News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2012, 02:40:54 PM »
Melvyn,

Let us go back before the railway and the sheds and see what the hole looked like then; would it have been gimmicky?

Bob

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2012, 03:34:05 PM »
MHM,

You have to remember that the "Road Hole" was originally a par 5 that's morphed into a par 4 over time.

I'd use the term "quirky" rather than "gimmicky"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2012, 03:46:16 PM »
Melvyn,

Let us go back before the railway and the sheds and see what the hole looked like then; would it have been gimmicky?

Bob

Wasn't it then the stationmaster's garden?   I wonder if the line off the tee then was over the garden?

I'm with Pat, it's quirky, perhaps uniquely quirky, but I would never call it gimmicky. 

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2012, 08:35:11 PM »
AC

As requested

Reply #26  "You're right Melvyn, doesn't do the Road Hole justice. It's not as gimmicky."

Melvyn

Thank you.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2012, 07:52:21 AM »
As Bob and Patrick stated the 17th was originally a par 5 or at least would have been if par had been around then. Whatever it was I doubt very much whether anyone bar the really big hitters drove the ball over the railway sheds and even then I have my doubts. So what some might term as gimmicky, ie the drive over the sheds/building, wasn't designed but evolved as players began to hit the ball longer.

In my book a gimmick is something that is intended and given that players weren't intended to hit over the buildings when the hole was laid out then it CAN'T be gimmicky.

Likewise playing off the road. Plenty of courses then and very many still do have roads and paths in play, so again didn't qualify as gimmicky then. But that's just my opinion.

DT

If you designed the 17th as it is today then yes it would be gimmicky and it would almost certainly not get built as the planners wouldn't allow it and the neighbours ie hotel, would object to the planning and if needs be get an interim interdict preventing play. I might also add that both the client and the gca would be risking a fairly substantial claim if somehow they did manage to get it built. I've stated it before but idf it wasn't for the fact that TOC is so iconic and that the Old Course Hotels very existence relies on it, the 17th would have been changed long before now. As it was Old Tom had to reach an "agreement" with the railway back when it was the railway masters garden otherwise the hole would have been rerouted back then. 

Also as others have said there are a great many holes where you have to play over OB especially par 3's. There's also quite a number with buildings in play. Think of all those old courses with the clubhouse hard beside the 18th green for one. A couple of weeks ago I played Gullane 2 where there's a downhill par 4 (4th ?) that has you playing over a road thats in play and that has a building in the right hand rough that one of my playing partners ended up having to hit over. Probably a good few more examples out there if you were to think about it.

Niall


Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2012, 07:54:56 AM »
Niall,

The Road Hole was listed as a par five until, if memory serves me correctly, 1964 or so.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2012, 08:14:22 AM »
Thanks Scott. I was referring to when the hole was originally laid out at which point the concept of par didn't exist. I just don't think even the biggest if hitters considered taking on the carry.

Niall

Frank M

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky? New
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2012, 01:03:26 PM »
Whether something is intended to be gimmicky or not is irrelevant to whether it is. It's like saying something can be bad only if it is intended to be bad.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2024, 08:41:34 PM by Frank M »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2012, 01:09:00 PM »
Michael

Melvyn, Melvyn, Melvyn,

My 'gimmicky' post was solely intended to get a rise out of you.  No substance to it.
I assumed that you would have asssumed as much, given my jabs at you in the past.


Yes I understood, but it was a good question to ask, because due to some of the comments relating to the GCA of the original Road Hole are rather surprisingly, perhaps questioning their understanding of Golf course design in GB. If their attitude was correct would not every old Hole/Course in GB be regarded as quirky/gimmicky.

No problem, it’s just seems that many of you guys are not into interesting design believing Island Greens and super manicured courses represent what a golf course should be, when in fact (IMO) a real course should test golfers and have done so for a century or two.

One day you may start to understand that golfers want challenging courses (well those who want to improve skill levels by practice rather than just purchasing new equipment) and not all willing to sit on their fat arses riding & reading distances through an aid. Many prefer to get right down and into the game i.e. golfer vs. the course. How hard is it to remember that, seems to be quite hard looking at some poor designs over the last 50 years.

