[Patrick_Mucci]

But that's the problem, isn't it?  

Yes, it is.

But, you have to differentiate those qualities that are a result of attribution and association from the inherent qualities of the specific hole.

It isn't the 7th or 18th at Sussex County CC; it IS the 18th, following the 17th, at the Old Course.  

How do you separate out the individual hole from both the sequence and the surrounds?  

By combining intellectual honesty with microscopic examination of the subject.

The moment you get into sequence, you're discussing drafting.

The moment you get into surrounds you're studying tangentials, not the core.

If you want to discuss the architectural merits of the hole, you have to focus on it, to the exlusion of everything else.

If # 18 was the finishing hole at ANGC, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Seminole, Pine Valley, Merion, etc., etc do you think it would be viewed and revered as a great hole ?

So, to your last paragraph, the answers are "Yes, it IS a star!" at the same time that the answer to the second question is "Yes, it IS the beneficiary of drafting!"


And, how would you weight the consolidation of those two factors ?  Which is the greater influence ?

[Mitch Hantman]

I think it's a "1".  Great match play hole, which is what 99% of all golfers play.  You have a par 3 1/2 following a par 4 1/2.  Lots of possible swings in a match.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:  is anyone here really (besides you, apparently) discussing the architectural merits of this hole in a vaccum?  And why should they?

A golf hole remains SO much more than it's "architecture" - and none proves this more than #18 TOC.  Need I educate you on this AGAIN?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mitch Hantman,

Most matches are over before getting to the 18th tee.

Hence, its significance in that regard is greatly diminished.

Tom Huckaby,

It boils down to whether or not you want to analyze the architecture and the playing qualities of the hole, or the extraneaous issues.

It's a matter of being serious or being frivolous in one's approach to the subject.

Some like discussing flag sticks, locker rooms, cart girls, lunch, etc., etc..

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

It boils down to whether or not you want to analyze the architecture and the playing qualities of the hole, or the extraneaous issues.

It's a matter of being serious or being frivolous in one's approach to the subject.

Some like discussing flag sticks, locker rooms, cart girls, lunch, etc., etc..

I couldn't disagree more.  But then again, you'd have to expect that.  If one feels it while playing, it counts in the assessment.  And that's no less serious than a discussion of esoteric architecture in a vaccuum.

But we've covered this ground before too many times.  if you can't see how this plays out on #18 TOC, then there really is no hope for you.

TH

[Mitch Hantman]

Pat,

I understand your point, but I believe most matches have a press bet going, as well as a separate one for the back nine, to insure that the 18th hole is not insignificant.  Only serious amateur match play tournaments fit what you're describing.  (I mentioned that 99% of all players at the Old Course are playing match play)

[Phil McDade]

Caveat:

Have walked it, not played it, have seen it played numerous times in person and (mostly) on TV.

I think by architectural merit it's a good-to-very-good hole. By architectural merit and setting, it strikes me as a great hole.

Although Patrick Mucci does make some good arguments re. its setting, I do think you have to take into account the previous 17 holes (esp. the 17th) when evaluating the architectural merits. The 18th (and the 17th, I'd argue) is a very strong half-par hole, and I'm absolutely sure it plays on the minds of golfers in tourneys as they are making their way around TOC. (I also think it's a superior, superior match-play hole, given the range of scores there, the OB possibilities, its station as the last hole, and other considerations.) There are many ways to play the 18th, a measure I think of any good hole -- flexible approaches to the hole and varying ways to play it. Tiger's approach, for one, is to bomb it as far left as possible, and end up nearly pin high, even if he's 50-75 yards away. He takes the Valley of Sin out of play, and knows he has to hit one very good shot -- his approach pitch/putt -- to make his expected score of birdie. I'm guessing most pros walk off 16 and hope -- for the next two holes -- to score 7, are probably OK with 8, know they are losing ground to the field with 9 or more, and will pick up ground on the field w/ 6.

Most mortals also have a range of options -- easy drive/short iron, force the issue by flirting with the OB right (as in nearly all holes at TOC, the easier approach is from the right side, but going to that side off the tee invites more trouble), bomb a drive and deal with the Valley of Sin w/ a putter. Traditional links weather (all too often missing at the past two Opens at TOC) invites even more choices.

