[Phil Benedict]

This is something of a follow up to the threads about course difficulty and ratings etc.  While I haven't done a scientific sampling, my guess is that the members of my home course consider that our hardest hole is also the best hole architecturally.  To make par you need to hit four good shots or a good recovery from a bad shot.  Every shot is demanding and a big score is always a risk.

I know there are lots of half-par holes that are considered great, but to what extent is difficulty relative to par a factor in determining the quality of a hole.  Other than the aforementioned half-par holes, can an "easy" hole also be a great hole?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Yes, the best holes are usually hard holes.

But that does not mean the converse is also true, that the hardest holes are usually the best (or even good) holes.

Lots of people do take the latter as gospel -- ask a club professional to name the best hole on his course, and probably 75% of the time he will name the longest and toughest par-4, even if it is as straightforward and banal as could be.  Most members will follow suit.

But, to go back to your original question, you can't have a great hole unless there is a sense of accomplishment to be gained from it, and an easy hole leaves less sense of accomplishment.  Dr. MacKenzie was perhaps the first to note that for many players the hazards are there to give psychological thrills when you carry them, as much as for penalizing the missed shot.

As to your question about "half-par" holes, I don't know the answer, because most easy holes are labeled as half-par holes.  The best example I can think of at the moment is the 13th at North Berwick, the Pit.  Practically no one ever tries to drive the green, so it is not a half-par hole by that definition; but it is a fairly short par 4 and there are just two tiny fairway bunkers and one defense for the green, the wall.  I've made birdie more than once in limited plays, so it can't be that hard.  But I believe it is a great and strategically interesting hole nevertheless.

[Phil Benedict]

I think the half par holes that get the most attention are ones with an intriguing risk/reward dimension.  The 13th at Augusta is the best example I can think of.  It's a great hole even though it is among the easiest on the course relative to par.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I believe many of the "best" holes are ones where the spread of reasonable scores possible is the highest.  Birdies are very possible so so are doubles, triples or even higher scores.

[Jon Wiggett]

I believe that for the pros the best holes are usually the harder ones. Holes such as the 13th at ANGC are great for television golf but for a pro is happy with an eagle, he is expecting a birdie, will be some what dissapointed with par and annoyed with anything else. This tends to leave a not so good feeling about the hole and leads the player to discount it as a favourite hole unless he has a certain mindset.

A hole such as the 17th at TOC leaves the pro feeling happy with either a birdie or par and not so dissapointed with a bogie thus giving a better feeling in general.

[Dean Paolucci]

Best holes?  It is perspective.  A best hole may be the hardest, or the one with the most risk/reward, or the most visually appealing.  It depends on your frame of reference.  Does it not?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have always liked a good short par four that makes the player think off the tee and be precise on the shot to the green.  Fourteen at Muirfield Village is one of the better known, although the tee shot is relatively benign.

[Mark_F]

Definitely not.

Exhibit A: Barnbougle Dunes. Hardest Hole is the 8th, which is by common consensus one of the 2 or 3 worst on the course. And it's a long par four.

Best hole is either the 7th or 15th, a miniscule par three and a short medium par four. They are hard, but nowhere near as hard as the 8th, or 17th or 18th under normal conditions.

Exhibit B: The Old Course.  Hardest Hole is the Road Hole.  Best holes are the 2nd, 12th and 14th, which probably rank behind both the 17th, as well as the 4th in difficulty.

[cary lichtenstein]

What are the best holes at Pebble Beach??

#8 is certainly the best, not the hardest

#7 is likely 2nd best and could be the easiest

[Gary Slatter]

Most members always consider one hole the "best" and another the most "difficult".  The best hole can be difficult but not necessarily so, and the most difficult hole is seldom considered the best.  It depends on their handicap and experience, but a fun, challenging short hole is hard to beat, a par 3 or par 4 with lots of potential outcomes becomes memorable.  The 16th at Cypress Point, where a hack can make 4 and a Pro can sometimes make 5 or more, that's a "best hole" to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Cary and Gary:

So the 8th hole at Pebble Beach and the 16th hole at Cypress Point aren't really hard holes?  Are you kidding?

