[jglenn]

Rather than tempting the very best - which is to say a very small segment of all golfers - the best hole tempt the most number of people.

And it tempts them with as many options as possible.

The problem I see with the 17th, for example, is that it offers only one temptation, reaching the green in two, and this temptation is only tantalising for a minority.

The very good player won't find this hole very strategic.  He'll simply hit 3-wood, 7-iron onto the green.  To him, it's a fairly generic par 4.  For players like myself for whom 460 yards to a narrow green is not an idea of a good time, there is no temptation.  For us, it's a fairly straight-forward par 5.  It's only the in-between abitility, for whom reaching the green in two is risky and difficult, but still within reach and thus very tempting, that the hole has true strategic merit.  

And if, as you might say, the Road Hole is in fact quite difficult for the very best, than what chance does a hack like me have?  The difficulty of the temptation does not improve strategy, it only makes the segment of the golfers that are actually tempted by the option move up or down the handicap scale.

Obviously, the same can be said for the 13th at Augusta.  For the pros, it's a par four.  For the amateurs, it a par 5.  It's only for the players of a certain ability (who can reach the green in two if they really play well according to THEIR standard) that the hole is strategic and "tempting".  That said, the 13th has a number of things that the 17th doesn't.  Amongst others, the lay-up remains far more interesting, and it's much, much more "scenic".

It's the difference between the "two-tone" options (this OR that) and the "rainbow" options (this, that, and anything in between).  

I've written something about this in the past, but I like to compare golfers to the colours of the rainbow.  They come in every colour (ability, character, etc...)  

Strategy should always come in many different "colours" as well.  Thus each golfer will be able to find a match.

At any rate, any hole that allows some monstrosity like the Road Hole Hotel (or whatever it's called) to be built between the tee and the green should be swiftly and unceremoniously dropped from any Top 100.  It's a matter of principal.

But St. Andrews remains one of the greatest courses in the world despite the Road Hole, because the other 17 holes are that good - and they need to be to make up for it.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

Not sure whether that post above about the Road Hole and ANGC's #13 was over something I may have said above or not. But it's fine with me if you think that the Road Hole is an atrocious hole on an otherwise good course.

Slightly odd, however, how so much exciting golf and determinant outcomes could have gone on there over the years and also that a large segement of the golfing world considers it one of the great par 4s of the world. Same with ANGC's #13--one of the world's best short par 5s.

The temptations on the Road Hole are awesome, in my opinion, and certainly on a hole in that one's position in the routing.

It is hard for even good players but I'm not real sure what you mean by stating that therefore what chance does a hack like me have. I would think to make the best score you could with what goes on on that hole  would be plenty to think about. Even the little old Road hole bunker itself (which happens to be a great deal of what the entire hole turns on) offers plenty of options for a player as David Duval and Tommy Nakajima found out.

The proof of the hole's spectrum of results (which most good holes produce) are all the way from Sergio Garcia's identical low turning 3 irons on three consecutive days in the Dunhill Cup to Woods happily settling for three bogies in four days on that hole.

And for ANGC's #13 being just a drive and a medium iron for the pros and that's it, unfortunately there are a good numbers of tour pros and even those in contention that would have to disagree with you on that one too.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just to put the Road Hole in some perspective, I played there in 1985 with rental clubs, and it was downwind (by the point of the round, the rainy gale had subsided and it was a "mild zephyr" with lots of fog about).  I'm not a huge hitter by any stretch, but I hit a really good drive and was left with a 6-iron approach.

Laying up was never an option I seriously considered.  With the hole cut back left, I envisioned a high fade (I'm lefty), settling softly over the pit of doom cutting into the vitals of that green.  At the last second, I slightly flinched away from the road hole bunker, and found the pavement.

From there, I began playing something akin to table tennis, laughing heartily with my caddie at my predicament.  

Final score...7

[George Pazin]

Jeremy -

Nice to see you haven't lost the ability to stir the pot - I was worried the trip to Scotland had softened you up!:-)

A few points of contention:

"The very good player won't find this hole very strategic. He'll simply hit 3-wood, 7-iron onto the green. To him, it's a fairly generic par 4."

Well, the VERY BEST player in the world failed to accomplish this simple feat on this fairly generic par 4 quite a few times last year. Another VERY GOOD player, a former no.1, failed to walk away with even a triple bogey on this fairly generic par 4 late Sunday afternoon. I would be curious to know how many players would agree that this is a fairly generic par 4.

