Is it the best par 3 in golf ?

« **Reply #50 on:** August 23, 2006, 01:46:35 PM »

I have real trouble with two concepts here.

Firstly, can any hole really be "the best" par 3, par 4 or par 5 in golf? What does that mean? Who for? Is the quality of golf holes an absolute (that, perhaps can be scored on a hundred point scale as Robert Parker applies to wine)? I really don't think so, not least because I have many times played a new course with friends and disagreed as to which of that courses holes was the "best". There is a strong degree of subjectivity in judging holes or courses. Of course almost any sane golfer would agree that, for instance, Woodhall Spa is a better course than the Belfry but is it better than Ganton?

Secondly, I'm puzzled by the suggestion that the diversity of this hole is one of the features that makes it "the best". Does that mean that a hole without designed diversity cannot be great? If so, many of the World's great golf holes lack this (the Postage Stamp, the Road Hole). It appears that what Patrick is saying is a strength of this hole is that, in fact, it can be set up as a variety of different holes. Which one are we supposed to judge?

Finally, although I have never played this hole (nor am I ever likely to) and haven't even seen it, I, for my part and based on my own prejudices, have real difficulty accepting that an island green par three could be in the running for the World's best.

« **Reply #51 on:** August 23, 2006, 02:52:01 PM »

« **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2006, 04:04:41 PM »

Thanks Michael, that helps.

Presumably the hole to the right in the photo is the 10th and the green is accessed by the right hand bridge, the next tee being over the left hand bridge? If so, isn't there a routing issue travelling to the green along the right hand side of the previous fairway?

« **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:43:32 PM »

Mark Pearce,

Do you really believe that The Road Hole lacks diversity ?

The green is the prototype for what may be the most ingenious green in golf, a green that can be approached from 360 degrees while maintaining interest and challenge.

The Postage Stamp is one dimensional.

A great hole, but, tell me what design variety and/or variety in playability exists on # 8 at Troon ?

With # 10 a short hole, most golfers have hit their drives into the fairway not far from the green, allowing the golfers from
# 11 to walk back up the 10th fairway with little or no conflict.

I doubt that any structure would be permited in that tidal channel today.

« **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:17:17 PM »

Gentlemen,

I've played The Creek, Fishers, North Berwick, TOC, etc. But the 6th hole at Yeamans Hall gets my vote - 180 yard Redan. Wind or lack thereof can make you hit any one of a half-dozen clubs (at least), and you can play the shot about that many ways as well. The green and the bunkers speak for themselves. Truly a magnificent hole.

« **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:24:45 PM »

Steve C,

I love Redans, but what variety is employed when you play them ?

Aren't you confined on ball flight and the methods of play ?

Is there a prevailing wind/s at Yeoman's ?
Do strong winds buffet the site almost constantly ?

« **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:26:12 PM »

Quote from: Mark Pearce on August 23, 2006, 04:04:41 PM

If so, isn't there a routing issue travelling to the green along the right hand side of the previous fairway?

There is both a significant routing and saftey issue with 10 and 11.

On 10 tee I waited until the group in front of us was on the green and the group in front of them was waiting to tee off on the 11th tee (forward tee). Off 10 I drove it into the right greenside bunker, screaming "fore!!" at the top of my lungs when I realized I blocked it a bit.

Anyhow, we figured it was in the water right, turns out it was in the bunker and fine, however, I apparently nearing hit a caddie in the group in front of us. While he was an arse about it and made some snide comment as he passed us (kind of wish I had skull capped him now) in crowded conditions there is a significant safety issue there.

Moreover, we had to drive our carts up the 10th fairway and nearly drove our carts into the group teeing off 10 as they hit. It's really a screwy situation for outings.

But the good news is the golf is very good and the views are even better!!

« **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:33:15 PM »

Jason,

Tell the entire story.

You played in a charity outing with a shotgun start and at least two groups on every tee, taking 5 hours and having to wait on every tee.

Had you played a normal round I don't think you'd find the bottleneck that existed on # 10 tee.

In addition, with the Olympic sized pool and some very attractive bikini clad women only a few yards away from the 10th tee, other forces were in play.

