Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Grant Saunders on December 28, 2022, 01:11:18 AM
-
Many clubs have a feature or hole that often is assigned the tagged "Iconic"
This feature can become interwoven in the fabric of a club or course and gain a life of its own.
Our club had such a feature: The 18th hole is a par 3 of approximately 145m in length. Played to an uphill green, the fronting portion of the hole has always been guarded by a large bunker. Set at an offset to the player, the penalty for missing the green by 3 feet of 30 feet was the same. The base of the bunker sat 3.5 to 4 metres below the putting surface. To the right of and long of the green, 4 more bunkers surrounded the surface.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591245573_c84df6b3ff_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8iT4k)
As part of a redevelopment of all the course bunkers, this hole was afforded a lot of consideration. While certainly entrenched as a longstanding part of the course, consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
A bold decision was made to heavily reconfigure the front bunker with 2 smaller ones replacing it with the bases staggered at different levels. The lower one stayed at the original depth but now is further from the surface and requires a shot further offline to find it. The second one, closer to the green surface is no less than half the original depth and thus much more manageable for the player only slightly missing the surface. Also, the right hand quarter was filled completely to afford a run up option to access the short and right area of the hole for players.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591017164_30c9f90845_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8hHaf)
The new configuration is yet to be fully played so time will tell on the true impact. Initial feedback is positive from many players yet there is understandably a group who feel it should have been retained in its previous form. Incidentally, these tend to be lower handicappers.
What are some examples of "Slaying the Sacred Cow"?
-
We recently went through this at my home club, as our 15th green was severely-sloped (back to front) to the point of little to no pin location options. We had a handful of longtime members that wanted to keep it, despite having to maintain it differently than the other 17 greens when it came to tournament time, as the green could no longer handle 10+ greenspeeds.
We had been talking about this issue for 30-40 years, and we finally got it done, on the heels of a $1.2M bunker reno/resto with Ron Forse. There is something to be said about increased green speeds causing these issues, but the bottom line was that the green was just not that interesting having one hard slope from back to front, and dropoffs and bunkers on three sides make recoveries to a difficult green that much more impossible to manage.
The low handicappers were probably most in favor, which fits the stereotype of this group wanting changes in the name of fairness, but if the green was near unplayable for those of us hitting a wedge approach, the hole is infinitely harder for those hitting long irons or woods into the green (this is a 380-yard slightly uphill par four).
-
We recently went through this at my home club, as our 15th green was severely-sloped (back to front) to the point of little to no pin location options. We had a handful of longtime members that wanted to keep it, despite having to maintain it differently than the other 17 greens when it came to tournament time, as the green could no longer handle 10+ greenspeeds.
We had been talking about this issue for 30-40 years, and we finally got it done, on the heels of a $1.2M bunker reno/resto with Ron Forse. There is something to be said about increased green speeds causing these issues, but the bottom line was that the green was just not that interesting having one hard slope from back to front, and dropoffs and bunkers on three sides make recoveries to a difficult green that much more impossible to manage.
The low handicappers were probably most in favor, which fits the stereotype of this group wanting changes in the name of fairness, but if the green was near unplayable for those of us hitting a wedge approach, the hole is infinitely harder for those hitting long irons or woods into the green (this is a 380-yard slightly uphill par four).
I got a chance to play Tedesco this past Fall and really enjoyed the golf course. I was able to play prior to the work to 15 green and agree with Brad that it needed to be redone. We hit a bunch of putts from different spots and it was tough to keep many on the green without rolling down the slope and off. Finally you don’t hear enough about this terrific golf course because of the heavyweights(Salem, Essex County and Myopia) on the North Shore.
-
Many clubs have a feature or hole that often is assigned the tagged "Iconic"
This feature can become interwoven in the fabric of a club or course and gain a life of its own.
Our club had such a feature: The 18th hole is a par 3 of approximately 145m in length. Played to an uphill green, the fronting portion of the hole has always been guarded by a large bunker. Set at an offset to the player, the penalty for missing the green by 3 feet of 30 feet was the same. The base of the bunker sat 3.5 to 4 metres below the putting surface. To the right of and long of the green, 4 more bunkers surrounded the surface.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591245573_c84df6b3ff_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8iT4k)
As part of a redevelopment of all the course bunkers, this hole was afforded a lot of consideration. While certainly entrenched as a longstanding part of the course, consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
A bold decision was made to heavily reconfigure the front bunker with 2 smaller ones replacing it with the bases staggered at different levels. The lower one stayed at the original depth but now is further from the surface and requires a shot further offline to find it. The second one, closer to the green surface is no less than half the original depth and thus much more manageable for the player only slightly missing the surface. Also, the right hand quarter was filled completely to afford a run up option to access the short and right area of the hole for players.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591017164_30c9f90845_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8hHaf)
The new configuration is yet to be fully played so time will tell on the true impact. Initial feedback is positive from many players yet there is understandably a group who feel it should have been retained in its previous form. Incidentally, these tend to be lower handicappers.
