[ForkaB]

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]

Pat

I said nothing about a pond surrounding the green, and I did say "If!"

You are actually wrong, IMO, that 3's should not offer options off the tee.  "Abundance" might be a bridge too far, but without options, how do you have strategery?

Rich

PS--Vis a vis the 16th at Garden City, I am advocating global warming these days so that GCGC, NGLA and Boca Rio are all submerged and you are forced to talk about some other coureses, just for a change.....

[Kevin Edwards]

Huck's on board!

Well, there you have it, The best par 3 in golf (for Mr. Mucci).  Settled, praise be to God!

I wanted to go back to the thing about the 3 holes I mentioned and dared criticize Friar's Head #10.  I do not understand the enjoyment of a mandatory decision by the caddie for you to "hit it xyz yards right here!".  I am certain that my heretical status here is now approaching platinum, but no one like bliindness more than me.  

When you are hitting to 20k ft2, not greens within a green, whazzup?  It's not even completely unique.  I snapped a 4-iron one time and had a 90 foot putt that I got down in two, I was more PO-ed that I effed the shot than I was happy to 2-putt from 90 feet on that green.  Recovery shots from short grass, hollows, bunkers, crabgrass all add variety, but just following instructions from a caddie to hit a blind green, heck Himalyas, you can get a peek at a green with surrounds and plan (Prestwick) mentally - a challenge that is up to you to solve.  

Prestwick probably reigns near supreme in blindness, not just Himalyas but you get little looks and can memorize details to effect a plan.

At the same time, someone convince me that I should like being able to hit 8 clubs different into a green whether it's the Creek, Friar's or the par 4 8th at Beverly.

One of my favorite holes at Bayonne was #11 which no one commented on which has a green with a dune hiding parts of it, but not all.  I thought it was a very similar (in theory, vastly different aesthetics) than FH #10.  No one has bit on even listing those three in any order, so where's the "frank discussion".

(I guess I should don my 3-D glasses for all the upcoming colour, no?  

Redanman

I don’t understand this logic at all. If you don’t like playing to yardages then simply ask the caddie to refrain from supplying them to you.  That’s easy at Friars Head since there are no yardage markers anywhere on the course. I was very lucky to have the chance to play there for the first time recently and I recall that you can peak at the 10th pin location while going from the range to the first tee. So, what’s your problem? Look at the pin and when you get to the 10th tee play by feel. I thought the 10th was a brilliant par 3.  There is plenty of trouble short right and left but yes there is a huge green.  There is however great deception in that green due to its size.  The deception is that the size tends to flatten out the features to your eye so you underestimate the break by a LOT.  I read at least 2 feet less break then my caddie suggested. You can ignore the caddie if you wish and read the green yourself (if your host allows you back  ). I felt the 10th at FH offers great visuals both for beauty and playability. It is precisely the size and scope of the hole that makes it work so very well.  It may not fit your mold of what a great par 3 should be but it breaks the mold and forms a new category for me.

I have also played The Creek and I feel it is a charming even special golf course but the 11th is good in my opinion only due to its great setting and its unique flanking water features. It is much better playing to a pin behind the small swale then as a 100 yard pitch. Once on the green it is quite HO HUM. I don’t get the great intrigue of a very long putt where you likely play it inside the hole.

I have not had the chance to play Bayonne yet so I can’t comment. You certainly do get around to playing everything within a 250 mile radius.  

Maybe my favorite par 3 that is partially obstructed by a dune is the 8th at Maidstone.  It’s short but the wind makes it an extremely precise shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Par 3's are inherently short on strategy.

It's almost entirely target golf.

Et. Al.,

To demand strategic options for recovery shots is absurd.

Where are the strategic options for recovery if you hit your drive, 2nd or approach wide left at the 18th at Pebble Beach, or Wide right on # 4, ,6,7,8,9 and 10 ?

How about wide right on # 4 at Pacific Dunes or Wide left on # 11, # 12 and # 13 at Pacific Dunes ?

OR, wide right at # 18 at NGLA and wide left at # 18 at Sebonack.

Are any of those holes demoted because of the lack of recovery for a missed shot ?

[SPDB]

Patrick - Take the holes you list, and create an island green on each of them, instead of just listing one area of the hole. Do you think how we view those holes would be changed?

