Worst 18 holes on recognized courses in order.

[John Kavanaugh]

1. Los Verdes
2. Rancho
3. Palos Verdes CC
4. LACC North
5. Pacific Dunes
6. Ko'Olau
7. Rustic Canyon
8. Bandon Dunes
9. Old Macdonald
10. Bandon Trails
11. Wilshire
12. CPC
13. Pinehurst #2
14. Pine Needles
15. Stone Eagle
16. Riviera
17. Pasatiempo
18. Valley Club

Very nice.  I love the choices on Old Macdonald but it is the course at Bandon I have not played.  The 16th at Riviera is an interesting selection.  I am solid behind my pick of the 2nd hole because I consider it the only hole at Riviera that is not fun.  For such a boring connecting piece of land the 16th has some fantastic bunkering and an interesting green.  I also like those weird ass moonscape trees framing the hole.

Is your choice of the 4th at LACC North after the restoration?  If so, it may have to be a lock for my list.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
Not an easy list to compile.

1. Garden City
2. Honors Club
3. Butler National
4. Flint Hills
5. Long Cove
6. Whistling Straights
7. Kingsley Club
8. Sebonac
9. Harbor Town

10. Lost Dunes
11. Arcadia Bluffs
12. Erin Hills
13. Shoreacres
14. Bandon Trails
15. Cog Hill
16. Rich Harvest
17. Crystal Downs
18. Medinah #3

Hopefully I've offended everyone.

Garden City is in the house!!!

[Alex Miller]

I have not payed LACC post restoration, so choosing the pre-resto 4th was easy.

I've seen countless photos and aerials of the course since the restoration, and while the 4th looks much improved and not a bad golf hole, I couldn't find another worth picking. The course seems just that good.


Riviera's pick, the 16th, is not it's worst hole. I could probably have swapped the Pine Needles and Riviera picks and ended up with a similar quality of "underwhelm-edness". I picked 16 because the green is small and concave and not much else. While the bunkers are cool looking, the raised lips make the putting surface artificially hidden. It just seems weird to me. And with the also mundane 14th a couple holes prior in the same direction 16 is repetitive and weird to me. Also, in order to fit my list 16 became the choice.

[Sean_A]

I think its a much easier job to pick the worst 18 holes only from courses used for the Favourite 18 holes.

#1 Machrihanish 425ish par 4....Worst: Painswick par 4 - absolute no brainer - one of the worst holes I have ever seen

#2 Huntercombe 400ish par 4.....Worst: Pennard - a mucked up par 3

#3 Woking 400ish par 4.....Worst: North Berwick - a boring par 4 propped up by a wall

#4 St Enodoc 280ish par 4.....Worst: Ballybunion Old - two par 5s in a row a no no - Truthfully, I think the this hole is better than the 5th, but what can ya do

#5 Royal Portrush  400ish par 4.....Worst: Huntercombe par 4 - intensely dislike the tree in the middle of fairway

#6 Painswick 200ish par 3.....Worst: Kington par 4 - not a bad hole really, but I have to pick one

#7 Pennard 350ish par 4.....Worst: Royal Portrush par 4 - terrible driving hole - blindish, narrow fairway with harsh crosswinds

#8 Ballybunion Old 145ish par 3.....Worst: Addington - hogback hell

#9 Liphook  415ish par 4.....Worst: TOC par 4 - the hole doesn't work on any level - boring, trite, waste of time

#10 Castle Course  130ish par 3.....Worst: Liphook par 4 - hard legger right, downhill to a fairway cut off by shit - not good

#11 Ballybunion Cashen  140ish par 3.....worst: Sunny Old par 4 - not a bad hole, but the green is screwed up and I don't like the junk down the right for a blind tee shot

#12 TOC  315ish par 4.....Worst: Ballybunion Cashen - a dogs dinner par 3

#13 North Berwick  360ish par 4.....Worst: Burnham & Berrow - a good hole actually, but the straightening of the drive and smoothing of bridle path have done it no favours

#14 FOXY!  440ish par 4.....Worst: St Enodoc par 4 - a slog hole

#15 Burnham & Berrow  435ish par 4.....Worst: Woking - back to back par 5s is a no no

#16 Addington 495ish par 5.....Dornoch: I hate the drive continuously sliding left into perdition

#17 Sunningdale Old 390ish par 4.....Worst: Castle Course par 3 - don't understand the shaping

#18 Kington 285ish par 4.......Worst: Machrihanish par 4

Ciao

[Jeb Bearer]

#5 Royal Portrush  400ish par 4.....Worst: Ballybunion Old - two par 5s in a row a no no

#15 Burnham & Berrow  435ish par 4.....Worst: Woking - back to back par 5s is a no no

  What do you have against back to back par 5s? Granted, you always run the risk of two similar-looking holes, but if they are different enough -- in yardage, direction, shape, strategy -- then is it necessarily a bad thing?

