I saw a comment in another thread about how holes 10-16 at Augusta National may be an unparalleled stretch of 7 holes in golf.
This got me thinking, well daydreaming, of what it would be like to play those holes. It occurred to me that walking down the eleventh fairway to amen corner, putting out that hole and quickly you are on the 12th tee with little time to reflect on a great hole since you have yet another right in front of you. And there's no time to waste as you're off to one of the best par 5s in golf in the 13th. And perhaps only a brief opportunity for reflection can be had at 14's tee as 14 green, hole 15 and 16 await.
You get what I mean. Just watching on t.v. it's a lot to take in, and I'd love to hear from those who have played the course (Pat Mucci, this is the kind of experiential stuff where you're input would be super valuable to me!). Anyway, the whole idea of a stretch of world-class holes back-to-back-to-back etc... made me wonder, is it better for the overall experience to have a dud or two break up great stretches of golf?
I would hope these "duds" aren't bad holes, just less interesting architecturally. So that perhaps while playing it my mind might have a respite from the sensory overload that occurs while playing a truly great golf hole. It would give one's mind a chance to reflect rather than try and cram every detail and thought so that it may be analyzed and reviewed post-round. Perhaps this the GCA-er curse, or a more personal one as I try to extract every significant architectural feature I can from average to poor courses that I frequent.
P.S. Yes, I absolutely realize the absurdity of the premise, but is there nothing to it?