I think you are conflating variety in possible ways the hole can be set up (which 11 Creek has in spades) and variety in how the hole plays at any given time. You really have only 3 varieties of play on 11. Long putt (not a terribly interesting one), short putt, or drop from the ladies tee. That's not variety to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - Take the holes you list, and create an island green on each of them, instead of just listing one area of the hole. Do you think how we view those holes would be changed?

That's a bad example because you've added an ADDITIONAL hazard to holes that already have a substantive hazard.

If you took the current hazard away, would your view of those holes be changed ?

I think you are conflating variety in possible ways the hole can be set up (which 11 Creek has in spades) and variety in how the hole plays at any given time. You really have only 3 varieties of play on 11. Long putt (not a terribly interesting one), short putt, or drop from the ladies tee. That's not variety to me.

I disagree.

When was the last time in the U.S. that you were on a green and had a putt of 60 yards ?

That's interesting to me because it's so rare.

After you screw up your 60 yard putt, you still might have another relatively long putt, and another putt after that, and yet another one or two putts.

And, you've let the size of the green overly influence the triple tiered nature of the green.

It has a distinct trough in the middle of a front and back tier AND their are other breaks in the green.

When you miss the 10th at PV what options do you have ?
L-Wedge to the green ?
When you miss the 6th at NGLA what options do you have ?
L-Wedge to the green ?

To diminish the significance of the variety on how the hole plays to the golfer eliminates a critical element.

Combine the variety in tees, the variety in hole locations on that huge green with the variety in the winds, and you could play the hole from dusk till dawn and never tire of the fun and the challenge.

And, if the green was at speed, say 11-12, long putts just might find themselves degreened and in the hazard.

That sure makes a long putt to a hole location near the edge dicey and interesting.

The hole is spectacular.

If Tom Doak or Bill Coore said it you'd all be bowing down and agreeing with them.

Which would you rather play all day, the 10th at PV or the 11th at The Creek ?

[Mark Pearce]

If Tom Doak or Bill Coore said it you'd all be bowing down and agreeing with them.

I can't speak for anyone else but that comment is a) rubbish and b) insulting.  I make my own mind up and I'm allowed to question your statement.  This looks like an interesting hole.  Best par 3 in the world?  I seriously doubt it, whatever that expression means.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Pearce,

I've never seen you contradict anything that Tom Doak or any other architect that has posted on this site, has said.

Has every architect been correct on everything they've said, or are you just puffing up your chest ?

[Mark Pearce]

Mark Pearce,

I've never seen you contradict anything that Tom Doak or any other architect that has posted on this site, has said.

Has every architect been correct on everything they've said, or are you just puffing up your chest ?

My first reaction is to post something equally stupid but I won't.  I'll merely point out that I have only been posting here for a month and for two weeks of that I was away from my computer.  I have never replied to a Tom Doak post.  Frankly I don't pay much attention to who I am replying to, rather I concentrate on what I am replying to.  

No, I am not puffing up my chest, I have been attempting to participate in a conversation.  I'm sorry if you don't like that I don't agree with you.  I can only say I hope that when I disagree with Tom Doak or some other architect they'll be able to converse rationally without recourse to silly and baseless insult.  I'm also sorry you couldn't, it'll make intelligent exchanges of views in the future difficult.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My first reaction is to post something equally stupid but I won't.  

But, you did, despite your intentions.

I'll merely point out that I have only been posting here for a month and for two weeks of that I was away from my computer.  

I have never replied to a Tom Doak post.  Frankly I don't pay much attention to who I am replying to, rather I concentrate on what I am replying to.

Sure, we all ignore to whom we're replying.
TEPaul and Tom MacWood were just telling me the same thing yesterday.  

No, I am not puffing up my chest, I have been attempting to participate in a conversation.

How, by declaring that you'd go toe to toe with Doak and Coore over architectural issues ?   Give us a break.


I'm sorry if you don't like that I don't agree with you.  

Where did you say that you didn't agree with me ?
Have you ever played the 11th at The Creek ?
Perhaps you should reread the title of this thread.

I can only say I hope that when I disagree with Tom Doak or some other architect they'll be able to converse rationally without recourse to silly and baseless insult.  

What was silly, baseless and insulting ? You puffing your chest ?

