[JNC Lyon]

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.

I'm honored--maybe you can have an All-Disappointment 18 in the next edition?

Camp Creek is a place where you need to see the property to understand why it's a disappointment.  It's on the Emerald Coast of Florida in the Panhandle, about 30 minutes from Destin.  This area of Florida has some spectacular dunesland, with giant sand dunes punctuate by inland lakes.  It's land that just screams for a golf course.  Camp Creek is one of the few high-profile modern courses in that area, with big-name architect and some magazine coverage.  Occasionally, you'll see it pop into a list of top public courses in Florida.  But for the property the course sits on, the layout is a major disappointment.  Like I said above--some interesting holes, but some clunkers as well.  18 is a major clunker, and it just symbolizes the disappointment of what could have been a great golf course.

Of course, someone with a better coverage of golf courses could come up with a better answer for a disappointing 18th hole--there are plenty of them out there, I'm sure.  But my goal was to come up with some high-profile names, and some lesser known courses as well, and Camp Creek certainly fit the bill here.

[Mac Plumart]

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.

This Sean Arble character, of which you speak, just might be on to something.

[Sean_A]

I like John's idea.

1. Portstewart: Lovely view from the tee, but its two long shots to a flat green

2. TOC: one of 2-6 has to make a list like this

3. Deal: Love the rolly polly fairway; hate the new bunkering and when the pin is up front the result of the approach is too predictable - past the flag

4. Merion: Can't get over the stupid bunkering shy of the green

5. St Georges Hill: Just an average hole

6. Woking: agree with John - big opportunity for a cool hole gone begging

7. Rye: Plays stupidly down wind - nowhere to land the ball

8. Dornoch: A shot over the edge - so what

9. Muirfield: one hole on this course needs to make a list like this

10. RND: Boring

11. Worplesdon: I can't figure out what is so special about this par 5 - I think the 12th is better

12. RND: Boring

13. Notts: Beautiful hole, but its just a drop shot par 3 - why its so famous with so many better holes on the course is a mystery to me

14. St Georges Hill: I can't understand why the water wasn't properly used

15. Addington: Just a brute of a hole up the hill

16. St Enodoc:  A good hole spoiled

17. Burnham: This hole just doesn't set with me

18. Woodhall Spa: I hate the trees on this hole

Somehow, Pinehurst has to be mentioned, but I couldn't pick just one hole.

Ciao

[Philip Gawith]

JNC - very hard to believe that you would stand by your view of Dornoch 2 v 10 if you played multiple rounds. The second is a very daunting hole, especially so early in the round and generally into the wind. The 10th does not strike fear into the heart.

[Jud_T]

2. TOC: one of 2-6 has to make a list like this

Sean,

It's been discussed before, but IMO there's no way a hole with a green that good can be a major disappointment. 

[Mac Plumart]

Sean may be off his rocker in regards to #2 at The Old Course ( ), but he is spot on regarding 9 at Muirfield.  And I know.  I've played both courses once. 

[Jeremy Rudock]

#17 at The Ocean Course just flat out stunk for me when I played it a week ago.  Granted, I played the tournament tees, but I thought the shot was way too penal and the hole didn't fit with the rest of the back 9.  It was such a stark contrast to the brilliance of #14, which played nearly the same yardage (225ish) yet felt perfectly reasonable to me.

[James Boon]

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.

John,

The "mistake" you made in the "toughest 2nd shot" scenario was hitting the green... 

The green certainly isnt "massive" as far as I remember it. People talk about the safe play being to lay up short of the green, but anything slightly off centre would also leave an impossible second. True the last fe times I've played its been a straightforward mid to short iron, but I imagine with a cross wind or even into, it would certainly make a difference!

Cheers,

James

[James Boon]

13. Notts: Beautiful hole, but its just a drop shot par 3

Sean,

It might "just" be a drop shot par 3, but the ability to stretch it to 240yards of drop shot, makes a difference. Last time I played off the back tees in the scratch knockout I hit my best drive of the day into a tough cold wind and was chuffed to be in one of the front bunkers... 

Cheers,

James

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

In all fairness to Camp Creek. I had heard what a great course it was. The first real star on the gulf coast. Then I played it and the whole course was just so very average to even bad at times. I played it again a few days later and it was just as bad. I road it in a cart to try and get it. It is just really a poor job on a great site. I am with everyone of the 17th at Pebble and Cypress. The redan at N Berwick probably hurt me the most and created the greatest need to multiple cocktails to get past the sadness. I had looked forward to playing that hole for year and generally love Redans. The blindness of the whole just took it all away for me. Thankfully the wall hole was such a kinky treat that some of the sting was taken away.

[Dave McCollum]

Oh my, how do you guys dig this stuff up?  A thread that starts in 1999, jumps to 2004, and re-emerges in 2012.  I can’t stay up in a day.  A week? Unimaginable.  A month? Forgetaboutit.  A year ago? Totally gone.  Twelve and a half years ago? Shepherds crooks and round rocks.  Find me a home.  I’m changing my logon name to “Dementia.”

