MD/DC/VA Golfers - Twelve Monkeys Mental Divergence

[baddomes]

[baddomes]

Also - I played with Fabb in May a time (or two?) and he did not show his SaltyFabb persona. 

 

Maybe it was because he shot 69 at Blue Mash? 

 

But maybe he wasn't SaltyFabb because he was playing with me and not City, not because of his score? 

 

And maybe because he was playing with me and therefore not SaltyFabb is the reason he shot 69 at Blue Mash?

 

...

 

Fabb shot 69 at Blue Mash because he played with me.

 

...

 

...

 

 

I shot 69 at Blue Mash.  

[FAbb]

[baddomes]

Also in new business - I think a back pin on #12 at WM is very accessible. Even a long putt or chip from the run-up at the front of that green will feed down if you get it moving.  It's one of the more fun shots in the area.  

 

 

[davechen]

Not a fan of 3 or 12.  

 

Last time I played 3 just like I wanted, a par 5.  Good drive to the middle of the fairway, short lay up iron.  Wedge hit the green hole high, then bounced over.  Horrible downhill chip leads to a 7.

 

On 12 If I try and cut the corner off the tee, I usually end up with a terrible lie.  An ok drive to middle of the fairway leaves me with a really long 2nd shot.  Either way I'm usually trying bail out to the right which usually results it me being in or below a bunker.

[FAbb]

I didn't see it, but apparently Tumor hit a nice pitch from short right that did exactly what you described, @baddomes.  

 

You know what's not accessible?  The back pin on 17.  The only place you can hit a ball and have an easy putt is if you are pin high or further, and keep it left of the flag... which is LOL near-impossible.

[Puppetmaster]

2 hours ago, FAbb said:

My walking pace correlates 100% to my level of saltiness.

 

I also seem to remember intra-round thread posts while salty, but maybe that was Eagle... or DC... or me...  

[TheCityGame]

2 hours ago, davechen said:

Not a fan of 3 or 12.  

 

Last time I played 3 just like I wanted, a par 5.  Good drive to the middle of the fairway, short lay up iron.  Wedge hit the green hole high, then bounced over.  Horrible downhill chip leads to a 7.

 

On 12 If I try and cut the corner off the tee, I usually end up with a terrible lie.  An ok drive to middle of the fairway leaves me with a really long 2nd shot.  Either way I'm usually trying bail out to the right which usually results it me being in or below a bunker.

Part of what's "cool" about 3 is that the lay-up (for a mediocre wedge player) is no guarantee of bogey.

 

You NEED to hit 2 good shots there to take double out of the equation. 2 good shots there guarantees bogey, not par. It becomes more of an easy bogey if there's no hazard in front of the green. You need to hit 2/3 A+ shots there to guarantee par. I wasn't joking when we had CC there that I don't think anyone parred it -- just CJ's birdie. No one in the first two groups did, IIRC.

 

When you're "unsure" on the second shot, the idea is to make sure you cover the hazard, even if it means you blast one over the green. That's how you play it as a par 5. That way at least you're over the green in 2 and not 3. that's what I was trying to do on Wednesday and I still went into the hazard, found it, chipped short of green, chipped to 1 foot. 1 putt bogey. And, also, if you're over the green in 2, you still can't necessarily get one near the pin. I think maybe the idea is that a layup is OK with a back pin, but blasting one deep is better with a pin on the front edge. 

 

I would say I'm a fan of the hole. 

[thechief16]

33 minutes ago, TheCityGame said:

You NEED to hit 2 good shots there to take double out of the equation. 2 good shots there guarantees bogey, not par. It becomes more of an easy bogey if there's no hazard in front of the green. You need to hit 2/3 A+ shots there to guarantee par.

 

Which is an argument for why many (myself included) would argue it is not a good hole.  For a 2?  OK.  I get how it can be "cool".  But how many average/better than average players are going to hit 1 A+ shot on a hole, not to mention 2 or 3.

 

 

[FAbb]

It’s ok for a hole to be hard. I know “width and angles” are hip right now, but sometimes a hard test is fun. I don’t want to play 18 holes in a row like that, but variety is good. 
 

I recall being surprised reading how long some of the “golden age” courses played when they were built, relative to the equipment they had. They had 4s that played like a modern day reachable 5. You need to hit 2 real good ones just to reach the green. 

[thechief16]

I totally get that, and was kinda my point to City.  Unfortunately, for most of us mere mortals, most of the holes are plenty hard.  Especially at WoMan. 3, and to a lesser extent 12, are just a kick in the teeth. 

[davechen]

We were having this discussions afterwards.  Dom asked what would you do to 12 to make it more reasonable.

 

Move tee box back and call it a par 5?  Make the green less sloped?  I'd say take out the junk in front of the hole and make it rough.  So at least you got some chance to play out of there.

[SullGolf]

WM could take out some junk on both 3 and 12 and be the better for it.  They’re drainage areas that you can’t fully remove, but they could be smaller.  That would keep the challenge for low caps but help out the higher folks.  You have to be 50 yards short to be in those things, and good players don’t do that.

 

The back pin on 17 is absurd, which is why it’s not normally there.  A miss in any direction except short right is dead.  I made a good 2 putt par there last time I played that pin and it felt like a birdie.  You have to play to the fat part of the green and try to make a long 2 putt par up the hill.

