[Matthew Mollica]

Is it a hole on which par is easy?

Is it simply of an unispiring nature / appearance?

Is it technically deficient in a design sense?

Could a weak hole simply be described as one which, if omitted from play, would not see a golfer deprived of an interesting, enjoyable and / or thought provoking experience?

We keep talking about holes which "aren't 10s" or courses which suffer due to weak holes, yet until we accept a reasonable definition of what constitues a weak hole, those threads are going to become mired in semantics and misunderstanding.

MM

[Mike Sweeney]

I would argue that the 16th at Yale is a weak hole. Reality is, that is in comparison to the rest of the course which is great/unique/fun/interesting/challenging.

More reality is the Par 5 16th is a pretty good driving hole with the mound on the right separating men from the boys off the tee. The rest of the hole could be found on about 10,000 other courses, straight flat 2nd shot landing area, basic green, and a few shallow bunkers to guard the green. It is not a Raynor green.

Thus it is a weak Doak 4-5 hole that does not fit with the rest of the course which is a Doak 7.5 to 8.5 course.

The 18th is a controversial hole which sits in a different category. It is the type of hole that could turn Yale into a Doak 9 or Doak 6 depending on your viewpoint.

Where things get confused is when you take a Doak 5 course which is pretty consistent but nothing special. Are there any weak holes at Cornell Golf Course which is my definition of a Doak 5? None that spring to mind.

If you moved the 16th at Yale up to Cornell, it would fit right in.

There are probably only 1 or 2 holes at Cornell that you move to New Haven and fit in with the neighbors.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matthew - Great topic!  Not to bust chops, but I would prefer the theoretical discussion to people posting examples of weak holes.  I do understand that its easier for most to use real life examples.

I think the definition probably varies among players who play for score and those who play for enjoyment.  All three of your definitions would fit - with the emphasis being different for a scratch player (typically, not universally) vs. a higher handicapper who would more likely see a bland hole as the weak link.

You would have to define "design deficiency" but most would put holes with "those" in the weak category.  Breaking my own statement above, the recent discussion of the Quarry contained, I think, a reference to the tee shot on 15 as the only "weak shot" on the course - its a forced layup for some, the hazard beyond (a steep, natural bank) is hidden, and there is some question as to how far left you can hit it - i.e. lack of definition.

All of those things are traditionally called bad design, elsewhere, if not here on gca.com!

[Adam Clayman]

It is hard to quantify, mostly because everytime I think a hole might be weak it bites me in the arse.

In my mind, the 15th at Pebble is the poster child for the weak hole on the course until I appreciated it's rather generous landing area (not anymore thanks to Shivas) as the breath one can take between the difficulty of preceeding and the following holes.

Any hole which requires long rough, too much sand, trees and/or water to compensate for it's deficiencies is a weak hole in my book.

I'd cite the 17th hole at Harborside Port as one with too much sand.

[Jason Topp]

Examples from my perspective:

1.  A hole with no hazards creating interest
2.  A hole that is out of scale e.g. a wide fairway and a huge green on a short par four
3.  To my taste - a hole that takes driver out of the hands of the player
4.  A penal hole without something exciting to make it interesting.  
5.  A hole where the decisions are silly for some reason.  One hole I played was a downhill 280 yard par four where the options off the tee were to try and drive the green with water in play on 4 sides of the green, or layup to a downhill lie 190 yards short of the green.  Other examples are holes with double fairways where no one ever takes one of the options.
6.  Very sharp doglegs are often weak holes.
7.  A hole with OB tight on both sides of the fairway is usually weak.  A course with OB tight on both sides of the fairway is always weak.

[Ronald Montesano]

Point # 2 is not acceptable...As I recall, both 9 and 10 at The Old Course have fairly wide fairways and greens and are short par fours.  Sometimes the enormity of it is the psychological hazard that replaces the physical one(s).

Is a weak hole relative to the rest of the course?  Yes.  Black Diamond ski slopes in Ohio (yes, they have them) are green squares everywhere else (if not cross country trails!) 

Point # 3...Explain yourself...Takes driver out of the hands of the players?  When is driver ever out of my hands?  When you don't worry about score, your driver is your best friend.  By that definition, number 8 at Pebble Beach becomes a weak hole.

I agree with #1 and #6 right out of the gates.

#4...how can it be penal without something exciting?

