The Worst Hole on the Course

[David_Elvins]

please explain.  It seems there is plenty of room to land a ball short of the green on 11 if the wind was really strong.

James b

James,

When downwind, both the tee shot and second shot are less interesting.  You have a lot of room to drive down the left, get a kick down the hill and wedge it in from there.  

Both the tee shot and second shot are much better IMO, when you drive to the top of the hill and approach the green from the top of the hill.  


(sorry to get off topic, hope this thread gets back to determining who is a moron). 

[James Bennett]

no problems Dave - you hit the ball too far. And I don't

I would say that distance off the tee and to the green is one of the polarizing issues for Barnbougle opinions.

James B

[Niall C]

You can put me in the "moron" camp

Niall

Okay, Niall.  Got you down.  If you can figure out how, you can just put that quote as your avatar.

Avatar ? Whats an avatar ?

[Sean_A]

I would hope you would overlook those things just because it is fun to play.

George

Being a one-ff doesn't preclude it from being fun. 

Garland

When someone who knows a lot more about architecture than I can ever hope to and that someone tells me there are other TOCs out there, I will buy your story.

Pietro

Why of course the quality of a course is judged by the individual holes and how they work as a group.

I will let ya know what my most recent thoughts are about TOC after my visit next weekend.  I have long avoided going back, but the time has come to belly up and take my medicine.

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I was thinking of you and the courses you profile with that question. Invariably I think those courses you profile wonderful, even though invariably they aren't chock full of individual holes that are outstanding or 'world class' -- and even though the often have more than a few so-called weak holes. It seems to me that TOC has much more in common with those courses than it does with the Pine Valleys or NGLAs of the world.

Glad you're getting back.

Peter

[Philippe Binette]

not to complicate things but defining a worst hole as to taken for account the context.

ex: there's nothing wrong, technically, with the donald steel holes on the Eden courseāt St. Andrews... except that they are on the Eden course at St. Andrews

About the Old Course, the worst hole out there is probably more the 6th than the 9th... not that the 6th is a bad hole, it's a good hole. But to me, the 9th is so memorable that it is really good. I've walked the course, I don't know 10 times and play it 3 times, still doesn't have a clear picture of the 6th hole.

The 9th hole has so much temptation in it... looks so easy yet. The average player has to worry about the central bunkers.. The player trying to drive the green, with some wind from the ocean, has to aim at the corner of the gorse bush 50 yards short of the green... a slight pull and it's lost ball...a terrible thought on such an easy holes so there goes the wide right miss, the indifferent pitch to 12 feet, a missed putt and there you go, a par 4 that lead a bad taste going to the 10th tee... then the player plays agressive for no reason on 10 and makes bogey...
TOC 1, the golfer 0

[Sean_A]

  Why?  Because TOC is a one off. 

Sean, I would presume to know, but, my understanding is that it's not as much as a one off, as it is the core principles that make it so.

Adam

The idea of core principles at TOC has long intrigued me.  I had been listening to archies spout off about TOC principles for so long that until recently I hadn't actually paid attention to what was being said.  Why is it that blind bunkering, blind shots, bunkers placed just about anywhere and double greens aren't considered the core priinciples of TOC?  We hear all the time about TOC and strategy, but that is quite vague.  What goes into making strategic golf?

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

What goes into making strategic golf?

The distance between the tee and the hole.

[Philippe Binette]

it's the road to get to the hole... or actually the roads

honestly: strategy starts at the hole and goes back to the tee

[Kyle Harris]

it's the road to get to the hole... or actually the roads

honestly: strategy starts at the hole and goes back to the tee

This is too one-dimensional and not abstract enough a notion, in my opinion.

Since golf is fundamentally a game where shots are spent to overcome distance, the first and foremost strategy to employ for a hole is one that follows the line nearest the direct line from the tee to the hole.

The second layer of abstraction for strategy then involves questions of how much away from this shortest route the golfer is willing to spend shots in order to simplify the next shot.

As golf is 100% a results oriented game, the only true qualitative measure of a shot's value is by how much it increases the odds of holing the subsequent shot or whether or not the shot is holed.

[Philippe Binette]

I agree with you kyle... but since getting as close to the target (hole) you can is the way, you have to look from the target backward to figure out your strategy...

then evaluate, as you said, how close you want to go away from the straight line... or how close you want to get from the ideal line to approach.

 

[Sean_A]

it's the road to get to the hole... or actually the roads

honestly: strategy starts at the hole and goes back to the tee

This is too one-dimensional and not abstract enough a notion, in my opinion.

Since golf is fundamentally a game where shots are spent to overcome distance, the first and foremost strategy to employ for a hole is one that follows the line nearest the direct line from the tee to the hole.

The second layer of abstraction for strategy then involves questions of how much away from this shortest route the golfer is willing to spend shots in order to simplify the next shot.

