[ed_getka]

Interesting to choose #9 at CD. All you have to do is play short of the green and if you hit a decent chip you would be hard pressed to make worse than 4. If I had to choose a hole at CD it would be #16, although the green alone makes it better than most holes. I think a case could be made for #10 or 11 also, but #9 is just a great test of golf. I wonder how many people bring it up because of the Mackenzie oversight story?

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

Exactly.  Another hole that gets panned even though it's an excellent hole is the one Ed just mentioned, the 16th at Crystal Downs.  It gets panned because it has "no strategy", when in fact it needs a fairway bunker like it needs a hole in the head.  It's a long par-5 into the wind ... you've got to hit the tee shot in the fairway or you'll have 200+ for your third ... and it's a terrific green well defended by bunkers.  The strategy is to hit three good shots, something not many par-5 holes require.

[Tom MacWood]

It depends upon your definition of a bad hole. Some define a bad hole as unfair, controversial or unorthodox, but that wouldn't be my definition. My definition would be a bland hole, with no character. 14 at Pebble Beach comes to mind. I like one or two controversial holes per eighteen.  

[Eric Strulowitz]

#1 and #18 at Royal Cinque Ports.   Very ordinary , boring holes. #1 does not set the stage for the great holes to come, #18 a disappointing conclusion.

#10 at Rye, does not fit with the rest of the course, seems way  out of place.

[Ken Fry]

Where is it written/stated that every hole needs strategic options? Regardless of what is there, one still has to score....

Should every test be multiple choice?

You're correct Kyle, not every hole needs to have more than one option.  Only the really good ones do....     

Ken

[Kyle Harris]

Where is it written/stated that every hole needs strategic options? Regardless of what is there, one still has to score....

Should every test be multiple choice?

You're correct Kyle, not every hole needs to have more than one option.  Only the really good ones do....     

Ken

I can't agree with this either. Holes do not exist in a vacuum and sometimes the best holes are those that demand the most precise shots at the perfect time in a round.

When it comes to scoring, there aren't too many options in playing the 10th and 11th at Augusta, nor the 14th. But those holes are interspersed with the 13th and 15th, where the player is able to make up or even gain ground with strategic options.

[Bart Bradley]

For all of those who argue with the choice of #9 at Crystal Downs:  which is the weakest hole on the front nine at the course, if not #9?

Bart

[Ken Fry]

Where is it written/stated that every hole needs strategic options? Regardless of what is there, one still has to score....

Should every test be multiple choice?

You're correct Kyle, not every hole needs to have more than one option.  Only the really good ones do....     

Ken

I can't agree with this either. Holes do not exist in a vacuum and sometimes the best holes are those that demand the most precise shots at the perfect time in a round.

When it comes to scoring, there aren't too many options in playing the 10th and 11th at Augusta, nor the 14th. But those holes are interspersed with the 13th and 15th, where the player is able to make up or even gain ground with strategic options.

Kyle,

Here's the difference.  The 10th hole is wide open for your drive.  There's room to hit the big slinging hook some players want or other shaped shots.  The 11th had some strategy removed with Sherwood Forest added on the right of the landing area but the green provides the options of playing right and chipping on, front edge or aggressive at pins.  14 requires a draw off the tee (with room to accomplish it) then options are open for many different shots into the green.

#7 requires a STRAIGHT tee shot with almost no room to work it.  From there, a high soft shot with anything from a 3-6 iron to a shallow green.

I'm all for resistance to scoring, but MacKenzie liked to provide options.  Between the additional length, tree lined corridor and lush rough, resistance to scoring is accomplished by sacrificing the course's design philosophy (which was thrown out the window about 10 years ago).

Ken

[Bill_McBride]

#14 at Cuscowilla is not my cup of tea, however, the course remains a favorite.

Most who don't like one of the holes at Cuscowilla mention #13, I've always thought #14 is a good solid par 4 with a wonderful green.  What don't you like about it, Mark?

Or maybe you were thinking of #13!    Which I happen to like, the challenge of those cross bunkers at the bottom of the hill is daunting.

[Ian Andrew]

Just an out of the box thought….

