[rgkeller]

I was reading one of the collections of Henry Longhurst's writings yesterday evening and I came across a column he wrote about the "eccentric practitioner in the art of golf-course architecture" Mr. Tom Simpson.

Mr. Simpson was quoted as saying, "The vital thing about a hole is that it should either be more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is. It must never be what it looks."

This construct appealed to me on many levels not the least of which is that such holes cannot be truly judged without the playing of them.

And I wonder if this appeal of this approach is mine alone.

[George Pazin]

This approach is certainly not appealing to you alone, but I don't think it is shared by the majority.

What is a good example of a hole built under this approach?

[JESII]

This construct appealed to me on many levels not the least of which is that such holes cannot be truly judged without the playing of them.

And multiple times I might suggest.


Actually, now that I thought a bit more on these lines, after multiple playings ones expectations are (should be) pretty close to the reality of the hole so the premise very likely is meant to have its greatest effect on first blush. Hmm.

[JESII]

#6 Pine Valley



#7 Shinnecock

[JESII]

Do you think the intention is to keep the player off balance?

I have often walked off a course and thought it was either more or less difficult than it "looked", but I can't seem to come up with any at the moment.

I think the 6th at PV looks incredibly intimidating, but can be negotiated fairly well by just about any caliber player with a decent drive (not a best ever drive either).

#7 appears fairly innocent, but can absolutely kill people if they don't pay attention.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I think this is one reason that I enjoy playing #17 at Pasa so much.  It is the most innocent looking thing you could wish to encounter...350-360 yds, one greenside bunker, not much trouble off the tee at all.  But the green is so devilish that every time I play it I shake my head in wonder.  Very subtle, but effective nonetheless.

[JESII]

Would any blind tee shot fit into the category of looking tougher than the reality?

Which method is easier to produce/find when creating a golf course?

I'm obviously intrigued with this notion, I hope others become so because talking to myself is bad but typing to myself would really be a bad sign.

[TEPaul]

"And I wonder if this appeal of this approach is mine alone."

Absolutely not. The differences between how something looks and how it plays is often one of the most interesting and appealing aspects of golf architecture---and the spectrum can be wide too. In this sense it's been said for years that Mackenzie's architecture and Ross's architecture may be polar opposites this way---eg MacKenzie's holes and courses often looking harder than they really are and Ross's holes and courses often looking easier than they really are. On the other hand, personally I have no problem with holes looking hard and being hard too. Some for years have categorized PVGC this way. It certainly looks hard and finding someone who truly thinks the course is easy is about as rare as hen's teeth.

[rgkeller]

This approach is certainly not appealing to you alone, but I don't think it is shared by the majority.

What is a good example of a hole built under this approach?

Some holes that look easy but play hard that I have played that others here may have played include the 12th at Seminole, the 10th at Old Marsh, and the third at Garden City.

I cannot come up with many that go the other way - the 13th at Old Marsh comes to mind. Certainly Pete Dye is the modern master of visual intimidation to the first time player ( or to the golfer who doesn't pay attention.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

rgkeller,

I think you could add # 1 and # 2 at GCGC to the first category.

I think the second category is weighted more toward the higher handicap.,   Perhaps # 16 at NGLA would fall into that category.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()