Vis-a-vis The Old Course Hotel, I'm just guessing here, but I would think the original sheds were not originally in play, but rather evolved into play. Once they were there, from strictly a strategy standpoint, does it matter what else it there? If it were a corner of a Rockie, would that offend your Canadian sensibilities less?:-)

Vis-a-vis the average player, again I'm guessing here, but the options appear far more numerous than you say, as well as the temptations. Hell, I'm a 20 handicapper, but if I rip a drive down the fairway, as I have been known to do on occasion, I'm goin' for it. I would rather try the shot & fail than simply lay-up, even if that is the more prudent thing to do - unless, of course, there is serious cash on the line.

I suggest you pick up a book called Wry Stories on The Road Hole. If you can read all these stories - virtually all about high level players & their huge variety of play on the hole - & still call this hole on of the worst, well, I guess that's your opinion & I will not argue with you.

PS. How's the Diary of a Golf Course-course coming? Last we heard, you had received some sort of approval from some eco agency.

[Doug Wright]

Seems like you guys are short one hole. Wouldn't the 18th at TOC be a more realistic candidate for the worst hole etc etc.? Yeah I know it's got a cool bridge, the town, the R&A Clubhouse and something called the Valley of Sin but from an architectural standpt put the hole on any other course anywhere and what would we be saying about it? The fairway's a mile wide and so far as I can tell there are really no strategic options--just bang away, chip it on and make par or birdie.

[TEPaul]

Oh what the Hell, let's just go the full boat and admit that any hole from TOC done over here would be misunderstood and severely criticized.

I agree, Doug, just let almost any American golfer get his hands on that real #18 over on TOC and he could fix it up in no time with a row of trees on either side of about a 30yd fairway, maybe a couple of bunkers on either side of that new narrowed treelined fairway out about 250yds and maybe some bunkering greenside on either side too. He definitely wouldn't hesitate framing that green either, at the very least to block out all those unsightly buildings and of course fill in and grade out that ridiculous dip in front of the green. What a stupid thing to have in front of a green!

What the Hell's the matter with those obtuse Scot's anyway? Can't they learn anything from us over here and see what a good golf hole is all about? Particularly when we've built that great hole for them to learn from thousands of times!

[Doug Wright]

Actually, TE, I said nothing about #17, which IMHO is a hole that does not deserve discussion on this thread (and not just because it's not in the US!). And I didn't see anything you said really defending #18 as a golf hole qua golf hole on its own merits.

Doug

[George Pazin]

Doug -

Actually, all those ideas that Tom Paul has pirated from many an architect are addressing #18.

What he didn't say is also worth noting. What's wrong with the hole as is? Sure, the drive doesn't offer one particular challenge. Instead, it offers the golfer a tantalizingly huge field into which to hit, though only foolish golfers such as myself would wail away with no real target in mind. Then, one must negotiate the Valley, either over or through. And what's wrong with having a finishing hole be a possible birdie hole, anyway? If you're playing in some sort of tourney, every golfer must play it. Virtually any low handicap golfer considers your typical par 5 a birdie hole - would #18 be any better if it were 130 yards longer? Sure, Matt Ward would like it more(sorry Matt, just teasing), but the seemingly easy nature of the hole alone exerts pressure on the golfer.

The topic here was worst golf holes. I'm much more inclined to side with some of the early examples in the thread(asking the golfer to either play short of or risk taking on a ridiculous landing area with extreme penalties) than to choose any of the holes on TOC, whether they appear bland or "cluttered" with buildings or roads.

This notion of picking up a hole & moving it to some other location is probably what's wrong with much modern architecture. How many times to we have to see the same old boring templates on TPC designs, airbrushed in courtesy your favorite CAD software & bulldozer?

[Doug Wright]

George,

In many respects I'm playing devil's advocate here and diverting attention away from #17, which makes no sense as a "worst golf hole" under any circumstances.  There are many, many worse "worst holes" than #18 TOC of course, including the dozens mentioned above; I do think, however, that it lacks much of the strategic merit of the balance of TOC, and #18 is all about ambiance (that yucky Golf Digest category) and less about architecture... But who cares? It's the last at The Old Course and not even Tom Fazio or Rees gets to mess with it (we hope).

Now I think you're onto something with the pressure that seemingly "easy" holes put on the player (particularly the better player/pro playing for $$) to make birdie or better (on par 5s). There may have been a thread about this a couple of weeks back but I'm intrigued by this concept--sort of the reverse of the challenge of making a par on a really difficult hole, and one that I believe may be underestimated by some architects.

Doug  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

#13 at Augusta isn't a par 4 for the Pro's, it's a good par 5.

Oh, you mean the three guys that are playing the best golf in the world and trouncing the rest of the field.  Maybe, for those guys.

What about the top pros in the world that don't make the cut ?  

What about the guys that overcook the draw and end up in the woods or creek ?  Or the guys who hit it through the fairway off the tee ?

What few people understand about the hole is the severe right to left pitch of the fairway, and the left to right pitch of the green.

