Hardest Hole You Have Ever Played?

[John Mayhugh]

Jason,
You play the desert area as a hazard.  Not much fun is it?

[Jim Thornton]

Par 3 6th hole at PGA West Stadium Course.

From the blue tees, 223 yard (255 from black tees) forced carry over water to a shallow green with no bailout area.

Prevailing wind is crossing from left to right.

[Jon Wiggett]

For a muni I think the par 3 1st at Winterfields is up there. Anyone walking off the green with a decent score will feel themselves lucky. Anybody else ever played there?

[Sean_A]

PAGING MR ARBLE. I'll re-post my question.

I'm interested, Sean A, how you measure a difficult hole then, if par is moot?

How can even the most difficult sub-250yd hole be tougher than any hole measuring 500yd+ if the score expectation for their relative length isn't part of the equation?

Scott

I thought I answered this question.  For me, the really tough holes are the ones on which one can roll up a high number without really hitting a bad shot.  That means water and/or oob have to be seriously in play.  Holes like the 4th at Sandwich is only difficult for those that focus on par rather than trying to earn the best score using a sensible strategy to do so.  Jeepers, the 3th at Sandwich isn't even as hard as the par 5s at Sandwich.  Which also leads me to the otehr style of tough hole - par 5s or those on which I am not terribly disappointed with a 6.  

Measuring difficulty to par makes no sense to me.  Using this method, one could call a 475 yarder an easy 5 or hard 4, but the hole hasn't changed at all.  This is why I have been all eliminating par 5s for Open courses.  Folks can then be satisfied that a course "is tough" because guys are struggling to shoot par and therefore we don't need to create 7400 yard monsters.  A hole is either hard or not.  Par is only an indicator of what a pro, well not even pro anymore, more like a second tier amateur should score and therefore expect to score, on average.  Par has to be one of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in golf.  Truth be told, we would be a lot better off if the concept - or at least how we use the word, was never invented.  

This hole looks to be stupidly difficult.


Ciao

[Steve Lapper]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Hardest short hole ever created:

#9 at Myopia Hunt Club....120yds of sheer terror, and with a breeze north or 15mph....way too hard!!

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

On simply looking at photos alone you can come to that conclusion / 8th at Wolf Creek. Being there allows you to see a good bit more than what the angle of the photos provide. There's no substitute to playing a hole and seeing it firsthand.


John / Jason:

Let me point out what people keep harping upon -- most people would be best advised to play the hole from the 152-yard tee boxes. The next tee boxes are at 217 yards but I'll say this again -- only those who are true low single digit handicaps should be playing from those boxes. There is another box further back at 248 yards and only those at scratch or in the plus zone should be there.

One fuirther thing -- the hole does feature a major drop-off from tee-to-green -- on some days that will be countered by the prevailing SW winds which can get quite gusty at times. Without a major breeze against the player the shot is roughly a 190-200 yd club at most from the 217-markers.

I don't doubt the shot is intimidating as can be. Credit Dennis Rider for psyching out players when standing on the last two tee boxes.

But permit me to add a few other points left out by the two of you -- you can hit short of the green and be safe. There is also more room to the right than what you see -- the hill on that side blocks out more room on that side than one might believe.  One further thing -- the green is the size of Kansas -- plenty big -- it just appears smaller because it sits low in the canyon and there you see only a sliver of it when playing from the most rear two tee boxes.

Most players would be better served in playing the 8th at 152 and going on with their round. Especially if they are 10 or higher handicap types. Mixing and match tee boxes is not an unheard of situation.

If those folks persist and try the 217-yard marks then they have to hit a well-executed shot. Simple as that.

[John Mayhugh]

But permit me to add a few other points left out by the two of you -- you can hit short of the green and be safe. There is also more room to the right than what you see -- the hill on that side blocks out more room on that side than one might believe.  One further thing -- the green is the size of Kansas -- plenty big -- it just appears smaller because it sits low in the canyon and there you see only a sliver of it when playing from the most rear two tee boxes.

Hold on there, partner!  The green is the size of Kansas?  Are you sure about that?

The green is about 4800 square feet.  Decent size, but not what I would call huge.

The 8th green is 35 yards deep.  But the big problem with hitting it is this: starts out 20 yards wide in the front and it narrows to about 13 yards in the back. It's hard to take advantage of the wider area of the green since there's water right in front.

