Wow, this thing still has life. Overkill perhaps, but I appreciate and enjoy the varied viewpoints.
Going back to the original thread, to which I directly replied in my original post, I am curious to know if the subjectivity being debated may have something to do with ones's definition of "great".
Anyway...
@ Bill: I can hit a high fade, but not a high draw.
@ Tom: there's nothing wrong about not being able to fly a ball into TOC 17. My overall thesis does not focus on any one aspect of its playability. That would be a different thread. I said that, to me, the hole is not "great", a term I reserve for Wayne Gretzky, Walter Payton, Pele, Michael Jordan, and jack Nicklaus.
I am not hung up on anything about this thread, except being consistent to my theme and avoiding "rabbit holes".
However, I am being illuminated in a few areas and for that I am grateful. I am looking at a hole in its context of par and how I personally may choose to play it. Then I am measuring MY satisfaction in the context of my results. I guess it's natural, but empirically flawed.
Specific to 17 at TOC, my belief that it falls ever so short of being called "great" by ME may stem, not from the well-guarded green, but from the tee shot. Great holes that I have played at Dornoch, Cypress, Chicago, NGLA, Shore Acres, Bandon stimulate and excite me from the second I step on the tee box until the moment I pull my ball from the hole. "Great" holes do not come with "buts", to me, but perhaps not to you. Again, this interpretation is highly subjective and no one here is right in an absolute way.
To me, the fact that you hit your blind tee shot over a hotel (not a castle, beach, ravine or river) reduces the stature and sheer enjoyment of this hole to a point that just simply falls a notch below being great.
Cheers,
Ian