What are some examples of "Slaying the Sacred Cow"?
IMO, the scale seems a little out-of-whack with the new configuration. The bunker in the original photo may not have been in the current favored style of lacy edges, but it seemed like a fitting hazard to try to conquer on one's last full swing of the day (especially from a tee box). The bunker on the right especially looks like it's just sort of floating on top of the hill. Maybe a third or fourth smaller bunker in the vicinity would have given it more of a sense of harmony. Hopefully it fits better when seen in person.
-
The importance of options and the sometimes heard “How would my Grannie play it?” comment comes to mind.
atb
-
Many clubs have a feature or hole that often is assigned the tagged "Iconic"
This feature can become interwoven in the fabric of a club or course and gain a life of its own.
Our club had such a feature: The 18th hole is a par 3 of approximately 145m in length. Played to an uphill green, the fronting portion of the hole has always been guarded by a large bunker. Set at an offset to the player, the penalty for missing the green by 3 feet of 30 feet was the same. The base of the bunker sat 3.5 to 4 metres below the putting surface. To the right of and long of the green, 4 more bunkers surrounded the surface.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591245573_c84df6b3ff_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8iT4k)
As part of a redevelopment of all the course bunkers, this hole was afforded a lot of consideration. While certainly entrenched as a longstanding part of the course, consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
A bold decision was made to heavily reconfigure the front bunker with 2 smaller ones replacing it with the bases staggered at different levels. The lower one stayed at the original depth but now is further from the surface and requires a shot further offline to find it. The second one, closer to the green surface is no less than half the original depth and thus much more manageable for the player only slightly missing the surface. Also, the right hand quarter was filled completely to afford a run up option to access the short and right area of the hole for players.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52591017164_30c9f90845_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8hHaf)
The new configuration is yet to be fully played so time will tell on the true impact. Initial feedback is positive from many players yet there is understandably a group who feel it should have been retained in its previous form. Incidentally, these tend to be lower handicappers.
What are some examples of "Slaying the Sacred Cow"?
IMO, the scale seems a little out-of-whack with the new configuration. The bunker in the original photo may not have been in the current favored style of lacy edges, but it seemed like a fitting hazard to try to conquer on one's last full swing of the day (especially from a tee box). The bunker on the right especially looks like it's just sort of floating on top of the hill. Maybe a third or fourth smaller bunker in the vicinity would have given it more of a sense of harmony. Hopefully it fits better when seen in person.
I like the new hole better. The old bunker was too large and lacked any aesthetic style. It appears that much of the green was not visible from the tee. I don't mind blind shots, but on the last hole, when a match is on the line, I'd like to see how far from the pin my opponent is. I can see how folks would like the changes made.
-
We have a similar bunker on our par 3, #2 hole. The back left portion of the bunker is the furthest from the green, some 25 yards, and is a really tough shot. Of course the low HC-ers think its cool but they’re never that far off-line so only the high HC face the shot and mostly pick up after a few swings.
-
In my years of consulting work the Sacred Cow tended to be either a pond, or a tree.
I did that work for more than 20 years before I was allowed to take a pond away from a course . . . now I've got one at Garden City and two at Bel Air under my belt. The complaint is always that we will be making the course easier, and that may be so, but the pond was inappropriate to the design and never should have been introduced.
With trees, it's even more emotional, and it's harder to determine the point at which the tree affects the play of the hole too much, because it just keeps getting worse slowly over the years. Maybe the worst one I've encountered was a smallish cherry tree that was on the hillside to the right of the 17th fairway at Crystal Downs . . . it made the hole crazy narrow, but many members believed it had always been there and should stay.
-
Based solely on the photos/description here, it doesn't look like an improvement to me. That said, the context of the rest of the course would impact whether it is an improvement or not. If there are a lot of holes with large fronting bunkers like that throughout the round, then maybe smaller, easier bunkers on the 18th is an improvement. But there's nothing inherently wrong with having a difficult 18th hole with a large, deep bunker.
-
I don't have strong feelings either way because there are positives and negatives.
1. I much prefer the large old front bunker. The two new ones look weird hanging halfway up the slope....definitely looks wrong to my eye. Somehow, the bottom of the bunkers needs to be more at level ground. The bunker and ground level have to be connected. Right now the one bunker looks like a mistake.
