[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,

Are you saying that the removal of the man made structures wouldn't have any impact on the play of the hole ?

That it wouldn't make the hole easier ?

[David Lott]

I never saw the hole before the hotel. Was the green not visible from the tee then? I assumed it wasn't then either.

The big creamy box of the hotel is a monstrosity, out of character with the town, and a blight on the land. I just ignore it in my admiration of the hole, which springs more from the second shot and what ensues than from the drive. I block the hotel out of my mind both on the drive (except when I bounce one off the roof) and in my love of the hole.

Idealizing? Sure. We idealize what we love.

I never meant to say that the hotel enhances the hole. For me a drive over man made objects does enhance it--another very unusual charactaristic. I wish it wern't the hotel. In my romantic mind, they are still the railway sheds I never saw.

All of which probably goes to support Patrick's point that the green is the brightest facet in this gem.

[ForkaB]

Without its context, #17 TOC green would not be considerd "great" IMO.  It is a relatively one-dimensional green which is made interesting by:

--the fact that it is on TOC, many of the most important shots in golf have taken place there, and we have been able to see all of those shots, due to the wonders of television
--the fact that it is the 17th, which makes it especiially important in any round of golf.
--the fact that it is a 460 yard hole, so even elite players need long-mid irons most of the time to approach the green.
--the fact of the tee shot, whose blindness and demand for commitment has been deatiled well by Jeff and others

In regard to the latter two points, I would argue that if the hole was 400 yards, we wouldn't think that much of the green complex.  Under that scenario, one would apporach with a short iron in one's hand, and it would not be that difficult for the pros to hit it close, particularly with the backstop/sidestop of land leading up to the road.

My basic point, realting to the quesiton at hand, is that "features" are really great only in the context of the hole and the course they are on.  You could build the world's greatest "feature", or even its greatest hole, on an otherwise unmemorable or inaccessible track, and like the proverbial tree falling in an empty forest, nobody would hear or it or even care to know.

BTW--before the hotel (i.e. pre-1964 or so) there were real railway sheds you had to hit over (I am told....).  The faux sheds are a fairly recent addition, in an attempt to "restore" that feature.  Also, in earlier days, the railway lines were in bounds.  Darwin has a great account of Braid getting a 10 or something trying to play off the railway line after a wayward drive on 16 to lose one of the early 20th century Opens.

[Jack_Marr]

Nothing specific makes the Road Hole great. It is a great hole, in my opinoin, but it has just become great.

What was always good about the hole was its difficulty and dangers and its position on the course. The dramas that have unfolded there are some of the reasons it has become great.

If it was on a public course, there would be complaints about its difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Normally, we're in agreement on many things, but, the 17th,

"a one dimensional green"

How would you assess the 7th green at NGLA ?

Would the green be multi-dimensional if the hole was a par 5 ?

[Darren_Kilfara]

Darren Kilfara,

Are you saying that the removal of the man made structures wouldn't have any impact on the play of the hole ?

That it wouldn't make the hole easier ?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. The hole is complicated by the blindness of the drive, but I think you could have that with a four-foot-high stone wall - you don't need the hotel at all for that. The faux railway sheds do, I suppose, catch the occasional thinned tee shot, but eliminating them wouldn't make the hole easier for most golfers (and all half-decent golfers). The hotel only comes into play for slices which are heading out-of-bounds anyway.

Rich, the 17th green at TOC is not as flat on top as you seem to remember it is. It has a very interesting crown at the back, parallel to the road, and something similar on the reverse slope of Road Bunker. You can use the back crown to sling a shot in from right to left to a back-left pin position, and if you're on the road, you can use the back slope of Road Bunker to cushion a pitch and bring it back to the hole (something which I saw Tiger Woods do to perfection in person during R2 of the 2000 Open). I echo Pat's question...how do you think it's one-dimensional?

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

Darren

I'm very familiar with the "contours" on the 17th, and in fact referred to one of the two of them you mention in my post that you found wanting.  To me, from the very narrow fairway, if you want to green your 2nd, you really have only one option, which is to fly the ball onto the front right and let the ball filter down to the denter of the green.  Sure, a bump and run is possible, but given the contours of the fairway and the engtrance to the green, it is really not that feasible, unless you are John Daly and can drive it to 120 or so.

