"This is a good hole"

[Jason Topp]

This weekend, I was playing a dead straight 450 yard par four with a green bunkered at 4:00 and 8:00.  The fairway is wide with a very modest amount of countour.  The green is gigantic and tilted gently from back to front.  We had a headwind.  One of my playing companions, who is a good player, remarked, "This is a good hole." 

To my mind, the hole meets the very definition of a bad hole.  There could be a semblance of decision making if the greenside bunkering provided an advantage to playing to the opposite side of the fairway as the pin, but, the bunkering has been neutered enough over the years to take away such concerns. You simply try to hit it in the fairway and then on the green.

Nonetheless, this player's perspective is not unique.  I hear that comment often from better players when they encounter a tough hole.  I think they are expressing their true feelings.  I suspect it is an effort to give themselves a good attitude when facing a tough challenge.  The actual quality of the hole from a design standpoint is irrelevant. 

I never challenge people when they make the comment.  We are usually in the middle of a competition and it seems rude to have a GCA discussion in the middle of such a situation.

Have others encountered this attitude regularly? How do you respond?

[Mark Johnson]

just ask them what they like about it?

In fairness for a lot of good players, especially long hitter,  i've found that they will like almost any par 4 where you arent hitting a wedge into the green and it requires 2 solid shots.

[Bill Brightly]

I say "well, it certainly is a HARD hole."

[John Kavanaugh]

There is nothing wrong with having to hit a solid 4 iron once in a while.  As a matter of fact, like so many other games of strategy, the perfectly straight hole is the most challenging.  I personally think the 12th at Torrey Pines South is one of the finest holes in championship golf.  It sounds very similar with the exception of Torrey having a 505 yd championship tee.

note: Even Tiger hits 4 iron into the 12th at Torrey.  I had a seven iron in for my third.

[Jud_T]

I generally respond "Are you F&*#ing kidding me?"

[George Pazin]

Well, the yardage alone kind of implies it's a par 4 1/2 - I thought we liked half par holes?

[Kalen Braley]

I've found asking them why its a good hole usually works the best.

And then following up with something like "what if they only had a bunker on the right hand side of the green, with a fairway bunker on the left side of the fairway?"

[Jason Topp]

Well, the yardage alone kind of implies it's a par 4 1/2 - I thought we liked half par holes?

I like half par holes if there is something along the way to make it interesting.  450 yards is a driver/ fairway wood for us and a driver - 9 iron for a long hitter.  It is only a half par for us. 

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I think that the only explanation for a long hitter saying 'this is a good hole' with no real design feature elements of FW slopes, bunkering, angles, or green surround contouring is explained that the long hitter likes it because it keeps the average player in his place that it is in deed at the longest limits of their ability putting a FW metal in your hands, where it is a mid iron or shorter for the really long players.  So they like the advantage.  If the hole had more challenges in the longer hitter LZ, and more bunkering, green surround features or hazards to negotiate on the second shot, then that decreases the long man's advantage to some degree, and he doesn't like a more equal challenge in that you can now play more strategy for a second shot landing short but a better chance you can chip and 1 putt.  Or he can hit the green and if not a very good shot could roll off also requiring a chip.  Now the challenge is more equal.  He still has a bit of a length advantage, but now with more challenge than just bomb it and hoist it onto the green.   

[Rick Shefchik]

Jason, care to identify the hole for those of us who might have played it? If you'd rather not put it out on the board, IM me.

I buy your basic point, but I'm wondering if it's a hole I like even though there isn't any strategy to speak of. Maybe I'm one of those guys...

[Jason Topp]

Jason, care to identify the hole for those of us who might have played it? If you'd rather not put it out on the board, IM me.

I buy your basic point, but I'm wondering if it's a hole I like even though there isn't any strategy to speak of. Maybe I'm one of those guys...

8 East - Bunker Hills. 

[George Pazin]

Well, the yardage alone kind of implies it's a par 4 1/2 - I thought we liked half par holes?

I like half par holes if there is something along the way to make it interesting.  450 yards is a driver/ fairway wood for us and a driver - 9 iron for a long hitter.  It is only a half par for us. 

Well, Dick Daley did a great job of answering this, so I will speak more generally and just say that I often favor simplicity - if a hole is a challenge simply by yardage, it's usually at least ok by me - maybe not a great or even good hole, but certainly not bad.

It would also depend a lot on what the rest of the course is like - an occasional longish straight forward hole is ok if there is sufficient variety elsewhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As many have said, never ask if its a good hole, just ask what they shot on it.

Seriously, whether that hole was good or not is due partially to its location, context and variety aspect on the course, no?

[Rick Shefchik]

Jason, care to identify the hole for those of us who might have played it? If you'd rather not put it out on the board, IM me.

I buy your basic point, but I'm wondering if it's a hole I like even though there isn't any strategy to speak of. Maybe I'm one of those guys...

8 East - Bunker Hills. 

I knew it -- I do like that hole. I've never specifically said, "this is a good hole," but the rise in the fairway at the landing area is an interesting wrinkle, and you do have to hit a straight tee shot. Very basic stuff, of course -- and not the first hole that comes to mind when I think of the holes I like at Bunker Hills. But I enjoy playing it.

[Jason Topp]

Jason, care to identify the hole for those of us who might have played it? If you'd rather not put it out on the board, IM me.

