[Dave Morrell]

Here is a different twist.  How about naming one or two holes everyone thinks are average or below on great tracks.  Based upon lots of Pebble Beach comments regarding weak holes, perhaps we can skip PB.  I will start with #6 at Augusta.  That green is really not suited to the modern game with speed, and I have never thought it fit particularly well with the rest of the course.  Inviting criticism of that comment, along with asking others to name a few iffy holes on great tracks.

[Tom_Egan]

Here's a shot; can't wait for the rebuttals.

The Country Club -- 6,8,15,16
Winged Foot (W) -- 5,13
Garden City -- 17
National -- NONE!
Shinnecock -- 8
Baltusrol (L) -- 8,12,14
Plainfield -- 3,5,8,13,14
Somerset Hills -- 6,8,11,17,18
Pine Valley -- NONE!
Merion -- 6,9
Oakmont -- 7,8,11,14
Pinehurst #2 -- 6,16
Seminole -- 1,3,9,10

More to follow.

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Morrell:

Good question and I'm damn happy you sugested we skip PB.

Tom Egan:

You're either courageous or foolish.

Anyway, a couple Oakmont question: what don't you like about #11 and #14?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Egan --

Not having played any of them, I have to ask: What don't you like about...

The Country Club -- 6,8,15,16
Winged Foot (W) -- 5,13
Garden City -- 17
Shinnecock -- 8
Baltusrol (L) -- 8,12,14
Plainfield -- 3,5,8,13,14
Somerset Hills -- 6,8,11,17,18
Merion -- 6,9
Oakmont -- 7,8,11,14
Pinehurst #2 -- 6,16
Seminole -- 1,3,9,10?

[SPDB]

Tom -
I disagree with your selection of the 15th at TCC. The elevated chute tee shot is splendid. I also think the fairway bunker, while not in play, is raised enough to provide a strategic obstacle in negotiating your second shot to the green.

And to think that in the '63 Open Sam Snead played his second shot from the road ("sending sparks everywhere") that cuts across the hole is humorous historical note. He made birdie.  

I think this is one of the more underrated holes on the course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, The Merion selections are because of the new bunkering, correct???

Tim is right. You are very courageous.

[ForkaB]

This could turn into a very enlightening thread if people spend the time to say why they think a certain hole is (or is not, in rebuttal) "lackluster."

I am on record in a thread I started 6 months or so ago that it is very, very hard to find a "bad" golf hole, and my opinion was generally supported by the inability of people on this site to offer up many examples of that genre, noone of which, BTW, were on "Great" courses.

I also found myself forced to think on the various "Pebble Beach Sucks" threads whether or not the less spectacular holes there (i.e. 1, 2, 12, 13, 15) were really as bad as some people seemed to say.  The more I thought of these holes (each of which I have played about 15 times), the more I realized how solid each of them were and are.

Just wondering if the debate on this thread will lead people to similar conclusions for other course and other underappreciated holes....

[Matt]

15 on TCC is good, I like quirky features like roads running through a hole. 17 holds no charm for me, and the angle into 18 is not what was originially intended, so as a hole I would say the the whole closing strech is a letdown at TCC.

But then again I thought it was a poor choice for a Ryder due the bland finishing strech, with little danger of disaster, so what do I know.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

There were very explicit instructions not to discuss one particular California resort course.

If you insist on reminding us that "Pebble Beach Sucks", please do so on another thread.

But, before you go......that word "sucks", does it mean "weak", "nothing special", "lessor" or "ho hum"?

Or should I ask Tom Huckaby?

[THuckaby2]

Hey, this is a rare occasion Rich is likely on my side, Tim.  Don't you go ruining our agreement...

He makes a good point though - it would be interesting also to me just WHY these holes are lacking.  Another place Rich and I agree is in the general take that there are no "bad" golf holes, as he says.

Maybe we don't disagree that much after all...

TH

[ForkaB]

Tim

I think Tom understands my propensity to exaggerate and that my often grotesque sense of humor can be an acquired taste.  Sorry if you (or anyone else) found my hyperbole to be offensive.

All I was trying to say in my post was that I found the various PB threads to be very instructive and forcing me (at least) to think about the various holes on that course, particularly the ones that some believed to be "nothing special."

My own opinion, fortified by my experience as well as the recent threads is that Pebble is as good as any course I have played, and there are a number of other similarly "ranked" courses which far better fit the "Emperor's New Clothes" title of over-hype than does Pebble Beach.

But, of course I could not be wrong.

