The Death of Kayak Point: a discussion of Seattle public golf

[James the Hogan Fan]

I don’t really get it, the city throws money into a vacuum on so many issues, but heaven forbid it can’t operate 3 golf courses. I don’t know how unprofitable the courses are, but I feel like its a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

 

100% agree on Premier. I appreciate their existence; ie they keep the lights on, but other than that they offer average conditions on their courses, rates a little high for my liking (but that’s nitpicking) And hold a monopoly on public golf between Tukwila and Everett (except Shriners and Harbor).

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

Lastly, San Francisco beats Seattle for public golf hands down, especially if you open it up to 1-2hrs. Presidio, Harding Park, Half Moon Bay, Alameda South, Pasatiempo... Metro, Monarch, Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, Poplar Creek... Poplar Creek is barely anything but its equal to Jefferson at least. And year round playability. (Just had to defend my home city)

 

 

Ps: edited thread title to reflect where the conversation as gone, a good conversation to have in my opinion!

[OGTurfBeard]

!

[CMCSGolf]

I think the problem with West Seattle is a pretty simple one. The course was built and designed before modern mowing trends came around. That obviously has nothing to do with the drainage problems, but it has an extreme effect on the playability of the course. If they would keep the greens at 7 or 8, the severe contours on #8, #14, and #16 would be fine. If the fairway grass was longer maybe it would be possible to stay in the fairway on 16 off the tee. Modern green speeds have made some of the greens treacherous and lost a ton of hole locations. I'm not really sure what the solution to this is, other than make sure you keep the greens manageable given the contours (which I think they do an OK job at). Hiring a consultant to come in and flatten the greens would be a huge loss in my opinion.

 

I actually think that Premier golf is very good. Conditions are typical for a muni and 7 minute tee time intervals are hilarious, but the courses are in reasonable shape. The greens are always playable at their courses, which is by far the most important thing. Whether it has rained 10 inches in a month for winter or there has been no rain for 75 straight days in summer, the greens are still solid. I don't think you can ask for much more. I also think Premier courses in Seattle proper are surprisingly affordable given this is like the 5th most expensive city in America. A weekend green fee for ~$40-45 is very good for a course where you can see the city skyline. I can assure you, that does not exist in Chicago.

[bird206]

I think the problem with West Seattle is a pretty simple one. The course was built and designed before modern mowing trends came around. That obviously has nothing to do with the drainage problems, but it has an extreme effect on the playability of the course. If they would keep the greens at 7 or 8, the severe contours on #8, #14, and #16 would be fine. If the fairway grass was longer maybe it would be possible to stay in the fairway on 16 off the tee. Modern green speeds have made some of the greens treacherous and lost a ton of hole locations. I'm not really sure what the solution to this is, other than make sure you keep the greens manageable given the contours (which I think they do an OK job at). Hiring a consultant to come in and flatten the greens would be a huge loss in my opinion.

 

I actually think that Premier golf is very good. Conditions are typical for a muni and 7 minute tee time intervals are hilarious, but the courses are in reasonable shape. The greens are always playable at their courses, which is by far the most important thing. Whether it has rained 10 inches in a month for winter or there has been no rain for 75 straight days in summer, the greens are still solid. I don't think you can ask for much more. I also think Premier courses in Seattle proper are surprisingly affordable given this is like the 5th most expensive city in America. A weekend green fee for ~$40-45 is very good for a course where you can see the city skyline. I can assure you, that does not exist in Chicago.

Nice post. I feel what you mean about those holes on West Seattle and about Premier. Premier, not even close to the best, but doable for city living golf. Agree so much on your post.

[duffer987]

I don't really get it, the coty throws money into a vacuum on so many issues, but heaven forbid it can't operate 3 golf courses. I don't know how unprofitable the courses are, but I feel like its a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

 

100% agree on Premier. I appreciate their existence; ie they keep the lights on, but other than that they offer average conditions on their courses, rates a little high for my liking (but that's nitpicking) And hold a monopoly on public golf between Tukwila and Everett (except Shriners and Harbor).

