Well Regarded Holes You Secretly Think Aren't All That Great.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

I know what you're thinking: "nobody would dare do an eclectic 18 for this one."  Well, I tried, but then I realized I haven't played enough well-regarded courses to fill it out.  Here are a few that WOULD be included on my eclectic 18 holes if I actually sought out more overrated architecture:

1 at Royal St. George's.  This is the first hole in PWT's eclectic 18.  I thought it was the worst par four on the course.

2 at Garden City.  This is the most famous hole on the golf course, but I thought it was nowhere near as interesting as the neighboring 18th, which has both a more interesting tee shot and a much more fearsome green.

JNC,

# 2 isn't the most famous hole on the course.
It's not even the most famous par 3 on the course.

# 2 can be an early round ruiner if you're not careful.
At under 140 it's a testing little hole.
Some say it has a Redan like feel

3 at The Country Club.  The tee shot over the cliffs is legendary, but the second shot is dead flat to a nondescript green.  I've seen better, and I prefer the rugged 5th on the same layout.

4 at Yale.  A Golf Mag top 100.  It supposed to be a Road Hole, but I can't figure out why the green angles the wrong way.

5 at Prestwick.  For all the great stuff at Prestwick, the Himalayas is a bit of a letdown.  Something about the uninteresting green…

7 at Oak Hill (East).  Golf Magazine rated this as one of the top 100 in the world. Tree issues and penal mowing lines make it one of the least interesting par fours on the course.

14 at Royal Dornoch.  I've only played it once, and it's a cool hole.  But I just didn't "get" it the first time around.

Every long par four finisher I've ever played.  I think is the most cliched design feature in golf.  Give me a par three (Garden City, my favorite finishing hole) or a short par five (Yeamans Hall, Dismal River White, Dunes at Seville) any day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

1. 17th at TPC Sawgrass - any green that is 330 degrees penal belongs in a carnival, not in a "5th Major" venue.

2. 17th at Pebble - covered here already. But, I think it would make a good 150 yard hole. At 208 from the tips to a back left pin...sure, tour pros can hit a high, soft shot. (Save it, Mucci, please.) But, I have played it from all tees and see no variation in the hole. When it mandates one way to play it, then to me it is less interesting. The green is too small, especially the back part.

What's your handicap ?

3. 17th at the Old Course - Come on, you mean I have to drive over a hotel to TRY to hit a very narrow fairway angling away from me...at 455 yards? Love the road and wall, but this is a green that is VERY hard to hit and again mandates one way to play it and that is where I find flaw. I happen to relish a low, running draw, so I have hit this green. I bet this was a much better hole before the hotel (or indoor tennis courts) were built.


While I object to the "narrowed" fairway, it remains a great hole.
Do you not like the blind holes at Prestwick and NGLA ?


My theme is "choices and options".
When holes deny them, I find them tedious and uninspiring.

How are you denied "choices and options" at # 17 at PBGC and # 17 at TOC ?
On the tee shot.
On the approach and/or recovery ?

[Ian Andrew]

Thanks Mr. Goodale

I enjoyed that read a great deal.

[Brian Finn]

4 at Yale.  A Golf Mag top 100.  It supposed to be a Road Hole, but I can't figure out why the green angles the wrong way.

This is really interesting to me, because I have #4 at Yale in an 'honorable mention' category in my personal eclectic 18.  While it is not the best 4th hole I have played, it is in the conversation. 

Is the green angle the only thing that makes you dislike the hole (or at least consider it over-rated)? 

I am really just curious, and have no intent to debate.  I have played some template holes that are loose interpretations, but I consider them among my all-time favorite holes.  The 7th at Sleepy Hollow (steeply downhill reverse redan) would be a perfect example.

[Ian Mackenzie]

@Pat Mucci, in response to your questions.

My USGA index is +0.8. Three time club champion, on GnG committee that oversaw a Jim Urbina-lead restoration of our Flynn designed golf course. Interviewed 12 architects on project including a "top 6" that are today's best. (PM me if you want the roster)

"It remains a great hole" is a totally unenforced, subjective statement that, from what I have seen, would be cause for critical comments from you like, "In what way is it a great hole?" , etc.

I have played Prestwick and NGLA and do not recall having to hit over modern buildings with signage on them with OB on right and lost ball short.

