Mystifying great holes

[Mark_F]

What holes have you played that are generally considered to be in the 'canon' of great golf holes that you just can't figure out why everyone else thinks they're great?

I'll give a couple of Australian examples so maybe any other Aussies here can 'enlighten' me, in that I just can't see the 12th and 18th at RM West as great holes.

They may fit the ground nicely, the bunkers may be nice, the greens possibly interesting (not as much as others, though) but the sum total leavers me cold for some reason.  



Overseas, why does everyone consider the 11th at TOC a great par three?  Come on, it's a one pin, or two if you want to be generous to senior citizens, hole.  Yes, the green is pretty severe, but it still doesn't demand that much unless there's a stiff breeze and the pin is spooning up to the Strath bunker.

Contrast it to, say, 5 RM West, 16 RM East, 15 K heath, 11 Yarra Yarra, etc etc here in Melbourne, and anywhere you put the pin on those holes it's a challenge, although obviously some positions are a little harder/easier than others.

Any thoughts?

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

I agree with you about 18 at RM west.  The green complex just doesnt excite me at all and I have a suspicion that if it was on another course, some people might even call the tee shot a bit awkward.  Last time I bagged the hole, MathewM came to its defence.  Maybe he can do so again.  As for 11 at TOC, can't agree with you there, I think it is a great hole (although I personally would rate 5 at RMW higher).

[Matthew Mollica]

Dave - I've waited till my blood has stopped boiling, and can now compose something literate on RMW 18  

I think there are lots of different lines from the tee, depending on the player's ability, confidence, mood and state of the game at the 18th tee. Knowledge of the first cut rough line at the top of the hill, and also gauging the wind plays a role in line of play from the tee, and therefore, the ease/difficulty of the second shot.

As a hole, it does fit the land well. I find it a grand, yet unassuming finisher. There's a challenge from the tee, to try and send the ball as far right as you can, yet there's a degree of uncertainty, with the fall of the land beyond the facing fairway traps. The more brave and skillful the drive, the easier the approach. The fairway trap on the left side of the fairway (down-town drive territory) is there to catch the errant bomber, with a southerly up his butt. With a northerly hitting the drive as it crests the hill, there's a longer iron in, and I think the green's gotta be that big to take such a second shot. The longer second is often played from a hanging lie, yet longer drives often afford a shorter second from a flatter stance. I think it's well bunkered, and it's always a surprise to see how many fall into the traps at the back of the green. They are shallow (as they should be) and do not overly penalise an accurate, yet slightly long approach. The green has a little more movement than first appears. It affords the chance for an 18 marker to run up a short third (left half), and it also has some pin positions where the curves are considerable (front right, nestled to the deeper traps at the green).

What's not to like?

While I feel that RMW 3,6, and 17 are better, 18's still a bloody good hole.

Matthew

P.S. 11 at TOC is that good. Walk the course, then play it, and you arrive on that eleventh tee, full of condidence after either a birdie or par on 10, and then, watch it evaporate, as you remember the slope of that 11th green, and the pressure to strike an accurate tee shot is high. The traps are fiendish and beyond the green is dead. Run up options exist, and the wind seems to play havoc there sometimes.

[Matthew Delahunty]

I think 18W is a very good hole. Of the long par 4s I'd rate 6W and 17W above it. 12W is a strong 4 and a fairly pedestrian 5. I wouldn't rate it as great, but I don't think anyone else rates it among the very best either. I think both holes have suffered with the modern increases in distance. Their strength is the bunkering off the tee. They are still good driving holes for most amateurs but the long hitters and pros have reduced the strategy off the tee by taking the bunkers out of play.

18W makes good use of the land it's on and I like the way that the prevailing breeze can seem to come from several directions around/over the hill. You can stand on the tee and feel as though it's playing downwind (and then see you drive finish 15m left of where you intended it to go) and yet be faced with an approach into the wind. Position on the fairway is also vital for the approach to the well bunkered green and there's no easy up and down from the sand. Sure the green doesn't have the contouring of some of the other holes but it's not a gimme either. There are the subtleties for which sandbelt greens are renowned. (And remember that the site is pretty flat so any huge contours would be a bit artificial).

The interesting thing with both 12W and 18W is their history. Both holes have undergone changes to the originals. 12W was lengthened by about 40 yards in the 40s/50s. So the green isn't a MacKenzie original. 18W has been shortened according to the club history. I would like to see if 18W could be lengthened a touch by moving the tee back and left. It would reduce the angle of the hole slightly but I don't think that would harm the hole.