[Wade Whitehead]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

[JNC Lyon]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

I think most holes like 17 at Ocean Course yield that effect to some extent.  If you hit a great shot, the hole is fun.  If you hit a less-than-great shot, the hole is not fun.  This type of hole, to me, is inherently flawed.  There is absolutely no decision-making involved.  Jeremy's answer to your question is immaterial.  Your question cuts to the heart of why holes like 17 at Kiawah are poor golf holes.

[Wade Whitehead]

JNC:

Interesting post.  I'm suggesting that, for many of us, performance on a "great" hole that we finally get to play can impact our eventual opinion of the hole.

It's a bit like actually reading War and Peace and not enjoying it.

WW

[Tim Martin]

JNC:

Interesting post.  I'm suggesting that, for many of us, performance on a "great" hole that we finally get to play can impact our eventual opinion of the hole.

It's a bit like actually reading War and Peace and not enjoying it.

WW

Wade-I think there is definitely some truth to your statement. I know guys that have said that they hated 18 at Yale when they carded an 8 and mysteriously changed their mind a few plays later when they made 5. I have heard the same lament regarding 9(biarritz) at Yale when someone 3 or 4 putts and then suddenly begins to see the charm of the hole after making a 3. The human ego certainly has the ability to shape one`s judgement.

[Jeremy Rudock]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

Yes.  I stood on that tee and there were 4 options on where to hit the ball:

1)  On the green (which required a carry of over 200 yards into a 20mph wind - pin was 225 from where we played it)

2)  In the water

3)  In one of the bunkers

4)  Blow it into the dunes left or over the green.

Given that 3 of the 4 options were very penal, and there is no safe bail out area, I did not enjoy the hole at all.

My hybrid carries 235, but no way was I going to give it a chance to balloon into the wind and find water with the drop area still requiring a 135 yard shot over the pond.  3w proved too much as evidenced by my ball ending up in the dunes behind the green.

For me the evaluation of whether or not a hole pleases me is less about the final result and more about the entire experience of playing the hole.

Minus that hole, I'd be hard pressed to name a back nine I've ever enjoyed more than that at the Ocean Course.

[Sean_A]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

I think most holes like 17 at Ocean Course yield that effect to some extent.  If you hit a great shot, the hole is fun.  If you hit a less-than-great shot, the hole is not fun.  This type of hole, to me, is inherently flawed.  There is absolutely no decision-making involved.  Jeremy's answer to your question is immaterial.  Your question cuts to the heart of why holes like 17 at Kiawah are poor golf holes.

A poor hole?  With a huge difference in tee length options I can't see what the problem is having a penal par 3.  I can perhaps understand if someone bitches because there are too many shots of this sort on a course (and Kiawah does have a few including another forced carry par 3 over a waste area), but I don't see how a penal hoe in and of itself is poor.


As one can see, there is a reasonable lay up area for those who can't make the 130(?) carry from the short tees. 


This hole rather reminds me of The Road's 14th - but I think TR's version is better because it sets better in the location.


Ciao

[Pete Blaisdell]

    What I choose to nominate might be seen as heresy up in my neck of the woods but if you take away the history and the primrose clubhouse, the 18th at The Country Club is as dissapointing a finishing hole on a great track as I can muster. I'v played it a dozen times and I've gone out with a drink in hand, sat down in a chair and just stared at it. I thought at first I was nuts but the hole just does not do it for me.

[Mark Pearce]

One of the fascinations of this site is the way certain holes and certain courses cause such different judgments to be made by people who, in so mant other ways, have similar tastes.  I am yet to play a course recommended by Sean Arble and not enjoy it.  His love for Pennard and Kington has led me to play two courses it is difficult not to fall in love with.  All those "second tier" English clubs he profiles?  Not (yet) a disappointment amongst them.  So why is it that he (and others) and I have such different opinions of a course like Muirfield?  In particular, the 9th, which now has three mentions on this thread, including from Sean and Ran.  For me it's a great par 5 (one of three on that course).  A tee shot that requires you to choose between taking on the LHS fairway bunker or playing safely right.  A second that, if you have played safe with your tee shot, requires further fairway bunkering to be taken on, or the OOB to be hit towards.  A heavily bunkered green (from the RHS) that rewards the player who has put his second close to the OOB.  Without a wind, it's reachable in 2 by many.  With the prevailing westerly all of those shots are played into the wind.  It's not, perhaps, as good as 5 or 17 but very few are.  Disappointing, though?  Not for me.

[Tim Martin]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

I think most holes like 17 at Ocean Course yield that effect to some extent.  If you hit a great shot, the hole is fun.  If you hit a less-than-great shot, the hole is not fun.  This type of hole, to me, is inherently flawed.  There is absolutely no decision-making involved.  Jeremy's answer to your question is immaterial.  Your question cuts to the heart of why holes like 17 at Kiawah are poor golf holes.

A poor hole?  With a huge difference in tee length options I can't see what the problem is having a penal par 3.  I can perhaps understand if someone bitches because there are too many shots of this sort on a course (and Kiawah does have a few including another forced carry par 3 over a waste area), but I don't see how a penal hoe in and of itself is poor.