[Sean_A]

#5 Royal Portrush  400ish par 4.....Worst: Ballybunion Old - two par 5s in a row a no no

#15 Burnham & Berrow  435ish par 4.....Worst: Woking - back to back par 5s is a no no

  What do you have against back to back par 5s? Granted, you always run the risk of two similar-looking holes, but if they are different enough -- in yardage, direction, shape, strategy -- then is it necessarily a bad thing?

Jeb

I do have a tendency to dislike par 5s because so few are good.  While its not necessarily bad to have back to back par 5s, believing its hard to pull off one good par 5 let alone back to backers is a fools errand.  I have never seen it pulled off well.  Has anybody played back to back 5s which they thought added something to the course? 

Ciao

[Jeb Bearer]

In general, I think that if you find two good par fives back to back (however rare that may be) you should build them. Obviously bad results will come of forcing them onto the terrain just for the sake of being "different" or something, and it probably is best, for the sake of variety, to go with something else when the opportunity presents itself. That being said, you could certainly have two holes of, say, 600 yards and 490 yards, both of which could be called par 5s, without losing variety. So I guess I would say it just depends.

Doesn't Cypress have back to back 5s? I'm unfortunately not familiar with the course, but does anybody know how well it works there?

[Joe_Tucholski]

1. Los Verdes
2. Rancho
3. Palos Verdes CC
4. LACC North
5. Pacific Dunes
6. Ko'Olau
7. Rustic Canyon
8. Bandon Dunes
9. Old Macdonald
10. Bandon Trails
11. Wilshire
12. CPC
13. Pinehurst #2
14. Pine Needles
15. Stone Eagle
16. Riviera
17. Pasatiempo
18. Valley Club

Los Verdes and Palos Verdes making the recognized list has to be stretching it a bit.

PS really enjoy this thread.

[Sean_A]

In general, I think that if you find two good par fives back to back (however rare that may be) you should build them. Obviously bad results will come of forcing them onto the terrain just for the sake of being "different" or something, and it probably is best, for the sake of variety, to go with something else when the opportunity presents itself. That being said, you could certainly have two holes of, say, 600 yards and 490 yards, both of which could be called par 5s, without losing variety. So I guess I would say it just depends.

Doesn't Cypress have back to back 5s? I'm unfortunately not familiar with the course, but does anybody know how well it works there?

I am not likely to admire a 600 yard hole.  On principle, I disagree with the concept.  I can see back to back par 5s working if heading in opposite directions where wind is big factor.  Its not ideal, but at least some thrill can be had for going at a green 500 yards away in 2, but unable to reach a 475 green in two, but on any given day one is reachable and the other is not.  Often times, back to backers are a way of chewing up less desirable land - a necessary evil in the old days or when on a build budget these days - it would seem.  All in all, back to back par 5s should probably be the one thing an archie should do all he can to avoid.  

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

18. Machrihanish - what a shocker  

Ciao

Even worse than the 18th at Reddish Vale? 

Or doesn't Reddish vale count as a 'recognised course' ?

[Sean_A]

18. Machrihanish - what a shocker  

Ciao

Even worse than the 18th at Reddish Vale? 

Or doesn't Reddish vale count as a 'recognised course' ?

Duncan

Gosh, I forgot about that dogpile - tee hee.  At least at Reddish Vale you instinctively know that awful 18th is coming.  The visual drag of the row of OOB stakes at Machrihanish is enough to call it quits.  I still can't believe you think the 18th is a good hole. You need your head examined

Ciao

[James Boon]

#4 Worst: Huntercombe par 4 - intensely dislike the tree in the middle of fairway

Sean,

I don't wish to muck up your list, but isn't that the 5th at Huntercombe you describe? 

