The Plight of Kingsley Club in the Rankings

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed 9 to be that small.  Oh well, it was a bit too small, because I missed it just right.  I thought you promised me to widen that out a bit next time I came to play?

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike, regarding polarizing features (however one may define that)

Are there things you did at Kingsley that you considered for Greywalls, or outright rejected at The Mines?

(And thanks to you, Tom D. and Jeff for a great conversation.)

Jason,
Certainly, the shared tee areas on Kingsley are difficult to impossible to pull off at a public golf course, although at the Mines we have a close scenario at the #11 South and #9 tees, which are built in the same landform and some tees could be inter-changed for 11 from 9, but that doesn't really happen there as they keep them separate from each other. 

All of the courses are intended for walking for those that would like to: however, the pro shop to 1st tee at Greywalls requires a shuttle and most of the golfers there ride, no matter the course.  It also has some severe terrain challenges and the Mines has the separation of holes due to the road and power lines, so less than ideal for walking but still doable.  Kingsley isn't flat but all the tees are very close to the previous green and that works very well.

Bunker reduction after Kingsley due to the elements at those courses (rock and terrain) or for public play and minimizing the maintenance needed while keeping the bunkers strategic and dramatic hazards.

Can't think of anything else right away!
Mike

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike,

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed 9 to be that small.  Oh well, it was a bit too small, because I missed it just right.  I thought you promised me to widen that out a bit next time I came to play?

Jeff, I'll get right on that, as soon as you tell me you are coming!     I wouldn't want to disappoint you! 

[Matt_Ward]

Truthfully, if a course doesn't raise one's pulse then what is the point in playing it ?

No doubt there may be some truth to the so-called "controversial" elements of TKC -- but candidly it's no more / worse, or whatever one may call it, then what Pete Dye used to do early on when his career was taking off. Dye himself admitted that he followed a different course because he wanted to be noticed separately away from the long shadow Robert Trent Jones had already created for himself.

If a course doesn't provoke emotion then frankly it's a lame place - TKC provides that kind of emotion in the way golf can truly be when presented at the high level -- if people thnk the 9th is out-of-bounds as a quality hole then someone will need to explain to me the quirky nature of a hole like The Dell at Lahinch which is much more suited to the vagaries of luck than sheer skill in my mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

The Dell at Lahinch is in a bowl ... it's quirky because it's blind, but the bounces are generally FAVORABLE.  That's a huge difference from the many holes that are controversial because they are difficult.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Beg to differ -- when I last played The Dell the height of the grass surrounding the green on the hillsides was quite high -- in the neighborhood of 5-6 inchesand extending at that height to no more than a club length of two from the actual green itself. As an FYI --my last round there was 3 years ago so it's possible the setup for the hole may be changed from the time I was last there.

That doesn't always provide for the 'FAVORABLE' bounces you see as inevitable. You could hit a fine shot at The Dell and the ball would then stick in the grass I just mentioned. People on this site fawn over such quirks yet are fast to throw under the bus a number of other holes here in the States and see them as unfair or "controversial."

My point, in the event you missed it, is that the idea that the 9th at Kingsley is unfair. I don't see it as that -- no doubt it calls upon a high degree of accuracy but the hole does provide escape routes for those less inclined to play to a very demanding target.

[Sean_A]

Tom:

Beg to differ -- when I last played The Dell the height of the grass surrounding the green on the hillsides was quite high -- in the neighborhood of 5-6 inchesand extending at that height to no more than a club length of two from the actual green itself. As an FYI --my last round there was 3 years ago so it's possible the setup for the hole may be changed from the time I was last there.

That doesn't always provide for the 'FAVORABLE' bounces you see as inevitable. You could hit a fine shot at The Dell and the ball would then stick in the grass I just mentioned. People on this site fawn over such quirks yet are fast to throw under the bus a number of other holes here in the States and see them as unfair or "controversial."

My point, in the event you missed it, is that the idea that the 9th at Kingsley is unfair. I don't see it as that -- no doubt it calls upon a high degree of accuracy but the hole does provide escape routes for those less inclined to play to a very demanding target.

Both times I saw Lahinch the rough was up around the Dell.  I figured thats the way they normally keep it.  However, that doesn't mean that if one were to get a bounce on that hole (and bounces occur all the time), the bounce will overwhelmingly tend to be favourable.  Do you just argue with people for the hell of it?  Tom's statement is so obviously on target that it makes me wonder sometimes.  

