News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2004, 11:58:27 PM »
The 4th at Baltusrol / Lower.

I'll agree with this one, too.  I was all prepared to play the famous 190-yard par 3 from so many past Opens, etc., when the reality set in.  Unless you play the back tees (course is over 7300 yards when I played there), the next tee up was but a mere 143 yards.  :-[  A pitching wedge (for me in summer).  What a disappointment that was.

The green IS interesting, but I was expecting to hit some 5-iron to the green.  I suppose my host would have let me play from the tips on that hole only, but I didn't want to ruffle any feathers.  Couldn't they put in a 175 tee, at least?

Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2004, 03:29:28 AM »
My first GCA post...

Most disappointing hole for me was the 4th at Spyglass.  Interesting angles of play, but falling very awkwardly on the ground and almost ugly despite the setting.

I can't really say I was disappointed, but I've played it twice and remain badly confused by #18 at Yale.

I think 9/10ths of what makes that hole great (and hard) is confusion.  Once you stop trying to figure it out and just pick a spot and hit to it on each shot, it gets both less intimidating and less fun.

tonyt

Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2004, 04:13:32 AM »
Those who are bemused by the popularity of PB #17 as a candidate need not be too perplexed. Something I noted in the title and theme of this thread was always going to lead to this. The topic is not on whether a hole is a let down, lacks greatness, or is not what it is assumed to be. It is about actual experienced "wow factor" after in many cases, being exposed to stories or reputation of wow factor.

With few exceptions, almost any of the great holes on the planet could possibly be "overhyped" if someone wanted to use extreme language and superlatives. Obviously the greater the hole, the more extreme the effort required to render it overhyped.

A hole has to be truly good (and frequently great) to have such an exulted reputation, that one hears of, sees in photos, prints or TV, or is told over and over how magnificent it is. The final perception of the hole in reality is not a reflection of whether the hole really is great or not. Just whether the greatness barometer matches the reputation barometer. An imbalance will render the opinion of either overrated or underrated, without actually determining quality as a stand alone factor. Few if any of the nominators of PB#17 have actually knocked the hole in a way that implies that if they stumbled upon it at an unknown course, they would think ill of it.

The other thing to remember very importantly, is that for a hole to be very overhyped over many years, it must have received years of accolades and favourable comment on such a scale, that it must be pretty darn good!  :)

TEPaul

Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2004, 05:09:41 AM »
Tony Titheridge;

I think your last post is a very fine qualifier on this subject. In that vein it occurs to me that no course in the world can come close to the feeling of a let down for so many golfers over the decades when they first see it compared to what they'd heard about it. That, of course, would be the mother of them all---The Old Course at St. Andrews.

But then when most got to play her a number of times, almost without fail the fascination grew!

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2004, 11:08:23 AM »
Like some others, my biggest lack of wow came at Sawgrass.
The TPC course was a huge disappoitment, mainly for the overwhelming feel that the course was "overdone" and way too m odern for my personal taste.
That is not to say I think it is a bd course, just not up my alley.
I am one of those who did enjoy number 17 at Pebble Beach on first viewing, but was somewhat spoiled by playing it from the very back..ie number 4 teebox..from there it more than satisfied my anticipation.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2004, 11:13:15 AM »
TP,
I think you have a great point, almost everybody I know that is being honest fail to appreciate the old course at first try.
Myself included.
As a teenager, I played in several R&A events on the hallowed grounds, and in my ignorance proudly described the course as the proverbial "goat ranch".

However now as an expatriot returning, all be it armed with more wisdom and appreciation of the finer things in life, I love the place and apologise each time as I walk of 18 for my previous indescretions.....

texsport

Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2004, 02:11:53 PM »
For me it wasn't just a hole, it was a course - Pinehurst #2. I just don't see it as a man-sized course and since I am in the very insignificant minority of those that feel that way, am willing to accept that the problem is mine.

Still, I just don't see it as all that great and definitely not awe-inspiring.

I agree!