Its setting is nonpareil; I can't imagine even the 16th at Cypress being a more inviting and thrilling place in golf than standing on the 18th tee at TOC.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Caveat:

Have walked it, not played it, have seen it played numerous times in person and (mostly) on TV.

I think by architectural merit it's a good-to-very-good hole. By architectural merit and setting, it strikes me as a great hole.

Although Patrick Mucci does make some good arguments re. its setting, I do think you have to take into account the previous 17 holes (esp. the 17th) when evaluating the architectural merits. The 18th (and the 17th, I'd argue) is a very strong half-par hole, and I'm absolutely sure it plays on the minds of golfers in tourneys as they are making their way around TOC. (I also think it's a superior, superior match-play hole, given the range of scores there, the OB possibilities, its station as the last hole, and other considerations.) There are many ways to play the 18th, a measure I think of any good hole -- flexible approaches to the hole and varying ways to play it. Tiger's approach, for one, is to bomb it as far left as possible, and end up nearly pin high, even if he's 50-75 yards away. He takes the Valley of Sin out of play, and knows he has to hit one very good shot -- his approach pitch/putt -- to make his expected score of birdie. I'm guessing most pros walk off 16 and hope -- for the next two holes -- to score 7, are probably OK with 8, know they are losing ground to the field with 9 or more, and will pick up ground on the field w/ 6.

Most mortals also have a range of options -- easy drive/short iron, force the issue by flirting with the OB right (as in nearly all holes at TOC, the easier approach is from the right side, but going to that side off the tee invites more trouble), bomb a drive and deal with the Valley of Sin w/ a putter. Traditional links weather (all too often missing at the past two Opens at TOC) invites even more choices.

Its setting is nonpareil; I can't imagine even the 16th at Cypress being a more inviting and thrilling place in golf than standing on the 18th tee at TOC.

I am gonna disagree slightly, I think if this hole was anywhere else and without the feeling of being in town, its pretty average. Its only real merit architecturally is the valley of sin and the way it impacts the approach, being a depression its a nice 'half hazard'. Looking at this hole where it is and with the attached history its a great hole. Anyone designing this or 17 today would get a tough time.

[Jason Topp]

1 - Great

(1)  You think you should make a 3, even the professionals have a hard time doing it in the Open.

(2)  It is fun.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I couldn't disagree more.  But then again, you'd have to expect that.  If one feels it while playing, it counts in the assessment.  And that's no less serious than a discussion of esoteric architecture in a vaccuum.

Then perhaps, GCA.com is not for you.

I understand that another site, feelgood.com promotes discussions on non-architectural topics and issues

But we've covered this ground before too many times.  if you can't see how this plays out on #18 TOC, then there really is no hope for you.

It's fairly simple, you prefer the sizzle and I prefer the steak

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You remain so wrong about this... but I guess we'll just add it to the litany of other issues where you are either misguided, misinformed, or a misanthrope.

 

I don't prefer the sizzle, far from it.  I prefer the entire steak, sizzle and all.  You would seem to want to eat it while it's still on the cow.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil McDade,

By your logic a great finishing hole should be demoted by what occurs on the less than stellar 17 holes that proceed it.

Shouldn't the hole be evaluated from the persepectives of, architecture and playability rather than its surrounds, history and previous or following holes ?

[mike_malone]

(1)

   With so much openness it changes dramatically based on the wind.  

    The OB on the right is a major hazard for that preferred approach.

   As a result most go left and need to deal with the valley of sin.

   The aspect I did not appreciate until I went there was the upslope at the back right of the green. For me, this affected my thinking for my second shot nearly as much as the valley.

   I can see why the bunker(s) aren't there anymore. There are enough on the other holes to keep one busy and it makes the valley of sin the focus.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Absolute perfection - 1!

Yin and Yang with the Road Hole - a supreme balance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you had to pick one of the following options on what you think of the hole, what would you say?

1) Good (to great)
2) Mediocre
3) Bad (to horrible)

Since many seem to have forgotten, this was Darren's question.

He didn't ask about the previous 17 holes or the history and traditions at TOC

Wayne,

What affect has modern technology and increased distances had upon the play of the hole ?

Is it today, what it was 40 and 50 years ago in terms of challenge and fun ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Yes that was Darren's question.  And we are all answering it.
Only you seems to want to put the golf hole in some vacuum/warp away from its context.

