Lou, I don't know which side of the fence you ended up on in that post. But if you sided with the Sunshie Kid (HucK) could you explain again why the hole you have never played is better? Adam C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You haven't seen the McLaughlin Group? John always has the last word.
As to the Sunshine Kid, you know, when he is right he is right (though in light of his affinity for Pelosi, I shrudder to think how his thought process works).
Since the rude butt-kicking I received in the wee hours of 11/1, I now belong to the Dan King/Geoff Shackelford school of golf course evaluation and analysis. No longer do I feel encumbered to actually play the game or a specific course to form and make public my opinions.
Why is new #5 better than old? I could say that it is because the previous version wasn't that good at all, but this is not entirely true.
The old #5 going back inland just felt crowded and shoe horned in. My recollection is that the left side of the hole was grown-in and the presentation from the tee box was very ordinary.
The flow of the course, just as the golfer began to experience PB after 2 1/2 very pedestrian holes, reverted back to what one could find on many courses priced 90% cheaper. I do agree that the trek to #6 tee was simpler, and, by virtue of #5 being a fairly non-descript inland hole, #6 was probably elevated in comparison.
Bob Huntley poses a good (though rather obvious
) question. Personally, I use all the criteria he noted- looks, degree of difficulty, shot selection- in forming my opinions of a hole. How the hole fits the golf course and how it flows with what has taken place and what is yet to be experienced are also important factors for me.
From the backs, old 5 was under 170 yards, heading away from the bay. The hole was indeed difficult, perhaps exacting might be a better way to describe it. Wind was less of a factor, and, if memory serves, probably tended to shorten the hole.
New 5 has a superior site aesthetically. If the land had been available at the time PB was built, no doubt that we would not be having this discussion.
I am not sure that new 5 is an easier hole being 20 yards longer and more exposed to the elements. The green complex is probably larger and not as complicated. But you are also going from short iron approaches on the previous three holes to a mid to long iron shot to a cliffside target buffeted by the winds and guarded by a creek short of front.
BTW, I do not give resistance to scoring nearly as much weight as some might. If I did, Austin Country Club, Horseshoe Bay- Ram Rock, and Stonebridge CC- Dye would be in my top 10 in the US and none of them make it very high on my Texas list. That you had not seen a single birdie on old 5 can mean one of three things: 1) you didn't see very many shots on that hole, 2) you saw a lot of really bad shots, or 3) the hole was so tricked-up as not to reward good shots, hardly a quality of great golf design.
New 5 is better, without question. But if you think old 5 takes the prize, all the more power to you (and you can probably get on at Dallas National anytime you want this afternoon!).