[TEPaul]

Since lots of people seem to never really care to acknowledge that the great architects ever did anything wrong and others counter that those same people glorify the great architects too much, what are some of the undeniably bad holes that some of the great architects did?

I'll start with one on my own golf course--a 1916-1918 Donald Ross. The 14th hole was a 295 yard par 4 that was mundane by anyone's standards.

Why did he do it? it looks to me as if he was getting squeezed in that part of the routing! He should have just tried to do a good par 3 in that spot as Perry Maxwell did about 17 years later on a redesign of our 14th hole.

What are some other undeniably poor holes some of the greats did?

[Chris_Clouser]

Since you mentioned Maxwell in your post, I'll bring up a group of holes that just left my scratching my head on a course in Enid, Oklahoma.  The course is really strong except for holes 15 through 17.  There was limited space but I could see how he could have routed the three holes differently to take advantage of the natural pond and a large hill much better.  

[THuckaby2]

TEP:  though I and a few others do like the hole, so I guess we can't call it undeniably bad, the poster-child for this just might be #18 at Cypress Point... but that's been beaten to death here so no need to go into it again!

I'm trying to think of undeniably bad MacKenzie holes and my weakness is the two MacK courses I am most familiar with have really only holes between them which might me this standard:

18 CPC; and
7 Pasatiempo.

And even 7 Pasa would only be called "bad" because of the tree growth, which is necessary for liability purposes and the safety of players on 8 green, but take away the trees and it's a damn fine hole (as MacK envisioned it)...

Are there any undeniably bad MacK holes, either at Valley Club, Crystal Downs, or one of his Australia or UK efforts?  I'd be interested also to hear about them.

TH

[ForkaB]

MacK's 18th at Pitreavie is pretty not good.....

Flat crescent shaped left to right "dogleg" with no real "bite off as much as you can chew" option, on either the 1st or 2nd shot.  Chain-link fence OB left.  No significant fairway hazards that I can remember.  Flat.  Green is just a pushed up double plateau with no contours at all except the one going horizontally across the middle.  Did I mention that the hole is flat as a pancake?  Actually, it is so not good that even I really wonder if the Dr. did design this hole.

[THuckaby2]

Thanks, Rich.  Although I like to think of MacKenzie as Knuth-like (ie, infallible), he must have done some bad holes.  

But it's also been so long, changes to his work happen, trees grow up, etc. so this is all very hard to judge, isn't it?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In order to examine, evaluate and answer your question,
I need to ask you two (2) qualifying questions.

1    Do you consider Coore & Crenshaw to be great architects?

2    Do you feel that Coore & Crenshaw ever designed a bad
      hole ?

Armed with this information I shall proceed with addressing your query.

[eaglepower]

I think that 17 and 18 at Rolling Green outside of Philly mar an otherwise good work by Flynn.  The back to back easy par fives (although I hear 18 is now a par 4) bring the course down, and keep it from being thought of with the other great Philly courses (including Flynn's Philly CC). The weak finish makes you walk off the course with a bad taste in your mouth,

[Mike_Cirba]

Not only did William Flynn have perhaps the highest overall batting average on a course level, but he also probably designed more solid golf holes on average than anyone else.

However, the 9th at Philmont CC (North) is not one of them.  It is a C shaped par five, climbing steadily and steeply uphill, with tall trees on each side the entire route to a green that is unreceptive and almost unputtable.  

It's one of those holes where any mistake has you pitching out in the fairway, and the angles involved in the hole's shaping leave you with shots sometimes where you might still be 350 yards from the green but can only hit a 7-iron.

The shape of the property that Flynn was given (the Willie Park South course already existed), along with the need to return each nine to the clubhouse, were largely to blame for this awful hole.  

[ChipOat]

A quick mental scan of my Top 10 All World has brought forth plenty of overrated holes and plenty of indifferent holes.

But outright BAD holes??

Have to think about that some more.

Several of the shorter par 4's at both of the Top 10's that I know best may not be my favorites, but it's not fair to call them BAD.

Many so-called "great" holes don't fit my personal criteria for "good" strategy and so they aren't as appealing to me as to others.  But they're not really bad golf holes - they just don't appeal so much.

#18 at Easthampton (C & C) may be a touch disappointing.  But BAD?? - no way.

#18 at Olympic, Inverness and Bethpage are a bit short for my taste as finishers but they're, otherwise, pretty good holes.

Even none of the holes I know with intentional Stupid Trees (e.g. Pebble #18 and Cypress #17) are bad holes despite the offending flora.

This is an intriguing thread.  I can't think of any.