#5...these are always created by amateur architects.  I've played my share all over the northeast and concur.

#7...Hmmm...Where would such a hole exist, on an isthmus or peninsula of the property?

The sign of a weak hole for me is always internal OB.  If it's part of the course, mark it as a hazard.  If you try to cut the corner or play up the wrong fairway, stake it as a hazard or don't stake it at all.  Incoming projectiles always liven up a round.

[Mark_F]

Matt,

To me, points two and four are the most valid, along with a hybrid of point three - uninspiring in a design sense.

I don't want to run over my usual rash of weak holes, so I'll pick another from  my - and your- experience, the 7th at Gunnamatta.

To me it's a weak hole primarily because the green looks like a stock-standard two-tiered job from the Architect's Book of Handy Green Designs.  Newton, Grant and Spencer could have put that green at Huntingdale without problem.

For such a wide open fairway which is presumably so wide in order to lull the unthinking big hitter into biffing it anyway on the fairway and then finding themselves out of position, the bunkering of the green complex tells you exactly where you have to hit it.

So it's a hole you could have at any course, and nothing uniquely specific to the particular one you are playing - so maybe that is another definition of a weak hole. 

And I don't want to hear any crap from Mike Clayton or Tom Doak  about how it is a linking hole between 6 and 8 - there is a lot more that could have been done there to make it more interesting, whilst still keeping the demands for the player the same.

And bugger it, I am going to sound off on Kingston Heath 4.  It's a weak hole.  The fact that it is on uninspiring land is no defence, as so to is the marvellous hole that precedes it.

It could have been designed in any number of ways - but the fairway bunkering and green orientation is like so many other holes at KH. It's weak, weak, weak.

But only at KH, of course.  Put it on National Ocean and it might be the best hole on the course?

[Sean_A]

I don't think one can generalize about what a weak hole is.  The same hole on one course may work well while not working well on another course.  It just depends.  Having said that, the holes which are going struggle to make a positive impact on me are:

reverse doglegs - not a bad idea, but usually the fairway is too narrow
holes purposely designed to be mainly cross wind holes with narrow fairways
back to back par 5s
holes with severely uphill narrow plateau greens that are predominately downwind
holes which force a layup then require a long club home

The final two are very specific design features that I loathe: 

Bunkers next to water or vice versa - whatever suits your fancy
Natural slopes leading to greens that are cut off

Ciao 

[Matthew Mollica]

A consistent theme in the responses to date has been that the surrounding holes on a particular course may well exert a significant influence on whether or not one particular hole, is viewed as weak.  Should each golf hole be considered in isolation, as an individual entity, with its merits assessed free of influence from adjacent holes?

Matthew

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

I used to be strictly against sharp doglegs, feeling they were either too easy with no trees or too hard with heavy trees.  However, I can cite two examples from my own work that have changed my own mind.  The 14th at Tangleridge and the 16th at the Bridges (opened today)

Both holes are sharp dogleg, longish par 4's (The bridges is 501 from the tip, has a 50 yard wide fw, and doglegs with the wind, with a trench grass bunker guarding the inside of the DL well past where most can hit.  We talk about challenging a hazard for a better angle to the green, but how about challenging the hazard to save 20 or 30 yards on a long par 4 approach shot? 

As has been discussed here, Brad Faxon was quoted as saying you need to make a three club difference to encourage a risk near a hazard.  A sharp DL with a wide fw certainly does that.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I used to be strictly against sharp doglegs, feeling they were either too easy with no trees or too hard with heavy trees.  However, I can cite two examples from my own work that have changed my own mind.  The 14th at Tangleridge and the 16th at the Bridges (opened today)

Both holes are sharp dogleg, longish par 4's (The bridges is 501 from the tip, has a 50 yard wide fw, and doglegs with the wind, with a trench grass bunker guarding the inside of the DL well past where most can hit.  We talk about challenging a hazard for a better angle to the green, but how about challenging the hazard to save 20 or 30 yards on a long par 4 approach shot? 

As has been discussed here, Brad Faxon was quoted as saying you need to make a three club difference to encourage a risk near a hazard.  A sharp DL with a wide fw certainly does that.

Jeff:

That is why I said as a general rule.  I certainly could see a hole with a sharp dogleg as an interesting hole.  I just have not seen many of them.

