests who played the hole.
I warned them in advance about the treachery that was out of sight, but, they could not overcome the visual signal sent to their eye by the visible fairway lines.
Two drove it into the right rough, while one drove it in the left rough, clearly overcompensating for my warning.
Upon reaching their drives, all commented that the feature was "dicey" at best and definitely disingenuous, architecturallly..
And, they were pre-warned about the exact nature of what awaited them on the other side of the crest.
But, the tactical signal sent to their eye was a strong one, one that's very difficult to overcome.
Especially with a fairway that slopes toward the intruding rough.
I think it is just that your proof does not exist so you should either post it or withdraw your fantasy.
As I stated previously, I really don't care what you think.
But, I'm so certain of the condition's existance that I'm willing to give you good odds on the accuracy of my description.
We can each mail a cashier's check to Ran, made out to each other, for him to hold.
Then, you pick an individual to represent your interests, I'll pick one for my interests and we'll have them pick a third (tie breaker).
Name your price, big shot.
-
Partrick--
This thread reminds me of one from eight years ago which I started (and in which we had a bunch of back-and-forth discussion) about the 14th at Hidden Creek, whose green is described in the review on this site as follows: " From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is." (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27338.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27338.0.html))
Reading that thread again now, I'm not sure I entirely agree with my then-16 self, but regardless, I'm struggling to square your objection to the shifted mowing lines in the case of this blind-tee-shotted golf hole with your initial response to me from that thread:
Tim,
The first time I played HC, the deception on # 14 was so good that I thought the bunker at the back of the green, fronted the green.
Why should I have been entitled to know exactly where the hole was located.
That's what your eyes are for, and mine aren't good.
Some golfers want to be spoon fed, shortcutting or undercutting all of the challenges.
I prefer that some responsibility remain on the golfers shoulders, eyes and brains.
Now, I understand that total blindness isn't the driver of the deception on the hole at Hidden Creek, but it seems that after one play, you or your caddie at this course should be able to suss out a spot in the distance or foreground that points to the more important fairway lines: the ones that are out of sight from the tee.
Tim, they're two entirely different situations.
I know where I have to aim, but, alignment is often a tricky issue.
I tend to be a fairly accurate driver of the golf ball, but, being able to know exactly where to aim, from different tees on different days isn't something you just dial in.
In addition, the fairway cants from high left to low right, and the rough juts in low righ.
And, the wind is often in your face exacerbating the problem.
Or, the club could place one or two march stones before the fairway dips out of sight to indicate the unseen fairway lines. I think that would be an interesting feature, but it might be an example of "entitlement" or "spoon-feeding" per your quote above.
That's a little hokey.
What the club should do is mow the fairway line beyond the crest as it appears before the crest.
You'd still have the slope and wind to contend with, but you wouldn't have the rough jutting out into the DZ, penalizing what appears to be a good drive on a long hole.
-
Patrick,
classic you ::)
I do not accept your inability to post your evidence is the reason behind not putting it up.
Jon,
First, I really don't care what you think or accept.
You're really irrelevant concerning this issue.
Secondly, I recently had three guests who played the hole.
I warned them in advance about the treachery that was out of sight, but, they could not overcome the visual signal sent to their eye by the visible fairway lines.
Two drove it into the right rough, while one drove it in the left rough, clearly overcompensating for my warning.
Upon reaching their drives, all commented that the feature was "dicey" at best and definitely disingenuous, architecturallly..
And, they were pre-warned about the exact nature of what awaited them on the other side of the crest.
But, the tactical signal sent to their eye was a strong one, one that's very difficult to overcome.
Especially with a fairway that slopes toward the intruding rough.
I think it is just that your proof does not exist so you should either post it or withdraw your fantasy.
As I stated previously, I really don't care what you think.
But, I'm so certain of the condition's existance that I'm willing to give you good odds on the accuracy of my description.
We can each mail a cashier's check to Ran, made out to each other, for him to hold.
Then, you pick an individual to represent your interests, I'll pick one for my interests and we'll have them pick a third (tie breaker).
Name your price, big shot.
Just as I thought Patrick, you turned out to be just a gas bag. The reason you do not care what I think about your unproven and now dubious point is because you cannot prove it. If you could prove it you would have certainly gleefully posted the evidence. What a flake even coming out with a bet on something you refuse to prove ::)
-
Jon,
Anyone and everyone who's played the hole/s understands the disconnect between the tactical signal sent to the golfer's eye as they stand on the tee and the deceptive features that lie beyond the crest.
My life and my time are not dedicated to satisfying your whims on demand.
I don't care what you think because you're irrelevant to me.
When I get around to it, I'll photo the view from the tee and from the green looking back to the crest.
And don't forget, the betting window will remain perpetually open for you.
Basically it's a put up or shut up proposition for you.
-
Jon,
Anyone and everyone who's played the hole/s understands the disconnect between the tactical signal sent to the golfer's eye as they stand on the tee and the deceptive features that lie beyond the crest.
That is not what is being challenged here so irrelevant.
My life and my time are not dedicated to satisfying your whims on demand.
I don't care what you think because you're irrelevant to me.
Yet I still get a rise out of you Patrick so not really true
When I get around to it, I'll photo the view from the tee and from the green looking back to the crest.
But you said you cannot post photos so which is true and which is not
And don't forget, the betting window will remain perpetually open for you.
Keep it open Patrick if that makes you happy but I am certainly not interested in any bet with the likes of you
Basically it's a put up or shut up proposition for you.
Patrick, it is up to you to post the required evidence or be shown for the type of person you obviously are, a lot of noise but no substance ;)
-
Jon,
Before posting the evidence that will make you look like a complete fool, and a blowhard, a few questions.
Are you a righty or a lefty ,
Do your drives usually fade, draw or go straight
-
Jon,
Where'd you go ?
Some answers please.
Jon,
Before posting the evidence that will make you look like a complete fool, and a blowhard, a few questions.
Are you a righty or a lefty ,
Do your drives usually fade, draw or go straight
-
Jon,
I'm about to post the photos, but, won't do so until you answer the simple questions I posed.
Please answer them and I'll have the photos posted.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
your questions are irrelevant to the discussion but right handed and shape changes daily
Jon
-
Patrick,
your questions are irrelevant to the discussion but right handed and shape changes daily[.
Jon,
So you're wild and unpredictable off the tee.
What's your handicap
How do you know the questions are irrelevant in the context of the play of this hole ?
Especially since you've never seen the hole.