As far as strategy for the amateur on the 17th at TOC, where is the strategy on the
16th, 17th, and 18th at WFW.  The strategy on the 6th, 9th, 11th, 14th and 18th at Shinnecock.

Once holes get to 440 and beyond, the only strategy for the average amateur, is in tacking to the pin.

If, instead of a building, there was a rock outcroping, similar to those found at the Country Club, would that change the strategy and worth of the hole ?

While the tee shot is blind, it doesn't eliminate options and strategy in playing the hole after ones tee shot.

It sounds to me as though there were a few more indentations in the wall after you left.

[Peter Galea]

I just had to show the cant in 13 fairway at ANGC as well as the greensite.

[T_MacWood]

Jeremy
What are some examples of 'rainbow' holes.

As Tiger was lapping the field at last years Open, didn't have difficulty with the 17th(+3)? And I believe Duvall, who was actually within striking distance, scored a 7 or 8 on Sunday. Maybe the hole was not risky for the rest of the field, but it sure looked like a problem for these two.

If you were only attempting to stir things up with an unorthodox opinion, please disregard my previous comments.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeremy,

Please go clean out your locker, your fired.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I almost forgot--

(Just so you don't get too offended. You didn't think I wasn't going to say something did you?)

And here is the equasion for the Road Hole:

Geometry+Green Complex x Sq Root of Quirk = 10*  

(* 10 = Perfect)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete Galea,

Thanks for the pictures, which are worth more than a thousand words.

You can see the extreme pitch in the fairway and the green.  What most people don't realize is that even the upper tier on the green has substantial pitch to it.

The fairway pitch creates a natural hook, which would leave ones ball left of the green or above the hole, not enviable positions.  The creek near the green prevents one from just aiming way right and letting the draw take the ball to the heart of the green.

The hole may be relatively short by todays standards, but the tee shot must be perfectly shaped, and even then the next shot is challenging.  Pitching to the green and putting are also not easy.

Over the many years I've watched the Masters, on many occassions, a leader or near leader comes to this hole and we expect a birdie, but pars, bogies and worse are often posted.

The criticism of # 13 usually emanates from people who have never played or seen the hole in person.

With respect to # 17 at TOC, the green alone provides all the strategy necessary for pros and amateurs alike.  Shots from 250, 200, 150, 100, and 50 yards are all challenging, and require strategy, providing options.

But, that's just my opinion.  

[George Pazin]

Doug -

I knind of figured you didn't really think 18 was one of the worst holes, period, but rather that it was one of the weaker holes on TOC. Still, I think it does fit in very naturally, which is why I made the comment regarding picking holes up & moving them to the middle of nowhere. I also think there is a lot of pressure nowadays to put in the crushing finish, so we rarely see a simple yet intriguing finishing hole - just yet another 450 yard cape hole with a long drive over water.

As for the birdie hole creating pressure, I only wish that observation was my own. I've read it & heard it many times before & it's always made a lot of sense to me. If only we could get some announcers to point this type of simple observation out, it might help to sway public opinion a little away from the endless march of 450, 460, 470... yard closers.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Go Jeremy, Go!

[kilfara]

"Oh, look, everyone! It's Bash-the-Old-Course time at GCA.com again!"  

The Road Hole works because it provides a unique strategic challenge to the best golfers in the world (on their second shot) - and it also often provides quite a bit of strategy for the lesser player between his second and third shots.

The Home Hole works because it provides a strategic challenge to lesser players between their first and second shots (How much straight-ahead distance am I going to sacrifice on my tee shot to make absolutely sure I don't go OB right? How much air am I going to give my second shot to make sure I don't wind up in the Valley of Sin?) - and it often provides a strategic challenge to the best players in the world on their tee shots (Try to drive the green? Bail out left to set up an optimal angle of approach?).

There, in two holes, you see why the Old Course is celebrated as a great test of golf for everyone. Every hole has something to offer for all - and every hole has a heck of a lot to offer for some. I'm really rather tired of people who continue to denigrate the 18th hole...never mind the history, the backdrop, Swilcan Bridge, etc. What about the fact that it offers black-and-white strategic options to golfers who have such poor swings that they've never actually had to make a strategic decision on the golf course about ANYTHING? Yes, anyone should be able to hit the fairway - which is why anyone can attempt to make a decision as to where on the fairway they'd like to hit it.

