16 at Valhalla

[Matt_Cohn]

Why did Nicklaus build a shallow green, fronted by bunkers, on a 510 yard par-4?

Was the old green, the long biarritzish one, a better design?

It seems like about half the guys can hold it, and half really have no chance, even from a good drive.

[Brian Phillips]

I think that hole has been changed to a Par 4 for the Ryder Cup..

[Matt_Cohn]

No, it's a regular par-4.

[RichMacafee]

I thought the original 16th had no bunkers short of the green?

[Anthony Fowler]

Why does the par of the hole matter?  If it were called a par 5, would you think it was a good hole?  If yes, then it's still a good hole.

I thought the hole was just fine, despite its relative difficulty to par (which doesn't matter because par is an arbitrary creation).

My biggest problem is those tree on the right side.  If you're in the right half of the fairway and the pin is on the right half of the green, you are completely blocked out by the trees overhanging the right side.  Chop down about 6 of those trees and you have what looks like a really fun golf hole.

[Paul Carey]

I thought it was the worst hole on the course (barely beating out 13).  The bunker in front of the green, the severity of the green and the length combined to make the second shots a crap shoot with little or no strategy.  I think removing the front bunker would have made the hole still very challenging but would allow a variety of approach shots rather than hit a long iron and hope it stops.

Unless you are JB Holmes and play the banks of the spectator area to wedge distance!

Chopping down some of those trees would help as well.

P.S.  I thought Valhalla turned out great for the event.   

[Steve Pozaric]

They did chop down a tree mid week to avoid blocking approaches for some of the longer hitting players.