The first photo will be posted shortly.
Jon
-
Pat asked me to post this photo:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
-
Jon,
Please tell us where you'd aim your tee shot.
You indicated that there was no pattern to your tee shots, that your typical drive does not, fade, draw or go straight, that it's random on a daily basis.
So, tell us,, where would you aim, understanding that I've already fed you more than ample information regarding this hole.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
-
A course I play has this exact situation on the 17th hole. A blind tee shot to an offset fairway with a pond jutting into the LZ about 240 yards out on the left. Then someone had the great idea to route the cart path between the light rough and the pond. So you can hit a slight draw to the left center of the fairway, bounce once or twice, hit the cart path and bounce in the pond. You end up searching for a ball that you think was in the fairway and is now probably in the pond, but isn't known or virtually certain. If you could see it happen it would piss you off but least you can drop up by the pond, however since it's a blind shot it can leave a bad impression with one hole to go. I've seen it happen to the group behind us and it can really back up play.
So yes, I feel it is dishonest and it does mess with you psychologically in the few holes leading up to it and even after your round. In this case, even local knowledge is only good for saying "No it's not lost it probably bounced in the pond." At least give me some rough to slow down a ball that lands in the fairway, as I have no problem with a bad swing resulting in a big hook ending up in the pond.
Definitely seems like a gimmicky hole to me.
What course is this?
-
Jon,
I don't think it's an architectural issue.
The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices
Patrick,
how do you know this.
Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions.
His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great ;)
Jon,
How do I know this ?
I know it because I've been playing the course for about sixty (60) years and have the architects original schematic of the course along with his detailed hole drawings.
The shifting of the fairway lines is a more recent occurrence and not a product of the architect's original design.
Hope that helps ;D
Patrick,
I have never disputed the deception caused by the blindness of the tee shot nor requested anything to do with this. What I was interested in was your claim to have evidence that this was not part of the GCA's original concept. I requested you posted this proof you claim to have. The photo posted, nice though it is, is of no interest to me in this respect. I await the posting of the plans you claim have though, such documents are always fascinating.
Jon
-
Jon,
You need to communicate with Bob Huntley before you challenge me again.
I will post more photos of this hole, taken from the crest of the hill, from the green looking back and from afar looking back, just so that you can see the pronounced "bulge" in the right rough that intrudes into the DZ on a fairway that's sloped strongly, from high left to low right.
Then, I will have a photo of Donald Ross's field drawing showing the rough/fairway line as about as straight as you can make it.
In other words, the photographic evidence will confirm everything I stated and at the same time it will prove you a fool.
-
Judging by that photo, it seems that the bunker serves as a clue as to which side the player should favor off the tee. After all, it does seem pretty easily carryable, which makes me think it serves as more of a marker. Therefore, if you arrived on that tee with no knowledge of what the fairway does or does not do over the rise, Ross seems to be indicating with that bunker that "challenging" (i.e. driving it over some part of) the bunker may well be the way to go.
It's not a bad assumption that that bunker is protecting *something*, is it?
Furthermore, the visible fairway slopes from left to right, so that absent any certainty as to whether the fairway continues straight ahead, it's reasonable to assume that the fairway beyond the horizon does the same. Certainly these assumptions can be bad at times, but it seems a good starting point for the one time a golfer will play this hole without having played it before.
Looking at the picture, it seems there's enough evidence to suggest that the uninitiated golfer should try and work a right-to-left tee shot toward the left edge of the visible fairway.
Patrick, will a tee shot like I've described above hold the fairway as it's currently mowed?
-
I haven't read the whole thread (what a mess) but are we just talking about a blind tee shot where someone can not guess the correct line the first time he plays the hole?
-
Yes...and Jon Wiggets poor driving...
-
Yes...
Good grief.
and Jon Wiggets poor driving...
Ah, well at least that adds a bit of pertinence to the thread.
P.S. Does anyone have historical evidence for whether C.B. Macdonald drove the ball straighter than Jon Wigget? That would seem a prime subject for discussion once this thread dies a merciful death.
-
Judging by that photo, it seems that the bunker serves as a clue as to which side the player should favor off the tee. After all, it does seem pretty easily carryable, which makes me think it serves as more of a marker. Therefore, if you arrived on that tee with no knowledge of what the fairway does or does not do over the rise, Ross seems to be indicating with that bunker that "challenging" (i.e. driving it over some part of) the bunker may well be the way to go.
Tim,
That's not an unreasonable deduction, but, I wonder how many golfers reach that conclusion, especially with the left side trees so close to the line of the bunker.
It's not a bad assumption that that bunker is protecting *something*, is it?
NO
Furthermore, the visible fairway slopes from left to right, so that absent any certainty as to whether the fairway continues straight ahead, it's reasonable to assume that the fairway beyond the horizon does the same. Certainly these assumptions can be bad at times, but it seems a good starting point for the one time a golfer will play this hole without having played it before.
Another good observation.
The problem is that the slope gets more severe as you go over the crest.
Looking at the picture, it seems there's enough evidence to suggest that the uninitiated golfer should try and work a right-to-left tee shot toward the left edge of the visible fairway.
Patrick, will a tee shot like I've described above hold the fairway as it's currently mowed?
Tim, do you see the tall tree on the horizon ?
On my last play I hit my drive right at it, as I always try to do.
I had a nice draw on my drive.
I will have Bill Brightly post a photo of where my drive ended up.
In the fairway, but, not by much
-
I haven't read the whole thread (what a mess) but are we just talking about a blind tee shot where someone can not guess the correct line the first time he plays the hole?
Brent,
Tell you what I'll do.
If you're in the neighborhood, you'll be my guest and you can play the hole 13 times.
The first time is for you to absorb all the information you need.
The next 12 times we're betting on your ability to hit the fairway, which is generous rather than narrow.
-
Judging by that photo, it seems that the bunker serves as a clue as to which side the player should favor off the tee. After all, it does seem pretty easily carryable, which makes me think it serves as more of a marker. Therefore, if you arrived on that tee with no knowledge of what the fairway does or does not do over the rise, Ross seems to be indicating with that bunker that "challenging" (i.e. driving it over some part of) the bunker may well be the way to go.
Tim,
That's not an unreasonable deduction, but, I wonder how many golfers reach that conclusion, especially with the left side trees so close to the line of the bunker.
It's not a bad assumption that that bunker is protecting *something*, is it?
