What does a "weak" hole mean to you?

[TEPaul]

I hear the term thrown around on here and elsewhere now and then. What does it mean to you?

My concern is that some golfers, perhaps many golfers, even some otherwise very knowlegeable golf analysts use the term to describe holes that fail somehow to challenge them only in a physical sense. Or worse yet those golf analysts who at one time or another make a birdie or whatever on the hole and for some odd reason conclude that the hole has been conquered somehow even if one time and that it no longer deserves consideration as interesting or challenging and therefore they lose respect for it and may end up labelling it weak in some way.

I think there's a place for golf holes that are sometimes one dimensionally demanding of even the best. But what about those holes that don't really seem demanding, at least physically but for some reason continue to make you really think because although you know if you perform ideally to your best laid plans if for whatever reason anything goes even a little awry physically or particularly mentally things just may go very wrong?

I realize what I'm talking about may seem to fall mostly into the area of the short tricky par 4 (a type of hole I particularly enjoy and admire) but not really. I certainly admire a hole like Merion's #18 that's clearly one dimensionally demanding if its a par 4 you're after. The thing I like most about holes like that though is even if it's only the bogie you may be after you still have to think and perform well or your best laid plans might turn into something really horrible. Believe me I know from a State Am there when I made a 13 after being about even par at the time (started on #11).

I realize that this subject falls near to the idea about a wide scoring spectrum being the barometer of the quality of a golf hole that was proposed by me and analyzed statistically to some extent by Bob Crosby.

To me a weak hole is one that you seem to play the same way every day that probably ends up having a very narrow scoring spectrum over time. That to me is one dimensional and boring and a "weak" hole.

What does a weak hole mean to you?

[mike_malone]

 A weak hole to me has a tee shot where only a lucky hit puts you in the right place and any mishit leaves no option to the green.I am thinking of at least five examples of holes i have played often.
 When i stand on the tee i am not looking forward to the shot.
    It is good to compare to a "strong" hole.Options off the tee,excitement that i can get it right,acceptance that a mishit is my fault.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is a great thread.  I use the  the term "weak" to mean a fe different things.  Secondarily it is not always easy to determine what a weak hole is.  For instance.  The firsts time I played the sixth hole at Four Streams GC outside D.C.  I thought it was a weak hole.  It is only about 330 yards.  The landing area is large enough to accomodate even a semi-wild drive and the green is larg and seems benign.  I thought, my mom could have designed this hole.  Not so.  The hole is driveable, but only if you hit the drive to the right side to avoid the bunker fronting the green and take the slope that Smyers intentionally put to the right front of the green.  If you choose to lay up and hit a shot into the green, the slope is such that even hitting the ball close with a 60 degree wedge is difficult.  I don't bogey it very often but I birdie it very seldom, and whenever I do it is with a long putt.

On the other hand I have played 450 yard par fours that my mother could have designed.  Straight away, with an obligatory bunker near the green.  It is totally uninteresting.  It may not be easy to make four because of the length, but it is certainly boring.  Its design is weak.  There is a distinction between weak and easy.  Fifteen at Cypress Point isn't the most difficult hole on the course to say the least, but who would say that it is a weak hole?

Of course there are holes that are both weak and easy. They are the worst.  An example might be number one at Shoracres, a course I love but does have a couple "weak" holes.  

[TEPaul]

Tommy W:

That was a good post but dammit you completely dissed your mother twice in that post. Why did you do that? How do you know your Mom doesn't have some really great latent talent for golf course architecture? How do you know if she just might not be the next George Crump? Lay off on your Mom until you actual see a course by her and we've all had time to evaluate it!  

[Tommy Williamsen]

    Sorry Mom!

[TEPaul]

Tommy W:

On that note my Mom doesn't know one damn thing about golf course architecture or at least I never thought she did. We've certainly never talked about it. But not long ago she asked me how the restoration of GMGC went because she knew I spent time on that.

I said we restored the bunkers and greens and such and then she blurted out;

"Well I hope they look natural because most of the modern golf courses I've seen look so unnatural--they're nothing like they used to be when everything felt so natural."

I didn't say it--just looked at her but I should have said;

Whoa, Mom, go for it!

[TEPaul]

"Sorry Mom!"

OK Tommy--you don't have to go to your room then. Go on out and play but make sure you stay where your Mom can see you!

[Rick_Noyes]

Can you define a "weak" hole without considering the holes that preceed it or follow it?  I would have to place a "weak" value on a hole in context with the other 17.  

That being said, I can't remember the weak holes I've played.  Thus, they are weak.

Rick

[Nigel_Walton]

Rick, I believe you are correct in that weak is a relative term. So, a weak hole on most courses would be less interesting strategically, less beautiful and, perhaps, less challenging than what one finds on the rest of the course.

At Loch Lomond, many believe the 11th is a "weak" hole, because it makes the only really unreasonable demand of the player on the golf course owing to its length and unusually shaped green.

At Winged Foot, I recall one par 5 on the East that I thought was weak. The 8th perhaps? It had a severe dogleg, almost 90 degrees and was unusually short with a topsy turvy green. On a piece of property with 35 other wonderful holes, it suffered by comparison.