Pat

I can't comment much on NGLA 7, only having played it once.  I don't remember anything like the complexity of #1 there, for example, however.  I do not doubt that there are many ways to play into that green, depending on where you put your drive (or 2nd shot, it is a par 5, isn't it....), the pin position, the firmness (or lack therof) of the turf, etc.  However, this can be said of many, many golf holes that I know.  I didn't recognise 7 as anything particularly special in that regard, and your description makes me think "been there, done that..." rather than "Wow!"  Maybe I'll change my mind if and when I play there again.

[THuckaby2]

Just my $.02, but having played with Rich that fine October day way back when, and although I sure as hell loved NGLA more than he did (as we have discussed ad nauseam), my thoughts on #7 would echo his.  I can recall with great clarity features of just about every other hole on the golf course, but #7 just doesn't stand out as "excellent" in my memory, for any particular reason.  Like Rich, maybe this would change on repeat plays.  But for now, though it hurts I agree 100% with his take here....

I'm hoping we're both ignorant on this issue.  Wouldn't be the first time that happened for either of us!

TH

[TEPaul]

Thought I'd copy and paste this post from the other thread on TOC's #17 and NGLA's #7 onto this thread since it seems to pertain to the lastest replies on here;

"Chip Oat said:

"The subject I was discussing was the architectural merits of 2 specific golf holes - similar in many ways but somewhat different in terms of the expectations placed upon the scratch golfer by their design.  In that case, the concept (and definition) of par is absolutely, critcally, essential."

Chip:

I'm really not that sure what your point is when you bring the idea of "par" into the question when comparing TOC's #17 and NGLA's #7.

Are you just saying you think it's harder to make a 4 on NGLA's #7 because of its architecture, green orientation, whatever? If so, I suppose that might be a rather easy discussion to have.

Firstly, I've never actually seen TOC's #17 in person and obviously I've never played it so it's hard for me to talk about its green, the orientation of it or whatnot.

But I did watch the guy I lost to in this year's NGLA Singles tournament hit a good drive on the hole, a good utility wood that landed short of the green and just to the right of the road bunker, run up on the green where he sunk the putt for an eagle (par 5) or what would've been a birdie (as a par 4).

It's definitely not a green that's easy to hit in two shots but clearly either is TOC's #17 because so few players, even tour pros in the British Open, seem to actually try to hit the green in two. Why would that be do you suppose?

Perhaps it's not because #17 is easier to hit exactly or NGLA's #7 is harder to hit in two that they seem not that willing to go for TOC's #17 in two (ironically even as a par 4), while I must say I've never really noticed that many players within range of NGLA's #7 refuse to try to hit that green in two that you claim is harder to hit in two than TOC's #17.  

Perhaps it has a good deal to do with the risk side of the risk/reward equation and not just which green is easier to hit in two shots. As we have clearly seen from the water level change situation some years ago on ANGC's #13 it doesn't take much at all to alter a very good and smart player's strategic considerations on certain types of holes.

So perhaps one might logically assume that the risk ramifications on TOC's #17 (a par 4) are much more severe than the risk ramifications on NGLA's #7.

So the discussion or comparison of these two holes logically should not be limited to which is harder to hit in two and make a 4 on but should also include what are the potential risks of either hole if you try to hit either in two and fail to do so. It would certainly seem logical to assume that the risk of going over TOC's #17 onto the road or up against the wall are far more dangerous than going over NGLA's #7 into the back bunker! It would seem to me from what I've seen in the British Open that getting out of the road bunker on TOC's #17 is potentially far more penal than getting out of the road bunker on NGLA's #7!

Both holes need to be looked at from many other points of view, in my opinion, and not just which one is easier to hit in two and make a 4 on. I think TOC's #17 seems more potentially dangerous, maybe far more dangerous than NGLA's #7--nevertheless TOC's #17 is the one that's the par 4 from exactly the same yardage--eg 476yds!!

So does par still matter that much to you or are there other important considerations when you look at these two holes architecturally and try to compare them--even in context of par 4 which again appears to me to be losing it's meaning regarding what all is concerned when playing these holes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich & Tom H,

It's not the contouring of the putting surface, which is minimal, that makes the 7th so good.  It's the elevation of the green, the angle of the green, the configuration of the green and the relationship of the bunkers to those features, that make it so spectacular.

Perhaps another trip would afford you a greater opportunity to observe and study the green and its surroundings.

I was there today and spent some time looking at the above features.  I left the green with a reinforced sense of my convictions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()