Jump to content


 

Photo

The Dunes


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#31 jafflemaker

jafflemaker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3625 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:44 AM

That's why I don't know what the fuss is about. I have never played it well. It is tough. Don't know what architectural merits it is judged on though. Maybe PeterPan could give us a rundown :)

#32 Bernie_Larkham

Bernie_Larkham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2423 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:56 AM

Yeah its a mid-low iron but when I first played it (and knowing the rep it had) I couldnt understand it and literally thought they were talking about 3. Still do! There is so much more about 3 that is brilliant IMO. 17 is pretty average in comparison.

#33 2manybogeys

2manybogeys

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 772 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 03:19 AM

Yeah its a mid-low iron but when I first played it (and knowing the rep it had) I couldnt understand it and literally thought they were talking about 3. Still do!

There is so much more about 3 that is brilliant IMO. 17 is pretty average in comparison.

There’s many a slip ’tween a cup and a lip.

http://www.golflink.com.au/...

3 is a great hole too but nowhere near as tough as 17.

#34 iRON MiCK

iRON MiCK

    See, the trick is... to find your swing..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8860 posts
  • Locationwww.iseekgolf.com

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:29 AM

The 3rd is nowhere as difficult to get close to the pin, or land on the green as 17 is. That being said, if you can hit a straight punch on 17 it will bounce and roll up to the green, where on the 3rd, you have no choice but to fly your tee shot up at the pin.........I prefer the 3rd too.

#35 Bernie_Larkham

Bernie_Larkham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2423 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:57 AM

I dont necessarily disagree that 17 is tougher for average players, though I think you can run up more doubles on 3 IMO. But tougher doesnt make better and thats why I dont understand the hype around 17 generally. There is an easy bailout short on 17, 3 has no such option and the green from memory leaves plenty of work if you are in the wrong spot. If you are long, left, right or short you are dead. The setting is no competition, 3 is brilliant, 17 no overly exciting. All good debate boys and is driving me to get down there agin for a hit, its one of my fave ever tracks, including the sand belt.

#36 2manybogeys

2manybogeys

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 772 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 05:47 PM

I dont necessarily disagree that 17 is tougher for average players, though I think you can run up more doubles on 3 IMO. But tougher doesnt make better and thats why I dont understand the hype around 17 generally.

There is an easy bailout short on 17, 3 has no such option and the green from memory leaves plenty of work if you are in the wrong spot. If you are long, left, right or short you are dead.

The setting is no competition, 3 is brilliant, 17 no overly exciting.

All good debate boys and is driving me to get down there agin for a hit, its one of my fave ever tracks, including the sand belt.

There’s many a slip ’tween a cup and a lip.

http://www.golflink.com.au/...

Yeah great track really enjoyed it a month ago. The new holes being built looked great from what I saw. Any idea when they are ready to play? Oh by the way i love the 13th hole another great par 3. Come to think of it an excellent set of par 3's all up.

#37 Bernie_Larkham

Bernie_Larkham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2423 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:07 PM

Didn't know about any new holes being built. Is that on the range side?

#38 2manybogeys

2manybogeys

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 772 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:24 PM

Didn’t know about any new holes being built. Is that on the range side?

There’s many a slip ’tween a cup and a lip.

http://www.golflink.com.au/...

From memory its on the left when you stand on the 15th tee. Just found this http://www.thedunes.com.au/guests/coursenews/coursenews.mhtml

#39 Bernie_Larkham

Bernie_Larkham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2423 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 07:56 PM

Thanks looks like a weekend in April is on the agenda...

#40 jafflemaker

jafflemaker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3625 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:13 AM

spewing about 15 being changed. For some reason I always used to nail my drive there. Bugger.