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

#4 Worst: Huntercombe par 4 - intensely dislike the tree in the middle of fairway

Sean,

I don't wish to muck up your list, but isn't that the 5th at Huntercombe you describe? 

Cheers,

James

The more my hatred for that tree grows, the quicker I seem to come upon the hole. 

Ciao

[Anders Rytter]

In general, I think that if you find two good par fives back to back (however rare that may be) you should build them. Obviously bad results will come of forcing them onto the terrain just for the sake of being "different" or something, and it probably is best, for the sake of variety, to go with something else when the opportunity presents itself. That being said, you could certainly have two holes of, say, 600 yards and 490 yards, both of which could be called par 5s, without losing variety. So I guess I would say it just depends.

Doesn't Cypress have back to back 5s? I'm unfortunately not familiar with the course, but does anybody know how well it works there?

I am not likely to admire a 600 yard hole.  On principle, I disagree with the concept.  I can see back to back par 5s working if heading in opposite directions where wind is big factor.  Its not ideal, but at least some thrill can be had for going at a green 500 yards away in 2, but unable to reach a 475 green in two, but on any given day one is reachable and the other is not.  Often times, back to backers are a way of chewing up less desirable land - a necessary evil in the old days or when on a build budget these days - it would seem.  All in all, back to back par 5s should probably be the one thing an archie should do all he can to avoid.  

Ciao

How about 9th-10th on Portrush Dunluce? concecutive par 5 in almost same direction.

[Sean_A]

In general, I think that if you find two good par fives back to back (however rare that may be) you should build them. Obviously bad results will come of forcing them onto the terrain just for the sake of being "different" or something, and it probably is best, for the sake of variety, to go with something else when the opportunity presents itself. That being said, you could certainly have two holes of, say, 600 yards and 490 yards, both of which could be called par 5s, without losing variety. So I guess I would say it just depends.

Doesn't Cypress have back to back 5s? I'm unfortunately not familiar with the course, but does anybody know how well it works there?

I am not likely to admire a 600 yard hole.  On principle, I disagree with the concept.  I can see back to back par 5s working if heading in opposite directions where wind is big factor.  Its not ideal, but at least some thrill can be had for going at a green 500 yards away in 2, but unable to reach a 475 green in two, but on any given day one is reachable and the other is not.  Often times, back to backers are a way of chewing up less desirable land - a necessary evil in the old days or when on a build budget these days - it would seem.  All in all, back to back par 5s should probably be the one thing an archie should do all he can to avoid.  

Ciao

How about 9th-10th on Portrush Dunluce? concecutive par 5 in almost same direction.

Anders

I like both greensites (as I do for practically every hole on the Dunluce), but I don't care for either drive.  When taking the 7th into consideration as well, I am not sure what this three hole stretch brings to the table; for me this is the weakest part of the course.  What do you think?

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
Not an easy list to compile.

1. Garden City
2. Honors Club
3. Butler National
4. Flint Hills
5. Long Cove
6. Whistling Straights
7. Kingsley Club
8. Sebonac
9. Harbor Town

10. Lost Dunes
11. Arcadia Bluffs
12. Erin Hills
13. Shoreacres
14. Bandon Trails
15. Cog Hill
16. Rich Harvest
17. Crystal Downs
18. Medinah #3

Hopefully I've offended everyone.

There are so many impressive choices on this list it's hard to narrow down where to stop.  If Paul or anyone else could explain the shortcomings or the 1st at Garden City or the 7th at Kingsley before I update the worst perfect list it would legitimize my choices.

[Michael George]

John - this is such a great thread as it requires honest analysis of the architecture of holes on great courses.   People may agree or disagree on everyone's opinion, but it evokes thought.  

I have always thought that you can learn more by an architect's defense of criticized holes than an explanation of acclaimed holes.  I think it  is easier to pick out great features in a hole.  Sometimes, criticized holes have subtleties that you don't notice the first couple of times playing the hole, but you grow to appreciate over time.  Other times, the architect just wanted to be maniacal (ie. I have always enjoyed Tom Doak's comments on the back left greenside bunker on #16 at Pacific Dunes in this regard).

