[Mike Hendren]

Tiger Woods has opined that the 17th at TPC-Sawgrass is a good hole but should more appropriately occur earlier in the round.  

Can the same argument be made for Carnoustie's 18th in particularly and for penal / death or glory holes at championship venues in general?

Mike

[Phil McDade]

I don't care much for the 17th at TPC, but it's location in the round is ideal -- in part because I think holes like (and I'd say the same for Carnoustie's 18th) would seem to play on the minds of golfers throughout the round, knowing they face a very tough shot/shots just to make a par. I think that kind of psychological test, and handling it, separates champions from those who come up just short.

[Jordan Wall]

Tiger Woods has opined that the 17th at TPC-Sawgrass is a good hole but should more appropriately occur earlier in the round.  

Can the same argument be made for Carnoustie's 18th in particularly and for penal / death or glory holes at championship venues in general?

Mike

Michael,

No way.
Honestly, I think the last two majors at Carnoustie have proven why the 18th is a great hole and a great finisher.

In 99', Van de Velde makes a 7, Lawrie birdies it twice, and it goes down as perhaps one of the craziest and most thrilling finishes in British Open history.

This year, the 18th hole provided great excitement at the end of the tournament.  Sergio makes a bogey and goes into a playoff, but only after Paddy makes double.  Then, in the playoff, Paddy plays conservative and almost blows his lead as Sergio is inches away from a birdie, 3.  

Have these finishes not made it evident that the 18th is a great hole which is equally thrilling and imaginative?

Players hit everything from a 3-iron to a driver off the tee, and anything from an 8-iron to 3-wood for second shots.

I have heard before that par should not matter.  Yet, frequently I have been hearing this hole plays too hard, at a stroke average of 4.6, yadada.

Can we not accept that the hole is simply a GREAT half par hole?

If you guys want an easier hole, why not move the tees back to 515 and make it a par-5?

Would the hole then be too easy?

Realize, this is a major championship, testing the best players in the world.  A hole which tests the best players in the world like the 18th is perfect for a finishing hole, as proven but the excitement of the finishes in the past two British Opens.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Can we not accept that the hole is simply a GREAT half par hole?
...

Come on Jordan. Had Padraig's tee shot made it all the way across the bridge and he won, it would be known as a great fluke hole, not a great half par hole.

Wake up and smell the coffee. How can it be so great when many on the website are arguing it is the worst?

[Tim Pitner]

How can it be so great when many on the website are arguing it is the worst?

They're wrong.

[Tony_Muldoon]

...
Can we not accept that the hole is simply a GREAT half par hole?
...

Come on Jordan. Had Padraig's tee shot made it all the way across the bridge and he won, it would be known as a great fluke hole, not a great half par hole.

Wake up and smell the coffee. How can it be so great when many on the website are arguing it is the worst?

Wasn't it Dr Mac who said he knew he got a hole right when opinions were sharply divided?

[Brian_Ewen]

Since when was luck outlawed in golf championships ?

[Jordan Wall]

...
Can we not accept that the hole is simply a GREAT half par hole?
...

Come on Jordan. Had Padraig's tee shot made it all the way across the bridge and he won, it would be known as a great fluke hole, not a great half par hole.

No, because Sergio would have played the hole differently, and perhaps a different result would have occured.

Wake up and smell the coffee. How can it be so great when many on the website are arguing it is the worst?

Am I supposed to listen to people just because others agree with them.  I disagree, and I have two exciting finishes in a row to prove it.  What do you have against the hole?  That the hole played well over par?  What is wrong with a half par finishing hole.  Do you deny the finish, on the 18th hole, was exciting?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Am I supposed to listen to people just because others agree with them.  I disagree, and I have two exciting finishes in a row to prove it.  What do you have against the hole?  That the hole played well over par?  What is wrong with a half par finishing hole.  Do you deny the finish, on the 18th hole, was exciting?