I also agree with Tom's larger point that a significant percentage of the controversy in GB&I tends to make holes more playable while I do believe that percentage is considerably lower in the States.  Its not surprising since the modern idea of a championship course was born in the US.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Before engaging your thoughts -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley? It's important to know how such two (2) holes can be decided by the high percentage of times through luck. Kingsley's 9th requiresa grear deal of skill with the short iron -- it can make people uncomfortable and I find that element to be one of its great charms. Luck is part of the equation on any hole but should it be the ultimate dominant and deciding factor. People were speaking about the hole as being controversial to the point of being nearly unplayable or subject to the whims of luck.

The Dell accentuates luck to the point of being nothing more than random chance when playing the hole -- especially when the grass is grown high and within a club length or two of the actual green itself. Sean, if you pay attention, the linkage I made was to illustrate that luck is always a factor on any hole -- but it should not be intrusive to the point where the percentage of well-played shots is thrwarted.

Here's something you may not realize or understand -- luck or its involvement across the pond is taken as a given and just a part of playing there -- in fact, many will opine it's part of the charm when there.  People who play in the States will more often take issue with such a hole here in America. Predictability is often cemented in the minds of many people who play all their or most of their golf in the USA.

The 9th at Kingsley is a very narrow line between superior play being rewarded and being a hole where utter chance is decided by the golf gods at any point. In my mind, the hole by DeVries is the more superior hole when compared to another fine short hole at Lahinch in my mind for those reasons.

[Michael Whitaker]

Someone please explain to me how the greensites at #2 & #9 at the Kingsley Club differ greatly in severity and/or "quirkiness" from the following holes at Royal Dornoch.... because I don't think they do. I'm convinced that golfers who bitch about 2 & 9 at Kingsley Club have never played links golf or have no appreciation for it.

SECOND HOLE - Ord - Par 3, 177 yards. Plateau green (one of many) with steep fall on both sides and rear. Two deep bunkers guard front of green, with a grassy mound between, which diverts a short shot into either bunker.


SIXTH HOLE - Whinny Brae - Par 3, 163 yards. Plateau green built into hillside. Thick whins on hillside on left, also 3 bunkers on left edge of green. Large bunker at right of slope at entrance to green. Steep fall of 12ft. at rear and right of green.


TENTH HOLE - Fuaran - Par 3, 147 yards. Plateau green except at front where three bunkers guard green at edge of putting surface. Another bunker at foot of steep slope on left. Sea hazard on left for hooked tee shot; whin bushes on right for slice. Long grass at foot of slope to rear of green. Height of slopes 10ft. on left and rear and 6ft. on right.


FOURTEENTH HOLE - Foxy - Par 4, 445 yards. Well named "Foxy". The only hole without a bunker, it has a plateau green on a promontory broad on right and narrowing to some 8 or 9 yards on left. The steep rise at the front of the green varies from 5ft. on the left to 10ft. on the right. The left of the fairway is a wide expanse of mounds with bent grassy and mossy patches. Right of the fairway are several grassy promontories jutting out towards the fairway and guarding the right of the green.


We've discussed it on this site often, but golfers will praise holes of this type when found in the UK and then rail about even remotely similar holes in the USA. I don't understand the double standard!!!

[Mike_DeVries]

Michael,
Great examples at Dornoch -- I am embarassed I didn't think of them! 
Cheers,
Mike

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael,
Great examples at Dornoch -- I am embarassed I didn't think of them! 
Cheers,
Mike

Mike - I think it would be a bit presumptuous of you to compare your design choices to Royal Dornoch... but, I can do it!
 

[Bill_McBride]

Dornoch's #6 is the only one I disagree with there because I'm all pars on that hole!  There is no fall off to the left so there's a safe play.

#2, two bogies and a double bogey.  #10?  Don't ask.     To me that's the hardest par 3 in the world.  It wouldn't be quite so hard if they shaved the banks so you could putt up them, but trying to pitch off those tight lies at the bottom of the banks, over the rough, is diabolical set up.

Great call on those comparisons to Dornoch, I can't think of a closer parallel.

[Jason McNamara]

EDIT:  Comment removed due to lack of pertinence to Kingsley.  Sorry, folks.

[Michael Whitaker]

...luck or its involvement across the pond is taken as a given and just a part of playing there -- in fact, many will opine it's part of the charm when there.  People who play in the States will more often take issue with such a hole here in America. Predictability is often cemented in the minds of many people who play all their or most of their golf in the USA.