NO
Furthermore, the visible fairway slopes from left to right, so that absent any certainty as to whether the fairway continues straight ahead, it's reasonable to assume that the fairway beyond the horizon does the same. Certainly these assumptions can be bad at times, but it seems a good starting point for the one time a golfer will play this hole without having played it before.
Another good observation.
The problem is that the slope gets more severe as you go over the crest.
Looking at the picture, it seems there's enough evidence to suggest that the uninitiated golfer should try and work a right-to-left tee shot toward the left edge of the visible fairway.
Patrick, will a tee shot like I've described above hold the fairway as it's currently mowed?
Tim, do you see the tall tree on the horizon ?
On my last play I hit my drive right at it, as I always try to do.
I had a nice draw on my drive.
I will have Bill Brightly post a photo of where my drive ended up.
In the fairway, but, not by much
Patrick--
That tree seems a very reasonable aiming spot. I'm starting to struggle to see the offense of the hole if a drawn drive that goes at that tree ends up in the fairway.
Say that instead of the tall tree, you aimed about a step inside the bunker, with the same draw. Would a tee shot on that line end up in the rough left of the fairway? That seems unlikely, given the way you say the fairway jukes left beyond the crest, and is generous.
Would trimming back the trees on that left side make it more sensible, in your view, to reasonably decide to aim farther left that it appears necessary off the tee?
Re: your most recent tee ball on the hole, if you were to place your ball five or ten yards (wherever you think the right edge of the fairway ought to be) farther to the right, into that "bulge" of rough, would that yield a substantially better angle into the green than is available currently?
-
Does anyone have historical evidence for whether C.B. Macdonald drove the ball straighter than Jon Wigget?
I don't know, has Jon Wigget won any U.S. Amateurs ?
-
Here is the Joe Bausch photo collection from Mountain Ridge. I believe these are 5 years old, but there are lots of good photos of Hole #2.
http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/MountainRidge/pages/page_20.html
-
A course I play has this exact situation on the 17th hole. A blind tee shot to an offset fairway with a pond jutting into the LZ about 240 yards out on the left. Then someone had the great idea to route the cart path between the light rough and the pond. So you can hit a slight draw to the left center of the fairway, bounce once or twice, hit the cart path and bounce in the pond. You end up searching for a ball that you think was in the fairway and is now probably in the pond, but isn't known or virtually certain. If you could see it happen it would piss you off but least you can drop up by the pond, however since it's a blind shot it can leave a bad impression with one hole to go. I've seen it happen to the group behind us and it can really back up play.
So yes, I feel it is dishonest and it does mess with you psychologically in the few holes leading up to it and even after your round. In this case, even local knowledge is only good for saying "No it's not lost it probably bounced in the pond." At least give me some rough to slow down a ball that lands in the fairway, as I have no problem with a bad swing resulting in a big hook ending up in the pond.
Definitely seems like a gimmicky hole to me.
What course is this?
Jim- Greystone, hole #17
-
So is this a view from up near the green, looking backwards toward the same ridge that makes for a blind shot off the tee?
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/MountainRidge/mediafiles/l24.jpg)
In which case this is the view from on top of the ridge, looking toward the green.
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/MountainRidge/mediafiles/l16.jpg)
-
I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture. Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded? The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help. Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.
As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.
Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.
-
I play a version of that hole 2-3 times a week as the closing (18th) hole at my home course. Except ours is about 2/3 the width depicted in those five-year-old pictures of #2 at M.R. and our green has considerably more front to back slope.
It's a lefty slicer's nightmare, I'm here to tell you. In fact, I moved up a set of tees for the entire course simply to give myself a straighter tee shot on that and one other narrow, dogleg-right hole. The de facto "senior tees" on #18 at my club offer more or less the angle it appears in Joe Bausch's photos. The regular "men's" tees are 35 yards farther back and tucked about 10 yards more to the right.
So in answer to Pat's challenge, for my game the blindness means nothing. It's just a hole that requires a shot shape that I do not possess. No different than a 160 yard approach shot to a hole tucked behind a bunker with a shallow green. Make it blind, cut down the bunker lip to make it visible, it's a nigh-impossible shot either way.
-
Yes...and Jon Wiggets poor driving...
and Jim Sulivans crap spelling ;)
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Mr%202%20second%20photo.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Mr%202%20second%20photo.jpg.html)
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20diagram.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20diagram.jpg.html)
-
So is this a view from up near the green, looking backwards toward the same ridge that makes for a blind shot off the tee?
NO, It's not the view from the green, looking backwards.
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/MountainRidge/mediafiles/l24.jpg)
In which case this is the view from on top of the ridge, looking toward the green.
(http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/MountainRidge/mediafiles/l16.jpg)
-
I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture.
Just when I was begining to gain confidence in your powers of observation
Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded?
NO
The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help.
The hole is NOT a dogleg
Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.
As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.
Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.
Eliminating the intruding bulge of rough on the right side would not bring the 11th green into play off the tee.
Now you've completely eroded any confidence that I had in your powers of observation.
The fairway/rough line at the crest would remain.
It's the intrusion of the right side rough beyond the crest that's the problem.
-
Here's the photo from the green side of the crest showing the intrusion of the right rough into the midst of the fairway.
When you consider the sharp slope from high left to low right, balls hit down the middle of the fairway end up in the right rough.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Mr%202%20second%20photo.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Mr%202%20second%20photo.jpg.html)
-
Here's Donald Ross's field drawing of the current second hole.
As you can see, the fairway/rough lines are straight as an arrow, with no bulging rough on the right side
Perhaps Jon Wigget doesn't understand what the word "linear" means
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20diagram.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20diagram.jpg.html)
-
I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.
Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?
That's not "dishonest". That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass. It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.
No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone. Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.
-
The hole is NOT a dogleg
PMSL
-
I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.
Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?
I don't think that they've grown the rough in on the intended DZ, I know that they've grown the rough in the DZ.
The Donald Ross schematic clearly indicates the straight rough/fairway lines.
That's not "dishonest".
How would you know ?
Do you know the intent of those responsible for the bulge in the mowing lines in the right DZ ?
That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass.
No, it's not, it's a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage, vis a vis, local knowledge.
It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.
No, it's an intentional attempt to deceive, not merely a shift in mowing lines.
No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone. Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.
It's amazing how many people, totally unfamiliar with a golf course, hole and feature, offer their opinions with an air of authority.
You couldn't be more wrong.
It is different for a variety of reasons that would only escape you, if presented.
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20diagram.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20diagram.jpg.html)
Would someone point out the dogleg in Ross's field schematic.