As for the Eden hole, it's the best par three I played in Scotland and the one I'd most like to go back and play again. There's some many options for shots around the green if you miss it (and most will) and unless you hit it stiff you'll have an interesting putt. It calls on you to be inventive and innovative in your shotmaking. We're spoilt in Melbourne as we've got some fantastic par threes. But there's nothing here (or anywhere) quite like the Eden - it's unique.

[ed_getka]

#7 Pebble Beach. Its just a dropshot wedge/short iron. Unless a gale blows, but in a gale every hole could be tough, even at a muni.

[T_MacWood]

I must disagree #7 is more than a simple drop shot and is a great hole. For one you don't find many very short holes that are also drop shots--for that reason it is a bit awkward (which is good). Add to it the green is ultra small and sits out on a dramatic promintory, where wind conditions can alter the required shot 6 or 7 clubs. All equal a great hole.

The 17th on the other hand over flat lawn looks much better from a TV tower.

The 16th at Oaklnad Hills is another super flat hole that disapointed--do the wheeping willows still border the lake? They didn't help the hole IMO.

[jim_lewis]

Mark:

I saw this thread this morning before I went out to play and figured it would have gotten much response  before now. Maybe I can stimulate some indignant reaction to  some of my nominees for famous holes that don't impress me.


In the interest of fairness I will begin with the 5th hole on my beloved Pinehurst #2. It may be the most difficult par 4 I have ever played, and some people consider it to be the best hole on the course.  In my opinion the green is far too difficult for a hole of such length.  Not only does it take a terrific second shot (after a good tee shot) to hit the green, but even then the ball is not likely to stay on the green. There is only one place you can miss the green (back right) and have a prayer of getting up and down. Once you get on the green, you have a good chance of looking at a 3putt.  Most middle handicappers play it hoping for a 5 and are damned glad to get it.  During the Open, it was also too tough for most pros.

17 and 18 at Augusta National.  They may be famous, but they are probably the two worst holes on the course.  I love ANGC and have not missed a Masters since 1966, but I figure #18 is among the least of the tour's finishing holes.

I have a real attitude about finishing holes that are wrapped around a lake (or other body of water). It seems that on most modern courses, if there is a lake anywhere on the course, the architect/owner was determined to incorporate it into the 18th hole.  Perhaps that trend was stimulated by the 18th at Pebble Beach. In my opinion, this most famous of all finishing holes, is much over rated. Miss the ocean and 99 percent of all players have a routine 3-shot par 5.  Other well known holes that I put in the same category include #18 at Bay Hill, Doral, TPC-Stadium, TPC-Sugarloaf, etc.

#17 at TPC-Stadium. It took lots of nerve and little talent to design that hole.


I could go on.  Maybe later.

[Tyler Kearns]

The 17th at Pebble Beach is very bland when standing on the tee, disregarding the sounds of the ocean lapping at the shore. This hole looks much better in plan view (from a helicopter) than it does on the ground. This hole is reknowned not for it's architecture, which is average at best, but for the events that have transpired over the years - Jack Nicklaus' 1-iron in 1972, Tom Watson's chip-in in 1982.

Tyler Kearns

[Jeff Goldman]

With technology, hasn't 18 turned into a terrific go/no go par-5 for good players?

Jeff Goldman  

[jim_lewis]

Jeff:

That's why I said that PB's #18 is a routine 3-shot par 5 for only 99 percent of the players. For the other 1 percent it is now a risk reward gofor par 5.  I speak for the 99 percent. Rarely (probably never) do I judge a hole or a course based on how the touring pros play it.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

I disagree with you about 17 and 18 at ANGC. The green and green surrounds at 17 are terrific. (The pros are so good at the Masters, its hard to appreciate how tough that green is.) 18 was a great hole until people started driving it into 9i range. The trees at the right corner were supposed to be in play in order to open up the green for your long iron approach. Alas...  

I agree with you, however, about the over-use of water, especially by Dye and especially on his finishing holes. Worse, the Dye cliche has been copied by many others. For example, a lot of Cupp courses seem to follow the same pattern.

