Bad Holes

[Jason Topp]

Seeing the discussion on Pebble Beach got me thinking, I often think of holes as boring, but rarely bad.  For example, the first at Pebble Beach is a mundane hole, but I don't see anything particularly offensive about it.

I'd be interested in hearing examples of holes that people consider to be bad holes and the thinking behind your opinions.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

One example local to me is the 14th at Wilmslow.  It is a 180 yard par 3 all carry across a deep river valley to a green which runs uphill to the back.  There's nothing wrong with that, except that the ladies tee is further forward (for them the hole is 160 yards)  and about twenty feet below the men's.  Few of the lady members can make the carry and get the height to carry to centre of the green, so most hit it into the steep bank below the green.  They then have a perilously dangerous stance on the bank for their next shot and in wet weather it could be suicidal.  The other negative factor is that the green is surrounded by tall, mature trees, so the green gets very little sunlight.  In winter the hole has to be taken out of play and the 13th turned from a par 5 into a par 4 and par 3.  In summer the green can still be very damp when the rest of the course is in perfect condition and it invariably putts at a different speed from the other greens.   They are probably not allowed to chop down any more trees (some have gone) to open up the green to the light and air and possibly to give the ladies a different tee from which the short shot is not so severely punished.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

The other day I saw a really bad hole but the interesting thing is it was obviously once a very interesting hole and with a small alteration can be again.

It's the 12th hole at the Old Course at the Homestead in Virginia (orignal six hole course/Ross/Flynn/Rees Jones). (This course also has the oldest first tee in continuous use in America).

The course was redesigned and somewhat reconfigured over the years. This hole was a 392 yard Ross/Flynn hole.

The beauty of the hole once was it had a drive to a broad right to left sloping ridge. At 392 that ridge was in the ideal LZ originally and as the years went on additional yardage probably could've been added to take it into the mid 400 range and still keep that beautiful ridge in the ideal LZ for good players.

But the problem was at some point someone saw all this available yardage behind the original tees and at that point, perhaps ONLY in an attempt to add as much available total CARD YARDAGE as possible to the course took the back tees back to well over 500 yards.

What that did is take that beautiful ridge LZ completely out of reach for most anyone. Now all golfers have to play the ball into a deep valley before that ridge from where they have a totally blind shot up over that ridge with no real idea where the next part of the hole is.

As the medium length par 4 this hole was designed to be it's a wonderful hole but as a par 5 it's a complete abomination. This is an example of total architectural thoughtlessness on someone's part.

When you add length to any golf hole you have to analyze it first to determine if the added length in some way destroys the "strategic unity" throughout the golf hole and creates what I call "strategic disconnection". This particular hole is the worst example I've ever seen of totally thoughtless "strategic disconnection".

The good news is it can be very easily fixed by putting the hole back to what it was designed to be due to it's interesting topography---a medium length par 4 where that ridgeline ideally connects with the tee shot yardages. As a par 5 that beautiful ridgeline became totally disconnected from the tee shots and it's a total abomination---eg a bad hole!

[TEPaul]

redanman:

While the last six holes of Springhaven are certainly no world beaters they aren't anything like what you've said about them since you arrived in the Philadelphia area. Matter of fact, they take a good deal of thought to play correctly which is more than possible and doable. About three of them #14, #16, #17 take more thought on the part of long players than less long players.

I think this opinion of yours on Springhaven is about the first time I recognized that you have a fairly myopic and definitly doctrinaire outlook on golf course architecture.

I might even venture to say you don't like those holes merely because you couldn't figure out how to play them correctly and didn't. In my opinion, that's more your problem than those holes' problems.

[Ian Andrew]

I can list a series of holes that I do not like and would never use as the basis of any design. Actually, I would be embarassed to say I have designed them.

But I'm not really sure there is such a thing.


Well may be......

I may hate a reverse sloping fairway, on a strong dogleg against the grain, with a 12% grade leading into a wetland.   Fortunately huge trees cover the inside corner so that you have to work the ball around the corner to hold that slope (if that were possible). The second shot is a long iron over a pond fronting that green   , from that hanging lie (assuming one of your scramble can find that fairway). Oh did I mention there is no bail out at the green.  

A scratch player, and Golf Digest ranker, told me that was a fantastic test of a players ability   . So I guess there is no bad holes, it's just a personal reaction to them.

[JNC Lyon]

Fazio's changes at Oak Hill East, where 5,6,15 are only passable if considered for major championships. Ohterwise, 6 can be played at 84 yards so the angle isn't offensive, and 5 can be played at 295 so players can have a chance to hold the green. Nothing can be done to 15, it will have to remain the worst hole I've ever played.

[John Nixon]

The only truly "bad" hole I've encountered, on two different courses, is the near 90 degree dogleg par 4, lined down both sides of the fairway with tall trees from the tee to the turn. In both cases the fairways are very narrow as well. Either you hit your tee shot to the middle of the dogleg or you have no chance to approach the green on your second shot. Be slightly off line and you're in the woods. All risk and no reward.

[Martin Mulholland]

I am a mid-handicapper and the sort of holes I don't like, and therefore consider bad, are those in which when I stand over a shot, I now I have to hit a really good shot or spend time searching for my ball. I hate searching for balls. The particular type of shot I have in mind is a blind shot to a small green with nasty rough around it.

Based on this I am of the opionion that #9 at Tobacco Road is a bad hole. The second shot is a short iron (generally 8 for me) to a narrow uphill green with love grass close to the left edge of the green. It just takes a little tweak to the left and you probably lose the ball but because the shot is blind you have no definite concept of where the ball went and where to concentrate the search, walking towards the green you might even be hoping your ball is on the green when it is actually lost. Of course if you are a low handicapper and play 2 nice shots it is a stunningly nice and realtively easy hole.

Remy