Thanks
[/quote]
-
It can't be "dishonest" because there's no dishonesty possible. The course has caddies for Christ's sake, not to mention the fact that it's a private club whose members presumably play it more than once in their lives.
The mowing line is a feature that you don't like. It's a feature that was not on those 100-year-old drawings. That doesn't make it "dishonest", unless the club makes a claim to a 100% authentic course that adhere's strictly to the original architect's drawings in every detail.
You're making it sound like someone is going to go look a the Ross drawings then aim their tee shot based on an antique set of blueprints instead of what's actually right there on the ground. On a forum that's chock full of beard pullers, this thread takes the cake.
-
Would someone point out the dogleg in Ross's field schematic.
Thanks
[/quote]
It's just a jump to the left..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-vgGuTD8A
-
It can't be "dishonest" because there's no dishonesty possible. The course has caddies for Christ's sake, not to mention the fact that it's a private club whose members presumably play it more than once in their lives.
Tell us how the caddy will counter the optical signal sent to the golfer's eye.
Tell us how the average golfer can hit a fairway that plays less than 15 yards wide
The mowing line is a feature that you don't like. It's a feature that was not on those 100-year-old drawings. That doesn't make it "dishonest", unless the club makes a claim to a 100% authentic course that adhere's strictly to the original architect's drawings in every detail.
Brent, what part of "deliberate deception" don't you understand ?
The fairway is very, very, very difficult to hit due to all the factors I've listed.
Discount see how pronounced the bilge of rough is ?
On a fairway that slopes significantly from high left to low right ?
You must have an incredibly low golfing IQ
You're making it sound like someone is going to go look a the Ross drawings then aim their tee shot based on an antique set of blueprints instead of what's actually right there on the ground.
You'd have to be a colossal moron to reach that conclusion.
Did you not look at the photo Bill Brightly posted ?
Where would you aim on your tee shot ?
On a forum that's chock full of beard pullers, this thread takes the cake.
You seem to be posting numerous times on this thread, despite the fact that you have no clue as to what the golfer faces, and why !
-
So at the risk of getting called a Moron I wouldn't call this dishonest, I would call it a gimmick. Looks to me like they had a 402 yard straight hole that they thought was playing too easy so they pinched in the fairway to force players to layup off the tee or gamble to hit the 15 yard landing zone and have a wedge in. Now the real question would be can the contour be seen from the first fairway? ;D
-
I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture.
Just when I was begining to gain confidence in your powers of observation
Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded?
NO
The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help.
The hole is NOT a dogleg
Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.
As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.
Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.
Eliminating the intruding bulge of rough on the right side would not bring the 11th green into play off the tee.
Now you've completely eroded any confidence that I had in your powers of observation.
The fairway/rough line at the crest would remain.
It's the intrusion of the right side rough beyond the crest that's the problem.
Patrick--
I'm sorry to let you down. When I played Mountain Ridge last May, there were a lot fewer trees than in the photo. I guess it's a testament to the way a good tree removal program can change the aesthetics of a course.
I took a screenshot of Mountain Ridge's second hole (with Google Maps) and drew some lines stemming from the orientation of those crisply rectangular tee boxes.
It does seem like there are a few yards down the right that could be maintained as fairway, without getting too close to the 11th green. Go about five yards right of the right edge of the #2 fairway and you still have another 35 yards to the left edge of #11 green.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/dmb236.jpg)
The "bulge" on the right side of the fairway is certainly visible, but given the orientation of the tees (accentuated by some parallel lines extended from the sides of the tee boxes), I'm sure you can see why I described this hole as a dogleg - albeit a slight one.
Looking at the rest of the par fours and fives on the course on Google Maps, it appears eight of them (1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13) have tee complexes that line up more directly at the green than those at the second hole. Again, tee box orientation is not the final determining factor for "dogleggedness," nor is that particularly important, but it does seem that #2 is less straightaway than most of the other par fours and fives on the course.
Also, the print that Bill provided is marked "Hole 11." When were the nines switched?
Out of curiosity, what does the "Hole 2" field drawing look like? I ask for two reasons. First, the current 11th hole plays arrow-straightaway like the "Hole 11" drawing depicts. Second, there's no left-side aiming bunker on the "Hole 11" drawing like there is on the current second hole. Of course, on the "Hole 11" drawing there appears to be a complete cross bunker short of the fairway, which doesn't exist on either the current second or 11th holes, though the current 11th does have that pond fronting the fairway.
-
Patrick
You could not have described the tee shot off the 17th at Royal Porthcawl any better..If you drive it where everything tells you to drive you finish way in the left rough - but drive over the middle of the bushes on the right and you are perfect.
It's a bad driving hole IMO because it misses twice. The drive you have to hit looks ridiculous and the drive which looks perfectly fine is not good at all.
-
As Mike suggests, tee shots like this are just bad. I've played MR about ten times over the last ten years and I estimate that I was in the right rough nine times. The shame is that this hole has a great green, a large multi-sectioned green with a lot of movement movement, protected by bunkers and cool runoffs. From the fairway you have options and it is a good test of your mid-iron game. But from the right rough there is only one play: a running shot that lands well short of the green that hopefully rolls to the middle of the green. I imagine that this would get tiresome for members.
Tim, I'm willing to guess that the modern tee was angled slightly to emphasize the dogleg effect to go with the mowing lines designed to creat the dogleg effect.
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MRCC%202.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MRCC%202.jpg.html)
-
I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between a "dogleg effect" and hole being classed as a "dogleg".
Like many dogleg holes, this one could play dead straight if you could hit a driver 300+ yards and very high couldn't it?
As someone who drives the ball more like 200 yards, it sure looks to me like I'd have to play my tee shot at one angle then turn slightly to the right and play my second at a different angle. Which is how I play most dogleg holes.
-
Pat can answer better than I, but I believe at 200 yards you won't carry far enough to crest the hill and reach the downslope. So the very severe right to left tilt to the fairway may not feed your ball into the right rough like so many others.
-
Yeah, distance wise the usual men's tees on that hole are probably like the way-way-back tournament tees on the 18th at my club. If I were so foolish as to tee off from back there it's just a matter of playing up onto the ridge than laying up to a wide area of the fairway on my second and leaving a wedge in.
But the bigger hitters who do occasionally play our 18th from way back have a similar complaint to Pat's. Our fairway slope is probably not so severe but it's like threading a needle from back there to manage not to land in the left rough (and stop) but also not feed all the way right into the right rough. Fortunately we tend to keep our Bermuda rough trimmed down a bit so it's not absolutely necessary to be in the fairway to reach the green.