Carts, who plays in carts ?
I know, they were mandatory.

But, please don't confuse a densely populated three ringed circus with a low key, uncrowded golf course.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:49:25 PM »

Pat:

I stated it was crowded, with groups on the 10th tee, 10th green, 11th tee and 11th green (figured the outing part would be inferred).

Yes, the safety issue is only really an issue in an outing when nobody is paying attention but the routing is a serious flaw given the modern use of carts.

While I would always walk that course some can't or choose not to and having to drive a golf cart clear up the fairway you just played is a routing failure.

Understanding that when designed there were no golf carts it's nevertheless a routing issue today. If I had occassion to play there more than once a year in an outing I'd suggesta local rule that 10 and 11 must be walked so park your carts if you've got them at the 12 tee after playing #9 and take the clubs you need for 10 and 11. Of course a handicap waiver could be received with a Dr's note.

Golf carts simply don't belong on 10 fairway.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:50:49 AM »

Pat - I think we need to distinguish variety in various ways that the hole can be played, and variety as the hole is being played that day. The Postage Stamp is miles ahead of 11 at the Creek because it has variety in play every time you step on the tee. Miss the green at the creek (whether played at 120 or 220), and you're swimming (depending on tide) and reteeing. Miss at 8 at Troon and you have (many) interesting shots ahead of you.

« **Reply #60 on:** August 24, 2006, 04:11:24 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 23, 2006, 09:43:32 PM

Mark Pearce,

Do you really believe that The Road Hole lacks diversity ?

The green is the prototype for what may be the most ingenious green in golf, a green that can be approached from 360 degrees while maintaining interest and challenge.

The Postage Stamp is one dimensional.

A great hole, but, tell me what design variety and/or variety in playability exists on # 8 at Troon ?

With # 10 a short hole, most golfers have hit their drives into the fairway not far from the green, allowing the golfers from
# 11 to walk back up the 10th fairway with little or no conflict.

I doubt that any structure would be permited in that tidal channel today.

I think you are confusing diversity in the way a hole can be played and diversity in the way it can be set up. In your praise of this hole you have focussed on the latter. In your comment on the Road Hole, you focus on the former. Diversity in the way a hole can be played is an excellent feature and a real strength of most of the holes on TOC, including the Road Hole.

However, in relation to the 11th how can an island green offer the diversity in strategy that the Road Hole offers. 120 yards to an island green? It's a wedge, no other way to play it. 240 to an island green? Other than being an unfair shot to ask of most mid to high handicappers, it's a long iron, fairway wood or driver, depending on ability. Where's the diversity?

« **Reply #61 on:** August 24, 2006, 07:28:56 AM »

SPDB,

That's a great point when thinking about Par 3s and certianly something I look for in favotite holes. I find 17 at Sawgrass an exciting hole to watch on TV, but the play lacks the diversity of having recovery options.

« **Reply #62 on:** August 24, 2006, 07:44:03 AM »

I agree with Sean and Dave.

Without multiple tee shot results and recovery options, no par-3 can be consdiered "great." Would #6 at NGLA be great if there were a pond from tee to green? As one who topped his tee shot and then recoved out of the boondai to save par, I say not!

« **Reply #63 on:** August 24, 2006, 11:51:56 AM »

Pat:

Have you spoken to anyone that played in the Met Am. a couple years back about the routing/safety concerns or lack thereof?

I'd be very interested to know what the players thought or if it was a non-issue.

Jason

« **Reply #64 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:21:21 PM »

Quote from: Jason Blasberg on August 23, 2006, 10:49:25 PM

Pat:

I stated it was crowded, with groups on the 10th tee, 10th green, 11th tee and 11th green (figured the outing part would be inferred).

Yes, the safety issue is only really an issue in an outing when nobody is paying attention but the routing is a serious flaw given the modern use of carts.

Jason, surely you're aware that the golf course was designed around 1923, long before carts were a glimmer in Textron's eye.[/color]

While I would always walk that course some can't or choose not to and having to drive a golf cart clear up the fairway you just played is a routing failure.