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

Lastly, San Francisco beats Seattle for public golf hands down, especially if you open it up to 1-2hrs. Presidio, Harding Park, Half Moon Bay, Alameda South, Pasatiempo... Metro, Monarch, Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, Poplar Creek... Poplar Creek is barely anything but its equal to Jefferson at least. And year round playability. (Just had to defend my home city)

 

 

Ps: edited thread title to reflect where the conversation as gone, a good conversation to have in my opinion!

Any argument that includes Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, and Poplar Creek isn't the best one - if I needed one reasonably positive adjective to throw a blanket over them it would be poor :)

Indian Valley, Pleasanton/Livermore, Fairfield, and Napa courses significantly better than those four IMHO.

 

I do agree Bay Area golf is better, but those four are pretty near the bottom.

[bellken]

I don't really get it, the coty throws money into a vacuum on so many issues, but heaven forbid it can't operate 3 golf courses. I don't know how unprofitable the courses are, but I feel like its a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

 

100% agree on Premier. I appreciate their existence; ie they keep the lights on, but other than that they offer average conditions on their courses, rates a little high for my liking (but that's nitpicking) And hold a monopoly on public golf between Tukwila and Everett (except Shriners and Harbor).

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

Lastly, San Francisco beats Seattle for public golf hands down, especially if you open it up to 1-2hrs. Presidio, Harding Park, Half Moon Bay, Alameda South, Pasatiempo... Metro, Monarch, Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, Poplar Creek... Poplar Creek is barely anything but its equal to Jefferson at least. And year round playability. (Just had to defend my home city)

 

 

Ps: edited thread title to reflect where the conversation as gone, a good conversation to have in my opinion!

 

If you open it to 1-2 hours from Seattle, that bring the Olympic Peninsula courses into play, along with the Tacoma courses. But, under an hour, the choices are fairly limited, and, fairly average at best.

[bird206]

I don't really get it, the coty throws money into a vacuum on so many issues, but heaven forbid it can't operate 3 golf courses. I don't know how unprofitable the courses are, but I feel like its a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

 

100% agree on Premier. I appreciate their existence; ie they keep the lights on, but other than that they offer average conditions on their courses, rates a little high for my liking (but that's nitpicking) And hold a monopoly on public golf between Tukwila and Everett (except Shriners and Harbor).

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

Lastly, San Francisco beats Seattle for public golf hands down, especially if you open it up to 1-2hrs. Presidio, Harding Park, Half Moon Bay, Alameda South, Pasatiempo... Metro, Monarch, Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, Poplar Creek... Poplar Creek is barely anything but its equal to Jefferson at least. And year round playability. (Just had to defend my home city)

 

 

Ps: edited thread title to reflect where the conversation as gone, a good conversation to have in my opinion!

 

If you open it to 1-2 hours from Seattle, that bring the Olympic Peninsula courses into play, along with the Tacoma courses. But, under an hour, the choices are fairly limited, and, fairly average at best.

 

So far discussion is sounding like San Francisco area has better courses. How does Seattle area (30-45 min drive outside of downtown at most) compare to Manhattan, LA, Houston, and Philadelphia golf courses priced under $45/round Saturday morning? Wikipedia currently lists those cities among top 10 populations. We already know about Phoenix, Florida, Chicago, and other given golf cities. So no need to mention them.

[James the Hogan Fan]

 

Any argument that includes Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, and Poplar Creek isn't the best one - if I needed one reasonably positive adjective to throw a blanket over them it would be poor :)

Indian Valley, Pleasanton/Livermore, Fairfield, and Napa courses significantly better than those four IMHO.

 

I do agree Bay Area golf is better, but those four are pretty near the bottom.

 

Alright you got me, but I was trying to keep it close to the City first, plus I’ve never played anything North Bay. But yes Poppy Ridge, Las Positas, Callippe, Bridges even are all better than Poplar Creek. At least I didn’t throw out Skywest! Also, in a battle of muni’s, I’d put Chabot or Tilden (not a muni technically I guess) up against Jefferson at least.

