[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I would say more average players are coming into #18 with less club and at an angle more to the left of the green. The net result is that they have more decisions to make than if they were farther back.  This may lead to more half shots and more attempts to control trajectory. This "thinking" is dangerous for us average players.

[Pat Ruddy]

Tom
Take it easy and read only what I write.
Of course, the setting is important.
Of course, the experience of being at St. Andrews is amazingly good.
Of course, we all get knock-kneed and teary-eyed on the first tee.
Of course, we all love playing 18.
In that sense it is great.

But it is still a mediocre golf hole!  Fun, exciting but mediocre.  I love all golf holes.

By the way, how many low handicappers think it would be smart tactics to try hitting a ball up along the right boundary with all that space to the left?   There's a boy not long for this world!


Pat Ruddy

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

I did read all that you wrote, and please understand I am smiling as I type.  This is all great fun... Mucci and I have these battles all the time and it remains all in good fun.

BUT... what I don't understand is this:

You give the hole all of those positives as I see it... because the hole exists in that setting, as part of that course, with that feeling, and it exudes that love in the plaing....

But yet you still call it mediocre?  How?

With all of that going on, I find that impossible.

That's the point.

So perhaps change a key word - call the DESIGN of it mediocre, and hell I won't disagree.

But the design encompasses the totality of a golf hole like the clothes show the totality of the man.

I dress pretty shabbily and really don't care.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

We are both keen lovers of the game - I saw enough at Sand Hills to know that.  I also know you are one of the most fun people to play this game with that I have ever had the pleasure of accompanying around a course.

BUT... you do not enjoy the game more than I do.  Let's call it even.  

The point is this:  assessing what one needs to do to make a 3 is part of an assessment of a golf hole, for sure, but not it's entirety.

You keep the tunnelvision, I'll keep my eyes, ears and spirit open.  If we're picking a golfer to make that three, we'll take you without a doubt.  But if we're picking a golfer to describe what's really going on on the hole in its entirety, I'll stick with myself, thank you very much.  You'd miss too much.  You miss the fact that these things you call extraneous DO effect the play!

I don't miss much.
My powers of observation remain keen and all encompassing.

That is unless you wanted to open yourself to all that's going on... which I fully believe you actually DO... it's just strange to me you want to deny it for these purposes.

It's not a matter of denial, it's a matter of focus.

Some may want to focus on the tall tower miles removed from the 2nd green at Sand Hills.  I saw the tower immediately, in fact I saw it from Ben's porch.  But, I found the green site, surrounds and putting surface, along with the methods of play into the various hole locations, far more interesting and deserving of my attention and focus.

I'd rather focus on the architectural features and creative methods of play into and on that green than the vistas from behind it.

But, that's just me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I can live with that.  And the funny thing is I believe our focus is actually pretty similar.  In a previous version of this argument, I said what you'd call "architecture and playability" generally encompasses 95% of the assessment for me - the rest 5%.

What I still find odd is you want to deny even the 5%.

But yes, that is just you.

 

BTW, on some holes - like TOC #18 - the percentages do change.  There's also absolutely nothing wrong with that, on holes that deserve such.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would say more average players are coming into #18 with less club and at an angle more to the left of the green.

The net result is that they have more decisions to make than if they were farther back.  

If they were closer, and required less club, why would they have MORE decisions ?

This may lead to more half shots and more attempts to control trajectory.

Average players can hit half shots and control the trajectory ?
I don't know of any "average" players capable of even thinking in those terms, let alone executing those shots.

Don't forget, the hole is only 354 yards long

This "thinking" is dangerous for us average players.

That would depend upon the soundness of the players thinking, and the realistic assessment of whether they can execute the shot they've created in their mind.

I've found that most average players and even good players revert to their comfort zones with respect to shot selection, and that they don't gravitate toward an esoteric approach.

[Brian Phillips]

Pat and Pat,

The drive might be mediocre (but the setting makes up for that) however the green and the surrounds are most certainly not.

OB right and back...twitch twitch

Past the pin....3 putt

Short, spin back into the valley...3 putt...or do I chip...or do I pitch..

No, the hole is not mediocre.  You could put that corner of 25 000m2 on any course, anywhere in the world and at any position during the round and it is still a superb hole. As long as you put the OB

The drive is so easy is what makes the approach so good...you can chicken out left and you still get screwed...

