[William_G]

I mean bland to play. Of course if you put all that fescue out there and so many superfluous bunkers it doesn't look bland.

it's not bland if you like difficult golf courses

[Mark Fedeli]

18 is not a bad finishing hole. The hole does not force players to lay-up with an iron. They can hit a driver or 3 wood if they want a sand wedge in. The fairway is 24 yards wide in the area the players would hit 3 wood or driver. Maybe you could argue the fairway should be 5 yards wider there to entice them to hit driver and 3 wood more often. For the guys hitting an iron off the tee they will have a more difficult approach and tougher shot at birdie. Visually it's beautiful and there is a lot of strategy involved with playing the hole. It's not a gimme par as Patrick Reed and Rickie Fowler proved. Rickie desperately needed a birdie and hit a very poor tee shot and got penalized. Shouldn't you be penalized for missing the fairway with an iron on a shortish par 4?

Given the land that is there, how could 18 be made a better hole? I know 18 Red is better, but assume you cannot use 18 Red.

I have to admit, I was pretty surprised with how #18 played last week. There were plenty of bogeys made. I thought the only way they could make it interesting was by maybe moving the tees all the way up one day (the longest drives were around 345 and the hole can probably be made to play as little as 330 from the front tees). But seeing the many different strategies chosen off the tee, and the many balls that wound up in trouble from guys laying back, was a bit of a shock. So I'd say it was fairly successful, all things considered.


If I could change anything on that hole to make it more interesting I would just have the left and right bunkers come further into the fairway at different points. Make the semi-aggressive layup a slightly tougher shot that requires you to choose an angle, and make the bomb over everything actually require you to bomb it over everything, even with a straight shot. In the end, though, no matter the length of the hole or trouble in the fairways, having to hit your final shot of the day up a hill to a blind green is never going to be anyone's favorite way to end.

[Eric LeFante]

18 is not a bad finishing hole. The hole does not force players to lay-up with an iron. They can hit a driver or 3 wood if they want a sand wedge in. The fairway is 24 yards wide in the area the players would hit 3 wood or driver. Maybe you could argue the fairway should be 5 yards wider there to entice them to hit driver and 3 wood more often. For the guys hitting an iron off the tee they will have a more difficult approach and tougher shot at birdie. Visually it's beautiful and there is a lot of strategy involved with playing the hole. It's not a gimme par as Patrick Reed and Rickie Fowler proved. Rickie desperately needed a birdie and hit a very poor tee shot and got penalized. Shouldn't you be penalized for missing the fairway with an iron on a shortish par 4?

Given the land that is there, how could 18 be made a better hole? I know 18 Red is better, but assume you cannot use 18 Red.

I have to admit, I was pretty surprised with how #18 played last week. There were plenty of bogeys made. I thought the only way they could make it interesting was by maybe moving the tees all the way up one day (the longest drives were around 345 and the hole can probably be made to play as little as 330 from the front tees). But seeing the many different strategies chosen off the tee, and the many balls that wound up in trouble from guys laying back, was a bit of a shock. So I'd say it was fairly successful, all things considered.


If I could change anything on that hole to make it more interesting I would just have the left and right bunkers come further into the fairway at different points. Make the semi-aggressive layup a slightly tougher shot that requires you to choose an angle, and make the bomb over everything actually require you to bomb it over everything, even with a straight shot. In the end, though, no matter the length of the hole or trouble in the fairways, having to hit your final shot of the day up a hill to a blind green is never going to be anyone's favorite way to end.

I don't think having an uphill second shot where you cannot see the green is a bad way to finish. What about 18 at Augusta, Pine Valley, Plainfield, Baltusrol, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Oakland Hills, The Country Club, Southern Hills, Oak Hill, Aronimink, and CC of Fairfield?


There's nothing better than having the clubhouse at the highest point of the property, having a drink after a round and looking down at the course. 

[David Cronheim]

I'd sum up my thoughts on what I dislike about the black as in the form of two questions.


1) Can a golf course be considered an elite course without a single good short hole?
2) Can a golf course be considered an elite course with generally flat and boring greens?
[/size]
[/size]As I've stated in other threads, I don't think so. However, remove those two objections and I have little negative to say. The course is meant to be a "hard" test, just the type tour pros think are so fair. It's a well-routed course on a beautiful piece of property that achieves that end quite well. Personally, I prefer a course with a lot more subtlety.

[/size]However, at the end of the day I find the entire experience to be very unenjoyable because, philosophically, I think good greens are a prerequisite for good golf architecture and think that "hard" generally equals boring. Others are free to disagree, but I doubt anyone, given a choice, would line up at 5 am to play the Black if lining up at 5 am was a way to get onto dozens of other courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()