2. I like the removal of the two far left rear bunkers. Was the green enlarged? Its usually a good idea to provide a bit more space for forced carries. Either way, there is more bail area is to the rear of the green. Hopefully it is a nasty downhill chip back to the green.
At the end of the day, if the members want change and like it, who cares what others think?
Ciao
-
My question is, does the 18th now look incongruent with the bunkering on the rest of the course, or did they change them all?
P.S. There's a local course here in Utah that re-did its 9th hole several year ago, and its beyond hideous stylistically as it looks like something from Florida, not the Intermountain West like the rest of the course.
-
My former club, Clovernook, lost its "signature tree" a few years ago. Known as the Tay Baker Tree, it guarded the second shot on the par 5 17th hole, further reinforcing the risk in a shot that already needed to clear a pond. I don't think you could ever have sold the membership on its removal, although as I look at it now nearly a decade after I last navigated it, it's surely one of the worst anti-strategic features I've ever seen.
As our superintendent used to note - it was an oak growing right up against a pond, and wasn't gonna live forever. The problem eventually solved itself. Below shows the old view of the second shot - the hole doglegged left as it crossed the pond, so shorter drives were more impacted by the tree than longer drives. The big hitters could take the tree totally out of play and have a 210ish yard approach for their second shot, while a weaker player had no option to generate a clear look at the fairway across the pond. They generally would face the option of laying up to that same 210ish yard position or trying to play the "trees are 90% air" game.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/8725249961_8db37fc725_z.jpg)
-
A bad storm cost several trees at Bandon this week.
Sadly, the Ghost Tree is leaning pretty significantly and will, I'm guessing, have to come down. Mr. Keiser has said previously that he won't plan to replace it when he loses it. It's leaning towards the walking path over the dune, so I can't imagine the liability of leaving it until it falls would be smart decision.
It's "slaying" will affect strategy on the third hole at Old Mac, but it's the most iconic tree at the resort even without that.
WW
(I can never get photos to post properly so I'll just paste a link): https://ibb.co/hYyrdK1 (https://ibb.co/hYyrdK1)
-
I would bring my own drum and bang it in shirtless ecstasy to watch that tree burn.
-
A bad storm cost several trees at Bandon this week.
Sadly, the Ghost Tree is leaning pretty significantly and will, I'm guessing, have to come down. Mr. Keiser has said previously that he won't plan to replace it when he loses it. It's leaning towards the walking path over the dune, so I can't imagine the liability of leaving it until it falls would be smart decision.
It's "slaying" will affect strategy on the third hole at Old Mac, but it's the most iconic tree at the resort even without that.
WW
(I can never get photos to post properly so I'll just paste a link): https://ibb.co/hYyrdK1 (https://ibb.co/hYyrdK1)
The Ghost Tree started leaning away from the hill in a noticeable fashion about a year ago. The resort has known it was going over since then. The storm two nights ago was pretty fierce, but this has been in the offing for a while now.
Unlike JK, I'll be sad to see it go. It had iconic status, much like the original DA bunker on 15 at BD.
Sven
-
I think losing the ghost tree is tragic. It deserves an epic passing.
I don’t understand why a combination of a poured porous concrete foundation and guy-wires couldn’t save it. Bring in a structural dendrologist from Italy.
-
I think losing the ghost tree is tragic. It deserves an epic passing.
I don’t understand why a combination of a poured porous concrete foundation and guy-wires couldn’t save it. Bring in a structural dendrologist from Italy.
Something they should have looked into a year ago when they knew it was going. It's not like they thought we wouldn't get any wind between now and then.
-
I prefer the new. Something seems not quite right with the original, as if the architect was trying too hard.
-
consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
I bumped on that part. Why? Because they couldn't make a par? Because they could literally never escape the bunker? What if they played out backward, or sideways, or knowing they can't get out, took greater pains to avoid hitting it in the bunker to begin with? And what difference (if any) does it make if this is the 18th hole versus the 12th, or the 7th?
-
consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
I bumped on that part. Why? Because they couldn't make a par? Because they could literally never escape the bunker? What if they played out backward, or sideways, or knowing they can't get out, took greater pains to avoid hitting it in the bunker to begin with? And what difference (if any) does it make if this is the 18th hole versus the 12th, or the 7th?
Playing out backwards meant the golfer would then have to pitch over the bunker again. The fear of going back in usually resulted in hitting it fat, and in the bunker, or over the green into another bunker.
Being the 18th, people were leaving the course without being able to complete their round. Many of the women who went in it would take 2 goes at getting out and simply pick up. For a large number of players,there was no alternative route and for all intents and purposes, the green may as well have been surrounded by a lake.