Pat M, it is a great hole to win that pint back that you just lost in the matchplay match you just lost on the 16th or 17th.

My best hole on the course?...the reverse no 1 playing to the 17th green, now that is a great hole.

Brian

[john_stiles]

If you must dissect this creation, the 18th receives a 1.

Agree with all the above arguments for a 'one'.

[Bob Jenkins]

Two points.

I think it is great but if you took that hole away from where it is and plunked it down on any other course, it certainly would not be considered outstanding.

The other point is that the tee shot does not really provide choices. There is little to be lost to bomb away other than going long. You could end up left or in the Valley of Sin and you would be better off than if you had to hit a full iron into the green over the Valley of Sin as Chris pointed out above. That is, if you lay up, it certainly is not a birdie hole. Anytime you take out a driver, seems to me you will usually have a chip or a putt from on or off the green. Might as well take a rip at it.

I have played it twice. The first time downwind I hit a good drive and had a 25-30 yard chip. Two days later I hit an equally good drive, but into the wind and had to catch a 3 iron flush to get on. The wind is everything.

Most of all, that hole is a lot of fun!  

Bob Jenkins

[Chris Kane]

I've found that most average players and even good players revert to their comfort zones with respect to shot selection, and that they don't gravitate toward an esoteric approach.

In general I would agree with you, but not in relation to this hole.  In the many hours I spent watching average golfers play this hole over the last few months, I've seen so many try to "invent" shots which they don't have the ability to pull off.

There is something about that hole, and the Valley of Sin, which  causes many golfers to leave their better judgement behind.

[Brian Phillips]

Pat M,

I am an average player (8 - 10) and I can hit half shots.  Not everytime but I can do it.

And..most of all...I love trying them, like on the 18th at TOC.

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can live with that.  And the funny thing is I believe our focus is actually pretty similar.  In a previous version of this argument, I said what you'd call "architecture and playability" generally encompasses 95% of the assessment for me - the rest 5%.

What I still find odd is you want to deny even the 5%.


I don't deny it, I just don't focus on it to the point of distraction with respect to the other issues

BTW, on some holes - like TOC #18 - the percentages do change.  There's also absolutely nothing wrong with that, on holes that deserve such.

Now you have to ask yourself, is that due to the weakness of the hole ?

That the surroundings rivet your atttention and are more interesting when compared to the architecture and/or play of the hole ?

[Brian Phillips]

This, this is what GCA.com is all about.

[mike_malone]

 I am presently a 15. I understand this to be average.

 The reason they have more decisions as they get closer to the hole is because they "think" they can control their shots more effectively with 7 iron to PW.

   Since they think they can control the club more they try the half shot or the trajectory control more often as they get closer to the green.

   So, the change in technology has made #18 more interesting and more fun for the average golfer because more choices have been introduced, particularly as it relates to dealing with the valley of sin.

    If they were hitting six iron or more they would more often be just trying to make solid contact.

   

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Now I know you know how percentages work - 5% cannot possibly overwhelm 95%.  

But the seond part is a great question.  I don't find it to be a weakness at all, just a different set of positives.  But of course I can see how YOU would see it that way.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Phillips,

I'd agree.

Chris Kane,

Don't you think that when a golfer considers an unusual shot, one he's not familiar with, one that he has doubts about pullling off, that he'll revert to his comfort zone and go with what he feels fairly confident in ?

I've played a lot of golf with higher handicaps and RARELY do I see them EXPERIMENT on the golf course, especially when hazards like bunkers, water and OB are so close by.

I don't buy the argument that the 18th at TOC is the testing or proving grounds for unusual and/or unfamiliar golf shots.

[Gary Slatter]

1)a good to great hole on its own, coming where it does it's a great, deceptive hole. I've only played it twice, once into a gale it was driver, 3 iron. The other time driver and a most difficult wedge.  And when its reversed its also good!

[Patrick_Mucci]

If they were hitting six iron or more they would more often be just trying to make solid contact.

Why wouldn't that be true if they were hitting a 7-iron or an
8-iron ?

[Gary Slatter]

Pat Mucci    I think by the time one gets to the 18th they have figured out how to roll the ball, now, at the end of their experience, they have to think "should I roll it, or fly it to the green?"  It becomes a challenge, and hard to pull the trigger for that short of a shot. So most chunk it into the Valley.

[Tom Huckaby]

Don't you think that when a golfer considers an unusual shot, one he's not familiar with, one that he has doubts about pullling off, that he'll revert to his comfort zone and go with what he feels fairly confident in ?