 

But this is all for fun. I love West Seattle when I’m up there, I love Callippe when I’m down here.

[CMCSGolf]

I don't really get it, the coty throws money into a vacuum on so many issues, but heaven forbid it can't operate 3 golf courses. I don't know how unprofitable the courses are, but I feel like its a drop in the bucket compared to other things.

 

100% agree on Premier. I appreciate their existence; ie they keep the lights on, but other than that they offer average conditions on their courses, rates a little high for my liking (but that's nitpicking) And hold a monopoly on public golf between Tukwila and Everett (except Shriners and Harbor).

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

Lastly, San Francisco beats Seattle for public golf hands down, especially if you open it up to 1-2hrs. Presidio, Harding Park, Half Moon Bay, Alameda South, Pasatiempo... Metro, Monarch, Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, Poplar Creek... Poplar Creek is barely anything but its equal to Jefferson at least. And year round playability. (Just had to defend my home city)

 

 

Ps: edited thread title to reflect where the conversation as gone, a good conversation to have in my opinion!

 

If you open it to 1-2 hours from Seattle, that bring the Olympic Peninsula courses into play, along with the Tacoma courses. But, under an hour, the choices are fairly limited, and, fairly average at best.

 

So far discussion is sounding like San Francisco area has better courses. How does Seattle area (30-45 min drive outside of downtown at most) compare to Manhattan, LA, Houston, and Philadelphia golf courses priced under $45/round Saturday morning? Wikipedia currently lists those cities among top 10 populations. We already know about Phoenix, Florida, Chicago, and other given golf cities. So no need to mention them.

 

I would love to hear some answers here. I'm guessing Philly and Houston have something, but doubt LA and NYC do. For those metro areas, 45 minutes doesn't even get you outside of the city :derisive: I'm not sure there is a way to properly assess this other than anecdotally, but it would be interesting to hear some other perspectives on major American cities.

[duffer987]

Any argument that includes Chabot, Crystal Springs, Tilden, and Poplar Creek isn't the best one - if I needed one reasonably positive adjective to throw a blanket over them it would be poor :)

Indian Valley, Pleasanton/Livermore, Fairfield, and Napa courses significantly better than those four IMHO.

 

I do agree Bay Area golf is better, but those four are pretty near the bottom.

 

Alright you got me, but I was trying to keep it close to the City first, plus I've never played anything North Bay. But yes Poppy Ridge, Las Positas, Callippe, Bridges even are all better than Poplar Creek. At least I didn't throw out Skywest! Also, in a battle of muni's, I'd put Chabot or Tilden (not a muni technically I guess) up against Jefferson at least.

 

But this is all for fun. I love West Seattle when I'm up there, I love Callippe when I'm down here.

Oh sure, but Pasa and HMB are right pigs to get to - so when you threw those in I figured the other spots were just as easy to get to - with say the the ballpark as a starting point :)

It's always in such rough shape, but if they did a Corica-South on Sharp Park you could have one of the best munis on the west coast. Unfortunately I doubt it ever happens.

[duffer987]

So far discussion is sounding like San Francisco area has better courses. How does Seattle area (30-45 min drive outside of downtown at most) compare to Manhattan, LA, Houston, and Philadelphia golf courses priced under $45/round Saturday morning? Wikipedia currently lists those cities among top 10 populations. We already know about Phoenix, Florida, Chicago, and other given golf cities. So no need to mention them.

 

I would love to hear some answers here. I'm guessing Philly and Houston have something, but doubt LA and NYC do. For those metro areas, 45 minutes doesn't even get you outside of the city :derisive: I'm not sure there is a way to properly assess this other than anecdotally, but it would be interesting to hear some other perspectives on major American cities.

I was just in Austin the past 27 months - happy to be back in Cali - and reckon it's got an OKish number of public courses.

 

Not as good as the Bay Area, but still decent, but with standouts like Seattle with CB (or weekend out at Gamble Sands or Wine Valley) or the Bay Area with Pasa and the day trip to Monterey or weekend trip to the mountains.