I'm also sorry you couldn't, it'll make intelligent exchanges of views in the future difficult.  Based on your views as evidenced by your posts, I'd agree with you.

[Mark Pearce]

My first reaction is to post something equally stupid but I won't.  

But, you did, despite your intentions.

I'll merely point out that I have only been posting here for a month and for two weeks of that I was away from my computer.  

I have never replied to a Tom Doak post.  Frankly I don't pay much attention to who I am replying to, rather I concentrate on what I am replying to.

Sure, we all ignore to whom we're replying.
TEPaul and Tom MacWood were just telling me the same thing yesterday.  

No, I am not puffing up my chest, I have been attempting to participate in a conversation.

How, by declaring that you'd go toe to toe with Doak and Coore over architectural issues ?   Give us a break.


I'm sorry if you don't like that I don't agree with you.  

Where did you say that you didn't agree with me ?
Have you ever played the 11th at The Creek ?
Perhaps you should reread the title of this thread.

I can only say I hope that when I disagree with Tom Doak or some other architect they'll be able to converse rationally without recourse to silly and baseless insult.  

What was silly, baseless and insulting ? You puffing your chest ?

I'm also sorry you couldn't, it'll make intelligent exchanges of views in the future difficult.  Based on your views as evidenced by your posts, I'd agree with you.

Wow.  I'd lay off the caffeine, if I were you, these stress levels aren't good for your heart.

[Dave Bourgeois]

Patrick,

I understand the variety that 11 has.  If anyone were to play the Creek on a regular basis I am sure they would look forward to how the hole is setup on any given day.

However, if you play as a guest and walk up to the tee on 11, the hole is what it is.  Except for the wind the hole is static.  If you played Yale 9 in the AM and then played the 11th @ the Creek in the PM which would leave more of an impression?  Unless you get to play the hole over and over with the super moving hole location and tees, and Mother Nature varying the wind then their isn't as much variety in how the hole plays for a single player on a given day. If that is the case can the hole really be the greatest par 3 on the planet?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I understand the variety that 11 has.  If anyone were to play the Creek on a regular basis I am sure they would look forward to how the hole is setup on any given day

However, if you play as a guest and walk up to the tee on 11, the hole is what it is.  Except for the wind the hole is static.  If you played Yale 9 in the AM and then played the 11th @ the Creek in the PM which would leave more of an impression?  

Dave,

Doesn't the 9th at Yale essentially play the same, day in and day out, even with varying hole locations ?

Doesn't the hole require a heroic carry with hole location being a fleeting or secondary consideration for most ?

As to impressions, I think they would vary.
Certainly standing on the elevated tee at Yale gives the golfer a perspective not easily obtained without sufficient elevation.

Which raises an interesting question.
With the water problems associated with the lower section of The Creek, would elevated tees enhance the hole and address some of the water issues ?

Unless you get to play the hole over and over with the super moving hole location and tees, and Mother Nature varying the wind then their isn't as much variety in how the hole plays for a single player on a given day. If that is the case can the hole really be the greatest par 3 on the planet?

Dave, if you only play any par 3 once there isn't much variety in how the hole plays, however, one would hope that the golfer had the mental ability to interpolate the variables presented by the architecture and the wind.  The vision to see the entirety of the strategic presentation under varying conditions.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Dave,

Doesn't the 9th at Yale essentially play the same, day in and day out, even with varying hole locations ?

Doesn't the hole require a heroic carry with hole location being a fleeting or secondary consideration for most ?

As to impressions, I think they would vary.
Certainly standing on the elevated tee at Yale gives the golfer a perspective not easily obtained without sufficient elevation.

Which raises an interesting question.
With the water problems associated with the lower section of The Creek, would elevated tees enhance the hole and address some of the water issues ?[/b]

Unless you get to play the hole over and over with the super moving hole location and tees, and Mother Nature varying the wind then their isn't as much variety in how the hole plays for a single player on a given day. If that is the case can the hole really be the greatest par 3 on the planet?

Dave, if you only play any par 3 once there isn't much variety in how the hole plays, however, one would hope that the golfer had the mental ability to interpolate the variables presented by the architecture and the wind.  The vision to see the entirety of the strategic presentation under varying conditions.

Pat - you did not address my previous question.  That aside


I totally disagree with your comparison of Creek 11 vs. Yale 9.  

