Quibble - but interested to hear thoughts - Fenway #s 7 - 12

[V. Kmetz]

The recent thread on Mr Doak's Most Underrated brings to mind something I may have mentioned way back on Jon C's excellent photo/tour from a few years back, which (at least here) started a new appreciation of the course.


I'm really at a loss how a board of topical smarties such as this one can ignore some of the (to me) glaring limitations in the center of the course.


I think #1 - 6 comprise one of the great, amusing, diverse and challenging openings in course canon; and 13 - 18 is a stimulating end...all conceded.


But how can one ignore the rather redundant and unfriendly route of 7 - 12 on that property...?


7 and 10 and 8 and 12 are parallel holes of nearly precise repetition...


7 and 10 share the same plaza of ground and the same character...a dogleg left, elevated tee shot to the lowest, wettest flats of turf on the property to a wavy front to back green. There's no bravery or strategy or particular precision or gamble, or anything to recommend these holes as part of an outstanding course...sure a Tillie green restored by Hanse is likely to be a treat, but what makes that different than so many other classic in the Met neighborhood? And they are, except for a difference of 35-50 yards the same hole, and neither twin is among the best 12 on the course. Lastly the modern pond to the right of 10 has been unattractive since the day it was dug... it is so faux as to be unseemly within a classic design.


8 and 12...ALSO are near identical holes paralleling one another (they even share a greenside bunker for goodness sake) a reverse camber, down and up dogleg left with a semi blind hornets nest of difficulty awaiting such an approach. I admit that both the tee shots and green complexes of these two have more variety and individual zest than do 7 & 10, but they again are essentially the same hole. One of them (you pick) may crack the top 10 on the course, but two of them are a bore.


11...this to me this the single most overrated hole on the course, probably made so by that familiar stinky residue of the 50 year wrong GCA notion that somehow difficulty = greatness... again, where is the zest? this is just an extreme uphill, long semi-blind one shotter with a wickedly sloped green. Any of us (pro, amateur or dilettante) charged with making a hole THERE would likely come up with something just as pat, because that portion property is just not suited for golf. I find nothing genius about "locating" or "imagining" that hole there or bunkering it or the imagining of the green outline...in fact,its limitations are the epitome of this banal stretch (7 - 12) in that it's wedge-routed merely to fit the middle of the two stretches of golf ground.


#9...this one is the least objectionable of the stretch in that it has a varied (if faux) set of presentments to tee, to approach and greenside play...the fairways drive zone division by hazard ditch is on the edge of acceptably-"steeplechase" and green complex at least permits a few different styles of play besides aerial.


In the end I cannot deny Fenway HAS been underrated; it has 10 "best in breed" holes and 2 other fine ones, but I sense that worm is turning too much in the other direction. For me, this 6-deep stretch of redundant, one trick/same trick pony holes will forever dampen whatever marvels the other dozen hold. Nice place to visit...am not buying (or building) a house there.


cheers  vk

[Matt_Cohn]

I want to disagree with you, but I don't totally disagree with you. I think you can leave 9 out though; 9 is distinctive and cool.


Do you have any issue with 7-8-9 or 8-9-10 in the absence of their parallel holes?

[V. Kmetz]

MC,


1. Agreed about #9... it is the least objectionable of the six (both alone, and as part of the unit). I somehow "expect" a quirky hole like that on a classic course


2. I think you've hit on my precise issue with your question...alone, either stretch of 7-8-9 or 8-9-10 would be fairly diverse and interesting... but it doesn't happen that way....and


3. 11 & 12 finishing the stretch completely sink the whole run... I cannot tell you how many times I've wanted to jump over to 13 after #8 (or retrace/drive to it after #9)


When I was first truly interested in GCA 25-30 years ago, one of my first bits of tutelage/experience were how "makeshift" and low-standard some of that turn of century architecture was (Dunn, Park, Emmet, Van etten) building up and down the sides of hills as the property went. Perhaps that first impression is a bias in me, but I have come to greater and greater disdain for holes that are built to fit such ground as that Fenway hill which contains 8, 11 and 12.