But regarding this....

Shouldn't the hole be evaluated from the persepectives of, architecture and playability rather than its surrounds, history and previous or following holes ?

Does one play ONLY this hole when playing the golf course?  Are there large blinds around it so that no extraneous views can be seen?  Does a emotion-detonator go off or mind erasing occur so that one forgets what course he is on?

If so, then by all means - assess it for it's architecture and playability, in a vacuum all by itself.

Seems a weird way to assess a golf hole to me.. but you're weird about a LOT of things.

 
TH

[wsmorrison]

"The OB on the right is a major hazard for that preferred approach."

Mike,

Why do you think the right side is the preferred approach?  Under what circumstances and for what class of golfers might it not be the preferred approach?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does one play ONLY this hole when playing the golf course?

That wasn't Darren's question.

Are there large blinds around it so that no extraneous views can be seen?  

What views ?  Do you mean the buildings to the right and behind the green, or the lack of any view to the left ?

Does a emotion-detonator go off or mind erasing occur so that one forgets what course he is on ?

I knew where I was, but, I wasn't going to be breaking down in tears as I played the hole.  It's a hole on a golf course not a loved one in a critical care room.

If so, then by all means - assess it for it's architecture and playability, in a vacuum all by itself.

While I certainly enjoy being out in the open and playing a wide variety of golf courses, if I want to go sight seeing there are more interesting places.

Golf is a game played upon a specially prepared field.
You choose to focus on images beyond the field whereas my focus is within the field.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I choose to take in everything - you choose to turn off your soul and employ tunnelvision.

That's why you're a better competitive golfer than me.

But there's no way you enjoy the game more.

To each his own, my stubborn friend.

 

[Pat Ruddy]

I'm with Mr. Mucci

Evaluate the hole as a work in itself.

Put it down on a 1000 other courses,  ones that you might be paying to have built, and see how many would like it.

St. Andrews is unique and lovely.  No doubt.

But a keen ear can pick-up a false note in the middle of the orchestra and .....

Nice to be talking about Scotland!

[Geoffrey Childs]

The Old Course is both special and different then any other.

It starts in town next to the Clubhouse of the R & A and it fittingly comes back to that same spot.  The 18th hole is both fitting and proper for this one of a kind venue.

Give it a 1.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

But the fact remains it's where it is.  Seems silly to me to evaluate it otherwise.

Does one not enjoy the views at your course?  Should we not count such?  Haven't been there... but the pictures look pretty incredible to me.  I hear the "architecture" is quite worthwhile as well.  But when I come, do you want me to put blinders on?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I choose to take in everything - you choose to turn off your soul and employ tunnelvision.

No, I take in everything and more, but, my focus is determined by what's at hand.

If you needed a birdie on # 18 to break 70 would you take in the surrounding sights or focus on the interfacing architecture and the play of the hole ?

That's why you're a better competitive golfer than me.

But there's no way you enjoy the game more.

I'd disagree with that, and think that those who have played with me would also take issue with that remark.

To each his own, my stubborn friend.

Being stubborn doesn't mean that one is incorrect in their beliefs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

But the fact remains it's where it is.  Seems silly to me to evaluate it otherwise.

Does one not enjoy the views at your course?  Should we not count such?  Haven't been there... but the pictures look pretty incredible to me.  I hear the "architecture" is quite worthwhile as well.  But when I come, do you want me to put blinders on?

When you're analyzing the merits of a hole, one should focus on the hole, and not factors removed from its architecture and playability.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

We are both keen lovers of the game - I saw enough at Sand Hills to know that.  I also know you are one of the most fun people to play this game with that I have ever had the pleasure of accompanying around a course.

BUT... you do not enjoy the game more than I do.  Let's call it even.  

The point is this:  assessing what one needs to do to make a 3 is part of an assessment of a golf hole, for sure, but not it's entirety.

You keep the tunnelvision, I'll keep my eyes, ears and spirit open.  If we're picking a golfer to make that three, we'll take you without a doubt.  But if we're picking a golfer to describe what's really going on on the hole in its entirety, I'll stick with myself, thank you very much.  You'd miss too much.  You miss the fact that these things you call extraneous DO effect the play!

That is unless you wanted to open yourself to all that's going on... which I fully believe you actually DO... it's just strange to me you want to deny it for these purposes.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()