In a more general sense, one of the distinguishing features of post-Golden Age design is the heightened role of water as a hazard. It's interesting how Ross - even where he had a large lake or river to work with - tended to design away from water. With some exceptions, the modern use of in-play water is a design cop-out. Thinking about strategy is too often replaced by thinking about scenery or the picture to be put on the sales brochure.


Bob

[ian]

Jim,

The 17th at TPC Sawgrass is a fantastic use of psychology in architecture. I'm not saying there should be more of them, because I still think this is the best course I have played that should not be copied.

He built the course for a major tournyment, and to attract resort play. The players spend the day dreading the approaching 17th, because of its potential "car crash" result. The spectators love to see these guys finally feel some of the pressure they do. So far, that's perfect in my book.

As a resort player, you can't wait to have that one (or many) fateful swing. You knock it on, you have a story to tell. You miss, you still have a story to tell, and lots of company.

The hole is fantastic, unless your obsessed with posting a score. Perhaps there lies the problem, its not the hole, but how people try play it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim Lewis- I'm not sure how many of those 99% of golfers you've seen golf the 18th hole, but, I believe your assesment is WRONG!   I know of no golfer who isn't absolutely mesmorized when concluding their round, yet few make their par.

Even 17's quality as a golf hole is apparently missed, by quite a few. But, there's no accounting for taste, is there?

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm not crazy about the pathos slant this thread asks.
A more positive approach would be to mention mystifying golf holes, that are less famous.

13 at Sand Hills, from my perspective, will always mystify me, or at least in my dreams.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Adam, I agree about 13 at Sand Hills.  In ten rounds I have yet to hold the green.  Once while I was there, Bill Coore was on the property playing golf(in jeans) with the owner Dick Youngscap.  I asked him, "What kind of shot did you envision for thirteen when it was designed." I wanted the question to be as inoquous as possible.  He replied, Well Tom, All we did was scrape the surface a little and throw down some grass seed." I was as mystefied by his response as I am by the hole.  I like it though.  I just haven,t figured out how to play it,especially from the back tees, because I don't hit the ball as high as I used to.  But now that I have a 21 degree hybred I am anxious to give it a try.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You wrote, "I must disagree #7 is more than a simple drop shot and is a great hole. For one you don't find many very short holes that are also drop shots--for that reason it is a bit awkward (which is good). Add to it the green is ultra small and sits out on a dramatic promintory, where wind conditions can alter the required shot 6 or 7 clubs. All equal a great hole.

The 17th on the other hand over flat lawn looks much better from a TV tower."

I am stunned that, what must be for the very first time, I am totally in agreement with you!

As far as the 7th hole goes, any par three of 107 yards where a pro has hit as little as a putter to as much as a fairway wood depending on conditions, is a fabulous design. I think it is among the top 5 par threes in the world.

I never understood why the 17th green was never pushed closer to the water. It would have been far more dramatic and in keeping with the rest of the course.

[jim_lewis]

Bob:

I agree that the green complex at ANGC #17 is excellent, but I don't think it will ever be a good hole until the Eisenhower tree dies. Unfortunately there are new trees planted beyond it that will probably be grown by that time.  I just never have thought that #18  is a great hole, not before or after the many changes that have been made over the past 40 years.

Adam:

Bob said it better than me. Overuse of water is a design cop out.  The same way we often refer to the Augusta National "syndrome" having a negative impact on course condition expectations, I think there is a PB #18 sydrome that, because of its wide exposure and reputation , has resulted in many,many modern copy cat holes, especially finishing holes. That is also my main complaint about Pete Dye's work at Sawgrass. He seemed to have popularized the overuse of ponds, lakes, and lagoons throughout the course. I much prefer a restrained use of natural water and hardly any use of man-made water holes.  Frankly I appreciated Fazio's comment last week at his Mirasol course.  He said that many ponds were visible from the air but that most were out of play. He dug the ponds to get dirt, but chose not to incorporate the water into play. I wish more designers/owners would do that.

Bottom line is that I think that PB #18 and TPC-Sawgrass have had a negative impact on course design that matches, or exceeds, the ANGC impact on conditioning expectations.

[SPDB]

I've never understood the worldly status given to Merion #2. A lot of people speak of it with reference to the out of bounds that runs down the right hand side (Ardmore Ave.) which didn't exist when the hole was designed, and so can only, ex post facto be added as a design/strategy element of the hole

[Gerry B]

if i have nothing good to say....

why not a thread for most underrated holes

[Tags:]

Tags: