Ball Escape - 2nd Hole
When making any changes to effect change the biggest threat is to escalate the problem.
In the case where we change the direction of holes 2 and 5 to mitigate ball escape, we now are at risk of having to retire the area of the second hole. It is the contention of the majority of members of the now disestablished Building and Facilities Committee based on our experience, 1000’s of rounds of golf and local knowledge gained as course convenors, through working with green staff, the various golf boards of management and turf culture NZ, that this decision should be peer-reviewed.
It is important that we all understand the argument around ball escape on the 2nd hole and what we could do to mitigate what’s happening.
- The Facilities Committee recommended to the Board 2 years ago, lowering the Tee block and creating a shoot restricting what shot can be played. This would take away the option of the high draw shot and the big slice, for many right-handers as has already been proven by the use of the lower tees for the last couple of months. Anecdotally there has been a major improvement with ball escape from this foward Tee block from the neighbours directly effected. What difference has the out-of-bounds rule had since its implementation?
- We need to look at an improved landing area, taking out the first grass bunker and resculpturing the hill area.
- Introducing a number of sand or grass bunkers along the tree line, in the major second and third-shot-hitting zones will significantly improve the ball escape in these areas
- Review where we need to replace and introduce new screens now that the trees have overgrown many of the screens rendering some of them redundant.
The facilities committee were also majorly concerned that reversing 2 and changing the layout of 5,6,7 would enable big left-handed slicers and big right-handed hookers of the ball, to hit a golf ball in southerly conditions over the trees introducing even more ball escape to the residents along the boundary who had never experienced it before.
What changes are there in the membership demographic over the past couple of years is this the reason for more errant shots e.g younger and higher handicap players who don’t realise the consequence of a ‘big swing’ shot with little control.
There is an historical argument with regard to infill housing along the 2nd boundary and as the golf club was here first, the infill housing has magnified the problem. If we make the changes we risk pushing ourselves into a corner where we have no options left.
Miramar Golf Club has wind whether it be the prdominant Northerly or southerly gusting over 63 km/hr 166 days per year. We need to learn from the lessons of Chamberlain Park, where they had to close 3 holes in 2021. We have to manage the concerns of the neighbours - this is something which we have not been doing recently and has a number of neighbours pretty upset – some might argue that this is deliberate to justify a proposal that jeopardises the very future of course.
Changing the direction of 2 & 5 should be the last option not the first!
Supporting Documentation from Alex Glasgow Initially Employed by the Club
From: Alex Glasgow <aglasgow@nzsti.org.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:45 AM
To: iang@xtra.co.nz
Subject: RE: Miramar Golf Club - Review Proposed Changes of the 2nd Hole
Hi Ian
Sorry about the delay getting back to you about this. I think you are probably right that the better approach would be to persist with the step by step actions on the existing second hole – the obvious advantage with that is that you are working with an existing and known thing. Therefore if you make a change you should be able to determine the result from it (e.g. more or less ball escapes). I think the risk with an entirely new layout (e.g. playing the hole as 2 holes in a different direction as a par 3 and a par 4) has a lot of unknowns and potential unintended consequences. You may open these holes and all of a sudden new houses get significantly more “in-coming” than they are used to and that could really kick things off.
Possible unintended consequence on new the 5th – this will be a par 5 playing to the existing 2nd green location – you may end up with a lot of escapes from big hitters 2nd shots on this hole because these shots angle towards the out of bounds than the equivalent 2nd shots on the existing 2nd hole – there would be no ball escapes from that corridor at present. The new 7th hole – a par 4 – as a par 4 it may be prone to more escapes (than the 2nd hole as a par 5) because people will feel obliged to hit driver. You would know better than me – do some people playing the existing 2nd hole, because they are fearful of hitting OB, hit lesser clubs to guard against going OB knowing they have the relative luxury afforded by it being a par 5.
I actually think that you need to have a plan that includes the worst possible scenario i.e. the entire 2nd hole corridor has to be “retired” – this may be more likely than most people would imagine.
Alex Glasgow
Technical Director - Agronomy
Mobile:
+64 27 496 2486
Email:
Website:
Address:
C/- Maungakiekie Golf Club, 5 Anita Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041
Ball Escape - Tee Block Options
Create Your Own Website With Webador