[Patrick_Mucci]

Does that fact that #7 at NGLA plays as a par 5 create far more options on the second shot and third shots into the green ?

Is the deep rear bunker at # 7 at NGLA a far more effective hazard then the road and wall at # 17 at TOC ?

If the hotel extension burned down, which would you say is the better hole ?

[Nigel_Walton]

Tip Anderson, the great St. Andrews caddy, was asked the secret to playing the Road Hole. His answer: "Play for a five, and you might make a four." Par, my good man, is not relevant to shot selection.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
What do you mean by "effective hazard"?

Thanks--CB

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick,

NGLA is one my favorite courses in the world and the 7th delivers a slight contrast as a 5-par to TOC's 4-par 17th.  

First, if I'm not mistaken, NGLA's Road Hole is a touch longer (I could be wrong and correct me if I am).  This can ultimately leave a player with no choice but to play it as a three shotter.  The only time it offers a similar approach as TOC's is when you bomb a drive out there long enough to reach.  Then and only then do I think that that strategy changes, at least for me it does.  Laying up becomes a much easier decision at NGLA (even though it shouldn't) because I feel that a 5 is a very good score there whereas a 5 at TOC is merely acceptable (which is a perception I need to change as well).  With two well played shots at TOC I think 4 should be quite attainable.  

As for the bunker over the green at NGLA in comparison to the Road and Wall at TOC I think TOC's is an overall tougher situation to negotiate.  I have never made worse than 5 from over the green at NGLA whereas I have made much higher than that at TOC from over the green.  I don't mean to say that the bunker over the green at NGLA is an easy hazard to play from, I just feel it is not quite as randomly penal as TOC.

These are obviously just opinions and admittedly I feel that my perceptions and mental approach to these holes need some refining, but overall I think my final analysis may not change much.

Jeff F.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You guys are missing the best part of this conversation in Desmond Muirhead's book How to Play the Old Course."

This may be one of the more quirky books written since the World Golf Atlas, and the pictures and commentary are delightful. I'm not just saying that because Desmond was a friend either. The conversation between Tip Anderson and him makes this book as well as Brian Morgan's totally unique and oblique photos.

The road has been a the nemisis of so many golfers on an otherwise triumphant round of golf. Like Hell, the Road Bunker and "the road itself" weigh heavily on the mind as you tour the rest of the course. I can think of no other hole in golf that looks so innocent and yet contains so many possibilities for disaster. If you look for symbolic inferences, which I frequently do, the Road Bunker is a man-eater and the placid green is Lorelei luring you into danger; from the golfer's point of view, the Road hole is a monster's monster.--Desmond Muirhead

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

You're suffering from long hitters syndrome.

Didn't you ever wonder how they arrived at PAR 73 at NGLA ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Wasn't the 17th at TOC originally a par 5 ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Don't space out on me, but at the time, I didn't think it was a par 5 either--but what difference does it make and who cares about the yardage? ? ? ?

But wait a second!!!!!!! Because I figure my score out by over par, that means I shot an 88! ! ! ! ! !  But guess what again? ? ? Who cares! ! ! ! !  anyone who would actually want to keep score on the National shouldn't be on the National beause they aren't looking at the architecture!

Knowing that I'm totally out of line here, I'll subject myself to the pool outside.......

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

The short answer is that I've had more trouble with #7 at NGLA than in my 5 cracks at the original Road Hole over a 20+ year period.

I've never played TOC in competition.  I've also never hit it in the road (or the Road Bunker) - missed left 4 times and got it on the front once.

The greens at TOC have never been as fast under "tourist conditions" as I've experienced at National.

However:

I believe the 7th at National is a harder green to pitch to from the fairway and also a harder green to roll it on because of 1) the construction of the green and 2) the angle.  In fact, the 7th green at National may be the most subtlely brilliant green design I know.

I do believe that the strategic risk/reward equation off the tee (down the right side) is more to my liking at St. Andrew's, though.

