With regard to the PGA Tour, I flipped to The Golf Channel last night and ended up watching about 5 minutes of the Champions Tour event from Hawaii.
I don't who it was, but a Champions Tour player made a comment about the 18th hole there, stating it "wasn't a finishing hole". In other words, the challenge presented by the final hole wasn't adequate for the conclusion of a round/tournament.
Talk about formulaic thinking. To be honest, I'm perplexed by such a comment.
Eduardo Romero was shown during the telecast as well, and I was reminded of a comment he makes in a past issue of Golf Course Architecture magazine relative to his entrance into golf course design.
Along with stating St. Andrews has some unfair holes, Romero says: "The best golf courses are those that reward the player who makes a good shot and punishes the bad shot. A good shot should not be penalized."
Which begs a legitimate question: What is a "good shot"? I interpret this as Romero figuring if he's struck the ball well, on his intended trajectory and line, the result MUST be good. Is this golf?
It's no surprise he feels the Old Course has some "unfair holes"
