[Jeff_Lewis]

Maybe I am just getting to be an ornery old man....


I love the drama of 16, but something about the architecture bugs me.


Feels a bit one-dimensional, a bit out of place.  I don't really like that a wide variety of shots end up in basically the same place.


Since you don't ever have to aim at the flag stick on the low side of the green, is the water even come into play as part of decision-making?


It is certainly the worst par 3 on this course by a large margin, no?

[Terry Lavin]

It’s a cheesy hole with some built-in drama provided by the Sunday hole location. Not sure why the Madters would want a higher possibility of an ace but they do like them some roars.


I was observing hole locations for Day 2 of the US Open at Olympia and Tom Meeks put a hole location in a collection area, thinking there might be a hole in one. As a member who wanted to see suffering, I was perplexed.


Nobody came close as I recall.

[Kalen Braley]

It’s a cheesy hole with some built-in drama provided by the Sunday hole location. Not sure why the Madters would want a higher possibility of an ace but they do like them some roars.


I was observing hole locations for Day 2 of the US Open at Olympia and Tom Meeks put a hole location in a collection area, thinking there might be a hole in one. As a member who wanted to see suffering, I was perplexed.


Nobody came close as I recall.

Put me down in the same camp as Terry,

Its a semi-bowled hole location where most shots to the right of the hole will end up close.  Of course the best in the world are going to rip it up.  It was the easiest non-Par 5 hole on Sunday in relation to par with 21 birdies against only 5 scores worse than par.

[Jason Topp]

The hole requires a decision off the tee


-if on the left - go straight at the pin or use the slope with different risks associated with each option.
- if on the right - risk leaving it above the hole or bail out to a long difficult putt up the hill


The hole plays very differently depending on pin position and wind


The hole generates excitement by rewarding good play and can severely punish the player who gets aggressive but fails or is tentative in both strategy and putting stroke. 


The hole provides for dramatic recovery play - witness the pitches from long left, Seve's chip while standing in the bunker or players aiming away from the hole when they bail out too far right.


The hole requires the player to accurately assess his abilities at that moment.


It passes.

[Jason Topp]

It might be better with a slow green.

[Thomas Dai]

Back in 1975 Jack Nicklaus holed a long putt up the slope to the back pin position when he beat Weiskopf and Miller to the green jacket - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7m9nxCueQ
With that in mind I can’t help but suspect that sometime soon a player in very close contention at the top of the leaderboard is going to get a hole-in-one at the 16th given the now seemingly standard lower Sunday pin location. Maybe that’s what the folks in charge want? “Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s showtime!” (queue....bring on the dancing girls and the jugglers!).
Atb

[Tim Gavrich]

It both propelled players to great finishes (Tiger, Johnson) and cut off the momentum of some chasers (Cantlay, Koepka). So what if it played easier relative to par. Is anyone going to deny that it's fun to watch balls roll by and into the cup? It still takes plenty of skill to hit the spot required to give the ball a chance to go in the hole.


Of course it passes muster.

[Matthew Rose]

I read that the back left bunker was added later. Is there any reason why it's there?

It seems like players rarely find it, and it also seems to make the water less frightening.

[George Pazin]

I'm inclined to agree with Jason and Tim, with the proviso that I haven't played it, so I won't say concretely until then...


Certainly everyone didn't birdie it. Plus, the softer course conditions took the edge off a bit. It's definitely flexible, with the many different hole locations requiring different shots. It tends to yield birdies on Sunday, but that just puts more pressure on everyone to make birdie to keep up.


Calling it the weakest par 3 is like calling #2 the weakest par 5. Both are still pretty good holes.


I wonder how much different the original 16th was than the 12th. Seem pretty similar.


Maybe it would be better if the USGA came in and baked it out, shaved down the green, and had to syringe it in between groups to keep it alive......

[V. Kmetz]

I'm inclined to agree with Jason and Tim, with the proviso that I haven't played it, so I won't say concretely until then...

Calling it the weakest par 3 is like calling #2 the weakest par 5. Both are still pretty good holes.

And I definitely agree with all three of you...with two additions...


1. Between teeing grounds and four distinct pin positions on a large green, the hole can play at a broad and breathable range of distances, given the desires of a committee and prevaling climate conditions of the day... 135 to 190.  That's an enormous asset to a single hole (especially a one-shot hole) whereby the hole can be eight or nine different kinds of tests with like 6 different clubs (for us ams), based on tee markers, wind and pin... how good is that architecturally? 