As golf is 100% a results oriented game, the only true qualitative measure of a shot's value is by how much it increases the odds of holing the subsequent shot or whether or not the shot is holed.

Kyle

I think overcoming distance as the fundamental aspect of golf is far too simple.  While distance is important, choosing a distance (and line) to hit is more important.  When I have a 50 yard shot my thoughts aren't about overcoming that 50 yards, they are about getting the ball as close to the hole as can reasonably be expected.  If I have a 30 foot putt my thoughts aren't about overcoming that distance.  Distance isn't the issue for many times a 30 footer is no more inherently difficult than a 40 footer.  In fact, many times the reverse could be true, but choosing a distance and line never loses its importance.

Ciao

[PThomas]

Ton D - how the hell can you throw up TOC?  There is so much wrong with that course on which it gets a pass that it is totally a unique case.  Thats why there is only one TOC and why nobody has tried to recreate it. 

Ciao

Sean,

I would have to agree here 100%.   

Shots over buildings
Criss-Crossing fairways/holes
OB on the right side the entire way
People intentionally playing to someone else's fairway creating safety hazards.
Asphalt roads in play

such blasphemy!

I don't see courses being designed like this today...what gives?  If its so charming and cool, why would anyone who tried it today get run out of the business?

I must admit, I have a really hard time understanding the double standard of what was good then, isn't good now...

Because:

1. its the home of golf
2. of the history made there
3. some quirk is cool
4. blind shots are cool
5. both the low and high handicappers can play it

etc., etc...........

[James Bennett]

About the Old Course, .....

The 9th hole has so much temptation in it... looks so easy yet. The average player has to worry about the central bunkers.. The player trying to drive the green, with some wind from the ocean, has to aim at the corner of the gorse bush 50 yards short of the green... a slight pull and it's lost ball...a terrible thought on such an easy holes so there goes the wide right miss, the indifferent pitch to 12 feet, a missed putt and there you go, a par 4 that lead a bad taste going to the 10th tee... then the player plays agressive for no reason on 10 and makes bogey...
TOC 1, the golfer 0

Harrumph, harrumph.  The thought is even worse when others in the playing group do hit the green in one, and you only play one shot on the hole yourself.

The reverse 9th has a central hazard which adds something different, depending on the firmness of the fairway and the wind.

James B

[Chris Kane]

The 9th hole has so much temptation in it... looks so easy yet. The average player has to worry about the central bunkers.. The player trying to drive the green, with some wind from the ocean, has to aim at the corner of the gorse bush 50 yards short of the green... a slight pull and it's lost ball...a terrible thought on such an easy holes so there goes the wide right miss, the indifferent pitch to 12 feet, a missed putt and there you go, a par 4 that lead a bad taste going to the 10th tee... then the player plays agressive for no reason on 10 and makes bogey...
TOC 1, the golfer 0

Philippe, I think you're projecting qualities onto this hole which simply don't exist. It is as basic as it comes: gorse left, a couple of small bunkers on the right, and the flattest green on the course. Yes, a good player who makes 4 there will leave the green disappointed, but that's to be expected on the easiest hole on a championship course anywhere in the world. It doesn't give the hole some greater virtue.

On the most humble of municipal courses, it would be one of the less interesting holes.

Contrast this to six, which gives a significant penalty to those who goes left off the tee (blind second), coupled with the big depression at the front of the green. Its always a really challenging pitch too, especially when played downwind to a front or middle pin. One of the more underrated holes there, IMO.

[Kyle Harris]

it's the road to get to the hole... or actually the roads

honestly: strategy starts at the hole and goes back to the tee

This is too one-dimensional and not abstract enough a notion, in my opinion.

Since golf is fundamentally a game where shots are spent to overcome distance, the first and foremost strategy to employ for a hole is one that follows the line nearest the direct line from the tee to the hole.

The second layer of abstraction for strategy then involves questions of how much away from this shortest route the golfer is willing to spend shots in order to simplify the next shot.

As golf is 100% a results oriented game, the only true qualitative measure of a shot's value is by how much it increases the odds of holing the subsequent shot or whether or not the shot is holed.

Kyle

I think overcoming distance as the fundamental aspect of golf is far too simple.  While distance is important, choosing a distance (and line) to hit is more important.  When I have a 50 yard shot my thoughts aren't about overcoming that 50 yards, they are about getting the ball as close to the hole as can reasonably be expected.  If I have a 30 foot putt my thoughts aren't about overcoming that distance.  Distance isn't the issue for many times a 30 footer is no more inherently difficult than a 40 footer.  In fact, many times the reverse could be true, but choosing a distance and line never loses its importance.

Ciao

Sean,

It's more that the fundamental challenge of the game is the fact that the tee is far away from the hole. The chief hazard is distance. I see no way that this can be argued as removing any of the constituents parts makes whatever it you are doing not golf.

450 yards, 50 yards, 30 feet. The whole point is to manuever the ball into the hole from those positions as efficiently as possible.