1-   Yale 9 plays VASTLY different from day to day with routine 6 club differences without even taking wind into account.  6 iron front pin locations to 3-wood back locations (for me from the back tee).  For the back locations there is also the variety of trying to use less then 3-wood to carry to the downslope of the swale and run it back (more later but the women actually do this best). There is incredible variety in the shots required fro the tee and even more so if you fail to hit the green.
2-   There is no heroic carry NECESSARY.  The front tee is set lower to the water and forward so the carry is maybe 20-30 yards more then required at the creek.  Women ROUTINELY do this under all conditions. In fact, one of my favorite things to watch at Yale is women hitting fairway woods or driver where they hit the front part of the green and skip it through the swale to back pin locations.  Its what I imagine old CB MacDonald envisioned for that hole. The biarritz cconcept works at Yale.  Does it work at The Creek?  I contend it does not.
3-   Short game options are infinitely better at Yale 9 then Creek 11. Miss left or right and you are faced with some of the most imaginative shots possible especially to back locations at Yale. The green at Yale is world class with front to back left to right tilt of the front section, a 4 foot 8 inch deep swale and a severely pitched right to left back section.  Its easily 5 putted in either direction.  The green at The Creek is simple large. There are very small undulations and the swale is next to nothing in terms of presenting putting woes.

Why is it that you think Yale is on just about everyone’s list of the World’s Greatest Golf Holes and the 11th at the Creek is never mentioned?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I totally disagree with your comparison of Creek 11 vs. Yale 9.  

I knew you would.[/color]

1-   Yale 9 plays VASTLY different from day to day with routine 6 club differences without even taking wind into account.  

Geoff,  while I haven't played Yale nearly as much as you, I have difficulty accepting that for several reasons.

I don't think that Yale is a wind swept site.

And, the highly elevated nature of the tee in relation to the green makes the approach trajectory one dimensional.

The overriding consideration is the heroic carry.[/color]

6 iron front pin locations to 3-wood back locations (for me from the back tee).  For the back locations there is also the variety of trying to use less then 3-wood to carry to the downslope of the swale and run it back (more later but the women actually do this best). There is incredible variety in the shots required fro the tee and even more so if you fail to hit the green.

Almost every hole in golf has the same variety with respect to recovery shots, there's almost nothing unique about them.

The approach to # 9 is a high aerial shot.

The approach to # 11 can be a low running shot, a punched shot or an aerial shot.[/color]

2-   There is no heroic carry NECESSARY.  The front tee is set lower to the water and forward so the carry is maybe 20-30 yards more then required at the creek.  Women ROUTINELY do this under all conditions. In fact, one of my favorite things to watch at Yale is women hitting fairway woods or driver where they hit the front part of the green and skip it through the swale to back pin locations.  Its what I imagine old CB MacDonald envisioned for that hole. The biarritz cconcept works at Yale.  Does it work at The Creek?  I contend it does not.

I don't think an analysis of a hole should focus on how the women play it.

The carry is heroic AND there is no bail out area.
# 11 at The Creek as the entire 10th fairway as a bail out area.[/color]

3-   Short game options are infinitely better at Yale 9 then Creek 11. Miss left or right and you are faced with some of the most imaginative shots possible especially to back locations at Yale. The green at Yale is world class with front to back left to right tilt of the front section, a 4 foot 8 inch deep swale and a severely pitched right to left back section.  Its easily 5 putted in either direction.  The green at The Creek is simple large. There are very small undulations and the swale is next to nothing in terms of presenting putting woes.


There's no question that the green at Yale is more pronounced.

But, it doesn't play "pronounced" it's strictly a very high aerial approach with NO variety.

And, I don't consider recovery from dense woods an attractive option.  Yale's recovery options are limited to near misses, and when you consider the distance of the approach, many mis-hits end up in the woods.[/color]

Why is it that you think Yale is on just about everyone’s list of the World’s Greatest Golf Holes and the 11th at the Creek is never mentioned?

Probably because more people played and saw the 9th at Yale.

And probably for the same reason that # 10 and other great holes at Yale rarely get mentioned.

Would you honestly rather play # 9 at Yale every day than
# 11 at The Creek ?[/color]

[CHrisB]

Patrick,

Your comments about #9 at Yale surprise me. I've been to Yale several times as a player and as a college coach, and I found the approach trajectory far from one-dimensional.

