[Kevin Pallier]

Mac

I would have thought # 7 at the least would replace # 3 at Pebble ?

Nothing wrong with # 16 at Pasatiempo - a very challenging greensite ?

[Mac Plumart]

Kevin...

Your post touches on why I posted my questions.

Mackenzie says those holes I mentioned are the best on those courses and among the finest in the world.  But I don't hear many people talk about some of them. 

3 at Pebble?  Now, I haven't played it...but I've never heard people rave about it.  16 at Pasatiempo...I've never heard it mentioned as a truly great hole.  But Mackenzie thought they were.  It sounds to me like they are worthy of study to learn why an all-time great architect loves them, but most people don't rave about them.  Have they been altered?  Do people simply over look them?  Are they too subtle to appreciate?  Etc.

Any further comments are very welcome.

[Jordan Wall]

I am curious to people's opinions who've played Pebble Beach and Pasatiempo.

On Pebble, would anyone argue against holes 3, 8, and 18 as being the best holes on that course?

Yes.  3 is not the best hole, on the contrary one of the worst.  8 and 18 speak for themselves.

On Pasatiempo, does anyone have any thoughts concerning 16?

Yes.  It's a great hole.  Crazy green.  Pictures don't do it justice.

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting stuff for sure.

I pulled up a thread from about a year ago where you all discussed the 3rd at Pebble.  From the discussion, it certainly does seem like this hole is/was excellent.  It sounds like you have to plan your entire approach to playing the hole prior to hitting your tee shot and then, of course, execute your plan.  Good stuff!

What's the Max Behr quote...something like...good architecture means giving the golfer a reason for each and every shot.  I think I am close on that quote, but I don't quite have it correct.

[John Moore II]

I have to ask this; is there really such a thing as an "ideal" hole? I mean, would this hole be ideal if it were in a different part of the course? Its all relative, I think. Some holes are good but don't 'fit' on the course where they are, others fit, but aren't all that good; rarely are holes great and fit in the routing but that doesn't necessarily make they "ideal." That is a relative idea and also depends on the opinion of the viewer/player by my thinking.

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I suppose.  I am using Dr. Mackenzie's reasoning behind an ideal hole.  I am no expert, but I am trusting the experts during my learning process.

If you have more thoughts on the subject, I am all ears.

To your point about it being relative and fitting the routing etc...I find it interesting that most people say 7 is one of the best holes at Pebble, but not Dr. Mackenzie.  Why do people say 7?  The view perhaps.  But not Dr. Mackenzie.  He further goes on to state that if the course/holes aren't top notch (perhaps insert ideal) a golfer will loose interest in them over time.  If they are top notch (ideal), a golfer can play them forever and will still be interested to play them again.  Think St. Andrews, Pine Valley, etc.

This is why I am interested in learning about them.  Many time I have played a hole or a course and thought it was wonderul, but lost interest in in over time.  But the reverse is true as well.  Frankly, 15 at BDR Quarry was "eh" for me the first time I played it...but I can't get it out of my mind now...12 at East Lake, the redan at Lookout Mountain...are the same.

I am intersted in why that is.  What do these holes offer that keep them intersesting throughout time?

[John Moore II]

I have never played Pebble Beach, so I am not going to comment about any of those holes.

But I am not certain I agree about courses/holes having to be "top notch" in order to be interesting over time. I have played many courses that I would consider average at best, yet I played them very often and always enjoyed myself. Interesting doesn't always mean great. I'll use the course Oak Hollow in High Point, NC. Its far from great, though I think I could enjoy playing it very often because it is interesting and varied.

But I see your point about either gaining or losing interest in a course after repeated plays. Like I said before, "ideal" and interest are all in the eye of the individual. I may like something that you don't and you may like something that I don't. Thats my simple opinion.

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I agree with you.  If a course/hole interests me again and again, it is ideal for me.  And I think that is what you are saying...and again, I agree.