[Jason Topp]

Point # 2 is not acceptable...As I recall, both 9 and 10 at The Old Course have fairly wide fairways and greens and are short par fours.  Sometimes the enormity of it is the psychological hazard that replaces the physical one(s).

Ronald - I stand by point 2.  Often, holes are simply out of scale.   


Here are four short to midlength par fours with wide fairways, all on courses I like very much.  Each hole is designed to be a breather hole, either a gentle opener or a break from a series of difficult holes.

The first two are, in my view, weak holes.  You simply hit a wide fairway off the tee and then hit a pitch to a big green.




The next two provide subtle but nonetheless significant force a decision off the tee.  On the first, if you leave your tee shot safely to the right, you must cross bunkers to a shallow green.  If you hug the left, you go up the direction of the green.

The third hole is similar, except the bunkers and the shape of the green reward a tee shot hugging the bunker and the junk left off the tee with an approach to an open green favorably sloped.



On this one- the green slopes away and a tee shot hugging the right leaves a visible shot without the need to carry bunkers.

This is a view backwards:




Also - I have argued this before but I think 9 iat the Old Course is a weak hole.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff. How dare you design a hole with a 50 yard wide fwy. Aren't you aware the tend is to narrow fwys everywhere?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would argue that the 16th at Yale is a weak hole. Reality is, that is in comparison to the rest of the course which is great/unique/fun/interesting/challenging.

Mike,

While I'd agree that # 16 may be weak, I don't agree with how you determine that.

I think your's is a flawed definition.

If other holes are great, you can't call a very good or good hole a weak hole because it doesn't measure up in comparison to the great holes.

I don't think it's a measure of relativity, but rather, absolutes.

More reality is the Par 5 16th is a pretty good driving hole with the mound on the right separating men from the boys off the tee. The rest of the hole could be found on about 10,000 other courses, straight flat 2nd shot landing area, basic green, and a few shallow bunkers to guard the green. It is not a Raynor green.

Do you think that the original version was better ?

What would you do to enhance the hole ?

And, the bigger question is:
Do you begin to alter holes at Yale, or other courses because you want to improve them ?
If so, wouldn't you agree that you should study CBM/SR and try to make any modification "fit in" with the archectural theme at Yale ?

Before I modified # 16, and I do think it needs modification, I'd restore the 2nd green.

Thus it is a weak Doak 4-5 hole that does not fit with the rest of the course which is a Doak 7.5 to 8.5 course.

I think that is immaterial to the issue.

The 18th is a controversial hole which sits in a different category. It is the type of hole that could turn Yale into a Doak 9 or Doak 6 depending on your viewpoint.

# 18 has great character and uniqueness.

Where things get confused is when you take a Doak 5 course which is pretty consistent but nothing special. Are there any weak holes at Cornell Golf Course which is my definition of a Doak 5?

None that spring to mind.

If you moved the 16th at Yale up to Cornell, it would fit right in.

There are probably only 1 or 2 holes at Cornell that you move to New Haven and fit in with the neighbors.

[Jim Nugent]

Is it a hole on which par is easy?

Easy for who? 

For pro's (and probably top ams), almost all par 5's are easy pars.  They average well under par on them.  Does that make nearly all par 5's weak holes? 

#18 at TOC is an easy par, at least for the pro's.  A weak hole?

At the opposite end, for average/weak players, there are very few easy pars.  And they are probably the big majority. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Understood.  Just an example of how the exception proves the rule!

Adam,

As I played it, I began wondering if cost concerns would narrow down the fw at some point and make it another penal, long par 4.  I narrowed from the wide side of the DL, then an approach would be 30 yards longer and from the rough.  At 501, I might be kidding myself that anyone on the outside of the DL could get home, even from the fw.  I was in the middle of the LZ and had 205.  My hope is that good players could perhaps do it at could 230 some of the time (vs 180 or so.)  But, 230 from the rough would, I think, just turn this hole into a three shotter for those who played too conservatively.

Of course, the next phase of the evolution would be to put trees in the rough over there, which would really make the approach shot a layup if the fw was narrowed.

[Matthew Mollica]

Jim - that's eactly why I asked what I asked.

MM

[Shane Gurnett]

Matt, is a weak hole one which should be architecturally better given the land is sits on, but isnt because it isnt?