[Tyler Kearns]

Although the true architect is somewhat shrouded in mystery (with the club crediting Donald Ross as architect, while Cornish & Whitten and Ross' "Golf Has Never Failed Me" and personal experience leading me to believe that Stanley Thompson was the designer), the 9th hole at Pine Ridge G & CC in Winnipeg, Manitoba is absurd!!

It is a 235-yard par 3, with very small green set atop a little hill some 30 feet above tee level. The green is a "real" inverted saucer falling off sharply in all directions and has only one true pinnable area. If by chance your ball manages to stay on the green at some point during play, putting is a true nightmare. It has been for years the hardest hole on the Canadian Tour which stops here every July. Unfortunately its difficulty lies not in a beautifully crafted nuance or quirk, but in a task that demands too much of the golfer and really stands out as a bad hole on an otherwise very fine golf course.

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

"#18 at Easthampton (C & C) may be a touch disappointing.  But BAD?? - no way."

Chip:

Amazing you say that! I guess great minds think alike. I don't like that hole much at all. And it also answers Pat Mucci's question about if there's anything from Coore & Crenshaw I don't really go for.

Pat:

Yes, I definitely do think Coore & Crenshaw are great architects. I repeat, great architects. But that 18th at Easthampton I didn't really like when I first saw it, didn't really like it when I played it and if you asked me why I'm not sure I know. It just didn't feel right to me--didn't feel good or inspiring. I didn't like where it was or much about it. That may be it--it's in a very uninspiring spot on the property from tee to green. Probably not a bad hole, certainly a challenging one but I never went for it--who knows exactly why?

I never really thought of it before but maybe the 18th hole on a golf course has to be a bit above the equal of the others at least! It's what everyone remembers last--isn't it?!

[redanman]

We should all print the above post for future reference.  TEP with even mild negativity about the divinity duo.

What's wrong with the 18th at EHGC is that the character of the approach to the green site is completely different from the others.  There is a very unnatural approach to the hole on the ground.  It's backwards.

I'll never say anything bad here ever again about C&C, the way TEP dressed me down before, no sireeeee.

And I can't agree more with Mr Cirba on Philmont #9.  One of two time we have been laughing like children on the course together.  (The other had to do with the placement of small hidden inaccessable chipping areas.)  Flynn hardly ever missed and when he did even misstep it was because of a very difficult piece of a difficult property.  #11 at Lehigh, for instance is fellow member Mark Fine's favorite, where I and others don't get excited about it and I even suggest it as the worst hole on the course.  Just another example of the genius of Flynn, building courses that hold up under the "worst hole" scruitiny so well.

Most of the great dead architects merely bulilt awkward to very awkward transition holes rather than outright bad holes*.  Most modern bad holes are due to excesses (See ShoreGate-Raelian proof exists in the bunkers there).

*In spite of my no-holds-barred criticism, other than slow play I have never not enjoyed a round of golf.  Honest.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tom Simpson wrote that he believed the ideal golf course must have at least one 'bad' hole, or at least one non-conventional or contraversial hole. He picked an eclectic 18 of famous holes which also included one odd ball....I can't remember the hole right now. But he thought the 'bad' hole was important to the ultimate golfing experience.

[Matthew Mollica]

Guys,

I was trying to think of a bad hole by MacK here in Melbourne, and the closest I can think of is the short par 5 15th at Royal Melbourne (West).

Frommemory however, I don't think that the doctor started with a blank slate there. Can someone tell me whether he simply rejuvinated those four holes across the road, or whether they actually are entirely of his own creation.

I seem to remember something he wrote in The Spirit of St. Andrew's, regarding the stupidity of the cross hazard on this hole, around 150yds from the green, and the fact that it was comprised of completely false looking, man-made mounds, out of proportion with ground contours elsewhere... Did he leave the mounds there to show future generations how not to build a hole

Maybe MacKenzie too was a believer in the Tom Simpson philosophy...

Matthew

[mike_malone]

eaglepower
 Rather than disagree  initially with your assessment that #17 and#18 at Rolling Green are "weak" or "bad",i find it more interesting to look at people's expectations as the problem.
 You said yourself that #18 is now a par 4,so i am assuming that means you think it might be less bad.But how does the hole change just by changing the par?I think it is only a psychological change.The handicap should not change since good vs. bad players will not score any differently.
 If you play a game that pays for birdies.like we do,then an easy birdie hole is gone,but that is all i can think of where par makes a difference.How one does relative to par means little.It is either how many holes you won in match play or how many strokes you made in medal.

 I believe that many people expect that either #17 or#18 of ANY  good course should be hard to par.

   That creates their disappoinment,not the design or beauty of the hole.


