Holes that make you go "?"

[Ran Morrissett]

The sun is shining, the day is great, the company super, you love the golf course, and then....all of a sudden you come across a hole that makes you scratch your head. It is neither good nor horribly bad but it is out of keeping with the general excellence of the rest of the course.A hole of that description for me is the 16th at Yale: I can only but wonder if it has subsequently been changed since Raynor was there. It lacks any sense of inspiration and thus seems out of keeping with all that has gone before it.What are some other such holes and could/should something be done to them? If so, what?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Nothing compares to the third at Inverness. After two nice, old, simple feeling par-4s, you literally feel like you leave Ohio and play some shabby mid-80's Fazio course in Colorado. Then return to the brilliant fourth hole. Ten at Crystal Downs feels strange to me too. I'm sure that'll incite a riot, but let's face it, the hole is drab on a course where every other hole is very distinctive.

[Mike_DeVries]

OK Geoff,What are you smoking?      The 10th at Crystal Downs is anything but dull -- people talk about the incredible view to Crystal Lake, the huge drop to the fairway is also a big favorite, but the best part for me is having the picture window literally 15 feet away looking straight down the hole and providing a perfect seat to watch the players tee off.  The hole itself is a *itch because after the drive, where you can basically be safe with just about anything, the approach is uphill to a severely sloping green (keep in mind the distinguishing feature of the course) which is very difficult to run the ball up to, due to the contour of the approach area which leads into the deep chasm below the green at front right.  If you overcompensate and go left into the huge bunker or rough on the left, you are left with an extremely difficult shot to a downhill green.  Playing safe long presents similar problems.  Club selection is often hard due to wind and the uphill factor.  And, although a big drive will reward a short iron or even a wedge for BIG hitters, you are frequently left with a mid to long iron with the ball below your feet.  Maybe the tenth's setup seems ordinary compared to all the unique challenges at Crystal Downs, but it is nothing of the kind.

[Ran Morrissett]

Even though Mike has played it probably six hundred more times than me, I have to agree with Geoff. In fact, this last trip, we were unable to finish the hole because the hole was placed front left and the ball would stop one foot below the hole and then do an about face and retreat off the green. Nobody holed out. I realise that is a one off but still...The first tee is as big a drop shot as I like; the tenth is too much downhill for my tastes and makes it my least favourite hole on the course. Next least favourite would be......I don't have one!!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Mike,Spoken like a true club historian! I didn't say the hole was bad, just one that, as Ran's post asked, makes you go ?  I just don't feel like it has the character of the other 18. As for the views it provides, well, it is clear that the Faz did rub off on you some. He'd be proud!Geoff

[Mike_DeVries]

Geoff, I guess I probably took offense to the word "drab" in your description.  I didn't say that I thought the view was what I liked, but that it is a big factor for others.  The picture window has the same effect, albeit in a smaller fashion, as the first tee at Bel Air, where the grill sits right upon the tee and there is a big drop on the drive.  What do you think of that comparison?Ran, I must agree that I am not a huge fan of big drops off tees, but in some instances, it makes certain configurations work.  In this instance, it does give one a breath-taking view of Crystal Lake, and your last view of the water until a brief glimpse at 14 and then at 17.  This is one of the most amazing things about Crystal Downs -- you are not constantly bombarded with spectacular, "in-your-face" views, rather there is a rhythm and progression to the round as a "walkabout" and a golfing experience.  In that regard, the 10th, as the black sheep as referenced here, works because it is providing something totally different to the course -- a spectacular view on a seemingly unspectacular hole, which can beat you up just like any other hole on the golf course. Do I think it would be a better golf hole from a lower tee elevation, strictly golf-wise?  Probably yes, because there are less vagaries from the elements, but who am I to argue with the Good Doctor and Mr. Maxwell!?!