-
Brent, like many private courses in North Jersey, MR has beautiful thick rough. Probably a mixture of rye and bluegrass. It is "gouge and hope" from there; you probably cannot hold the green if you carry the right bunker on the fly.
Patrick's use of the word "dishonest" is probably as close as he can come to saying unfair... Moronic is probably also off the available list... But if the right section that is rough were changed to fairway, the golfer would still be left with a fun, challenging, golf shot to a really cool green.
I think this is a perfect example of well-intentioned people looking to make tweaks to a hole to toughen it, but they really just "dumb down" the hole.
-
I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between a "dogleg effect" and hole being classed as a "dogleg".
The hole isn't a dogleg
Like many dogleg holes, this one could play dead straight if you could hit a driver 300+ yards and very high couldn't it?
NO, you'd end up in the right rough.
The fairway slopes from high left to low right, from the crest to just in front of the green.
As someone who drives the ball more like 200 yards, it sure looks to me like I'd have to play my tee shot at one angle then turn slightly to the right and play my second at a different angle. Which is how I play most dogleg holes.
Not at all, with a 200 yard drive you wouldn't make it to the crest or right rough.
I'll get the exact yardage, but from the back tee it's 460, probably 420-440 from the Blue and about 400 from the White
-
Here's the view from the tee.
On my last play, I aimed and drove the ball directly at the tall tree in the backround.
My drive had a nice draw on it.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
This is the view of the fairway over the crest.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MRCC%202.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MRCC%202.jpg.html)
It's hard to see, but, my ball ended up just a few yards left of the rough.
If my drive was slightly right, or didn't draw as much, I'd be in the right rough.
And, it would be moronic to aim any further left due to the trees guarding the left side of the fairway.
-
So at the risk of getting called a Moron I wouldn't call this dishonest, I would call it a gimmick.
Rob, you moron you. ;D
You're forgetting about intent, the reason that the rough was allowed to grow like that.
It's not a gimmick, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive, a deliberate attempt to counter what the golfer's eye tells him to do on the tee.
I'd suggest that you and others look at HistoricAerials.com, to see the change in the fairway.
Aerial views don't provide you with what the golfer sees, that's why I had Bill Brightly post those photos from the tee and from the other side of the crest.
Looks to me like they had a 402 yard straight hole that they thought was playing too easy so they pinched in the fairway to force players to layup off the tee or gamble to hit the 15 yard landing zone and have a wedge in.
Now the real question would be can the contour be seen from the first fairway? ;D
No.
I can assure you that hitting that green from a lie that falls away from you, back to front, high left to low right, is a very difficult task.
It's one of the hardest par 4's on the golf course, a course that has 9 very difficult par 4's, I believe it's the 3rd handicap hole, hardly an easy hole. And that's just another reason why you deserve moron status. ;D
-
Patrick
You could not have described the tee shot off the 17th at Royal Porthcawl any better..If you drive it where everything tells you to drive you finish way in the left rough - but drive over the middle of the bushes on the right and you are perfect.
It's a bad driving hole IMO because it misses twice. The drive you have to hit looks ridiculous and the drive which looks perfectly fine is not good at all.
Mike,
As you know, golf's a funny game, and it's very difficult to hit a shot that your eye tells you is the wrong shot to hit.
It's very difficult to align yourself counter to the visual flow of the hole.
Counter to every tactical signal sent to the eye by the architectural features
It's very difficult to aim close to those bordering trees.
Everything about this tee shot screams, "middle or right side of the fairway" to the golfer.
Yet, tee shots hit down the middle end up in the rough and as Bill Brightly described, it's very, very difficult rough and that green is very difficult to hold out of the rough.
The interesting thing about this awkward situation is how easily it can be corrected.
And, there's an abundance of photographic evidence indicating how the hole/rough/fairway was configured for decades prior.
It's a dishonest presentation
-
I'm sorry to let you down. When I played Mountain Ridge last May, there were a lot fewer trees than in the photo. I guess it's a testament to the way a good tree removal program can change the aesthetics of a course.
I took a screenshot of Mountain Ridge's second hole (with Google Maps) and drew some lines stemming from the orientation of those crisply rectangular tee boxes.
It does seem like there are a few yards down the right that could be maintained as fairway, without getting too close to the 11th green. Go about five yards right of the right edge of the #2 fairway and you still have another 35 yards to the left edge of #11 green.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/dmb236.jpg)
The "bulge" on the right side of the fairway is certainly visible, but given the orientation of the tees (accentuated by some parallel lines extended from the sides of the tee boxes), I'm sure you can see why I described this hole as a dogleg - albeit a slight one.
Tim, you're forgetting a crucial element, the ground fade.
Once balls hit the fairway, they bounce directly right.
So, the hole plays straighter than illustrated, two dimensionally.
Looking at the rest of the par fours and fives on the course on Google Maps, it appears eight of them (1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13) have tee complexes that line up more directly at the green than those at the second hole. Again, tee box orientation is not the final determining factor for "dogleggedness," nor is that particularly important, but it does seem that #2 is less straightaway than most of the other par fours and fives on the course.
Tim, look again at the photo from the tee.
Where are you going to play your tee shot ?
Here's the view from the tee.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
Also, the print that Bill provided is marked "Hole 11." When were the nines switched?
Decades and decades ago
Out of curiosity, what does the "Hole 2" field drawing look like? I ask for two reasons.
I'll take a photo of it this weekend.
It's straight.
First, the current 11th hole plays arrow-straightaway like the "Hole 11" drawing depicts.
Second, there's no left-side aiming bunker on the "Hole 11" drawing like there is on the current second hole.
Correct.
If there was one, would some criticize Donald Ross for designing similar holes, like they do for # 2 and # 11 at Seminole, also designed in 1929 ? ;D
Of course, on the "Hole 11" drawing there appears to be a complete cross bunker short of the fairway, which doesn't exist on either the current second or 11th holes, though the current 11th does have that pond fronting the fairway.
Originally, there were cross bunkers on # 5.
The 1931 aerial is grainy and difficult to read, so I can't tell you if there was a cross bunker on # 2 at inception.
There appears to have been a right side fairway bunker that was removed more recently
HistoricAerials.com is a terrific resource.
That irrigation pond was added in the 50's or 60's I believe
-
I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.
Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?
Brent,
I've been playing the course for about 60 years, so I have a resonable grasp on how it's played over those 60 years.