Progress some may call it, yet I think senility seems more appropriate in explaining island greens and fake Road Holes with firm sand in place of a road, but then it’s just my opinion, many may well disagree.

Melvyn
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:21:18 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2012, 02:09:26 PM »
Michael

Melvyn, Melvyn, Melvyn,

My 'gimmicky' post was solely intended to get a rise out of you.  No substance to it.
I assumed that you would have asssumed as much, given my jabs at you in the past.


Yes I understood, but it was a good question to ask, because due to some of the comments relating to the GCA of the original Road Hole are rather surprisingly, perhaps questioning their understanding of Golf course design in GB. If their attitude was correct would not every old Hole/Course in GB be regarded as quirky/gimmicky.

No problem, it’s just seems that many of you guys are not into interesting design believing Island Greens and super manicured courses represent what a golf course should be, when in fact (IMO) a real course should test golfers and have done so for a century or two.

One day you may start to understand that golfers want challenging courses (well those who want to improve skill levels by practice rather than just purchasing new equipment) and not all willing to sit on their fat arses riding & reading distances through an aid. Many prefer to get right down and into the game i.e. golfer vs. the course. How hard is it to remember that, seems to be quite hard looking at some poor designs over the last 50 years.

Progress some may call it, yet I think senility seems more appropriate in explaining island greens and fake Road Holes with firm sand in place of a road, but then it’s just my opinion, many may well disagree.

Melvyn


Melvyn,

I must say that you do have definite opinons on what is considered de rigueure on what it is to be a golfer but couldn't you remove your disdain and even arrogance in expressing same? The idea that many of the 1500 members of this site agree that island greens are an acceptable artifice is wrong. How many of your United Kingdom pals still play with hickories? There are a bundle of them here.

I admire your views on the purity of the game but do not slag the great unwashed, they too derive great pleasure from what they think is golf.

Bob


Martin Toal

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2012, 03:09:09 PM »
Can anyone think of a hole where you have to carry out of bounds directly in the line of play off the tee to put your ball in play? I seem to recall a par-3 on the front nine at Castlerock (Northern Ireland) that has OB between the tee and green, but is the only hole that comes to mind.

 

That'll be the 4th, 'Leg O Mutton'.

There are a few other holes where it is necessary to play over OOB. The 18th at Royal Dublin is a 90 degree par 5 with a large OOB in the angle. The tee shot at the 1st at Ballybunion Old needs to carry rather close to the corner of the graveyard.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2012, 07:48:44 AM »
Bob

I wonder if my bloodline from Old & Young Tom, Allan Robertson, George Morris, Charlie Hunter and Willie Rusack has made a difference to your opinion of me.

Without my family connections would many on this site just see a very keen golfer that holds the game and its traditions closer to his heart? To the point that he is willing to confront the non-believers in the hope of seeing them return to the true faith. Would name calling, accusations of tones in ones comments from distain to arrogance apply or would many just see a fellow golfer so sadden by the physical and moral decline of such a great game, that he is being forced to raise these issues.

Alas we will never know as I have a bloodline to all mentioned above, which does not make me a better man, a good golfer or  a golf course designer, however it does give me direct information on the game that many would never have experienced. It gives member of this site direct contact with that knowledge but instead of understand a fellow member’s passion the reaction seems to be to react because one’s own commitment to the game is perhaps more than lacking in the commitment stakes.

Nevertheless what I am actually saying in my many so call arrogant and contemptuous posts, is that walking is the core factor of the game, that of relaxing the player while observing the surroundings as one walks to the next shot. Of being able to understand the contours via contact to the land through feet, knees and the inner ear. Thinking while walking, calculating distance, course setup and conditions including wind direction and strength, plus knowing which club to use as you approach the ball. All adds up to that final inner good feeling that you achieved knowing it’s all down to your own efforts and merit, unaided by man or beasty aid.

I am just trying to remind the player that a golfer requires no means of mobility (unless disabled by age or a physical infliction). As for the course that feeling of inner warmth is more enjoyable is one is pushed. Courses should offer up a challenge but one has to question if that is possible on a well-watered and manicured course – does the mind feel still sees that raw challenge or is it just a walk in the park rather than a walk on the wild side.