As to your subsequent questions:

Q: How are you denied "choices and options" at # 17 at PBGC and # 17 at TOC ?

A: Cannot hit ground shot at 17 at PB to back pin. Green ONLY accessible with high, soft shot.
  At TOC, the approach must be hit with such precision, that IMO only a tour pro or very advanced amateur can hold that green from the air. I have hit that green in the air but it does not hold for me. So, MY ONLY CHOICE to hit green in reg is to hit bump and run which I LOVE but it is only way.

This is my opinion, it is not a fact. You make think I am wrong. I may be. No issue from me at all.
This thread is about holes that one thinks are not that great. I have offered my opinion on three. I like playing the holes, but do not think they are "great". Notable? yes. Controversial? Perhaps.

[Alex Miller]

10 at Dornoch
13 at North Berwick West Links
4 at Royal Melbourne (West)
13 at Barnbougle Dunes
6 at Newcastle (Stockton)
15 at The Valley Club
6 at New South Wales
4 at Sand Hills

All the above photograph better than they play, and the former overpowers the latter.

I still think some are quite decent holes, but not as good as they are widely renowned to be.

I have to agree on 13 at NBW, though I only have one play. 14-17, and maybe 18 were all fantastic, and maybe each better than 13 on their own merit.

I would put 10 at Valley Club as the most overrated hole from that course. The landslide fairway is too severe IMO, and while cool, doesn't play great and is out of character with the rest of the course.

[Greg Taylor]

@Pat Mucci, in response to your questions.

My USGA index is +0.8. Three time club champion, on GnG committee that oversaw a Jim Urbina-lead restoration of our Flynn designed golf course. Interviewed 12 architects on project including a "top 6" that are today's best. (PM me if you want the roster)

"It remains a great hole" is a totally unenforced, subjective statement that, from what I have seen, would be cause for critical comments from you like, "In what way is it a great hole?" , etc.

I have played Prestwick and NGLA and do not recall having to hit over modern buildings with signage on them with OB on right and lost ball short.

As to your subsequent questions:

Q: How are you denied "choices and options" at # 17 at PBGC and # 17 at TOC ?

A: Cannot hit ground shot at 17 at PB to back pin. Green ONLY accessible with high, soft shot.
  At TOC, the approach must be hit with such precision, that IMO only a tour pro or very advanced amateur can hold that green from the air. I have hit that green in the air but it does not hold for me. So, MY ONLY CHOICE to hit green in reg is to hit bump and run which I LOVE but it is only way.

This is my opinion, it is not a fact. You make think I am wrong. I may be. No issue from me at all.
This thread is about holes that one thinks are not that great. I have offered my opinion on three. I like playing the holes, but do not think they are "great". Notable? yes. Controversial? Perhaps.

Nice reply... should have been in green ink....!

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

@Pat Mucci, in response to your questions.

My USGA index is +0.8. Three time club champion, on GnG committee that oversaw a Jim Urbina-lead restoration of our Flynn designed golf course. Interviewed 12 architects on project including a "top 6" that are today's best. (PM me if you want the roster)

Ian, those are impressive credentials.
How many USGA events have you played in ?

"It remains a great hole" is a totally unenforced, subjective statement that, from what I have seen, would be cause for critical comments from you like, "In what way is it a great hole?" , etc.

That's your opinion, I have mine

I have played Prestwick and NGLA and do not recall having to hit over modern buildings with signage on them with OB on right and lost ball short.

Is it the signage that's causing you to fret ?

Whether it's a building, railway shed, hill or large earthen mound, the shots are all blind.
The shots require trajectory

As to your subsequent questions:

Q: How are you denied "choices and options" at # 17 at PBGC and # 17 at TOC ?

A: Cannot hit ground shot at 17 at PB to back pin. Green ONLY accessible with high, soft shot.

That's absolutely not true.
If your index is 0.8 you should be able to hit a nice draw or even a low hook into the front portion of that green with it rolling out to the back section.

From the front of the near tee it's 170 to the mid-point of the back section, about 153 to the mid-point of the front section.
From the back of the near tede it's 188 to the mid-point of the back section, about 170 to the mid-point of the front section.

How much more difficult is that than getting to the top left section at # 11 at NGLA or to a back hole location at # 5 or back left at # 13 at PV ?