I have no issue with an 18th hole being difficult but to have a configuration that had the potential to reduce a persons round to17 holes wasnt a positive scenario for a club members course
The hole would probably have been best served by having no bunkers at the front but that was considered too radical for members to approve at this time
-
Playing out backwards meant the golfer would then have to pitch over the bunker again. The fear of going back in usually resulted in hitting it fat, and in the bunker, or over the green into another bunker.
So that's just bad golf. It's a hazard. Avoid it, play from it… play better. Something.
Being the 18th, people were leaving the course without being able to complete their round.
How is that different than if it was the 7th? If you're saying they can't "complete their round" because they can't finish the hole, then wouldn't it be worse if they could only play six holes and then get to this "unfinishable hole" as the 7th? Or what if they go off the tenth… can they "complete their round" then? Or do they just play eight holes, pick up on their ninth, and go in for tea?
I have no issue with an 18th hole being difficult but to have a configuration that had the potential to reduce a persons round to17 holes wasnt a positive scenario for a club members course.
Again, if it was the 7th, did people only pick up because it was the last hole? And they can take a net double bogey and pick up, and still have "completed their round." No?
The hole would probably have been best served by having no bunkers at the front but that was considered too radical for members to approve at this time
I am among those who like the original better, with the same understanding that we've seen none of the other holes. The new bunkers look out of place, or awkward.
-
consideration had to be given to the fact many golfers were simply unable to complete their round of golf if they hit into the front bunker
I bumped on that part. Why? Because they couldn't make a par? Because they could literally never escape the bunker? What if they played out backward, or sideways, or knowing they can't get out, took greater pains to avoid hitting it in the bunker to begin with? And what difference (if any) does it make if this is the 18th hole versus the 12th, or the 7th?
The original bunker to me looks like a bad hazard. Players are tired at the end of a round and it's a huge hazard with no bail out option. For higher handicap players it makes for a very hard hole. An uphill par 3 with that bunker. I suppose you could lay up but that's a bad option and leaves a pressure filled second shot.
-
The original bunker to me looks like a bad hazard. Players are tired at the end of a round and it's a huge hazard with no bail out option. For higher handicap players it makes for a very hard hole. An uphill par 3 with that bunker. I suppose you could lay up but that's a bad option and leaves a pressure filled second shot.
The hole is 145 meters in length (under 160 yards). That may even be the back tee yardage? It looks like you can bail slightly right or long left. It's not like it's an island green here.
-
Grant
I prefer the new look though I think the bunker on the left is way too low. Are not sure why they didn't keep them both in line with the old height? It looks like there could be some tricky recovery shots?
-
Would there have been room to put a forward tee to the right, on a different angle?
-
#TeamNewLook
I like the potential for the thick, grass pitch if you miss short, adjacent to the two new sand pits. The new pits aren't so small/steep that escape is frightening; daunting would be my adjective of choice.
Like Erik says, options exist. People miss short because of pride. Take more club or learn to hit a half-shot. This sort of hole should be the club professional's meal ticket for lessons on strategy.
-
Like Erik says, options exist. People miss short because of pride. Take more club or learn to hit a half-shot. This sort of hole should be the club professional's meal ticket for lessons on strategy.
Yeah. It's not an island green. Employ a different strategy or hit a better golf shot.
-
I thought that the ghost tree was concreted in from the start. Is that not true?
-
I thought that the ghost tree was concreted in from the start. Is that not true?
Here's the photo from Wade's link. No concrete.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/cc435/snilsen7/E64080D3-D3BC-4CDE-8757-41AD731CCFE7.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/cc435/snilsen7/E64080D3-D3BC-4CDE-8757-41AD731CCFE7.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
For comparison, here's a photo from about a year ago when I first thought it was starting to lean.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/cc435/snilsen7/04FC640D-3875-40BD-A8FE-9F87D56196BD.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/cc435/snilsen7/04FC640D-3875-40BD-A8FE-9F87D56196BD.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
-
I, IMHO< much prefer the after than to the before:
1. To my eye, aesthetically the new hole appears to be more balanced. At 145 m (160 yards uphill), I'd be looking to take one more club than the distance indicates and attempt to hit a draw into the pin. Having failed that, my miss to the right corner of the green allows for a pitch and a putt for par. What might have been a smidge better; would have been to raise the left front of the green up a bit more to partially obscure the front left quadrant of the green, much like the original.
2. I'm surprised the golf professional here didn't make a fortune selling very lofted sand wedges and teaching the membership how to get out of this very deep hazard.
3. Trees as sacred cows ultimately can be dealt with, especially in winter when "ice & snow damage" have "required" pruning & removal. Tom D eliminating ponds is a job well done.