[T_MacWood]

A couple of examples come to mind.Whistling Straits is Pete Dye's Americanized version of Irish links golf and although some might argue to how accurately his version replecates the real thing, the results are spectacular. Towering dunes, strong winds and gorgious views of the mock sea. And then reach the 5th and your immediately transported to Disney World. The par-5 is dominated by two enormous water hazzards that might look at home in Florida, but not on this course. Thankfully, my caddy said there were plans to change it.The second example is the Fazio par-3 at Inverness. If someone turned on their TV and saw play on this hole and was asked what course it was, I believe you would get more Atlanta ACs than Invernesses. What makes this example and the rest of few changes that TF did so bad, is how totally out character they are with the Ross holes, which appear never to have been touched. I'm not sure, but I would think that of all the famous courses that have been altered, Inverness might be one of the easiest to fix.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,I agree with both and am delightd to hear something will be done to 5 at Whistling. The sooner the better and having a committee of one to make the decision should make it pretty snappy. I hope at the same time they do 18 - the course deserves better.Another 18th that was a bust and completely out of character with the the first seventeen holes was the 18th at Bethpage but I guess/hope Rees improved it? Has anyone seen it since?I am still at a loss to understand why Raynor left 16 at Yale so blah. Why is the green just big and so-so? Given its modest length, shouldn't/couldn't he have done something special with the green complex? He wasn't in a bashful mood when he did the other 17 at Yale - why take a breather? No old timers there have indicated that anything has been done to it, unlike both the 15 and 17 holes. Strange.

[Wisconsin DNR]

The fifth hole at Whistling Straits is built around two natural wetlands which we instructed Mr. Dye to preserve.  Considering how many other small wetlands were destroyed in the construction of the course, we thought at least something original should stay.It is the only hole on the golf course which involves a natural feature other than Lake Michigan.  It's the other 17 holes which make us go "?".  Don't you people have any respect for the environment?

[DBE]

Two nominations:  the 10th at Shinnecock Hills and the 18th at Cypress Point.I've written on this site before about the mystery of the 10th hole.  Where in the hell are you supposed to hit your tee shot?  Lay up with a long iron or fairway wood on top of the hill and leave 180+ yards to a ridiculously narrow green that sits 25 feet above the fairway or drive on the downslope to play a hanging lie short iron with not a lot of chance to stop the ball on the green?  The hole stinks and messes up what otherwise is a very good course.The last hole at CPC has a fairway that is done with mirrors.  The trees in this fairway make such mockery of what must have been a decent end to a beautiful and up to then masterful, strategic design.  For that matter, the 17th is getting to be just as bad having to play the approach over the cypress trees.

[Ran Morrissett]

I agree 100% with David on the 17th hole at Cypress - it is far from being a "great" hole. Maybe with the info that Geoff uncovers in his pending CP book, the Board will restore the hole's original playing characteristics.

[Bill Vostinak]

I know Eger's not too crazy about Plainfield, but the 14th makes me go ? and the 13th isn't such a great flow either with a teeshot aimed right at the forest.14 with a 227ish yard shot over a pond to a heaving green is quite a penal out of character shot for Ross.  When I got to play in the Donald Ross invitational, the hole was only played at 182 max.  I had brought a 4-wood especially for that single shot!The 13-15 portion of the course was added about 5-7 years after the rest of the course as holes were taken out to fit in a range, but I don't know the history about how much input Ross had on 13-15.  His input on the rest of the course is to me evident and I do like the place except for the break in flow.

[Ran Morrissett]

Bill,I agree with you about the appeal of Plainfield. Holes like 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 16 prop up against any course but the curious water on 3, 13, and 14 detract from it overall. Still, I consider it an "inspiring" place to play and unworthy of the sledging it has received periodically on this site.Cheers,

[Geoff_Shackelford]

David,In the forthcoming book on Cypress I have plenty of photos of the last two holes at Cypress that will clarify some things. 18 was a virutual island fairway of sand, but not very strategic. Just a dramatic looking and tough finisher. The trees were not as tall, and they are getting closer to the old look these days due to the disease problems out there. The seventeenth was a two-way hole, and unfortunately technology has rendered it goofy because the clump of Cypress trees can now be reached with a strong 3-wood. There was a back tee that made the hole 410-420ish, which they need to restore to return the strategy to the hole, and make the trees an interesting hazard. Geoff

[DBE]

John, Ran and Geoff:Ahah!  Plainfield isn't anything like DR designed it.  It deserves the bad rap it gets.  A range for the lousy holes that now grace the property.  I bashed the 14th not too long ago when John and I were debating the course and Mountain Ridge.  I still will bash it along with most of the other holes there.I have played the 17th at Cypress back on some site claimed by Roger Lapham to be the original tee.  Better but still the cypress trees are a problem for the second shot. Sorry to hear that  disease has claimed some trees on #18 but they probably weren't there when it was designed and built.