I am indeed guilty, but hopefully of only trying to make you guys think, I may also be guilty in not being gentle in my approach but then I believe the game has been invaded by the soft underbelly of the modern throwaway society which is trying to water down that game. Many still con themselves that they may be good at the game as they are slowly reducing score – but is that thanks to improved skill or just the purchase of the latest equipment.

The game for obvious reasons is close to me and my family. As for the R&A, you know that I have issues with them that goes deeper that their mismanagement of the game over the last one hundred years.

I care not what variation of the game anyone plays, all I ask is call it by its appropriate name (Cart Ball, Mountain golf whatever) as unless you walk and think unaided you are not playing Golf. Hell Bob, where has all that commitment gone, because I bet when you started you never use carts or considered distance aids – if so I do not believe you have lost that commitment but perhaps the body is no long so able to honour said commitment hence the need for a cart to assist your mobility from time to time.

In closing why have the Olympics recognise the difference yet our own R&A seem blind to the possibility. What am I referring to well we have the Olympics Games and the Olympic Paraplegic Games (all be it with just 20 sports – but it’s a start). Well perhaps I should not be overcritical with the R&A as the Majors require that players still honour many of the original ways alas not all).

Ran opened this site to allow free and open conversation on all things related to GCA, yet the members as a whole are not willing to follow Ran’s example. It seems that a minority of guys can silence an individual through questionable means while the rest of the membership site quietly on the fence scared too upset anyone or to shut up the bully boys. Thus stopping the free flow of information, knowledge, opinions and ultimately debate to run its course

If in this post I have come across as arrogant or show distain for the opinions of others I apologise as that was not my intention, it was to convey my opinion on the game, the site and its direction

(a fully fledge member of the great unwashed)

Melvyn.  
  
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:16:27 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2012, 08:14:27 AM »
Melvyn life is all about choices and for some they play golf with a cart, range finder, etc one of the pleasures of the game is the variation of conditions both ground and weather and they cannot be altered by technology. I cannot think of any sport (croquet?) that hasn't embraced technology to a degree.

Bob is quite right I have played with a number of GCA'ers who were using hickory clubs, woods or putters and nearly all are American.

Your ancestry is to be celebrated and who knows they may have embraced smooth greens, consistent shafts, round balls and 747s to have allowed them to use their abilities to make a very fine living.
Cave Nil Vino

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2012, 08:16:13 AM »

In my book a gimmick is something that is intended and given that players weren't intended to hit over the buildings when the hole was laid out then it CAN'T be gimmicky.


Whether something is intended to be gimmicky or not is irrelevant to whether it IS.

It's like saying something can be bad only if it is intended to be bad.

I also don't think you can judge the 17th by its original intent because we don't know what it was and....from what we do know...the hole isn't being used in its original intent even if only dating back to the 1960s....so intent is again irrelevant to it's "gimmick-ness" now.

Frank

I take your point that even though something isn't a gimmick (something done with intent) it can be gimmicky, although I don't think your bad analogy holds. On reflection I still don't think the drive is gimmicky as its not unknown in this part of the world to have hit over "off course" areas to hit the preferred part of the fairway/green although hitting over buildings might be at the far end of the scale.

As to the "intent" of the hole, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Scott MacPherson might be able to put me right on this but I think I'm right in saying that the tee areas and the green haven't changed for well over a hundred years. When first laid out, cutting the corner wasn't an option. I think we can safely say this from contemporary reports on how far the best players hit the ball back then. Therefore there was no intent to hit over the corner. As the hole hasn't changed materially since then (other than championship tees which as they aren't used for normal play I'm going to ignore), there has been no revisal of the "intent". What has become normal practice evolved out of increased distances players hit the ball.

Basically at no point did someone say lets design this hole so someone can hit over the wall. That was the point I was tryiong to make.

Niall

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2012, 09:01:44 AM »

You have to remember that the "Road Hole" was originally a par 5 that's morphed into a par 4 over time.


