[Tom_Doak]

YAWN...

I have played in several USGA, IL, CDGA (Chicago) and WGA events. Have won two. (Next one is 7/30/14)

In general, I stay away from "serial arguers". I see the quote/re quote, tit-for-tat, last word, I'm smarter and wittier shtick as the epitome of inanity and will leave that to those with more time and energy than I possess.

Name-calling on a hobby forum is a sport reserved a sad kind of internet denizen: the troll. Your knowledge base is vast. Your input can be insightful. In fact, i would bet we would have a sporting match. But, please, clean up your mouth and show some respect for your fellow hobbyists. Opinions are not absolute. I get that you are an "important guy" here capable of eviscerating the average participant with your lightning keyboard acumen and mufti-faceted quoting skills. I get that you dont care either and will reply with some clever use of quotes, insults and demeaning verbiage....it's just so cliche.

So, let me say and repeat in advance....Yaaawwnnn.

Now, for some pertinent data:

"In the 1984 Open, the 17th at TOC yielded only 11 birdies all week, and the scoring average was 4.79. In 1990, despite much calmer weather, it still averaged 4.65 strokes and yielded only 15 birdies."

This is a Par 5 played as a par 4. That's not "great" in my book. That's manipulative where you let the score card defend par instead of the quality of your architecture. Tour pros cant hold this green. That's just a fact. It's a sturdy hole and rigid test; of that I am certain. I also believe, from playing it 7 times, that is also fun and challenging. However, I opine that it does not qualify as "great" because it takes away options more than it presents clever ways to achieve one's goal.

The stats back that up.

FAST FORWARD....let's just pretend that I just read your latest, witty, colorful reply. Haha...all great points, and, yes, I can be a stubborn arse, too.

No more venom, no more sarcasm, no more immature insults...Please...Pat, you have an open invite to come to Chicago and tee it up with me.

I guarantee good competition, fun golf, diverse conversation and a good meal.
Cheers,
Ian

What's wrong with a par-4 where a player can't fly the ball onto the green and hold it?  Are all golf courses supposed to be designed for YOUR game?

And why are you so hung up on how many "birdies" or "pars" a hole allows, when a player with your tournament experience should know it's all about your performance relative to others?

Did you watch Stacy Lewis play the hole last summer in the last round of the Women's British Open?  Why don't you big boys just play it like that?

[Scott Warren]

Ian,

I'm not sure 30-year-old scoring data qualifies as "pertinent".

It's not quality architecture's job to "defend par", its job is to create interesting options and decisions and a variety of ways to get from A to B depending on the player's ability and the conditions of the day.

"Par" is one of the most damaging concepts in the game, in large part because in the half-par grey area it leads people to appraise holes relative to the par or the chance of a birdie, which is lunacy.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Wow, this thing still has life. Overkill perhaps, but I appreciate and enjoy the varied viewpoints.
Going back to the original thread, to which I directly replied in my original post, I am curious to know if the subjectivity being debated may have something to do with ones's definition of "great".

Anyway...

@ Bill: I can hit a high fade, but not a high draw.

@ Tom: there's nothing wrong about not being able to fly a ball into TOC 17. My overall thesis does not focus on any one aspect of its playability. That would be a different thread. I said that, to me, the hole is not "great", a term I reserve for Wayne Gretzky, Walter Payton, Pele, Michael Jordan, and jack Nicklaus.

I am not hung up on anything about this thread, except being consistent to my theme and avoiding "rabbit holes".

However, I am being illuminated in a few areas and for that I am grateful. I am looking at a hole in its context of par and how I personally may choose to play it. Then I am measuring MY satisfaction in the context of my results. I guess it's natural, but empirically flawed.

Specific to 17 at TOC, my belief that it falls ever so short of being called "great" by ME may stem, not from the well-guarded green, but from the tee shot. Great holes that I have played at  Dornoch, Cypress, Chicago, NGLA, Shore Acres, Bandon stimulate and excite me from the second I step on the tee box until the moment I pull my ball from the hole. "Great" holes do not come with "buts", to me, but perhaps not to you. Again, this interpretation is highly subjective and no one here is right in an absolute way.