I am simply reading Mackenzie right now and attempting to learn from him and along the way ask questions on the site to clarify or bolster the ideas he is presenting. 

[Ronald Montesano]

John,
If memory serves, that's an early Pete Dye course, right?  I played it once while at Wake Forest and enjoyed it, even though the sixth green was closed for some repair.

[Jordan Wall]

Interesting stuff for sure.

I pulled up a thread from about a year ago where you all discussed the 3rd at Pebble.  From the discussion, it certainly does seem like this hole is/was excellent.  It sounds like you have to plan your entire approach to playing the hole prior to hitting your tee shot and then, of course, execute your plan.  Good stuff!

What's the Max Behr quote...something like...good architecture means giving the golfer a reason for each and every shot.  I think I am close on that quote, but I don't quite have it correct.

Mac,

The third is a very unique hole.  I find it very hard to hit the fairway, even with a nice drive.  At least in the summer, many drives seemed to run straight through the fairway.  The approach is from a right to left lie to a green that calls for a right to left shot.  It's just really unique.  I don't know how I feel about the recently added bunkers either.  I'm not sure it really made the hole any better, though admittedly I haven't ever seen the hole without them.  Also, one of the worst holes at Pebble doesn't make it a bad hole - it is one of the best courses in the world.

I almost responed to your first thread on what to look for when evaluating courses.  I typed out this long post but didn't post it because I was just saying so much when it can be all summed up in this - if you enjoy the golf hole, it is a good hole.  Chances are, it's also good architecturally because you tend to enjoy holes that offer strategy and diversity.  There should be no criteria to evaluate architecture.  It is just purely enjoyed.  When there is great architecture, it is great simply because it IS.  You just know when it's there, I can't really explain it.  Does that make sense?

I don't feel there is an 'ideal' golf hole.  Ideal means it is the best, and unless golf courses were designed on the same piece of land there cannot be one ideal golf hole.  The 'ideal' hole at Pasatiempo is much different than the 'ideal' hole at Pebble.

I am hoping this makes sense?

Please let me know if you have more questions.  I have given your threads some good thought and would be happy to do my best to address your questions as well as possible.

Just remember, if you enjoy it, it's good.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff guys!!

Jordan...I really like your thoughts.  Tom Paul mentioned to me that I should concentrate on how a hole (or a course) makes me "feel" and then try to think about what specifically about it made me "feel" that way.  Your comments echo that sentiment.  This is my main focus when I am playing golf...yeah, I know...many of my playing partners think I am weird as their main focus is their score...but hey that is what makes the world go round.

Here is why I am reading and studying so much.  Not all of the courses I play will I have the opportunity to play more than just a few times.  So, I want to learn as much as I can in order to avoid making mistakes in judgements by getting overwhelmed by a gimmick and, therefore, overlooking the subtlties of great golf holes/courses.  If I played a course over and over, I would be able to pick up on these things but with one play it will be more difficult.

The biggest example of this type of study is centered on the Old Course.  I am going in May/June 2011.  I've heard that you can't appreciate it with just one play.  So, I am trying to do all that I can regarding knowledge of it and golf course architecture in general to be able to maximize my chances of "getting it".  The same can be said for any real gem I might be set to play.

To all...thanks for bearing with me.  I have passion for this stuff and, as I've said before, I am not afriad to ask the dumb question if it leads to a better understanding of the game.

Later...I'm off to hit the little white ball!

[John Moore II]

John,
If memory serves, that's an early Pete Dye course, right?  I played it once while at Wake Forest and enjoyed it, even though the sixth green was closed for some repair.

Yes, Oak Hollow is Pete Dye. And highly enjoyable to play.


To Mac: Study all you will, but just remember that greatness in a golf course is within your own eyes and feelings and not always what others say is great.

[Kevin Pallier]

....remember that greatness in a golf course is within your own eyes and feelings and not always what others say....

Well said John

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()