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2004, 02:47:28 PM »
I can honestly say that I was bowled over by TOC on first playing it, but:
1. I was taken round by the retired Professor of French who could tell you about every blade of grass, which great player had played which great shot from which spot (or come to grief there) and who knew every nuance of the architecture and could point it out in the most educative manner without being patronising or lecturing.
2. My wife came from St Andrews and knew every blade of grass on the old course - not from playing golf on it but having played all manner of childish games on it, especially on Sundays. It was like discovering another piece of her!

Possibly the greatest thrill was to see my name up on the ballot sheets posted all round the town.


THuckaby2

Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2004, 03:58:20 PM »
Actually, scratch that.  Without a doubt (at least until I think of another one!  ;)), the most disappointing hole I've ever played was #7 at Pebble.  I expected sheer treachery.  I've played it many times, and never felt anything even remotely close.



Well then here's the answer to a discussion we've had several times before.  Why in god's name did you expect it to be treacherous?  The hole's only 100 yards long and it's downhill for god's sake.  Here is where you went wrong, and why you fail to appreciate the hole today.  It never has been and never will be a treacherous golf hole.  Oh, as 100 yard shots go, it's on the tough side... but 9 times out of 10 it's justl a wedge.

And it's still a great hole, dare I say superior in all aspects to #10WFW, for example.  It's beautiful, fun, inspiring, and just tough enough, for a short shot, to keep you on your toes.  of course if masochism is one's reason to play the game, one won't like this hole and will prefer WFW#10.  But for those into inspiration and fun, well... you can't get it much better than #7 Pebble.

TH

THuckaby2

Re:Most disappointing \
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2004, 04:13:40 PM »
Cary?

Jeez Dave, Kenny was talking about one time in the snow in the 40s or something.  You can't be that naive to think that that's how the hole is bloody well often.

You were a victim of silly-high expectations.  Use your head and think how much the wind has to blow to get you to hit a downhill 100 yard shot with a 3iron.  I believe they give names to weather phenomena like that, like Andrew, Ivan, etc.

I have hit a knock-down 7 on the golf hole, but only to keep it under the wind... kinda like in the 92 Open, Tom Kite's shot.  But normally it is just a wedge.

And a damn fun, damn inspiring wedge at that.

But expectations of treachery?  Silly.

TH

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2012, 12:56:09 PM »
16 at Oakland Hills
17 at Pebble Beach
18 at Glen Abbey
17 at Kiawah (Ocean)

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2012, 01:24:50 PM »

#16 at Oakland Hills - agree with all comments before me.
#2 at Scioto - decent hole but not top 500 in the world per George Peper
#17 at Double Eagle - not a great short par 4 as there really is only 1 way to play it.
#3 at Oakmont - I love the course, but this hole just plays long and hard - no strategy on this one.  #15 with the mini church pews is better.  The short par 4s at #2, #5, #11, #14 and #17 are much more interesting holes and #18 is a great long par 4 - all better than #3.
 
 
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2012, 01:28:30 PM »
For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2012, 01:46:13 PM »
It sounds like a number of folks are disappointed with par threes that don't look as dramatic in person as they do on television.

I haven't played Augusta, but I've heard from more than one person that it's a bit of a disappointment (probably not the right word) NOT to be able to play the shots sees during the tournament each year.  A group of 18s just isn't going to have a go at 15 or to find the green on 18 or to even really have a chance on 11.  The Masters provides a peek at what the golf course is capable of but a recreational round simply exposes what most player cannot do.

WW

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2012, 01:49:32 PM »
#3 at Oakmont - I love the course, but this hole just plays long and hard - no strategy on this one.  #15 with the mini church pews is better.  The short par 4s at #2, #5, #11, #14 and #17 are much more interesting holes and #18 is a great long par 4 - all better than #3.