Also, the shot from the back/side bunker at National isn't so terrible if it's into the wind (which it usually is).

I'd need to play 17th at TOC under fast green tournament conditions to be certain (and probably hit in the road a couple of times, as well), but ARCHITECTURALLY I give the edge to MacDonald's rendition at National based on my limited experience.

However, I am of a mind that par does matter since it is, after all, the measure of what a scratch golfer makes on a hole assuming 2 putts.  And I also believe that, all other things being equal, a brilliantly designed hole is even more so if it's difficult (which is why I believe #'s 2 & 6 at NGLA have lost some of their luster over the years).

Therefore:

1) since the Road Hole is a more demanding par 4 than #7 at National is a par 5;
2) because I believe that #7 at National would be too  difficult/unfair as a par 4 because of the green complex as described above;
3) I prefer the risk/reward off the tee at St. Andrews.

I give the edge to #17 at TOC as a "better" (greater?) championship golf hole.

Does that answer the question?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

Yes...... and.... no.

My feelings are similar to yours on some of the issues.

I think the green complex at NGLA is superior to TOC.

Certainly the drive at TOC is more threatening, more difficult than the drive at NGLA.

It would be interesting to play both holes as both par 5's and par 4's and then draw our conclusions.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Don't get me wrong here, because I too think the green on #7 is simple brilliance, but I think the 17th is in fact better simply because you are staring into the face of the garage door of a false front on approach, and it can roll anywhere once you do put it on the green. Come to think of it, so does the Natonal's, only it is of a more fair nature, where the OC's is of a sort of a rub of the green. We as golfers need to get back to that point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I'm not so sure of that.

TEPaul's maintainance meld may be a critical factor.

With the fairways and greens equally fast and firm, the angle and narrowness at NGLA may provide the more difficult approach.

Remember too that NGLA's is a par 5 and TOC's a par 4.
Playing a mid iron into a green presents a different set of circumstances then playing an approach from 50 yards and in.

I'd like to play both holes under similar conditions as both par 5's and par 4's

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Where did I mention difficult? That should never have any bearing on what the moral make-up and fabric of the two different holes. They are different, and they were meant to be.

What is being represented out there are the strategies . The angle your looking at the 2nd shot at the National--in regards to the angle of the setting of the green to me is much more severe. Your not going to fly it on from there, and you can't run it up in there either unless you can make running left hooks turn abruptly at 200 yards. But that's me and my family-diagnosed Alzheimer mind.

Yes, playing both as a par 5 would make it more enlightening, but you have to remember for me, playing the 17th is playing it as a three-shotter. I had my four tries at trying to place it in the Road Bunker and each time was a disappointing failure--one time even saving par on the damn blasted hole.

Playing the 7th, it is still is a three shotter.

However I did get my chance to play off of the wall and out of the rough across the road. So I have that going for me.

Comparing the two is actually sort of redundant to some degree. At least for me, and I also think it is for Chip, but he isn't saying it. Or is he?  Ultimately it is this Patrick, If I'm at either course I'm making a play for "The Bunker" and I don't care if it means the difference between breaking 80 or saving myself from shooting 100. The only reason why I didn't go for it when I was there was because it was two feet deep in water, and I didn't feel like getting drenched if I tried to blast it out 4 or 5 times. I had a party to go to that night!

[TEPaul]

"Remember too that NGLA's is a par 5 and TOC's a par 4."

Pat:

Come on now--we've been over all this before! It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what they call either hole--a par 4 or a par 5--the idea is to play either hole in as low a number as you dare to given the risks & rewards of the holes. If neither hole is physically changed it makes no difference what par they call them!. What if they decided to call it a par 3 at 476yds? Are you going to try to drive it? What if they called it a par 6? Would you fool around and try to reach the green in four strokes? Par 4 or 5 is not the issue with holes like that--playing them in as few strokes as possible is--always guarding against making mistakes and wasting shots!

