[Marty Bonnar]

(Plagiarising HUGELY from our own Mark Rowlinson of course!)

I just got back from a(nother) marvellous weekend playing in the Captain's Invitational at RDGC. Huge thanks to the Dodds, as always and well done, Big Fella!

Anyway, over severeal glasses of wine, I came to the conclusion that there are two holes out there which are unfortunately ugly-sistered by the other 16 more beautiful, more scenic, more playable sorority members. They're certainly not BAD holes, just made to appear the wallflowers in comparison.

For a bit of fun and in the hopes of having a thread stay on page 1 for more than five minutes, I'll keep the actual #'s to myself for the moment. Anyone care to guess which they might be (and why?)

FBD.

[Scott Warren]

7 and 16?

[Marty Bonnar]

(and why?)

 
FBD.

[Brad Klein]

No. 7 at RDGC, one of the post-WWII holes, is on the most boring, flat ground out there,with a big, uninteresting green, heavier meadow soils under the fairway, and is set back too far from the edge of the cliff. If it were shifted 25 yards to the right and the gorse on that side cut down at least you'd get a great hilltop view of the rest of the course and of the water and hills to the north; enough to make you overlook how boring that hole would probably still be from tee to green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Number 7 for the reasons Brad described.

Number 17 for the silly tee shot.  Clear out the gorse at the bottom of the hill so that there is some place down the hill where you can drive to.


There, you're still on page 1, for the moment.   

[Gary Slatter]

just to keep you current Marty,
I would think 7 was my least favourite and Brad is right about how good it could be if it was a bit right closer to the rest of the course.  However, I can't put my finger on the other weak hole as I think back..........I thought 17 was fun.

[Bryan Izatt]

Gary,

I like the second half of 17, it is a fun shot and green.  But any drive over the ridge ended up in the rough, or worse, the gorse on the other side of the fairway.  How does the pro play it to have fun?

[JNC Lyon]

Bryan,

Maybe long hitters should try hitting something less than a driver.  Not every par four needs to allow you to the big stick with no fear of retribution.  I am not a long hitter by any means, but I comfortably hit 3-wood--7-iron into 17.  The hole is not about length at all, and there is plenty of room for those who lay back.

17 was my favorite hole at Royal Dornoch.  The tee shot is funky, but there is plenty of room out there to miss.  The drop-off presents multiple options to the player, and the blind aspect of the tee shot makes it fun.  The second shot is also fun, uphill and blind to a wild green.  This green was one of my favorites on the course.  Is the 17th particularly strategic? No, but it is lots of fun.

16 is also very neat for its strategy: flirt with the cliff and quarry on the left, and you will have the best angle into the green.  I was a fan.

I think the 7th is the weakest hole on the course by a good margin.  However, the green is far from uninteresting, and the hole is not poor by any standard.

I don't think the "16 Hole Course" moniker works at Dornoch.  RDGC is solid from start to finish.  Every green is full of interest and keeps the golfer the honest.

[Scott Warren]

Bryan, how long since you played at Dornoch?

The reason I ask is that there has been some gorse removal in the driving zone of 17, but I am not sure if you're thinking of the hole before that or whether you are aware of that and think even more needs to go.

[David_Tepper]

Bryan, Scott & JNC -

The gorse on #17 (and elsewhere on the course) was trimmed/removed/cutback over the 2008-2009 winter. There is a good 5 yards more of grass/rough width on the far (right) side of the lower fairway landing area than there used to be.  In addition, the upper fairway is a good 5-10 yards wider (on both sides) in the first 100 yards off the tee than it used to be.

DT 

[Gary Slatter]

Gary,

I like the second half of 17, it is a fun shot and green.  But any drive over the ridge ended up in the rough, or worse, the gorse on the other side of the fairway.  How does the pro play it to have fun?

I hit an iron beside the bunker left then floated a 6 iron onto the fun green.  The second time I was in the bunker and hit the same club onto the green, just like Rich told me to!  He drove over the hill but into the fairway, a draw if I recall. 

[Anthony Gray]

  3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths,much like pinehurst. 6 is forced into the bank. After that the course gets stronger. I love the opener and the 2nd is cool but unnatural. I know people love it, but to the south are two courses that have more variety.

    Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

I understand #14 has no bunkers. Best drop it from the rest along with the concensus #7.

[Bryan Izatt]

JNC,

I hit 3 iron.  Perhaps the course was hot and fast the days I was there.  Or, maybe I needed to draw it over the hill.  Or, play it to the top of the ridge like Gary, although his 6 iron in might be my 4 iron.

David,

I was there in July 2009.  The gorse removal you mentioned was completed although the cleared area wasn't really all that playable, as I recall.  More like GUR.

[Scott Warren]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

I didn't think the second shots on the three holes possessed any resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

[David_Tepper]

Bryan -

The G.U.R. area you saw on the far side of the landing area is now grown in as rough and is in play. There is considerably more room there than there used to be.

Prior to the removal of the gorse, you had to be very careful to make sure your tee shot did not run thru the lower fairway into the gorse. Unless the wind was into your face, hitting driver off #17 tee was a risky proposition.

