[Kalen Braley]

But I think you guys will be able to experience it downwind, so get the wedges ready.

Kalen -

The 5 times or so I have played the hole, it's been downwind.  It's no pushover, trust me.  I'd almost rather punch a 7 iron and be able to hold the green.  Our foursome hit 4 excellent shots and all of us were back edge or worse with sand wedges.

You make a good point.  Uphill hole that plays downwind is tough indeed.  And with those deep bunkers short of the green, can't leave it short...but you already knew that!  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Most will agree that being alongside of the ocean improves the hole, or at minimum, improves the setting which may serve to enhance the "total golf experience" of playing the hole.

Ask any player what his favorite hole at Pacific Dunes is and he will likely point to 4, 10, 11, or 13.  Yet, Tom Doak names among his favorites the inland 2nd and 6th.

Ask about Cypress Point and most will without hesitation say 16, with many singing praises of 15 and 17 as well, yet the architecture contingent makes a strong case for 9.

It's easy to see that the ocean no doubt props up holes that would otherwise not be considered world-class - 6, 7, and 10 at Pebble Beach come to mind, as do literally hundreds of others around the world.

I take exception to your classifying holes # 6, 7 and 10 at PB as less than good/great holes.[/color]

Often times on GCA we fall into the trap of over-reacting to what we believe is the "Average Joe Opinion".  

The Average Joe thinks Fazio and Nicklaus are the pinnacle of course design.  While their work is, even when scrutinized by the most ruthless critics, held up to be perfectly fine (just perhaps not revolutionary) many on GCA.com seem to pan it as worthless, useless, and an utter waste of a couple hundred acres of land.  

Can you cite some examples ?[/color]

In some cases when discussiing these gentlemen, you'd think the top-dressing on the greens of their courses was laced with LSD (assuming you understand LSD to be a bad thing)

Likewise, many of us fancy ourselves above the trap of letting the ocean have an impact on our opinion of any given hole...that we can somehow seperate the two.

I've admitted it many times before...I am an ocean whore.  The setting, to me, plays prominently in the "total golf experience" and I am guilty of giving passes (and happily so, I might add) to otherwise mundane holes that just so happen to enjoy spectacular scenery.

Isn't that a reflection of your inability to discern the core and critical architectural values of a hole because your focus is directed outside the confines of the golf course to extraneous features ?[/color]

The 3rd at Monarch Beach in Dana Point, CA, is a disaster of a golf hole - an awkward short par 4 that, if measured along the outside of the dogleg, might hit 325 yards, but as the crow flies is closer to 250.  Still, if given the choice between this hole or a halfway-decent parkland 4-par with no real good but no real bad, I'll play the disaster on the shore.

So my question is not the obvious "What are average holes that are considered good because they are on the ocean".  No, my friends, my question is rather:

What holes feature great architecture but are either overlooked or denounced by architecture critics because most Average Joes just see it as eye candy - On which holes do we overlook GREAT architecture on simply because the hole is on the ocean and calling it great would appear to be the "easy" conclusion?

To me, the poster child from my modest travels is the 4th at Bandon Dunes.  In fact, that entire golf course might be the poster-child for this (but that's a different thread).  The 4th hole to me is absolutely world class.  You put that hole on any golf course and it's a strong hole.  The tee shot has both mystery and a risk-reward element, and the second shot is all-world to a wonderful green complex.  Couple this with the "reveal" of the green as you walk to your ball in the fairway and the diagonally-situated green with a downhill approach and to me, you've got a real winner.

Yes, 4 at Bandon Dunes was honored with some sort of award (commemerated in a plaque on the tee - I don't recall the publication) but to me it should be mentioned in the same breath at minimum with the 4th and 13th at Pacific, and at maximum as potentially one of the best medium-length par 4s in the world.  

I would doubt that any who have played it would categorize it as less than a great hole.

What you seem to be ignoring is the integral feature that comprises the entire left side of the hole.
It happens to be the Pacific Ocean.
But, if it were Lake Michigan, or Lake _____ or a similar hazard that ran the length of the hole, the architectural merits and playability would still be recognized as exceptional, provided the wind was a similar factor.[/color]

Despite the fact that I think the setting on the cliffs in Bandon improves the hole and the total golf experience, I think this same setting may actually harm its stature in the eyes of architecture critics.  

It depends on their powers of observation and their ability to discern the integration of the architectural features with the land.[/color]

Nobody want's to look like an easy sell, and to those concerned with appearing as an easy mark, the ocean might in fact be the greatest gimmick of all.

