[Mike Hendren]

Bogey:

Look at that hole this way---that the present off-set fairway's interest is that awkward second shot that's blind and devoid of any aiming point. That is a pretty strong feature and somewhat of a maddening one, particularly to the long baller. How interesting is it for him to have to play that hole that way every time? The point of my recommendation by bringing down a "false front" on that upper fairway is to tempt him into trying to reach it by getting it "JUST" in his range and making it visible. From the present tip tees that may be a bit out of reach for even the long baller, particularly since he can't see it and consequently may not be aware where it starts.

Give him the option to really hit one huge and get up to that upper fairway off the tee. What would his reward be if he could pull that off? Obviously his reward would be a chance to go at that green from a shorter distance and some height. The lower fairway for a whole lot of obvious reasons doesn't exactly offer that temptation, and so the hole the way it is plays pretty one dimensionally.

I say that left fairway ought to end around 280 and the upper fairway should begin about 260-270 (because of its height effectively about 280) and then the options for the long baller would be brought into a very interesting and tempting "balance" or "equilibrium" with a drive to the end of the lower fairway. If you can get a good golfer to stand on that tee thinking "what to do?, what to do?" that makes any hole better and more interesting than merely hitting it down the left fairway and then laying it up blind over the hill day after day.

Don't forget good architecture is often about "options, options, options" and if they are in balance or equilibrium with each other because they're both functional (even if one is a tempting "stretch" off the tee) that's about as good as it can get.

That hole's back tee may need to be shortened just a tad to make the "go" option on that long par 5 a bit more doable than it is now at 575 and probably effectively a bit longer than that due to its topography.  

Tom,

I'm such a short hitter (and limited thinker to boot!) that it didn't even dawn on me that the upper fairway can be carried from the tee.  It would indeed be interesting to tempt the big hitter with a peak at a little fairway up there.

Mike

[TEPaul]

Bogey:

I'm a short driver too. You and I may never be able to use that upper fairway option but so what? A good golf hole should have something for everyone. The difference in length between golfers dictates that various strategies may never be all that democracy, but so what? Let that upper fairway tempt the long hitter, and if he screws up somehow trying that option then golfers like you and I will be better prepared to deal with him on that hole. Ever hear about the "tortoise and hare" analogy in golf and golf architecture? This example is what it's all about.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike They do not call you Bogie for nothing. lol

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

What was Pete Dye's rationale behind that particular configuration ?

[David_Madison]

I'm at a course that has the offsets backwards from what you are all suggesting makes sense. The back tees are all set up higher and primarily centerline to the fairways. The shorter tees are an afterthought, angled away from the centerline orientation, closer to the cartpaths and trees that border the sides of the holes. You actually have more shot shaping flexibilty and easier, less awkward lines from the back than the forward tees. Guess the architect...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()