In addition, Historicaerials.com reveals the straight lines in the DZ prior to the recent configuration.
What you and others haven't grasped is my reference to intentional deception in terms of the mowing patterns
That's not "dishonest". That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass. It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.
You couldn't be more wrong.
And, it's not, what it is, it's what some factions want.
No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone.
Poor analogy.
Look at the photo from the tee and then tell us where you'd aim your drive.
Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.
How about 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 100 years ago.
-
Pat, the real question is whether or not you understand why this hole has nicked you in the head.
-
Pat, the real question is whether or not you understand why this hole has nicked you in the head.
Mark,
For more than a few years I've been lucky enough to be a very accurate driver of the golf ball.
It's not unusual for me NOT to miss a fairway in a round, and missing two fairways is a bad driving round.
So, the hole hasn't nicked me in the head.
As you saw from the photo posted, on my last play, in a tournaent, I hit a perfect drive.
Hence, the impact of the fairway bulge has been minimal on my game when compared to others.
I've seen dozens upon dozens of golfers hit what they think are great tee shots, only to find themselves in difficult rough, with a difficult lie, to a difficult green.
The course is such a great golf course that it doesn't need to rely on dishonest deception to challenge the golfer.
It's an intentional ploy that should be eliminated.
-
Tim,
Could you extend those lines all the way to the tree left of the green, because that tree is the aiming point and ball hit at the tree, without a draw, end up in the right rough.
That gives you some idea as to how much the fairway slopes from high left to low right.
thanks
(http://i62.tinypic.com/dmb236.jpg)
-
Pat,
This whole thread and all of your arguments are proof that you are indeed troubled by that tee shot. Ironically, it suits my eye, but not yours, why?????
Read your replies objectively.
"I'm a straight driver of the ball"
"It's hard to aim left because of the trees"
"The fairway slopes left to right"
"It's hard to aim left when the eyes information says straight"
You haven't mentioned it yet but, the first horizon line, the brow, also slopes left to right.
I'm sure you tee it up on the right side of the tee.
If the hole were completely mirrored, you would not have started this thread, maybe I would have!!!
-
Pat,
This whole thread and all of your arguments are proof that you are indeed troubled by that tee shot.
Ironically, it suits my eye, but not yours, why?????
Because you lack in depth experience on the play of the hole
Read your replies objectively.
"I'm a straight driver of the ball"
"It's hard to aim left because of the trees"
"The fairway slopes left to right"
"It's hard to aim left when the eyes information says straight"
You did not quote me properly.
I said that I was an "ACCURATE" driver of the golf ball, NOT a straight driver of the ball.
There's a huge difference
Please read my posts more carefully.
You haven't mentioned it yet but, the first horizon line, the brow, also slopes left to right.
I'm sure you tee it up on the right side of the tee.
Depending on the wind, yes, but, I still have to aim at the tree or a little left of it with a draw.
If the hole were completely mirrored, you would not have started this thread, maybe I would have!!!
Not true.
The configuration of the rough/fairway is the critical element, not the way the golfer hits his drives.
-
Tim,
Could you extend those lines all the way to the tree left of the green, because that tree is the aiming point and ball hit at the tree, without a draw, end up in the right rough.
That gives you some idea as to how much the fairway slopes from high left to low right.
thanks
(http://i60.tinypic.com/se9c8l.jpg)
Preview is limited, but I did my best to model where a number of tee shots hit on certain lines discussed in this thread will end up on this hole, approximately. All four of the shots depicted end up about 230-240 yards from the back of the tee box from which they originate. That also appears to be the widest part of the fairway, at approximately 40 yards. The curvature of those lines is supposed to depict the way in which tee shots kick and roll to the right on the fairway.
Patrick, I intended the light blue path to be reflective of your most recent tee shot on the hole. I regretfully couldn't get the line to curve twice (in order to show the right-handed draw you hit). The black path is supposed to be a straightish shot that starts at or right of the tall tree, and the yellow one is a miss to the right.
The path in white is the one I would prescribe, and it starts at the right edge of the bunker, rather than at the tall tree (where the parallel red lines end). The more I look at the photo from the tee, the more my eye is drawn to that line, rather than the tall tree. The way the fairway curves around that bunker suggests that there's promised land there. Looking at the tall tree, I feel apprehensive that if I miss right of there, I'm going to run out of fairway (which we have seen is very true). But when I look at the bunker, I have the feeling that if I blast the ball over it, I should be alright, even if I miss a little left. And indeed, if you were to extend that white line straight, you'd have some extra room left to the left edge of the fairway.
Patrick, were it up to you, how many yards of fairway on the right would you reclaim? Would you compensate for it by removing some of the left-hand fairway?
-
Pat, are there any trees up the left in the road?
-
Tim,
Thanks, this is great.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/se9c8l.jpg)
Preview is limited, but I did my best to model where a number of tee shots hit on certain lines discussed in this thread will end up on this hole, approximately. All four of the shots depicted end up about 230-240 yards from the back of the tee box from which they originate. That also appears to be the widest part of the fairway, at approximately 40 yards. The curvature of those lines is supposed to depict the way in which tee shots kick and roll to the right on the fairway.
OK, but, the kick is a little more pronounced
Patrick, I intended the light blue path to be reflective of your most recent tee shot on the hole. I regretfully couldn't get the line to curve twice (in order to show the right-handed draw you hit). The black path is supposed to be a straightish shot that starts at or right of the tall tree, and the yellow one is a miss to the right.
No problem
The path in white is the one I would prescribe, and it starts at the right edge of the bunker, rather than at the tall tree (where the parallel red lines end).
Tim, that would have you aiming dangerously close to the trees on the left
The more I look at the photo from the tee, the more my eye is drawn to that line, rather than the tall tree. The way the fairway curves around that bunker suggests that there's promised land there.
Nope, that's a predisposed conclusion you've drawn based upon the aerial.
On the tee you see the wide, safe expanse to the right, and that's where the golfer's eye is drawn.
Looking at the tall tree, I feel apprehensive that if I miss right of there, I'm going to run out of fairway (which we have seen is very true).
Tim, you can't be serious.
What happens if you miss left.
Missing right is the attractive path that the golfer's eye perceives
But when I look at the bunker, I have the feeling that if I blast the ball over it, I should be alright, even if I miss a little left.
Then you'll begin double bogeying the hole consistently.
That's a disastrous line.
But, what do I know, I've only been playing that hole for about 60 years.