I think repeat play tends to mute its effect and redirects one's
focus to the golf course, the internal features and how best to play the holes.[/color]

[rjsimper]

Most will agree that being alongside of the ocean improves the hole, or at minimum, improves the setting which may serve to enhance the "total golf experience" of playing the hole.

Ask any player what his favorite hole at Pacific Dunes is and he will likely point to 4, 10, 11, or 13.  Yet, Tom Doak names among his favorites the inland 2nd and 6th.

Ask about Cypress Point and most will without hesitation say 16, with many singing praises of 15 and 17 as well, yet the architecture contingent makes a strong case for 9.

It's easy to see that the ocean no doubt props up holes that would otherwise not be considered world-class - 6, 7, and 10 at Pebble Beach come to mind, as do literally hundreds of others around the world.

I take exception to your classifying holes # 6, 7 and 10 at PB as less than good/great holes.[/color]

I did not classify 6, 7, and 10 at PB as less than good/great - I classified them as not being world class in the absence of ocean - they are good holes no doubt, potentially even great, but place them in the middle of a forest and I doubt that they'd be discussed.  Additionally, when was the last time the architectural merits of 7 at PB have been discussed and what was brought up that could not also be said about any other drop-shot, wind-swept par 3 with an exacting target and pitched green?[/color]

Often times on GCA we fall into the trap of over-reacting to what we believe is the "Average Joe Opinion".  

The Average Joe thinks Fazio and Nicklaus are the pinnacle of course design.  While their work is, even when scrutinized by the most ruthless critics, held up to be perfectly fine (just perhaps not revolutionary) many on GCA.com seem to pan it as worthless, useless, and an utter waste of a couple hundred acres of land.  

Can you cite some examples ?[/color]

Examples of Fazio and Nicklaus bashing? Easy.  Examples of work being held up as perfectly fine?  I'd have to do some searching, but many critiques of Fazio, even on this site, are that he builds the same hole all over the place and that they're pretty and play fine, but there's no true soul to the hole, so to speak.[/color]

In some cases when discussiing these gentlemen, you'd think the top-dressing on the greens of their courses was laced with LSD (assuming you understand LSD to be a bad thing)

Likewise, many of us fancy ourselves above the trap of letting the ocean have an impact on our opinion of any given hole...that we can somehow seperate the two.

I've admitted it many times before...I am an ocean whore.  The setting, to me, plays prominently in the "total golf experience" and I am guilty of giving passes (and happily so, I might add) to otherwise mundane holes that just so happen to enjoy spectacular scenery.

Isn't that a reflection of your inability to discern the core and critical architectural values of a hole because your focus is directed outside the confines of the golf course to extraneous features ?[/color]

Perhaps in part, yes - I have never claimed to be the foremost student or critic of Golf Course Architecture. I am and always will be a golfer first and a student of the craft of Architecture second.  My focus isn't so much directed outside the golf course specifically, but rather my focus is on enjoying life, enjoying my day, and enjoying my round of golf and the company I am with.  I've found over the past several years that good architecture certainly helps this total golf experience tremendously...but with a few exceptions I would take a spectatucular site and great company before I would take a solitary round at a well-designed course (or even worse, a round at a well-designed course with 3 jerks).[/color]

The 3rd at Monarch Beach in Dana Point, CA, is a disaster of a golf hole - an awkward short par 4 that, if measured along the outside of the dogleg, might hit 325 yards, but as the crow flies is closer to 250.  Still, if given the choice between this hole or a halfway-decent parkland 4-par with no real good but no real bad, I'll play the disaster on the shore.

So my question is not the obvious "What are average holes that are considered good because they are on the ocean".  No, my friends, my question is rather:

What holes feature great architecture but are either overlooked or denounced by architecture critics because most Average Joes just see it as eye candy - On which holes do we overlook GREAT architecture on simply because the hole is on the ocean and calling it great would appear to be the "easy" conclusion?

To me, the poster child from my modest travels is the 4th at Bandon Dunes.  In fact, that entire golf course might be the poster-child for this (but that's a different thread).  The 4th hole to me is absolutely world class.  You put that hole on any golf course and it's a strong hole.  The tee shot has both mystery and a risk-reward element, and the second shot is all-world to a wonderful green complex.  Couple this with the "reveal" of the green as you walk to your ball in the fairway and the diagonally-situated green with a downhill approach and to me, you've got a real winner.

