What's the "better" golf hole?

[Mark_Fine]

Pine Valley's #18 or Atlanta Athletic Club's 18th hole?  This is sacra religious on this site to say this, but AAC's is the better more interesting design (especially for the better golfer)!  PV's might be a thing of beauty, and AAC's might not, but AAC's is the more interesting and more strategic golf hole.  Think about the options/strategy on each shot before you say I'm crazy!

Let's do match play shot by shot:

Tee shot - AAC 1 up - Only decision at PV is how short of an iron do you want to hit for your approach!  At ACC, trouble around the landing area makes shot shape and distance of the tee shot crucial.  

Approach shot - AAC 2 up - Both shots at AAC and PV are all carry and very penal.  The trouble short at PV will not come into play for 95% of the better players since they are only hitting short irons.  The water at AAC will come into play for many more players because the approach shot at AAC will be much longer.  

Putting - AAC still 2 up - Both greens are huge.  However, at PV, with a short iron in their hands for their approach, the severe tilt of PV's green will offer little extra defense.  

AAC wins 2 up!  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark:

Great topic!

I would far prefer to play the 18th at PV, but will admit that I found the 18th at AAC interesting for the professional caliber player.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

I don't know if you saw my response to essentially this same question on the AAC thread, but I'll repeat it below;

"Mark, I understand your example, but you've also pinpointed the real problem. The 18th at Pine Valley is 430 yards! That USED to be a pretty decent length par four, requiring, let's say a healthy 270 yard drive, followed by a 160 yard sharply uphill approach. The fact that those numbers sound so paltry today is just evidence of how quickly technology has changed the game, because that USED to be what a pro would be hitting driver - 6-iron to just a decade or more ago.

Today, if you assume a drive of 320, one is left with a pitch on almost any conceivable par four under 460 yards! That's the problem, as you've identified.

The fact that holes like 18 at AAC are stretched to 500 yards and called par fours and require a 200 yard carry over water doesn't make them good architecture, though. It makes them highly-manufactured attempts to create entertainment and television drama while putting a bandaid on the fact that the game has spiraled out of control in terms of distance limitations."

To add to that Mark, you are essentially arguing that 18 at AAC is better than 18 at PV because it is 60 yards longer!

Even if I accept that the driving area at AAC is tighter, I don't know that makes it more strategic by definition.

What's more, to compare those two greens and call it a tie is reaaaaaally stretching the point.  The 18th at PV has more rolls than a bakery truck, and although the second shot is probably a short iron for the better player, it is also mostly blind to a green that plays very firmly most of the time.  There are all kinds of knobs and hollows on that green that can throw a pitch in the most unlikely of directions.

Needless to say, I don't agree with your overal assessment.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

You know what else I like?

The player who leaves his shot short of the 18th green at PV has to go find it and attempt to hit it again.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
It's not just the length, it's the trouble in the landing area.  Unless you are really wild, there is no real fear standing on the tee at PV.  At AAC there is.  Michelson who always plays very aggressive wouldn't have hit 3W if there weren't.   And Toms wouldn't have laid up if he had hit a good tee shot.  Standing on the tee, he knew he needed a good one to go at the green in two shots.  No thoughts like that at PV.  

Those bunkers at PV would rarely come into play.  With a shortish iron in their hands, they don't even see those bunkers.  

Granted the green at PV is more severe but the slope is mostly back to front isn't it?  I don't recall any dead elephants buried on that one.  

Bottomline, you can't say that the 18th at PV would have provided a more exciting and interesting finish than the 18th at AAC.  You just can't.  So why is it a better hole?  It would have been a wedge contest and see who makes their 10 or 15 footer.  

[Aaron]

Mark,
You are talking in a pr player context.

You must remember, the best courses can challenge the best player, along with a fair test for the hackers.

Phil, David and Tiger play the 18th at AAC interestingly enough, like Jones invisioned. However, the member are probablly laying up every time, even when the hole is shortened.

Although 18 at PV would probablly play like you describe for a pro, you must remember that there are 365 days in a year for a course to be played (not 4).

It's great that Rees Jones could create that drama on the 18th..which is not hard to do using the penal design. But if you can create holes that bring that drama for the PGA,a nd still play fair for it's members, then you have succeeded.