#41 TurfN3rd

TurfN3rd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:24 AM

Played there last weekend in the hot howling winds. Tees and greens were struggling big time with the heat and the amount of play. Played well though and enjoyed the day. One thing that did irk me though, we were waiting on the 18th tee and saw the hole distance from the blue plates read 370m, I had my bag sitting pretty much over one of the plates and took a glance at my sure shot gps, to my suprise it read 335m! The hole is dead straight so there is no dogleg involved. After a pretty decent tee shot I had 60m left for my second and I know there is no way I can hit it 310m. Got me thinking if it is a genuine mistake or a dodgy attempt at lengthening the course for some extra ACR points? As for 17, it a classic "Redan" par 3. I'm into golf architecture and I agree with Tom Watson, it is an exquisite hole looking at it from an architectural viewpoint.

#42 Bernie_Larkham

Bernie_Larkham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2423 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:13 AM

Played there last weekend in the hot howling winds. Tees and greens were struggling big time with the heat and the amount of play. Played well though and enjoyed the day.

One thing that did irk me though, we were waiting on the 18th tee and saw the hole distance from the blue plates read 370m, I had my bag sitting pretty much over one of the plates and took a glance at my sure shot gps, to my suprise it read 335m! The hole is dead straight so there is no dogleg involved. After a pretty decent tee shot I had 60m left for my second and I know there is no way I can hit it 310m. Got me thinking if it is a genuine mistake or a dodgy attempt at lengthening the course for some extra ACR points?

As for 17, it a classic “Redan” par 3. I’m into golf architecture and I agree with Tom Watson, it is an exquisite hole looking at it from an architectural viewpoint.

Read Ben Hogan’s 5 Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf until your eyes are sore and your head hurts, then read it again and again! It’s ALL there………..

I've been asking this a bit in here as I love the Par 3 3rd. Shorter hole but exposed to all the elements, tiered green and danger lurking everywhere. How do rate it in comparison to 17?

#43 Golftime

Golftime

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:07 PM

Played there last weekend in the hot howling winds. Tees and greens were struggling big time with the heat and the amount of play. Played well though and enjoyed the day.

One thing that did irk me though, we were waiting on the 18th tee and saw the hole distance from the blue plates read 370m, I had my bag sitting pretty much over one of the plates and took a glance at my sure shot gps, to my suprise it read 335m! The hole is dead straight so there is no dogleg involved. After a pretty decent tee shot I had 60m left for my second and I know there is no way I can hit it 310m. Got me thinking if it is a genuine mistake or a dodgy attempt at lengthening the course for some extra ACR points?

As for 17, it a classic “Redan” par 3. I’m into golf architecture and I agree with Tom Watson, it is an exquisite hole looking at it from an architectural viewpoint.

Read Ben Hogan’s 5 Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf until your eyes are sore and your head hurts, then read it again and again! It’s ALL there………..

I’ve been asking this a bit in here as I love the Par 3 3rd. Shorter hole but exposed to all the elements, tiered green and danger lurking everywhere. How do rate it in comparison to 17?

There’s many a slip ’tween a cup and a lip.

http://www.golflink.com.au/...

heaps more interesting than 17 and just as good as the par 3 13th. Maybe the 13th is a bit tougher with those deep pot bunkers.

#44 iRON MiCK

iRON MiCK

    See, the trick is... to find your swing..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8860 posts
  • Locationwww.iseekgolf.com

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:39 PM

After playing there Tuesday, the 3rd is definatley an easier hole with the wind down, however when the wind blows, as it can, the 3rd is devilishly difficult to score par on. The 17th is a cracker, and hurts me everytime I play it.

#45 TurfN3rd

TurfN3rd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 02:38 AM

3 and 13 are set into the surrounding dunes, in a bowl type terrain were it looks like minimal earth moving was required, the holes were already there really. 17 is set in a flatter part of land and would of had to of been "built" with lots of earth moved to create it, my hat goes off to the shaper who did those works. Redan is a classic links par 3 style, green pitched at an angle right to left with a cluster of bunkers on the left and usually a single bunker on the right. All three are great par 3's, lets just not mention the 6th, baaarrff!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users