4. Ike's tree @ ANGC & the tree guarding 18 green @ PBGC are two prime examples of sacred cows lost to Mother Nature.
-
Two local (SF) sacred cows that are NLE: the Nakajima tree on the 18th at Olympic, and on the same course, "there is only one fairway bunker at Olympic" (the 6th hole...where everyone always told a guest that Ben Hogan said it wasn't in play..."just aim to the right") will no longer be applicable. More fairway bunkers will be in play under the Hanse plan.
-
The original bunker to me looks like a bad hazard. Players are tired at the end of a round and it's a huge hazard with no bail out option. For higher handicap players it makes for a very hard hole. An uphill par 3 with that bunker. I suppose you could lay up but that's a bad option and leaves a pressure filled second shot.
The hole is 145 meters in length (under 160 yards). That may even be the back tee yardage? It looks like you can bail slightly right or long left. It's not like it's an island green here.
As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.
-
As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.
It doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the hole anywhere in the round. "Too much pride to bail out" means it's the hole's fault? You can bail and get up and down for par. Consider yourself related to Billy Casper in 1959.
-
As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.
It doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the hole anywhere in the round. "Too much pride to bail out" means it's the hole's fault? You can bail and get up and down for par. Consider yourself related to Billy Casper in 1959.
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
-
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
I mean, at some point, that's going to be awfully limiting.
-
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
I mean, at some point, that's going to be awfully limiting.
Since when is the "correct line" the same for all abilities levels in the first place? Is this not a fundamental element of so-called strategy?
-
Since when is the "correct line" the same for all abilities levels in the first place? Is this not a fundamental element of so-called strategy?
Agreed. Which relates to my earlier reference to Billy Casper in '59.
-
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
I mean, at some point, that's going to be awfully limiting.
Since when is the "correct line" the same for all abilities levels in the first place? Is this not a fundamental element of so-called strategy?
Kyle
Nonsense. Using the Longleaf principle Mike should be able to play from a tee half way up the fairway so that he can hit the green just as easily as the flatbelly from the back tee. ;D
Niall
-
In a townhall meeting I was asked about whether the 5th at Park CC in Buffalo was unfair. The hole is 225 yards, creek all the way down the right that continued around the back. There was an oxbow (and bunker) back left of the green. I asked if the member had every played a laid-up. It was a very receptive fairway (due to the large roll left) and so was the green to a bump and run from in front. I was informed that you don't lay-up on a par three. My answer was there are no rules to how you play and the only goal is the lowest score, not the most impressive journey. Besides, I made three the last two times (this is true), just ask the super, what did you make the last two?
I'm not judging this hole because I have not played either version. To do so is unfair to the architect.
I will say, more of a general statement, I personally find "sacred cows" to be my favourite features.
What most call unfair is essentially the most interest riddle to solve or overcome.
Perseverance is as much a part of the game as opportunity.
-
Back when I was in LA School @ Rutgers, one of the Design Standards 101 edicts emphasized and taught was that in land planning & design , north on the plan sheet should be a the top of the page. This allows everyone to properly orient themselves to how the site fits in context to its surrounds, prevailing wind, sun/shad/shadow, etc.
Well, I did have one classmate who, just because & to be different, rotated north to the bottom, left, r right side of the drawing, just to be different. Design academic credit was deducted for not holding to the north facing up edict , and credit gained for being "creative" in the design process.
What did I learn from this - looking at a design problem from all angles and rotating your view; can sometimes allow for a better design solution.
-
In a townhall meeting I was asked about whether the 5th at Park CC in Buffalo was unfair. The hole is 225 yards, creek all the way down the right that continued around the back. There was an oxbow (and bunker) back left of the green. I asked if the member had every played a laid-up. It was a very receptive fairway (due to the large roll left) and so was the green to a bump and run from in front. I was informed that you don't lay-up on a par three. My answer was there are no rules to how you play and the only goal is the lowest score, not the most impressive journey. Besides, I made three the last two times (this is true), just ask the super, what did you make the last two?
I'm not judging this hole because I have not played either version. To do so is unfair to the architect.
I will say, more of a general statement, I personally find "sacred cows" to be my favourite features.
What most call unfair is essentially the most interest riddle to solve or overcome.
Perseverance is as much a part of the game as opportunity.
Ian, That's a really good hole from 175. Playing it from 225 would be a bear if you're not a hooker ;D
-
In my years of consulting work the Sacred Cow tended to be either a pond, or a tree.
I did that work for more than 20 years before I was allowed to take a pond away from a course . . . now I've got one at Garden City and two at Bel Air under my belt. The complaint is always that we will be making the course easier, and that may be so, but the pond was inappropriate to the design and never should have been introduced.