Aaron

[ForkaB]

Mark and Mike

Is it possibly true that if your main criterion is function, Mark is right?  This is to say, if "better" to you means a hole which offers more strategic options and demands more precise execution of whatever option you decide upon, then 18 at AAC is the "better" hole.

However, if your main criterion is form, maybe Mike is right?  This is to say, if "better" to you means a hole which appeals to the eye as well as to the mind, then PV #18 wins the contest.

Finally, it does depend on perspective.  For the higher handicap, AAC #18 would be completely "unstrategic" while PV #18 would be mind-boggingly difficult to plan for and execute.  For the tour pro, as Mark says, 18 at PV is probably relatively simple these days.  The fact that it is so now, but probably wasn't so 20-30 years ago says a lot about advances in conditioning and technology.

And yet, for the single figure handicaps of the world whose game is a little bit pro/a little bit hacker, which hole would you rather play?  Having played neither hole, I can still confidently say that I really have no interest at all in playing 18 at AAC, multipple versions of which I can play, any day that I wish.   However, I would be very interested in giving 18 at PV a shot, even if it were just a short iron to the green.  My short irons can cover the flag or duck for cover, and I'm sure that the challenge of trying to execute the proper swing would very much outbalance whether or not the shot was "strategic."

Great question, Mark.

Rich

[Mark_Fine]

Aaron,
I hear you but bring the tees up on both holes (as far as you want) for the "average" golfer and tell what changes.   I say very little.  If AAC plays 365 yards from a forward tee, are "average" golfer still going to lay up?    

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
We're always concerned about strategy and options on golf holes - designs that make us think about each golf shot.  Now we find a hole like 18 at AAC that few of us really want to like because it just doesn't look appealing (nothing like an 18th at PV), but it makes us think.  

Maybe asthetics really are more important then some of us care to admitt??
Mark

[ForkaB]

Mark

You can remove the question marks from your last sentence.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Mark,

I'm just repeating what I said on the other post, but I don't think the 18th at AAC is all that strategic. I feel this hole proves the point that even the most penal holes can have some strategy if you look hard enough.

The decision a golfer is faced with is black-and-white. To me that's not very interesting for the average golfer.

Sure, Sunday afternoon was exciting, and the hole provided drama, but that was one exceptional day of the year.

Jeremy Glenn posted once about the difference between holes with black-and-white strategies and holes with a rainbow of strategies. I think it would be much more interesting if the finishing hole was more colorful.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Could you name a dozen rainbow strategy holes for the touring pro's ?

These guys are good, they disect a hole, determine the best method of play, and execute to their abilities.

Options are mostly for amateurs, not the best players in the world, the touring pros.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

In the context of the world's best players, the touring pros, your question raises some interesting questions.

Some may not want to admit that AAC might just have a more strategic finishing hole, Others might not want to think of PV being subjected to the playing and scoring onslaught of the touring pros, AND...
Heaven forbid, making changes to the course, ala ANGC to prevent such an onslaught

When you think of such things, I think it immediately brings you back to the issue of
OAD, and its control.

If the trend increases, where from 207 yards  they aren't hitting 6-irons, but wedges, every course is in danger of being radically altered until they become unrecognizable, and that would be a tragic loss.

The touring pros and technology are rendering strategy obsolete, and we don't like to face that reality.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Staying with your logic, how colorful is 18 at PV?  
Mark

[TEPaul]

These holes are good to compare, Mark, since they are very different, but both par 4s and also one is on a course loved by most on here and the other isn't! So it's a good and constructive thing to analyze.

We've all talked a lot about AAC's #18 already so no need to analyze how it plays and the way it plays much more. I personally feel AAC's #18 has some interesting strategic ramifications (as we saw last Sunday), and some interesting shot requirements, but they are quite predictable I guess, particularly once reaching the green and that's of no small importance, in my book.

But the other way of looking at these two holes might not be much more than a numbers game to someone like a touring pro. I tried to make that point on an earlier thread and I don't think I made the point real well--maybe it can't really be made--maybe it's not a real valid point in the context of discussing architecture.

But I'll try again. Firstly, I was thinking last night that all of us seem to talk about golf holes, whether they are good or not,  strictly and solely in the context of what we call "strategy". And I guess most of us think this means "options" and basically the more options, and the better the options, the better a hole should be.

Is this truly a valid way to analyze ALL golf holes? Maybe not! Do we get carried away with the idea of "strategies" and "options" and assume that's the only way to look at all golf holes and determine whether they are any good and how good they are? I think maybe we do get carried away with the subject of just "strategy" sometimes.

