How Would You Play It (16 at Saddleback Golf Course in Firestone)

[Golfingdad]

I wasn't going to throw anyone under the bus or anything.

I, obviously, had no such qualms.

---

Can't wait for LSW by the way.  In all of these threads combined, I think my batting average is hovering around the Mendoza line (at best) ... and that's including one of my own!!

I need the help!

[mmoan2]

I dont have any reliable 235 carry clubs in the bag. With my driver id overshoot this green when maxed out

If i was playing literall this couese in stableford tournament id rely on my high hcp on this hole and gather maybe a couple points.

High hcp combined with average golf knowledge and ballstriking provides good advantage in stableford setup tournament.

Scratch golfer would get his birdie but therees 17 other holes with more opportunity for high hcp player. Hopefully.

I would reach the front bunkers when maxing out my hybrid. But you gotta have the accuracy also. Hopefully direct impact wont bury deep into sand in case you attack the front bunkers with like a hybrid.

If you would overshoot the green with a driver and hit the front bunker with a hybrid, don't you have a 3w that would land you somewhere in between? A gap of 260ish to 215ish is pretty big, no? You may even want to look into one of the new "driving irons." I've never used them, but some people like them and they seem much easier to hit these days with the new technology.

[mmoan2]

18 deg. Hybrid is 235 off the tee, so I hit it. Here's what I think my % chances would be as a par 4:

Goal: Hit green, make eagle or birdie. (20%)

Most likely miss: miss green, but keep it dry. Try to get up and down for birdie. (30%)

2nd most likely: Pull hook off tee. Hit from drop zone (130ish). Likely 3-4 more shots. Bogey (15%); Double (10%)

3rd: Get wet around green. Try to get up and down for par. Par (5%); Bogey (15%)

All else: disaster - double or worse (10%)

More than 50% chance at par or better. Hit it...

[Lihu]

I, too, am far too often guilty of becoming "complacent" with par distances. On a par 4 if I'm 240 out, I'm going for it evey time. A par 5 with 240 out after my tee shot and I'm thinking about whether or not to go for it.

After reading through these "How Would You Play It?" Threads, I think I need to develop a better pre-shot routine that includes a check for wind (I all to often miss due to forgetting about wind) and an honest risk assessment. If the only risk on a shot is rough, I should probably go for the green on that par 5 since a miss is still fine.

Me too!  I already found myself thinking more about my shots more, and I think my average went down instantly. I haven't really put a number on it but I looked at previous scores and the scores I seem to be getting now. I had only one blowup round on a 9 hole course, which was due to bad driving and fatigue. For the most part, I think it saved a significant number of strokes.

Keep them coming everyone!

[Golfingdad]

18 deg. Hybrid is 235 off the tee, so I hit it. Here's what I think my % chances would be as a par 4:

Goal: Hit green, make eagle or birdie. (20%)

Most likely miss: miss green, but keep it dry. Try to get up and down for birdie. (30%)

2nd most likely: Pull hook off tee. Hit from drop zone (130ish). Likely 3-4 more shots. Bogey (15%); Double (10%)

3rd: Get wet around green. Try to get up and down for par. Par (5%); Bogey (15%)

All else: disaster - double or worse (10%)

More than 50% chance at par or better. Hit it...

While I applaud your analytical look at it (and I realize you're being a little tongue and cheek, so take this response as same) ... I believe there is one slight flaw in this method.  You would have to weight all of the non-par options accordingly, no?

You have "or worse" listed on there, and the only way these numbers would work without weighting is if you assumed that "or worse" only meant triple bogey AND also assumed you had an equal chance of making a hole-in-one.

That's all.

[late347]

While I applaud your analytical look at it (and I realize you're being a little tongue and cheek, so take this response as same) ... I believe there is one slight flaw in this method.  You would have to weight all of the non-par options accordingly, no?

You have "or worse" listed on there, and the only way these numbers would work without weighting is if you assumed that "or worse" only meant triple bogey AND also assumed you had an equal chance of making a hole-in-one.

That's all.

In real life, the actual hitting probability of a single given golf shot is totally independent on the previous shots. It's always a nice dice, that is thrown so to speak? (in theory?)

The only way to know what is best solution is to weigh each probability against each score. Consequences of mishits are severe, you can end up short into water, you can end up long into water, you can end up sideways into water. So you take penalty stroke also, and possibly bad drops. Don't forget that the green is hilly, and rough is very thin, you can roll into water easily.

For example, with your first shot:

-perfect hit happens 1/5 times, result is between eagle and par let's say

-bad hit happens 4/5 times, results can be quite bad, if not horrendous at times!

