Weak Holes

[Tim Gallant]

This quote blew me away. Who said it and is he right?


'They asked me ‘do you think we have any weak holes?’ my reply to that was, ‘if you don’t have any weak holes, well you should have!’

(Crockett, 2015, golfcoursearchitecture.net)

[JESII]

Without a distinct strength, how could you have a weakness?

[Adam Clayman]

"Weak" is too relative a term to be credible, beyond an esoteric. Ebb and flow of sequences implies a spectrum of tension.


Fazio said it best to Steve Wynn, when relaying to Wynn why he doesn't like working for people like him. To paraphrase, 'They always want 18 great holes, which burns me and the golfer out, by the 5th hole.

[Kalen Braley]

Is the 18th at CPC weak?


I don't think so, but I don't doubt some would make that claim.

[Peter Pallotta]

Can’t believe any architect has ever intentionally designed & built a weak/breather hole - for the sake of pace, flow, variety or any other reason save (perceived) necessity.
Yes, post-facto, it can be a description of/rationale for a golf hole that golfers don’t consider one of the best (even if only relative to all the rest, as Jim points to).
But I suppose the old mantra of “no weak holes” has become so tired and meaningless that it’s now okay to make as if weak holes are not only necessary but useful.
I think I’d rather have an awkward or preposterous golf hole (even a dog-leg!) than a weak one; and besides, if the architect creates a wicked and interesting green (which nothing stops him from doing, anytime, anywhere) how ‘weak’ could any hole really be?
I think some architects and golfers alike might be confusing a lack of scenery with a lack of strategy; or a break from the formula with a failure of form.

[PCCraig]

The problem is that great courses will have a "weak" hole only because they are being immediately compared to the great surrounding holes. So like the 18th at Cypress...it's not the worst hole in the world by any stretch, but it's always called terrible because it comes after 15-17.

[Joe Hancock]

Strong vs. Weak


Thrilling vs. Boring


Intelligent vs. Stupid


Exciting vs. Bland


Bold vs. Sublime
 
Difficult vs. Easy


Great vs. Weak (again)


I guess I just don’t know what y’all mean when you say a hole is “weak”.

[Sean_A]

For me, a weak hole is one that is not very interesting..forgettable. I guess for championship courses TOC's 9th is the posterboy weak hole.  I can't even say it is well placed as a breather hole.  It is curious how it was okay to mess with 16 & 17 and yet leave the 9th in a dull state.

Ciao

[cary lichtenstein]

Look at Pebble Beach...weak holes 1,2,3,4,6,7

[Tim Gallant]

The thing that struck me was not what a weak hole constitutes, but why having a weak hole is necessary.


Yes, we will all have different definitions on what is considered 'weak', but if you take the definition as a given, then is there a reason to have them? A few have hinted at ebb and flow, which is important, but are there other reasons? The person who said this was referring to having weak holes in order to keep pace of play. We continually talk about how rounds are getting longer, yet we demand that courses have 18 strong holes.

So which do we value more? If it's a balance, then what is the proper ratio (weak holes against time to finish a round)?

[BCrosby]

Tom Simpson: “We therefore intend to include one thoroughly amusing but bad hole for the sake of variety and a brief interval of mental tranquility.”

Bob

[Sean_A]

Tim

Sorry, I don't see a definition for weak hole in the quote.  However, as you suggest, sure, it is often important to include holes which are not difficult...at least on the surface...I spose one reason could be pace of play.

Bob

That Simpson quote often amuses me, but I cannot recall the holes to which he is referring. I remember he was quite scathing about Rye's 9th because it was too obvious.  On this I would very much disagree with Simpson.  The terrain alone requires a significant amount of "adjusting" to hit the green in two when the course is keen.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -


I don't know the holes to which Simpson was referring. My sense, however, is that it was something of a general principle for Simpson. The extent to which he actually followed it I can't answer.


Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - what a strange yet resonate quote that is; Simpson in his Max Behr period, perhaps?
I mean, by "amusing" I imagine he meant fun; and what else can "tranquil" mean except easy/less challenging?
But he characterizes this tranquil and amusing golf hole as a "bad" one -- which makes me wonder what qualified for Simpson as a "good" hole.
He couldn't have meant a stout and brutish slog.
Peter

[Joe Hancock]

So, without struggling to much to identify what a weak hole is, I’ll stick with basic English to surmise that the opposite of a weak hole is a strong hole.


I’ve played a couple courses that have 18 holes that would fit into the category of “strong” holes. The Ocean Course at Kiawah comes to mind. I was exhausted and had no ambition to play any more golf that day, and certainly not on the same course. Does that make it a bad course or a great course, or is it irrelevant?


My personal preferences would indicate that a great course should compel one to go right back at it, as the fun and joy of the game, with all its challenges and nuances presenting themselves throughout the round (but not always) draws the golfer back.