Funnily enough I never ventured up to Houston to play as there was nothing there I felt - ya I gotta go check that out! Maybe after the redo Memorial Park there will be something. Texas has way too many through the housing development courses to be considered good IMHO.

[CMCSGolf]

So far discussion is sounding like San Francisco area has better courses. How does Seattle area (30-45 min drive outside of downtown at most) compare to Manhattan, LA, Houston, and Philadelphia golf courses priced under $45/round Saturday morning? Wikipedia currently lists those cities among top 10 populations. We already know about Phoenix, Florida, Chicago, and other given golf cities. So no need to mention them.

 

I would love to hear some answers here. I'm guessing Philly and Houston have something, but doubt LA and NYC do. For those metro areas, 45 minutes doesn't even get you outside of the city :derisive: I'm not sure there is a way to properly assess this other than anecdotally, but it would be interesting to hear some other perspectives on major American cities.

I was just in Austin the past 27 months - happy to be back in Cali - and reckon it's got an OKish number of public courses.

 

Not as good as the Bay Area, but still decent, but with standouts like Seattle with CB (or weekend out at Gamble Sands or Wine Valley) or the Bay Area with Pasa and the day trip to Monterey or weekend trip to the mountains.

Funnily enough I never ventured up to Houston to play as there was nothing there I felt - ya I gotta go check that out! Maybe after the redo Memorial Park there will be something. Texas has way too many through the housing development courses to be considered good IMHO.

 

That seems to be true of the entire southwest. It's certainly true of more than 50% of the courses in AZ. However, Phoenix has so many courses there, I've still found plenty that I really like playing.

[SuperPapaBear]

 

 

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

I don't think you give Jackson the credit it deserves. 4 is a very interesting hole. If you don't go for it the layup still requires precision making the decision that much harder. I would say the same thing about about 16. Hole 8 is more interesting than West Seattle's hole 7.

 

You couldn't be more accurate about Jefferson though. They took away one of the best holes on the course when they changed up the back. But even before they changed it up it was the third option for courses in Seattle.

[bird206]

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

I don't think you give Jackson the credit it deserves. 4 is a very interesting hole. If you don't go for it the layup still requires precision making the decision that much harder. I would say the same thing about about 16. Hole 8 is more interesting than West Seattle's hole 7.

 

You couldn't be more accurate about Jefferson though. They took away one of the best holes on the course when they changed up the back. But even before they changed it up it was the third option for courses in Seattle.

Hole number 1 at Jackson always gives me mental indecisiveness. Not sure to pull out driver or iron off tee. Then do you layup or go for green on 2nd shot? If you layup on 2nd shot, that landing area on the left always looks like only 20x20 yards but when you get there it's like the size of a football field! I kind of liked it when they reversed it about 5 years back and #9 was hole #1. A little bit easier to get into the round rather than a mind puzzle for current hole #1. For those who play Jackson, what is your approach on attacking hole #1?

[SuperPapaBear]

It all depends. One of my favorite ways to play that hole is taking an iron off the tee and ripping a wood across the water. I'm usually left with a pretty straight forward chip/pitch and put for up and down.

 

In my opinion the most important strategy on that hole is getting your second shot across the hazards. If you're in trouble off the tee or can't make it across are the only two scenarios you shouldn't go for it.

[bird206]

It all depends. One of my favorite ways to play that hole is taking an iron off the tee and ripping a wood across the water. I'm usually left with a pretty straight forward chip/pitch and put for up and down.

 

In my opinion the most important strategy on that hole is getting your second shot across the hazards. If you're in trouble off the tee or can't make it across are the only two scenarios you shouldn't go for it.

True, I've done that same method also....I forgot to mention the second shot is sometimes usually a sidehill or downhill lie for me. Which makes trying to hit over the water a little trickier with a wood or hybrid.

[blink3665]

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

I don't think you give Jackson the credit it deserves. 4 is a very interesting hole. If you don't go for it the layup still requires precision making the decision that much harder. I would say the same thing about about 16. Hole 8 is more interesting than West Seattle's hole 7.