Accordingly, I would welcome anyone looking at my list and telling me where I missed the boat.   I only played most of the listed courses 1-4 times so it is not without question that I missed something..... but I doubt it   

  

[Alex Miller]

1. Los Verdes
2. Rancho
3. Palos Verdes CC
4. LACC North
5. Pacific Dunes
6. Ko'Olau
7. Rustic Canyon
8. Bandon Dunes
9. Old Macdonald
10. Bandon Trails
11. Wilshire
12. CPC
13. Pinehurst #2
14. Pine Needles
15. Stone Eagle
16. Riviera
17. Pasatiempo
18. Valley Club

Los Verdes and Palos Verdes making the recognized list has to be stretching it a bit.

PS really enjoy this thread.

Los Verdes...definitely. Palos Verdes, maybe less so. I have a wide disparity in quality of courses played.  I might update both my lists.

[Paul OConnor]

From GCA writeup,  #1 Garden City

"1st hole,300 yards; Right away, the golfer appreciates this course is different. The green is open on its right side and a drive long right will leave the player with a clean look down the length of the green. The rub is that the carry to the right is 225 yards over broken ground. The lesser player can go left… but is then faced with a tricky pitch over a bunker to a green that falls slightly away from that angle. Travis wrote often about the need to make a golfers think, and this hole is a perfect example."

  After the claustrophobia of hitting a bag of rocks on Garden City's range, the drive on this hole is thankfully different, it was actually a huge relief, because the hole is 300 yards, the fairway is about 75 yards wide, and everyone will be hitting wedge to this huge green.  Even after playing left, the "tricky pitch" is likely to be a 90 yard wedge to a big target.  Not really that tricky.  The only thing Travis makes golfers think about on this hole is whether to hit sand wedge or gap wedge.  Finished this hole saying, "boy I hope this joint gets better in a hurry."

From Kingsley's website writeup of the 7th.  Even they admit this thing is a piece of shite.

"Working its way around a large hill on the right and over several large depressions, the seventh is a dramatic medium-length par 5 with a sweeping vista from the very elevated tee, followed by a blind second shot. Long hitters will often opt to lay up with a fairway wood and the wind behind them in order to avoid going into the white pines just past the landing area."  

This hole just doesn't work.  Drive kicks off the hill behind a bunch of trees, then a blind second shot, not really sure where it's going, come over the hill still not sure where the hole is, and everything ends up in a giant toilet bowl for the wedge to finish this nightmare.

Just a god awful hole.

[Paul OConnor]

Here's a link to Kingsley #7.

http://www.kingsleyclub.com/course-tour/7th-hole.html

Rubbish.

[Michael George]

Paul:

I agree with your opinions on Bandon Dunes and Old MacDonald.  Not so much with Bandon Trails and Pinehurst #2. 

Regardless, I love your honest, bold posts.  They are great to debate and very much needed to keep the site interesting.

[John Kavanaugh]

Revised best worst list with the added bonus of a selection for the range:

Range.  Garden City

1. Garden City
2. Riviera
3. Cuscowilla
4. LACC North
5. Congressional
6. Ballyneal
7. Kingsley Clib
8. Victoria National
9. Sand Hills

10. Pasatiempo
11. Bandon Trails
12. Dismal River New
13. Mountain Lake
14. Deal
15. Yale
16. Yeamans Hall
17. Old Macdonald
18. Augusta National

[David Kelly]

Just a god awful hole.

And yet I still like it better than the 9th hole at Kingsley.

[Chris Johnston]

Revised best worst list with the added bonus of a selection for the range:

Range.  Garden City

1. Garden City
2. Riviera
3. Cuscowilla
4. LACC North
5. Congressional
6. Ballyneal
7. Kingsley Clib
8. Victoria National
9. Sand Hills

10. Pasatiempo
11. Bandon Trails
12. Dismal River New
13. Mountain Lake
14. Deal
15. Yale
16. Yeamans Hall
17. Old Macdonald
18. Augusta National

John

I think 12 on the new course is one of the coolest holes on the routing.  A stragic choice must me made on the tee shot, go for distance and have a tricky uphill second, or lay back a bit and see the new green after it was moved back 30, or so, yards.  The infinity green located on the "point" is one of the best spots on the course.  There again, I think Tom "found" 18 unique and outstanding holes. 

[Alex Miller]

Here's a link to Kingsley #7.

http://www.kingsleyclub.com/course-tour/7th-hole.html

Rubbish.

If you cut down the pines and make it fairway would the hole work?