From those yardages, 170 and 188 how hard is it for a 0.8 handicap to hit a high fade into the back section ?


At TOC, the approach must be hit with such precision, that IMO only a tour pro or very advanced amateur can hold that green from the air.
Another moronic statement.
As if an 18 handicapper is going to hit that green in regulation.
Why do morons insist on equating the DZ of "Tour Pros and very advanced amateurs" with high handicap golfers ?

High handicap golfers don't hit greens in regulation, hence, the less than advanced amateur will NOT be hitting the green in regulation.
And, if that high handicapper has a brain, something you seem to lack, he'll tack his way into the ideal approach position with his second shot, just like he would do if it was a par 5.

As to holding that green from the air, you don't have to be a "Tour Pro or Very advanced amateur to do so".
Lest you forget, high handicaps aren't hitting 200 yard 7 irons.

I have hit that green in the air but it does not hold for me.
So, MY ONLY CHOICE to hit green in reg is to hit bump and run which I LOVE but it is only way.

NO, it's not.
You'd better learn to hit a high fade or get more spin on your ball.

This is my opinion, it is not a fact. You make think I am wrong. I may be. No issue from me at all.

We agree on that.

This thread is about holes that one thinks are not that great.

I've read the title of the thread

I have offered my opinion on three.
I like playing the holes, but do not think they are "great". Notable? yes. Controversial? Perhaps.

# 17 green at TOC is perhaps the greatest template green in golf.
The challenge it presents to the golfer, in conjunction with the bunker and feature behind the green are spectacular.

Tell us, what's the difference between the 17th green at TOC and the 7th green at NGLA ?

[Ian Mackenzie]

@Pat Mucci, in response to your questions.

My USGA index is +0.8. Three time club champion, on GnG committee that oversaw a Jim Urbina-lead restoration of our Flynn designed golf course. Interviewed 12 architects on project including a "top 6" that are today's best. (PM me if you want the roster)

Ian, those are impressive credentials.
How many USGA events have you played in ?

"It remains a great hole" is a totally unenforced, subjective statement that, from what I have seen, would be cause for critical comments from you like, "In what way is it a great hole?" , etc.

That's your opinion, I have mine

I have played Prestwick and NGLA and do not recall having to hit over modern buildings with signage on them with OB on right and lost ball short.

Is it the signage that's causing you to fret ?

Whether it's a building, railway shed, hill or large earthen mound, the shots are all blind.
The shots require trajectory

As to your subsequent questions:

Q: How are you denied "choices and options" at # 17 at PBGC and # 17 at TOC ?

A: Cannot hit ground shot at 17 at PB to back pin. Green ONLY accessible with high, soft shot.

That's absolutely not true.
If your index is 0.8 you should be able to hit a nice draw or even a low hook into the front portion of that green with it rolling out to the back section.

From the front of the near tee it's 170 to the mid-point of the back section, about 153 to the mid-point of the front section.
From the back of the near tede it's 188 to the mid-point of the back section, about 170 to the mid-point of the front section.

How much more difficult is that than getting to the top left section at # 11 at NGLA or to a back hole location at # 5 or back left at # 13 at PV ?

From those yardages, 170 and 188 how hard is it for a 0.8 handicap to hit a high fade into the back section ?


At TOC, the approach must be hit with such precision, that IMO only a tour pro or very advanced amateur can hold that green from the air.
Another moronic statement.
As if an 18 handicapper is going to hit that green in regulation.
Why do morons insist on equating the DZ of "Tour Pros and very advanced amateurs" with high handicap golfers ?

High handicap golfers don't hit greens in regulation, hence, the less than advanced amateur will NOT be hitting the green in regulation.
And, if that high handicapper has a brain, something you seem to lack, he'll tack his way into the ideal approach position with his second shot, just like he would do if it was a par 5.

As to holding that green from the air, you don't have to be a "Tour Pro or Very advanced amateur to do so".
Lest you forget, high handicaps aren't hitting 200 yard 7 irons.

I have hit that green in the air but it does not hold for me.
So, MY ONLY CHOICE to hit green in reg is to hit bump and run which I LOVE but it is only way.

NO, it's not.
You'd better learn to hit a high fade or get more spin on your ball.

This is my opinion, it is not a fact. You make think I am wrong. I may be. No issue from me at all.

We agree on that.

This thread is about holes that one thinks are not that great.