-with bad hits you can essentially have: water, drop and penalty stroke. You can also bury deep into bunker sand, or you can roll softly into bunker sand.

(hole in one discounted entirely)

[Maddog10]

If the layup was a safe option I think it would make the decision more difficult, though I would still go for it no matter what Option B was. However, this particular hole presents a lot of risk with the layup shot as well so to me it just doesn't make sense to lay up unless you don't feel capable of carrying the water. If that is the case though, then you likely don't feel capable of carrying the hazard to the right of the lay up area either... Either option, a miss left is a hazard. Also with either option, a miss right potentially introduces a hazard, although it can be eliminated on the layup if you carry the hazard. If I'm assessing the risk/reward for each option, I see significant risk for significant reward in going for it. If I lay up, I still see significant risk (though less, admittedly), but I see very little reward. How often are you going to hit a 17 yard wide fairway if you have to carry it 200 yards to eliminate the right hazard? If it's not often, then you are now playing a shot from the rough that has to carry water as well, and have introduced risk on two shots instead of one.

If you are capable of hitting the ball 250, I think this one is a no-brainer. You have to go for it. Typically a lay up is shot that produces very little risk, but that is not the case here. If I'm going to accept risk, I want the reward as well... Cool hole.

[late347]

If the layup was a safe option I think it would make the decision more difficult, though I would still go for it no matter what Option B was. However, this particular hole presents a lot of risk with the layup shot as well so to me it just doesn't make sense to lay up unless you don't feel capable of carrying the water. If that is the case though, then you likely don't feel capable of carrying the hazard to the right of the lay up area either... Either option, a miss left is a hazard. Also with either option, a miss right potentially introduces a hazard, although it can be eliminated on the layup if you carry the hazard. If I'm assessing the risk/reward for each option, I see significant risk for significant reward in going for it. If I lay up, I still see significant risk (though less, admittedly), but I see very little reward. How often are you going to hit a 17 yard wide fairway if you have to carry it 200 yards to eliminate the right hazard? If it's not often, then you are now playing a shot from the rough that has to carry water as well, and have introduced risk on two shots instead of one.

If you are capable of hitting the ball 250, I think this one is a no-brainer. You have to go for it. Typically a lay up is shot that produces very little risk, but that is not the case here. If I'm going to accept risk, I want the reward as well... Cool hole.

I'm not sure I understand your probabilities so well can you clarify

you could compare the probabilities against stableford points in my opinion.

eagle is worth 4

birdie is worth 3

par is worth 2

bogey is worth 1

doublebogey is worth 0

Basically, you got 20% chance of GiR in teeshot

I think it's fair to assume 1 putt, at minimum, regardless of whether you hit GiR or sand or rough?

The other 80% are divided into NOT hitting GiR in teeshot

What percentage of your off-center hits are hooking?

What percentage of your off-center hits are too long or too short etc?

what percentage of your off-center hits are slice?

[Golfingdad]

How often are you going to hit a 17 yard wide fairway if you have to carry it 200 yards to eliminate the right hazard?

This is a moot point because I agree with you and am now on board with the idea of going for the green ... but FWIW, the OP stated that the rough was not penal and was virtually non-existent.  So when I was thinking of laying up, I wasn't considering the target to be only 17 yards wide, but rather I was suggesting to take a club that would clear the right hazard, and then that leaves you with a target that is so wide that it goes off the sheet.  (Assuming you don't end up directly behind one of those small trees) ;)

[late347]

Well, with the layup option you gotta consider:

-more loft is more forgiving

-more lofted club is more accurate to stay on the green and 1 putt

option A

-carry over water with a wood !?

-work from there

option B

-go for the bogey,

-more lofted clubs

-lay-up

-at least you stay on the green once you get there, you can spin the ball close to the pin

- 1 putt more consistently (?)

Those probabilities sounded very confident from you maddog10, I must admit

I do not have that kind of accuracy with my teeshot with 235 carry.

And those probabilities of maddog10. are calculated very confidently

so that you are always able to sand-save, and always able to 1-putt from sand-save

So, let's say maddog10

20% chance of eagle

30% chance of birdie

10% chance of par

30% chance of bogey

10% chance of double bogey or any worse

[Lihu]

I just google earth(ed) this hole. It looks like even from the back tees the forced carry is on the order of 218 yards into the middle of the front bunker. If you are worried about over hitting the hole back into the water you would need to drive 280 yards over what looks like some bushes and rocks or something. Even your best drive of 275 is not going over the edge.

Minimum 215 to 218 carry, with a 37 yard wide landing zone (and extends to 52 yards at 235 yards), it shouldn't be too bad. Unless the headwind is 30mph.

