Out of Character Holes

[George_Bahto]

"George, Does it go without saying that losing that brick wall won't upset too many?"

Adam, I guess you are talking about the stone (work) wall separating the green and the pond. It's not brick


We can't expand the green toward the water any more than there is now because of environmental limitations.

The stone wall actually gives us the most amount of sq-footage for the green - without it, the edges of the green would have to slope off, making the green area smaller.

We proposed putting a couple more rows of stone atop the existing wall so the green edges would not slope of as much as they now do (again giving us more green surface)

I don't know it but our contractor (Hawkshaw) rebuilt the entire new bridge so it would better match the 2 other (great) bridges on the property - It also made for a much better looking bridge .......  we were dredging the pond at the time.

[Phil Benedict]

12 at Augusta feels out of place due mostly to the green shape and location down in the corner.Kind of same theme would be 13 at Colonial,all water carry and a dead end turn around and come back to the next tee right by where you just teed off.

The narrow, flat green is quite out of character considering that Augusta is known for large, undulating greens.  The hole wouldn't be anything special if the green was deeper, however, since the fear factor would no longer be so great.

[Jeff Shelman]

Jason,

I'll give you another hole that you have played that is out of character: No. 2 at Mendakota.

The green is so much more severe than others on the course and the diagonal shape is very different.

I don't know that it is a bad hole -- it is where I made my only lifetime hole in one -- but it was an addition to the course later that doesn't blend very well with much of the rest of the course.

To me, out of character holes are often newer holes that are built after the fact that don't mesh with what was there. The holes that were built and then taken out of play at Rochester fit that to me.

But you can also see them other places. I think of Troy Burne and that first par 3 on the back with the super tiny green. You've played 10 holes or so where everything is really big and brawny and then you have to hit this really small target.

I feel No. 18 at Windsong fits into the category of being very different than the first 17 holes as the tee shot seems kind of blind and I stand on the tee with no idea where to hit it.

They aren't always bad holes. They just feel a little bit off.

[Mike Benham]

  Why Mike?

At Pac Dunes, #1 and #18 feel a bit more cramped then the other 16 holes, the fairways are more rumpled, there are trees.  I could even add #16 based on these factors, these holes aren't bad holes.

At Trails, it is a bit more obvious to me, #1 and #18 are in the dunes while 2 through 16 in the trees and meadow.

[Brian Finn]

I saw the title of this thread and #10 at sleepy hollow immediately came to mind.  With Hanse and Bahto so nicely unifying the Macdonald and Tillinghast holes, the 10th seems more out of place than ever.  Does anyone know if there are plans to alter the 10th?  What is the membership's view?  

Other than that, I can't think of another hole at sleepy hollow that wasn't a blast to play.  What a fun and interesting course.

Brian,
What was so unfun about 10 at Sleepy Hollow?
Does a lake in that area of the course seem that out of place?

It is a fine hole, just quite different from the rest of the course.  I have not heard anyone call it a bad golf hole, but in my view it is 'out of character.'  Additionally, it suffers in comparison to everything before and after.  Beginning with the other par 3 holes...#3 is an incredible Eden, which requires only a short iron, but is pretty challenging.  #7 is a really unique downhill reverse redan.  It is over 200 yards, but can play at least 2 clubs short as a result of the downhill and the hillside that feeds the ball left to right and onto the putting surface.  Insanely fun hole.  Then, the 16th is a stunning Short, a great hole with neat bunkering and a very interesting and challenging green.  The view is not too shabby either.  So, compared to those 3 holes alone, the 10th finishes well behind on intrigue and fun.  When you add in the variety and quality of the par 4 holes (my favorites were the 4th, 5th, 14th, 15th, and 17th, highlighted by an awesome punchbowl green on 15) and two really solid par 5s at 6 and 12, the competition for best hole is intense.  The Tillinghast holes are also good, and the work done in recent years by Hanse and Bahto really pulls them in nicely, giving them a look and feel consistent with the Macdonald style.  Add to that the fact that the club has a few more Macdonald holes that were part of the original layout (which I have not personally played, but have been told by friends who are members they are excellent), apparently including a Biarritz.  So, in summary, #10 is a fine hole...it just doesn't get me fired up the way the rest of the place does.  

[Charlie Visconsi]

#12 at Siwanoy.  It is a par four with a rock wall in front of a pond in front of the green; the rest of the course has a creek that meanders throughout.  It should have the creek not a pond there.  It is a good example of a architect putting an out of place hole on the course; this pond and wall is thanks to an A Hills renovation in the 90s.  I think a good example of completely out of context architecture with the rest of the course. 

[jeffwarne]

I saw the title of this thread and #10 at sleepy hollow immediately came to mind.  With Hanse and Bahto so nicely unifying the Macdonald and Tillinghast holes, the 10th seems more out of place than ever.  Does anyone know if there are plans to alter the 10th?  What is the membership's view?  

Other than that, I can't think of another hole at sleepy hollow that wasn't a blast to play.  What a fun and interesting course.

Brian,
What was so unfun about 10 at Sleepy Hollow?
Does a lake in that area of the course seem that out of place?

It is a fine hole, just quite different from the rest of the course.  I have not heard anyone call it a bad golf hole, but in my view it is 'out of character.'  Additionally, it suffers in comparison to everything before and after.  Beginning with the other par 3 holes...#3 is an incredible Eden, which requires only a short iron, but is pretty challenging.  #7 is a really unique downhill reverse redan.  It is over 200 yards, but can play at least 2 clubs short as a result of the downhill and the hillside that feeds the ball left to right and onto the putting surface.  Insanely fun hole.  Then, the 16th is a stunning Short, a great hole with neat bunkering and a very interesting and challenging green.  The view is not too shabby either.  So, compared to those 3 holes alone, the 10th finishes well behind on intrigue and fun.  When you add in the variety and quality of the par 4 holes (my favorites were the 4th, 5th, 14th, 15th, and 17th, highlighted by an awesome punchbowl green on 15) and two really solid par 5s at 6 and 12, the competition for best hole is intense.  The Tillinghast holes are also good, and the work done in recent years by Hanse and Bahto really pulls them in nicely, giving them a look and feel consistent with the Macdonald style.  Add to that the fact that the club has a few more Macdonald holes that were part of the original layout (which I have not personally played, but have been told by friends who are members they are excellent), apparently including a Biarritz.  So, in summary, #10 is a fine hole...it just doesn't get me fired up the way the rest of the place does.  

Thanks Brian,
I haven't played the Hanse redo, but played several hundred roundsthere  while working and living on the grounds in the early 90's (prior to the Reestoration).
There are indeed some fine holes on the Short course.
Interestingly I never heard one person there refer to 3 as an Eden.(of course i wouldn't know an Eden anyway and certainly didn't then)
I was aware #7 was a reverse redan (not sure why as no one spoke in those terms 20 years ago).

Re your comments on #10.
I'm probably biased as I lived about 100 yards right of #9 green and spent a lot of time on #10 fishing and frog gigging with Jim McLean's young kids, and/or playing a 5 hole loop down 10 and ending on #9.
It really is a beautiful, tranquil peaceful place.(I believe it backs up to a nature reserve)
I'm just not sure why the world thinks a pond at the low point of that part of the property, out at the extreme reaches of the course, is so out of character.
Sort've like 12 at Augusta, except that's a dammed       creek.

I guess it's a variety being the spice of life vs. a hole being out of character. (i guess if the entire course was routed around the lake it'd be in character)
To me, using the land (or resources) available to create a golf hole that fits perfectly in the(albeit renovated) routing is desireable.
Combining multiple architects will undoubtedly create on hole or another that seems out of place.

I do need to see the recent redo.

[Dan Kelly]

Coincidentally, just ran across this -- about Congressional's Blue course:

"Like many so-called 'signature holes' today, the Blue's 18th is totally out of character with the rest of the course, with water on three sides of the green and the front open to a low-slung run-up.

"The finishing hole aside, Congressional isn't a ground-game layout. Approaches into the greens have to be flown in under control. The putting surfaces tend to be elevated above grade and protected at the 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions with deep bunkers."

-- Bradley S. Klein
Golfweek
June 10, 2011

[Brian Finn]

I saw the title of this thread and #10 at sleepy hollow immediately came to mind.  With Hanse and Bahto so nicely unifying the Macdonald and Tillinghast holes, the 10th seems more out of place than ever.  Does anyone know if there are plans to alter the 10th?  What is the membership's view?  

Other than that, I can't think of another hole at sleepy hollow that wasn't a blast to play.  What a fun and interesting course.

Brian,
What was so unfun about 10 at Sleepy Hollow?
Does a lake in that area of the course seem that out of place?

It is a fine hole, just quite different from the rest of the course.  I have not heard anyone call it a bad golf hole, but in my view it is 'out of character.'  Additionally, it suffers in comparison to everything before and after.  Beginning with the other par 3 holes...#3 is an incredible Eden, which requires only a short iron, but is pretty challenging.  #7 is a really unique downhill reverse redan.  It is over 200 yards, but can play at least 2 clubs short as a result of the downhill and the hillside that feeds the ball left to right and onto the putting surface.  Insanely fun hole.  Then, the 16th is a stunning Short, a great hole with neat bunkering and a very interesting and challenging green.  The view is not too shabby either.  So, compared to those 3 holes alone, the 10th finishes well behind on intrigue and fun.  When you add in the variety and quality of the par 4 holes (my favorites were the 4th, 5th, 14th, 15th, and 17th, highlighted by an awesome punchbowl green on 15) and two really solid par 5s at 6 and 12, the competition for best hole is intense.  The Tillinghast holes are also good, and the work done in recent years by Hanse and Bahto really pulls them in nicely, giving them a look and feel consistent with the Macdonald style.  Add to that the fact that the club has a few more Macdonald holes that were part of the original layout (which I have not personally played, but have been told by friends who are members they are excellent), apparently including a Biarritz.  So, in summary, #10 is a fine hole...it just doesn't get me fired up the way the rest of the place does.  

Thanks Brian,
I haven't played the Hanse redo, but played several hundred roundsthere  while working and living on the grounds in the early 90's (prior to the Reestoration).
There are indeed some fine holes on the Short course.
Interestingly I never heard one person there refer to 3 as an Eden.(of course i wouldn't know an Eden anyway and certainly didn't then)
I was aware #7 was a reverse redan (not sure why as no one spoke in those terms 20 years ago).

Re your comments on #10.
I'm probably biased as I lived about 100 yards right of #9 green and spent a lot of time on #10 fishing and frog gigging with Jim McLean's young kids, and/or playing a 5 hole loop down 10 and ending on #9.
It really is a beautiful, tranquil peaceful place.(I believe it backs up to a nature reserve)
I'm just not sure why the world thinks a pond at the low point of that part of the property, out at the extreme reaches of the course, is so out of character.
Sort've like 12 at Augusta, except that's a dammed       creek.

I guess it's a variety being the spice of life vs. a hole being out of character. (i guess if the entire course was routed around the lake it'd be in character)
To me, using the land (or resources) available to create a golf hole that fits perfectly in the(albeit renovated) routing is desireable.
Combining multiple architects will undoubtedly create on hole or another that seems out of place.

I do need to see the recent redo.

Jeff...you are incredibly lucky to have lived by and played such a great course.  Having only been there a handful of times myself, i am quite jealous.  Seems like the kind of course one would never grow tired of.  I think you would really enjoy the updated course.  My brother (who has played the course many more times than I have, particularly before 2005 or so) said what struck him most (post) was the bunkering and openness of the course.  Regarding #3, I believe it was designed as an Eden, but I am very far from an expert on such things.  Regardless, a really neat hole.  The bridges throughout the course add such a great touch on this hole and others, IMO.  My most recent round there, I played with a member who gave a bit of history and strategy on virtually every hole, including the names/templates on some holes.  You make some great points about using the land and natural features available to create a golf hole.  I guess in my limited time there, #10 just seemed different.  Variety certainly is the spice of life, and both pre and post redo, I think sleepy hollow has plenty.  Of course, we all have our preferences and biases, which in terms of gca is a good thing. 

[BHoover]

Here in Columbus, I would nominate the 4th hole at the post-renovation OSU Scarlet course as the most out-of-character hole. I don't have a photo, so it's difficult to describe. But the old hole was a short par 5 that moved to the left. The green was set at a diagonal and, while certainly not a great hole, it did not seem out of place compared to the rest of the course. After the renovation by Nicklaus, the green complex was moved about 100+ yards to the right and now resembles something that you might find in the Carolinas. It's certainly not a bad design, IMO, but it just does not seem to fit in with the remainder of the course.

Again, I wish I had a before and after photo because my description does not do the hole justice.