News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Nugent

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2007, 02:15:06 PM »
For best/best, how do you guys feel about NGLA #3 and #4?  

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2007, 02:17:51 PM »
Dear Jean,

....and have you playe any good holes since?

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2007, 02:31:06 PM »
5th (best) and 6th (worst) at Whippoorwill.  The 5th is a super par 4 while the 6th is a weird par 5.

Gib_Papazian

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2007, 02:40:59 PM »
#4 & 5 at Portrush Dunluce for best.

#9 & 10 TOC for worst back to back on a famous golf course.

#4 & 5 on Olympic Lake for Best.

#17 & 18 at Portrush Dunluce for worst.

Any two holes in a row at County Down on the front nine for best.

#1 & 2 Crystal Springs GC for worst (Nor Cal insiders).

Any two holes in a row at Pasadera for worst.

Biggest letdown: #17 & 18 at Creek Club because the Short Hole was not restored.

#12 & 13 at Swinley for pure sex appeal, rolling naked in the blooming heather.

Personal favorite that only I think spectacular:
#16 & 17 Spanish Bay.

Best: Either bookend around #4 at Spyglass.


Gib_Papazian

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2007, 02:43:40 PM »
Jim Nugent,

That would be the ultimate call, except for NGLA #16 & 17.

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #30 on: September 27, 2007, 02:47:10 PM »
Jim Nugent,

That would be the ultimate call, except for NGLA #16 & 17.

That would be except for 1-18 at NGLA.
Mr Hurricane

Tom Huckaby

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2007, 02:50:13 PM »
Jim N,. - I think you could take any combo of NGLA 1-2-3-4 and make a damn good case... and it's a great debate as to whether 16-17 are superior, as Gib says... in any event, as is damn near always the case here, ask a question, NGLA provides an answer.

But the question here isn't best or worst back to back holes; it's what course has a great hole followed by a bad hole, or vice versa.

And to that end, I have to go with 10-11 at TOC.  Not that 10 is an awful golf hole - it is good fun - but it really really pales compared to the greatness of 11.

BTW for Norcal insiders, two damn good golf holes back to back are Santa Teresa 11-12.   ;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2007, 02:56:20 PM »
Guys,

I believe the question is asking for consecutive holes in which one is tremendous, and the other is dogmeat...anyone can say that 3 and 4 at RCD are great...but how about the contrast of great and terrible right next door?

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2007, 02:58:21 PM »
Guys,

I believe the question is asking for consecutive holes in which one is tremendous, and the other is dogmeat...anyone can say that 3 and 4 at RCD are great...but how about the contrast of great and terrible right next door?

That is what I thought too and suggested 17-18 at Cypress Point. 17-18 at Whistling Straits works very well also (thank you Phil).
Mr Hurricane

Tom Huckaby

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2007, 03:05:33 PM »
Concur.  It's easy to name back to back great holes, or back to back awful ones.  One bad, one great is a much tougher question.

And 17-18 CPC works, but barely, I think.  I'm one of those who doesn't think 18 is a bad golf hole at all.  But 17 is so great, 18 does feel like a let down.  Of course there are also those here who think 17 sucks....


Gib_Papazian

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2007, 03:14:54 PM »
Ah, I need to read more carefully instead of just popping off . . . .

So, what we are looking for is Nicole Kidman followed by Rosanne Barr, or visa versa.

All righty then:

#11 and 12 AT NGLA.

There, I said it. #12 is complete nonsense from the right hand tee box. I hate it because I have played it from behind the 11th green and from that angle, the diagonal bunkers, rising from the ground like a pipeline of angry waves, are astonishing. The geometry of the hole makes sense from there; I could never understand what C.B. was thinking until Tom Paul (or George) told me the original tee was behind the Double Plateau and to the left.

Then, it made perfect sense. So, that is where I play it from, bringing the right fairway bunkers into play if you make a cowardly swing and cheat it too far right over the pipeline.

As it is, the tee to the far right, built for the sake of distance at the expense of strategy, makes it a horrible waste, a terrible hole and I demand it be restored immediately.

#11 & 12 at Garden City for the much the same reason.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 03:15:44 PM by Gib Papazian »

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2007, 04:28:55 PM »
RE 17/18 at CPC:

I would never include those two holes in this discussion of best followed by worst. I would take down the tree left of the green on 18, but otherwise, there's nothing objectionable about this hole. It simply follows an incredibly great hole.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2007, 04:41:25 PM »
Rick,


You just highlighted the reason I've been struggling with this one...I think the answer to this question must be on a course that really stinks, but has one really strong hole...The reality is, (I suspect) none of the great courses listed have a truly terrible hole...as hard as he tried, Gib did not convince me that #12 from the right tee is equivalent to Roseanne Barr...for one reason, by moving to the original tee spot he made it sing...

Gib,

What one bit of surgery would make Roseanne Barr sing?



Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2007, 04:50:38 PM »
Stomach staples?
Mr Hurricane

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2007, 04:52:02 PM »
I can name a few good ones

I have always liked the 8th and 9th at Brancaster (Royal West Norfolk)

The hardest are 9 and 10 + 15-16-17-18 in any combination, at Carnoustie. For me in some ways the harder the better!

9 and 10 at Turnberry is stunning

5 and 6 at Ganton

17 and 18 at Harbour Town

17 and 18 at Hunstanton off the championship tees is hard and challenging

12 and 13 at Elie (Golf House Club) Scotland - Braid at his best
 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2007, 04:54:05 PM »
Stomach staples?

I'd say nothing short of a mulligan...

Gib_Papazian

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2007, 05:09:51 PM »
Jes,

I am going to concede your point if that is how we are going to approach the question.

That stated, if my purpose was to photograph Nicole Kidman at her best, a long lens aimed at her rectum would not be the angle I would choose, but that seems to be the case on #12.

It seems an egregious, needless waste. . . . . like Charlize Theron in a clown suit with a plastic pig nose.

But, to stay on point, my new choice is:

#1 & 2 at North Berwick. The only hope for #1 is a lot of dynamite or about 5000 cubic yards of soil to move the fairway up the hill properly.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 05:11:07 PM by Gib Papazian »

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2007, 05:11:13 PM »
Been trying to think of a worst,

Watching old videos of the Masters in the late 80's/early 90s the sudden death playoffs used to start off ten. I remember 10 and 11 being exciting for the playoffs. Mize's shocking 'shanked' second shot and out of this world chip in + Faldo's 2 wins.

Now I think its one of the worst - its not a surprise why they have moved sudden death playoffs to the 18th

I think Fazio and Augusta National members have ruined the 11th hole in which now you have to only hit a fade of the tee and a long draw for 2nd shot - this does not follow Mackenzie and Bobby Jones' principles for Augusta.  

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2007, 05:18:14 PM »
Gib,

Concession accepted graciously...haven't been to Berwick either, but that's the type of surgery I'm thinking of...also, it refutes my "only on a crappy golf course" notion.


Ben,

I'd have to imagine the playoff moved to 18 for reasons slightly different than your opinion that #11 is ruined...

Mark Arata

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2007, 05:22:21 PM »
how about 12/13 at plainfield?
New Orleans, proud to swim home...........

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2007, 05:29:08 PM »
Jes,

It is the norm to have 18 as the first playoff hole in any pro tournament driven by TV. I still think Augusta should have stuck to 10 onwards for historical reasons. On hole 11 the fairway is a lot narrower - i thought it was better when it was wide so that you can hit it to the right to allow for a better angle to an already difficult green. It was better with more options off the tee rather than the one dimensional hole it is now.

North Berwick, what a great course - I would have got rid of 1 and 18 (possibly on safety grounds) and build 2 or 3 new holes in the dunes west of the 8th green - 'Open Championship' course potential springs to mind. This would have meant that the clubhouse would then have to be relocated. But this will never happen as traditions have to be kept and respected.  

B

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2007, 05:32:02 PM »
Ben,

I'm not arguing the quality of #11 then or now, I'll take your word for it. I think several other logistical issues carried the day on that one...lighting...camera...announcers in the booth...spectators...you know the drill.

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2007, 05:39:39 PM »
Jes,

I understand what you mean by logistical issues - spectactor movements/TV cameras etc. It was weird not seeing many spectators during the playoffs in the old Masters videos. It was like a playoff for a local club championship.

I have recently bought a book - 'Alister Mackenzie's Augusta National' really interesting where the many changes have been since it first opened.

Regs

Ben
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 05:40:24 PM by Ben Stephens »

Mark_F

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2007, 02:32:18 AM »
There's quite a few here who would have played it,so...

Barnbougle Dunes 7th followed by the 8th.

One hole with everything that you want followed by something which doesn't know what it is supposed to be.

Gib_Papazian

Re:Best/Worst back to back holes...
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2007, 03:42:23 PM »
Sean,

You hit upon the answer. Brilliant. Sincerely.

For most, it is a five-iron layup and a hard wedge up the terrace. I object to the tee shot as the opener for my favorite golf course in the U.K.

However, if the first tee is moved forward - which would work easily - you have an opener that parrots #16 at Cypress Point. There is a layup option and the temptation to go for the full Monty, right off the bat.

I am not sure if this would be an issue, but if you moved the tee down the fairway, close enough to require, say 230 yards uphill, to reach the putting surface, would that present a danger to players on the 17th green?

Or is there enough separation?

I cannot believe I am participating in discussing such heresy, but the idea seems brilliant in its simplicity. No need to touch the putting surface either . . . . . .
« Last Edit: September 28, 2007, 03:43:06 PM by Gib Papazian »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back