A routing failure.
You must be kidding.
The golf course was designed, brilliantly designed in 1923.

And, I wouldn't rule out that there was frontal access from tee to green in the early years.

I'll guarantee you that environmentalists are prohibiting a direct tee to green connection.[/color]

Understanding that when designed there were no golf carts it's nevertheless a routing issue today. If I had occassion to play there more than once a year in an outing I'd suggesta local rule that 10 and 11 must be walked so park your carts if you've got them at the 12 tee after playing #9 and take the clubs you need for 10 and 11. Of course a handicap waiver could be received with a Dr's note.

Wouldn't a better solution be a causeway between tee and green replicating the tee on # 14 which lets the water flow freely beneath it ?

The perceived problem CAN be solved, but, I doubt that the club is the impediment[/color]

Golf carts simply don't belong on 10 fairway.

How would golfers who need carts play # 10 ?

Absent the causeway solution, there's another solution, but, the same forces would prohibit it.

Have all carts go behind the 10th green to and from the 11th tee.

Problem solved.[/color]

« **Reply #65 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:32:28 PM »

Quote from: SPDB on August 24, 2006, 12:50:49 AM

Pat - I think we need to distinguish variety in various ways that the hole can be played, and variety as the hole is being played that day.

The Postage Stamp is miles ahead of 11 at the Creek because it has variety in play every time you step on the tee.

There is no variety.

It's a pass fail test with narrow margins of error.

And, the shot is pretty much the same every time.

# 11 can be a wedge to a driver, while the # 8 is the same club every time, absent wind. And even with the prevailing wind, it's pretty much the same shot.

I'll take # 11 at The Creek on an every day basis.
It provides infinitely more variety.[/color]

Miss the green at the creek (whether played at 120 or 220), and you're swimming (depending on tide) and reteeing. Miss at 8 at Troon and you have (many) interesting shots ahead of you.

You left out critical factors.

Margin of error and relativity

If you miss a green that's 80-90 yards deep and 35-40 yards wide you can't equate that with missing a green that's miniscule in comparison.

Tell me about the interesting recovery at # 8 at Troon if you're 50 yards short or long of that hole.

# 8 is a great hole, as is # 11 at Shinnecock and many others, but, for variety, fun and challenge it's hard to beat
# 11 at The Creek especially when you consider the element of the wind, which is almost always present.[/color]

« **Reply #66 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:38:29 PM »

Patrick:

From that picture, I am starting to see what you mean here. Of course only the most foolish of fools would make judgments based on pictures, however. I mean, I'm tempted to say that having to walk backwards along the right side of #10 detracts[/b] from the routing, but of course I'd never say that since it surely is a judgement based solely on a picture, which remains foolish. And I'd surely trust those who have played the hole far more than myself, looking only at a picture.

In any case, I gather this hole is along the sea or some other form or big water? And it's open to the elements, with a lot of wind? That is very cool, and assuming this is true, I'm starting to see how one could put it in a conversation with greats like 16 Cypress. Because it is darn unique - and neat - that one can play it with such a short carry and then a huge putt.... That is, my 8 year old son couldn't play 16 Cypress from the same tee as me... he could definitely play 11 Creek from the front tee, and lord knows defeat me if I mess up. That is pretty neat.

TH

« **Reply #67 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on August 24, 2006, 07:44:03 AM

I agree with Sean and Dave.

Without multiple tee shot results and recovery options, no par-3 can be consdiered "great." Would #6 at NGLA be great if there were a pond from tee to green? As one who topped his tee shot and then recoved out of the boondai to save par, I say not!

If a pond, and you should be chastized for even suggesting same, were surrounding # 6, there wouldn't be boondai, it would probably be maintained as fairway. Next you'll be advocating the expansion of the one flanking # 16 at GCGC.

And, you and everyone else is forgeting that par 3's are inherently target golf holes.

They're not meant to provide an abundance of options from the tee for most, and especially not for the better player.[/color]

« **Reply #68 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:46:44 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

It's a lob wedge to the beach on the Long Island Sound.
There is nothing that will impede the wind off the Sound.