With trees, it's even more emotional, and it's harder to determine the point at which the tree affects the play of the hole too much, because it just keeps getting worse slowly over the years. Maybe the worst one I've encountered was a smallish cherry tree that was on the hillside to the right of the 17th fairway at Crystal Downs . . . it made the hole crazy narrow, but many members believed it had always been there and should stay.
At the 100 year old MacKenzie designed municipal course where I work as a greenkeeper the 350 yard seventh hole has an ash tree growing out of a creek 50 yards short of the green. The tree is around 30 years old and will eventually grow to two or three times its current size.
The members love it. They maintain that "it has always been there" and see it as an integral part of the hole. I've been told that the hole would be "defenceless" without it - despite the presence of the creek which attracts an inordinate number of golf balls!
When I ask what their opinion will be in another 30 years time when the tree will be impossible to clear by most golfers their reaction is "I don't care - I'll be gone by then."
I know that it is an argument I don't have a hope of winning. I do however, have a chainsaw...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52612901194_413f234e58_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oadSw7)IMG_7927 (https://flic.kr/p/2oadSw7) by Duncan Cheslett (https://www.flickr.com/photos/185291780@N03/), on Flickr
-
Simple! A couple of copper nails and blame a severe case of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus!
You’re welcome!
F.
-
Simple! A couple of copper nails and blame a severe case of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus!
You’re welcome!
F.
Ash Die Back would give me the perfect justification for felling the the tree. I'm sure I heard somewhere that the timber must be destroyed by burning within an hour of felling... ;)
-
In my years of consulting work the Sacred Cow tended to be either a pond, or a tree.
I did that work for more than 20 years before I was allowed to take a pond away from a course . . . now I've got one at Garden City and two at Bel Air under my belt. The complaint is always that we will be making the course easier, and that may be so, but the pond was inappropriate to the design and never should have been introduced.
With trees, it's even more emotional, and it's harder to determine the point at which the tree affects the play of the hole too much, because it just keeps getting worse slowly over the years. Maybe the worst one I've encountered was a smallish cherry tree that was on the hillside to the right of the 17th fairway at Crystal Downs . . . it made the hole crazy narrow, but many members believed it had always been there and should stay.
At the 100 year old MacKenzie designed municipal course where I work as a greenkeeper the 350 yard seventh hole has an ash tree growing out of a creek 50 yards short of the green. The tree is around 30 years old and will eventually grow to two or three times its current size.
The members love it. They maintain that "it has always been there" and see it as an integral part of the hole. I've been told that the hole would be "defenceless" without it - despite the presence of the creek which attracts an inordinate number of golf balls!
When I ask what their opinion will be in another 30 years time when the tree will be impossible to clear by most golfers their reaction is "I don't care - I'll be gone by then."
I know that it is an argument I don't have a hope of winning. I do however, have a chainsaw...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52612901194_413f234e58_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oadSw7)IMG_7927 (https://flic.kr/p/2oadSw7) by Duncan Cheslett (https://www.flickr.com/photos/185291780@N03/), on Flickr
Duncan-There are no dissenters from the camp that have routinely played the golf course since before the tree was there? It surely looks like the creek is more than an adequate defense and that the tree couldn’t provide a better example of a “double penalty”.
-
Duncan-There are no dissenters from the camp that have routinely played the golf course since before the tree was there? It surely looks like the creek is more than an adequate defense and that the tree couldn’t provide a better example of a “double penalty”.
I've spoken with guys who've been playing the course for 40 years. All of them say the tree has always been there!
It clearly hasn't, but human memory is a strange thing.
Trees creep up on people. They don't notice them getting bigger, and they don't notice disappearing vistas.
The only way to convince many people that trees should be cut down is to cut them down. Invariably they then say that it is an improvement. Five years later they've forgotten there was ever a tree there at all!
-
Duncan,
I have posted before that my home course has one of the worst opening holes ever. Among its many flaws is a very large tree about 15 yards in front of the green that blocks the right side half of the green. To make matters worse, there is a green side bunker under the tree. People look at me like I am crazy when I say to get rid of the tree or at least the bunker.
Ira
PS When the course built an irrigation pond, it needed to move the 18th fairway closer to the 9th fairway. So of course they planted two safety trees on the left side of 9 just where it doglegs left at a creek. I generally get shrugs when I point out to the powers that be that in a couple of years, the effective width of the fairway will be 15 yards and that people will have to hit punch shots from the fairway over the creek. And it is a Par 5.