Stunning. My second favorite hole on the course. Absolutely incredible green. We're dropping the gloves when we meet. :)

Mine is the entire Ocean Course at Kiawah. It's hard not to be disappointed when you make the trip and course is closed for Wold Cup renovations... Yeah, I know, that's not what Ran was asking, but I don't think I have any other real disappointments. The only other one is also an entire course and I don't want to dredge that back up, as that mostly comes down to personal preferences.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2012, 02:12:36 PM »
George:

I liked Oakmont #3 and as every hole on the course, the green is great.  However, I was expecting it to be one of the best golf holes that I have ever played.  I still like it better than #1, #7 and #10.  Maybe it was expectations but I was blown away by Oakmont's short par 4s.  I thought there were numerous options on each of them and low and high numbers possible.  Great stuff.  As a whole, I think the par 4's really make Oakmont.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2012, 02:20:08 PM »
As usual, I got a little carried away when thinking about this topic.  Some self-reflection reveals that I'm rarely disappointed with a new golf course I've played.  I seek an adventuresome spirit, and I can usually find it in just about every course I've played.  Most of my surprises over the last couple of years have been pleasant: the unparalleled quality of golf courses I played in England; the unbelievable variety of the public courses in the Philly area; my aforementioned new love on 2000s Nicklaus courses; a Fazio course I ACTUALLY LIKE at Galloway National; and so on.  So I decided to dig deeper and challenge myself: what holes have really disappointed me over the years?  I came with an eclectic 18: the All-Disappointment 18.  These holes fall into one of three categories: holes deemed "great" by others that didn't measure up in real life; poor holes on great courses; and decent holes on land that could be so much better.  Without further adieu...

1.   Sandwich – 440, Par 4.  Pat Ward-Thomas picked this as his best starting hole in the world.  Me?  I played it twice, and it wouldn't make my top 25 openers.  I played at least a dozen in the UK that I liked more.  The green is neat, but completely unreasonable for a hole of its length.  I might say it is the worst hole on the golf course.

2.   Dornoch – 165, Par 3.  I'd always heard the toughest shot at Dornoch is the "second at the second."  My second shot was a 40-footer for birdie.  Yes, the greensite is penal, but it is also massive, and a short and straight miss will never go wrong here.  The hole is a decent one, but it doesn't get my juices flowing like 6 or 10, which happen to be better variations on the same theme.

3.   The Country Club – 440, Par 4.  Okay, I know this is supposed to one of the great par fours in golf, and I'm really trying to get myself to love it.  Everything is there: the dramatic tee shot over the cliffs and the long iron second are tremendous, and the hole is about as natural as it gets.  Still, I can't help but wish there was something more here.  I think the problem is the green, which is featureless and devoid of interesting surrounding contours.  For clifftop drama, I'll take the second at Dismal River any day.  I also prefer the next four holes at TCC to this one.

4.   Oak Hill (East) – 570, Par 5.  There were so many choices from Oak Hill's East Course, my home course for so many years.  If you ask me the two main flaws with this layout, the answers are 1) It's too narrow, and 2) Fazio.  This one falls into category number one.  Robert Trent Jones improved the tee shot by moving the tee to the right of the 3rd green to create a heroic dogleg right.  Yet the hole is completely devoid of strategy due to trees and mowing patterns.  Bail left?  No way, because anything 5-10 yards left of center will either catch a branch 80 yards off the tee or end up in the maintenance area.  Try to cut the corner right? Sure, but your reward for carrying the bunkers is a 40-yard-long swath of gnarly rough.  Throw in a field goal kick of a second shot and a shrunken green, you get my most disappointing non-Fazio hole on the East Course.

5.   Prestwick – 200, Par 3.  I LOVE Prestwick.  The blindness, the quirk, the great links terrain and wild greensites all do it for me in a big way.  But the 5th, the famed "Himalayas," is the one hole out there that could be so much more.  First, cut a bunker into the mountain to create some high drama.  Second, build a green that matches up to the character of the rest of the course.  Like it, but don't love it like I should.

6.   Woking – 420, Par 4.  Ask anyone: I'm a big fan of Woking.  But the 6th doesn't quite make the grade.  The diagonal creek should yield gold here, but there is no tradeoff on the tee shot to make this feature interesting.  Moreover, the green site doesn't fit the bold, bombastic mold you see on the rest of the course.

