What is a "weak" hole?

[ForkaB]

On the Plainfield thread there is reference to "weak"golf holes.  What do we actually mean by this?

Amongst others, the following holes have been cited on this site as "weak."

1st at TOC
15th at PB
16th at RDGC
1st at CPC

I think each of these holes has its merits, although I can understand how some might not like these holes, particularly in their context.  "Different?"  OK.  But "weak?" Hardly.

Thoughts?

[Mark_F]

Rich,

Maybe it depends upon the context of the other holes on the course?

Aren't the first two at Dornoch generally regarded as the two weak links on the course?  

Yet, I think they are neat - not eye-wateringly brilliant, but tricky.  The kind of holes that bite you because you can't quite see the dangers.  

Maybe holes that are also on terrain a bit more mundane than the rest of the course?  

The first at TOC is weak because you can spray it anywhere over the fairway, then clunk an iron anywhere around the green, and still not get bit.  It takes a really bad error, or wild misjudgement, to drop a shot.  Or a hyphenated name.  

The biggest hazrd on TOC first are all those damn Yanks' ceegars.  I'm not too big on man-made hazards on a natural course like that.

[ForkaB]

Mark

1 and 2 at Dornoch are good examples of holes which some have inferred to be "weak"--due to extraneous factors (in this case, due to the fact that they are sited on less spectacular terrain than most of their brothers, IMO)--but which are (again IMO) in fact solid, even great, golf holes.

I'm more interested in this thread in holes that are not relatively obviously great, but reside on a "great" course.  17 at RCD, as cited by Sean, is probably another one.

My query is two-fold:

1.  Why exactly are these holes "weak?"
2.  Even if they are "weak" might they not be "good" or even "great" in the context of the entire course.  1 at TOC is a good example of this.

A long time ago we had a very good thread on the value of imperfections in art.  "Perfect" art (e.g. Fra Lippo Lippi, the "Faultless Painter") is rarely as interesting as imperfect art (e.g. Caravaggio).

Is this perhaps why we don't like Fazio and Nicklaus as much as we might?  Is their architecture too "perfect?"

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I suspect most people mean "weakest" when they say "weak".

I don't know what "weak hole" means either, but when I look it up in my Britannica, there is a picture of the 1st on The New.

I've never understood the imperfection theory. Why would someone prefer 17 good holes to 18 good holes? Why would I rather hear a Mozart symphony with a couple of clunker notes to the symphonies he wrote?

Bob

 

[ForkaB]

Bob

All of us, even Mozart, are (or were) imperfect.  Trying to create something that implies otherwise is in itself an imperfection, perhaps even the most pernicious one.

[mike_malone]

 I think it depends on one's biases. I am biased to strategic golf. So, I will give an example of 2 weak holes. They are #2 and #7 at Springhaven CC, outside of Philly.
     
    They are both par 5's that begin gently downhill off the tee, they are side-by-side and go in the same direction. They are almost identical. So, the #7 tee shot is a replica of #2. This is one form of weakness,lack of variety. Then each hole doglegs at around 150ish to the left. There are low- to -the -ground evergreens on the right of each hole at exactly the same spot for the second shot. I see two problems here-1-the lack of variety--2- the penal nature of their location. They create such a disincentive to hit the second shot past the dogleg. (I imagine the original holes were much more strategic before the trees).

   I guess I think a "strong" hole challenges one to hit a demanding shot; a "weak" hole gives you an unexciting layup to a single spot.

   Some think a "strong" hole demands a difficult shot. This would be the "penalists" opposite of weak. For them a "weak" hole allows all brand of golfers to hit away with little demand and few consequences. Say a wide open tee shot with no forced carry to a generous fairway on a staight hole that has a wide opening to the green is the "weak" hole.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

The psychopathologies of architects and Mozart aside, I would still prefer to play 18 good goods to 17 good holes.

Isn't the imperfection thesis more about shifting the tone now and then, interrupting the prevailing style with something out of left field?  It's not really about good holes v. bad holes. If so, I buy in.

For example, the 16th at ANGC was designed by RTJ and it looks it. It has little in common with the style of other holes at ANGC. For that reason (and if it is a good hole to boot), it adds to the overall appeal of the course.

Bob    

[ForkaB]

Yup, Bob, I think you are getting to what I thought I was thinking.  Thanks!

So, how many "not great" holes before it gets messy rather than quirky?

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Another example - I think we've discussed this before - is the 16th at R. Dornoch. I think it is (a) a very odd hole and (b) has nothing in common with other holes at Dornoch. I don't like the hole.

But for all those reasons, it somehow adds to the overall appeal of Dornoch.

It is dissonant. And as with dissonance in music, it only makes sense if the course/music has an established a key. Dissonance is what is not in that key. (Or something like that. Mark R. will correct my limited grasp of harmony.)

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

I'd say that a weak hole offers very little in the way of challenge to every level of golfer.

Thus, it's probably lacking in dramatic architectural features and strategy.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Pat.

Now please name one of these holes and tell me why you think it is "weak."  Thanks.

Bob

I mentioned 16 RDGC in my initial post.  Some think it is weak, and it is indeed dissonant, but I think it is a very non-weak hole given the Muccian definition below.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

I'll try to think of some holes that are easy birdie-par, hard bogie or worse.