You have nothing to prove it. By the standard that one must conclude you are using from the above statement, all major championships that result in a playoff have a great finishing hole. Don't you see there is no logic in exciting finish means great finishing hole? This finish pales in comparison to the exciting finish at the Masters where Mickelson won his first major. He birdied the 18th to win. However, that has nothing to do with whether the 18th at ANGC is a great finishing hole or not.

[Pat Brockwell]

Garland, If a lefty had won yesterday, would that make Carnoustie's 18th a great hole?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, If a lefty had won yesterday, would that make Carnoustie's 18th a great hole?

No, but if Padraig had parred and Sergio birdied it would have been a much more exciting finish. The whole round still would not have measured up to the Els/Mickelson duel at the masters.

[Kyle Harris]

Last time I checked, the golf hole wasn't swinging the clubs...

Do I think the 18th at Carnoustie could be better? Yes, of course.

But to categorize the hole based on two seperate playings in the pressure cooker of trying to win a major is just silly.

Ignorant, too.

Why is a choke job on an accepted finishing hole the responsibility of the player and a choke job on a less-than-ideal finishing hole the fault of the hole? This screams of arbitrary judgment and becomes a moot point should Sergio and Padraig get the clubhead on the ball correctly off the tee when they hit driver.

Again, I think the hole could be better for the big picture championship play - but the faults of the hole exist from the first group through on Thursday morning to the last group on Sunday.

[Craig Sweet]

I believe Tiger called the 17th at`TPC a "gimmick" hole and thus should not come so late in the round....the 18th at Car-toon-ey is NOT a gimmick...just one tough, long hole....as someone has said, there are several options for playing the 18th.

[Garland Bayley]

I believe Tiger called the 17th at`TPC a "gimmick" hole and thus should not come so late in the round....the 18th at Car-toon-ey is NOT a gimmick...just one tough, long hole....as someone has said, there are several options for playing the 18th.

Yes, there is drive it in the burn left, drive it in the burn right, bounce it across a bridge across the burn, drive it in the hay, drive it ob, etc.  

[Kalen Braley]

The real question is....

If they just called it a par 5, would all of this complaining and other nonsense be going on?  Of course not..they would be calling it a great risk/reward hole (on the 2nd shot at least) where eagles and birds can be had....I believe the hole played to a 4.6.  Shouldn't we just round up and call it a par 5 from now on?

This is all very silly.....

[Jordan Wall]

...
Am I supposed to listen to people just because others agree with them.  I disagree, and I have two exciting finishes in a row to prove it.  What do you have against the hole?  That the hole played well over par?  What is wrong with a half par finishing hole.  Do you deny the finish, on the 18th hole, was exciting?

You have nothing to prove it. By the standard that one must conclude you are using from the above statement, all major championships that result in a playoff have a great finishing hole. Don't you see there is no logic in exciting finish means great finishing hole? This finish pales in comparison to the exciting finish at the Masters where Mickelson won his first major. He birdied the 18th to win. However, that has nothing to do with whether the 18th at ANGC is a great finishing hole or not.

Garland,

That is wrong.

I dont consider the last hole at Augusta a great hole, though there have been playoffs there.  

You make that assumption based on the fact that there have been two playoffs at Carnoustie, I must think last hole must be good.

But, that is flawed logic, and I certainly dont think that is what makes the hole great.


Consider this:

-Any club from 4-iron to driver can realistically be hit off the tee.
-Any club from wedge to 3-wood can realistically be used on the second shot.
-The hole plays equally well whether the player is behind or ahead.
Consider Sergio, who tried to play safe with a one shot lead, hitting an iron off the tee leaving him 250 to the hole.  Perhaps if he had hit driver he would have won.  Yet, playing aggressively in the playoff, he hit driver and almost birdied.  Paddy hit the same clubs when in the lead and when behind, though he had one more stroke on Sergio than Sergio had on him when he came down the 18th in regulation.
-Plus, the hole has proven to be the ultimate test coming down the stretch at a major.