[GooseHook]

It's been so long since I've played there, but aren't the white/blue tees on WM#12 level with the fairway? Maybe an elevated tee would at least give the golfers from those tees (and ones new to the course) a better idea of what they're looking at so they aren't hitting blind to the fairway. 

 

I would also lower the mounds around the fairway bunker, give the mortals a chance to get something up near the green. 

[FAbb]

On 10/30/2020 at 4:13 PM, davechen said:

We were having this discussions afterwards.  Dom asked what would you do to 12 to make it more reasonable.

 

I wouldn't do anything to change 12.  I don't think I've ever seen a truly compelling case made for why 12 ought to be changed.  I've seen plenty of complaints that it's hard, but that's not a reason to change a hole, in my opinion.  There's nothing particularly unfair, obnoxious, or out of character relative to the rest of the course about that hole.  It's a hard hole.  You'll make a good score sometimes, and feel really good about it.  You'll make plenty of bad scores on it, but so will everybody else.

[davechen]

7 minutes ago, FAbb said:

 

I wouldn't do anything to change 12.  I don't think I've ever seen a truly compelling case made for why 12 ought to be changed.  I've seen plenty of complaints that it's hard, but that's not a reason to change a hole, in my opinion.  There's nothing particularly unfair, obnoxious, or out of character relative to the rest of the course about that hole.  It's a hard hole.  You'll make a good score sometimes, and feel really good about it.  You'll make plenty of bad scores on it, but so will everybody else.

 

Oops.  It was actually about hole 3.

[Boogs2]

Through the eyes of a crappy player, I really like 12 at WM.  3 has always been a pain and even though I bogeyed that hole, it just never fit my eye.  Probably for me not being a long hitter, the approach to 12 is more gettable with it being somewhat downhill.  The approach to the green on 3 is daunting.  I have to hit a high 200-230 yard approach with a green that will punish me if I'm short or long.  I can see how for the longer hitters/lower handicap players, 3 can be a nice challenge.  Just not a fan of 3 at all tbh, but I still wouldnt change it.  

 

WM is still hands down my favorite course in MD.  

[FAbb]

I don't think I'd change 3, either.  If I had to, this is what I'd do.  Widen the fairway to the right, at the pinch point, and get rid of that small tree.

 

 

[SullGolf]

FAbb has some low-cap rose colored glasses.  We need a man of the people to update 3 and 12, not an ivory tower elitist.

 

I've seen good players aim for that spot because it's one of the best places to be on the hole.  Better to have 140 from the rough than 180 from an uneven lie in the fairway.  No need to make the spot even better.  Not to mention that the area circled starts at 250 from the blues and runs out to about 310.  I guess you'd have a few more low caps making birdie/par on that hole, but it would provide next to no help for the average person playing those tees.

[davechen]

My problem with 3 is that I hit a good tee shot, and I've got 180-190 yards up hill to a severely sloped green.  I basically have no shot at hitting the green.

[FAbb]

It's a hard hole.  Lower your expectations.  Don't change the hole.

[Puppetmaster]

All this WoMan talk... don't make me actually try to play golf again...

 

But damn, that is a fantastic course. 

[davechen]

IMHO a well designed hole is hard to birdie (or par in my case), but not too hard to make bogie.  On that hole even a bogie is hard.  Double or worse is more likely than bogie.

[FAbb]

I disagree.  I don't think there's one type of well designed hole.  Variety is good. 

 

If I played that hole from the back tees 20 times, I bet I'd average right around bogey.  And I wouldn't be all banged up and sad about it.

 

THIS would make me sad.  Is this what people want?

[dcmidnight]

SaltyFabb rolling into a nice discussion on hole design like...

 

 

[misplacedtexan83]

Dang low handicappers always telling high handicappers what to do and feel..

 

Get better Dave is how I read this...

[SullGolf]

I've never heard anyone mention moving the green. 

 

Personally, what I'd advocate on 3 and 12 is to shave down the junk short of the green and just make it rough.  On 12 I'd keep enough to still make it a threat off the tee. 

 

WM occasionally cuts that stuff down enough to where you can find and play a ball out of it.  I think it's a big improvement.  By definition, a good player isn't chunking it 50 yards short and ending up in that stuff.  It only punishes terrible shots, which is just kicking someone when they're down. 

[FAbb]

I didn't say anything about getting better.  I said to lower your expectations.  It's a hard hole.  It's hard for everybody.  I don't arbitrarily expect to average around 4 on any hole on the planet that's labeled a par 4.  I'd expect to average around 5 on that hole.  Would you really feel better about it if they did nothing other than put a 5 on the scorecard instead of a 4, @davechen?

 

 

[ALTSean]

24 minutes ago, FAbb said:

I disagree.  I don't think there's one type of well designed hole.  Variety is good. 

 

If I played that hole from the back tees 20 times, I bet I'd average right around bogey.  And I wouldn't be all banged up and sad about it.

 

THIS would make me sad.  Is this what people want?

 

Salty to @davechen "I mean, it's not that hard.  All you got to do is hit one 275 or so down the middle and then it's just a little cut 8I to about 10.'  You got a good look at birdie, worst case, easy par.  Why can't you just do that?"

 

[misplacedtexan83]

Baaaaaaa.. My bad Dave..

 

SaltyFABB said just realize you suck..