[TEPaul]

What is a "weak" hole?

What a dumb question! Isn't it completely obvious? A "weak" hole is a hole that can't even bench-press 100 lbs!!!!!!! God, there're a lot of dumb questions on this website.

[BCrosby]

A good definition for "weak hole", when you get down to brass tacks, is just as hard to come up with as a good definition for "great hole".  

I don't have the guts to try either definition.

Unless you use the TEP bench press standard. In which case, it's what Tom said.

Bob

[Philip Gawith]

Judging by the examples you cite with which I am familiar, you would have to conclude that the word "weak" is just a lazy form of abuse when someone can't bother to be more precise.

If you take TOC first hole, Mark Ferguson implies that it might be weak because (he thinks) it is easy (in which case easy is the right word!). Actually, I agree with Sean - it is an excellent hole because it gets you into the course in a manageable way, and is probably slightly more difficult than it appears.

As for Dornoch number 16, that is not an easy hole. It is easy to get into trouble with your drive, easy to embrace oblivion with your second and, even if you don't, still difficult to judge distance. If a hole is challenging, without being unfair/eccentric, I find it difficult to see where the word "weak" comes in, unless (see below) dissonance is somehow seen as weakness.

I agree it is dissonant in terms of style, but I also approve of that dissonance - it is one of the nicest tees to stand on on the course, and i also like the green perched on top of the world, aggressively flat etc.

Incidentally, if dissonance is weakness, then the first at Hoylake is a weak hole. I think not.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think weak can be a variety of opinions.
Firstly, it can be the perception of a hole relative to the other holes on a particular course...as such #15 at Pebble is accused of being "weak"

Sometimes it can be that the player percieves that the architect missed out on an excellent opportunity, and the hole that was laid out is a poor version of what could have been.....I personally feel this way about #2 at Bandon Dunes, which I believe was a short par 3 with a tiny green in the current locale just waiting to happen.

And sometimes the hole is just bloody awful and you wonder what the architect was thinking, and why even bother building a hole like that..to me #18 at Spanish Bay fulfills that criteria.

But in all cases it apperas at a relative term and once again comes down to opinions..as I am sure there are plaenty out there who like the three examples I chose...actually I like #15 at Pebble..that green is awesome.

[ForkaB]

Yes, M W-P, the 15th green at PB IS awesome, and makes the hole.  There is at least one person on this DG, however, who thinks it could be vastly "improved" with 4 pot bunkers in the fairway....

[JohnV]

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart,  I may not be able to define a weak hole, but I know it when I see it.

Actually I can think of two kinds of weak holes.  

The first is a hole that, while it might be good on other courses, just doesn't hold up to the quality of the other 17 holes on a great course.  Some of the examples given by Rich and others probably meet that criteria.

Then there are the just plain bland/boring golf holes.  The 375 yard par 4 that is dead flat, has straight fairway lines, no fairway bunkers, rough cuts just short of the green that that pinch in making the entrance to the green look like a frenulum, two basic low-lipped bunkers to the sides, a flat green and some insidious mounding behind the green.

[JohnV]

Sean,

Mine too.

[ed_getka]

Rich,
  I think most of the time "weak" really means "pales in comparison", when we are talking about good to great golf courses.
   For your TOC example, I would never call #1 a weak hole due to the burn right in front and the slope of the green making the safe long approach into a testy downhill putt to some pin positions. If I was going to call anything a weak hole on TOC I would say #9. But one mans weak hole is anothers breather.

[JohnV]

One other thing I meant to mention is how some people will describe a course to you by saying, "It is a really good course except for this one weak hole, #2".  There is a guy here in Western PA who has probably described 15 courses to me with exactly that language.  Only the hole number changes.  Frequently when I've gone there, the hole he has mentioned has been one I've liked quite a bit.

[A_Clay_Man]

 A weak hole has to be where the designer was either lazy or, plagerized. Chosing to create something unoriginal, is the weakest sell-out of all.

Either that, or a hole that takes a week to finish.

[ForkaB]

John

What's a "frenulum?"  Sounds dirty and/or interesting.......

[Kyle Harris]

It would be hard for me to equate "easy" with "weak..."

Just because a hole may lack strategic merit doesn't mean it is necessarily weak, especially if it fits in well with the routing or the particular terrain in that site. (Of course, the counter here is, the architect is charged with finding the 18 holes on the site that are all high in strategic value). However, the value of the "breather" hole in the Grand Strategy of the course cannot be overstated.

In evaluating a course for a weak hole, one must consider that "Grand Strategy" element. An example of this grand strategy is found at Amen Corner: A hole, or stretch of holes you think about early in the round (or even before the round). The play of the course before you reach Amen Corner affects how you play the holes at Amen Corner, and how you play the holes at Amen Corner affects how you would play the holes after.

If a hole plays easy, you may determine that you can attack it and thus play more conservatively early in the round. As long as that thought can enter your mind for the "easier" holes, I don't think they may lack strategic merit, even if the features are bland or non-existant.

[JohnV]

John

What's a "frenulum?"  Sounds dirty and/or interesting.......

Look it up, it is a part of the male anatomy.