-
Duncan,
I have posted before that my home course has one of the worst opening holes ever. Among its many flaws is a very large tree about 15 yards in front of the green that blocks the right side half of the green. To make matters worse, there is a green side bunker under the tree. People look at me like I am crazy when I say to get rid of the tree or at least the bunker.
Ira
PS When the course built an irrigation pond, it needed to move the 18th fairway closer to the 9th fairway. So of course they planted two safety trees on the left side of 9 just where it doglegs left at a creek. I generally get shrugs when I point out to the powers that be that in a couple of years, the effective width of the fairway will be 15 yards and that people will have to hit punch shots from the fairway over the creek. And it is a Par 5.
Ira-It begs the question of whether you should be entitled to a clear shot to the green after a solid drive from the middle of the fairway? If Ian Andrew sees this I wonder if he would render an opinion on the tree in the fairway on 14 at Agawam Hunt Club as I know he has been doing work there. Lots of good holes on this golf course but this one was a bit of a head scratcher for me.
-
Tim,
A good point. For brevity sake I left out the part that the fairway cants hard left to right, and there are a row of trees with low limbs in the left rough. A truly terrible hole. The green actually is very interesting but produces a fair percentage of three putts. It is not long at all but still a lot of doubles and triples to open the round.
Ira
-
As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.
It doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the hole anywhere in the round. "Too much pride to bail out" means it's the hole's fault? You can bail and get up and down for par. Consider yourself related to Billy Casper in 1959.
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
Mike
I would have thought the correct line is highly individual. If we are going to measure the quality of a hole by the number of golfers who can play the correct (straight?) line to the green a lot of good holes will come out poorly. To my way of thinking a carry par 3 (4 or 5) with the option of a lesser carry or no carry is usually a good idea.
Ciao
-
Ira-It begs the question of whether you should be entitled to a clear shot to the green after a solid drive from the middle of the fairway? If Ian Andrew sees this I wonder if he would render an opinion on the tree in the fairway on 14 at Agawam Hunt Club as I know he has been doing work there. Lots of good holes on this golf course but this one was a bit of a head scratcher for me.
Tim,
In the plan I provided for the club - the tree goes . Bunker work gets added on the left (think 12th in reverse).
There are no trees in the middle of fairways that I find "charming." This includes Pebble Beach's 18th too. Most Sacred Cow's tend to be trees. I found the bunker example unusual. The worst ones are man-made ponds.
-
As a higher handicap golfer, I don't think I'd enjoy this to finish my round. Too much pride to bail out off the tee. And you shouldn't have to no matter the handicap. If the yardage is 160 uphill, I'm probably pulling my trusty 5 hybrid. Trusty but not infallable. And the bunker shot will kill most high handicappers.
It doesn't sound like you'd enjoy the hole anywhere in the round. "Too much pride to bail out" means it's the hole's fault? You can bail and get up and down for par. Consider yourself related to Billy Casper in 1959.
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
Mike
I would have thought the correct line is highly individual. If we are going to measure the quality of a hole by the number of golfers who can play the correct (straight?) line to the green a lot of good holes will come out poorly. To my way of thinking a carry par 3 (4 or 5) with the option of a lesser carry or no carry is usually a good idea.
Ciao
Sean I was thinking similar. If this is so, guess we gotta chuck one of the most iconic holes in all of golf in the rubbish bin....#16 at CPC
-
It depends on how long it is from senior tees. If it's about 125 yards I can deal with it. Also I do not like holes where a higher handicap player has to play away from the correct line on a par 3. That's not fair IMO.
I mean, at some point, that's going to be awfully limiting.
Since when is the "correct line" the same for all abilities levels in the first place? Is this not a fundamental element of so-called strategy?
Kyle
Nonsense. Using the Longleaf principle Mike should be able to play from a tee half way up the fairway so that he can hit the green just as easily as the flatbelly from the back tee. ;D
Niall
I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3? When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair. You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip. The huge bunker on this hole is death for higher handicap players and the bail outs are not that attractive. The revised hole seems more fair although I agree the scale of the new bunkers is off.
-
I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3?
Do they "have" to bail as much here as on 17 at TPC Sawgrass? Or can they choose to take a line at the flag and risk not pulling it off? And if they don't pull it off… they're in a bunker. I saw a bogey golfer hole out for birdie from a bunker 25 feet below the green one time when I was a junior golfer.
You're over-stating how much a bogey golfer has to "bail." That's their choice. There's nothing forcing them to bail except their own lack of skills and their decision-making.
When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair.
There's nothing unfair about the previous (or current) green.
You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip.
So your definition of fair is "poor shots shouldn't be punished much"?
-
Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.
I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.
The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615832712_c27e0de0cc_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oatTXw)
-
Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.
I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.