To me, the fact that you hit your blind tee shot over a hotel (not a castle, beach, ravine or river) reduces the stature and sheer enjoyment of this hole to a point that just simply falls a notch below being great.

Cheers,
Ian

[Scott Warren]

So if the Old Course Hotel were a castle, The Road Hole would be great?

[Sean_A]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Ciao

Thanks, Sean.
may I ask you to please put a little meat on that bone?

In your mind, what is "great"?
What makes 17 the best par 4 in the world? very easy to disagree with my thesis. In fact, anyone could do that rather easily, even my daughter.

@ Scott : this is just an opinion put forth buy an unqualified amateur . I am neither an architect or an expert. I have put forth a case, read others' opinions and  restated my case. To ME, when I see a hole I call "great", I want to play that hole again and again. Holes that are so difficult do not inspire that same reaction in ME. If difficulty equals greatness, then 17 is a contender. But I would rather play somewhere else and that's all I have to say about that.

[Scott Warren]

That's my point: you think it's "difficult" because it's a par four.

In reality it's a 4.5.

If it was changed to a par five tomorrow what would you feel as a first-time visitor?

Ignore par.

Does it ask interesting questions? Does it present interesting choices and offer interesting shots?

[Sean_A]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Ciao

Thanks, Sean.
may I ask you to please put a little meat on that bone?

In your mind, what is "great"?
What makes 17 the best par 4 in the world? very easy to disagree with my thesis. In fact, anyone could do that rather easily, even my daughter.

@ Scott : this is just an opinion put forth buy an unqualified amateur . I am neither an architect or an expert. I have put forth a case, read others' opinions and  restated my case. To ME, when I see a hole I call "great", I want to play that hole again and again. Holes that are so difficult do not inspire that same reaction in ME. If difficulty equals greatness, then 17 is a contender. But I would rather play somewhere else and that's all I have to say about that.

Ian

Using your definition of greatness, I would want to play #17 again and again, so its great.  To be honest, I am stunned that someone could say the Road Hole isn't great.  Its self evident as in greatness is known when it is seen.

Essentially the hole is a double dogleg and holds endless interest on what to do off the tee and for the approach because I know 4 can be had.  The question is, how does one get that 4?  Do you play the two doglegs?  Cut one dogleg or another?  If playing the two legs, should the Road Hole Bunker be taken on with the chip?  If cutting the 2nd leg is it to the front of the green or challenge the Road Hole Bunker?  If cutting the 1st dogleg is that over the building or with a hard fade around the building?  Just typing these sentences reiterates to my why teh Road Hole is obviously great.  But you gotta right baby.  Its just that in my experience I don't know what tops the Road Hole.

Ciao

[Sean Leary]

A couple of my initial thoughts have been mentioned already but one that hasn't is the 4th at Spyglass...Just think the green is too small as currently presented.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Sean,

Agree.

Ian, if # 17 was a par 5, would it NOT be a great hole for those who play it on a daily basis throughout the year ?

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Sean,

Agree.

Ian, if # 17 was a par 5, would it NOT be a great hole for those who play it on a daily basis throughout the year ?

Ciao

Pat and Sean, it's a fair point and one I will be dwelling on as our member/member commences today. But, that hotel is a just an eye-sore that I also need to block out to evaluate the hole on its merits.

Cheers,
Ian

[Sean_A]

Well, to each is own.  Depsite the rationalization of the hole by the R&A over the years (also see #16), the Road Hole remains possibly the greatest par 4 in the world.  Which is to say it may be the greatest hole in the world.  At the very least, the combination of uniqueness, Road Hole Bunker, use of pre-existing structures and angles, make the Road Hole one of the most memorable holes in the world.  I would venture to guess that if the Road Hole didn't exist, TOC might not be the holy grail of golf - the hole is that important to the game of golf.

Sean,

Agree.