7.   Country Club of Rochester – 210, Par 3.  After seven years of caddying here, this is the one golf hole at CCR I can't appreciate.  Gil Hanse's work improved it, but with the severe green and the overhanging trees, the only shot here is a high, baby cut three iron.  And to think Hanse could have built a legitimate Redan with a creekside green here?  Oh, what could be…

8.   The Addington – 410, 4.  I've hashed and re-hashed this one here.  Most of Abercromby's risks paid off at Addington, but this one did not.  Two less-than-perfect shots and you make a 7.  It's awkward as hell.  This hole sucks.

9.   Deal – 445, 4.  All the British GCAers know this one, and it sits as another question mark on a really phenomenal course.  It's the definition of anti-strategy.  At least the green is pretty neat.

10.    Mill Creek – 350, Par 4.  Mill Creek is actually a pretty neat Paul Albanese layout, with some cool alternate fairways and wild greens.  The clubhouse sits atop a drumlin (another name for a small mountain), and the holes playing around it are the course's millstone.  The 10th is the worst of them all, running out about 190 yards and then falling sharply downhill to the left.  You can't hold the green from outside of 50 yards.  The hole is awkward, strange, contrived, or whatever substitute for stupid you want to use.

11.    Merion (East) – 370, Par 4.  I know about the greensite.  I know about the history.  But where is the decision-making on this hole?  Come on, Merion: you're better than that.

12.    Garden City – 190, Par 3.  Garden City is another one of my faves.  All sorts of original concepts flying around this low-profile design.  Its best stretch of holes is 8 through 11.  So what do we get with the 12?  A built-up, manufactured, seen it a million times par three designed by the anti-quirk, Robert Trent Jones.  UGH!

13.    Lancaster – 510, 5.  I guess this hole still has some fans out there, but this shoehorned piece of schlock is the black eye on an otherwise standout golf course.  Any hole where you are 100 yards out from the green, in the middle of the fairway, and have absolutely no shot is fundamentally flawed.

14.    Twin Eagles – 400, 4.  What do this hole look like?  Hell, I don't remember.  Twin Eagles was supposed to be a good golf course, hosting a Senior Tour event for several years.  I can't remember anything about it.  This is the forgettable old Nicklaus, well before the engaging new Nicklaus.

15.    Oak Hill (East) – 180, Par 3.  Here's category two of flaws at Oak Hill. George Fazio ruined this par three when he moved the green down the hill to a swampy area.  After the green kept sliding into the (manmade) pond, Tom Fazio and sidekick Marzloff rebuilt the green in 2010.  Now, you walk off the 14th green and get transported to Atlanta Athletic Club.  The six-foot-high stone wall that holds up the green really fits on a Donald Ross classic  ::)

16.    Oak Hill (West) – 470, Par 5.  Trees, trees and more trees.  This hole was listed in several golf books as one of Ross's great strategic holes.  With Ross's bunkers never being built, the hole lost some of its potential.  But the real issue is the trees that require golfers to hit a moon ball on any shot over 200 yards.  The club decided to take down all of the trees on the inside of the dogleg a few years ago--except for the one tree that was main problem in the first place.  This hole could be a great hole so easily, but as it stands its the worst hole on the West Course.

17.    The Ocean Course – 195, Par 3.  The cliche choice here, but seriously, Dye couldn't figure out a better 17th hole than a penal par three over water?  Completely unnatural and out of place.

18.    Camp Creek – 450, Par 4.  Here's the issue with Fazio: he can take a great piece of land and build a mediocre golf course better than anyone in the business.  I enjoyed a few holes at Camp Creek, but some were just vanilla bland.  After neat greensites at 16 and 17, CCCC ends with a whimper, a long four with no semblance of angles or strategy anywhere. Barf.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2012, 02:21:10 PM »
For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 

16 better than the Redan? THE Redan? You don't say that!
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2012, 02:25:03 PM »
For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 

16 better than the Redan? THE Redan? You don't say that!

I ain't lyin'.



When I saw this I laughed and smiled from ear to ear.  Perhaps the coolest green I've ever seen.  If only Sitwell Park's was still around!!

