GDs Worst of the Best per Ron Whitten

[Mike Fowler]

I wish they had added the 18th at Bandon Trails to that list. I know lots of people love the hole but I don't think a long, blind, uphill, into the wind par 4 should end such a great track. It's one of my least favorite holes on an otherwise very good golf course. Leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Just one man's opinion.

[Mike Hendren]

Whitten also said Erin Hills was "one of the best five properties I've ever seen," so it it not unprecedented if he's wrong on this issue as well. 

I think anyone that doesn't believe the 18th at  CPC is a poor hole should be forever estopped from mentioning the detrimental impact of trees on a golf course. 

Also, I think the 2nd at Pebble is a beautiful short par five with a classical timeless look. 

Mike

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike,

Why is it that Southern writers can cut to the quick so well? One sentence says it all.

Bob

[JR Potts]

here's Ron's reasons, and these are quotes
6- Medina's 9th - the hole turns left and the fairway slopes right, into trees

First, Medinah has an "h" at the end of it.  Second, while I cannot totally argue with the selection, I must correct you.  The 9th hole does not slope right into the trees.  The fairwary has no lateral slope.  I would have picked the 15th hole at Medinah over 9.

I have to totally agree with #5 at Whistling, #2 at Pebble.

[PThomas]

here's Ron's reasons, and these are quotes
6- Medina's 9th - the hole turns left and the fairway slopes right, into trees

First, Medinah has an "h" at the end of it.  Second, while I cannot totally argue with the selection, I must correct you.  The 9th hole does not slope right into the trees.  The fairwary has no lateral slope.  I would have picked the 15th hole at Medinah over 9.

I have to totally agree with #5 at Whistling, #2 at Pebble.

sorry for the misspell...and don't correct me about the slope, Ron wrote it!

[JR Potts]

Sorry.

[Tom Naccarato]

Jeff,
What do Rees and Damian have to do with any of this? Your just stretching for an excuse because someone is calling you on it.

I'm just calling you on this for what it is and make no mistake about it: I think you would kiss Ron's ass for the benefits, and your showing that here, but the thing is that I agree with what your saying. I just don't think its appropriate for YOU to comment because of the conflict of interest that does exist. If you don't think you have a conflict of interest in it, well then you better go figure out what the term means.

It doesn't mean I don't like you Jeff, but I think its more appropriate for you to abstain from threads where such conflict can be questioned. JMHO.

[Jim Nugent]

here's Ron's reasons, and these are quotes

4 - Olympic - stated already

I didn't see Ron's reason for this hole, which is one of my all-time favorites.  Can you repeat it?

Given his other reasons, I could see #4 at Olympic making his list, though that too seems like a cool hole to me. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
What do Rees and Damian have to do with any of this? Your just stretching for an excuse because someone is calling you on it.

I'm just calling you on this for what it is and make no mistake about it: I think you would kiss Ron's ass for the benefits, and your showing that here, but the thing is that I agree with what your saying. I just don't think its appropriate for YOU to comment because of the conflict of interest that does exist. If you don't think you have a conflict of interest in it, well then you better go figure out what the term means.

It doesn't mean I don't like you Jeff, but I think its more appropriate for you to abstain from threads where such conflict can be questioned. JMHO.

Tommy,

I think I stated why I mentioned others who have been thrashed about here...they are my friends.

I agree that me, and about 300 other gca's befriend the media types in hopes of some postive pub.  The media types are friendly with us because they need the access for quotes, etc.  Many of us really like Ron because he was the first to really look at who designed a course, like the gca instead of the name pro and the associates within firms.  Not to mention his great contribution to "the Golf Course", "Golf Has Never Failed Me" etc. 

So, I misunderstood what Ryan was saying a little bit, since I presumed RW had some meat on the bone, even in a very short and snappy piece.  But I don't have any conflict of interest in any way shape or form with posting my opinions on his piece, or any other comments to it.

I am going to say that as far as I can tell, I harass RW far, far less than other gca's.  I also have never even sent a single voter out to rank one of my GD courses......wait, that didn't come out right!

