News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2005, 09:32:38 AM »
Cuscowilla's finisher looks like it was designed for a state park course in the 1970's.  

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2005, 09:41:10 AM »
I'll second the nomination for the 18th at Witch Hollow.

I'll add the 18th at High Pointe and the 18th hole of  every Schmidt/Curley course I have played (6 or 7).

« Last Edit: October 04, 2005, 09:41:48 AM by Craig Edgmand »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2005, 09:52:19 AM »
Steve Lapper,

For all of those who rave about Somerset Hills, and I like the golf course, but prefer reveresing the nines, the 18th AND the 17th holes are weak finishers.

SPDB,

You must be hitting the ball a long way these days.
A six iron into a highly elevated green from a severe uphill lie, even down wind is indicative of a pretty long drive.

As to # 7 which usually plays into the wind, it's an interesting and good par 5.  

Don't forget that when these old courses were designed guys weren't driving the ball 300+ yards.

Look at CBM's par 5's in general.

Of the ones I've played, Piping Rock probably has the best set.
And, most of them have had some length added over the years, where possible.  # 18 at The Creek is land locked.

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2005, 10:07:03 AM »
Steve Lapper,

For all of those who rave about Somerset Hills, and I like the golf course, but prefer reveresing the nines, the 18th AND the 17th holes are weak finishers.



Pat,

   Couldn't agree more, but the "beloved" over there can't seem to make up their mind. :o
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2005, 10:27:53 AM »
I don't think it is fair to look at some great classic courses and question the quality of their 18th in light of today's technology.  In the days when those courses were built most members would drive the ball 200 yards and hit a 5 iron 150 yards which made an uphill 360 yard par 4 quite challenging.

My original question was addressed more to today's architect who knows the ability of players and has the equipment necessary to build whatever it takes to design a quality finishing hole.  Instead, the architect makes compromises with number 18 whereas I believe that 18 needs to be one of the very best holes on the course.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2005, 02:43:09 PM »
Has anyone played # 18 at Flint Hills..talk about contrived architecture :P

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2005, 03:27:25 PM »

SPDB,

You must be hitting the ball a long way these days.
A six iron into a highly elevated green from a severe uphill lie, even down wind is indicative of a pretty long drive.


Pat - The hole is just over 450 yds long (or roughly the same length as the downhill 6th). As you indicated, it usually plays downwind, and the drive is not so uphill (not nearly as much as the second shot).

I was just making an observation not an indictment. In fact, in match play, it can be a very exciting hole.

Do you think it is easier to make 4 on the 6th or the 18th?

Ian Andrew

Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2005, 04:31:58 PM »
Mike,

You can have a laugh at my expense.

 I played the Creek Club without a card and remarked what a tough four it was for a finisher. Trying to hit a long iron up to that surface felt very intimidating.

I honestly thought it was a par four after I had played it.

(I also didn't mind the hole personally, for what it's worth.)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2005, 07:16:27 PM »
SPDB,

I think the answer to your question is dependent upon the direction of the wind.  If the wind is against you, that hole becomes the harder of the two.  At the same time, that wind direction makes the other one easier.

Jerry Kluger,

The 17th and 18th at Somerset Hills were weak long before technology reared is recent and ugly head.

Reversing the nines would require quite a finish, since the 7th, 8th and 9th holes are fairly strong, especially when compared to the 16th, 17th and 18th.

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Disappointing Number 18
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2005, 07:24:00 PM »
There  is a Nick Faldo course in Canada called The Rock (Best new course according to GD last year) that arguably has the worst finishing hole of a major course in Canada. It is a mid-length par five where players must lay up with a mid iron on their tee shot in order to avoid wetlands. Then players must hit a 3-wood to clear the wetlands in order to be left with a sand wedge approach. The worst finishing hole I've seen on a modern course, hands down.
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back