 

You couldn't be more accurate about Jefferson though. They took away one of the best holes on the course when they changed up the back. But even before they changed it up it was the third option for courses in Seattle.

Hole number 1 at Jackson always gives me mental indecisiveness. Not sure to pull out driver or iron off tee. Then do you layup or go for green on 2nd shot? If you layup on 2nd shot, that landing area on the left always looks like only 20x20 yards but when you get there it's like the size of a football field! I kind of liked it when they reversed it about 5 years back and #9 was hole #1. A little bit easier to get into the round rather than a mind puzzle for current hole #1. For those who play Jackson, what is your approach on attacking hole #1?

 

So much truth in that statement! During the summer I use a wood off the tee and try to draw it over that little bump on the left. (Sometimes this backfires and I pull it into the OB.) If I drop it in my preferred landing zone I'll go for it in 2 with the expectation that I'll land it on the uphill. During the winter I try for that stupid little landing area because you're right. I always seem to end up on a downhill or sidehill lie and going for it never seems comfortable.

[ParParAgain]

How did a KAyak Point GC thread become a W.Seattle GC thread ??

 

( Athough I live in the "East", in another country, I had the good fortune to play KP a bunch of time. I am therefore sad to learn of its passing).

[James the Hogan Fan]

If only we could combine West Seattle 1-13 with Jackson 3, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Then all my Seattle Muni favorite holes would be on one piece of property (sorry Jefferson).

 

I don't think you give Jackson the credit it deserves. 4 is a very interesting hole. If you don't go for it the layup still requires precision making the decision that much harder. I would say the same thing about about 16. Hole 8 is more interesting than West Seattle's hole 7.

 

You couldn't be more accurate about Jefferson though. They took away one of the best holes on the course when they changed up the back. But even before they changed it up it was the third option for courses in Seattle.

Hole number 1 at Jackson always gives me mental indecisiveness. Not sure to pull out driver or iron off tee. Then do you layup or go for green on 2nd shot? If you layup on 2nd shot, that landing area on the left always looks like only 20x20 yards but when you get there it's like the size of a football field! I kind of liked it when they reversed it about 5 years back and #9 was hole #1. A little bit easier to get into the round rather than a mind puzzle for current hole #1. For those who play Jackson, what is your approach on attacking hole #1?

 

I actually do like Jackson and when I made up that list I simply ran out of holes. I took what I thought were the best. 4 I have never layed up on because I’m yet to have been in a position where I didn’t have a recovery available. (Bomb and gouge for the win)

16 is always a layup. I just can’t get there so I don’t have that decision. Its a simple iron-iron hole.

8 is more interesting but 7 is the only hole at WS I have a hope of driving. (Which is one thing I do like about Jackson: 4, 10, 16 all theoretically drivable par 4s.) It was a toss up on the list of 8 or 9, and I like 9 better, possibly because it’s green is in good shape. 8’s is consistently not.

 

While we’re at it, 18 is a fun, reachable par 5. (Jackson’s 5’s might be better than WS)

 

As for 1, there are 2 options for me depending on the season:

Winter: high straight drive that usually plugs short of trouble and leaves a white-knuckle 200yd iron.

 

Summer: let every swing flaw shine and take the draw/hook over the left and let it run. In bone-dry conditions I have had anywhere from 130-175 left after those. I have also had balls disappear forever.

 

1 is a great hole in that it doesn’t have any bailout by the green. No matter what you do, at some point you have to buckle up and launch an iron over a ravine to a tiny plateau with a green on it.

 

So I’d like to think I do give it credit. Just sometimes the quirkiness wears off and I prefer WS in that regard.

[blink3665]

i dont mean to derail this thread any farther, but it seems like a fair amount of us play Jackson. It would be fun to get together sometime for a round!

[bird206]

How were the fairways at Jackson playing before the snowfall? Soggy?