I've read the title of the thread

I have offered my opinion on three.
I like playing the holes, but do not think they are "great". Notable? yes. Controversial? Perhaps.

# 17 green at TOC is perhaps the greatest template green in golf.
The challenge it presents to the golfer, in conjunction with the bunker and feature behind the green are spectacular.

Tell us, what's the difference between the 17th green at TOC and the 7th green at NGLA ?

YAWN...

I have played in several USGA, IL, CDGA (Chicago) and WGA events. Have won two. (Next one is 7/30/14)

In general, I stay away from "serial arguers". I see the quote/re quote, tit-for-tat, last word, I'm smarter and wittier shtick as the epitome of inanity and will leave that to those with more time and energy than I possess.

Name-calling on a hobby forum is a sport reserved a sad kind of internet denizen: the troll. Your knowledge base is vast. Your input can be insightful. In fact, i would bet we would have a sporting match. But, please, clean up your mouth and show some respect for your fellow hobbyists. Opinions are not absolute. I get that you are an "important guy" here capable of eviscerating the average participant with your lightning keyboard acumen and mufti-faceted quoting skills. I get that you dont care either and will reply with some clever use of quotes, insults and demeaning verbiage....it's just so cliche.

So, let me say and repeat in advance....Yaaawwnnn.

Now, for some pertinent data:

"In the 1984 Open, the 17th at TOC yielded only 11 birdies all week, and the scoring average was 4.79. In 1990, despite much calmer weather, it still averaged 4.65 strokes and yielded only 15 birdies."

This is a Par 5 played as a par 4. That's not "great" in my book. That's manipulative where you let the score card defend par instead of the quality of your architecture. Tour pros cant hold this green. That's just a fact. It's a sturdy hole and rigid test; of that I am certain. I also believe, from playing it 7 times, that is also fun and challenging. However, I opine that it does not qualify as "great" because it takes away options more than it presents clever ways to achieve one's goal.

The stats back that up.

FAST FORWARD....let's just pretend that I just read your latest, witty, colorful reply. Haha...all great points, and, yes, I can be a stubborn arse, too.

No more venom, no more sarcasm, no more immature insults...Please...Pat, you have an open invite to come to Chicago and tee it up with me.

I guarantee good competition, fun golf, diverse conversation and a good meal.
Cheers,
Ian

[Eric Smith]

Hole 13 Silloth on Solway

It is surely one of the most infuriatingly difficult holes I have ever come across. I think that if I had a full week to experience the hole under somewhat better and/or different playing conditions than found during the BUDA Cup, I could probably learn to like it. I say this knowing that there is much to like about the golf course and the club at Silloth.



http://www.sillothgolfclub.co.uk/hole-by-hole/hole-13/

[BHoover]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

[Tim_Weiman]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

[BHoover]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

I wish. But it's just not a hole that strikes me as all that interesting, except for the drama of the Masters.

[Tim_Weiman]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

I wish. But it's just not a hole that strikes me as all that interesting, except for the drama of the Masters.

Brian,

This is a good thread that I don't want to hijack, but I am curious if you can share your idea of "interesting" Par 3s?

[BHoover]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

I wish. But it's just not a hole that strikes me as all that interesting, except for the drama of the Masters.

Brian,

This is a good thread that I don't want to hijack, but I am curious if you can share your idea of "interesting" Par 3s?

12 at ANGC is just not that interesting to me but I'm perfectly willing to concede that most others may disagree. Obviously you disagree with me, and thats fine. I certainly respect your opinion (I get th sense that you don't feel the same about mine). I don't think I need to justify my personal opinion, but I'll play along for the sake of conversation. I think the Postage Stamp, the original Redan and the Redan at Shinnecock Hills, and the 16th at Cypress are "interesting" to me. I thought the par 3s at Kingsley were pretty interesting and challenging (not to imply that 12 at ANGC is not challenging, I concede that it is). The par 3s at Canton Brookside interest me. There are lots of par 3s that I like. But the 12th at ANGC is just not one that I prefer. Is that fair?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have played in several USGA, IL, CDGA (Chicago) and WGA events. Have won two. (Next one is 7/30/14)

Which USGA events ?

In general, I stay away from "serial arguers". I see the quote/re quote, tit-for-tat, last word, I'm smarter and wittier shtick as the epitome of inanity and will leave that to those with more time and energy than I possess.