Yes, there is drive it in the burn left, drive it in the burn right, bounce it across a bridge across the burn, drive it in the hay, drive it ob, etc.

Actually, on the last day, Paddy and Sergio were both in the fairway when they played conservatively.  Both bogeyed.

Yet, when they hit driver, the tee shot was made tougher, as it should have been.
Both hit bad drives and had tough shots in.
However, even with an offline drive, Sergio almost birdied, proving the hole isn't impossible.

[Doug Siebert]

Garland, If a lefty had won yesterday, would that make Carnoustie's 18th a great hole?

No, but if Padraig had parred and Sergio birdied it would have been a much more exciting finish. The whole round still would not have measured up to the Els/Mickelson duel at the masters.

OK, just for you, I called the R&A and had the par officially and retroactively changed to 6 on the 18th for this year's Open.  So your wish has now come true.  Is it a great hole now, or do you have another silly objection that has nothing to do with the quality of the hole or the architecture?  Because the number assigned to par has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the hole, and just exposes you as a typical golf fan who believes birdies = excitement and bogies = boredom.

The fact remains that if you want to take the risk and reward out of the hole it is easy to do by hitting iron off the tee, laying up with an 8 iron or so, and hitting SW on the green.  Then you are pretty much limited to 4 or 5 as your only possible outcomes.  That players don't when they just have to look at the scoring average on the hole as their guide shows they aren't quite as smart as some would like to think!

[Rich Goodale]

Good post Doug.

BTW, "Par" does matter in this case, in that players coming down the stretch measure their position relative to par.  Being 1 "behind" standing on the 18th tee at Carnoustie means a very different thing to a player than being one "behind" standing on the 18th tee at the Old Course.  In the latter case, getting a 3 is an achievable goal (and even a 2 is possible), in the former a 4 is extremely hard and a 3 nearly impossible.

PS--Doug, I anonymously immortalized you and your 1.5 stroke average for the 16th in "Experience Carnoustie."  So, you've got that going for you.......

[Garland Bayley]

...
-Any club from 4-iron to driver can realistically be hit off the tee.
-Any club from wedge to 3-wood can realistically be used on the second shot.
-The hole plays equally well whether the player is behind or ahead.
Consider Sergio, who tried to play safe with a one shot lead, hitting an iron off the tee leaving him 250 to the hole.  Perhaps if he had hit driver he would have won.  Yet, playing aggressively in the playoff, he hit driver and almost birdied.  Paddy hit the same clubs when in the lead and when behind, though he had one more stroke on Sergio than Sergio had on him when he came down the 18th in regulation.
-Plus, the hole has proven to be the ultimate test coming down the stretch at a major.

I give up Jordan. As I have pointed out before, your reasons are vacuous. Kyle had a stronger word for it.

Yes, there is drive it in the burn left, drive it in the burn right, bounce it across a bridge across the burn, drive it in the hay, drive it ob, etc.

...

You have to be really desperate to quote a silly remark that had the largest smiley smile next to it, leave off the smiley, and then act like it had been offered in seriousness.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, If a lefty had won yesterday, would that make Carnoustie's 18th a great hole?

No, but if Padraig had parred and Sergio birdied it would have been a much more exciting finish. The whole round still would not have measured up to the Els/Mickelson duel at the masters.

OK, just for you, I called the R&A and had the par officially and retroactively changed to 6 on the 18th for this year's Open.  So your wish has now come true.  Is it a great hole now, or do you have another silly objection that has nothing to do with the quality of the hole or the architecture?  Because the number assigned to par has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the hole, and just exposes you as a typical golf fan who believes birdies = excitement and bogies = boredom.

The fact remains that if you want to take the risk and reward out of the hole it is easy to do by hitting iron off the tee, laying up with an 8 iron or so, and hitting SW on the green.  Then you are pretty much limited to 4 or 5 as your only possible outcomes.  That players don't when they just have to look at the scoring average on the hole as their guide shows they aren't quite as smart as some would like to think!