And indeed, if you were to extend that white line straight, you'd have some extra room left to the left edge of the fairway.
Patrick, were it up to you, how many yards of fairway on the right would you reclaim?
The answer to your question is "visual" rather than "linear"
The "line" I would choose is easy to determine.
It's the continuation of the fairway/rough line that the golfer's eye sees at the crest of the hill as he stands on the tee.
If you look at old aerials you can see that line.
So, for me, it's about continuity, having the rough line beyond the crest match the rough line at the crest,, and not bulge significantly into the DZ.
Would you compensate for it by removing some of the left-hand fairway?
NO, why would I ?
Thanks again for posting the photo and lines.
The line from the right side of the tee to the tree is the line I take, with a draw.
Anything right of that line ends up in the thick right rough.
Anything left of that line runs the risk of being in the trees or left rough.
While my irons stink, my course management skills remain keen.
I know how to play the hole and I know how not to play the hole.
Look at the minimal margin for error you leave yourself when playing the line you indicated.
If you go over the bunker, you'll be in the trees or heavy rough.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
By the way, what's your handicap ?
P.S. There used to be a bunker on the right side of the fairway near the crest.
HistoricAerials.com will show you it's exact location
-
OK, it's a difficult hole that leaves almost no room for error if you're a righty playing a draw. It would be easier and would suit Pat's game better if the rough lines were dead straight as they were in the mid-20th century.
I still see little "deception" assuming one has played the hole before (or is willing to trust the advice of a caddie) and there is certainly no "dishonesty", whatever that might mean in this context.
You're hitting a demanding tee shot to a target that's extremely narrow due to the slope of the terrain and you're hitting it blind over a ridge which makes the proper line non-obvious.
That could describe 10,000 tee shots in the world, couldn't it? This particular one is probably in the Top 1% of them for difficulty but half the courses I've ever played have tee shots up and over a ridge to a sloping and/or dogleg fairway (although yes I realize you do not consider this to be a dogleg hole by your definition even though for most players it plays exactly like a slight dogleg right because of the required shots). That's a hard shot but hell, this is a hard golf course and #2 is one of the harder holes on the course.
-
OK, it's a difficult hole that leaves almost no room for error if you're a righty playing a draw.
That's absolutely untrue.
If you're a righty with a draw you have an advantage,
It's the straight ball driver and worse, the fade/slice driver who's at an enormous disadvantage.
And, do most club members fade/slice their drives or draw/hook their drives ?
It would be easier and would suit Pat's game better if the rough lines were dead straight as they were in the mid-20th century.
You can't be that obtuse, can you.
My game is better suited for the hole than 99 % of the membership's.
As to existance of the "bulge" in the right side fairway/rough line, you're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest by stating that they "were dead straight in the mid-20th century." The creation of the bulge is far more recent, hence, I will have to examine everything you post with an element of enlightened suspicion.
I still see little "deception" assuming one has played the hole before (or is willing to trust the advice of a caddie)
That's because you're a moron, actually, a two fold moron, or, quite possibly a founding member of the Ray Charles school of golf course architecture.
"Trust the advice of a caddie"
What does a caddy know ?
They're standing at the crest of the hill watching the flight of the ball so that they can find it in the rough.
How many caddies have played the hole ?
How many caddies walk back to the tee versus to the crest of the hill ?
And, even if they walked back to the tee, they would be fooled by the visual presented by the fairway/rough line at the crest.
Yesterday I played with two guests who have played the course a dozen times.
One of whom had read this thread prior to playing the hole
Neither one found the fairway, even after I informed them of what they were facing with their drive.
Based on your experience playing this hole, are you really that much of a moron that you're going to tell me, who's played the hole hundreds and hundreds of times, over a 60 year period, how the hole really plays ?
Especially after declaring that the tee shot doesn't suit a righty who draws the ball ? ? ?
and there is certainly no "dishonesty", whatever that might mean in this context.
So, you don't understand "whatever that might mean", but, declare that there is "certainly no dishonesty"
Proving once again that you don't have a clue with respect to what you're talking about.
There's an intentional dishonest, you just don't understand it.
You're hitting a demanding tee shot to a target that's extremely narrow due to the slope of the terrain and you're hitting it blind over a ridge which makes the proper line non-obvious.
Not quite.
You're being deliberately misled as to where the fairway is.
That's a critical issue that you can't seem to grasp
That could describe 10,000 tee shots in the world, couldn't it?
NO
This particular one is probably in the Top 1% of them for difficulty but half the courses I've ever played have tee shots up and over a ridge to a sloping and/or dogleg fairway
Please name the holes with a blind tee shot where the indicator of the fairway lines is highly misleading on a hole where the fairway slopes significantly toward the misleading indicator ?
Please name the holes that have the same properties off the tee as the 2nd hole at MRCC
(although yes I realize you do not consider this to be a dogleg hole by your definition even though for most players it plays exactly like a slight dogleg right because of the required shots).
Tell us, what's the required shot ?
And, remind us again, how many times have you played this hole ?
That's a hard shot but hell, this is a hard golf course and #2 is one of the harder holes on the course.
We're aware of that, but, why make it harder by deliberately inserting a swatch of rough in the DZ where the golfer is misled into thinking that it's a desireable target from the tee ?
-
Why would you keep aiming at the big tree week after week when you know:
1. The line of the tree is right edge of the fairway
2. The fairway slopes left to right
3. Where the fairway is
4. There is a bulge of rough down the right
Is it because you find it difficult to change your ingrained habit of 60 years?
Your line is wrong, aim 10-15yards left.
-
Here is the second hole at Mountain Ridge as seen from the 4th tee, about 300 yards behind the hole. I think this photo shows the sigificant slope and also how far out into the driving zone the rough is now maintained.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20from%20Fourth%20tee.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20from%20Fourth%20tee.jpg.html)
-
Why would you keep aiming at the big tree week after week when you know:
1. The line of the tree is right edge of the fairwayWRONG
2. The fairway slopes left to right
3. Where the fairway is
4. There is a bulge of rough down the right
I aim at the big tree and drive at the big tree with a slight to good draw because that's the best way to hit the fairway.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
Is it because you find it difficult to change your ingrained habit of 60 years?
When I played yesterday, I hit the fairway and when I played today I hit the fairway.
In fact, for 60 years I've had a habit of hitting the fairway, but now, you, in your infinite, moronic wisdom, are going to tell me how to play the hole ? ? ?
Do you realize how utterly moronic that makes you look ?