[CMCSGolf]

Interesting development in this thread! We could do a more in depth hole by hole comparison of WS and Jackson. Overall, I think WS is a better course. Jackson has too many funky holes with forced layups that get me (though it does make the course play much longer than it's stated yardage).

 

I actually think #1 at Jackson is a bad hole. For pace of play purposes, it's possibly the worst the starting hole I've ever seen on a golf course. A par 5 where 50% of people go for it with two bodies of water to cross and a big hill where balls always plug. Back to the actual merits of the hole and I still think it less than great because it is completely one dimensional with no choices. In the winter, I hit driver and then get it anywhere over the creek. In the summer I hit 3 wood and then get it anywhere over the creek. Literally the only reason to layup is if you are in the trees on the right. Hitting a wedge into a layup zone is not something I like doing on a par 5 and really offers no advantage. I don't think the shot from 125 is easier than from the hill fronting the green. Therefore, the plan/strategy is always the same for me.

 

In an imaginary world. if you could shift the tee a little too the right by 18 green and make it 25 yards shorter, I think it would be a really good long par 4. That way driver would not run out into the water and you would be rewarded for being aggressive if you were closer to the hazard. As it stands now, it doesn't do much for me. While #1 at WS isn't world class, it's fun to play in the summer. Hitting your second shot up the right side and letting it collect toward the green. When it's firm, it's fun to try and hit a wedge shot into the green that gets close but doesn't get above the hole. Better hole in my opinion.

[bird206]

Interesting development in this thread! We could do a more in depth hole by hole comparison of WS and Jackson. Overall, I think WS is a better course. Jackson has too many funky holes with forced layups that get me (though it does make the course play much longer than it's stated yardage).

 

I actually think #1 at Jackson is a bad hole. For pace of play purposes, it's possibly the worst the starting hole I've ever seen on a golf course. A par 5 where 50% of people go for it with two bodies of water to cross and a big hill where balls always plug. Back to the actual merits of the hole and I still think it less than great because it is completely one dimensional with no choices. In the winter, I hit driver and then get it anywhere over the creek. In the summer I hit 3 wood and then get it anywhere over the creek. Literally the only reason to layup is if you are in the trees on the right. Hitting a wedge into a layup zone is not something I like doing on a par 5 and really offers no advantage. I don't think the shot from 125 is easier than from the hill fronting the green. Therefore, the plan/strategy is always the same for me.

 

In an imaginary world. if you could shift the tee a little too the right by 18 green and make it 25 yards shorter, I think it would be a really good long par 4. That way driver would not run out into the water and you would be rewarded for being aggressive if you were closer to the hazard. As it stands now, it doesn't do much for me. While #1 at WS isn't world class, it's fun to play in the summer. Hitting your second shot up the right side and letting it collect toward the green. When it's firm, it's fun to try and hit a wedge shot into the green that gets close but doesn't get above the hole. Better hole in my opinion.

Agree Agree Agree. Well stated. That W Seattle 1st hole is more straightforward on your first 2 shots which allow you to get into the flow of the course, but the 3rd shot get you to start thinking a little bit more with that green that slopes a lot from right to left.

 

Oh yeah about Kayak, I used to play there a lot about 9 years ago when they had the all you can play golf and all you can eat lunch buffet for like $40 with cart. That was fun and great value! (That was probably the start of the decline too) :swoon2:

[James the Hogan Fan]

Interesting development in this thread! We could do a more in depth hole by hole comparison of WS and Jackson. Overall, I think WS is a better course. Jackson has too many funky holes with forced layups that get me (though it does make the course play much longer than it's stated yardage).

 

I actually think #1 at Jackson is a bad hole. For pace of play purposes, it's possibly the worst the starting hole I've ever seen on a golf course. A par 5 where 50% of people go for it with two bodies of water to cross and a big hill where balls always plug. Back to the actual merits of the hole and I still think it less than great because it is completely one dimensional with no choices. In the winter, I hit driver and then get it anywhere over the creek. In the summer I hit 3 wood and then get it anywhere over the creek. Literally the only reason to layup is if you are in the trees on the right. Hitting a wedge into a layup zone is not something I like doing on a par 5 and really offers no advantage. I don't think the shot from 125 is easier than from the hill fronting the green. Therefore, the plan/strategy is always the same for me.