You can change the par to whatever you want. We know the length of the hole. We know what can be done by great players on the hole. This was not an example of great players playing great golf. For that, I refer you to the Nicklaus/Player finish in I believe 1968. Get over it. This year we had players falling all over themselves trying to give away the open. First Romero, then Harrington, then Garcia. The next thing I expect to hear from you people was that Norman's collapse against Faldo was the most exciting Masters ever.  

I only mentioned par as a shorthand for a measure of quality of play.

Is there anyone out there that would claim this was more exciting than Els/Mickelson?

[Garland Bayley]

...
BTW, "Par" does matter in this case, in that players coming down the stretch measure their position relative to par.  Being 1 "behind" standing on the 18th tee at Carnoustie means a very different thing to a player than being one "behind" standing on the 18th tee at the Old Course.  In the latter case, getting a 3 is an achievable goal (and even a 2 is possible), in the former a 4 is extremely hard and a 3 nearly impossible.
...

Rihc,

On an ordinary day, I am sure what you say is true. However, this year they were playing in calm weather with rain softened fairways and greens. I cannot attest to this myself, but another poster claimed they were playing from forward tees.

[Jordan Wall]

...
-Any club from 4-iron to driver can realistically be hit off the tee.
-Any club from wedge to 3-wood can realistically be used on the second shot.
-The hole plays equally well whether the player is behind or ahead.
Consider Sergio, who tried to play safe with a one shot lead, hitting an iron off the tee leaving him 250 to the hole.  Perhaps if he had hit driver he would have won.  Yet, playing aggressively in the playoff, he hit driver and almost birdied.  Paddy hit the same clubs when in the lead and when behind, though he had one more stroke on Sergio than Sergio had on him when he came down the 18th in regulation.
-Plus, the hole has proven to be the ultimate test coming down the stretch at a major.

I give up Jordan. As I have pointed out before, your reasons are vacuous. Kyle had a stronger word for it.

Yes, there is drive it in the burn left, drive it in the burn right, bounce it across a bridge across the burn, drive it in the hay, drive it ob, etc.

...

You have to be really desperate to quote a silly remark that had the largest smiley smile next to it, leave off the smiley, and then act like it had been offered in seriousness.

Vacuous- Devoid of matter; empty.

Now, how were any of my reasons devoid of matter of why I consider the hole to be great?
All my points are perfectly valid.
You cant deny any of my points because they are all true.

As of now, all I have out of you is that the hole is bad because it played too hard in relation to par.

For one, its a major, and therefore the setup is one of the four hardest setups all year.  

Plus, the hole was designed to be hard and challenging.  

And, I quoted your sarcasm because if anything, that statement was vacuous, and I was calling it out.  That statement did not add to the discussion at all.

I dont mind that you dont feel the hole is not great, but I am still trying to figure out a legitimate reason of why you think so.

[Rich Goodale]

I didn't look closely, but I very much suspect that whoever posted that was misled by the fact that there are back tees on 18 (at 520+ and to the right of and behind the 17th green) but these are only used when the hole is intended to play as a "par" 5, which it was not at this year's Open.

[Garland Bayley]

Jordan,

Pay attention! I told you why your reasons were vacuous on your original thread.

Now you are calling my remark intended to be silly, and marked as such, vacuous. Sorry Jordan. It wasn't vacuous, it was silly and never intended to be anything more. To be vacuous, it has to be put forth seriously.

[Garland Bayley]

I didn't look closely, but I very much suspect that whoever posted that was misled by the fact that there are back tees on 18 (at 520+ and to the right of and behind the 17th green) but these are only used when the hole is intended to play as a "par" 5, which it was not at this year's Open.

Thanks for straightening that out Rich. I notice you did not try to argue about the conditions. They led to a tie of the course record and 10 birdies by Romero. Therefore, a constant diet of 5s and a 6 by the leaders on 18 was not great golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()