2. Not just because its on TV every year...not because I've seen it up close a couple of times... but because I can so clearly see the fun and the challenge of it... I want to putt a green like that; I want to try to fit a 7 iron 150 up into the front right corner... I want to try and hit a hold-off 5 iron into the slope for what we know as the Sunday pin...I want to try my hand at putting a few ridiculous putts on that green...that looks f'n fun!!  And if a hole like that was on a local favorite, I'd be proud to show it off to a newcomer or use it to beat a rival who failed to tackle it correctly...or take my hat off to an opponent who didn't screw it up....


So my criteria for my idea of a good par 3 is actually (it turns out) informed by this hole... it's got to be breathable and have some variety baked in depending on where the tees and pins are set... in this criteria, the hole might be better than some traditional Redans that don't change that much day to day in what they are asking you to do...(control distance to the front right/approach)... the 16th at ANGC  can be 3 or 4 almost entirely different holes depending on daily factors.


cheers  vk

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm not sure what you guys want.  It's strategic to pros - some aim right at it, others use the slope to the right, and I did see a few miss it just high enough right (or hitting it with too much spin) that they stayed up there.  A few even bailed short right.  3 options on how to play it = strategy, no?


Does anyone happen to know exactly what that feeding cross slope % of slope is?  I figure 3% or so would do it, others figure it has to be 4-5%, which to me would make it borderline useless, and increases of ponding it from there, but then, I don't have that shot.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sometimes we (me) over think in the name of good discussion. It's a great golf hole, and an ideal Par 3. Hit a perfect shot and you get a terrific result -- like JN & Tiger, a 2-3 ft putt back up the slope. Anything less and it's an easy par, and in any event there's little risk of a big number. The very opposite of the 17th at Sawgrass -- there the 'drama' is actually melodrama, so obvious & in your face (though melodrama works for me too), while here it is quieter and more subtle -- the difference between an episode of Perry Mason and Paul Newman's closing argument in The Verdict.

[Mark_Fine]

#16 might be one of the best holes on the golf course especially when it comes to providing interest and drama.  There are a number of holes I would touch/tweak at Augusta.  #16 is not one of them. 

[George Pazin]

#16 might be one of the best holes on the golf course especially when it comes to providing interest and drama.  [bold]There are a number of holes I would touch/tweak at Augusta.[/bold] #16 is not one of them.

Have you ever written about this, here or elsewhere? I’d like to read it, if so.

[Garland Bayley]

In his In My Opinion piece, Dan Wexler writes "For the purpose of The Masters, it is difficult to argue that the current hole – despite offering little more than two really effective
pin placements on a larger-than-average green – isn’t far better suited to the rigors and excitement of modern tournament play.
For the membership, however, the old sixteenth might have held more charm (and obviously more MacKenzie flavor),
particularly as there was room to lengthen at least its left-side tee considerably. "

It seems that most of the evaluations on this thread are not divorced from the idea of tournament. Personally I think I would find the hole less than enthralling for my play, and for my buddies play. Having a pond up next to a green is not something I am fond of playing.

So it seems that if tournament drama is what you want in a golf hole, then 16 fills your ticket.

But, if you want a golf hole that the average player will find fun, then 16 falls well short. Even if you think the challenge of the pond is fun, the people playing with you are going to be upset watching plunk ball after ball in the pond.

[jeffwarne]

I wonder how much different the original 16th was than the 12th. Seem pretty similar.


Maybe it would be better if the USGA came in and baked it out, shaved down the green, and had to syringe it in between groups to keep it alive......

bingo

[Tom_Doak]

Does anyone happen to know exactly what that feeding cross slope % of slope is?  I figure 3% or so would do it, others figure it has to be 4-5%, which to me would make it borderline useless, and increases of ponding it from there, but then, I don't have that shot.

It’s way more than 3%.  If it was only that much, balls would stay on the slope until the greens got up to 15+ stump.


I would guess it’s 5-6%.  I have a map of it in my office somewhere; I will try to find it when I get home, though I can’t guarantee that they haven’t changed it in the last 20 years.


