Holes you would fail to appreciate

[Art Roselle]

Are there examples of holes that most consider good or great, that you think you would rate differently or fail to appreciate, if they first appeared today on a brand new course? It seems like these could fall into a couple of categories:

1- Holes that are overrated from a design perspective, due to history or tradition or the greatness of the course they sit in.  If freed from those biases, you might not like the design (or at least be willing to consider that you might not like it).

2- Holes that are great, but take a while to appreciate.  So, if they appeared on a brand new course, you might initially be very critical (and may never give them a second chance).

Do you have examples of each?  Examples from category 1 are harder to pry out of people, because it requires a potentially blasphemous criticism of a hole most people consider great.

Here are a couple of possible examples to get the conversation started.   I am not sure what I would think if freed from my own positive biases. 

If this green complex appeared on a new high-end Fazio course on some fabulous coastline, would you bash it?



What about this tee shot (for all you tree lovers)?  Would the word "claustrophobic" sneak into your head?



Try to be honest.

[jeffwarne]

1st photo, too busy, too much sand,too much maintenance, Give me the one short left bunker.
Yes if Fazio did that on a new course it'd get ripped around here.

second photo -it's not as tight as that photo appears,but that's increasingly  been an awkward hole (the Nicklaus bunkers on the outside of the dogleg)and got more awkward when the tees went way back.
The left side could stand to be opened up at least slightly.
Older ,shorter (who frankly aren't that short) competitors in the Masters who drive normally it 230-250(not as far up that hill)  have to really slice their second shots and can't play down the ivy/tree infested left side.
a miss left is unfindable

[JESII]

C-2 at HUntingdon Valley!

I say it is great, and all the guys on here that will challenge that are still in camp #2.

Kyle or Wayne have decent pictures of it I am sure.

Here is a question that will be part of my prosecuting examination of any doubters (Mark Fine...)...can a par four be considered great if ony one of the two "full" shots is a great shot?



Good topic Art.

[Art Roselle]

Here are some more, just for fun.  What would your INITIAL reaction be to these photos.

[Patrick_Mucci]

1st photo, too busy, too much sand,too much maintenance,
Give me the one short left bunker.

Yes if Fazio did that on a new course it'd get ripped around here.


Jeff, add Rees too.
There's NOT a doubt in my mind that both of them would be reviled for producing the presentation in photo # 1.[/color]

second photo -it's not as tight as that photo appears,but that's increasingly  been an awkward hole (the Nicklaus bunkers on the outside of the dogleg)and got more awkward when the tees went way back.


Jeff, that's a tee reserved for the "best golfers in the world"  hence, the margins of error are minimal.

Even from the "Members" tees, its an awkward feeling or uncomfortable set up, especially if you draw the ball.[/color]

Art,

You make a good point.
All too often golf holes are evaluated or given credits/debits based on who the architect is/was.

That prior knowledge often predisposes many in their assessment, whereas, the assessment should be made solely on the basis of the hole, not the author.

[Sean_A]

The bunkering this pic depicts always sends shivers down my spine.  I can't see why the heck Dr Mac got so carries away.  Its like he was perseverating with bunkers.


Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

But Mackenzie's bunkers didn't really look like that,  they were much less prissy and neat.

[Sean_A]

But Mackenzie's bunkers didn't really look like that,  they were much less prissy and neat.

Paul

I know the original versions of the bunkers looked a lot better, but its still overkill - no?

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

Not if you look at the whole picture.  If you have Geoff Shakelford's Golden Age book, see page 148...the hole blends in very well with the natural exposed sand of the dunes.

[Phil McDade]

The last photo (the one with the white stakes down the right side) is I believe the 2nd at Merion. Having never played it, but studied the course a bit, I think the fairly narrow fairway fits within the demands of that hole, which is a shortish, uphill par 5. Taking driver to insure reaching in two must be balanced against the demands of hitting that fairway, esp. with OB/Ardmore Ave. lurking on the right. Would mowing the fairway all the way to the white stakes, and taking down a tree or two, improve this hole? Are tee shots stopped from going OB because they are stopped by the rough and tree limbs? Would the hole be better if it more closely approximated the 14th at Royal St. George's, another shortish par 5 with OB lurking very closely to the right side of the fairway?

[Sean_A]

Sean

Not if you look at the whole picture.  If you have Geoff Shakelford's Golden Age book, see page 148...the hole blends in very well with the natural exposed sand of the dunes.

I have the book and have seen the pic from the tee and closer.  Mac did this sort of thing on more than one occassion - its sort of his California look and the one area he seems to have departed from for earlier courses.  Its not a look I am fond of so I reckon we will have to agree to disagree.  For those that can photoshop, it would be interesting to see how the hole looks if the bunkering behind the green was vastly reduced or eliminated and if the bank were sort of levelled.  Is there a view to the sea back there?

Ciao

[JESII]

Phil,

The hole is not as short as it might look or sound. What is it on the card? The drive generally hits into an upslope so you will not get any roll. I hit two good (280 or so) drives last summer in the GAP Open and had really no chance to get to the green.