How else could they be looked at then if not just by the strategies and options they provide. Well, to cite Max Behr (from another article) it sort of deals with how the golf hole affects a golfer's instincts! Max Behr talks about bunkering and such (obviously you can ultimately use any golf feature--or maybe even things like visual intimidation or just plain EXPECTATION) and how they work on a golfer's mind as what he calls "pressure points".  

Behr speaks about the ultimate use of bunkering, for instance, as not something  exactly penal but something that makes a golfer take note of and challenge, avoid, whatever (maybe even get flustered and hit a bad shot). In this sense I see what he means about them being "pressure points" on a golfer's mind. And finally Behr's totally brilliant concept of "lines of charm" tend to place something like bunkering in the very spot where a golfer would instinctively want to hit the ball! What does that do to a golfer? It makes him deal with his instinct, his instinctual desire, I guess, and figure out another or other ways to go to avoid that spot he wanted to get to but now sees he shouldn't or can't. I used to think the "lines of charm" was the spot Behr put the bunker where the golfer wanted to instinctually go but now see it's all the other ways to go just because that bunker is where it is!

Anyway, back to my point about a numbers game applying some of Behr's logic. I know that PV's #18 is a par 4 and AAC's is too. Let's go further and recognize and admit that although both are par 4s that the scoring averages on those holes for a touring pro would be quite different, maybe even something like 4.65 AAC vs about 3.85 PV if a tour pro can play PV's #18 as you say he would, of which I have no doubt.

Further, do you really think a touring pro looks at both holes as eqaully challenging to make a particular number. I don't think so. Actually all he would really have to do is look at the scoring averages to figure that out. And I'm certain that touring pros look at golf holes and how to play them much more in how their fellow competitors are playing them than just some number.

If all of that is true those two holes would create different expectations for a tour pro and then he has to deal with that mental "pressure point" and some of the actual ones on both holes.

So what do the holes offer the pro in the way of challenges, options, whatever. I agree with you about all of #18 AAC in that vein, except the green. Once on it is not very interesting and challenging, but the drive and approach (or decision to lay up) certainly are. And PV's drive is certainly not challenging or optional for the pro--all he really needs to think about is how far down he wants to go and avoid the trouble straight on. But the second shot in, although shorter is more complex to him because of the far more interesting and complex green to approach and putt on. And then there's the thought of the expectation of the scoring average that is different and lower to contend with.

I don't know whether all this makes for a valid point or not but it seems to to me. I guess you could say this about any hole but you would have to then analyze it anyway to see what is architecturally interesting about it and even for a tour pro, PV's #18 is very interesting to both approach and putt on.

That's the long story, that I happen to be very good at. The short story in a comparison between the holes is AAC's drive  is more challenging and a little more strategic than PV's. AAC's approach is more challenging basically, but in an entirely different way than PV's approach that starts to deal with PV's far more interesting and challenging green than AACs. And lastly, PV's #18 is not very optional, just a hole that requires basically a few very good shots to get into the proper position on that green!

And I guess finally, one has to ask if  different scoring averages means in any way that one hole is weaker or stronger architecturally than another if they're the same par. I don't think so, because what really matters is that you know about what you need to do on that hole versus the field or an opponent and the question then becomes how does that hole challenge you to fall above or below that expectation.

So who wins? I have no idea--it's all subjective, I guess and I really didn't have to use all these words to tell you that, did I? But I will select my favorite anyway--it's PV's #18 and the reason is it looks better to me! Now can I be a Golf Digest panelist?

[Aaron]

Mark,
I really so no real potions at AAC. I mean, the drive must be straight, you can't play way left or right. Then it is a matter of, do I go for it or not? I mean, I think the best courses (St. Andrews is the best example) give you many options, along with one that is the do or die at AAC.

Aaron

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks Tom,

You save me a lot of typing, although your point that the players measure themselves against each other, and not against the par in question, is a very valid way of looking at it.

I also think Patrick Mucci's point about distance of equipment negating course strategy is one that we hate to face, but that stares us in the eyes more and more every day.  I just would rather seem them shoot up the courses than have them lengthened and penally modified time and again and again and again....