Oh yeah...on 17 at The Ocean Course.  I am with you 100%.  I think it is the worst hole on the course, but the events at the Ryder Cup made it world famous.  Oh well.  Whachya gonna do?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2012, 02:25:15 PM »
George:

I liked Oakmont #3 and as every hole on the course, the green is great.  However, I was expecting it to be one of the best golf holes that I have ever played.  I still like it better than #1, #7 and #10.  Maybe it was expectations but I was blown away by Oakmont's short par 4s.  I thought there were numerous options on each of them and low and high numbers possible.  Great stuff.  As a whole, I think the par 4's really make Oakmont.

I forgot you didn't like 1 or 10. We're definitely dropping them. :) I don't disagree, the par 4s at Oakmont are special, I just think all of them are; in fact, I think the juxtaposition of long (brutal) par 4s with short (also brutal!) par 4s is a good bit of what makes the course so special. There are not many low numbers available on the longer par 4s, so I can see where they wouldn't sit as well with you.

-----

The all disappointment 18, that's funny, nicely done John. I'd be thrilled to be so disappointed. :)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 02:28:22 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jackson C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #45 on: February 25, 2012, 02:32:12 PM »
I really like 16 as well.
The thing about 15 is that the green is not entirely visible from the tee box.  If you are playing it for the first time, you would not know it is a redan.

For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 

16 better than the Redan? THE Redan? You don't say that!
"The secrets that golf reveals to the game's best are secrets those players must discover for themselves."
Christy O'Connor, Sr. (1998)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Most disappointing
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »
It sounds like a number of folks are disappointed with par threes that don't look as dramatic in person as they do on television.

I haven't played Augusta, but I've heard from more than one person that it's a bit of a disappointment (probably not the right word) NOT to be able to play the shots sees during the tournament each year.  A group of 18s just isn't going to have a go at 15 or to find the green on 18 or to even really have a chance on 11.  The Masters provides a peek at what the golf course is capable of but a recreational round simply exposes what most player cannot do.

WW

Wade:

You are right, many of those holes are disappointing because they are so difficult for us.  If you play the member tees, some of them are redeemed ... you ought to have a similar shot to what the pros face on #11, and maybe even on #18 [although my last time there, I wound up playing my third shot from #10 fairway!].  But the one hole that just doesn't work for the vast majority of players is #15.  If you can't reach the green in two, it's a boring lay-up followed by a VERY difficult pitch off a severely downhill lie.  It is far and away the most overrated hole at Augusta.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2012, 02:44:04 PM »
I really like 16 as well.
The thing about 15 is that the green is not entirely visible from the tee box.  If you are playing it for the first time, you would not know it is a redan.

For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 

16 better than the Redan? THE Redan? You don't say that!

Some (Sean Arble in particular) would argue that partial blindness is an essential characteristic of a Redan.  Remember the Redan is named for a fortress in the Crimean War, so playing the golf hole should be akin to storming a fortress.  That mysterious quality has to be there.  Mostly, I was blown away by how steep the green is on 15.

I like 16 a lot as well--I agree, Mac, that green is phenomenal!  But I don't think I can say that 16 was greater than 15 or vice versa.  They are both tremendous golf holes, but they are so different from one another.  In fact, that's what makes North Berwick so remarkable: you get a series of great holes that are radically different but hang together really well.  Why?  They just use the natural features that were on the property.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2012, 02:45:19 PM »
As usual, I got a little carried away when thinking about this topic.  Some self-reflection reveals that I'm rarely disappointed with a new golf course I've played.  I seek an adventuresome spirit, and I can usually find it in just about every course I've played.  Most of my surprises over the last couple of years have been pleasant: the unparalleled quality of golf courses I played in England; the unbelievable variety of the public courses in the Philly area; my aforementioned new love on 2000s Nicklaus courses; a Fazio course I ACTUALLY LIKE at Galloway National; and so on.  So I decided to dig deeper and challenge myself: what holes have really disappointed me over the years?  I came with an eclectic 18: the All-Disappointment 18.  These holes fall into one of three categories: holes deemed "great" by others that didn't measure up in real life; poor holes on great courses; and decent holes on land that could be so much better.  Without further adieu...

1.   Sandwich – 440, Par 4.  Pat Ward-Thomas picked this as his best starting hole in the world.  Me?  I played it twice, and it wouldn't make my top 25 openers.  I played at least a dozen in the UK that I liked more.  The green is neat, but completely unreasonable for a hole of its length.  I might say it is the worst hole on the golf course.