I think a wider left side could improve the hole because drives ending up 15 yards left of the current edge of the fairway would now leave a lay up that looks right at the road. And you do want to hit a good aggressive lay up here because the visibility from 80 yards out and in the center - right center is much, much better than from 125 in the center - left center.

[Phil McDade]

My (old) World Atlas of Golf book has it at 535, considerably short by today's standards. I assume it was lengthened for the Am, but I think that's one of the tees that can't be moved back at will because of the 10th green and surrounding bunkers. Even at, say, 560, that's a reachable par 5 -- just based on length -- for most of today's players. I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the green and green surrounds, so I don't know what kind of considerations there are for players going for it in two and missing.

[David Stamm]

Sean

Not if you look at the whole picture.  If you have Geoff Shakelford's Golden Age book, see page 148...the hole blends in very well with the natural exposed sand of the dunes.

I have the book and have seen the pic from the tee and closer.  Mac did this sort of thing on more than one occassion - its sort of his California look and the one area he seems to have departed from for earlier courses.  Its not a look I am fond of so I reckon we will have to agree to disagree.  For those that can photoshop, it would be interesting to see how the hole looks if the bunkering behind the green was vastly reduced or eliminated and if the bank were sort of levelled.  Is there a view to the sea back there?

Ciao

Sorry about the crudity.......

[David Stamm]

No disrespect, but I think this is a futile excercise. The holes being presented have changed from what they used to be. IMHO, the tee shot on 18 at ANGC is absurd as it sits today.

[Joe Hancock]

David,

I think it's still valid to critique these holes. I don't think we are able to say "this hole is great because it used to be great". It is what is on the day you play it...or watch it....or critique it.

Joe

[Adam Clayman]

Re the first photo and peoples uncanny ability to predict what others will like or not. The first hole may put shivers down Sean's spine but look at the scale of that hillside. The green not lost in a sea of massive scale. With the rear bunkers Dr. Mac is sitting at the bar winking at all you aggressive players saying, "So, you wanna buy me a drink?"  Rees and Fazio would not be reviled, by any more than the 20% of players who don't like something, if they built it today.

[Matt_Cohn]

[Sean_A]

Re the first photo and peoples uncanny ability to predict what others will like or not. The first hole may put shivers down Sean's spine but look at the scale of that hillside. The green not lost in a sea of massive scale. With the rear bunkers Dr. Mac is sitting at the bar winking at all you aggressive players saying, "So, you wanna buy me a drink?"  Rees and Fazio would not be reviled, by any more than the 20% of players who don't like something, if they built it today.

I disagree.  I do believe the sand does throw the scale well off.  Furthermore, there seems to be a disconnect between the back bunkering and the green.  Its as if the two aren't related.  But even this rather odd look to me could be excused if I knew rear framing bunkers were sparingly used.  However, I think over half the holes at CP have some form of rear bunkers which act as framers.  Its not a design trait which I particularly admire.

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, I've never considered those bunkers "framers".
One of their purposes was to get into the mind of the golfer. Now, it's arguable whether that mind exists in the modern golfer.
Hopefully Mr. Doak or Mr. Urbina will chime in and articulate their mindset in recreating the shape and scale.

[Jon Spaulding]

If Fazio built a tee shot as inspiring as 13 CPC...... I would hope that he would be lauded here....this being the value of the hole IMO.

The greenside bunkering is a bit superfluous in this day & age when one who hits a decent drive has a 60 yard pitch to the green. But still fairly creative, random, and worthy of praise, no matter whose name happens to be on the design.

[Kirk Gill]

That picture of the second at Merion looks fantastic to my eye. My game might wish that the fairway be a bit wider, but that just looks like great golf.

I'll admit that I'm failing to appreciate that first photo - the straight hole between the trees. I plead ignorance.

And I'd love to see the architect that would have the onions to create the "road-hole-tee-shot-experience" in this day and age.......

[Sean_A]

Sean, I've never considered those bunkers "framers".
One of their purposes was to get into the mind of the golfer. Now, it's arguable whether that mind exists in the modern golfer.
Hopefully Mr. Doak or Mr. Urbina will chime in and articulate their mindset in recreating the shape and scale.

Adam

I do recall folks talking about the jerk the mind factor of this sort of bunkering (at Pasa and another well known Cal course whose name eludes me) and I do believe that it is a legitimate design element.  However, the risk of doing this sort of thing is that they become framers - the golfer isn't fooled if the same trickery appears too often. 

Out of curiosity, how is that Dr Mac's surround sound bunkering isn't framing, but when modern guys do it, it is framing?  It might be interesting to read what folks think about what the difference(s) is. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Out of curiosity, how is that Dr Mac's surround sound bunkering isn't framing, but when modern guys do it, it is framing?  It might be interesting to read what folks think about what the difference(s) is. 

Ciao

Simple, Sean

Four Legs, Bad
Two Legs, Good

[Dan Boerger]

I think this is a terrific thread. The bunker over kill seems obvious to me, but the defining trees add plenty to some holes, particularly 18 at Augusta.