[Jason Topp]

I've never thought of the back nine as being dramatically better than the front but if you compare corresponding holes:

18 is better than 1
17 is better than 2
16 is better than 3
15 is better than 4
14 is better than 5
13 is better than 6
12 is better than 7
11 is better than 8
10 is better than 9

The only comparisons that is reasonably debateable in my mind are 5 and 14.  All of the others are clearly superior.

[Scott Macpherson]

Many people I know would argue that the 4th hole is superior to the 15th.

scott

[Adrian_Stiff]

Many people I know would argue that the 4th hole is superior to the 15th.

scott

That was the one that quickly came to my mind too, but its a fairly close call.

[Bill_McBride]

I think #14 is definitely a better hole than #5, there's so much more going on with each shot.  The tee shot has optional lines where #5 is just hit it solid slightly left; the second shot has to avoid Hell; and the third is always interesting.

What I think happens - and I agree with your evaluation - is the course just gets more interesting as you head for home. 

With the wind in your face headed outward, #1 is a better and more difficult hole than #18.

[Sean Walsh]

I am very fond of 12 but would advocate that 7 is a better hole.

Especially if you happen to get out in one of the first three groups and can use the alternative line towards the 10th green.  Not something I ever got to do intentionally but often a yell of fore towards the group on the 11th tee resulted in a wonderfully placed approach to 7.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd argue that # 1 is better than # 18.

[Kevin Pallier]

I'm with Patrick M

[Tom_Doak]

#4 is definitely better than #15, I think it's one of the five best holes on the course.  Personally, I'm more fond of #9 than #10 as well, even though it's less complex.

[Rich Goodale]

As the greens for most of the incoming holes were originally used for both the front and back nines it is not surprising that they are more interesting than the extensions which created the "double" greens in the mid-19th century.  As for 5 and 14, the best of these two was probably the "reverse" 5th as played in the 1840's.  The following is from James Balfour's book, commenting on the extension of the course (words in parentheses are my comments/calrifications):

"5.  This hole is more altered than any other on the Links, and sadly destroyed.  The tee stroke (probably near the site of the current 4th green)used always to be played to the right of the big bunker with the uncouth name (Hell), unless when now and then some huge driver 'swiped over h___ at one immortal go'  The second stroke was always to the left on to the Elysian Fields..........  The Third had to navigate the intricate 'Beardies,' and the fourth was across was across a wide, staring, horrid bunker, beyond which was a beautiful putting green (the present 13th)."

The hole was then a huge dogleg par-6, as all of what is now the 5th fairway was impenetrable whins.  Now THAT was a great golf hole!

[Mike_Clayton]

A vote for the 4th from Geoff Ogilvy in an upcoming interview with John Huggan (the bomb thrower!) for the Australian Architects magazine.
It was in reference to 'pretty holes'


 'And the 4th at St Andrews might be the most strategic in the world, but it could never be described as pretty. It’s a par-4-and-a-half. In fact, if you played it that way, you’d probably do better in the long run.
I remember thinking to myself that every hole should follow the same principles as that 4th hole. Why, I wondered, couldn’t every architect work that out? It’s been there for 500 years. If you pull your tee shot there you can find it quite easily, but you can’t get it on the green with your approach. And you moan about it!
Then the next three times you play the hole you hit it left because you don’t want to go in the gorse. And you end up with a 70-foot putt from the 5th tee. Which is when you realise what you have to do to play the hole well. It asks you the question. But you could never argue that hole was attractive. But it is, if only to golfers. You can’t see anything off the tee.'

[RJ_Daley]

But, on April Fool's day, are the reverse TOC twins better on the front or back...? 

[Rich Goodale]

Mike

Huggan exaggerates when he says that the 4th is 500 years old.  The hole as we know it was created 150 years ago.

Rich

[Mike_Clayton]

Rich,

Ogilvy said that.

[Rich Goodale]

Good to see that Geoff is still on the ball, as it were.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd go with 4 beating 15 as well... and probably 9 against 10... and I'm also a fan of 7 but it doesn't beat 12 in my book... And it's a pity 2 is up against 17

[Bill_McBride]

I'd go with 4 beating 15 as well... and probably 9 against 10... and I'm also a fan of 7 but it doesn't beat 12 in my book... And it's a pity 2 is up against 17

That green on #2 is startling the first time you see it -- and the last as well! 

I'd agree with #4 over #15.  Perhaps the outbound holes would gain respect with some serious cutting back of the gorse....

[Jason Topp]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.


I think the comments on 4 and 15 are probably correct.  The mound in front of the green on 4 makes the hole in my view because of the possibility of using a bank shot off the mound to get to a left pin from the left side.  Still - I do not think it has a huge edge.

http://www.standrews.org.uk/golf/the_courses/old_guide2004/old_course_hole_guide_4.html

http://www.standrews.org.uk/golf/the_courses/old_guide2004/old_course_hole_guide_15.html

2 is one of my favorites on the course so I agree with Ally's coments that it is a pity it goes against 17.

12 is one of my favorite holes in the world so I cannot agree that 7 is better.