Yes, 4 at Bandon Dunes was honored with some sort of award (commemerated in a plaque on the tee - I don't recall the publication) but to me it should be mentioned in the same breath at minimum with the 4th and 13th at Pacific, and at maximum as potentially one of the best medium-length par 4s in the world.  

I would doubt that any who have played it would categorize it as less than a great hole.[/color]

Brad Tufts, who has played the hole a number of times, has posted on this very thread and not called it a great hole - he insists my opinion is based on my personal game, not the universal merits of the hole. I don't doubt many consider it good or great, but I believe it should be discussed in the same class as some of the other world-class mid-length par 4s.  You could make an argument for a wonderful percentage of the holes at the Bandon Dunes Resort as being "great" but a more select handful as "world-class" - I realize these are subjective, but I have yet to hear 8 at Pebble and 4 at Bandon Dunes put in the same sentence.  Note: I am not well read.[/color]


What you seem to be ignoring is the integral feature that comprises the entire left side of the hole. [/color]


Are you sure you are not thinking of #5?  Last time I checked, there was no Pacific ocean to the left of #4 at Bandon Dunes...[/color]

 
It happens to be the Pacific Ocean.
 [/color]

No, it happens to be a combination of the 9th tee, a dune, and the 12th hole. [/color]

 
But, if it were Lake Michigan, or Lake _____ or a similar hazard that ran the length of the hole, the architectural merits and playability would still be recognized as exceptional, provided the wind was a similar factor.[/color]
 [/b][/color]

I've got to assume we're talking about 5 at BD now (which for the record, I do not hold in as high company as I do 4, but still I do not think I disagree with you here.

Interesting mixup, though, as of all the holes at Bandon that would be called "ocean holes" the actual cliffs probably come into play the least on 4 at BD - they play, strategically (not including wind) far more prominently on some of the others I mentioned (PD #4, PD #11, any of the 3 above holes discussed at Pebble: 6, 7, 10)[/color]

Despite the fact that I think the setting on the cliffs in Bandon improves the hole and the total golf experience, I think this same setting may actually harm its stature in the eyes of architecture critics.  

It depends on their powers of observation and their ability to discern the integration of the architectural features with the land.[/color]

Precisely, and that gets, in part, to my point - either A - we have weak observational powers or B - we have strong observational powers but weak egos or too much thinking/cleverness to see what's right in front of us - that these are great holes - and we fear that people will look at us as easy sells if we fall into line with the Joe Schmo's who come home raving about the ocean holes (maybe just for different reasons, though...)[/color]

Nobody want's to look like an easy sell, and to those concerned with appearing as an easy mark, the ocean might in fact be the greatest gimmick of all.

I think repeat play tends to mute its effect and redirects one's
focus to the golf course, the internal features and how best to play the holes.[/color]


Absolutely it does...100% agreement here.  Well, maybe fractionally.  I would say upon repeat play, the golfer is able to focus more attention on the architecture than on his first play.  I do not believe that standing on the 16th tee at Cypress Point, one who has played there 25 times would reasonably be able to say that the majority (or even all) of his attention is focused exclusively on internal features.  Of course, now we are toeing Huckaby/Mucci lines and that's a debate of which I want no part  [/color]

[Brad Tufts]

P. Mucci said: "Isn't that a reflection of your inability to discern the core and critical architectural values of a hole because your focus is directed outside the confines of the golf course to extraneous features"?

Why do we have to go here?

Why are we trying to prove someone's inability to discern architectural characteristics?

Ryan stated clearly that he enjoys golf along the ocean, even if the architecture isn't good or great.  By proclaiming yourself an "ocean whore" you admit that you have bias towards/against holes with certain qualities.  I believe there is no need to hammer home a pause in judgment when it has been admitted.

As I said above, the great thing about golf is that it can be enjoyed on a number of levels, and the understanding/interest in architecture is one of them.

Ryan also said the 4th at BD was a great hole.  Your reply was, "I would doubt that any who have played it would categorize it as less than a great hole."  What does this add?  HE SAID IT WAS A GREAT HOLE.  Not to mention, who cares if it is supposed to good, great, or less than good, if it is good in Ryan's mind's eye, then it is a correct observation.

This is not a personal attack.  I just do not know what we add with quibbling, semantics and underlying smugness.  Please talk about golf architecture, not someone's ability/inability to agree with you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()