I was watching a series about how to design a rollercoaster with my teenage son. The designer talked about how a rollercoaster is designed to maximize the thrill for the rider. He explained that the rollercoaster could not be a continuous set of thrills - because the rider might get disorientated – but also because the sensations would all blend in together and the sum would become less than the parts. He felt that one of the keys to creating a great rollercoaster was providing enough time to release some of the tension between the big events so that the rider would get the maximum thrill out of each event.

Don’t come of these holes offer us a rest or reprise from a series of outstanding holes. I find often that a simple hole makes the perfect set up for an incredible breathtaking run. The contrast often makes the next hole even more stunning by comparison.

It begs the question on whether some of these holes are actual ideal within their context rather than a weak point on the great course. Are they there to set the stage in a far bigger picture than we care to see?

Restraint can be as important as creativity depending on the context.

[Todd Bell]

#17 @ Sawgrass...

[Kevin_Reilly]

It depends upon your definition of a bad hole. Some define a bad hole as unfair, controversial or unorthodox, but that wouldn't be my definition. My definition would be a bland hole, with no character. 14 at Pebble Beach comes to mind. I like one or two controversial holes per eighteen.  

"Worst" is a relative term and doesn't require the hole to be "bad". 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian

Tolstoi: "Her pretty little upper lip, on which a delicate dark down was just perceptible, was too short for her teeth, but it lifted all the more sweetly, and was especially charming when she occasionally drew it down to meet the lower lip. As is always the case with a thoroughly attractive woman, her defect -- the shortness of her upper lip and her half-open mouth -- seemed to be her own special and peculiar form of beauty."

Wethered & Simpson: "We must count on at least one very indifferent hole in a round; to be quite on the safe side, we will allow an additional half of indifference as well, for the sake of extra relief.  The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination."

Curious to hear what people think W&S were getting at in that phrase, "of stimulating our jaded imagination"?  Why is imperfection necessary for this to occur? Is the concept a crucial ingredient of great or at least "ideal" courses, and if so, why?

Mark

[BCrosby]

Mark -

I've never understood what W&S were getting at. Would Mozart's 41st be a better symphony with a couple of false notes? Would a Shakespeare sonnet be better with a clunker line?

If not, why would a golf course be better with a bad hole?

Bob

[Kyle Harris]

Mark -

I've never understood what W&S were getting at. Would Mozart's 41st be a better symphony with a couple of false notes? Would a Shakespeare sonnet be better with a clunker line?

If not, why would a golf course be better with a bad hole?

Bob

Bob,

I think there is a difference between an indifferent hole and a bad hole. To me, the indifferent hole is simply one that takes a golfer from point A to point B.

At the right time, these holes can actually be quite interesting since the golfer is still compelled to play them, and ultimately score. The indifference works against the golfer as what more is worse than not scoring on a seemingly simple hole.

Indifferent holes fit perfectly into golf's metagame, about which I am writing as I type this response.

[Mark Pritchett]

#14 at Cuscowilla is not my cup of tea, however, the course remains a favorite.

Most who don't like one of the holes at Cuscowilla mention #13, I've always thought #14 is a good solid par 4 with a wonderful green.  What don't you like about it, Mark?

Or maybe you were thinking of #13!    Which I happen to like, the challenge of those cross bunkers at the bottom of the hill is daunting.

Bill,

I love the Par 4 13th hole.  I am referring to #14, the 600 yard Par 5 with a tree in the fairway and the bunkers in the hill.  The green on 14 is fine, I the rest of the hole that I don't get.  It is basically a Par 6 for me. 

[Tom MacWood]

Bob
Wethered & Simpson did not advocated clunkers. They both had backgrounds in art, and followed Ruskin's ideas about imperfection being an important element of great art, and also an important element of nature. They called it attractive discord. In their eclectic 18 or ideal golf course, they illustrated what they meant by including the Alps at Prestwick as their one thoroughly amusing bad hole. Bad in the sense that it was unconventional, but not that it was a clunker. They also advocated introducing another hole open to criticism - the 16th hole at Westward Ho! - a semi-blind one-shot hole. I don't believe it that difficult to understand. When Simpson wrote about the new Turnberry (posted a few weeks ago),  he said the course was thoroughly well designed but he wasn't sure if he liked it because he preferred the mad masterpiece.

[Kyle Harris]

#14 at Cuscowilla is not my cup of tea, however, the course remains a favorite.