I suppose, it's always a good idea to analyze a hole before playing it. I'm sure when looking at it in person, it can look pretty intimidating, but the analysis says to go for it.

BTW, as a bogey golfer I would tee up (probably to the next tee up) and the center of the green is about 222 yards and a 50 yard wide landing zone. 3W or hybrid would be my choice.

[LuciusWooding]

There are 2 reasonable choices:

-Hit something at the green

-Move up to different tees until you can hit something at the green with a reasonable chance of success

Everybody saying you don't have the carry distance or aren't a long hitter, you're missing the point. YOU DON'T NEED A 200+ CARRY. The same thinking that changes your play on a par 3/4 is making you default to playing this hole from the back tees.

Playing from the right set of tees makes for a dramatic, challenging round, yet you still have viable shots throughout.

[Pretzel]

There are 2 reasonable choices:

-Hit something at the green

-Move up to different tees until you can hit something at the green with a reasonable chance of success

Everybody saying you don't have the carry distance or aren't a long hitter, you're missing the point. YOU DON'T NEED A 200+ CARRY. The same thinking that changes your play on a par 3/4 is making you default to playing this hole from the back tees.

Playing from the right set of tees makes for a dramatic, challenging round, yet you still have viable shots throughout.

This is a good point right here. In my example picture I gave distances only for the "gold" tees, which are the second furthest set of tees this course has. This course also has four more sets of tees at varying distances shorter than the one I put in my example picture. If you can't at least have the option (regardless of whether or not you want to take that option) to go for the green on this hole, I feel that would be a pretty good indicator of playing the wrong tees.

[mmoan2]

18 deg. Hybrid is 235 off the tee, so I hit it. If I need to hit from the drop zone, it looks like about 145

While I applaud your analytical look at it (and I realize you're being a little tongue and cheek, so take this response as same) ... I believe there is one slight flaw in this method.  You would have to weight all of the non-par options accordingly, no?

You have "or worse" listed on there, and the only way these numbers would work without weighting is if you assumed that "or worse" only meant triple bogey AND also assumed you had an equal chance of making a hole-in-one.

That's all.

I hear ya, but I'm not 100% sure of your reading of the flaw. Yes, this isn't a perfect statistical analysis. Hey, I'm only a duffer (currently, hopefully!). I can't afford to bring a statistician/caddie with me yet. I think I'm weighing all the non-par options accordingly, though, . I think my chances of bogey are much greater on a 245 yd. par 4 than double or worse. Even putting it in the water. I think my chances of putting it on the green are about equal to hitting double or worse. Then add in that 30% of the time I am off the green, but expecting par or birdie, maybe a few bogeys. I would have my man card taken away from me if I hit away from trouble if my chances or par or better were much higher than my chances of double or worse (also keeping in mind what Erik and Mike have already said about how the fairway here is a pretty poor option).

[Maddog10]

Well, with the layup option you gotta consider:

-more loft is more forgiving

-more lofted club is more accurate to stay on the green and 1 putt

option A

-carry over water with a wood !?

-work from there

option B

-go for the bogey,

-more lofted clubs

-lay-up

-at least you stay on the green once you get there, you can spin the ball close to the pin

- 1 putt more consistently (?)

Those probabilities sounded very confident from you maddog10, I must admit

I do not have that kind of accuracy with my teeshot with 235 carry.

And those probabilities of maddog10. are calculated very confidently

so that you are always able to sand-save, and always able to 1-putt from sand-save

So, let's say maddog10

20% chance of eagle

30% chance of birdie

10% chance of par

30% chance of bogey

10% chance of double bogey or any worse

I'm not 100% certain that I could use your system and calculate actual percentages so I'm not going to do it that way, but I will try to model my thoughts better than I did earlier. You mention me always being able to one putt for a sand save, but I would be able to two-putt for a sand save. If I hit a bunker shot onto the green, I've still got two putts at making par and should have a reasonable birdie look...

Basically the way I see it is I need to be able to carry something 220 or more and be able to hit a target that I'm estimating to be 50 yards wide (green and surrounding fairway) to be safe. That doesn't necessarily put me on the green, but I'm not in the hazard and I've got some sort of chip/pitch/bunker shot into the green. From this position, I would expect myself to end up with a reasonable chance of getting up and down for birdie with par being worst case. Then on the occasions that I do hit the green, I'm going to expect to two-putt for birdie. I think your 20% chance of eagle number is way too high for me, and the 10% chance of par is way too low. I'm going to make par far more often than I make eagle. In fact, par most likely should be my highest percentage. Now, I can't ignore the obvious scenario where a mishit puts me in the water, and that would be quite a penalty because there is not a good drop. Basically I would just have to re-tee as if I had hit the ball out of bounds or had a lost ball. Regardless, given the width of the landing area, I am comfortable with this shot and believe I could land it safely somewhere near the green 80%+ of the time. For me this hole happens to work out perfectly for my 5 wood, which I can hit high and land softly. The fact that there is no trouble immediately long makes this a much easier shot. If there was water directly behind the green and no safe area long, the hole would be considerably tougher.