I cannot understand why 9 is better than 10.  Based on my experience, it is a drive to a flat green - just a featureless long par 3.  10 green is very interesting.

[Dan Kelly]

[post moved to its own thread]

[Patrick_Mucci]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.

That's your opinion, not one shared by all.

Many find # 18 a bland, easy par 4.[/color]

[Kevin Pallier]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.

I cannot understand why 9 is better than 10.  Based on my experience, it is a drive to a flat green - just a featureless long par 3.  10 green is very interesting.

Jason

9 is a P4 - 8 is a P3

18 = half par ? what 3 and a half ? Yes it has the valley of sin but that's about it. The approach on is 1 much more interesting. Put the pin just behind the burn and it's a very difficult pin to get at - go too far through the green and it's a pretty subtle but slick comeback

[Jason Topp]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.

I cannot understand why 9 is better than 10.  Based on my experience, it is a drive to a flat green - just a featureless long par 3.  10 green is very interesting.

Jason

9 is a P4 - 8 is a P3

18 = half par ? what 3 and a half ? Yes it has the valley of sin but that's about it. The approach on is 1 much more interesting. Put the pin just behind the burn and it's a very difficult pin to get at - go too far through the green and it's a pretty subtle but slick comeback

Kevin - I know 9 is  par four but from the tees that visitors play it is a really short, flat par four.

I disagree on 18.  There are interesting decisions off on 18 the tee in direction caused by the valley of sin and the ob.  The approach is definitely easier from the right side.  With the wind, the hole becomes driveable for many but taking the line directly at the green brings ob in play and presents a more difficult decision.  The valley of sin as a hazard presents difficulty to the good player without presenting undue difficulty to the high handicap. 

By contrast, 1 presents a decision off the tee largely in terms of distance.  I do not think a huge advantage can be gained by angle.  The second shot is a very typical decision over a frontal hazard - do you play safe by hitting it to the back of the green or do you try and get it close to the pin?  Every course with a bunker or pond in front of the green presents the same decision, which for me means hitting it to the back of the green every time.

[Jason Topp]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.

That's your opinion, not one shared by all.

Many find # 18 a bland, easy par 4.[/color]

Patrick - where am I off in the analysis below?

I disagree on 18.  There are interesting decisions off on 18 the tee in direction caused by the valley of sin and the ob.  The approach is definitely easier from the right side.  With the wind, the hole becomes driveable for many but taking the line directly at the green brings ob in play and presents a more difficult decision.  The valley of sin as a hazard presents difficulty to the good player without presenting undue difficulty to the high handicap. 

By contrast, 1 presents a decision off the tee largely in terms of distance.  I do not think a huge advantage can be gained by angle.  The second shot is a very typical decision over a frontal hazard - do you play safe by hitting it to the back of the green or do you try and get it close to the pin?  Every course with a bunker or pond in front of the green presents the same decision, which for me means hitting it to the back of the green every time.

[Gary Slatter]

I've never thought of the back nine as being dramatically better than the front but if you compare corresponding holes:

18 is better than 1
17 is better than 2
16 is better than 3
15 is better than 4
14 is better than 5
13 is better than 6
12 is better than 7
11 is better than 8
10 is better than 9

The only comparisons that is reasonably debateable in my mind are 5 and 14.  All of the others are clearly superior.

Personally I agree there are "better" holes on the back nine but I think 1 is better than 18; 7 is better than 12 and 14 vs. 5 is a draw.  I average 2 strokes better on the front than the back, under ANY wind conditions.

[JohnV]

No way 1 beats 18.  1 is a largely penal hole and 18 is a terrific half par.


I think the comments on 4 and 15 are probably correct.  The mound in front of the green on 4 makes the hole in my view because of the possibility of using a bank shot off the mound to get to a left pin from the left side.  Still - I do not think it has a huge edge.

http://www.standrews.org.uk/golf/the_courses/old_guide2004/old_course_hole_guide_4.html

http://www.standrews.org.uk/golf/the_courses/old_guide2004/old_course_hole_guide_15.html

2 is one of my favorites on the course so I agree with Ally's coments that it is a pity it goes against 17.

12 is one of my favorite holes in the world so I cannot agree that 7 is better.

I cannot understand why 9 is better than 10.  Based on my experience, it is a drive to a flat green - just a featureless long par 3.  10 green is very interesting.

Two questions after reading the description of #15.  Who was Mrs. Grainger and how big where they?

In my two times around the old course, holes 2-4 blend into my mind and I have a hard time remembering the differences.  On the other hand, 15-17 stand out from each other.  Perhaps it is just me or it is the fact that it has been 13 years since I was last there and I'm getting old.

[Bill_McBride]

In my two times around the old course, holes 2-4 blend into my mind and I have a hard time remembering the differences.  On the other hand, 15-17 stand out from each other.  Perhaps it is just me or it is the fact that it has been 13 years since I was last there and I'm getting old.

I think 2-4 run together because the tee shot is the same everytime (although the second shots are each unique) - you are hitting a blind tee shot over a bunch of gorse out to the left.  That makes them run together.

The homeward holes are all open tee shots with OB right (starting at #14), so they are more memorable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()