[Tom Naccarato]

Jeff, Please point me in some direction of a harsh critique of one of Ron's write-ups that you didn't care for on one of your courses. (I've never seen one, and would be interested if he has been of critical comment)

I'll give you two that I think were about as off-base as one could get: the Friar's Head/Hidden Creek review which was downright bizarre, and the other, Architorture--Talking Stick South, which wasn't anything close to Architorture. Both of those reviews were on "friend," Bill Coore.

With that, my thinking is that your poliiticking works for you when it comes to Golf Digest.

By the way, thanks for letting the Stars kick the Ducks ass the other night.

[Anthony Gray]

Why is this a bad hole?  I like it.   18 is the bad hole at WS.   Sure, 5 is a little out of character with the rest of the course, but it's a challenging Par 5 that requires the player to both draw and cut the ball to obtain the best results.   

I would agree with the 5th at WS.

I know there was an environmental issue with building the hole, but come on.

   This is my favorite Dye par 5. Is there another hole like it in the world. Very unique.


                Anthony

[PCCraig]

Why is this a bad hole?  I like it.   18 is the bad hole at WS.   Sure, 5 is a little out of character with the rest of the course, but it's a challenging Par 5 that requires the player to both draw and cut the ball to obtain the best results.   

I would agree with the 5th at WS.

I know there was an environmental issue with building the hole, but come on.

   This is my favorite Dye par 5. Is there another hole like it in the world. Very unique.


                Anthony

Anthony...how so?

[Anthony Gray]

  Pat,

  I think it is unique. Your drive and secound shot go in opposite directions. The green is so small that it takes a prayer to hit in in two which evens the playing field for players that do not have long drivers. It is the only hole on the course with water in play so it may not fit the course well. But is there another hole in the world like it?

                           Anthony

[PCCraig]

Anthony-

With all due respect, that sounds like 100 different holes Pete has already done, and like a few more in Florida. I think whatever design went into the hole was dictated by having to get a hole from the 4th green to the 6th tee, and through two environmentaly sensitive areas. I have no problem with the water being there, but the fairway is too narrow. Unless you are a +5, you have no choice but to lay up.

[Tom Huckaby]

I was gleefully away from computers for several days.

But I will confirm that as Bob says, 18 CPC has been discussed seemingly countless times over the years.  It comes up all the time in discussions just like this (bad holes on great courses) or when CPC itself is discussed (which is also very often).

And most do dislike the hole.  I personally am one who never has thought it to be as bad as others... but I do empathize with Mr. Huntley.  It does require a tee shot of over 175 yards which is launched VERY high (to clear the trees).  If one has that shot, it can be a very fun - and challenging - hole.  But if one doesn't, well... as Bob says there is no there there.  I get that.

I just wonder how the hole would be with the offending trees removed.  To me it would be a pretty simple hole then - hit something out 200, hit something 150 up the hill.  Oh the huge tree short left of the green would still cause trouble... I just wonder if this would be a net improvement.

It surely would make things much more doable for the members.  But it also would be a fairly blah golf hole.  I don't know.

TH

ps - I have a need to gloat... and I hate starting OT threads... so I'm gonna bury it here.  Mr. Huntley will understand.  Rather huge win for my beloved Arsenal over the weekend.  And since I was in Tahoe.. and one can bet on anything at a sports book... well, see the below:



We kick ManU's ass, and I win money on it... oh yes, life is good.

[Andy Troeger]

  Pat,

  I think it is unique. Your drive and secound shot go in opposite directions. The green is so small that it takes a prayer to hit in in two which evens the playing field for players that do not have long drivers. It is the only hole on the course with water in play so it may not fit the course well. But is there another hole in the world like it?

                           Anthony

I agree with Pat on this one. Even at the same resort, the general idea isn't that much different than the 16th at Blackwolf Run River. I don't think the 5th at WS is a bad hole, but the one at Blackwolf blows it away IMO. I birdied the 5th playing it conservatively, but its a pretty basic station to station hole for most folks. You like that aspect about it, I'm not a big fan.

