This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
is a weak hole one which should be architecturally better given the land is sits on, but isnt because it isnt?
Quote from: JNC_Lyon on October 05, 2008, 12:53:01 PMHoles that could be defined as weak are:-Ones that rely solely on length to be difficult.Not exactly. A very long hole, say a 510 yard par 4, simply can't have too much other stuff around for difficulty. You can't have something like a bottleneck fairway with bunkers on either side and the hole still be playable. While I think that too many holes that are very long on one course is weak, but one single long hole with a basically open fairway and a semi-flat green is not always weak. I think a wide open 510 par four is highly uninteresting and blatantly favors the longer hitter. I agree a bottleneck fairway isn't usually feasible. However, I would cite a hole like 17 at Oak Hill (East) or 12 at Bethpage Black as long par fours that have other features to create interest and difficulty (fairway bunkering, terrain, green contours). Length is a fleeting defense of a hole as technology continues to progress and players hit the ball farther. JB Holmes hit wedge into 16 at Valhalla, whereas a short hitter would be hitting in three-wood. A hole like this is totally uninteresting unless there is some sort of defense that acts as an equalizer, particularly around the green. -Holes where hazard placement or green contours defy the slope of the land.Yes, but not green contours as much as hazard placement.I would agree with that. 16 at Oak Hill East defies the slope of the land in general, but it works because it flows easily from the fairway and is delicate in construction. Hazard placement such as Sean Arble discussed is very frustrating, although it is seldom noticed by the average golfer.-Holes that rely on trees for difficulty.Not always, think 18 at Pebble or 17 at Cypress. Yes, but isn't there some water involved in those holes too? I doubt you'd disagree that holes,especially 17 at CPC, would be better without those trees. Thus, the presence of those trees weakens the holes.-Holes with no challenge or strategy off the teeIn this case, I think you would feel like many of the holes at Pinehurst #2 are weak, at least in the current set-up.Read my next note about green contouring. From what I understand Pinehurst no. 2 contains one of the finest sets of greens in the world. It's also hard to believe these holes don't have any shape or strategy to them from what I've seen of 2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 18. Of course, I haven't played the course yet so I have no way to judge.-Every hole at Firestone South (just kidding, I've never played there, but seriously).
Holes that could be defined as weak are:-Ones that rely solely on length to be difficult.Not exactly. A very long hole, say a 510 yard par 4, simply can't have too much other stuff around for difficulty. You can't have something like a bottleneck fairway with bunkers on either side and the hole still be playable. While I think that too many holes that are very long on one course is weak, but one single long hole with a basically open fairway and a semi-flat green is not always weak. I think a wide open 510 par four is highly uninteresting and blatantly favors the longer hitter. I agree a bottleneck fairway isn't usually feasible. However, I would cite a hole like 17 at Oak Hill (East) or 12 at Bethpage Black as long par fours that have other features to create interest and difficulty (fairway bunkering, terrain, green contours). Length is a fleeting defense of a hole as technology continues to progress and players hit the ball farther. JB Holmes hit wedge into 16 at Valhalla, whereas a short hitter would be hitting in three-wood. A hole like this is totally uninteresting unless there is some sort of defense that acts as an equalizer, particularly around the green. -Holes where hazard placement or green contours defy the slope of the land.Yes, but not green contours as much as hazard placement.I would agree with that. 16 at Oak Hill East defies the slope of the land in general, but it works because it flows easily from the fairway and is delicate in construction. Hazard placement such as Sean Arble discussed is very frustrating, although it is seldom noticed by the average golfer.-Holes that rely on trees for difficulty.Not always, think 18 at Pebble or 17 at Cypress. Yes, but isn't there some water involved in those holes too? I doubt you'd disagree that holes,especially 17 at CPC, would be better without those trees. Thus, the presence of those trees weakens the holes.-Holes with no challenge or strategy off the teeIn this case, I think you would feel like many of the holes at Pinehurst #2 are weak, at least in the current set-up.Read my next note about green contouring. From what I understand Pinehurst no. 2 contains one of the finest sets of greens in the world. It's also hard to believe these holes don't have any shape or strategy to them from what I've seen of 2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 18. Of course, I haven't played the course yet so I have no way to judge.-Every hole at Firestone South (just kidding, I've never played there, but seriously).