The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615832712_c27e0de0cc_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oatTXw)
Not a fun bunker shot from the front bunker to a back right pin!
-
The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.
How about long? Pin high or farther. A "bail out" shouldn't lead to an easy par for a bad player.
-
At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.
I just liked the larger scale of the bunker. The aerial you posted seems to show the bunker is far larger than any bunker on the holes near it. I like the idea of playing with the scale like that once in a while. It was no great work of art before, but it had some distinctiveness and certainly some challenge, both of which are now gone.
-
Interesting to check in and have a chance to scroll through the comments. At a guess, im picking the ones saying they like the old version are almost exclusively good players.
I have added an aerial of the old for a bit more context. The area short right which might be perceived as a "bailout" or spot to lay up sloped considerably towards the left into the old bunker.
The layup suggested to short of the bunker left a shot nearly as intimidating as the tee shot for the high handicapper.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615832712_c27e0de0cc_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oatTXw)
I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.
-
I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.
Does there always need to be a bailout? Still, I'm not going to mourn this, but I kind of like the occasional Lovecraftian bunker just for variety (and to be able to think to myself that I've conquered it.)
-
It's a 105-yard carry over the bunker from the middle tees, folks. My goodness.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/qGuZOOre/00bdc11a-5658-430e-92e0-9192582ca81a.jpg?v=4159b4e8f375114172d45db405657607)
-
I don't see a bailout here for amateur golfers, let alone high handicappers.
Does there always need to be a bailout? Still, I'm not going to mourn this, but I kind of like the occasional Lovecraftian bunker just for variety (and to be able to think to myself that I've conquered it.)
No not at all, I'm just stating where others are saying where to bail out, I don't see any.
-
The entire hole is 150 from the back tees to the middle of the green.
https://earth.google.com/web/@-37.75059061,175.25781031,22.97286087a,323.50639578d,35y,198.90586455h,0t,0r (https://earth.google.com/web/@-37.75059061,175.25781031,22.97286087a,323.50639578d,35y,198.90586455h,0t,0r)
-
I don't want to play it as an 80 yard hole but should a higher handicapper, say a 19 have to bail out on a par 3?
Do they "have" to bail as much here as on 17 at TPC Sawgrass? Or can they choose to take a line at the flag and risk not pulling it off? And if they don't pull it off… they're in a bunker. I saw a bogey golfer hole out for birdie from a bunker 25 feet below the green one time when I was a junior golfer.
You're over-stating how much a bogey golfer has to "bail." That's their choice. There's nothing forcing them to bail except their own lack of skills and their decision-making.
When I was younger the second hole on a course I played was a 210 yard downhill par 3 with a huge willow short and right and a creek short of said willow. There was plenty of bail out room between the creek, tree and the green so while it was hard it was fair.
There's nothing unfair about the previous (or current) green.
You could aim for the green, miss and still have a reasonable chip.
So your definition of fair is "poor shots shouldn't be punished much"?
Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.
-
Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.
I did no such thing. I asked you some questions and told you where I disagree, Mice.
-
Stop putting words in my mouth Eric. We disagree and that's fine.
I did no such thing. I asked you some questions and told you where I disagree, Mice.
Lets agree to disagree Eric.
-
Lets agree to disagree Eric.
Sure thing, Mice Skhott. I disagree that you always need an easy bail-out, particularly on a hole that's like 150 yards.
-
Lets agree to disagree Eric.
Sure thing, Mice Skhott. I disagree that you always need an easy bail-out, particularly on a hole that's like 150 yards.
A bail out is not my primary concern Eric.
-
Eric.
🤦🏼♂️
-
To me, this is all summed up by the fact that people think golf should be fair, which really just means easy for them. If this was an island green, it would be the "signature hole" on the course, and everyone would be touting it and showing pictures to all who haven't seen it.
Water is way more penal than sand, right?
I also disagree about the "double penalty". Having water with a tree in it provides an aerial hazard and a ground hazard in the same spot. Is that worse than if both were presented in separate locations? Either way, they are hazards to be avoided. It could be argued that they are easier when put together because you can avoid both at the same time.
-
It could be argued that they are easier when put together because you can avoid both at the same time.
That's the kind of thinking I like to see! I don't know if I agree with it, but it's certainly worth thinking about.
I think it's fair to evaluate whether (especially in the tree example) a particular double hazard is a good one, but to simply dismiss something because it is a double hazard removes some of the potential sportiness of a design. It's also philosophically untenable. If you can't have a double hazard, 15-17 at CPC wouldn't work because many of the shots could feature both sand and water as hazards at the same time (i.e. you're in the sand and either have to fly some water or have water as the backdrop).