Also, while there may be more room to the right than you see, there are about 15 yards between the right side of the green and the cart path. Right of the cart path is the "environmentally sensitive" desert that also plays as a hazard.

[Steve Lang]

 

Third at Oak Tree...

http://www.oaktreenational.com/index.php/course/front9/14/

[Chris DeNigris]

While the 15th at BPB has to be one of the planet's toughest...10 holes earlier in the round is a 4 that's almost as brutal. I think it's a tougher drive than 15 and the approach is only slightly easier due to the shorter length of the hole. I've never parred it but it's still my favorite on the course.

Number 16 at Royal New Kent is wicked from the tips...or from the senior tees..

[RJ_Daley]

While I've played a few of the holes being mentioned, none of them more than a time or two.  So, compared to some holes I've played 100s of times that I believe are consistently hard in any weather conditions or wind, they aren't known generally to the group here.

So, my question would be, how many times should you play a particular hole in order to have an actual opinion on this topic?

I'd say, somewhere around 10 or > times playing the hole.  Now if some of you have played CPC16 that many times... well then go ahead and brand it the hardest. 

[James Boon]

Oh, just thought of another contender...

14th at Waterwood National in Texas. Off the back tees its almost 250 yards, all across water with the green sitting up ontop of the cliffs, with the water also to the left. A bunker right, with no real bail out area. A little easier from the daily tees, but from the back its a real killer!

Cheers,

James

[Scott Warren]

PAGING MR ARBLE. I'll re-post my question.

I'm interested, Sean A, how you measure a difficult hole then, if par is moot?

How can even the most difficult sub-250yd hole be tougher than any hole measuring 500yd+ if the score expectation for their relative length isn't part of the equation?

Scott

I thought I answered this question.  For me, the really tough holes are the ones on which one can roll up a high number without really hitting a bad shot.  That means water and/or oob have to be seriously in play.  Holes like the 4th at Sandwich is only difficult for those that focus on par rather than trying to earn the best score using a sensible strategy to do so.  Jeepers, the 3th at Sandwich isn't even as hard as the par 5s at Sandwich.  Which also leads me to the otehr style of tough hole - par 5s or those on which I am not terribly disappointed with a 6. 

Measuring difficulty to par makes no sense to me.  Using this method, one could call a 475 yarder an easy 5 or hard 4, but the hole hasn't changed at all.  This is why I have been all eliminating par 5s for Open courses.  Folks can then be satisfied that a course "is tough" because guys are struggling to shoot par and therefore we don't need to create 7400 yard monsters.  A hole is either hard or not.  Par is only an indicator of what a pro, well not even pro anymore, more like a second tier amateur should score and therefore expect to score, on average.  Par has to be one of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in golf.  Truth be told, we would be a lot better off if the concept - or at least how we use the word, was never invented. 
Ciao

I'm not sure you answered the question.

We have a 225yd hole where you can easily make 5.
We have a 347yd hole where you can easily make 6.
We have a 512yd hole where you can easily make 7.

Which is the most difficult?

If par/expected score has no bearing, it has to be the 512-yarder, doesn't it?

You talk about "the ones on which one can roll up a high number without really hitting a bad shot", but what is a high score? Surely to have a "high score", you have to have a score you would expect to make. Call it par, bogey, nett par - but my point is that a relative measure, based largely on length, is necessary for such a comparison to be made.

[Sean_A]

PAGING MR ARBLE. I'll re-post my question.

I'm interested, Sean A, how you measure a difficult hole then, if par is moot?

How can even the most difficult sub-250yd hole be tougher than any hole measuring 500yd+ if the score expectation for their relative length isn't part of the equation?

Scott

I thought I answered this question.  For me, the really tough holes are the ones on which one can roll up a high number without really hitting a bad shot.  That means water and/or oob have to be seriously in play.  Holes like the 4th at Sandwich is only difficult for those that focus on par rather than trying to earn the best score using a sensible strategy to do so.  Jeepers, the 3th at Sandwich isn't even as hard as the par 5s at Sandwich.  Which also leads me to the otehr style of tough hole - par 5s or those on which I am not terribly disappointed with a 6. 