Name-calling on a hobby forum is a sport reserved a sad kind of internet denizen: the troll. Your knowledge base is vast. Your input can be insightful. In fact, i would bet we would have a sporting match. But, please, clean up your mouth and show some respect for your fellow hobbyists. Opinions are not absolute. I get that you are an "important guy" here capable of eviscerating the average participant with your lightning keyboard acumen and mufti-faceted quoting skills. I get that you dont care either and will reply with some clever use of quotes, insults and demeaning verbiage....it's just so cliche.

I'm a creature of habit and enjoy jousting

So, let me say and repeat in advance....Yaaawwnnn.

Now, for some pertinent data:

"In the 1984 Open, the 17th at TOC yielded only 11 birdies all week, and the scoring average was 4.79.


That's totally irrelevant.
Only 3 competitors broke 280.
Since when is the value or architectural merit of a hole based upon scores in a British Open, U.S. Open or PGA event.
How many 12, 18 and 24 handicappers played in that event ?

In 1990, despite much calmer weather, it still averaged 4.65 strokes and yielded only 15 birdies."

And only 10 competitors broke 280.
It's irrelevant what the Pros scored on # 17

Since when is a birdie binge the hallmark of a great hole ?

This is a Par 5 played as a par 4.
That's not "great" in my book.
That's manipulative where you let the score card defend par instead of the quality of your architecture.

Manipulative for whom ?

According to your post we can then conclude that you feel that the 4th and 5th holes at Pinehurst # 2 and the 9th and 16th at Winged Foot West are inferior holes ?  ? ?


Tour pros cant hold this green.

From what distance ?

I had no problem holding it and neither have the fellows I've played with

That's just a fact. It's a sturdy hole and rigid test; of that I am certain.
I also believe, from playing it 7 times, that is also fun and challenging.

Isn't that the hallmark of a great hole ?

However, I opine that it does not qualify as "great" because it takes away options more than it presents clever ways to achieve one's goal.
For whom ?
The PGA Tour Pro playing at 500 under dire conditions ?

The stats back that up.

NO, they don't, they merely reflect the scores shot in a championship over 8 days on the next to the last hole.

FAST FORWARD....let's just pretend that I just read your latest, witty, colorful reply. Haha...all great points, and, yes, I can be a stubborn arse, too.

No more venom, no more sarcasm, no more immature insults...
Please...Pat, you have an open invite to come to Chicago and tee it up with me.

And you have the same from me.
Can I conclude from your distain for the 17th at TOC that you have no interest in playing the 7th at NGLA ?

I guarantee good competition, fun golf, diverse conversation and a good meal.

What, nothing to drink ?  What kind of host are you ?

Cheers,

Ditto

[Tim_Weiman]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

I wish. But it's just not a hole that strikes me as all that interesting, except for the drama of the Masters.

Brian,

This is a good thread that I don't want to hijack, but I am curious if you can share your idea of "interesting" Par 3s?

12 at ANGC is just not that interesting to me but I'm perfectly willing to concede that most others may disagree. Obviously you disagree with me, and thats fine. I certainly respect your opinion (I get th sense that you don't feel the same about mine). I don't think I need to justify my personal opinion, but I'll play along for the sake of conversation. I think the Postage Stamp, the original Redan and the Redan at Shinnecock Hills, and the 16th at Cypress are "interesting" to me. I thought the par 3s at Kingsley were pretty interesting and challenging (not to imply that 12 at ANGC is not challenging, I concede that it is). The par 3s at Canton Brookside interest me. There are lots of par 3s that I like. But the 12th at ANGC is just not one that I prefer. Is that fair?

Brian,

I've played each of the Par 3s you mention and think highly of almost all.  Actually, I think you have raised a fair question regarding #12 at Augusta, one worthy of its own thread. Shall I or would you like to start it?

[Buck Wolter]

Royal County Down #9 --not a ding against my personal #1 course in the world but I think the hole itself is overrated.

[Tony Ristola]

10 at Dornoch
13 at North Berwick West Links
4 at Royal Melbourne (West)
13 at Barnbougle Dunes
6 at Newcastle (Stockton)
15 at The Valley Club
6 at New South Wales
4 at Sand Hills

All the above photograph better than they play, and the former overpowers the latter.