Beach erosion is a problem as the beach serves as a barrier, protecting # 10, 11, 12, 13, and parts of # 9 and # 14.

Low dikes have been erected along the left side of # 10 and # 13, but, when a storm hits, they'll all be underwater.

Dredging and beach replacement need to take place.

Interestingly enough, in an aerial photo, circa 1938, it appears that many cranes are on the beach, building it up.

Picture one of my favorite holes, # 17 at Sand Hills.

Now picture being able to play it from 71 to 240 yards ?

I understand that the green, being such a small target reaches critical mass at a certain distance and implodes the playability factor, but, I think you get my drift on the fun you can have from a variety of distances.

« **Reply #69 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:57:15 PM »

Patrick:

I get your drift. Your case is strong here.

Of course I will wait until that great day I see it in person to make final judgment. I'd never say anything detracts from anything based on a photo. Judgments based on photos remain a no-no, right?

« **Reply #70 on:** August 24, 2006, 01:12:24 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

The Creek and Piping Rock, along with Yale in CT are worth a trip.

They are wonderful golf courses and I know you'd enjoy yourself irrespective of your scores.

That's the fun in golf, appreciating the challenge, and in your case, the views, which, at The Creek are spectacular.

« **Reply #71 on:** August 24, 2006, 01:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 24, 2006, 12:39:02 PM

Quote from: Rich Goodale on August 24, 2006, 07:44:03 AM
I agree with Sean and Dave.

Without multiple tee shot results and recovery options, no par-3 can be consdiered "great." Would #6 at NGLA be great if there were a pond from tee to green? As one who topped his tee shot and then recoved out of the boondai to save par, I say not!

If a pond, and you should be chastized for even suggesting same, were surrounding # 6, there wouldn't be boondai, it would probably be maintained as fairway. Next you'll be advocating the expansion of the one flanking # 16 at GCGC.

And, you and everyone else is forgeting that par 3's are inherently target golf holes.

They're not meant to provide an abundance of options from the tee for most, and especially not for the better player.[/color]

I see your point about the nature of tee shots on true par 3s (not 1/2 par holes), but you did not address the aspect of recovery options. In fact you described a particular design feature in another thread and asked why it was not used more. It seemed like you admiration for the features were based on the variety of problems a player would face if he did not hit the correct part of the green, went into a back bunker, etc. It was the fact that a player would need to consider what could happen if he did not execute that made the hole so interesting.

Having a 90 ft. putt (that according to some does not have a ton of movement), or having to re-tee doesn't seem as strategic to me. That is just my opinion, and the beauty of this discussion is that there are no absolutes.

Another thought I had about this is that having the flexibility to change a hole so drastically from day to day and with varying wind must make things very interesting for the members and frequent guests. However, I don't know if that makes it the best par 3 in golf.

« **Reply #72 on:** August 24, 2006, 01:22:42 PM »

The fun in golf remains taking in all it has to offer, and of course that includes the views and so much more than just the challenge. Anyone who bases assessments on the challenge alone would have to be brain-dead.

As for scores, well... I had a blast at Yale and I don't believe I broke 90 - so you can hopefully understand how little such mean to me in terms of assessing a golf course.

TH

« **Reply #73 on:** August 24, 2006, 01:56:23 PM »

r - I only said he had a strong case. It does seem to be far stronger than it initially seemed. But of course my input is meaningless having never seen it in person - kinda like Pat's is meaningless about MPCC #11.

« **Reply #74 on:** August 24, 2006, 02:07:24 PM »

Quote from: redanman on August 24, 2006, 02:02:49 PM

See my opinion in my original post on this thread. I was using sarcasm, TH.

Oh I got that.
I'm just giving you more fuel.

News:

Mark Pearce

Michael Moore

Mark Pearce

Patrick_Mucci

SteveC

Patrick_Mucci

Jason Blasberg

Patrick_Mucci

Jason Blasberg

SPDB

Mark Pearce

Dave Bourgeois

ForkaB

Jason Blasberg

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Dave Bourgeois

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby