[George Freeman]

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks, George.  It's been a while since I looked at that aerial.  I just realized after looking through my photos that i forgot to take a shot from off the tee. 

[Mark Saltzman]

JB,

I don't hate the hole.  But, I don't like the placement of the trees on the left.  They are like 'aiming trees' and take away some of the intrigue of what is largely a blind shot (ie caddie saying "aim just right of the last tree").

I think the mowing lines are off.  I think the fairway should extend farther to the right to reward golfers willing to challenge the OB for the ideal angle into the green.

The water is out of place at Shinney.  But, what bothers me is the location of the water hazard, which penalizes the mid-high handicappers while having almost no impact on the lower handicaps.  I am sure it was almost completely not in play for you (unless you could drive into it).  For the 12-16 handicaps I played with, when the hole was into the wind, they had zero chance of carrying it on their second shot.  The alley to the left of the water is too narrow, and leaves too difficult an approach angle over the greenside bunker, for most golfers to take on the shot.  You are left with a shot of about 130(IIRC?) into the wind, which again is probably 5-7 iron for mid-high handicap guys.  And then, if they bail a bit they find that insanely tough hollow right of the green that is played to a green that slopes away...

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks for the explanation, Mark.  You covered the bases for the average player and I understand your reasoning.

The water wasn't in play for me as the wind was blowing category 5 from the left and mostly into us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Who's determining whether a hole is weak?

Those with the blend of an "architectural understanding" and common sense.

One hole could be weak for the touring professional, yet very good for the club golfer (99.9% of players).

You're equating "weak" with "difficulty" and that's not what this thread is about.

When a golfer ceases integrating with the architectural features because hi-tech has allowed him to avoid them, like the Maginot Line, that's a criticism of the ruling bodies, not the architectural merits of the hole.

Since when have the architectural merits of a hole been determined by the play of PGA Tour Pros who play the course once, or for one week every 13 years versus the play of the membership ?

For example, the par-5's at Royal Melbourne are considered weak at professional level, with three of them converted to par-4's for tour events. Meanwhile, I think each of these par-5's are outstanding for club golfers, myself included (a 5-handicap amateur that doesn't hit it overly long).

Many believe the 15th hole on the West Course is weak - a 434m par-5 that is not seen come tournament play.

There is a set of rough mounds, located approximately 100m from the green. For the better player and longer hitters, these mounds simply don't come into play. For club members or average golfers, a challenging carry is required to set up an easier third shot.

In fact, Dr. Alister MacKenzie, upon discovering these artificial mounds, declared, "we’ll leave it as is, to show future generations how silly golf course architecture used to be".

Below is a photo of the 15th at Royal Melbourne West, courtesy of Scott Warren's blog (Scott, I hope you don't mind me posting it).



I quote John Green (long time RM member and club historian) from his recently published book, The Royal Melbourne Golf Club: History of the Courses. "This (the 15th hole) is the oldest hole on the course. Many, as is their right, regard it as an old-fashioned relic and a design peculiarity. Others, meanwhile, assess it as a great hole. Needless to say, modern equipment has changed this hundred year old hole completely for the good player. It still remains a good match-play hole, especially for the club members. It would be a brae person who set about changing it. The fifteenth hole may be old, but it remains sacrosanct as far as the club members are concerned."

So, Patrick, I probably haven't answered your question but rather highlight that there are many golf holes considered weak or poor for some, but strong and great by others.

Again, you're confusing difficulty/scoring with architectural merit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some say the 18th at TOC, and I'm inclined to agree that it's rather mundane.

I can't understand why anyone would nominate the 18th as the 'mundane' hole on TOC, when that same course has the 9th hole.

Chris, is it your position that the 18th at TOC isn't mundane because of the 9th hole ?

Are you stating that two mundane holes on the same course nullify the classification for one or both of them ?

Which is the more familiar hole, # 9 or # 18 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wouldnt put maidstone in the category that Pat brings up. Definetely some weak holes and great ones there.

John,

What are the weak ones ?

What do people think about 7 at angc?  Certainly not weak now that its a long bpwling alley but i dont think its a good hole anymore.
Why not ?
Has it changed from the Member Tees ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pine Valley and Royal Melbourne on the only courses I have played with no weak holes.  

Royal County Down has 17 & 18
Pebble has 1, 2, 11 & 14
Cypress has, well maybe Cypress doesn't have any weak holes after all.  
Shinnecock has 13
NGLA has 2, 5, & 10
The Old Course has 1
Fishers Island has 1, 13, & 15
Merion has 8 & 11
Augusta has 4 (maybe 16)
Sand Hills has 9
Prairie Dunes has 1 & 4
Oakmont has 9
Cal Club has 14
Riviera has 3 & 12

ALL just my OPINION....  YIKES

Chip, whatever you're drinking and/or smoking.... stop immediately

HOW are the holes you cited above weak/poor holes ?

I hope you're not viewing the evaluation in terms of PGA Tour scoring difficulty

Again, in context of Pat's "great golf courses" adjective and in relation to the rest of the holes on one of these great golf courses

Royal Melbourne and Pine Valley are pretty much flawless in my book!

[Chris Kane]

Chris, is it your position that the 18th at TOC isn't mundane because of the 9th hole ?

No.

Are you stating that two mundane holes on the same course nullify the classification for one or both of them ?

No I'm not. What I'm saying is that if nominating one 'weak' or 'mundane' hole on TOC to illustrate a point, which you did, I can't understand why someone would choose 18 over 9.

Which is the more familiar hole, # 9 or # 18 ?

What do you mean by this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

What I meant was that # 18 is by far the more well known hole.
It's almost an icon in golf.
Far fewer are familiar with # 9, hence I felt # 18 was a better example

[Chris Kane]

What I meant was that # 18 is by far the more well known hole.
It's almost an icon in golf.
Far fewer are familiar with # 9, hence I felt # 18 was a better example

Thanks for the clarification.

For what its worth, I cannot agree with you about 18, having played it dozens of times over a year and seeing it in all conditions. It is definitely an icon of golf in my view, and its a really interesting second shot, particularly to certain hole locations and in certain wind conditions.

9 on the other hand has nothing. A related question (if you consider this a threadjack, please let me know and I'll start my own thread) - would TOC be a better golf course if the 9th was 'improved'?

[Ed Brzezowski]

The 11th at Merion is mundane??  You folks must play  some gutsy courses if that approach shot is simple.  Water three sides of the green, bunkers left and a great green. Add the history of the hole and the guy who posted this hole as mundane is smoking something not available otc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

What golf course wouldn't be better if one of the holes was improved ?

[Scott Stearns]

Still waiting on Pat's defense of the 12th at GC......

[Chris Kane]

What golf course wouldn't be better if one of the holes was improved ?

In an absolute sense that might be true, but it misses the point a bit. Put the question another way - does the 9th (or the 18th, if we go with your erroneous view that its weak/poor) really detract that much from the golf course that much that there is any point 'improving' it? You could ask the same question about several poor holes on great courses.

Ben Jarvis, I would go with the 1st on RMW as the weak/poor hole. But bearing in mind the philosophy behind why it was built, I would never advocate changing it.

[Ben Jarvis]

What golf course wouldn't be better if one of the holes was improved ?

Ben Jarvis, I would go with the 1st on RMW as the weak/poor hole. But bearing in mind the philosophy behind why it was built, I would never advocate changing it.

Chris,

I first played RMW in 2006 and have since played it about 8 times. I think most first-time visitors to RM would think that #1 is a weak/poor hole - I certainly did back then. Now though, after multiple plays, think its a very good opening hole. It has a big wide fairway where only a poor shot will finish in the rough. There is then a big wide entrance to the green, allowing for a running approach shot. Things can only really get complicated when the pin is left, with a false front and back left slope making putting a somewhat difficult task.

Furthermore, its a terrible 17th hole for the Composite Course but a good opener for either the Composite or West.

[Ben Jarvis]

Since when have the architectural merits of a hole been determined by the play of PGA Tour Pros who play the course once, or for one week every 13 years versus the play of the membership ?[/color]

You're correct- the architectural merits of a golf hole are not determined by PGA Tour Pros. But clearly, the architectural merits of a given golf hole can differ between those that are playing it, be it a professional or amateur golfer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Still waiting on Pat's defense of the 12th at GC......

Scott, sorry, I forgot about the question.

# 12 at GCGC isn't a weak hole, it's just a hole that's out of context with the other holes.

Some consider it a good par 3.

One could make the argument that if Tom Doak didn't restore it that it must have considerable architectural merit  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()