[Ran Morrissett]

Mid Ocean's 6th and 16th holes are real "?" marks to me -  I would have thought Macdonald would have breathed more life into them one way or another. Did RTJ do something here?Also, what specifically is Tom Doak doing at Mid Ocean? It is not a restoration project as such, is it?

[TEPaul]

The comments about Plainfield are interesting to me, particularly how the 13-15 stretch got built or screwed up due to the need for a range. Somebody up there must know what the original holes looked like before the Ross (A.3) in 1928, at least the people on this post seem to know that three holes were lost and three added for the range, right?Here in Philly we are very lucky to have a treasure trove of aerials from 1924 to just before WW2 of almost every course of that era throughout the Delaware Valley take by a guy named Victor Dallin. Luckily his complete collection was bought by the Hagley Museum (DuPont) in Wilmington, De. and has been preserved and beautifully catalogued.If a club has complete records of what was done when and by whom they have the ability to put together a design evolution and intelligently decide how to handle a master plan as we have done (Gulph Mills). To date we can perfectly document eight architects fingerprints on GMGC, at least one even better than Ross and a few that created havoc. The worst of the havoc coincidentally was the result of three holes being redesigned for a range, but we know everything about who did it and what was there before it happened, thereby giving us the ability to hit reverse gear if we want to.

[John Rydell]

Ran --I have played a great  many rounds at Yale. I noticed years ago that the 16th seemed dull compared to the other holes. I now think I have a possible answer. Look at page 252 in Scotland's Gift Golf. It has an early map of the Yale course, showing the pond in front of the 17th tee extending back along the left side of the 16th fairway. From the map, it looks like the pond would make you think twice before going for the green in two, or would at least make you have to think about placement. I speculate that the pond was filled in when the maintenance building was put in to the left of the 16th fairway.   By the way, the third green also looks out of place to me, both in location and appearance/contour.   These are both small quibbles. I still think the Yale layout is as interesting and dramatic as almost any course I have ever seen.

[Gib_Papazian]

John, good eye on the 3rd at Yale. It is not original. Thought for years to be an Alps Hole, George Bahto descovered the green originally was 30 yards to right, pressed against the water sits in front of the 4th hole. George could tell you better than I could whether it was moved for drainage or safety reasons - he'd know for sure. Once you go over that course with a fine comb, it is amazing how many changes have been made over the years - none that I can see that improved the course. Any hole that makes you go "?" at Yale is likely because of modifications. The exception might be 18, but as a golfer with a taste for the unconventional, I think it is extremely interesting. If pressed, I might flatten and formalize the right side shelf of the mountain to give an alternate route. Being out in California, I've not seen any of the recent "restoration" work but would be interested in the opinion of anyone who has.      

[JMorgan]

BUMP.  

[Garland Bayley]

At places at Buffalo Peak in Oregon, we literally stood on the tee and debated what fairway we were playing and what green we should end up at.

Now those are really holes that make you go "?"

 

[cary lichtenstein]

I can remember hitting drives 2 times in my life down the wrong fairway, one was a Norman's Course, Red Sky and the other was a Jack Nicklaus Course in Vail, Colorado.

I can remember dozens of times playing holes that looked totally out of character with the course I was playing which almost always lead me to believe that it was land acquired later on. Most often the old holes were cnverted into a nearby driving range.

LaCosta comes to mind as a terrible insertion of a 9 after the 3 or 4th hole

[JNC Lyon]

3 at St. George's, the only bad hole on the course, arguably the best in Canada.  I understand the original par three was an excellent hole, but Robinson's new green is just too weird.

[Guy Phelan]

Mid Ocean's 6th and 16th holes are real "?" marks to me -  I would have thought Macdonald would have breathed more life into them one way or another. Did RTJ do something here?Also, what specifically is Tom Doak doing at Mid Ocean? It is not a restoration project as such, is it?

Ran,

It appears that CBM did his best with the land constraints he was working with on those two holes. I am not sure  how many times you have played those holes; however, with benign wind conditions those two holes are fairly easy. Actually the entire golf course is fairly easy without wind. But the typical is that the wind is blowing and both of those holes deman a certain precision.

I am not sure what RTJ accomplished other than adding a few tees to lengthen, but I can find out.

As far as TD and what he is doing, I am not sure. But I do know that he is friends with the chairman of the greens.

Guy

[Patrick_Mucci]

# 12 at GCGC