Matt - This is due to Americans' over-the-top fixation on INDIVIDUAL SCORE. We are taught to count every stroke and record every round. It is this emphasis on individual score that causes some Americans to dislike course features which exert random influence on their shots. If Americans could shed the burden of always playing as if competing in a strokeplay tournament they would enjoy golf so much more... and, courses such as The Kingsley Club would suddenly provide considerably more enjoyment than the homogenized cookie-cutter fare that dominates our game.

[Nick_Christopher]

The best answer to the original question, seems to be that  Kingsley's low rating is a function of arithmetic.  The calculations haven't shaken out in the course's favor.  Perhaps that changes as raters play the course more than once and start to understand the nuances. 

As far as the notion that some of the holes are over the top, I have to disagree.  Mike certainly went to the precipice, but you have approach these holes in a unique way to move on with your round and not get confounded trying to pull off a miracle recovery shot.  (it helps to have a sense of humor too).  The key is to not try to pull of a spectacular par-save with your second shot.  The player has to ignore where the hole is cut and just get the ball to stay on the green -- anywhere on the green or close to it. 

Some examples:

#2 --  if you are short right with the flag up front, the best play in my opinion is off the green in front of the flag in the flat area between the two bunker complexes.  It is a relatively benign pitch to there.  Then you have a straight-forward chip and putt for a bogey.  It isn't a gimmee, but very executable. 

#9 - If you are long with a back right pin, you have to use the flat landing area in the elbow and let it run down to the front.  Leaving you a difficult two putt for bogey, but eliminating the chance of making 8 or 9 by pitching the ball back and forth over the green.

#15 -- As somebody mentioned earlier, this tests a player's ability to get up and down for par.  It is far from a traditional hole, but the fact that it demands something new makes it a great test.  I made par on Sunday by draining a 25 foot putt from the front edge of the green following a miserable pitch.  I came away feeling like I had just made a birdie...pure fun!

With respect to the 10 -12 string of holes, I don't see how they bring the course down a peg.  They complement the extreme precision demanded on some of the holes discussed above and still require some unique shot-making.  They add to the rhythm and flow of the course immeasurably.  Similarly, holes like 12, 14 and 16 at Crystal Downs are not necessarily stand-outs, but they provide a different test than other holes on the course.

With apologies from biased and unabashed fan of TKC...

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

The day I sat and watched people play the Dell hole for three hours (back in 1983) the grass was not so long.  Some of the shots which wound up the closest to the hole actually bounced off the dune in the back of the green and skidded down to the hole.

The rough there varies considerably depending on the time of year and the amount of rain they've had lately.  However, perhaps they are also influenced by people telling them to keep the rough long in order to keep the course challenging so it will be thought of more highly in the rankings ... because the detractors of the course have centered their criticisms on it being too quirky and too easy.  And, of course, not fair!

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Before engaging your thoughts -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley? It's important to know how such two (2) holes can be decided by the high percentage of times through luck. Kingsley's 9th requiresa grear deal of skill with the short iron -- it can make people uncomfortable and I find that element to be one of its great charms. Luck is part of the equation on any hole but should it be the ultimate dominant and deciding factor. People were speaking about the hole as being controversial to the point of being nearly unplayable or subject to the whims of luck.

The Dell accentuates luck to the point of being nothing more than random chance when playing the hole -- especially when the grass is grown high and within a club length or two of the actual green itself. Sean, if you pay attention, the linkage I made was to illustrate that luck is always a factor on any hole -- but it should not be intrusive to the point where the percentage of well-played shots is thrwarted.

Here's something you may not realize or understand -- luck or its involvement across the pond is taken as a given and just a part of playing there -- in fact, many will opine it's part of the charm when there.  People who play in the States will more often take issue with such a hole here in America. Predictability is often cemented in the minds of many people who play all their or most of their golf in the USA.

The 9th at Kingsley is a very narrow line between superior play being rewarded and being a hole where utter chance is decided by the golf gods at any point. In my mind, the hole by DeVries is the more superior hole when compared to another fine short hole at Lahinch in my mind for those reasons.