Most who don't like one of the holes at Cuscowilla mention #13, I've always thought #14 is a good solid par 4 with a wonderful green.  What don't you like about it, Mark?

Or maybe you were thinking of #13!    Which I happen to like, the challenge of those cross bunkers at the bottom of the hill is daunting.

Bill,

I love the Par 4 13th hole.  I am referring to #14, the 600 yard Par 5 with a tree in the fairway and the bunkers in the hill.  The green on 14 is fine, I the rest of the hole that I don't get.  It is basically a Par 6 for me. 

So go practice and make it a Par 5.

[Mark Pritchett]

#14 at Cuscowilla is not my cup of tea, however, the course remains a favorite.

Most who don't like one of the holes at Cuscowilla mention #13, I've always thought #14 is a good solid par 4 with a wonderful green.  What don't you like about it, Mark?

Or maybe you were thinking of #13!    Which I happen to like, the challenge of those cross bunkers at the bottom of the hill is daunting.

Bill,

I love the Par 4 13th hole.  I am referring to #14, the 600 yard Par 5 with a tree in the fairway and the bunkers in the hill.  The green on 14 is fine, I the rest of the hole that I don't get.  It is basically a Par 6 for me.  

So go practice and make it a Par 5.

Now that's pure genius, yawn.  

[BCrosby]

Kyle/Tom -

Call these holes "defects" or call them "indifferent" (Simpson's terms) or call them"mediocre" or whatever, it doesn't matter much. Why would you design 17 great holes when you could as easily design 18?

I understand that Ruskin and Simpson advocated imperfection in art. The question is whether that makes sense in the context of gca.

I think Kyle comes closest to a justification. You want to lower the intensity on some holes. Breather/indifferent holes create their own special pressure on a player to take advantage of them.

More esoteric explanations that such imperfections somehow evoke nature or are charmingly discordant seem to me nothing more than, well....esoteric. 

Bob 

[David Kelly]

I have never liked #15 at Rustic Canyon from the time I first saw it.  I think the penalty for missing the green is too severe.  Miss the green by a matter of a few feet on the left and you are staring at the strong possibility of an unplayable lie or  lost ball.  If you are long or long and right there is almost no way to hold the green coming back.  As for the green itself I think it is out of character with the rest of the course.

I am also not a fan of #7 v. 2.0.  which I think is very awkward.

Every other hole on the course I endorse 100%.

[Kyle Harris]

#14 at Cuscowilla is not my cup of tea, however, the course remains a favorite.

Most who don't like one of the holes at Cuscowilla mention #13, I've always thought #14 is a good solid par 4 with a wonderful green.  What don't you like about it, Mark?

Or maybe you were thinking of #13!    Which I happen to like, the challenge of those cross bunkers at the bottom of the hill is daunting.

Bill,

I love the Par 4 13th hole.  I am referring to #14, the 600 yard Par 5 with a tree in the fairway and the bunkers in the hill.  The green on 14 is fine, I the rest of the hole that I don't get.  It is basically a Par 6 for me.  

So go practice and make it a Par 5.

Now that's pure genius, yawn.  

Mark,

Actually that's the crux of the game. The hole is posing a question you don't have the skill to answer yet.

Do you:

A: Practice and develop a method to overcome those difficulties and score better on it?

or

B: Claim that you don't get the hole or it's not your cup of tea and then seek to change the hole to suit your inabilities...

[Tim Bert]

Whistling Straits #5 gets a lot of attention on these type threads. I have read the reason for its existence on this discussion forum, which is fine, but the justification doesn't make it not a bad hole. Completely out of character with the course.

[Adrian_Stiff]

#17 @ Sawgrass...

That would be a very minority opinion. The 17th @ Sawgrass probably commands 75% of its green fee for that 1 hole.

[Jeff Tang]

#11 @ Merion, Chip? Can you articulate your justification for labeling it the worst?


The worst hole at Pebble is the new fifth.


What's the worst hole at Augusta?

Adam, can you explain why you consider the fifth at Pebble it weakest hole?  I've only played PB once, and it was with the new fifth so I don't have the benefit of being able to compare it to the original.  Is it weak compared to the old fifth, or does it stand on its own as being a weak hole?  I personally didn't have any problems with the hole, I thought it was demanding but I didn't think it was weak.  I'd appreciate your thoughts, thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()