As one can see, there is a reasonable lay up area for those who can't make the 130(?) carry from the short tees.  


This hole rather reminds me of The Road's 14th - but I think TR's version is better because it sets better in the location.


Ciao

The problem with 17 at TOC is that the bailout left is just as exacting as the shot to the green. Granted the carry is less but you have about the same area to hit it in and short is agua,right is agua and long is in the dunes and/or over the path. On a course full of great holes this is a letdown.

[Ken Moum]

JNC:

Interesting post.  I'm suggesting that, for many of us, performance on a "great" hole that we finally get to play can impact our eventual opinion of the hole.

Without a doubt.  On my first, and so far only, trip to Scotland, I could hardly wait to play Royal Dornoch. I was playing like shite at the time, and spent far mostly too much time searching for my ball to actually enjoy the course.  Still, I could see the qualities that make it one of the best in the world.

But the real disappointment was Foxy.  Even with rose-colored glasses, all I see is monstrously long hole with a green that is impossible to put a ball onto.  I know I'm not supposed to be affected by par, and I actually do prefer match play to worrying ove the card and pencil, but I can't get over the feeling that Foxy would be a great par five for most of the people I play with.

Playing a hole, or a course, poorly is pretty hard to get past for most of us.

K

[Niall C]

JNC - very hard to believe that you would stand by your view of Dornoch 2 v 10 if you played multiple rounds. The second is a very daunting hole, especially so early in the round and generally into the wind. The 10th does not strike fear into the heart.

Agreed. What I loved was Jon's comment on no. 2, that being you just had to hit it straight ! Not difficult to see that Jon plays a different game to the majority on here including me.

Niall

[Sean_A]

One of the fascinations of this site is the way certain holes and certain courses cause such different judgments to be made by people who, in so mant other ways, have similar tastes.  I am yet to play a course recommended by Sean Arble and not enjoy it.  His love for Pennard and Kington has led me to play two courses it is difficult not to fall in love with.  All those "second tier" English clubs he profiles?  Not (yet) a disappointment amongst them.  So why is it that he (and others) and I have such different opinions of a course like Muirfield?  In particular, the 9th, which now has three mentions on this thread, including from Sean and Ran.  For me it's a great par 5 (one of three on that course).  A tee shot that requires you to choose between taking on the LHS fairway bunker or playing safely right.  A second that, if you have played safe with your tee shot, requires further fairway bunkering to be taken on, or the OOB to be hit towards.  A heavily bunkered green (from the RHS) that rewards the player who has put his second close to the OOB.  Without a wind, it's reachable in 2 by many.  With the prevailing westerly all of those shots are played into the wind.  It's not, perhaps, as good as 5 or 17 but very few are.  Disappointing, though?  Not for me.

Mark

Its probably the case that I have very high expectations for Muirfield - a course sometimes touted as the best in GB&I.  I don't see the design distinguishing Muirfield as such a course.  There is nothing wrong with the 9th, but for it being so famous, it doesn't strike me as any better than North Berwick's 9th (just to mention a hole we spoke of not long ago).   

Tim

While I am not a fan of penal architecture, I think it a necessary element of any design, just as it is necessary to set a few questions on an exam which very few people will answer correctly.  The penal shot helps separate the men from the boys - just in case a hacker like me ever gets the idea that he is good at this game.   

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

NBWL's 9th is a very fine hole.  It is not a knock on Muirfield's third best par 5 to compare the two holes.  For me the greatness of Muirfield comes from its consistency.  You have TOC in your top 10 but regularly concede (including on this thread) that it has 5 consecutive weaker holes.  Muirfield has no weak holes and several great ones (for the avoidance of doubt I don't list 9 amongst those, quite).

Mark

[Howard Riefs]

Jeremy:

If you had hit your tee shot to eight feet and made the putt would 17 at The Ocean Course been a disappointment?

WW

I think most holes like 17 at Ocean Course yield that effect to some extent.  If you hit a great shot, the hole is fun.  If you hit a less-than-great shot, the hole is not fun.  This type of hole, to me, is inherently flawed.  There is absolutely no decision-making involved.  Jeremy's answer to your question is immaterial.  Your question cuts to the heart of why holes like 17 at Kiawah are poor golf holes.

A poor hole?  With a huge difference in tee length options I can't see what the problem is having a penal par 3.  I can perhaps understand if someone bitches because there are too many shots of this sort on a course (and Kiawah does have a few including another forced carry par 3 over a waste area), but I don't see how a penal hoe in and of itself is poor.

For me, with those holes that have different teeing options from unique directions, your experience is connected to which set of tees you play. Such is the case with #17, which has at least eight different tees.

I've played the course twice -- both times from the Dye tees (6,475 yards), which were set up from different teeing areas on #17. The first time was from the 'island' tee that was straight behind #16 green (see green circle below).  The green is more receptive to a tee shot.  

The second time was from the teeing area (see red circle; also Sean's photo above). From this angle, the green is too shallow for a 170+ yard shot with my ball flight -- especially to a front pin placement.  If I had only played the hole from this latter teeing area, I would tag it as a disappointment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()