Matt

I don't care for words like "random" when it comes to golf because there is rarely such a thing and therefore the word is invariably over-used or emphasized. Nearly everything can be predicted given enough time and skill.  Sadly, for most of us, we prefer to call apparent randomness luck when in truth the results of shots are far more predictable than not.  One of the few times where it is difficult to gain enough experience to eliminate so called luck is when the wind is really howling (not the so called 20mph howling either) or there are so many micro hollows and bumps that selecting the landing zone is very difficult, but these are fairly rare occurrences and even with the micro undulations guys learn how to cope over time.  When we say "luck", what we really mean is that we aren't good/experienced enough to accurately size up the situation and that we may get a result that wasn't predicted or we even may hit the type of shot that wasn't intended and the result was good anyway.  This is the Dell all over.  The hole itself doesn't have anything to do with luck.  The outcome of shots there is entirely predictable.  The so called luck aspect of folks not being able to predict accurately is most often due to lack of experience.  This is one of the key defensive elements of a blind hole.  The golfer has a major tool (his sight) eliminated and so he must rely on other tools more, such as confidence.  Using this perspective, often times golf in the UK is not less predictable, but harder to predict.  I couldn't say if the Dell is better than Kinglsey's 9th, but that is hardly the point.  

Ciao    

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Just refresh my memory I asked you a simple question -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley ?

Somehow I must have missed your answer.

Randomness is part of golf and it should be - hence the "rub of the green" element. My issue is when randomness is so common that quality shotmaking is rendered to a far lesser level. Skill should still be the platform that holes / shots subscribe to for the overwhelming majority of cases. The 9th at Kingsley pushes that envelope but still walks on the side of quality shotmaking from the time I played it.

Quality design elevates and identifies skill -- while recognizing that good / bad bounces are indeed possible even when the execution is flawed. That happens and should remain so. The question is whether such outcomes are of the main frame of design or merely on the fringe.

Sean, if you sincerely believe that luck has no bearing at The Dell Hole -- then you and I are on different pages. Luck is part and parcel of that hole to a large degree. You can have all the experience you want -- the nature of the bounce is totally in the hands of the gods in a number of ways. The 9th at Kingsley, in my mind, is still a hole where a high degree of skill / execution is called upon.

Jason:

Out of the same curiosity and respect, do you think I need a primer from Sean outlining my original point as simply being put together for the purposes of being argumentative ?

Tom D:

I have no issue with bounces that vary from the player receiving an advantage to those that go the other way. I simply opined that when I last played the Dell hole -- the rough cut was extended nearly to the green itself. And the height of such grass was more than 4-5 inches in length. Those who hit even to the slightest of sides could very well remain in the high grass which likely would mean nothing more than a power gouge at best.

Tom, I am not a fan of high and brutal rough -- I have always felt that rough should be present but only to influence the amount of control the player can exert over the ball. Having hay-like conditions immediately off any green is not sound thinking in my mind for the manner by which any course should follow.

No doubt if cut to a height where bounces of one type or the other can happen there's no doubt that randomness becomes part and parcel of the equation -- for those who play the bulk of their golf in the States such a role may not mean happy campers. I would find the Dell hole much more fun for that reason.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Just refresh my memory I asked you a simple question -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley ?

Somehow I must have missed your answer.

Randomness is part of golf and it should be - hence the "rub of the green" element. My issue is when randomness is so common that quality shotmaking is rendered to a far lesser level. Skill should still be the platform that holes / shots subscribe to for the overwhelming majority of cases. The 9th at Kingsley pushes that envelope but still walks on the side of quality shotmaking from the time I played it.

Quality design elevates and identifies skill -- while recognizing that good / bad bounces are indeed possible even when the execution is flawed. That happens and should remain so. The question is whether such outcomes are of the main frame of design or merely on the fringe.

Sean, if you sincerely believe that luck has no bearing at The Dell Hole -- then you and I are on different pages. Luck is part and parcel of that hole to a large degree. You can have all the experience you want -- the nature of the bounce is totally in the hands of the gods in a number of ways. The 9th at Kingsley, in my mind, is still a hole where a high degree of skill / execution is called upon.

Jason:

Out of the same curiosity and respect, do you think I need a primer from Sean outlining my original point as simply being put together for the purposes of being argumentative ?

Tom D:

I have no issue with bounces that vary from the player receiving an advantage to those that go the other way. I simply opined that when I last played the Dell hole -- the rough cut was extended nearly to the green itself. And the height of such grass was more than 4-5 inches in length. Those who hit even to the slightest of sides could very well remain in the high grass which likely would mean nothing more than a power gouge at best.

Tom, I am not a fan of high and brutal rough -- I have always felt that rough should be present but only to influence the amount of control the player can exert over the ball. Having hay-like conditions immediately off any green is not sound thinking in my mind for the manner by which any course should follow.