 

In an imaginary world. if you could shift the tee a little too the right by 18 green and make it 25 yards shorter, I think it would be a really good long par 4. That way driver would not run out into the water and you would be rewarded for being aggressive if you were closer to the hazard. As it stands now, it doesn't do much for me. While #1 at WS isn't world class, it's fun to play in the summer. Hitting your second shot up the right side and letting it collect toward the green. When it's firm, it's fun to try and hit a wedge shot into the green that gets close but doesn't get above the hole. Better hole in my opinion.

 

So I was looking at the hole and how to improve it. Suppose a large tree were placed front right of the green? Say a 30-40’ pine 3/4 up the slope? Suddenly a that 200 yard shot over the ravine has to contend with a tree. The trick would be getting the tree the right size that the shot is not impossible but really makes you think about bailing out to 125. You’d be rewarded for a draw down the left. As far as the slope, maybe US Open rough all the way up?

 

 

So I’ll throw this to the blown up thread:

 

Jackson, Jefferson, West Seattle, Innerbay. The 4 premier Seattle Muni’s: what is the best hole of those 4?

[bird206]

Jack: 12

Jeff: 17

West: 9

Inner: never played there

 

Kayak: 14 (since this is a Kayak thread)

[CMCSGolf]

That's an interesting question.

 

Jefferson - I think the old #11 was pretty clearly the best at Jefferson. Of the current holes, I like #14 and #17.

Jackson - I think #14 is pretty easily the best hole. I would be curious to hear if anyone thinks others are better.

WS - I have no idea. I really like #9. I would also consider #8 or #14. I also like #17. The ridge is perfectly placed to repel anything but the best drive.

[CMCSGolf]

Jack: 12

Jeff: 17

West: 9

Inner: never played there

 

The tee shot is just too tight on 12 for me to love it. I can't hit driver there because it pinches in too much. Also, the green is too severe. The front part of the green too steep for the ball to even stop most of the summer. With an unlimited budget, clearing out some trees and subtly tweaking the green, it could be a really stellar hole.

[bird206]

Jack: 12

Jeff: 17

West: 9

Inner: never played there

 

The tee shot is just too tight on 12 for me to love it. I can't hit driver there because it pinches in too much. Also, the green is too severe. The front part of the green too steep for the ball to even stop most of the summer. With an unlimited budget, clearing out some trees and subtly tweaking the green, it could be a really stellar hole.

Remember when they tried to make that green a 3 tiered green some odd years ago? That was ridiculous.

 

Since this is a Kayak thread. I used to like walking up the lookout ladder point on the 10th hole on Kayak.

[James the Hogan Fan]

My takes:

Best hole at Jackson 14. The pond frames the hole beautifully and is a very strategic factor on both tee and approach. Plus the elevated tee and trouble left. It might be the best hole too.

 

Best Hole at WS: 8 A perfect drive leaves 125-150 to an elevated green that may be the most difficult on the course. A subpar drive practically takes par out of the picture. This is the best hole in terms of toughness but fairness; always dares the big draw. I’veonly pared this thing once, and it required a 25 footer.

 

Jefferson: I never got to play the pre-neutered 11. I like 18 but I dont have any strong opinions.

 

My personal favorite: WS #2. It’s short, it’s easy, but I like the visual framing and the junk on the right coming right up to the green.

 

Best Par 3- 13 at WS; Par 5- 12 at Jackson.

 

Best hole overall? I’m giving the nod to 14 at Jackson.

 

Kayak best hole: I loved 12 the downhill par 3. The number of stiff 5-6 irons I hit there... somehow I always found a shot on that hole.

[teckneeklyperfect]

Late to the party,  sad to learn of this, I lived 7 or 8  minutes from Kayak,  I played it and Battle Creek often for 20 years before moving back to Oregon .