[Michael Moore]

I'm just calling you on this for what it is and make no mistake about it: I think you would kiss Ron's ass for the benefits, and your showing that here, but the thing is that I agree with what your saying. I just don't think its appropriate for YOU to comment because of the conflict of interest that does exist. If you don't think you have a conflict of interest in it, well then you better go figure out what the term means.

It doesn't mean I don't like you Jeff, but I think its more appropriate for you to abstain from threads where such conflict can be questioned. JMHO.

Tom -

Conflict of interest? That sounds serious. I looked it up. It seems that a conflict of interest is created by the roles that you occupy, not by what you type when you are chit-chatting on a public discussion board.

What possible obligation does Jeff Brauer have to this discussion group that would conflict with any of his duties as a golf course architect?

As a purveyor of yardage books, do I generate a "conflict of interest" if I come on here and claim that rangefinders are destroying the game?

[Jordan Wall]

I believe the 2nd at Pebble is a reasonable hole. Although it may lack aesthetic appal of the seaside holes and the drive may not set the world on fire, but it has a well placed cross bunker to make one ponder the second shot, and a green that is accepting to woods yet providing interest to a wedge. Would the 1st or 3rd not a better candidate for this list?

Matthew,

I agree completely in regards to the second hole, and to answer your question, I do not believe that the first or third holes would be reasonable candidates for this.

There are several features that makes the second a good hole.  The cavernous bunker short of the green is an excellent, highly original feature.  The green is shaped so back right hole locations are particularly taxing.  Hence, the best way to get them is to challenge the fairway bunkers on the left, assuming you are getting there in two.  For shorter hitters, carrying that ravine bunker is a big enough thought.

It really is a good hole.  Not great, but it serves its purpose and features one of the most spectacular bunkers on the golf course.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm just calling you on this for what it is and make no mistake about it: I think you would kiss Ron's ass for the benefits, and your showing that here, but the thing is that I agree with what your saying. I just don't think its appropriate for YOU to comment because of the conflict of interest that does exist. If you don't think you have a conflict of interest in it, well then you better go figure out what the term means.

It doesn't mean I don't like you Jeff, but I think its more appropriate for you to abstain from threads where such conflict can be questioned. JMHO.

Tom -

Conflict of interest? That sounds serious. I looked it up. It seems that a conflict of interest is created by the roles that you occupy, not by what you type when you are chit-chatting on a public discussion board.

What possible obligation does Jeff Brauer have to this discussion group that would conflict with any of his duties as a golf course architect?

As a purveyor of yardage books, do I generate a "conflict of interest" if I come on here and claim that rangefinders are destroying the game?

MM,

I racked my brain last night trying to figure out where TN thought I would have a conflict of interest in my comments on RW and could come up with nothing.  If "what it is" that he is calling me out on is me trying to get some good pub any way I can to offset the marketing machines of bigger gca's, certainly its not unethical for any businessman to court good press, nor a conflict of interest.  In factm its my job to get more jobs, and its my job to help get any clients good publicity as possible.

In that regard, our obligation to this website is to comply with the unstated rule that gca.com is not here for us to promote ourselves or our projects.  If I had pointed out a glowing RW (or other) review of my work it might get close to some boundaries, which are frankly, grey at best.

So, TN is right about the potential for conflict here, but I don't think commenting on a Golf Digest article, admitting I did so in part because I know Ron, etc. etc. etc. constitutes a breach of any interest.  As always, if I have, I am sure the majority here will let me know!

[Kevin_Reilly]

here's Ron's reasons, and these are quotes

4 - Olympic - stated already

I didn't see Ron's reason for this hole, which is one of my all-time favorites.  Can you repeat it?

Given his other reasons, I could see #4 at Olympic making his list, though that too seems like a cool hole to me. 

He cites the 3-level green as being out of character with the rest of the course.  If the article/one-pager had been better researched, RW might have learned that the green, right now, is being rebuilt to its pre-1971 two tier version.