No doubt if cut to a height where bounces of one type or the other can happen there's no doubt that randomness becomes part and parcel of the equation -- for those who play the bulk of their golf in the States such a role may not mean happy campers. I would find the Dell hole much more fun for that reason.

Matt

I never questioned your comments about Kingsley's 9th so I deemed your question immaterial. 

If I thought the Dell was all about luck I wouldn't have wrote what I did.  I would be surprised if members stand on the Dell tee and think the hole is all down to random luck. You don't think experience adds anything to the Dell?

Quality design does a lot of things including, but certainly not limited to identifying skill.   


Ciao 

[Tim Bert]

I suspect I may be the biggest score-fixated Kingsley advocate in the world. Everything I read from most of the participants on this thread suggests I should hate the course.

Yes, I love match play, but I also like to know what I shot.

I love alternate shot but rarely have the opportunity and 3 other willing people to play.

I count up the strokes and I live or die by breaking 80 or 90 or maybe 100...

Why then is Kingsley in my personal top 5 and better than just about every highly regarded modern and classic course I have ever played???

I think it is more playable than folks are giving it credit for. In my limited play it was more playable and scoreable than Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails, Sand Hills, Whistling Straits, and I could go on...

At the end of the day the harmony of the architects intent and design with the super's practices and upkeep is the best I have witnessed - BAR NONE. And I think that is what I love so dearly.

 I know the time will come when I face a round at Kingsley where I take an X on one of those par 3s in question. I can deal with that.

[Kenny Baer]

...luck or its involvement across the pond is taken as a given and just a part of playing there -- in fact, many will opine it's part of the charm when there.  People who play in the States will more often take issue with such a hole here in America. Predictability is often cemented in the minds of many people who play all their or most of their golf in the USA.

Matt - This is due to Americans' over-the-top fixation on INDIVIDUAL SCORE. We are taught to count every stroke and record every round. It is this emphasis on individual score that causes some Americans to dislike course features which exert random influence on their shots. If Americans could shed the burden of always playing as if competing in a strokeplay tournament they would enjoy golf so much more... and, courses such as The Kingsley Club would suddenly provide considerably more enjoyment than the homogenized cookie-cutter fare that dominates our game.


Great statement and unfortunately very very true.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Again, just to help my understanding -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley ?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

I appreciate you deeming what's material and immaterial. Can we cut to the chase and answer something as simple as I asked it ?

We will not see eye-to-eye on The Dell Hole. I see it as nothing more than luck maximized to the hilt -- if you hit a good shot it often times has little to do with execution or skill -- it's simply a fun hole for those who enjoy miniature golf outcomes short of having the clown's mouth or the loop-to-loop added. Let me emphasize I am not suggesting or advocating all golf shots must be based on 100% certainty -- the bounce of the ball and the inclusion of the unknown is part and parcel of the game. The issue is one of degree. The 9th at Kingsley walks a very tight line in regards to the balance between rewarding skill and introducing luck to such a high degree that random outcomes are more often the rule rather than the exception.

Sean, experience is a part of ANY hole. Clearly, people will factor in the percentages of what can happen -- but at The Dell, unlike the 9th at Kingsley, the resulting elements are simply a matter of whether the golf gods bless your play at any point in time. Some people may love such random qualities when taken to the nth degree. If that floats one's boat -- that's great -- for them.

You're right "Quality design does a lot of things including, but certainly not limited to identifying skill," -- let me further point out for your benefit -- if skill is not elevated as the first among equals and on a consistent basis then you have nothing more than pure chance becoming the norm and for me such holes are nothing more than novel items -- to be played for what they are but not be taken seriously when the bar for true greatness is defined and evaluated. You may see it diffreently. So be it -- for you and others like you.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Again, just to help my understanding -- have you played the 9th at Kingsley ?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

I appreciate you deeming what's material and immaterial. Can we cut to the chase and answer something as simple as I asked it ?

We will not see eye-to-eye on The Dell Hole. I see it as nothing more than luck maximized to the hilt -- if you hit a good shot it often times has little to do with execution or skill -- it's simply a fun hole for those who enjoy miniature golf outcomes short of having the clown's mouth or the loop-to-loop added. Let me emphasize I am not suggesting or advocating all golf shots must be based on 100% certainty -- the bounce of the ball and the inclusion of the unknown is part and parcel of the game. The issue is one of degree. The 9th at Kingsley walks a very tight line in regards to the balance between rewarding skill and introducing luck to such a high degree that random outcomes are more often the rule rather than the exception.

