Holes you would fail to appreciate

[K. Krahenbuhl]

I'll admit that I'm failing to appreciate that first photo - the straight hole between the trees. I plead ignorance.

The 1st at Pasatiempo.  I'll admit that it doesn't play that tight, but still not what I would like to see standing on the first tee.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

It always intrigues me that people are willing to travel half way round the world to play a hole as unsightly as the Road Hole, but I don't deny the thrill of playing it. That hotel is just so ugly, even if it does replicate the challenge of driving over the former sheds. Now if those sheds had been a sand dune and the road were the beach....

[Tom Huckaby]

I just want to live to see a day I have a 60 yard pitch into 13 at CPC.  I think I'll need a rocket launcher.  But this does warm my heart for a 4 man two best scores out of 4 tournament I shall be playing in on May 5, as with Jon Spaulding on the team, I shall be able to drink beer and relax, knowing none of my scores are bloody likely to count.

 

Just giving my man a hard time - but seriously, I don't think I've ever gotten it to where I have wedge in on that hole.  The bunkers are very real hazards for me - all of them.  They get into my head, as Adam alludes to.  That hole damn near always plays into the wind, or perhaps cross...

But to me that's the point.  How the bunkers look in pictures is not nearly as important as how the golf hole PLAYS.  And if anyone can play that hole and call it blah, or say it doesn't work, well... you are playing a game with which I am unfamiliar.  That is one great golf hole as I see things.

Now re #1 Pasa, I doubt anyone would ever claim that hole is anything but what it is:  the best they could do having been forced to add a range, and let the trees proliferate.  It's not a great golf hole by any means, and I don't think anyone ever said it was.  It's also really not a Mackenzie hole, given the bastardization of it due to addition of range and planting and growing of forest... Look at a pic of the hole from the 30s to see what Mackenzie had in mind.

TH

[Jon Spaulding]

Remember that "the blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time" .

At length, I debated hitting an 3-iron off that tee; but was driving the ball well, so elected a hard, fading knuckleball with a driver which was executed as well as this guy can muster. One of the great tee shots (and holes for that matter) that I have seen; a photo of Hunter teeing off in 1929 on the hole sits on the wall behind my monitor @ work (in which the hazard is far more imposing). The concept of hitting anything from a 4-iron to a driver, depending on one's mood, and line of play over the diagonal hazard.....is the essence of strategy. I can imagine that the bunkering plays on one's mind as a function of distance.

[Mike_Cirba]

Art,

This is a really good thread topic.

As others have mentioned, the sandy bunkers that Mackenzie created at CP were absolutely amazing and so well integrated into the natural dunes as to be indistinguishable.   Even the lovely painting doesn't capture it well in my opinion.

I don't really like the way they look today, with so much more of the course now grass.

The ANGC pics all speak for themselves, as does the one of Pasa and Mackenzie would have gotten physically ill looking at them, I'm certain.

As far as the 2nd at Merion, I've stated before that I'd love to see them widen the fairways to 1930 widths.    I've also made my feelings known ad nauseum in the past regarding the grassy faces to the bunkers, so I won't go into that again.

[Art Roselle]

I really just tried to find holes that had a look that seemed counter to some of the discussions I have seen here.  I cannot really say that I feel strongly positive or negative about any of them. 

I do not really remember having a strong reaction to #13 at CPC when I played it (I have only played it once).  Maybe I was too busy thinking about the upcoming ocean holes.

I think #17 at TOC is in a separate category and there are probably dozens of "quirky" holes in GB&I that you could add to this list.  I tend to give those a pass.

I will admit that both #1 at Pasatiempo and #2 at Merion were my least favorite holes on those courses.  That does not necessarily mean that I thought they were bad.  They were simply my least favorite.  Both of them felt like "normal" holes sitting within great courses. In this case, "normal" means that they did not stand out and felt like holes that might be found almost anywhere.  So, that got me to thinking about what this crowd would think if they truly were "anywhere".

My hope was that people would offer up some other examples of holes that are well thought of, but might not be if they appeared today.

[Sean_A]

In my anxiousness to see #4 back some 15 years ago I failed to appreciate this gem.  In some ways it has held up better than #4 and I think it is probably a better hole.  It may seem odd, but because there isn't clearly a best angle to approach this hole - hang on, what did I write?  Yes, because the best angle for #3 depends on where the hole is and how aggressive the player wants to be, I think this is a better hole than #4 despite its famed choice of right or left off the tee  - or in the today's case straight over the centreline bunkers.  In any case, #s 3 & 4 are a very clever back to back combo which when combined test all the mental powers of the golfer.