I said I wasn't going to try percentages, but I'll give it a shot. Essentially the goal is to put myself in a position to make birdie, and even a greenside bunker shot is a higher percentage shot at getting inside 5 feet than playing from the lay up area. Therefore, if I avoided the water on the tee shot, which I feel I could do at an 85% rate, then I am usually looking at a birdie opportunity with a worst case par. For me, that reward is worth taking the risk of hitting in the water, especially when the lay-up also presents an opportunity to hit the ball in the water. Here are my estimated percentages. I can't claim their accuracy, but it's the best I can do.

5% chance at making eagle

35% chance at making birdie

40% chance at making par

5% chance at making bogey (least because if I clear the hazard I should do no worse than par. If I don't I'm looking at a double considering the long drop.)

10% chance at making double or worse

Therefore based on those percentages, if I played the hole 20 times I am estimating myself to be -4 (assuming no "worses", just double bogeys) on the hole. I'll take it.

GolfingDad, I must have skimmed over where the OP mentioned that the rough is nothing to worry about. That makes laying up a much better option even though it doesn't change my opinion on what I personally would do. If you didn't have to worry about being buried with a bad lie, that makes the second shot pretty easy and essentially should take the water out of play.

[late347]

yea maddog10

I gotta give you the credit for the balls - but admittedly, I notice that you are almost 0 hcp player, you're pretty accurate, you know your carry distances well, and you can hit it pretty nicely in the distance also...

I'm a legitimate high hcp player. (almost the max hcp, with American style hcp)

For me,  I suppose if I really bombed the 17deg hybrid -  the ball would carry the distance... to the green. But the shaft of that club is just wrong for me, somehow... I need a new club for this distance LOL!!!

With my other hybrids, I carry less distance, but I'm pretty accurate within a cone of direction (I can hit literally straight shots with my 21deg and 24deg hybrids, no draw, just straight, about 200 yards carry maybe)

Maybe I would find the thin  fairway accurately like that...

I don't have fairway woods in the bag currently - I do admit that there's a distance gap with my driver and hybrids.

[Lihu]

yea maddog10

I gotta give you the credit for the balls - but admittedly, I notice that you are almost 0 hcp player, you're pretty accurate, you know your carry distances well, and you can hit it pretty nicely in the distance also...

I'm a legitimate high hcp player. (almost the max hcp, with American style hcp)

For me,  I suppose if I really bombed the 17deg hybrid -  the ball would carry the distance... to the green. But the shaft of that club is just wrong for me, somehow... I need a new club for this distance LOL!!!

With my other hybrids, I carry less distance, but I'm pretty accurate within a cone of direction (I can hit literally straight shots with my 21deg and 24deg hybrids, no draw, just straight, about 200 yards carry maybe)

Maybe I would find the thin  fairway accurately like that...

I don't have fairway woods in the bag currently - I do admit that there's a distance gap with my driver and hybrids.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I think 36.4 is the maximum.

Handicapping FAQs

Section 3

Maximum Handicap Index®

Q. What is the maximum Handicap Index for men and women?

A. The maximum Handicap Index is 36.4 for men and 40.4 for women (18.2N and 20.2N for a nine-hole Handicap Index, respectively). The Course Handicap™ could convert to a number higher than the maximum Handicap Index. Example: A Handicap Index of 36.4 on a course with a Slope Rating® of 145 would be 47 (e.g. 36.4 x 145 / 113 = 47 Course Handicap). Anything above the maximum Handicap Index must be designated with an “L” for local club use only (e.g. 45.0L). Anything set below the maximum Handicap Index for an event is a condition of the competition (e.g. maximum USGA Handicap Index for event is 25.0). Please visit Section 3-4 of the USGA Handicap System manual for further reference.

[Dave2512]

Wind all about the wind. Firestone is a little town that was buiilt in a field with nothing around it. My former home course is in Ft.Lupton down the road, always windy up there. I work in Brighton just 6 miles south. There are days I leave for the course and it's dead calm in town but when I get to the course it is windy enough to make golfing tricky. Wind is a four letter word around here.