Tiger Woods won the British Open by 12 shots and he played the Road Hole at TOC in 19 for four rounds (3 over as the par 4 it is and one under as the par 5 it used to be) and it didn't bother him at all! If Tiger Woods can live with that four round performance and not bitch about what they call the par of the hole anyone can, in my opinion! The young man was too smart to worry about what they call the par of the hole--he clearly understands risks and rewards better than most!

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

I haven't played NGLA but I have played TOC a few times and I don't rate the 17th.  There are only two options off the tee. Hit tight into the boundary or don't.  The approach is also a no brainer.

If you went left with your tee shot then you lay up or try to get as close to the putting surface as possible.  If you hit a nice tight drive into the boundary, you go for the green.  You either try to hit a low running shot that rolls up onto the green or if you are like yourself a pretty damn good player you could probably fly all the way.

I don't think it is that good a hole.  There isn't much width in the landing area either when compared to the rest of the course.

I agree with Tommy that the book is fantastic and do use it everytime I play TOC (to no avail) and it is usually on my bedside table the night before I play.

And no Tommy, I still don't understand the bloody course!!  It does drive me nuts though...

Brian

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hang in there Brian. I got great faith in you!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

By the way, at the risk of sounding like Omar the Book Trader, I can obtain copies of Desmond's book if any of you need one.

[Brian Phillips]

Tommy,

You don't have any signed copies do you?  If so I would be interested in a copy.

What are your thoughts on the 17th?

Anyone who doesn't own this book should get it if they are going to play TOC or get just to enjoy Muirheads renderings and Tip's ramblings!!

Brian

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brian,
Unfortunately there are no signed copies.

[Chris Kane]

Brian,
I havn't played the Old Course myself, but judging on what others tell me, a look at your own signature would tell you something!

[tonyt]

I don't need to disect TOC #17 to work out if it is a great hole or not.

It's fame, it's championship stories of joy and woe, and it's ability to be at least as pivotal as any hole at amen corner is during Masters Sunday almost every time a TOC hosted Open Championship has a close finish, do more than confirm it's greatness.

Many good holes are looked forward to by the players when they play their first practice round during tournament week at a good course. At TOC, they think of the Road Hole long before flying into Great Britain.

When Angel Cabrera finished tied 4th at Carnoustie, he later admitted that before bed that night (fresh from the experience of just missing The Open playoff by one shot), he thought of his automatic exemption the following year, and of playing the road hole.

[Brian Phillips]

Chris,

I have to admit that TOC does grow on you time and time again.  Each time I play it, I find new things with it that I like and become less critical of other things.

I hope one day that I will understand it better but at the moment I really do struggle to 'get my head around it' as I once said to Tony Cashmore when he confronted me!

Brian

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Par does matter IMO.  See my previous post on this thread.

[THuckaby2]

Interesting comparison.

I'm not even going to comment on #7 NGLA, because I played it but once and that was now quite awhile ago.  I recall definitely being happy the card said "par5", because after a drive in the left rough I had no way of reaching.  I just also know that I had no fear on any shot... not the drive, not the 2nd, not the pitch.  Oh, I saw the bunker and saw how deep it was, but it pales compared to the Road Bunker, or at least that's how I perceived it.  I could be very wrong.

But I just played the Road Hole at TOC twice, less than two weeks ago... and gentlemen...

There is no way on god's green earth that's a par five with today's equipment.  We played as far back as one could go and well... Brian Phillips assessed it dead-on correctly.  It's a drive over the sheds, and if you are brave enough to go right enough, right against the hotel, then you're gonna have somewhere from 170 down to 100 in, depending on how far you can hit the ball.  Jeff Fortson, if you can routinely hit the ball over the left tree on #10 at Pasa (which I absolutely believe, I am not questioning at all - I've seen others do it) then you can have a wedge in for your 2nd on the Road Hole no problem.  You just have to take the leap of faith to go far enough right off the tee.