2.   Dornoch – 165, Par 3.  I'd always heard the toughest shot at Dornoch is the "second at the second."  My second shot was a 40-footer for birdie.  Yes, the greensite is penal, but it is also massive, and a short and straight miss will never go wrong here.  The hole is a decent one, but it doesn't get my juices flowing like 6 or 10, which happen to be better variations on the same theme.

3.   The Country Club – 440, Par 4.  Okay, I know this is supposed to one of the great par fours in golf, and I'm really trying to get myself to love it.  Everything is there: the dramatic tee shot over the cliffs and the long iron second are tremendous, and the hole is about as natural as it gets.  Still, I can't help but wish there was something more here.  I think the problem is the green, which is featureless and devoid of interesting surrounding contours.  For clifftop drama, I'll take the second at Dismal River any day.  I also prefer the next four holes at TCC to this one.

4.   Oak Hill (East) – 570, Par 5.  There were so many choices from Oak Hill's East Course, my home course for so many years.  If you ask me the two main flaws with this layout, the answers are 1) It's too narrow, and 2) Fazio.  This one falls into category number one.  Robert Trent Jones improved the tee shot by moving the tee to the right of the 3rd green to create a heroic dogleg right.  Yet the hole is completely devoid of strategy due to trees and mowing patterns.  Bail left?  No way, because anything 5-10 yards left of center will either catch a branch 80 yards off the tee or end up in the maintenance area.  Try to cut the corner right? Sure, but your reward for carrying the bunkers is a 40-yard-long swath of gnarly rough.  Throw in a field goal kick of a second shot and a shrunken green, you get my most disappointing non-Fazio hole on the East Course.

5.   Prestwick – 200, Par 3.  I LOVE Prestwick.  The blindness, the quirk, the great links terrain and wild greensites all do it for me in a big way.  But the 5th, the famed "Himalayas," is the one hole out there that could be so much more.  First, cut a bunker into the mountain to create some high drama.  Second, build a green that matches up to the character of the rest of the course.  Like it, but don't love it like I should.

6.   Woking – 420, Par 4.  Ask anyone: I'm a big fan of Woking.  But the 6th doesn't quite make the grade.  The diagonal creek should yield gold here, but there is no tradeoff on the tee shot to make this feature interesting.  Moreover, the green site doesn't fit the bold, bombastic mold you see on the rest of the course.

7.   Country Club of Rochester – 210, Par 3.  After seven years of caddying here, this is the one golf hole at CCR I can't appreciate.  Gil Hanse's work improved it, but with the severe green and the overhanging trees, the only shot here is a high, baby cut three iron.  And to think Hanse could have built a legitimate Redan with a creekside green here?  Oh, what could be…

8.   The Addington – 410, 4.  I've hashed and re-hashed this one here.  Most of Abercromby's risks paid off at Addington, but this one did not.  Two less-than-perfect shots and you make a 7.  It's awkward as hell.  This hole sucks.

9.   Deal – 445, 4.  All the British GCAers know this one, and it sits as another question mark on a really phenomenal course.  It's the definition of anti-strategy.  At least the green is pretty neat.

10.    Mill Creek – 350, Par 4.  Mill Creek is actually a pretty neat Paul Albanese layout, with some cool alternate fairways and wild greens.  The clubhouse sits atop a drumlin (another name for a small mountain), and the holes playing around it are the course's millstone.  The 10th is the worst of them all, running out about 190 yards and then falling sharply downhill to the left.  You can't hold the green from outside of 50 yards.  The hole is awkward, strange, contrived, or whatever substitute for stupid you want to use.

11.    Merion (East) – 370, Par 4.  I know about the greensite.  I know about the history.  But where is the decision-making on this hole?  Come on, Merion: you're better than that.

12.    Garden City – 190, Par 3.  Garden City is another one of my faves.  All sorts of original concepts flying around this low-profile design.  Its best stretch of holes is 8 through 11.  So what do we get with the 12?  A built-up, manufactured, seen it a million times par three designed by the anti-quirk, Robert Trent Jones.  UGH!