Cheers,
Darren

[Dennis_Harwood]

Re the Road Hole:

Any one hole that "single handedly" delays and blocks the world-wide unification of the Rules of Golf for several years and has features that cause the two ruling bodies of the game to show such passion that they incur the expense of countless calls, manhours and trips across the Atlantic CAN NOT be called the worst in golf--

For years the unification of Rules was not achieved because of the R&A refusal to permit roads and paths to be considered as Immovable Obstructions from which relief could be obtained, despite the view of the USGA.  The R&A view was that such a Rule would destroy the integity of the Road Hole and that the road must not be an area of relief--- The solution was the compromise of adding subsection (c) to the definition of an Obstruction(declaring the Road as an intregal part of the course from which relief would not be granted)

[jglenn]

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that the Road Hole is a bad hole because of the strategy.  I'm saying it's a bad hole - the worst in america   - because of that hotel.  Erecting that innapropriate monstrosity is akin to building a Burger King in front of Le Louvre.  It's a testament to the catch-22 of capitalism.  Find something that's popular.  Then ruin it by "packaging" that popularity.  Someone owns that hotel, someone designed it, and someone approved it.  The ugliness of the hotel is compounded by what it represents.  Basically, the Road hole is the worst hole in golf because it is so blatantly taking advantage of the fact that, ironically, it once was much better.

At any rate, Patrick is asking me if I think the hole would be any different if we'd be hitting over a rock outcropping or a dramatic dune.  

The answer is two-fold.  No, it wouldn't change the strategy.  Yes, it would change it's worth.  The reason is simply that the worth of a hole is based on more than it's playing characteristics.

Wouldn't you think the worth of the hole would be diminished if you hit over a Burger King instead of a dune?

As far as the Road Hole's playing characteristics, the reason why I do not believe it is "that good" is because it's really an easy, unchallenged five.  There is a wide open area short right of the green that is quite easy to reach in two shots, from where it is quite easy to get down in three, and from where it is quite possible to still make a four.  This "weakness" is being masked by the very north-american concept of rough, but this rough seems to me like nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious flaw.  I have a picture of that very area in my hand as I'm typing this, and I'm studying it carefully.  In fact, one can come very close to the green without even bringing the bunker in play, because the bunker sits about 10 yards up the green, middle left, with the green angled from right to left.    Stay left off the tee, away from the OB, using, say, a conservative 3-wood.  This will leave you anywhere from 275 to 200 to the heart of the green.  Your second target is, depending on your drive and your ability, anywhere within 100 yards of the front edge, staying right.  Obviously, the closer you get to the green, the easier becomes your third, but by staying short of the green, you don't have to mess with anything.  After that, you're looking right up the throat of the green.  From there, the most average chip/pitch gets you your five.  Chip it close and you've got a four - for which you never even had to take any risk.

But once again, it's not the strategy and temptation of the Road Hole that are bad.  It's really the damned hotel.

What are my ideas of "rainbow" holes are the ones that entice you to flirt for a better angle, such as the 12th and 13th at North Berwick, or the lay-up at the 13th at Augusta;  to bite off as much as you can chew, such as any Cape hole.

Essentialy, diagonals are the soul of "rainbow" holes.  They are the lines of charm.

The trick is to create a safe line of charm and a risky but tempting line of instinct.

"Risky but temting" is a very difficult balance.

I don't think the Road Hole has done it as well as it is given credit for.  But I dunno.  I guess I'd have to study it more, which is why the hole is perhaps still quite interesting.

But geez, get rid of that hotel, for God sake's!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes Jeremy, they should get rid of that hideous hotel and while at it that stupid fence that runs almost the entire length of the westward holes going in.

Yes, get rid of it all!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm just a peeved as you that they let them build an extension on to that monstrosity of American capatilism know as The Old Course Hotel. But like the person said in the post about San Francisco Golf Club--"If the freeway is bothering you at SFGC, then you should be playing SFGC!"

Jeremy, those same people who built that Old Course Hotel are the same type of people you are going to be building golf courses for in your career. (At least at the present rate.) Get to love and bullshit them to death.

Meanwhile, tell them that th Old Course is a dud, and it isn't worthy, and heck, it isn't even in Golf Digest's Greatest Courses n America list.

Darren, pure poetry and I can't believe any of us are even remarking to this post!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Once again, you use an extreme, ridiculous example.

It's not a Burger King, it's a plain old green shed, blocking the golfers vision of any activity beyond its boundaries.

If it were a dune, or a rock outcropping instead of a shed, it would only change the aesthetics., nothing more.

I also find the myriad of pockmarks a warning to golfers to get the ball airborne early, an intimidating factor.

Would I prefer a dune, sure, but that's fantasy for now.

The shed doesn't affect the strategy of the hole, only the aesthetics.

[Rand McNally]

You guy's should buy my book.

[kilfara]

Mr. McNally - if that IS your real name - if you will henceforth not use an apostrophe in the word "guys" unless you're using the singular possessive form of the noun. Really poor grammar (and form) for a guy who's so good at geography....

Cheers,
Darren

[R. McNally]

Mr. Kilfara, You are correct sir.
Gentlemen, and ladies, buy my book.
Or you can look it up on the information autobahn.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()