David

Thank you for the artwork.  I think a revised version of this hole would be very interesting indeed. 


Ciao

[wsmorrison]

For several years now, I have argued against MacKenzie's overuse of bunkers around greens, particularly on mounds surrounding greens.  While it looked a bit better when constructed, I'm not sure if they could have survived the test of time as built, an important factor to consider.  The way they are maintained today, probably the only way to keep them intact, is just awful looking.  Sean, too, has countered the popular notion on this site that MacKenzie could do no wrong.  Adam doesn't think the bunkers act as "framers?"   That is curious.

The quality of MacKenzie's work at Valley Club, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point and Augusta is partially undone by his systematic positioning of greens surrounded by mounds, both man-made and natural.   OK, the excessive bunkering looks tied in to the bunkering near the twelfth green and to the bunkers on the dunes to the right of the thirteenth green.  However, the photo on page 148 is taken from the twelfth green, it is not at all the view you get playing the hole.   

Why didn't MacKenzie do this sort of thing in the UK and Australia?  Maybe his work crews had a lot more to do with it than MacKenzie.  Who knows?  I've never been to any of his California courses, but from what I can see, I don't like it.  That isn't to say that I wouldn't enjoy the experience, but it is an odd technique that doesn't work very well aesthetically today and from a permanence perspective in the construction era.

[Ted Kramer]

Great posts on this thread from Huck and Wayne.
Thanks gentlemen.

-Ted

[Jeff_Brauer]

Art,

You speculated that category one would be harder to draw out of people. But, most of the discussion has focused on just that.

I got the impression that you really wanted to focus on group two - which should be much larger anyway and there are few examples given.

From my experience, holes that you don't appreciate the design of are usually not so visually spectacular as CPC 13.  A bunkerless hole that still causes bogey through ground contours is usually not appreciated as the golfer feels he just plays it badly.

There are also certain holes that it takes many golfers a while to figure out that are unappreciated.  Often they fall into the golden age strategy mold of "Oh, so I need to hit it right by that bunker to have an approach shot".  So many golfers spend so much time lamenting that the hole forces them to hit an uncomfortable shot that they just don't get it.  An optional layup or even Redan hole might fit this category for many golfers.

[Jeff Doerr]

Did #1 at Pasatiempo get modified in the restoration? I've not played it since the changes and it would be nice to see what could be done to improve/restore it.

Foxy at Royal Dornoch gets love here, but on a new course, I'm not so sure.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - I believe #1 was the first hole to be modified - and I'm not sure if it was part of the larger overall effort completed fairly recently.  In any case, it is quite different today than that picture shows, and/or perhaps what you remember.  The trees have been thinned a LOT on the right, and the large tree that used to be front left of the green was removed... the bunker was also reshaped a bit (I think).  Another big difference is they decided to call it a par four on the scorecard... without moving the tees at all.  Much discussion of that has occurred on here!

They also have a old/new back tee, which I have yet to see - hopefully Rib Chestnut will chime in - it's over to the left up by Hollins House I think - I believe they used it in recent Western Intercollegiate.

TH

[Sean Leary]

Don't these sort of framing bunkers look more overkill-ish in 2 dimensional pictures rather than in person? To me its kind of the same as cartpaths.  Much more egregious and noticable in pics rather than in person.  Just a thought.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - I'd say that's a great though, and one with which I agree.  Of course that might have just disqualified it from being a great thought.

 

[Mike Benham]

Don't these sort of framing bunkers look more overkill-ish in 2 dimensional pictures rather than in person? To me its kind of the same as cartpaths.  Much more egregious and noticable in pics rather than in person.  Just a thought.

The photo on the overcast day enhances the contrast between the overly green turf and the whiteness of the bunkers, do you get the same opinion with this photo:

[Sean Leary]

Don't these sort of framing bunkers look more overkill-ish in 2 dimensional pictures rather than in person? To me its kind of the same as cartpaths.  Much more egregious and noticable in pics rather than in person.  Just a thought.

The photo on the overcast day enhances the contrast between the overly green turf and the whiteness of the bunkers, do you get the same opinion with this photo:

I wouldn't know as I haven't seen the hole in person (from that angle anyway)..But it doesn't look as bad in this pic, no.  But I bet the dirt path to the left of the fairway is much more noticable here than in person..

[Tom Huckaby]

Another great thought by the astute Mr. Leary.

The dirt path doesn't exist as one plays the hole... or at least it's invisible anyway, except if one decides to glance way to his left just short of the green.

TH