[Sven Nilsen]

Kyle:

You've got the wrong starting point.  Your straightest line theory discounts the way a player sees a hole, whether from the tee or from the green backwards.  To me the player sees the safe line (which is not always the straightest line) and then makes strategic decisions to move off of that line to gain an advantage, whether that be to shorten the line of play, to set up an ideal angle (which may require covering further total distance) or to take trouble out of play. 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

You've got the wrong starting point.  Your straightest line theory discounts the way a player sees a hole, whether from the tee or from the green backwards.  To me the player sees the safe line (which is not always the straightest line) and then makes strategic decisions to move off of that line to gain an advantage, whether that be to shorten the line of play, to set up an ideal angle (which may require covering further total distance) or to take trouble out of play. 

This is wholly dependent on the manner in which the hole is presented. If the center line is actually perceptible to the player I agree that the player will likely work from the center. If the flag is visible from the tee... most likely not.

However, my idea is not to analyze how the player sees the hole, but instead to analyze the meta-game of golf. The only constant for every golf hole is that there is a starting point, and ending point, and a straight line between them.

The player is, categorically, attempting to take the most efficient route possible. Architectural features may enhance or degrade this route from the shortest distance (the so-called line of charm).

I think architects begin to fall into some bad traps when the attempt to design from how players see the hole but not to how the hole plays.

[Sean_A]

it's the road to get to the hole... or actually the roads

honestly: strategy starts at the hole and goes back to the tee

This is too one-dimensional and not abstract enough a notion, in my opinion.

Since golf is fundamentally a game where shots are spent to overcome distance, the first and foremost strategy to employ for a hole is one that follows the line nearest the direct line from the tee to the hole.

The second layer of abstraction for strategy then involves questions of how much away from this shortest route the golfer is willing to spend shots in order to simplify the next shot.

As golf is 100% a results oriented game, the only true qualitative measure of a shot's value is by how much it increases the odds of holing the subsequent shot or whether or not the shot is holed.

Kyle

I think overcoming distance as the fundamental aspect of golf is far too simple.  While distance is important, choosing a distance (and line) to hit is more important.  When I have a 50 yard shot my thoughts aren't about overcoming that 50 yards, they are about getting the ball as close to the hole as can reasonably be expected.  If I have a 30 foot putt my thoughts aren't about overcoming that distance.  Distance isn't the issue for many times a 30 footer is no more inherently difficult than a 40 footer.  In fact, many times the reverse could be true, but choosing a distance and line never loses its importance.

Ciao

Sean,

It's more that the fundamental challenge of the game is the fact that the tee is far away from the hole. The chief hazard is distance. I see no way that this can be argued as removing any of the constituents parts makes whatever it you are doing not golf.

450 yards, 50 yards, 30 feet. The whole point is to manuever the ball into the hole from those positions as efficiently as possible.

Kyle

Let me put it this way; when a chap hits it 500 yards in two shots then takes four to cover 40 yards, that tells me distance is only part of the game rather than the fundamental part of the game.  As a say, for more shots than not, distance is not in the least the issue, at least not in any way which means farther is better. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

You're looking at this from the idea of playing ability. I'm looking at this from the idea that golf is a game where you manuever a ball from a tee to the hole. If there is no distance between the tee and the hole... there's no point, no golf.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You're looking at this from the idea of playing ability. I'm looking at this from the idea that golf is a game where you manuever a ball from a tee to the hole. If there is no distance between the tee and the hole... there's no point, no golf.

Kyle

Okay, I get your meaning even if it is rather meaningless in the big scheme of golf.  I am afraid the idea is a bit too esoteric for a plain spoken simple lad from Michigan.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

You're looking at this from the idea of playing ability. I'm looking at this from the idea that golf is a game where you manuever a ball from a tee to the hole. If there is no distance between the tee and the hole... there's no point, no golf.

Kyle

Okay, I get your meaning even if it is rather meaningless in the big scheme of golf.  I am afraid the idea is a bit too esoteric for a plain spoken simple lad from Michigan.

Ciao

I think you'd find it more palatable if you place it in the context of your idea that bunkers are rather overused in golf. So long as the distance traversed is interesting enough, why use the bunker?

It is the distance to the hole that provides the exigence to hit the shot, and the situation around that distance that provides the skill test.

Furthermore, the trade off between short and long routes and hazards or terrain is the central idea to strategy in the game.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kyle,
sort of like what Robin Williams says..."...and then they put a lot of shit in the way..."

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,
sort of like what Robin Williams says..."...and then they put a lot of shit in the way..."

With a little flag at the end to give ye hope!

[Garland Bayley]

... Thats why there is only one TOC and why nobody has tried to recreate it.  ...

...
Garland

When someone who knows a lot more about architecture than I can ever hope to and that someone tells me there are other TOCs out there, I will buy your story.
...

Sean,

Read what you wrote originally.

Since when does existence equate to attempt to create?