[Jerry Kluger]

A few modern courses that I have played wound up with what I would consider somewhat disppointing 18th holes. It would seem to me that an architect would consider the final hole to be perhaps the most important hole on the course as it is where many matches will be decided and it is the last memory that the player will take away from the course. So it is surprising to me that sometimes the 18th is simply uninteresting, uncharacteristic of the rest of the course or just not that challenging.  What steps do you feel an architect should take to make sure this does not happen or do you feel that I am placing too much importance on this one hole?

[THuckaby2]

Jerry - traditionally architects have in fact placed LESS importance on the 18th hole because most matches are already decided before playing it!  Or at least that's one reason given by the pundits for weak 18th holes at classic courses.

I'm with you though - I'd think a round should build to a crescendo, and culminate with a very strong 18th.  

I think most modern architectrs do try to accomplish this... I see to find more strong 18ths than weak 18ths on modern courses.

But I very well could be wrong and/or too limited in experience.

In any case, put my vote on the 18th being very important and being a strong hole.  How often do we really skip the hole anyway, even if we are playing match play?

TH

[SPDB]

The Creek

[Philippe Binette]

Would you prefer a strong, difficult finishing hole (à la Oakmont for example) or a more simple shorter hole like at The Old Course  

[Jerry Kluger]

In most cases the 18th hole is a good finishing hole for any number of reasons but my question is how far would or should an architect go in order to be sure that the 18th is a good finishing hole.  Say perhaps it might cause some forced routing or maybe an opening par 3, just how far should he go to make sure 18 is a really good hole?

[Rob_Waldron]

Tom H.

How often do walk in after a match is over? Probably never. In fact most 18th holes have additional importance because there are typically several bets still alive.

At The Presidents Cup holes were adjusted to accomodate galleries and excitement on holes 17 and 18 (Renumbered 15 and 16) since historically very few matches lasted past 16.

According to the USGA, one of the factors in handicapping individual holes is to try not to make #18 or #9 the lowest handicap holes because in a match they may not come into play.  

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that if an architect knows where the clubhouse area will be on the site he's designing on, he ought to make the 18th hole the first one he/she designs.  It should be the most carefully designed hole.  Even if most matches DO end around #16, a) most people who play golf are not playing matches nowadays, and b) if a match has made it to the 18th hole, it deserves to end in the most climactic way.

In fact, now that I think of it, it seems best to design whole courses backwards (perhaps with the exception of the first couple holes and the last couple).  This eliminates running out of room (if that's an issue) for the most critical holes on the course.  I do realize that the terrain has bearing on this, but it makes sense to me, to start at the best part, and design backwards accordingly.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H.

How often do walk in after a match is over? Probably never. In fact most 18th holes have additional importance because there are typically several bets still alive.

My point exactly - at least in my experience that never happens.  If a match is over competitively, people still do play out the remaining holes... or start a new bet... the 18th always means SOMETHING.

Which is why I am solidly on the side of making it a crescendo rather than an afterthought.

[Jerry Kluger]

I really enjoy the work of Mike Strantz but Royal New Kent has always puzzled me.  Mike admitted to the fact that the 18th was totally out of character but other considerations forced him to create such a hole.  Should he perhaps have changed the routing, even if it felt forced, in order to avoid having such a finishing hole? Perhaps he could have done what Tim felt is the best thing to do and that is to go back from 18 because it is so important.  Many will say that 18 is not so important but here is a course which is generally well liked and sometimes even loved, but always with the exception of number 18.
 

[Bill Shotzbarger]

One thing I do or don't like, depending on the hole, is the fact that 18 is almost always uphill. Out of the courses I've played the only one that is downhill is 18 at Stonewall old. And many of us know what a great hole that is.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Recently an owner / developer told a group from the treehouse that there was only one constraint he put on his architect:  The clubhouse location.  Everything else was up to him and the course turned out great.  With hindsight, the one thing the developer would have changed... dictating the clubhouse location.

