I wouldn't spend a dime to play one hole. Give me the whole course or nothing at all.
Drew:
Give me a break...you wouldn't pay $10 to play #13 at Augusta or #7 at Pebble (etc...)
I know I would.
Bart
I think this thread is absurd and should be filed along side "which supermodel would you most like to make sweet love to". One hole? That's not golf.
This is a golf architecture board. ONE hole is all that a lot of courses have to offer.
The point of this thread is to determine the true opportunity costs of our golf course selections.
My source here is Raven's Claw, an Ed Shearon design in Pottstown, PA. There are maybe 3-4 holes on the golf course that I would want to play again, but I naturally cannot play them exclusive of the others. Why spend $35.00 there when I can go to Jeffersonville, Reading, or Bella Vista and play courses where I'd like to see all 18 holes?
Furthermore, I am curious as to how the presence of one or two good holes on the course can make the other holes interesting. Everyone, of course, wants to play the 17th at Sawgrass - but holes 1-16 are no slouch either and the omnipresence of 17 in the minds of golfers can only serve to make the lead up holes even better. Better yet, take away the 17th at Sawgrass and you still have a *really* good golf course on hand.
Back to Raven's Claw - where the 9th hole is really the first of the "good" holes I want to play again. However, the holes leading up to it don't exactly press me to engage them in order to gain a shot or two for the upcoming 9th.