When the pin is in any of the rear positions, you could play all sorts of shots to get the ball back there, and in fact when I was coaching, we would make up quite a few shots at the 9th by hitting low skippers through the swale while others were launching 3-woods up into the air.

Even when the pin was in the front, you could bail out by hitting lower-trajectory shots into the swale and taking your chances two-putting from there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your comments about #9 at Yale surprise me. I've been to Yale several times as a player and as a college coach, and I found the approach trajectory far from one-dimensional.

When the pin is in any of the rear positions, you could play all sorts of shots to get the ball back there, and in fact when I was coaching, we would make up quite a few shots at the 9th by hitting low skippers through the swale while others were launching 3-woods up into the air.

Chris, sometimes, with time, our memories cloud.

At 250 yards from a highly elevated tee to a green that sits well below the tee, could you tell me how the golfers were able to hit "LOW SKIPPERS" ?

Especially with a little breeze in your face ?

What club did they hit these "LOW SKIPPERS" with if the others were hitting 3-woods to get there ?

Could you describe the other, "all kinds of shots" that were hit 225 to 250 yards to this green ?

The carry, which I described as heroic, is about 170 yards, all over water.

[/color]

Even when the pin was in the front, you could bail out by hitting lower-trajectory shots into the swale and taking your chances two-putting from there.

The original design called for three tees, measuring from the mid-point of the tee to the mid-point of the green, 225, 210 and 190.

From ground level I can envisualize hitting a low trajectory shot, but, how does one do that when teeing off from 30 to 40 feet above the target and having to hit the ball that far over water ? [/color]

[CHrisB]

Your comments about #9 at Yale surprise me. I've been to Yale several times as a player and as a college coach, and I found the approach trajectory far from one-dimensional.

When the pin is in any of the rear positions, you could play all sorts of shots to get the ball back there, and in fact when I was coaching, we would make up quite a few shots at the 9th by hitting low skippers through the swale while others were launching 3-woods up into the air.

Chris, sometimes, with time, our memories cloud.

Patrick, I'll take that as an admission on your part, rather than as an explanation that might apply here. If you knew me, you'd know I have a frighteningly good memory when it comes to this sort of thing!

At 250 yards from a highly elevated tee to a green that sits well below the tee, could you tell me how the golfers were able to hit "LOW SKIPPERS" ?

Fortunately I still have my yardage book and coaching notes (the last time I coached there was in 2000), and from the tee we played the distance was:
181 yards to the front edge of the green,
201 yards to the start of the swale,
213 yards to the center of the green,
220 yards to the far edge of the swale,
241 yards to the farthest back pin position (60 yards deep), and
246 yards to the back edge of the green

While many others were hitting woods in an attempt to carry the ball all the way to the center of the back tier (233 yards), our guys decided the best play was to hit low 2- or 3-irons and try to skip the ball up to the center of the back tier. All you had to do was carry the ball 201+ from an elevated tee to have a great shot at getting the ball to the back tier, and if the ball didn't make it, the worst result was usually a long putt from the swale. We made a lot of 3's and 4's, no 2's but no 5's either, which served us well from a competitive standpoint.

(Actually I remember we had one guy make a 5 because he completely mis-hit his 2-iron and hit the bank short of the green and rolled back in the water. A really clanky one.)

Especially with a little breeze in your face ?

Most of the times I was at Yale, there was a crosswind on #9, sometimes from the left but more often coming from the right and slightly into.

What club did they hit these "LOW SKIPPERS" with if the others were hitting 3-woods to get there ?

Most often 2-iron or 3-iron (see above).

Could you describe the other, "all kinds of shots" that were hit 225 to 250 yards to this green ?

I played or witnessed normal 3-woods or 5-woods, high-launched or cut 3-woods, tight-draw rescue clubs to ride a right-to-left wind, and the aforementioned low shots that could hit the downslope or bottom of the swale to propel it forward, or the upslope of the swale to kill it.

The carry, which I described as heroic, is about 170 yards, all over water.

Even when the pin was in the front, you could bail out by hitting lower-trajectory shots into the swale and taking your chances two-putting from there.

The original design called for three tees, measuring from the mid-point of the tee to the mid-point of the green, 225, 210 and 190.

