What is it, architecturally, about a hard hole

[Peter Pallotta]

All of which suggests that we approach the architecture of hard and easy holes in the same way

Which I'd never thought of before

The penal-strategic divide seems less useful a framework all the time

Peter

[JESII]

no divide...just different places at the same table.

[Rich Goodale]

Jim and Peter

I didn't intend to take this thread in the direction it is going, but I like it!  "Hard" is such a relative term.......

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes Jim - but architecturally speaking, sitting much closer to eachother than I once thought, and having a great conversation while ignoring everybody else

Peter

[JESII]

Rich,

Would you agree that a "hard" hole receives higher praise than an "easy" hole of approximately equal architectural interest and quality? You cited 1 and 2 at NGLA, I haven't seem them, is #3 generally viewed as a better hole?

[JESII]

Yes Jim - but architecturally speaking, sitting much closer to eachother than I once thought, and having a great conversation while ignoring everybody else

Peter

As long as they are not talking about curry, anchovies and movies with subtitles I'm with you...

[Scott Witter]

This is a good question and we have covered it before, but no so 'head on'

I think Mark has a good point on hazards as do others especially when it comes to options.  From my perspective it is about choices, options that are obtainable and decisions that the golfer must consider given the weather conditions of the moment and their skill.  As far as hazards go, they don't have to be obvious or set as 'defined' hazards as we know them.  They can IMO be implied, suggestive or partially obscured such that the player isn't totally sure if trouble awaits for this will surely get their mind wandering.  I don't mean blind conditions, but the door should be open for 'hazards' like exaggerated, or creative ground contours that at first glance appear to be a green light and safe from the tee. Or vegetation, such as heathland combined with contours that slightly mask the start or extension of a fairway, or where a actual hazard does lie..thereby luring the player into a false sense of security.  All this to me is part of the challenge or what is architecturally difficult in the golfers mind.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Would you agree that a "hard" hole receives higher praise than an "easy" hole of approximately equal architectural interest and quality? You cited 1 and 2 at NGLA, I haven't seem them, is #3 generally viewed as a better hole?

As to your latter question, I have no idea about "generally", Jim, but for me 1 and 2 are far better holes.  3 is two whacks and two putts.  I and 2 have exquisite subtelety.  To give you some persepective, I find the 2nd 6 at Merion to be far "better" than the first 6.  Yes, the first 6 are "harder," but hardly better.  And the last 6, Ooh La La!  Talk about crescendos......

rfg

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Your comment - "Or maybe better...every hole has some form of hazardous situation...every single one, good and bad." is right on as is Peter's about how to approach hard and easy holes.  

Scott,
Agreed.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha. No, they're talking about the Old Course.

(Sorry - I'm on a blackberry, and I don't think so good on blackberry - or at least type, which is the same thing)

Rich - you have a subtle and diverse mind, which flows and influences here and there and this and that. But as to your "intentions"...well

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Peter

My intentions are and have always been to try to encourage people to look at golf shots, holes and courses with a fresh eye and not through the eyes of others, living or dead,who are or were just mortal humans as are we.

Rich

[Sean_A]

To me, and I know I am rather simple about these things, a hard hole (of the penal or strategic ilk) is best appreciated when it is there to keep you honest about your abilities.  Its a wake up call to be asked to get a four on a 450 yard hole into the wind.  To this end, there shouldn't be many of these sorts of holes because they are only good because of where they come in a game.  The quality of the hole in and of itself isn't important - its how it works with the remainder of the course which is.  Its another one of those deals where sprouts are on your plate.  Its too late to say you don't like sprouts so one deals with the situation as gracefully as one can - and this usually involves eating the blasted things.  We may not really like hard holes, but we need them to make the game complete - just as we need easy holes.  I think this is one of the reasons why North Berwick works so well.  The balance of the course is second to none.  If there ever was a course that is better as a whole entity than its parts suggest, the West Links is it.

Ciao