Ian, if # 17 was a par 5, would it NOT be a great hole for those who play it on a daily basis throughout the year ?

Ciao

Pat and Sean, it's a fair point and one I will be dwelling on as our member/member commences today. But, that hotel is a just an eye-sore that I also need to block out to evaluate the hole on its merits.

Cheers,
Ian

Ian

What if the hotel were a giant dune shaped the same way?  I agree the hole isn't a looker, the tee shot anyway, but to even the tee shot has a beauty of its own.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

And what if it were a coal shed, with a railway running nearby, and you were at risk of cinders falling on you?
http://golfcoursehistories.com/TOC.html

Something else impressive about 17 TOC is not simply the choices faced every step along the hole, as noted by Sean, but the weighing of consequences into those decisions. For there is a bold choice and a safe choice. In match play as opposed to medal, the impact of choices and consequences magnifies. Like walking a tightrope without a net, where any missed "bold choice" shot will prove fatal -- as may the too-timidly chosen shots.

[Sean_A]

And what if it were a coal shed, with a railway running nearby, and you were at risk of cinders falling on you?
http://golfcoursehistories.com/TOC.html

Something else impressive about 17 TOC is not simply the choices faced every step along the hole, as noted by Sean, but the weighing of consequences into those decisions. For there is a bold choice and a safe choice. In match play as opposed to medal, the impact of choices and consequences magnifies. Like walking a tightrope without a net, where any missed "bold choice" shot will prove fatal -- as may the too-timidly chosen shots.

Mark

In the main I think you right, but I also think there remains a good element of luck in the failed attempt at the heroic.  One can get a bounce off the hotel or wall and be in a good position.  Or one can get a good position in the bunker and make an easy 5 or even a 4.  So there is some hope hope to go with the glory, but it is not to be expected. 

I am very surprised folks are dissing N Berwick's Pit.  It is a very cool hole and I don't know of one like it.  Geez, this group can be hard as old cheddar.  Maybe its best for some of you lot to stick with generic parklanders  . 

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

I appreciate that The Pit is a special hole - it's unique and fun - but why is it great?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I appreciate that The Pit is a special hole - it's unique and fun - but why is it great?

My reasons

1. Uses an awkward piece of land very well - I am a sucker for this kind of design. Just imagine what the alternative greensite may look like.  I bet dollars to dimes it wouldn't be anywhere near as inventive.   

2. Great use of the wall.

3. Excellent green placement taking full advantage of the wall and the rear dune. 

4. Fairway which leaves options open as to how to approach the green - just enough roper to hang yourself. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

And what if it were a coal shed, with a railway running nearby, and you were at risk of cinders falling on you?
http://golfcoursehistories.com/TOC.html

Something else impressive about 17 TOC is not simply the choices faced every step along the hole, as noted by Sean, but the weighing of consequences into those decisions. For there is a bold choice and a safe choice. In match play as opposed to medal, the impact of choices and consequences magnifies. Like walking a tightrope without a net, where any missed "bold choice" shot will prove fatal -- as may the too-timidly chosen shots.

Mark

In the main I think you right, but I also think there remains a good element of luck in the failed attempt at the heroic.  One can get a bounce off the hotel or wall and be in a good position.  Or one can get a good position in the bunker and make an easy 5 or even a 4.  So there is some hope hope to go with the glory, but it is not to be expected. 

I am very surprised folks are dissing N Berwick's Pit.  It is a very cool hole and I don't know of one like it.  Geez, this group can be hard as old cheddar.  Maybe its best for some of you lot to stick with generic parklanders  . 

Ciao

Every hole has an element of luck. If TOC 17 has more than most it's because luck is the residue of design.

[Frank M]

The 16th at Cypress Point. Most scenic? Possibly. One of the best par-3s in the world? Don't think so. The profile on this site says it's great because of its strategic options, amongst other things. When people say this hole has strategic options, do they mean you can either play it or completely skip it after taking your photo?