Measuring difficulty to par makes no sense to me.  Using this method, one could call a 475 yarder an easy 5 or hard 4, but the hole hasn't changed at all.  This is why I have been all eliminating par 5s for Open courses.  Folks can then be satisfied that a course "is tough" because guys are struggling to shoot par and therefore we don't need to create 7400 yard monsters.  A hole is either hard or not.  Par is only an indicator of what a pro, well not even pro anymore, more like a second tier amateur should score and therefore expect to score, on average.  Par has to be one of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in golf.  Truth be told, we would be a lot better off if the concept - or at least how we use the word, was never invented. 
Ciao

I'm not sure you answered the question.

We have a 225yd hole where you can easily make 5.
We have a 347yd hole where you can easily make 6.
We have a 512yd hole where you can easily make 7.

Which is the most difficult?

If par/expected score has no bearing, it has to be the 512-yarder, doesn't it?

You talk about "the ones on which one can roll up a high number without really hitting a bad shot", but what is a high score? Surely to have a "high score", you have to have a score you would expect to make. Call it par, bogey, nett par - but my point is that a relative measure, based largely on length, is necessary for such a comparison to be made.

Scott

All things being equal, yes, longer holes are harder.  Is that surprising?

A high score is different for everyone.  I NEVER feel too bad about a bogey if I am standing on the tee.  Often times I don't feel bad about a double.  Expectations change after successive shots. 

You still haven't gotten round the deal of calling a 475 yarder or par 4 or 5.  How has the hole changed if its is a par 4 or 5?  I submit that difficulty often lies with one's expectations.  Alter the expectation and suddenly holes might seem easier or harder.  Which makes sense, because par was never intended to be any sort of measure of proficiency for the vast majority of players. 

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

I'm with you on thinking par is over-rated, over used and, sadly, over here.

But putting a subjective label on a half-par hole and finding a way to caompare the challenge of two holes with wildly differing distances are pretty different things, IMO.

[Paul Jones]

9th Hole at Muirfield.  I played it 3 times in a row (late in the day and no else was on the course) and could not par the dang hole.

Paul, here we go again, did you play it as a par 5 (medal tee) or par 4 (yellow visitor tee)?  If you can avoid the OB left and hay right and fairway bunkers, it's an easy 5 and very difficult 4.

Bill, we played it as a Par 4 in 2001, I assume it was the visitor tee. That is what was on the score card.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Allow me to respond to your last post / re: 8th at Wolf Creek.

John, the green is much bigger than you think -- plenty of room to handle just about any type of shot that is well-played. Do you expect half-ass shots to get the royal treatment ?

In regards to the H20 -- it's more left than anything else. You have sufficient room to the right -- the issue, which you seem to have missed, and which I outlined previously, is the manner by which the green sits out of view from the 217-yard tees and as a result can cause players to flinch when trying to hit something they cannot fully see.

A great way to appreciate that is to play the hole from the 150-yd marks. Very simple shot to a green in total view.

John, I don't doubt the hole is tough -- that's why I mentioned it, but if you are looking for sympathy from me because people are psyched out before they pull the trigger then that's part of the mental hurdles one must overcome.

Play the hole at the 150-yard marks and it's a far different hole. When you play at the 217-yard markers you need to a solid shot -- as I said the net effective length -- without a prevailing headwind is in the 190-200 yard range.

[John Mayhugh]

Matt,
I don't know what you mean when you say the green is "bigger than you think."  I think the green is about 4,800 square feet.  Are you saying that it's bigger than that?  Or do you mean that the green is larger than is perceptible from the tee? 

Earlier, you stated that the green was "the size of Kansas."  That's one silly assertion that you tried to use to discredit people who don't love the hole the way you do.  Yet you're easily proven wrong. 

Just to clear things up for you:
1.  I agree that the green has "plenty of room to handle just about any type of shot that is well-played."  Doesn't most every green handle well played shots? 

2.  I do not expect "half-ass shots to get the royal treatment."  Nice job of coming up with an outrageous interpretation of what I posted.  What, in your vast experience, differentiates "the royal treatment" from being able to play a conservative tee shot and avoid a penalty stroke?

3.  I did not "miss" the "manner in which the green sits out of view."  I noted that there is more room to the right than the player sees, but there's not a whole lot of room.  There are around 15 yards between the right side of the green and the cart path.  The photo below shows that.  Worth noting that the slope does help contain shots missed the right, but also can move shorter ones left into the hazard.  The ground also slopes down toward the hazard long. 