DT

[Anthony Gray]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

The second shots on the three holes bear almost no resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

  It's the same land. Fairwayway slopes left to right with tee on the hillside. Same tee ball. Trouble on left on all three. just different length 2nd shots. Your playing of the slope of the ridge on all three holes. Same land contour.

  Anthony

[Scott Warren]

And completely different greens?

Different driving hazard at the 4th (the rough fingers in place of bunkers)?

Flatter fairway at the 5th?

[Niall C]

Marty

Interesting that our transatlantic cousins have gone for number 6 because it doesn't have a view. I take Brads point about the soil maybe not as good as below but the green contours rightly make it a good hole and a tricky one to play. I'm going to guess that no. 6 isn't one of your two ugly sisters proving that Scots don't necessarily look at the mantlepiece when there poking the fire if you know what I mean.

Actually, I've just reread your post stating that the other 16 are more scenic so probabaly wrong on that front. The other one I would guess might be no 18 which seems to me a bit of a slog any time I've played it.

Niall

[Bill_McBride]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

I didn't think the second shots on the three holes possessed any resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

I thought 3 and 4 were more similar to each other than 5, which had a completely different green complex and playing of the hole.

I have an interesting memory of #5, played it 3 times and all 3 times tugged a short iron into that grassy hollow left center of the green and two putted out of it for a par.

[JNC Lyon]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

I didn't think the second shots on the three holes possessed any resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

I thought 3 and 4 were more similar to each other than 5, which had a completely different green complex and playing of the hole.

I have an interesting memory of #5, played it 3 times and all 3 times tugged a short iron into that grassy hollow left center of the green and two putted out of it for a par.

3 and 4 have completely opposite tee-shot strategies.  After playing the 3rd, I realized the best angle into the green is from the right side, near the bunkers.  On the 4th, the golfer needs to keep to the high left side of the fairway for the best approach to the green.  4 and 5 are completely different holes as well.  5 requires an aerial approach, while the approach at 4 is all about the ground game.

There are plenty of differences that I do not even need to go into.  The argument that "they are the same hole just different lengths" is incredibly simplistic. In fact, it makes me wonder if you even played the course, because one play is enough to see that these holes are very different from each other.

[Anthony Gray]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

I didn't think the second shots on the three holes possessed any resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

I thought 3 and 4 were more similar to each other than 5, which had a completely different green complex and playing of the hole.

I have an interesting memory of #5, played it 3 times and all 3 times tugged a short iron into that grassy hollow left center of the green and two putted out of it for a par.

3 and 4 have completely opposite tee-shot strategies.  After playing the 3rd, I realized the best angle into the green is from the right side, near the bunkers.  On the 4th, the golfer needs to keep to the high left side of the fairway for the best approach to the green.  4 and 5 are completely different holes as well.  5 requires an aerial approach, while the approach at 4 is all about the ground game.

There are plenty of differences that I do not even need to go into.  The argument that "they are the same hole just different lengths" is incredibly simplistic. In fact, it makes me wonder if you even played the course, because one play is enough to see that these holes are very different from each other.

 Just must not get it. It is the Pinehurst of Scotland.

  Anthony

[JNC Lyon]

3,4 and  5 are the same hole just different lengths

I'd read that elsewhere here before I went. I can't understand that argument for a second. Can you elaborate on that to explain why you feel that way?

I didn't think the second shots on the three holes possessed any resemblance to each other, not to mention the differences on the drives.

I thought 3 and 4 were more similar to each other than 5, which had a completely different green complex and playing of the hole.

I have an interesting memory of #5, played it 3 times and all 3 times tugged a short iron into that grassy hollow left center of the green and two putted out of it for a par.

3 and 4 have completely opposite tee-shot strategies.  After playing the 3rd, I realized the best angle into the green is from the right side, near the bunkers.  On the 4th, the golfer needs to keep to the high left side of the fairway for the best approach to the green.  4 and 5 are completely different holes as well.  5 requires an aerial approach, while the approach at 4 is all about the ground game.

There are plenty of differences that I do not even need to go into.  The argument that "they are the same hole just different lengths" is incredibly simplistic. In fact, it makes me wonder if you even played the course, because one play is enough to see that these holes are very different from each other.

 Just must not get it. It is the Pinehurst of Scotland.

  Anthony

Is it, though? I feel like many people play it once and absolutely love it.  I know my Dad and I did.  I gather that Pinehurst doesn't have that same effect.  That being said, I feel like I missed so much there--I have to return sooner rather than later.

[Anthony Gray]

  I think the lay of the land for holes 3,4 and five is very similiar to Cruden Bay hole 2. I'll take Cruden Bay.

  Anthony

[Michael Whitaker]

Marty

Interesting that our transatlantic cousins have gone for number 6 because it doesn't have a view. I take Brads point about the soil maybe not as good as below but the green contours rightly make it a good hole and a tricky one to play. I'm going to guess that no. 6 isn't one of your two ugly sisters proving that Scots don't necessarily look at the mantlepiece when there poking the fire if you know what I mean.

Actually, I've just reread your post stating that the other 16 are more scenic so probabaly wrong on that front. The other one I would guess might be no 18 which seems to me a bit of a slog any time I've played it.

Niall

Niall - I think you mean #7.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()