Your line is wrong, aim 10-15yards left.
My line is perfect.
Only a total moron would aim 10-15 yards left of the tall tree in the center of the fairway.
Driving 10-15 yards left of that tree would put me in the trees in the left rough.
Is this your first year of playing golf ?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MucciPhoto.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MucciPhoto.jpg.html)
-
What an uplifting contribution to our collective understanding of Golf Course Architecture this is.
-
What an uplifting contribution to our collective understanding of Golf Course Architecture this is.
Brent,
I understand how foolish you look and why you would want to criticize text and photographic evidence confirming your foolishness, but, you were an active contributor to the thread, albeit a misguided and erroneous contributor, but, a contributor nonetheless.
Tell us again how a golfer, aiming at the tall tree in the center, who hits a draw, is disadvantaged.
If anything, you should have learned how you failed to recognize faulty architectural signals and how to improve your course management skills.
-
Which tree are you guys talking about?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20tee%20shot.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20tee%20shot.jpg.html)
Here is another view of the approch from the crest of the hill in the center of the fairway
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20approach.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20approach.jpg.html)
-
Bill,
The tall tree in the middle, the one just right of the bunker.
The same one that Tim was kind enough to draw lines from the tee to that tree.
-
That's a great picture of Bill's (the one taken from behind the green)...that clearly shows the apex of the DOGLEG.
Considering that you have maintained the hole is straight, which is most definitely DISHONEST, it's very difficult to interpret anything you've written other than the ravings of a lunatic having a bitch about a hole.
-
That's a great picture of Bill's (the one taken from behind the green)...that clearly shows the apex of the DOGLEG.
Mark, I suggested that Bill take that photo
Considering that you have maintained the hole is straight, which is most definitely DISHONEST, it's very difficult to interpret anything you've written other than the ravings of a lunatic having a bitch about a hole.
Did you not see Donald Ross's 1929 field drawing on graph paper ? ? ?
The hole was designed as a straight hole.
The hole was built as a straight hole.
Did you not see the aerials from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's
The hole was altered vis a vis shifting mowing patterns.
Obviously, you're a colossal moron who can neither read nor interpret photos.
What idiot would instruct someone to aim their drive 10-25 yards to the left of the tall centerline tree ?
What idiot would instruct someone to aim into the trees in the left rough ?
Have you tried a course management seminar ?
-
Pat, the year is 2015, it was 2015 yesterday and the day before, do you remember?
When you played yesterday, was the hole straight?
-
The mowing lines on the visible part of this fairway are not over to the right to be deceptive, they are over to the right to go around a bunker in the accepted style of the club.
-
Pat, the year is 2015, it was 2015 yesterday and the day before, do you remember?
When you played yesterday, was the hole straight?
Mark,
That's the entire gist of this thread you moron.
I guess that Donald Ross didn't know how to design a straight hole versus a dogleg.
Here's the dogleg you claim he designed
Would you identify for us where the dogleg commences ?
Where the fairway line juts out from the right side ?
Thanks
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%202%20diagram.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%202%20diagram.jpg.html)
-
The mowing lines on the visible part of this fairway are not over to the right to be deceptive, they are over to the right to go around a bunker in the accepted style of the club.
Good to see another moron chime in, especially one totally unfamiliar with the play of the hole.
Just yesterday Bill Brightly and the other member of our group were commenting on the idiocy of those who have never played the hole, commenting on how the hole plays.
Really, you can't make this stuff up.
-
In spite of the image of Donald Ross’s original drawing, I am finding it difficult to believe that this hole was ever intended to be played straight. Does anyone know whether the image is supposed to be a pre-construction plan drawing or an as-built drawing? Either way, I don’t think that one should assume that the a 100 year old image of this nature is a perfect representation of reality.
I have drawn lines from the center of the teeing ground to the center of the green on three separate aerial images from three separate periods in the club’s history. Ross’s original drawing shows intended fairway widths of +/-60 yards, but the presence of a parallel golf hole and relatively dense tree cover on the right side of the fairway throughout the years suggests that such width was never available. And neither does it really jive with the the ample “bulge” shown on the left side of the fairway in the early aerial photography. There is a LOT of width shown there that isn’t on Ross’s drawing, wouldn’t you agree? Maybe “dogleg” isn’t the right word, but the aerial photography from as far back as 80 years ago doesn’t suggest a straight hole. Rather, it suggests that the left side of the fairway used to play a much larger role in the hole’s strategy.
1931
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q288/sburrows76/MR_1931.jpg) (http://s139.photobucket.com/user/sburrows76/media/MR_1931.jpg.html)
1957
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q288/sburrows76/MR_1957.jpg) (http://s139.photobucket.com/user/sburrows76/media/MR_1957.jpg.html)
2013
(http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q288/sburrows76/MR_2013.jpg) (http://s139.photobucket.com/user/sburrows76/media/MR_2013.jpg.html)
I am guessing that the bunker seen from the tee on the left side of the fairway was intended to be a much more critical aiming point for players than it is today. Those that challenged this hazard would be rewarded by having little chance of drifting down the slope into the right rough, among other things. Tree encroachment and the loss of fairway width on the left side, however, have rendered this option all but impossible. I am assuming that trees were added over the years on the left side for extra safety considerations towards those on 8 green and 9 tee, but the impact on Hole #2 is significant.
For me, if there is any issue with this hole at all that, it is not the bulge of rough at the bottom of the slope on the right side of the fairway, but the pronounced loss of width on the left side.
-
Steve,
The loss of width is on the right side.
Look at the 1957 aerial.
The tee shot is intended to go down the middle of the fairway.
A drive hit down the center would remain in the fairway.
Today, that fairway is rough
-
those who have never played the hole, commenting on how the hole plays.
I may or may not have played this hole, but that is not important because I did not comment on the play of the hole.
Listen and learn. What I said is that the visible part of the fairway points a certain way because it is mowed around a bunker. This would lead a curious person to ask whether we want the modern American tradition of fairway lines that curve around bunkers to dictate what happens beyond these curves.
-
Michael,
There is no bunker on the right side, the side where the "bulge" has been introduced.
Ross's schematic has no left side bunker, that was a subsequent add on, as was the bunker on the right which appears in the 1957 aerial.
From the tee, without the "bulge" the drive down the center is both the visual target you're presented and the ideal aiming point
Steve,
The hole plays straight away on the drive.
It does not play as a dogleg
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/MR%20plan.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/MR%20plan.jpg.html)