As mentioned before, the green is about 4800 square feet.  The area between the green and cart path is about 4000 square feet. 


4.  My post was factual and designed to clear up any misunderstanding others might have by reading your description of the hole.  Facts, partner, facts.  None of which you have actually disputed.

5.  You mean the hole plays easier from 150 than 217?  No kidding?  Wow, thanks Matt for educating poor saps like me who would never have guessed that an approach shot with 6 less clubs plays easier. 

6.  I sure as hell don't want any sympathy from you.  You contend that less skilled golfers should play from the 150 yard tees (mix & match).  Does the scorecard or yardage book recommend this?  Does the starter suggest it?  How should people in a first time play situation know to do this?  Is it a characteristic of good design to include this necessity?

[Sean_A]

I'm with you on thinking par is over-rated, over used and, sadly, over here.

But putting a subjective label on a half-par hole and finding a way to caompare the challenge of two holes with wildly differing distances are pretty different things, IMO.

SCott

You are missing my point.  The entire idea of "par" is subjective AND mis-applied.  However, it doesn't bother me at all folks choose to compare holes based on par or probably more accurately, scoring average to par, but its a meaningless comparison imo.

Matt

"On simply looking at photos alone you can come to that conclusion / 8th at Wolf Creek. Being there allows you to see a good bit more than what the angle of the photos provide. There's no substitute to playing a hole and seeing it firsthand."

Go back and look at my post.  You will find the word "looks" in it.  You are right about first-hand knowledge though.  Fortunately, the world is a big place and I am compelled to use less than ideal means to make decisions on where I want to play.  Pix like the 8th of Black Mesa do not encourage me to make the trip because it leads me to wonder if much of the course is of this penal style which happens to not be my sort of golf.  That in no way suggests that it is inferior or not ideal - only that I don't care for it.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

I'm getting your point, I think. I may just be disagreeing. can you answer me this.

How do you personally decide which is more difficult out of a tough 212yd hole and a tough 520yd hole?

[Sean_A]

I'm getting your point, I think. I may just be disagreeing. can you answer me this.

How do you personally decide which is more difficult out of a tough 212yd hole and a tough 520yd hole?

Scott

It depends on the holes.  Looking at Black Mesa's 8th compared to some 520 par 5s, I would say there might not be much in it.  The 8th could be seen as 4+ hole just as a 520 yard par 5 could be seen as a 4+ hole.  This doesn't only hold weight with these crazy hazard holes, but think of situations where there are large hills or significant wind.  It isn't often the case, but sometimes much lesser yardage holes can be tougher with no significant hazards in place.  I can recall thinking that at Rye, in a decent wind, the 9th (playing into the wind) could be easier than the 7th (downwind).  Yet we are talking about a hole which most people can't drive into the wind (its a large hit!) and a hole which many could reach with a 7 iron downwind.  This is the sort of architecture which keeps me interested in the game.  Its great stuff when "normal expectations" are exposed for the fraud they really are.  I know if I were to design a course this is one aspect of the game I would attack as part of the larger picture of length.  I would be looking to build a short course which throws the expectations of par and a prescribed USGA length on the garbage heap where they belong.

Ciao

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Lets start again shall we. The target is more than ample to handle a well-played shot -- there are no gimmicks or added tiers or sections that are tough to access. The problem is one of eye-ball intimidation provided by the fact that the target sits below in the canyon and is not fully seen when playing from the rear two tee areas. In the event you missed my earlier recommendation -- I see no reason why players who are in the mid-to-high handicap range should not use the 152-yard tee marks if they feel over-matched by the next tee pad.
 
I don't see the green being unfair -- I see it as a clever way for the architect to instill some good ole fear before any player pulls the trigger on their tee shot. John, allow me to rephrase -- do you NEED green the size of Kansas to hit such a shot ? Unfortunately, too many mid-to-high handicap types often bemoan long par-3's because they don't have a capacity / club to play such holes. Easier to discredit the hole than to look inwards and say one needs to really deliver the goods when called upon.

John, glad you can clear things up for me. I've only played the hole about ten times. I appreciate you adding to my awareness. Maybe I can do likewise for you. Maybe you need to spell out your personal handicap. Wolf Creek sports a very high slope and those who venture to the 217-yard markers should be very skilled players. No harm in moving up to the next tee box if you don't have the skill for the back two tee pads don't you think? Might it be that it's not the hole but overzealous players who push themselves beyond their own limitations?