[Ben C. Dewar]

Interested to hear about the 11th and 14th at Oakmont.

Also I like the 10th at Seminole.

I liked the list, I just wonder if you could explain.

Ben

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

No worries.  I'm just burned out on the Pebble Beach thing.

Now, if you want to tell us why #18 at St andrews "sucks", I'll be a happy spectator while you and Tommy N go at it.

But, if it would help.......I can confirm #17 at St Andrews is a real boring short par 5.....

[ForkaB]

Tim

Nothing "sucks" at St. Andrews except most of the Grannies there who reportedly do it to eggs.

We had a good and surprisingly civilized discussion of the 18th of TOC earlier in the year.  My take on it is that it is one of the best venues and vistas in golf.  As a golf hole it is very simplistic (i.e. bang the ball as far as you can down the left and then either pitch, chip or putt to the only serious hole location on the green.  If the Valley of Sin were on the right, up next to the fence and the road, it would be a better golf hole, but the Links Trust hasn't yet taken me up on this suggestion.

I love the 17th, and wouldn't change one bit except for that "bunker cam" that they put in there for tournaments.

[Oat]

Although #10 at Merion has a wider landing area for the longer hitters (which always struck me as incongruous - particularly for a short hole), I caanot agree on #'s 6 and 9 as "weak".  They may not ring everybody's chimes (not many holes in golf do), but they're both pretty darn strong, I think.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

Unfortunately, I missed all the TOC discussion.

As for the bunker cam, if ever there was a bunker that didn't need more publicity, that brilliant bunker is it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

Where is Dr. Katz when you need him.

# 10 at Seminole, into a north wind, with the pin on the left side of the green, has to be one of the great holes in golf.

With the pin far left, perhaps any wind will do.

Calling Dr. Katz,

[Tom_Egan]

Pat Mucci:

Number 13 at Hendricks Field is wonderful if the wind is quartering in from the right about 16 MPH, the hole is cut back right, the fairway grass is cut higher than 2 1/2 inches, the tee markers are back and the bunkers are -- as usual -- rakeless.  So what?  Do we get to make universal rules for the set-up of a hole, including weather elements?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

When the golf course sits on the ocean, yes.

The wind buffets Seminole except on rare days.

Hendricks Field gets buffeted by the wind on RARE days.

There is a distinction.

With water short, left and long, bunkers long and right, the 10th green, with its pitch is a great green and green site, challenging wedge through 2-iron, depending on the wind.

If you think # 10 is average or below average, I think you've stopped taking your medication, or have been taking it in treble dose.

[Dr._Katz]

Mr.Egan is down for a 9 count in his bout with Mr. Mucci; he may rally but it now appears unlikely.  No medication required at this time.

[Ben C. Dewar]

I am with Patrick, without taking into account the pin and the wind, I still like 10.

Interested to hear where you find it weak.

Aside from one, I would not think that there are too many weaknesses at Seminole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

In all seriousness, I am surprised you didn't list # 1 on Baltusrol Lower, especially since you listed # 17 at GCGC, which to a limited degree is a similar Par 5.

Both have the Out-of-Bounds running the length of the hole, but both seem to give the golfer ample opportunity to hit a rather broad fairway, and neither the lay-up nor green surrounds provide any horrendous penalties.

Did this one slip by, do you agree, or do I need to call Dr Katz ?

[Tom_Egan]

Pat:

Baltusrol Lower #'s 1 and 7 would certainly be considered lackluster holes played as Par 5s.  I considered them Par 4s.  Same thought process for Winged Foot West #'s 9 and 16, Olympic # 17 and probably others such as # 2 at The Country Club.  This can be looked at either way, I guess. See how you beat me into submission?  I retract my listing of Seminole # 10 and change it's category from "lackluster" to "moderate luster".  

[Bill_Spellman]

I also must echo Oats sentiments about #6 and #9 at Merion. 6 requires a shaped tee shot and its length requires a high soft long shot. The fairway slopes can dictate the shape of the shot. For thos of us that may not have reached the green in two, the false front of the green allows for choices in club selection. 9 is a very strong par three in that failure to hit the putting surface will often result in at least one lost shot. The green slopes are interesting and require a good eye and touch. Now that the bunkers remind me of the bomb craters in Afghanistan, escape is more difficult.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bill, In total aggrement with Oat also.

Hard to believe anyone could think that there could be anything less then phenominal on EVERY hole at Merion when considering the lessons in golf architecture that the course gives to the player.

I hold back any comment on the bunkering.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()