[RobertWalker]

TEPAUL:
Do you recall what club selections were made on 18 at PV in the Walker Cup. I am especially interested in D Love III.
thanks'
rw

[TEPaul]

Robert:

Yes, interestingly, I do know what Love hit on every shot he played in his one and only singles match since I walked right along with him and his father on every hole. And I know some of what he hit in his foursome (alternate shot match). But unfortunately, Love never played #18 in either match.

As far as I know Love never hit a wood at Pine Valley in the Walker Cup, not even in practice, another round I followed him. Once on #16 he hit a 1 iron from the very tips (sort of thin believe it or not) and a 9 iron!!! Now if that ain't scary back then I don't know what is!!

Basically I feel, and so do a lot of other people who saw him back then, that he and what they were seeing was probably some otherworldy sign of the future! And I guess that's about the way it's turning out. Even the USGA was interesting in analyzing his swing speed to see if there was some kind of extrapolating effect on distance. They never actually got around to it I don't believe.

Love was unbelievably long back then and has toned it way down since but if he wants to he still has all the power he had then! Basically, just after that the Tour pros saw him (he played the Atlanta Classic as a UNC sophmore) and they couldn't believe what they were seeing--they called him the human launching pad!

To answer your specific question, yes I did see him play #18 in practice from the tips. He hit two 1 irons. The first was hit so hard and hooking so much it went over the trees on the left and is probably still up there in the air somewhere. And the second was right down the middle near the end of the fairway. For Love then he probably hit a wedge or 9 iron to the green.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Thoughtful summary and response as always.  I agree with most everything you are saying.  Clearly there is no right or wrong answer to my original question of what is the "better" golf hole.  

My hope was that this post would once again show that defining or identifying a "great" golf hole or "great" golf course for that matter is very subjective.  There are no right or wrong answers and no easy formula.  

So yes, you can be a GD panelist!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aaron,

What options do the touring pros consider when playing # 18 at St. Andrews ?

[ForkaB]

Patrick

If you look closely, Aaron was talking about "potions" not "options."  Of course we all know that there are no "options" on the 18th at TOC for the pros, but there are many "potions" they are considering, ranging all the way from hemlock to what brand of champagne they will be filling the claret jug with.

rich

[Jeff_McDowell]

Patrick,

I think your point about pros being so good they eliminate most of the options is valid. Just look at Tiger at St. Andrew's. He didn't find a bunker all week. That's amazing!

Personally, I could care less about the pros game and the courses they play. I'm beginning to think they should have their courses, and we should have ours.

Do you think it would be fun to finish on the 18th at AAC? I don't. It's just another penal hole that dictates shot selection. Does this make it a "bad" hole. Of course not. It's my own personal opinion about what I think makes golf fun.

Mark,

I can't give an informed respond regarding the 18th at PV. I've never seen it. But that's never stopped me from giving an uninformed opinion.  From the discussions above, it sounds like the second shot is a forced carry to the green. I would find this strategically similar to the 18th at AAC. With one big exception, a forced carry over a bunker allows for the most exciting shot in golf - the one in a million recovery shot.

[Aaron]

The 18th at St. Andrews, well I am not an expert on the course at all.

But I do know you can go for the green in one, lay-up a tee shot or even play to the left and 1st fairway (for wind conditions etc.)

Also, on the second, you can hit a high shot into that hole, one of your punch shots in where it stop quick, or even a bump-and-run up through the valley of sin.

At AAC you can hit driver or 3 wood of the tee, but it must be straight. Then you can hit a long iron into the green. Not many option for someone who would play that course for 40 years.

Also, St. Andrews rolling terrain causes varied lies and good/bad bounces, along with the wind. AAC has wind but that is about it as I see it.

What keeps all courses alive, whether from AAC to St. Andrews (which has no problem) is that no one on this earth is totally consistent in this game we love. And for that fact, no matter how poorly designed a course may be, it will still be somewhat enjoyable to play it.

Aaron

[Ward_Peyronnin]

My recollection of the approach at PV 18 is the it requires a different kind of skill shot than AAC. Perhaps it flattens out where the long hitters land the ball but the tough part of the shot at PV is the downhill mid iron required( which doesn't get all that easier with lower clubs)  over water and bunkers to an elevated green.

This tends to produce a thin or skull shot which lands in water, bunkers , or over the green unless hit correctly. Definitely not a shot one can be aggressive over like what little i saw at AAC( because our TV is non existent).

Penal vs Strategic/Skill