I buy your basic point, but I'm wondering if it's a hole I like even though there isn't any strategy to speak of. Maybe I'm one of those guys...

8 East - Bunker Hills.  

I knew it -- I do like that hole. I've never specifically said, "this is a good hole," but the rise in the fairway at the landing area is an interesting wrinkle, and you do have to hit a straight tee shot. Very basic stuff, of course -- and not the first hole that comes to mind when I think of the holes I like at Bunker Hills. But I enjoy playing it.

Oddly - I kind of like it as well but it does not fit with any objective criteria I have ever identified.  You are right that there are many others at Bunker Hills that play in the same manner.

[Dan Kelly]

Jason, care to identify the hole for those of us who might have played it? If you'd rather not put it out on the board, IM me.

I buy your basic point, but I'm wondering if it's a hole I like even though there isn't any strategy to speak of. Maybe I'm one of those guys...

8 East - Bunker Hills.  

I knew it -- I do like that hole. I've never specifically said, "this is a good hole," but the rise in the fairway at the landing area is an interesting wrinkle, and you do have to hit a straight tee shot. Very basic stuff, of course -- and not the first hole that comes to mind when I think of the holes I like at Bunker Hills. But I enjoy playing it.

Oddly - I kind of like it as well but it does not fit with any objective criteria I have ever identified.  You are right that there are many others at Bunker Hills that play in the same manner.

Rick -- You *were* one of those guys, back in the day. I don't know if you still are!

Jason -- This is a classic example of something I labeled, here, years ago, the MacWood* Paradox -- which I believe I defined as follows: "Why do I like something I don't like?"

Just looked it up, at http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,23516.0.html. Here it is: "Why do I like what I don't like?"

* R.I.P.

[RJ_Daley]

Dan, I'm not sure your link is to what you referred.  That link to "big bunkers suck" didn't have a post within the thread line from MacWood.  Or, did I miss the point of that paradox?

edit, nevermind, I just read both pages....    <---  an appropriate emoticon, no?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan, I'm not sure your link is to what you referred.  That link to "big bunkers suck" didn't have a post within the thread line from MacWood.  Or, did I miss the point of that paradox?

edit, nevermind, I just read both pages....    <---  an appropriate emoticon, no?

Here's the original "Raynor Paradox" thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.0.html.

Don't let it get you down, George!

[Matthew Petersen]

Not to channel Clinton too much, but the real key here is just varying definitions of "good." we think about "good holes" being good from a GCA/strategy perspective. Many players think of a good, fair challenge. The hole described is certainly that. Does that make it interesting or fun? Not usually. But such holes do have their place at times.

[Mark Johnson]

while i wouldnt call 8 at Bunker a good hole,  i will criteria that my definition of a "good" long par 4 is probably well below any other type of hole simply because there just arent that many of them.

In the twin cities, outside of Hazeltine which has a few,  i am not sure i could name more than 5 or 6 good long par 4s (and 3 of them are on the same course).

[Jeff Shelman]

Mark,

What holes in the Twin Cities would you consider to be good long par 4s? And I guess I have ask for a definition of "long".

I will throw a couple out there that aren't at Hazeltine.

8 at Interlachen: You have to hit two good shots to get it on the green and then the adventure begins.

17 at Troy Burne: How aggressive do you want to be off the tee in terms of the water. Plus it can be a scary approach.

7 at North Oaks: Cool hole with cool bunkering and a cool greensite.

14 at Midland Hills: Rolling fairway makes it difficult to have a flat lie. And I love the punchbowl green.

There are some others out there. But some of them aren't all that interesting of holes.

[Pat Burke]

Worked for a moron who ran a course.  Was a low handicapper, especially when he cheated well.

Any time we played a course I didn't know, which he had played before, we would inevitably
come up to a tee where he would state.  "This is a great hole".
We would look at each other, knowing it was a long hole.  Mostly no value other than length.

Of course, he lied, cheated, and stole, so other than not be a high ranked politician, standard procedure.

[Dan Kelly]

What holes in the Twin Cities would you consider to be good long par 4s?

Off the top of my head (possibly the only part of my heading that's working today), here are a few  that I like, and that play plenty long for me:

Oak Ridge Nos. 6 (especially from a back tee) and 8

Minikahda No. 2

Town and Country Nos. 6 and 10

Stoneridge No. 15

White Bear No. 2

University No. 12

Hillcrest Nos. 10 and 11

Northland No. 10 (not in TC, but in MN)

Mendakota No. 16 (is it 16, Jeff?)

[Ben Kodadek]

Mark,

Are 14 and 15 at Windsong any good?

[Ken Moum]

Have others encountered this attitude regularly? How do you respond?

Happens to me all the time.  Usually they say, "This is a good par four."

I always say, "Well, it's a HARD par four."

Once I even had a guy respond, "That's what I said, it's a good par four."

I have asked people to explain their thinking enough to conclude that "good" has become a synonym for "hard."

I think it's all the numbnuts TV announcers saying things like, "This is a good driving hole," or "This is a good par four," when all they mean is that it's demanding, difficult, or unrelenting.

I have lately taken to telling them that good and hard are NOT interchangeable, and that it's easy to make a golf course hard, but it's hard as hell to make on that's interesting.

K