And, what about Match Play? What fun will a weaker player have playing a course of 18 strong holes if their opponent is a strong player? There has always been an somewhat unspoken definition of what constitutes a great match play course, but I would say that a wide variety of strong and weak holes is part of it.


Greywalls is a course that brought the experience of a breather hole to life for me. Holes 1-9 are a visual feast, dramatic topgraphy and geology and shot requirements in abundance. When I reached the 10th tee, I physically bent at the waist with my hands on my knees, and exclaimed “Whew!”. I had finally gotten the breather I needed (weak hole?), and maybe a little late in the round for this old goat. Nonetheless, it was that moment that the idea of ebb and flow was cemented. Does an architect ever deliberately design a “weak” hole? Absolutely.

[cary lichtenstein]

The holes at Pebble Beach 1,2,3,4,6,7 are all short holes and allow the player to get off to a good start. They are "weak" in some respects or breather. Who wants 18 tough, difficult holes? I remember playing Pete Dye's Sawgrass course, no let up, no where to bail out on many holes or either side, not fun.

[Kalen Braley]

Carey,


Give me a course full of holes like 4 and 6 all day long.  I must admit, I'm a bit confused by your categorization on this one....

[BCrosby]

Peter -


As has been discussed here in the past, the delicious irony of a "weak" hole among a group of strong holes is that it creates pressure to make hay while you can. It offers one of the few opportunities to go low on an otherwise strong course.


I don't know what Simpson meant by "amusing". I'd guess it was his way of saying that a weak hole needn't be boring.


I like Simpson's idea that a weak hole can be a net add to a good course.


Bob


   

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Simpson: “We therefore intend to include one thoroughly amusing but bad hole for the sake of variety and a brief interval of mental tranquility.”

Bob

I like the thought.  Perhaps "amusing" in this context means quirky or out of the ordinary.  Most everything that is perceived is evaluated to some extent relative to other experiences.  Without pain how do we know pleasure?  Perhaps without indifferent holes we wouldn't have a good reference for appreciating the outstanding.

 

[Bill_McBride]

I remember he was quite scathing about Rye's 9th because it was too obvious.  On this I would very much disagree with Simpson.  The terrain alone requires a significant amount of "adjusting" to hit the green in two when the course is keen.

Ciao

Played a match off the 10th vs Craig Disher and his Rye friend with Joe Buehler as my foursomes partner, so 9 was our finisher.  Don't ask Drinkin' Joe about the 80 yard chip second I hit into the greenside bunker on the right, he was unamused at the time. I tried to explain I was playing the break...

[Ally Mcintosh]

"Amusing" means the same as it always did at that time. Only recently has the English language associated it with funny, laughing etc...


In past times, it merely meant "to hold one's interest".... or more literally "to muse over"


I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

[Thomas Dai]

As has been hinted at above, weak or easy holes give playing scoring expectations, and if those expectations aren't met, well, it can effect, often for the rest of the round and thereafter, the area between the ears for quite a few players. 15th club and all that.

atb

[Tim Gallant]

As has been hinted at above, weak or easy holes give playing scoring expectations, and if those expectations aren't met, well, it can effect, often for the rest of the round and thereafter, the area between the ears for quite a few players. 15th club and all that.

atb

Thomas, a wonderful observation.


It seems like we are all in agreement and yet, we still use the 'no weak hole' argument to exemplify how good a course is. I wonder if that is the difference between a 'good' course and our favourites. Sure, a course like Prestwick might have a weak hole or two, but sometimes that adds to the experience rather than hinder.


I know the analogy is used, but it reminds me of the way music is perceived. A record is judged based on the first single, or how many 'hits' come from a record, rather than how it works as a whole. This didn't used to be the case to my knowledge.

[archie_struthers]

 




Know we've been here before . Flow, that ephemeral quality that makes a course great , almost begs for a few "weak" holes.   Perhaps soft would be a better term , or simple.


Anyone one here not enjoy heavy metal ? Perhaps because the harsh staccato is too much for your senses. Just too much sensory overload for many of us. Same with a golf course  , too many "signature " holes (man , I hate to even write that word)  in a row leaves us exhausted. 


like a great opera a fabulous golf course ebbs and flows .,are 10, 11 & 12 at Pine Valley weak? No , they are beautiful but certainly easier that 13,14 &15 .


It would be very easy to build  an extremely difficult golf  course that would give  golfers fits. Just have lots of water and no run up areas to any greens . Make the golf completely aerial and only the very best players could shoot a score .  Good luck getting many members to join . 


Again , weak might not fit here, but we'd have to ask the author.

[Jack Carney]

I don't really use the term "weak" but i do use the term "connector" holes. Holes that connect the more interesting parts of the property where the architect had more to work with. These can be designed to be very good holes but they don't start with a level playing field. (intended) These holes are a just a fact of life and probably a function of expense at the time of construction. Modern courses have much fewer of these as moving dirt and "creating" interesting property is just a computer away.