   Now i actually believe these are wonderful holes.The fact that they are two holes of equal length that look and play very differently is a stroke of genius to me.#17 doglegs left,the teeball tends to bounce in the direction of the green.There is a opening of only 15 yards for the tee shot if one wants to cut the corner and get the good bounce .In our club championship semis,the two people trailing coming into this hole pressed to get  home in two and made bogey,one hit a bad teeball,the other hit a great teeball,but was too aggressive on his second shot and went over the green.The two leaders hit safe teeballs and one still got home in two.My thoughts at the time were"This is a fun hole and puts pressure on you to make a score and you make your own trouble".That to me is a good hole.If #17 were "hard"i think all four players would just  try to avoid the hazards and the guys trailing could not"choose"to take more risk for more gain.
  #18 doglegs in the opposite direction.The landing area slopes away from the green direction,so you have the exact opposite condition.There was much discussion in an old thread about this being one of the more fascinating features on a course----dogleg right but slope right to left.It was a way for Flynn to add length without adding distance.
   Even members of our club are victims of this groupthink about these holes.They also make excuses to people that the course ends too easily.But if you forget par and just play the holes ,there is much strategy involved and much fun.There are no design features in these holes that are stupid(such as #9 at Philmont)
  In closing i also would point out the ebb and flow of the routing.#13,#14,#15 have been seen as our "amen corner".Flynn loved "variety",so after these holes he designed 3 less challenging holes.So many times i have finished #15 and letup only to get my butt kicked.

    I really am not trying to change your mind or argue with you,because that is a waste of time.I just wanted to point out how these common expectations can hamper our analysis and enjoyment of the course.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Excellent post on Rolling Green's #17 & #18. I couldn't agree with you more. Architecturally there's really nothing remotely wrong or bad about either hole. The perception of them probably just has everything to do with golfer's expectations and probably only because of where they are on the course (the last two).

Even thoughtful golf analysts do have certain set or pat expectations about things sometimes and when an architect goes against those expectations in any way they seem to get criticized. #17 is probably just a par skewing hole (and interesting because of it in that place in the routing) and your remarks about changing perceptions of #18 as a 5 or a 4 basically perfectly exposes flawed thinking on some on things that really aren't exactly architecture.

In my opinion, even though I think it makes no difference architecturally whether #18 is a 5 or a 4, I do think as a 4 it can very definitely exploit that flawed thinking that par on a hole that really isn't changed really does make a difference. If it's used as a par 4 mostly it's reputation as a hole (and probably architecturally) will rise dramatically, even though that really makes no sense. #18 should just go ahead and exploit that to the fullest.

[ian]

This all depends on what you think is bad. The 8th at St. George's is a hole that goes against the grain of convention. It is both loved and hated.

The 8th for context below. Half the green is hidden behind the hill and the carry gets tougher the more left you try to go. The green slopes heavily left to right. The hole is about 210 yards.


Is it a bad hole? I don't think so, its just different. But people who struggle with it claim it to be a bad hole. Conversely when pople score on a hole easily and consistantly they also think the hole is weak. May be they are just comfortable with what the hole asks them to accomplish.

St Georges featured two short fives as Stanley's finish. They are now back breaking long fours and are concidered a great finishing stretch. Can par make a bad hole good and a good hole bad?

[TEPaul]

Ian;

You put the 8th at St. George's up here once before, I think, and I love the look of that hole. I certainly can understand, though, how and why it's considered controversial. If another architect had looked at that basic natural landform he probably would have built something like one of Thomas's West Coast reverse redan style holes (also wonderful) with the opening coming in from the left and most of the bunkering right greenside and high short left.

But I just love the old switcheroo that the 8th at St George's is! Anyone can understand why it's contoversial though as I'm sure most golfers can't figure out how to play it.

How do you approach a pin upper left (if that's pinnable), for instance? Obviously VERY CAREFULLY! A left pin is probably one great sucker pin!! I love the bunkering left with the left to right fall all made far more complicated by the green's sideways orientation and narrowness to the line of play.

Great looking hole! The only way I could imagine it could be better would be if it was something like the 17th!!

[Jeff Mingay]

Tom,

8 at St. George's is a wonderful study in par 3 strategy.

The over-confident scratch man who fires at the flagstick and misses long or left (frequently) finds severe trouble. While the thoughtful, albeit less skilled player, after watching the unsuccessful tee shot of his opponent, can lay-up short and right of the putting surface, leaving a relatively easy pitch into the axis and slope of the green -- a pitch and a putt for a 3, and probably the hole too!