I've played a lot of golf with higher handicaps and RARELY do I see them EXPERIMENT on the golf course, especially when hazards like bunkers, water and OB are so close by.

I don't buy the argument that the 18th at TOC is the testing or proving grounds for unusual and/or unfamiliar golf shots.

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick... how can you be so smart - which I fully believe you are - and yet continually miss pretty simple aspects of so many issues here?

Have you never hit a shot just for fun?  Have you never tried a shot out of your comfort zone just because a hole seems to allow for it?

Jeez man, not all of golf is about obsessively grinding out the lowest possible score.....

And again, nowhere is this more evident than on #18 TOC.  Most golfers - those with a soul anyway and not playing in formal competition, but particularly visitors - have been told time and time again how cool it is to play a running shot through the valley of sin, and how the Scots look down upon those who stubbornly insist on lobbing shots over it.  Thus when faced with the shot, most try the runner, fully knowing they stink at it and it's WAY out of their comfort zone!

Good lord, you should have seen my group of 12 a few years ago... we had some pretty serious matches going on, and still not a one failed to try the runner.  It was just too fun to resist!

Golf remains a game of fun at least as much as it is a game of grinding out a score.  Now I know you know this... but again, you choose to deny it at the home of golf?

TH

[Chris Kane]

Chris Kane,

Don't you think that when a golfer considers an unusual shot, one he's not familiar with, one that he has doubts about pullling off, that he'll revert to his comfort zone and go with what he feels fairly confident in ?

I've played a lot of golf with higher handicaps and RARELY do I see them EXPERIMENT on the golf course, especially when hazards like bunkers, water and OB are so close by.

Patrick, I answered your question with my previous post - I fully agree with you, except with respect to the 18th on TOC.  

How many times have you played TOC with higher handicap players?  How many higher handicap players have you watched play the 18th hole?

I don't buy the argument that the 18th at TOC is the testing or proving grounds for unusual and/or unfamiliar golf shots.

Are you calling me a liar?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris - great questions to Patrick - and right on, TOC is an exception to the rule, just as the course as a whole is in so many respects....

But I'm now wondering also if Patrick himself has played the golf hole...

Patrick, you have played TOC, right?

TH

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I realize you are a great player and have difficulty understanding us mere mortals. I tried to pick out a range (7 iron-PW) that I thought would encompass the clubs that most average players "think" they can control. It would vary for each player and may be even a wider range than I chose.

   I didn't say people were experimenting on #18 . Don't you think alot of people practiced some shots before they left for TOC that they hoped they might use.

 Possibly what happens ,as Chris observed first hand , is that they didn't get the chance to do it until #18. Why go home without trying  

[Kirk Gill]

If you take away the fact that is your final hole on The Old Course -

If you take away the fact that you are hitting your drive in the general direction of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club -

If you take away the fact that you have just played the Road Hole, and are thus eager for the easier hole -  

If you take away all the historical moments that have taken place there, the memories of all who have crossed that bridge, the ghost of Old Tom Morris, the fact that the VOS is actually KNOWN as the VOS................

etc etc etc.......If you take all that away, I do not believe that you are left with one of the great holes in golf. Don't get me wrong - I like the hole a lot, but I can't get out of my head the fact that a lot of the reasons I like it are because of the things that I mentioned above that have to be taken away to assess the hole on its own architectural merit. Personally, I like the notion of a bit of a breather at the end of a round, either allowing interest in a match or just a break on a day when I might be playing poorly; I like the notion that a hole that seems easy might reach out and bite me (or better, bite my opponent du jour); I love a bunkerless hole with such incredible ground movement around the green........

But really, is it one of the great holes in golf? What hurts me is having to use a word like "mediocre," because despite the real meaning of that word, it has come to imply a perjorative, a negative term. It is the finishing hole on one of the great courses in the world, so calling it mediocre seems.......disrespectful. Am I allowed to fence-sit, and call it a hole that exists at the less-than-great end of greatness?

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

If you take away all of those things, you gut the hole of its character and soul.  So feel free to call it mediocre.

I just find it sad that anyone would even contemplate taking those things away.  Thankfully, this doesn't have to happen in real life, playing the golf hole.

 

Seriously... you can make the case you just did about pretty much ANY golf hole.  Take away this, take away that... why not just assess it as is?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()