From ground level I can envisualize hitting a low trajectory shot, but, how does one do that when teeing off from 30 to 40 feet above the target and having to hit the ball that far over water ?

Patrick, I know you are an accomplished and talented player and know how to keep the ball down, even from an elevated tee. Likewise, I can do that and certainly most college kids are strong enough to hit low shots that far.

But the very elevated tee that you speak of also effectively shortens the carry required for even a lower shot. Next time you're there, if the conditions are somewhat normal (and the greens aren't really soft--they've had a bounce in them every time I've been there), try hitting whatever club you can hit low but still carry 205-210 downhill and see if you can skip it back there. You'll make no more than a 4 and you might even make a 2 if you can roll in a long one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I know my limitations.

I hit my 2 and 3 iron fairly low, but, even my low ball flight has angles of incidence and refraction which prevent skipping a ball on the green from a highly elevated tee.

Any ball hit with a higher trajectory than my low ball flight would have worse results.

One of # 9 green's assets, the deep trough, prevents balls hit on the front tier from running to the back tier.

Putting from the front tier to the back tier is very difficult, hence, the likelihood of approach shots successfully negotiating that route is even less likely.

I'll try all types of shots on the range or during a practice round, when score doesn't count, with NO pressure, but, when playing for real, experimentation doesn't work and isn't the choice of prudent golfers.

The relation of the tees at The Creek, to the green, in terms of elevation differentials, inherently creates greater variety in the approach shot, and, there's a bail out area to the right on # 11 at The Creek.   No such feature exists at # 9 at Yale.

I"ll ask you the same question I asked Geoff and others.

If you had to play those holes every day, which one would offer more variety and which would you prefer to play, day in and day out.

I think there's but one answer, and it isn't in CT.

I think # 9 at Yale is a great hole, I just think it's less dimensional that the 11th at The Creek, and, it suffers from the lack of good prevailing winds.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,

I have not yet played #11 at The Creek, but I hope to some day as it sounds like a world-class hole.

My posts were strictly about the tangential subject of the 9th at Yale -- I wanted to share my experiences to show that the approach trajectory on that hole isn't one-dimensional.

[Dave Bourgeois]

I"ll ask you the same question I asked Geoff and others.

If you had to play those holes every day, which one would offer more variety and which would you prefer to play, day in and day out.

I think there's but one answer, and it isn't in CT.

I think # 9 at Yale is a great hole, I just think it's less dimensional that the 11th at The Creek, and, it suffers from the lack of good prevailing winds.

In a day in day out experience, based on your description, terrain, size of the the green etc., from tee to green the Creek may very well offer more variety. IMO variety alone does not make it the "best".  If you are not a member of either course (that is probably about 700 folks on the planet), my opinion is that most would look forward to playing Yale 9 much more than the Creek 11th.  I also think that the majority would find it was a better hole as well.      

I think this is a compelling argument that you make but it is the context of needing to play the hole many times in order to see how good the hole is that makes in suffer.  Most will not be able to, and a one time trip will not show the variety that is possible.  I think a Best hole should evidence itself on the 1st go. Yale 9 offers a heroic shot, a very interesting green, as well as some recovery options for a missed shot.  A relative newbie to architecture can easily see the greatness of Yale 9.


Patrick,

Where would you put Yale 9 compared to the Creek 11th if there was a tee that would play 140-150 to the middle of the green (giving more distance variety)?  Would you still place the Creek 11th higher based on the wind factor?

[JESII]

Dave's post brought this ides to mind.

Is it possible that on any (and every) given day the 9th hole at Yale is a better, more enjoyable, more challenging hole than #11 at The Creek, yet does not offer as much variety of yardage and wind over the course of 100 plays?

Patrick seems to view the overall quality of this hole in terms of how many different shots it may require from your bag if you were to play it dozens of times. Surely that number of different shots would surpass the same on #9 Yale, but which hole generates more anticipation on the one day your are there?

[Michael Moore]

The third hole at Merion (East Course), which plays between 120 and 243 yards, to one of the most outstandingly contoured and bunkered green you will ever find, is the one hole that comes to mind that offers total excitement and engagement to the daily visitor as well as the once-in-a-lifetime tourist.

Pat, wouldn't you agree that the flexibility and the recoverability of Merion (East Course) number three and her world-class fourty-seven yard deep green are superior to that of the giant pancake that is the eleventh hole at the Creek?

