In the main, I view golf as a game, an amusement, so any superb hole should stimulate that same zest that I have when the Monopoly set is broken out, the chess pieces aligned, the billiard balls racked or the cards being shuffled. Of course, certain architects idea of amusement is tangent to my own. I'm sure the makers of Trump National in Bedford Hills thought they were tapping into this spirit, but it turned out to be a Monopoly board with "Go to Jail" every third space or shuffling 8 decks to play one hand of poker. You're nervous at every turn. You're feeling is anxiety, not anticipation. I play golf for the zest of the latter. I bring enough anxiety to the table, without the designer enhancing any more.
Here are the questions or concepts, that if answered "yes" make it a very worthy hole in my book:
1. Does the hole, the course, delight - does it have small mystery(s) that are revealed the closer you get to the target.
2. Is putting a real shot, or is always just a timid small shoulder movement? I wish greens speeds were topped out at about 9.0 and regularly played in the high 6s. At these speeds you can have wild, amusing contours and multiple points of finesse and judgement for any particular putt. One of Yale's recent improved strengths is the execution of somewhat slower speeds that blended with the Raynor contours make for rewarding greenside play.
3. Does the hole reward both aerial and running shots? Will it favor one or the other based on the day's climate and pin positions?
4. Not every hole can do this, but I like when some chaotic, natural or engineered feature occurs. I like little foot high ridges, a large stone 35 yards from the green, a bunker on a hill that almost no one goes into, a small depression that gathers unexpectedly.
5. A manner to avoid a lost ball, even it means I have to allow/settle for a 5 or 6 on the hole, if I don't want to chance it.
6. Rough that is not uniform, more clover than strands, patchy and hardpannish here, lush over there. A 74 yard shot from hardpan is every bit as challenging as a 120 yard shot from lush 2.5 inch grass.
7. Does it say to me, "You can do this." - That's very subjective, but when so many opinions here return to certain holes over and over again, I think everyone knows the sentiment.
8. History or tradition doesn't play a massive role in the worth of a hole for me; some holes designed an hour ago can't have it for any of us and history may never draw our attention to an obscure great design. I like "odes" to the styles of historically significant holes (perhaps why I have taken to the the Mac/Raynor/Banks design features best of all) but even those have to have fluency in the design principle before the history can even play a part. When you play an American redan, you're in America, not North Berwick, you have little connection to the hundreds of thousands who have/are playing the Scottish original. I pass by the spot Mickelson blew the Open at 18th WFW three times a week...it's just a spot on a golf course, a spot he should've said "5, " but thought "4" and made "6" - people are doing it every day, it's a tough spot from which to make 4 - history is just re-affirming that, the golf hole is better than what's been done on it.
Those are a few...I may reflect on more
Cheers
vk