Finishing with the 2 or 3 hardest holes

[Matt_Cohn]

There's a decent chance that 16, 17, 18 at Quail Hollow will end up as the three hardest holes on the course; so far only the first hole is playing harder.


I can think of three other tournament courses where this happens: Muirfield Villlage, where 16-18 are often the three hardest holes; Oak Hill (with 17 as a par-4), where the last two holes are the two hardest; and Carnoustie, where I couldn't find stats from 2007 but it seems possible that 16-18 are the three hardest holes on that course too.


Do you like this from a tournament-viewing point of view? Do you think it's good or bad architectural practice to have the last 2 or 3 holes be — not just tough — but literally the 2 or 3 hardest holes on the course?

[Tom_Doak]

I wouldn't build a tournament course that way.  It puts the leader in the clubhouse at a decided advantage and gives the perception that everyone is choking down the stretch.


The perfect tournament finish is St Andrews:  a very hard 17th which you expect many players to bogey, in between two shorter par-4's where there is pressure to make birdie.  No lead is ever safe but there is balance so that the guy in the clubhouse is still a factor.

[Tom_Doak]

Pete Dye's ideal was the 5-3-4 finish.  18th was always a hard par-4 but the previous two were potential birdie holes with potential disaster near the green. Same balance but a different tempo.

[jeffwarne]

I personally prefer balance and actually like the shortish par 4's that are often the closers on UK courses.
More more fun to win with a birdie, and less painful to lose to one.



I don't really hate the three toughest finish, but absolutely hate it when the handicap committee decides these should be 6,4,and 2 (or worse yet 5,3,1)as shot holes.


Like the rest of the golf course, handicap shots should be balanced-so the weaker player actually gets to use them before the match closes, and to add interest, balance and incentive to bets which may be pressed

[Carl Rogers]

Match Play - having played a course for a long time that has the no.2 stroke hole as the 18th hole is a big disadvantage to the high handicapper as the match may never get there.
I have heard that in Australia and other locales that the strokes are consecutive at the beginning of a round.  Seems fair to me.

[Tom_Doak]

I have heard that in Australia and other locales that the strokes are consecutive at the beginning of a round.  Seems fair to me.

Not exactly.  The strokes are evenly spaced so that the first four strokes are given at the 8th, 12th, 4th and 16th holes for match play ... no matter the type of hole.

[Carl Rogers]

I have heard that in Australia and other locales that the strokes are consecutive at the beginning of a round.  Seems fair to me.

Not exactly.  The strokes are evenly spaced so that the first four strokes are given at the 8th, 12th, 4th and 16th holes for match play ... no matter the type of hole.

Stand corrected

[Thomas Dai]

'Hardness' and a low SI don't necessarily go together, at least not in the U.K.


In the U.K. the SI is meant that be calculated as per this England Golf weblink - http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337


See also this GCA thread. Reply 27, by me, elaborates a bit further - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63945.msg1522552.html#msg1522552


Atb

[jeffwarne]

I have heard that in Australia and other locales that the strokes are consecutive at the beginning of a round.  Seems fair to me.

Not exactly.  The strokes are evenly spaced so that the first four strokes are given at the 8th, 12th, 4th and 16th holes for match play ... no matter the type of hole.

makes actual sense--unlike many courses that have handicap "committees"

[Matt_Cohn]

An interesting comparison is the Lake Course at Olympic where the last 4 holes are practically the four best birdie opportunities (especially if it's the US Open and you're playing #1 as a par 4). This setup seems a little more enjoyable to me.