I agree with you that an elevated tee hampers shotmaking - this hole plays slightly uphill and rewards a controlled ball like few other holes I have seen.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In a day in day out experience, based on your description, terrain, size of the the green etc., from tee to green the Creek may very well offer more variety. pcolor=green]

It also presents more variety if you play it only once.[/color]

IMO variety alone does not make it the "best".  
Variety is certainly an asset, and doesn't detract from it being aclaimed as "the best"[/color]

If you are not a member of either course (that is probably about 700 folks on the planet), my opinion is that most would look forward to playing Yale 9 much more than the Creek 11th.  

How can  you draw that conclusion without having played both holes ?[/color]

I also think that the majority would find it was a better hole as well.

That might be more depedent upon the tee and hole location and how the golfer played the hole than the architecture itself.[/color]    

I think this is a compelling argument that you make but it is the context of needing to play the hole many times in order to see how good the hole is that makes in suffer.  

Most will not be able to, and a one time trip will not show the variety that is possible.  

I think that's self evident to a reasoned eye.[/color]

I think a Best hole should evidence itself on the 1st go.

Yale 9 offers a heroic shot, a very interesting green, as well as some recovery options for a missed shot.  A relative newbie to architecture can easily see the greatness of Yale 9.


I'm not so sure.
Surely they see that drama and challenge that lies ahead of them, which is solely a function of the elevated tee.[/color]

Patrick,

Where would you put Yale 9 compared to the Creek 11th if there was a tee that would play 140-150 to the middle of the green (giving more distance variety)?  Would you still place the Creek 11th higher based on the wind factor?

Why do you feel that there's a need to enhance the 9th at Yale while keeping the 11th at The Creek static ?

Hypotheticals don't work, I think you have to look at the holes as they are, or in the case of the 12th at GCGC and other holes that were altered, as they were.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

The third hole at Merion (East Course), which plays between 120 and 243 yards, to one of the most outstandingly contoured and bunkered green you will ever find, is the one hole that comes to mind that offers total excitement and engagement to the daily visitor as well as the once-in-a-lifetime tourist.

Agreed, it's a wonderful hole.

But, with any highly elevated green, variety in trajectory is limited.[/color]

Pat, wouldn't you agree that the flexibility and the recoverability of Merion (East Course) number three and her world-class fourty-seven yard deep green are superior to that of the giant pancake that is the eleventh hole at the Creek?


I might agree that the flexibility factor is close on the two, and that the contouring of the 3rd green is superior, but, variety in approach is limited at # 3, the wind is nothing compared to # 11 at The Creek, and the consequences for failure at # 3 don't create the same fear factor on the tee as they do at # 11.  

The visuals of the putting surfaaces from the tee don't compare, and, you're provided previews of the 11th as you play the golf course, the holes prior to # 11 give you a glimpse of the entire challenge that awaits you, especially as you play # 10.  # 3 doesn't have the same pre-playing preview.

The combination of the water and the wind, with the views of the hole location, before you get near the 11th tee are exciting, as is the expectation of standing on the tee and facing that challenge.

The enormous variety in hole locations, including proximity to the water, left, right, short and long, together with the enormous variety in the length of the hole, together with the variety in the direction and velocity of the wind make for a great hole, one that I could play all day, every day, and never tire of it.

How many holes can make that claim.

While I love the 6th at NGLA, it's clearly one of my favorite holes, the 11th at The Creek has more variety.[/color]
 
I agree with you that an elevated tee hampers shotmaking - this hole plays slightly uphill and rewards a controlled ball like few other holes I have seen.

While I'd agree, the hole doesn't let one hit low or punched shots as a normal approach.  Elevated greens, while wonderful to assault, have limits on the approaching trajectory.

Again, one of my favorite holes in the world, the 8th at NGLA has the same elevated type of green. but, the approach is far more aerial than the approach at the 11th at The Creek.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think the highly elevated tee at Yale is both an asset and a liability.

Surely the view from that tee is majestic, with the pond and unique green far below.

But, aren't you hitting the same shot over and over again as you stand there hitting 100 balls ?

I can hit so many more shots and the wind is such a great infuence in the play of the hole at The Creek.

What is it that the Scots say, "if there's ney wind, there's ney golf"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()