I still think some are quite decent holes, but not as good as they are widely renowned to be.

I love The Pit, 13th at North Berwick.

I think it could be a template hole where you run a naturalized berm instead of a stone wall. Doesn't need a bunker for it to be interesting.

[Scott Warren]

Tony,

I reckon it's a fun hole and certainly original, but for my money 14 is a far better hole and gets very little chat.

[BHoover]

12 at ANGC just doesn't do that much for me.  I understand that it's arguably the most famous par 3 in golf, but for some reason it always strikes me as rather bland.  A green with not much movement (that I can discern) and a fairly routine shot over a creek, except for the wind and pressure of a major championship.

Brian,

You must be a good iron player.

I wish. But it's just not a hole that strikes me as all that interesting, except for the drama of the Masters.

Brian,

This is a good thread that I don't want to hijack, but I am curious if you can share your idea of "interesting" Par 3s?

12 at ANGC is just not that interesting to me but I'm perfectly willing to concede that most others may disagree. Obviously you disagree with me, and thats fine. I certainly respect your opinion (I get th sense that you don't feel the same about mine). I don't think I need to justify my personal opinion, but I'll play along for the sake of conversation. I think the Postage Stamp, the original Redan and the Redan at Shinnecock Hills, and the 16th at Cypress are "interesting" to me. I thought the par 3s at Kingsley were pretty interesting and challenging (not to imply that 12 at ANGC is not challenging, I concede that it is). The par 3s at Canton Brookside interest me. There are lots of par 3s that I like. But the 12th at ANGC is just not one that I prefer. Is that fair?

Brian,

I've played each of the Par 3s you mention and think highly of almost all.  Actually, I think you have raised a fair question regarding #12 at Augusta, one worthy of its own thread. Shall I or would you like to start it?

Sorry I misinterpreted your intent. I didn't mean to be testy. I think it's fair to debate any hole, and the thread was asking for highly regarded holes (certainly 12 at ANGC falls into that category) that we don't think are all that. We could start a separate thread but it's too early in the morning for me...

[Niall C]

Ian MacK

Re 17th TOC - I'm struggling to see how this hole doesn't have options. First off you have a diagonal carry off the tee for the medium to long hitters and a bail out for the short hitters, so straight off most folk have a choice. For the approach, given the difficulty and the menace of the greenside bunker, most will then have a choice of whether to go for the green assuming it is in reach. As I see it the choices are whether to go long left and try and chip and putt, short right and try and chip and putt or try to make the putting surface knowing you have to get by the bunker and with danger of going on the road behind. Not sure how many more choices you can fit into a par 4/5.

Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ah...civility returns. Thank you.

I have never expressed disdain over TOC 17. In fact, I believe I called it fun and challenging.
It's a hole a I believe secretly is not as great as others may say and I had the temerity to put my thoughts on a forum per the theme of the original thread.

An example of a better implemented version of this kind of hole, and one I respect immensely, is the 2nd at Chicago Golf Club. No hotel, a more accessible fairway and a green that, being larger, can hold different kinds of shots. It plays as a stern par 4 @ 460 yards with a slightly uphill second shot. 4 is a good score, not just an outside aspiration.

[Niall C]

Ian

You did indeed call it fun and challenging but I think you also suggested it lacked options, it was that point I thought a bit strange. Reading your posts again I assume its perhaps more the nature of the options that you think are lacking. Unfortunately I don't know the Chicago hole you compare it to but your comment on the size of the green is an interesting one. I think if you adopt a links mindset and see it all as one big short grass area then you are half way to curing the idea that the "conventional" way of playing the hole is the only or preferred way to do it ie. hit the green and two putt for your par.

FWIW, I prefer holes where it is harder to get your par than ones where its easier, and I hasten to add that I'm an average golfer. The trick though is making the hole playable and I think the 17th accomplishes this well enough.

Niall

[Bill Brightly]

Well done, Ian. You made a very bold statement. It doesn't get much bolder than saying 17 at TOC is not a great hole... Pat vigorously challenged you, and you responded with well-reasoned arguments based upon your 7 times playing the hole. I don't expect Pat to agree with you, but I'm sure that he is satisfied that your opinion has merit, that you had intelligent reasons behind your bold statement. I have no doubt. But he is right about one thing, you should be able to hit a high fade!