Sean, experience is a part of ANY hole. Clearly, people will factor in the percentages of what can happen -- but at The Dell, unlike the 9th at Kingsley, the resulting elements are simply a matter of whether the golf gods bless your play at any point in time. Some people may love such random qualities when taken to the nth degree. If that floats one's boat -- that's great -- for them.

You're right "Quality design does a lot of things including, but certainly not limited to identifying skill," -- let me further point out for your benefit -- if skill is not elevated as the first among equals and on a consistent basis then you have nothing more than pure chance becoming the norm and for me such holes are nothing more than novel items -- to be played for what they are but not be taken seriously when the bar for true greatness is defined and evaluated. You may see it diffreently. So be it -- for you and others like you.

Matt

Once you admit that experience is part and parcel of having a better shot at hitting a good shot at the Dell green, you are really saying that one's hopeful luck in hitting the correct shot is gradually replaced by skill over time - that makes the Dell a skillful hole because one can learn over time.  You won't admit it to yourself, but all shots take far more skill than luck.  Sometimes judging the correct shot takes as much skill as executing the shot.  This is also a reason why I am against yardage markers, they reduce the importance of a very important skill, judgement.  To say a hole like the Dell is shot ion the lap of the gods for anybody who is more than a beginner is sheer folly.  For sure, identifying skill is first and foremost, however, I choose to define what skill is far beyond your interpretation. 

Ciao

[Mike Wagner]

Matt,

Can you name some courses where luck, overall, is more importnat than skill?  Much appreciated.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike W:

I'll give that some thought -- can't say off the top of my head of a particular course where luck is the dominant aspect for all shots for the complete 18. Likely I can review and let you know -- courses with an abundance of H20 would likely be viable candidates. Keep in mind -- I never opined about a particular course -- I simply compared the nature of the 9th at Kingsley to Teh Dell Hole at Lahinch.

Sean:

You just keep on avoiding the question I asked of you before and will do so again now ...

Have you played the 9th at Kingsley ?

The reason I ask this is because the 9th at Kingsley forms a major element of my overall discussion through the insertion of The Dell Hole and how the "controversial" nature to the MI hole as deemed by some as being over-the-top.

Sean -- simple "yes" or "no" answer and we can move matters along.

In regards to your last post ...

Hold the phone amigo -- you are the guy who said, "You don't think experience adds anything to the Dell?"

I answered you in my previous post -- you'll need to read what I wrote as I hate to type again and again the same point(s) -- I opined that The Dell is nothing more than a contrivance where random potluck is cental to the playing of the hole. I also mentioned in a few posts previous to that one that having the surrounding grass on the banks being allowed to grow to 5-6 inches was also unnecessary and simply done to penalize players even more so.

Experience to any shot / hole can help -- but it is the actual design and how such things play out that determine the end result. Teh Dell is beyond experience -- it elevates potluck far more into the overall equation.

Sean, a golfer can blade his tee ball and with a helpful kick off the sideboards can finish with his approach on the green and if the golf gods are smiling on him even possibly make a two and proceed from there. Great design accentuates the skill component -- and while one cannot (and should not) eliminate luck / random outcomes -- the likelihood of their emergence will be far, far less.

You also state, "all shots take far more skill than luck." Really? We again disagree. Certain holes allow for luck / chance to emerge more frequently than other holes. The 9th at Kingsley walks a very narrow tight rope but skill is still the more dominant ingredient. The Dell Hole is all about random chance -- akin to the spinning of the wheel at the local carnival and hoping one's number lands on the coveted spot.

Sean, you make a point about yardage markers but frankly the game has more serious ills beyond yardage markers. I see you point in that regard because often on any links layout the stated yardage and effective playing yardage are two entirely different numbers.

I do agree that judging a shot and then executing are two entirely different matters. However, one can judge until Jesus returns and it won't matter much, if at all, when playing The Dell Hole.

Sean, you won't convince me of the nature of The Dell Hole -- let me emphasize I am a huge fan of much of what exists at Lahinch and would thoroughly recommend playing the course with the small exception I have stated. You say my contention of the role of the golf gods is "sheer folly." With all due respect partner -- your head is in the sand on that one.

I appreciate the snobby end statement that your definition of "skill is far beyond your (my) interpretation. I see it vastly different than you and when you state, "For sure, identifying skill is first and foremost ...," -- I was the one who mentioned that to YOU in an earlier post.