[Chris Kane]

It depends whether you're using "weak" as a substitute for "bad", or "weak" as an adjective for a hole which struggles to defend itself against par.

[Kevin Pallier]

Could a weak hole simply be described as one which, if omitted from play, would not see a golfer deprived of an interesting, enjoyable and / or thought provoking experience?

We keep talking about holes which "aren't 10s" or courses which suffer due to weak holes, yet until we accept a reasonable definition of what constitues a weak hole, those threads are going to become mired in semantics and misunderstanding.

MM

I dont think one can talk in absolutes.

I may find a specific hole "weak" when compared to some of the others on a particular course and that may still be a relatively good hole.

Then again I may find a component of a particular hole "weak" but overall I may still find it a very good hole. An example is the 18th at my home club. There is a fairway bunker that is right in front of a hazard - for why I do not know - but despite this fact I still like the hole.

Opinions and definitions are all subjective

[Patrick_Mucci]

I dont think one can talk in absolutes.

Absolutely, you can

I may find a specific hole "weak" when compared to some of the others on a particular course and that may still be a relatively good hole.

That it's a good hole is an absolute, providing that your assessment is valid.

Then again I may find a component of a particular hole "weak" but overall I may still find it a very good hole.

This isn't a thread on individual features, but, the entirety of the hole.
If it's a good hole, the merits of the positive features outweigh the demerits of the negative features.

An example is the 18th at my home club. There is a fairway bunker that is right in front of a hazard - for why I do not know - but despite this fact I still like the hole.

Opinions and definitions are all subjective.

Evidently you never took/studied Geometry, especially Euclidian Geometry.

[John Moore II]

-I would say that a "weak" hole is one that has very little character. Something like a par 3 with very little contour in the green and no bunkers (of course thats an extreme).

-A weak hole may simply be a hole that is not as good as the rest of the holes on the course (a hole may be 'weak' at a very exceptional course and yet be great in comparison to holes if at another course).

-A weak hole may not fit the lay of the land as well as it could. I feel that hole which are laid out very close to a large, scenic, natural water feature yet do not bring it into play or possibly even into vision, are weak in comparison to what could have been put there.

-There are other definitions, but those three are a start.

[Ronald Montesano]

Just thought of a sharp dogleg par four that simply does not look like one:  the 11th at Crag Burn near Buffalo.  The hole flows downhill from tee to landing area, with an enormous collection of sand pits at the inside right corner of the dogleg.  Lonnie Nielsen, now on the Champs Tour and the Director of Golf there for years, always hit three wood straight away.  The reason is, carrying the sand gives you no advantage and minimizes your options to 1 when approaching said green:  hit it high and hope (the Jack Nicklaus school of approach shots.)  Play safely left and you see the green open up before you, although it is a demanding three-pronged green.  I think the sharp doglegs I dislike are the ones of the tunnel variety, the ones that eliminate options.

[JNC Lyon]

Ronald:

Are you saying you dislike 11 at Crag Burn? Personally I love the hole.  The bunkering on the inside of the dogleg creates a perfect line of charm:  since the hole is in full view, the presence of the bunkers and the green beyond it lures the player towards the green, whereas most should just take the Nielsen route.  The greensite has great character as well, and it makes it so the optimum angle of attack varies from day to day (i. e. going over the bunker gives a much better angle to a back right pin then from the middle of the fairway).  It's hard to believe two of my favorite holes on a Trent Jones course would be short par fours (11 and 3, the latter of which is a fantastic hole with a very unique green).

Holes that could be defined as weak are:

-Ones that rely solely on length to be difficult.
-Holes where hazard placement or green contours defy the slope of the land.
-Holes that rely on trees for difficulty.
-Holes with no challenge or strategy off the tee
-Every hole at Firestone South (just kidding, I've never played there, but seriously).

A good way to avoid weak holes to build a green with great strategy and interest.  Of course, a good green can only do so much to save a hole from mediocrity.

[John Moore II]

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.

-Holes where hazard placement or green contours defy the slope of the land.

Yes, but not green contours as much as hazard placement.

-Holes that rely on trees for difficulty.

Not always, think 18 at Pebble or 17 at Cypress.

-Holes with no challenge or strategy off the tee

In this case, I think you would feel like many of the holes at Pinehurst #2 are weak, at least in the current set-up.

-Every hole at Firestone South (just kidding, I've never played there, but seriously).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()