There is a conservative play for the hole -- you can play short and have a very simple pitch shot to the hole. Let me point out that you are hitting from a very elevated tee and the effective distance to the target is not 217-yards but somewhere in the 190-200 range. The only thing that can change that is getting a stiff prevailing SW winds in your face.

John, I have outlined the facts of the hole and how players should make the necessary adjustments to play specific tee boxes to suit their games and what respective holes call for. John, you keep on harping about the room to the right -- yes, there is rougly 15 or so yards ... again, how much MORE room would you like? Allow me to point out that often times there are players -- maybe you are one of them -- who erroneously believe that a lay-up area should be a simple deal to access. I don't see it that way -- there are various plays in dealing with the 8th hole -- ether to the green or short of it requires some thought and solid execution all the way around.

John, last point -- when any player comes to a Wolf Creek the sheer demands of the course are self-evident unless the people coming to that course have been in a cave. The slopefrom the tip tees, is among the highest in the nation -- if memory serves, the slope at Wolf Creek is among the top five in the world.The personnel do advise players to play with their enjoyment in mind. Unfortunately, too many people bite off considerably more than their games can chew. Mixing and matching tees is not uncommon as you might believe. In fac, it's the prudent thing to do. for the respective player and th egroups that follow.

In regards to your last point -- those who go to Wolf Creek would be served by judging each hole accordingly and making whatever tee adjustments they believe is good for them. Simple understanding of one's limitations will only add to one's overall enjoyment. I know if a person or group speaks to course personnel they can advise accordingly, -- no less than ski persoonel can advise skiiers which double-diamond hills to avoid.
 


 

[John Mayhugh]

Matt,
You originally posted that the 8th green at Wolf Creek is the size of Kansas.  I messed up your exaggeration with actual measurements.  Rather than address your misleading statement, you just try a different argument.  What's the point of having discussion if you don't stand by and support what you wrote?

My handicap index is a shade under 9.  I've played the hole twice, both times from the tee that you would disqualify me from using.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I corrected myself in a previous post -- did you not see it or read it ?

John, I stated that the right side provides sufficient landing area as a possible lay-up. If you need something akin to the size of Kansas to land it there then frankly you should play from the 150-yard tee boxes instead. The green is also big enough to handle any well-played shot and I went further to point out that the green is devoid of any irregular tiers or other elements that would cause such a ball upon landing to run-off into such surrounding trouble.

I also wrote in great detail a number of other points in my previous post which you have either failed to comprehend or simply chose to ignore. What's the point in writing in great detail in response if you can't take the time to absorb the comments without firing back my way again and again?

John, you can play from any tee you want. That's your call ... I simply said -- which you seem to always forget -- is that Wolf Creek is much more than your standard course with a slope factor that goes off the charts. At the 8th hole players need to really size up their respective games and determine if they can handle the intensity it mandates. I simply said the 150-yard marks might be more appropriate for the bulk of many players -- I didn't "disqualify" you from playing the 217-yard marks but I also added a number of related points that you simply ignored --- to answer your own question -- "What's the point of having a discussion" -- if you are not able to admit certain points made by me as well.

[John Mayhugh]

I corrected myself in a previous post -- did you not see it or read it ?

Please show where you corrected yourself.  I cannot find it. 

[Matt_Ward]

John:

The 8th green is big -- is it the literal size of Kansas -- No. You make it sound like the green there is akin to Troon's postage stamp hole. There's sufficient landing area -- and one can even hit it short and pitch on from that vantage point. In my earlier post -- it's there if your eyes are open -- you will see that I also mentioned -- which you failed to acknowledge -- that the alternative landing area is plenty big enough for those who opt in that manner -- you said it was only 15 or so yards -- my retort was a simple one -- do you need such an alternative landing area the size of Kansas?

John, if you want a discussion try to learn the art of give and take. Those who only seek to others to give won't have much real back and forth discussion that can lead to possibly some mutually shared points of agreement.

Wolf Creek is a very demanding course -- with several holes of immense demands and pity the poor player who can't control the long shot -- those that are 200+. The 8th is v-e-r-y demanding -- having the bulk of such players opt for the more forward tee is the most prudent thing people can do for their own sake and for the rest of the players playing that day. Staff personnel make it a point to reinforce this point for those who have their ears open.