[Ryan Taylor]

Call me crazy but I prefer an 18th hole that leaves a good taste in your mouth versus brute strength / accuracy. #18 at Inverness comes to mind.

[Rory Connaughton]

Mark

  My thoughts exactly on Stonewall.  Down hill side hill lie from the fairway to a green set at a left to right angle with a field of bunkers extending from the right side of the green back.  Makes 18 at LCC look easy

[Matt Waterbury]

My home course finishes with three par 4s that are moderately long (461, 422, and 483) ...

Sigh.

What's a moderately long par-5 nowadays? 650?

An interesting question. But really hits at the concept of par. It is not the fact that they are par 4s that make the holes difficult.

If I had said "My home course finishes with three par 5s that are ridiculously short (461, 422 and 482)..." would that change things? How about "My home course finishes with three par 3s that are ridiculously long (461, 422, and 482)..."? It would have no impact on the score carded by anyone who has ever played the course. I would still shoot whatever I shoot, and so would everyone else.

The holes are challenging golf holes because if you play well you will get the little white ball in the hole in a lot fewer strokes than if you play poorly.

Cheers,
Matt

[Dan Kelly]

An interesting question. But really hits at the concept of par. It is not the fact that they are par 4s that make the holes difficult.

If I had said "My home course finishes with three par 5s that are ridiculously short (461, 422 and 482)..." would that change things? How about "My home course finishes with three par 3s that are ridiculously long (461, 422, and 482)..."? It would have no impact on the score carded by anyone who has ever played the course. I would still shoot whatever I shoot, and so would everyone else.

The holes are challenging golf holes because if you play well you will get the little white ball in the hole in a lot fewer strokes than if you play poorly.

Points well-taken, Matt.

(My only real point was: 483 never was, and never will be, a "moderately long" par-4 for me, or for almost anyone I play with -- unless it were 483 yards off a cliff!)

My answer would be: Yes, "par" does change things! Of course it does. A 483-yard par-4 is different from a 483-yard par-5. How could it not be?

I'll put this as simply as I can: The par tells me what "success" (or, possibly a better word: competence) on the hole requires.

And furthermore: I don't believe that you would play a 483-yard par-5 the same as you'd play a 483-yard par-4, if you played it 50 times (number out of thin air; 10 times, maybe).

And I don't believe your score would be the same over those 50 playings.

 

[Richard Crumb]

I don't think that the difficulty of the finishing hole makes much of a difference in medal play.  You're going to have to play the tough holes at some point in the round and the order shouldn't make a much of a difference if you're trying to put up a score. Of course making a double to end a good round is never very satisfying.  I do think that having a super tough last hole is a problem in match play because you are most likely going to be giving or getting a stroke. It's unsatisfying to play a tough hole well and lose (or halve) a match because you have to give away a shot.  Getting a shot on the last is slightly more enjoyable but still doesn't quite feel right.  I like the way a course like Yeamans finishes with a par 3, a par 4 and a par 5, none of which are pushovers, but as the 10, 8 and 14 handicap holes, strokes are unlikely to be given or received.  All in all, not a fan of a hard finishing hole.

[Anthony Gray]

I am proud to have built none of the holes in this list.  I don't think a ridiculously hard finishing hole is a great thing, so I will only have a very hard finishing hole if it's the only way home that makes any sense.  [But, on second thought, the 18th at Stone Eagle is probably harder than a few of the holes listed.]

  I think it is better for the golfer to walk off happy.TOC has to be one of the best.

  Anthony

[Terry Lavin]

I'd put 18 at Olympia Fields North into the mix.  That hole is just plain hard.

Only if played as a par 4 and then only as it relates to us mere mortals.  The hole didn't really bother the pros that much at the Open.

[rjsimper]

This is more like top 25 toughest finishing holes amongst famous courses.

How else could you explain the omission of Ko'olau. Heck, the 18th hole at Sleepy Hole in Virginia is tougher than 18 at Bay Hill.

[David Whitmer]

I do think that having a super tough last hole is a problem in match play because you are most likely going to be giving or getting a stroke. It's unsatisfying to play a tough hole well and lose (or halve) a match because you have to give away a shot.  Getting a shot on the last is slightly more enjoyable but still doesn't quite feel right. 

I agree, Richard. The developer of the course where I was the pro had also developed four other courses, and he once told me he wanted the 18th hole to be no tougher than the #10 handicap hole. When I asked why he said because he did not want a match between two closely-matched golfers to come down to a hole where a stroke is given. Made a heckuva lot of sense to me.

[Anton]

That does make a lot of sense David.

It seems that the 18th at Augusta was left off despite it being 460+ uphill with a false front and giant bunkers guarding because in 'championship' play it does actually offer up an opportunity for birdie to win when the pin is in a reasonable positon. 

Personally I am not a huge fan of the extremely tough finishing hole.  I like an opportunity to get a stroke back on the last.  Not saying I like a reachable par 4 or par 5 as the finish.  I am just saying that a mid-length par 4 that requires a strong drive and a mid iron in to a large green is adequate.  A hole like the 18th Saucon Valley's Old Course is a great example of a strong yet fair finish.  In match play it really give any player a chance to win with a birdie if they keep the ball in play and execute well. 

[Anthony Butler]

90% of these courses host tour events or have been regular venues for majors.

Given the obsession the PGA Tour, USGA and PGA have in making the 18th hole a 'test' this is hardly surprising.

A more interesting list would be top 100 courses with relatively easy finishing holes.

[Rick Shefchik]

An interesting question. But really hits at the concept of par. It is not the fact that they are par 4s that make the holes difficult.

If I had said "My home course finishes with three par 5s that are ridiculously short (461, 422 and 482)..." would that change things? How about "My home course finishes with three par 3s that are ridiculously long (461, 422, and 482)..."? It would have no impact on the score carded by anyone who has ever played the course. I would still shoot whatever I shoot, and so would everyone else.

The holes are challenging golf holes because if you play well you will get the little white ball in the hole in a lot fewer strokes than if you play poorly.

Points well-taken, Matt.

(My only real point was: 483 never was, and never will be, a "moderately long" par-4 for me, or for almost anyone I play with -- unless it were 483 yards off a cliff!)

My answer would be: Yes, "par" does change things! Of course it does. A 483-yard par-4 is different from a 483-yard par-5. How could it not be?

I'll put this as simply as I can: The par tells me what "success" (or, possibly a better word: competence) on the hole requires.

And furthermore: I don't believe that you would play a 483-yard par-5 the same as you'd play a 483-yard par-4, if you played it 50 times (number out of thin air; 10 times, maybe).

And I don't believe your score would be the same over those 50 playings.

 

This came up on the other thread about tough 18th holes, but I think it bears repeating here: Of course a 483-yard par 4 is, by definition, a tough hole. That is, it is a hard par. But in match play it's just a stretch of ground that needs to be covered in one less shot than one's opponent.

It seems to me the way we look at golf holes -- and golf courses -- will always be bifurcated depending on whether we're playing it at medal or match. We all know golf was primarily a match-play game in Scotland, but once the idea of stroke-play tournaments was introduced, golfers inevitably defined holes by their length -- their par. If we threw out medal play altogether, almost anything could pass for a golf course; I'm thinking here of the match in "Dead Solid Perfect" where the guys teed off at Goat Hills, chipped the ball onto a bus, and putted out into a shoe in somebody's closet. I don't think that hole had a par, and I don't think anybody cared how tough the hole was, or what their score was, as long as it was the lowest score.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()