Bill S.  
Uphill 18th holes are needed to get back to the elevated clubhouses.

So is a better 18th hole worth detracting from 2 or more other holes?
If the clubhouse is on the highest point, there aren't many other ways of getting there.

Cheers

[Mike_Sweeney]

The Creek

Not sure why you picked this one. It is an easy hole for the better player as a Par 5, but it does not disappoint after #17 which may be the weakest hole on the course. Would making it a Par 4 change your opinion?

Looking up 18 from the 17 tee.


Looking down 18 from Mark Rowlinson's room. The green has two tiers and a false front

[A.G._Crockett]

One would have to be at Settindown Creek, the site of the recent USGA Women's Am.   The 18th is a quirky, short downhill par 4, following a series of wonderful holes.

In Bob Cupp's defense (not that he needs it) this was NOT the original 18th hole; his numbering was changed to move the clubhouse into Fulton Co. in order to get a pouring license;
Cherokee Co. wouldn't grant a variance.  His original layout was wonderful, with the current 18th somewhere in the middle of the front 9, where it was perfectly fine and very enjoyable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

Yale, NGLA, The Creek and Piping Rock all end with par 5's.

Perhaps that was his preference for a finishing hole and # 18 at The Creek was somewhat of a forced finish, given that the cemetery was inviolate.

[Sean Leary]

The flip side to this argument is when you have 18 not finishing at the clubhouse.  At my course, 18 is very good, but it is a hike back to the clubhouse. Probably a 350 to 400 yard walk.  That walk sucks, particularly after a double bogey...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

We have discussed at length the weakness of the 18th at Cypress and how it is a let down affter the 17 holes before it. However, it does pass the look back after the round test. the view from the back of the green is one of the best in all golfdom.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe that Newport recently flipped the nines in order to have a stronger finishing hole.

[Cliff Hamm]

The nines at Newport were flipped.  The reason, however, was to accomodate more fans on 18.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff,

I've heard that, but, if # 9 had been a weaker hole do you think the nines would have been flipped ?

[Cliff Hamm]

Yes, I do. If the situation were reversed (the traditional 18 was able to accomodate spectators better than the traditional 9) I believe the USGA would not have flipped the nines.  For better or worse the USGA is most interested in how many people it can accomodate - even for a Women's Open.  In this case I must agree.  If you're going to hold a major championship the last hole must enable the spectators to view the action. The traditional 18th at Newport has no room for bleachers, while 9, as I'm sure you know, is open around the green and will allow a much better view for spectators.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

The nines at Newport were flipped.  The reason, however, was to accomodate more fans on 18.

This is not such a bad idea. It also brings in the ocean holes for TV on the now back 9 and the old 18 was not a great finisher, especially in the old days when it was wet.

[Craig_Rokke]

Are you guys receptive at all to par 3 finishers, such as at the Cascades? I like the hole, but I think there's a reason you don't see many par 3's closing out the golf round.

[Steve Lapper]

Somerset Hills is perhaps the weakest 18th I've noted.....a short uphill par 4 to an interesting, but relatively defenseless mid-size green. It is drivable for the very long hitter and not penal enough for any long and wayward shot...

It appears to me that many architects, old and young were forced to compromise on the 18ths given the positioning of the clubhouse....thus making the poorer 18th's a desing of the owners, not the routers.

[Bill_McBride]

Sometimes it seems as though the architect has made his way to the 17th green and then said, "Yikes, we've got to get back to the clubhouse!"

A great example is the 18th at Pumpkin Ridge's private course outside Portland, Oregon, where the par 5 hole is completely out of character with the rest of the course, two forced carries over environmental areas, the first I saw on the course.

Seems like some forethought might have been preventative medicine, and certainly avoided this unfortuate finish to an otherwise solid course.

[SPDB]

The Creek

The green has two tiers and a false front[/b]

You forgot "and requires no more than a 6 iron to get home"

Don't get me wrong mike, I love the creek, but its par 5's are not its strong suit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()