The steep slope is the making of the hole.  You can’t miss right because it’s so steep your second shot might wind up in the pond; that’s what brings the pond into play off the tee, and also what makes the back shelf pin so hard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone happen to know exactly what that feeding cross slope % of slope is?  I figure 3% or so would do it, others figure it has to be 4-5%, which to me would make it borderline useless, and increases of ponding it from there, but then, I don't have that shot.

It’s way more than 3%.  If it was only that much, balls would stay on the slope until the greens got up to 15+ stump.


I would guess it’s 5-6%.  I have a map of it in my office somewhere; I will try to find it when I get home, though I can’t guarantee that they haven’t changed it in the last 20 years.


The steep slope is the making of the hole.  You can’t miss right because it’s so steep your second shot might wind up in the pond; that’s what brings the pond into play off the tee, and also what makes the back shelf pin so hard.

Thanks, and I would appreciate the info.  Not that I have any real use for it, but would be interesting.  The tour pros I know tell me they look at green contours for strategy, and bunkers outside the green are usually non factors in shot type, because they don't allow negative thoughts to creep in.


That said, I wonder if the downhill chip to the water would actually be more of a penalty than a sand bunker back right, where you might get some spin on the shot? 
 

[Matt Kardash]

I always thought the 13th at TPC Sawgrass was the better version of this hole.

[Mark_Fine]

I didn’t read Dan Wexler’s "In My Opinion" piece but I wonder what he thinks about the 12th hole      Talk about a hole that would be difficult if not impossible for the average golfer!  Most would probably end up with an X on their card.  If they didn't chunk their first shot in the water, they would hit too much club to make sure they got over the creek, then chip back into the creek from beyond the extremely narrow green and …      These holes are set up with the Pros (and drama) in mind.  Both holes played a huge role in the outcome of the tournament this year (as they both have most years). 

[Paul Rudovsky]

The distances hit today have had a profound change here I think.  As a semi old man, I can recall it from TV coverage in the late 50's and 60's.  I remember a lot more tee shots getting wet than what happens today.  Last one I can think of affecting eventual winner off the top of my head was Corey Pavin's dunking one about 25 years ago.


I distinctly remember Arnie hitting into #16 in '62 4th round (SI at the time said he hit a 5-iron). It was 170 from back ball washer to middle (probably 185 to back pin)--same as today.  When was the last time you saw a 5 iron used there??  His tee shot went over back right corner and then Arnie canned a very fast (in terms of green speed then) downhill chip...halting a big slide that day, and getting him into a playoff with Player and Finsterwald with a 75 in 4th round (including finish of bird-bird-par).  He won playoff w 68 vs. Gary's 71 and Dow's 75.  If he doesn't finish bird-bird-par (no birdies till 16 and 17) on Sunday that would have been 2 straight years falling apart in 4th round...


ANGC holes with no yardage increase since back 1976:  #3 (actually 10 yards shorter); #6; #12, and #16.  So of par 3's...only one lengthened... #4.  Biggest lengthening job of all holes (in yards and %) has been #7 from 360 to 450 (90 yards or 25%)

[Thomas Dai]

It’s easier hitting a shorter iron than a longer one, even more so given improved manufacturing quality. I appreciate that lofts have become stronger but the players have become stronger and bigger too and the ball goes further and is more consistent as well. And it’s not just distance, it’s trajectory and the ability to land the ball softer in a smaller area. Holes where elite players once hit in long/mid-irons are now mid/short-irons and shots with shorter clubs tend to go closer.
Atb


PS - I think I recall seeing footage (no pun intended!) of Nicklaus playing a shot one-bare-foot-in, one-shoed-foot-out, of the water on the 16th. Mid-1970’s maybe.

[Jeff_Lewis]

There are a couple of architects in this thread.  Have you ever been inspired by 16 at Augusta to design a similar hole on one of your courses? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I like it.


Geoff Ogilvy said that it was both the easiest and the toughest shot on the course… depending on the hole location.

[Kalen Braley]

I like it.


Geoff Ogilvy said that it was both the easiest and the toughest shot on the course… depending on the hole location.

Interesting,

The stats don't bear it out...at least not for this year.  Overall it was the easiest par 3 of the tournament, and played under par in 3 of the 4 rounds.  Even in round 3 it didn't even play over par, came in right at 0.0

http://www.espn.com/golf/stats/hole/_/tournament/401056527

Round 1 and 4 - Easiest Par 3
Round 2 - Second Easiest
Round 3 - Second Toughest

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()