13.    Lancaster – 510, 5.  I guess this hole still has some fans out there, but this shoehorned piece of schlock is the black eye on an otherwise standout golf course.  Any hole where you are 100 yards out from the green, in the middle of the fairway, and have absolutely no shot is fundamentally flawed.

14.    Twin Eagles – 400, 4.  What do this hole look like?  Hell, I don't remember.  Twin Eagles was supposed to be a good golf course, hosting a Senior Tour event for several years.  I can't remember anything about it.  This is the forgettable old Nicklaus, well before the engaging new Nicklaus.

15.    Oak Hill (East) – 180, Par 3.  Here's category two of flaws at Oak Hill. George Fazio ruined this par three when he moved the green down the hill to a swampy area.  After the green kept sliding into the (manmade) pond, Tom Fazio and sidekick Marzloff rebuilt the green in 2010.  Now, you walk off the 14th green and get transported to Atlanta Athletic Club.  The six-foot-high stone wall that holds up the green really fits on a Donald Ross classic  ::)

16.    Oak Hill (West) – 470, Par 5.  Trees, trees and more trees.  This hole was listed in several golf books as one of Ross's great strategic holes.  With Ross's bunkers never being built, the hole lost some of its potential.  But the real issue is the trees that require golfers to hit a moon ball on any shot over 200 yards.  The club decided to take down all of the trees on the inside of the dogleg a few years ago--except for the one tree that was main problem in the first place.  This hole could be a great hole so easily, but as it stands its the worst hole on the West Course.

17.    The Ocean Course – 195, Par 3.  The cliche choice here, but seriously, Dye couldn't figure out a better 17th hole than a penal par three over water?  Completely unnatural and out of place.

18.    Camp Creek – 450, Par 4.  Here's the issue with Fazio: he can take a great piece of land and build a mediocre golf course better than anyone in the business.  I enjoyed a few holes at Camp Creek, but some were just vanilla bland.  After neat greensites at 16 and 17, CCCC ends with a whimper, a long four with no semblance of angles or strategy anywhere. Barf.

JNC:

This is a great idea for a list, and I am bummed that I didn't come up with it for The Confidential Guide.  I don't agree with your choices for holes 2 and 3, but agree with quite a few others, especially 11 [heresy!] and 17, although I think the 17th at Pebble Beach might be MORE disappointing.

But how in the hell do you get the 18th at Camp Creek as the most disappointing 18th hole?  I've never even heard of it, much less built up any expectations of how great it is.  And there have got to be numerous balloons to prick for #18 -- the 18th at Olympic, for starters.

Simon Holt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Most disappointing \
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2012, 02:52:57 PM »
I really like 16 as well.
The thing about 15 is that the green is not entirely visible from the tee box.  If you are playing it for the first time, you would not know it is a redan.

For me, the hands down winner is 17 at TPC Sawgrass. 

But another weird moment was when 16 at North Berwick outshined 15. 

And I would obviously agree with Sean!  When I stand on a tee and CAN see the green then I dont think it is a Redan....

It epitomises local knowledge that you can have the faith to hit well right of the pin on a semi-blind hole, with the knowledge that a well placed shot with channel down to the intended target.



16 better than the Redan? THE Redan? You don't say that!

Some (Sean Arble in particular) would argue that partial blindness is an essential characteristic of a Redan.  Remember the Redan is named for a fortress in the Crimean War, so playing the golf hole should be akin to storming a fortress.  That mysterious quality has to be there.  Mostly, I was blown away by how steep the green is on 15.

I like 16 a lot as well--I agree, Mac, that green is phenomenal!  But I don't think I can say that 16 was greater than 15 or vice versa.  They are both tremendous golf holes, but they are so different from one another.  In fact, that's what makes North Berwick so remarkable: you get a series of great holes that are radically different but hang together really well.  Why?  They just use the natural features that were on the property.
2011 highlights- Royal Aberdeen, Loch Lomond, Moray Old, NGLA (always a pleasure), Muirfield Village, Saucon Valley, watching the new holes coming along at The Renaissance Club.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back