These holes are good to compare, Mark, since they are very different, but both par 4s and also one is on a course loved by most on here and the other isn't! So it's a good and constructive thing to analyze.
We've all talked a lot about AAC's #18 already so no need to analyze how it plays and the way it plays much more. I personally feel AAC's #18 has some interesting strategic ramifications (as we saw last Sunday), and some interesting shot requirements, but they are quite predictable I guess, particularly once reaching the green and that's of no small importance, in my book.
But the other way of looking at these two holes might not be much more than a numbers game to someone like a touring pro. I tried to make that point on an earlier thread and I don't think I made the point real well--maybe it can't really be made--maybe it's not a real valid point in the context of discussing architecture.
But I'll try again. Firstly, I was thinking last night that all of us seem to talk about golf holes, whether they are good or not, strictly and solely in the context of what we call "strategy". And I guess most of us think this means "options" and basically the more options, and the better the options, the better a hole should be.
Is this truly a valid way to analyze ALL golf holes? Maybe not! Do we get carried away with the idea of "strategies" and "options" and assume that's the only way to look at all golf holes and determine whether they are any good and how good they are? I think maybe we do get carried away with the subject of just "strategy" sometimes.
How else could they be looked at then if not just by the strategies and options they provide. Well, to cite Max Behr (from another article) it sort of deals with how the golf hole affects a golfer's instincts! Max Behr talks about bunkering and such (obviously you can ultimately use any golf feature--or maybe even things like visual intimidation or just plain EXPECTATION) and how they work on a golfer's mind as what he calls "pressure points".
Behr speaks about the ultimate use of bunkering, for instance, as not something exactly penal but something that makes a golfer take note of and challenge, avoid, whatever (maybe even get flustered and hit a bad shot). In this sense I see what he means about them being "pressure points" on a golfer's mind. And finally Behr's totally brilliant concept of "lines of charm" tend to place something like bunkering in the very spot where a golfer would instinctively want to hit the ball! What does that do to a golfer? It makes him deal with his instinct, his instinctual desire, I guess, and figure out another or other ways to go to avoid that spot he wanted to get to but now sees he shouldn't or can't. I used to think the "lines of charm" was the spot Behr put the bunker where the golfer wanted to instinctually go but now see it's all the other ways to go just because that bunker is where it is!
Anyway, back to my point about a numbers game applying some of Behr's logic. I know that PV's #18 is a par 4 and AAC's is too. Let's go further and recognize and admit that although both are par 4s that the scoring averages on those holes for a touring pro would be quite different, maybe even something like 4.65 AAC vs about 3.85 PV if a tour pro can play PV's #18 as you say he would, of which I have no doubt.
Further, do you really think a touring pro looks at both holes as eqaully challenging to make a particular number. I don't think so. Actually all he would really have to do is look at the scoring averages to figure that out. And I'm certain that touring pros look at golf holes and how to play them much more in how their fellow competitors are playing them than just some number.
If all of that is true those two holes would create different expectations for a tour pro and then he has to deal with that mental "pressure point" and some of the actual ones on both holes.
So what do the holes offer the pro in the way of challenges, options, whatever. I agree with you about all of #18 AAC in that vein, except the green. Once on it is not very interesting and challenging, but the drive and approach (or decision to lay up) certainly are. And PV's drive is certainly not challenging or optional for the pro--all he really needs to think about is how far down he wants to go and avoid the trouble straight on. But the second shot in, although shorter is more complex to him because of the far more interesting and complex green to approach and putt on. And then there's the thought of the expectation of the scoring average that is different and lower to contend with.
I don't know whether all this makes for a valid point or not but it seems to to me. I guess you could say this about any hole but you would have to then analyze it anyway to see what is architecturally interesting about it and even for a tour pro, PV's #18 is very interesting to both approach and putt on.
That's the long story, that I happen to be very good at. The short story in a comparison between the holes is AAC's drive is more challenging and a little more strategic than PV's. AAC's approach is more challenging basically, but in an entirely different way than PV's approach that starts to deal with PV's far more interesting and challenging green than AACs. And lastly, PV's #18 is not very optional, just a hole that requires basically a few very good shots to get into the proper position on that green!
And I guess finally, one has to ask if different scoring averages means in any way that one hole is weaker or stronger architecturally than another if they're the same par. I don't think so, because what really matters is that you know about what you need to do on that hole versus the field or an opponent and the question then becomes how does that hole challenge you to fall above or below that expectation.
So who wins? I have no idea--it's all subjective, I guess and I really didn't have to use all these words to tell you that, did I? But I will select my favorite anyway--it's PV's #18 and the reason is it looks better to me! Now can I be a Golf Digest panelist?