[BCrosby]

As the good Dr. Childs notes, the best holes tend to have the widest scoring spreads. Like the 3rd and 13th at ANGC, the 12th and 17th at TOC, the 5th and the 12th at Cuscowilla, and so forth.

In fact, using tournament scoring results you could work up a mathematical formula demonstrating a correlation between good, strategic holes and wide scoring spreads.  

Long, hard par 4's tend to have very narrow scoring spreads.

But if you ask a typical club pro, he will probably pick a long hard par 4 as the best hole on his course. For example, many claim that the newly wooded and extended 11th is the best hole at ANGC. It is has been the hardest par 4 over the last two Masters. People tend to take that as a sign of design quality.

Some of us here would disagree strongly with that view.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Scoring spread is a factor in measuring hole quality, but I think shot values ought to be considered as well.  I think its gets back to Tom Doak's reference to Mackenzie about having a sense of accomplishment after playing a hole well.  All other things being equal, a par four requiring a good drive and a 5-iron has a better chance of being "great" than one that requires a good drive and a wedge.

[BCrosby]

Phil -

Holes that require no more than a drive and a wedge can have very narrow scoring spreads.  Not unlike par fours that require a drive and a five iron. Some have scoring spreads. Some don''t. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

For my money nothing compares - to pick one of many possible examples - to the thrill of deciding to risk the creek on 13 at ANGC and pulling it off.

A good five iron is a good five iron, but taking on a risk (that is to say, bringing a double bogey into play) for the purpose of going under par and succeeding is a thrill of a higher order. "Higher order" because it involves not just executing the shot, but also a whole chain of tough, exhilarating decisions.

Great holes tempt you to take risks. The more effective the temptation, the better the hole. Sometimes you will pull it off, sometimes you won't. That's where the spread in scores comes from. That's also where the sweet agony of making tough decisions comes from. That's also where the special allure of golf comes from, imho.  

Holes that only test your ability to hit a ball well and straight can certainly be satisfying, but it is nothing like the thrill of playing a great strategic hole.

That is why golf architecture matters. It is very, very hard to design a good strategic hole. It is much less hard to design a hole to test your ability to hit a straight shot.

Bob
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

Well stated Bob.  I agree completely.

Very short holes can have a big scoring spread too. #15 at Fenway (See Ran's review) requires a precise pitch. WIth the pin on the narrow front of the green just about any score is possible.  There are stories of Sam Snead playing ping pong across the green from bunker to bunker.

[BCrosby]

Geoffrey -

There are lots of great, short strategic par 4's.

For example, I was surprised to see that after the Road Hole, the 12th at TOC had the widest scoring spreads at the Open in '05. I had always thought it was a great strategic hole. The Open scoring spreads seemed to confirm that.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Well stated Bob.  I agree completely.

Very short holes can have a big scoring spread too. #15 at Fenway (See Ran's review) requires a precise pitch. WIth the pin on the narrow front of the green just about any score is possible.  There are stories of Sam Snead playing ping pong across the green from bunker to bunker.

Ironically, I drove past Fenway this morning and thought about 15 in the context of this thread.  It is a great hole.

My point about a driver/5-iron versus a driver/wedge par 4 is that you have less margin for error on the longer hole.  Mishit your drive and it becomes a long iron approach whereas on the shorter hole is still a 7 or 8 iron.  I guess that's what I mean about shot values and Tom Doak's "sense of accomplishment."

[Jonathan Cummings]

Bob - well characterized!  I'm not a long hitter and don't relish being confronted with a monster hole.  It usually means a bogey becomes a par and par becomes a birdie.  Conversely, I alsolutely love good short par 4s and par 5s for the reasons you cite.

You architects out there have "always said" that designing a character-rich short hole is harder than designing a character-rich long hole.  Is this due to the possibly misguided mindset - long is better?

JC

[David_Madison]

I tend to believe that holes that offer unusual challenges and features while staying on the "acceptable" side of "quirkiness scale" are often thought of as being the best holes. Length and raw difficulty by themselves don't cut it. Isn't #10 at Riviera considered one of the best holes anywhere? It's very short and lots of birdies are made there, but also lots of bogies and worse (and with no water or OB).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()