[Jim Nugent]

Frank, you can try the heroic approach and go for the green; or you can play it safe, bail out left, and still have a chance for three.  i.e. on one hole you might hit long iron or wood into the green, or you might hit wedge.  All based on what you decide to do on the tee. 

In what way is that not an option? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,

CP 16 was one example of my idea of secretly not so great - If it wasn't for the great views, would you ever really like a par 3 hole where you basically had to lay up on a different angle?  The basic thrill and goodness of a par 3 is hitting the green....

Also similar to my original example of PB 17 where it looks okay (ocean not as dramatic) but you wouldn't really angle the green across the line of play for that long a shot, and do a shallow green.  Basically, Butler National and a lot of JN courses get thrashed for that, and yet, why can it be considered great at PB?

And lastly, TOC 17.  Where else would you say its a good idea to aim over OB and a well used structure to boot? (I have seem old barns replicate this, which is okay)

Basically bad designs by concept, in great settings.

[Scott Warren]

Frank,

CP 16 was one example of my idea of secretly not so great - If it wasn't for the great views...

From the famed golf architecture series "If it wasn't for"

If it wasn't for the great terrain...

If it wasn't for the sandy soil...

If it wasn't for the amazing greensite...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frank,

CP 16 was one example of my idea of secretly not so great -

YIKES.............  lay off the firewater.


If it wasn't for the great views, would you ever really like a par 3 hole where you basically had to lay up on a different angle? 

Jeff, there's NO MANDATE to lay up, that's at the option of the golfer.
In fact, it's one of the few par 3's with a distinct option, a departure from purely target golf.

Forget about the view, pretend it's foggy and you can't see the oceans beyond the green.
The heroic carry, ala # 9 at Yale separates # 16 from most par 3's.

The basic thrill and goodness of a par 3 is hitting the green....

While I agree in general, I'd say that the basic thrill is in making par or birdie.
Hitting the green on a Biarritz or Redan or short doesn't guarantee a par.

Also similar to my original example of PB 17 where it looks okay (ocean not as dramatic) but you wouldn't really angle the green across the line of play for that long a shot, and do a shallow green. 

I disagree on # 17 at PBGC as well.

You indicated that it's a "long shot" when it isn't a long shot.
A special back tee was created for Major events and the 17th shouldn't be viewed from that tee/perspective, rather as it was designed and is played by golfers on a daily basis.

Basically, Butler National and a lot of JN courses get thrashed for that, and yet, why can it be considered great at PB?

And lastly, TOC 17.  Where else would you say its a good idea to aim over OB and a well used structure to boot? (I have seem old barns replicate this, which is okay)

I think the narrowing of the 17th fairway over the last 50 years has diminished the architectural and playing values of the hole.
With it's earlier width, driving into the fairway wasn't much of a challenge.

How is the tee shot at the 17th at TOC that much different from the tee shot at the 17th at Yale in terms of the need to get the drive airborne ?

Basically bad designs by concept, in great settings.

Disagree.
What's so great about the setting at TOC's 17th ?

[Mark Pearce]

I feel most unwell.  I agree with an entire Mucci post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I feel most unwell.  I agree with an entire Mucci post.


Mark,

I feel your pain.

Happy Fathers Day to you and all others.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

If you can't carry the 225 yards, or whatever, at CP 16, there is a mandate to layup, or at least an effective one. Or, you can dump a dozen $4 golf balls in the drink for no good reason....

Your second comment basically sums up my intent in posting, "While I agree in general......".  I am not saying that the occasional really hard par 3 hole shouldn't exist, especially in dramatic situations, nor am I advocating any changes to existing holes.  The question is, if you agree in general that you should be able to reach a par 3, would you, in today's world design another one where most or many can't?  It would have to be a similarly special situation.

As to what the thrill of a par 3 is for most golfers, I will disagree with you. The thrill is in a well struck golf shot, not what it will possibly bring next, a la striking a long and true drive. No better feeling on earth, and no, I'm not a virgin......

PS-As to TOC 17, I guess I include history as part of my definition of setting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()