So the fact one can get it so close to this green these days really effectively negates much of the strategy.  With a middle to short iron, a decent player can do pretty much whatever he wants... Yeah, you know you don't want to go in the road bunker and you don't want to go long on the road or up against the wall, but each is not that tough to avoid with that type of iron.  So the play goes as Brian says.

Tommy - I believe you're also remembering the false front as much taller than it really is.  In terms of TOC, the front on 17 is a pussycat, just a foot or two.  It's no big deal to run the ball up....

To me this is all very sad.  This is not how this hole is meant to be played.  But such are today's realities....

The good news is that it's always going to be a great hole, because all this distance advantage happens ONLY if you succeed in one of golf's toughest tee shots.  The left rough is still VERY thick and any shot from there gives real problems...

TH

[TEPaul]

"However, I am of a mind that par does matter since it is, after all, the measure of what a scratch golfer makes on a hole assuming 2 putts.  And I also believe that, all other things being equal, a brilliantly designed hole is even more so if it's difficult (which is why I believe #'s 2 & 6 at NGLA have lost some of their luster over the years).

Therefore:

1) since the Road Hole is a more demanding par 4 than #7 at National is a par 5;
2) because I believe that #7 at National would be too  difficult/unfair as a par 4 because of the green complex as described above;"

Chip:

I completely understand what you're saying--many believe as you do. But you're missing a very important point here. My recommendation for making NGLA's #7 a par 4 is ONLY for special situations--and not for the general membership.

Your comparative analysis of the difficulty of NGLA's #7 compared to TOC's #17 makes some sense but only to an extent--and only probably to the extent that anyone might say things about holes such as "unfair" simply because some scoring average on a hole is high.

The point I'm making here is the whole idea of "par" is not exactly an architectural concept and never really was. It's a man made creation probably as much for the purposes of handicapping as anything else--and that goes way way back.

TOC's #17 is highly respected for what it is now--that is highly demanding and risky hole to acheive a certain score--logically that being the 4 its par is called now. But that doesn't really matter in the reality of golf, only in the man devised "par" sense. The hole has always played well over par (4) in things such as British Opens and what does that matter either? It's doesn't matter at all and those guys are the best in the world--better than scratch in fact. The fact that Woods played #17 TOC in three over as a 4 or one under as a 5 was clearly completely meaningless to him. The fact that he played the hole for the tournament in 19 strokes and not something higher given the hole's extreme risks was apparently important to him. If that doesn't scotch the concept of par as you're presenting it I can't imagine what could. Woods is the best in the world and if he can be content with 19 shots in four rounds instead of its par total of 16 what does that say about the Road Hole and the meaninglessness of its par 4--or whatever they want to call its par number?

The entire idea of it as a par 4 instead of a par 5 is to pyschologically confuse and TEMPT players into disregarding the obvious risk/reward factors of the hole and doing something stupid or extra dangerous ONLY because of some misguided perception of the importance or significance of a  NUMBER (PAR).

Logically a very good player should not really play a hole differently because the par number got dropped--he should only play the hole for the lowest number he deems reasonable ONLY considering the risks of what he may make if he gets too aggressive or makes a mistake. And if the hole hasn't actually changed how can those considerations logically change in reality? Is he somehow going to find new and better shots and new and better personal capabilities simply because the par number got dropped? Of course not. And the same is true of every other golfer competing against him.

The fact that so many golfers actually believe the par number really means something in actual numerical results (logically to a player's advantage of scoring lower because the par is lower) is one of the most interesting and useful tools of an architect/club whatever!

It's all psychological Chip--there's no more to it than that! One plays any hole in the lowest number possible always and only considering the risks of doing otherwise and what they might ultimately add up to! What par number the hole is called has nothing to do with it other than psychologically which it the web you're getting too caught up in here!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()