Ian,

A criticism I have of the 8th is that there's presently not enough fairway; particularly short and right of the green. Not only would the hole play more interestingly (as described above) if the fairway pattern was corrected, but the look of the hole would undoubtedly be improved as well -- with a swath of fairway sweeping into the angle of the green, from right to left, blatantly suggestive of the required trajectory.

Oh well. Perhaps one day  

[TEPaul]

Jeff Mingay:

"While the thoughtful, albeit less skilled player, after watching the unsuccessful tee shot of his opponent, can lay-up short and right of the putting surface, leaving a relatively easy pitch into the axis and slope of the green -- a pitch and a putt for a 3, and probably the hole too!"

And that's precisely why I petitioned the USGA (in conjunction with the R&A) for a solid four years to consider changing Rule 10-1a (The Honor) to allow for the side with the Honor to decide the order of play. I love going second anyway and that example you gave of #8 St George's is much of the reason!

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Are you serious about what you said to Ian about the fairway pattern on #8 or are you being facetious? You wouldn't really want a narrow swath of fairway sweeping in from right to left indicative of the line of play, would you? You'd get a big arguement from Gil Hanse on that as he likes a lot of fairway in front of some par 3 (even if it isn't very functional) to create better "scale" to the hole.

But a narrow strip of fairway indicative of the line of play? We don't really want to see any "little yellow brick roads" in architecture, do we?

[Dan Herrmann]

Are we seeing more of these bad holes today because of the environmental restrictions placed on architects?

Remember  - every course has a worst hole...  Are today's "worst holes" that way because of regulations?

[Sean_A]

This is a difficult subject for guys like me.  I can easily say a hole is poor, bad, indifferent or unispiring, but that hole may have allowed one or more other great holes to be built.  When I scratch my head over a hole the first thing is try and place it in context.  If I understand the context (which isn't likely) I then try to figure out if the hole given its necessary location could be improved.  This throws up difficulties of its own in terms of criticizing ODGs because the equipment of today can fundamentally alter the intent of the designer.  Sometimes the change of intent is good (think of all the drivable par 4s of today - this is essentially a modern concept and perhaps the best modern development in golf design) and sometimes it isn't (think of less long iron/woodplay through the  green).  In any case, I would be hesitant to talk in terms of bad holes unless I knew the project well.  After all that, for sure, there are holes I don't like.  Going to what is probably my favouriite course on the planet, St Enodoc, there are two holes which I don't care for.  

First up, #8.  I despise the ring of bunkers around the green because the hole plays in the main downwind.  I don't believe the hole blends very well into the background.  I think Simpson had something to do with this hole, but I would be surprised if he placed all the bunkers.I can certainly see how this bit of land has to be used for the routing, but I think a far better par 3 could be built.  I think Simpson had something to do with this hole, but I would be surprised if he placed all the bunkers.  Fowler may also have been involved, but a ring of bunkers isn't his style either.  




Second up, #13.  I think this is a Braid hole.  I have a lot of time for Braid and he designed a lot of wonderful stuff, but he may be the most inconsistent famous archie of all time!  The 13th is a shortish par 4 running along and up a hill so it plays much longer than the card suggests.  If there was a hole that needed fairway shaping and a bit of input from an archie, this is it.  The 13th has to be one of the most blah holes I have ever encountered on a great course.  


Now, just so folks don't immediately blame the land for these two holes.  #s 4 and 14 are on poor land and yet they are two of the more creative holes I have ever encountered on a great course.  We have heard all about the 4th, but few talk about the 14th.  This hole runs along the same hill as #13, but the greensite sets the entire hole up.  We must keep right to avoid having to cope with the turfed over wall just short and left of the green, but there is a sharp fall-off on the right just to keep the player honest.  In addition to the wall, the green runs away from the fairway and the fall-off continues greenside.  Just to the left of the direction pole is the turfed over wall.  It looks miles out of play, but because of the green sloping away and right, we need to kick a runner just outside this wall and let it take its course.  Just a great little hole made from a crap piece of golfing land - this architecture at its very best.  

 

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Tom D,
6th hole  Riverfront ... I am not sure what happened in the interface of Landing Zone, Drainage Pond, Housing Development or what.  And the most penal fairway bunker on the course.  Maybe external forces conspired against you.  But the landing zone is too narrow, the out of bounds is too close, too much sheet flow drainage down to the pond from the housing, and the landing zone tilts too much toward the pond.

Maybe the pond got bigger than you were first told. 

I think I have a sense of that happening on the 12th hole.

The green complex at the 6th does not take a back seat to anything Strantz ever did.

[Anthony Gray]

  18 at The Honors leaves you wanting more.Could be Pete Dye's worst 18th hole.

  Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()