Apparently I never got the memo...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2012, 10:51:52 AM »


Jud

Come on mate, I sent you a copy, so stop being silly

Melvyn

Frank M

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky? New
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2012, 11:16:28 AM »

It seems many people in this thread are overly defensive because they affiliate gimmicky with bad. I do not equate the two concepts the same way. I like the 17th a lot. Gimmicky does not equal bad in my mind.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2024, 08:40:55 PM by Frank M »

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2012, 02:03:16 PM »
Frank

I agree, gimmicky doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Intent - I really don't know if the original architect who laid out the hole had any intent other than we'll have the hole here and you tee off beside the previous one. What we can be reasonably certain on if we wanted to take the time to look into it is the line of the boundaries, this can be done readily enough by checking old OS maps or the title deeds, this would enable us to determine the carry. Secondly we could check contemporary reports on how far the ball went/flew in order to determine whether that carry was even feasible. Without going to all that effort, I suggest not, therefore no intent.

As you say the hole has evolved, or maybe more accurately, how people play it has evolved as equipment has improved. Can't blame that one on a gca, therefore still no intent in my book.

Niall

George Freeman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2012, 02:35:47 PM »
it’s just seems that many of you guys are not into interesting design believing Island Greens and super manicured courses represent what a golf course should be, when in fact (IMO) a real course should test golfers and have done so for a century or two.

You think many on this site believe island greens and super manicured courses represent what a course should be?

If that is case you've completely lost it and I'm not even sure why you're on this site...


Island greens... really?!
Mayhugh is my hero!!

"I love creating great golf courses.  I love shaping earth...it's a canvas." - Donald J. Trump

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2012, 02:40:39 PM »
"Island greens... really?!"

AW Tillinghast was building island greens in the 1920's.

DT

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2012, 03:40:29 PM »
I learned to swing a golf club (a 6-iron) on our lawn, in the suburbs of Minneapolis, hitting plastic golf balls.

I played so many "holes" where the ideal line was over a corner of the house, or even straight over the house, that the Road Hole seems more familiar and "natural" than gimmicky.

It seems like the sort of hole that a boy or girl -- but not a man or woman -- would design. And I'm thinking that's a good thing, once in a while.

Maybe more than once in a while.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Matt MacIver

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2012, 05:24:22 PM »
Am surprised no one has defined it, so, as copied from Dictionary.com:

gim·mick   /ˈgɪmɪk/   noun
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.
3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.

Each of these definitions provide some interesting thoughts re: #17, which, now having read these, choose to believe can be called gimmicky but (see: ingenious) or not (see: concealed).  Doesn't make it any less great though (mostly because of the green complex. 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2012, 06:04:03 PM »

George

“If that is case you've completely lost it and I'm not even sure why you're on this site...”

This site is not just the sum of its Members but also those who lurk, visit and follow GCA.com. GB also seems to have more casual non-members than the whole current Membership totalling circa 1300. They appear to check in on a weekly/monthly basis. I presume that the numbers from around the rest of the world must well exceed our little Band of Golfing Brothers.

Island Greens are no test of skill when related to golf, in fact I would say that a blind Hole far out weights the challenge of any island Green. And IMO a couple of blind Holes going out then another two blind Holes on a course coming in would sort the golfers out from the players. Add to that the total lack of design that goes into Island Green and what we have is a cop out by the designer, because there is no design input just sodding water and an island somewhere within it. I would take the real Road Hole anytime in preference of an Island Green.

If you do not like an island green then is this not an ideal opportunity to state you opinion. Or perhaps for those who have never opened a topic (apart from introducing yourselves) but always seem happy to moan about the opinions of others, its about time you showed some bollocks and started a GCA topic of your own.

George get a life and remember, its just opinions, however if you wish me off this site then make a complaint.

Melvyn 

George Freeman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you call the 17th Road Hole on TOC gimmicky?
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2012, 06:38:59 PM »
George get a life...

This one had me rolling on the ground.  Thank you Melvyn!

I'll be bowing out of this thread now.

PS - I loved the Road Hole in my one and only play
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 06:42:33 PM by George Freeman »
Mayhugh is my hero!!

"I love creating great golf courses.  I love shaping earth...it's a canvas." - Donald J. Trump