[Joe Hancock]

Weak Hole:

Topped drive.....goes out maybe 100 yards to the fairway. Then a skulled three iron scoots all the way up to green, with no hinderances. Ball comes to rest on the back collar, where a chunked chip shot gathers momentum and rolls down the hill and into the hole for a birdie three.

Not sure where all that came from....I must have seen a league player do it on any given hole out here.....

Joe

[Matt Kardash]

I remember Johnny Miller describing the tee shot at the par 5 9th at the TPC as weak becuase the fairway was wide

[BCrosby]

A weak hole is one with a low TEP number.

Bob

[TEPaul]

A low TEP number=a narrow scoring spectrum or differential over time.

[BCrosby]

Correct.

The wider the dispersion of scores over and under the par, the higher the TEP number.

The narrower the dispersion, the lower the TEP number.

The system doesn't work perfectly, however. For example, a long, hard par 4 will almost always have a lower TEP number than a short risk/reward par 4 with lots of trouble. But I'm not prepared to say the shorter par 4's of that type are always better than a good long par 4.

Thinking out loud, maybe the TEP number for those types of holes shouldn't be compared. You could treat them as separate categories (i.e. group long par fours and short par fours separately) and make comparisons only within each category.

Bob  

[RJ_Daley]

boring tee shot to a flat uninteresting LZ, flat uninteresting green = weak hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You just don't get it,

A week hole is one where you tee off on sunday and finish on saturday.

[Paul_Turner]

Even weak or easy holes have some advantages:

They give the weak player the chance of a glorious par or even birdie.

They can mess up the psychology of the good player, who expects to get a birdie more often than not; but if they don't get the expected bird, it plays on their mind.

[Doug Siebert]

In my mind a weak hole is one where one's skill as a golfer doesn't really come into play.  You aren't really rewarded in any significant way for executing the shot you planned or really penalized for failing to do so (or for failing to even have a plan when you step onto the tee)

A lot of people will just say its a hole that's too easy, and maybe there's some merit in that.  Or maybe its just an artifact of our insistence on par being an integer.  Is for example the 9th at TOC still objectionable to some as a weak hole if its listed on the card as a par 3 1/2?  While it may not demand as much of a good shot or penalize a poor one as sternly as #11 or #17, you can waste or shot or two if you fall asleep at the wheel there.

[allysmith]

TE

I'm with the no challenge brigade.

However can a weak hole become a good hole by its position within the course??

In other words a straightaway 300 yard par 4 with a flat green may be a weak finishing hole or a weak opening hole but if it strategically placed within the course to give the golfer respite from playing very difficult holes then it becomes a strategically strong hole.?

[TEPaul]

"However can a weak hole become a good hole by its position within the course??"

Ally:

I don't see how it can or even why someone would say such a thing. Recognizing that there're some holes on courses that are considered sort of "breather" holes (some consider "breather holes" the weak ones on courses) even by architects and designers, in my opinion, holes such as this should be along the lines of holes such as PVGC's #8 or #12 which are short holes but holes that although one can attack and make birdie on they must be careful from tee to green to not be thoughtless or careless physically or they will definitely pay a price in score.

I certainly look at how any hole fits into its course's routing and such but to me a hole is either a good one or a weak one no matter where it is or where it is in its course's routing. Just because it may be one of the better holes on an otherwise weak course doesn't make it a better hole to me.

[A_Clay_Man]

Shivas's fav, the 15th at PB, is probably one of the weaker holes on one of the greatest courses. But, following the 14th (hardest on tour) even a premadonna deserves a breather.

There are back to back holes at Pinon that are often described as weak. I do not describe them that way except to say that, on paper, they look weak. What I find fascinating about them is that they have the wide spectrum in scoring, over time. With water to the left of both greens, and greens that look similar, but are not, the challenge is higher than appears. I've even heard one of them described as "unfair" because of a small shelf that is difficult to hold on the par 5. One's a short four and the other is a short five.(current 13th & 14th). In the original config they were holes #4 & 5. I believe their placement in that round was stronger because they add to the variety and foreshadow the ebb and flow of both motiff and the thought and deception Ken Dye created. Truth be known, if I were the czar I would make these holes the first and last. The finisher would be the short five and would in my mind be extremely exciting because of the thought processies. Making this so, would also kill a few more birds, by having the clubhouse in a better spot and would make the routing work better. The one downside would be the short four starter. With egos and tecno, many would wait for the green and that may not get you your ten minute intervals.

[TEPaul]

I think Doug Siebert very much touches on some of the things I was hoping might be reported here. I tried to say in my opening post that what I'm concerned about is when golfers assume that a hole is weak only because they may have done well on it once, perhaps the one and only time they played the hole!

Often, when that happens they're really failing to understand what may and generally does happen over time if they don't play the hole well mentally or physically and consequently downplay the value or merit of the hole. When that happens they may not have realized how fortunate they were and may fail to really look at the danger or risk/reward of the hole simply because they hit a few very fortunate shots and perhaps made birdie.

Can you imagine someone having that happen on Riviera's #10 hole, for instance. It's very possible someone playing that hole only one time may get lucky and birdie or even eagle the hole and assume it's a weak hole simply because of that occurence, little knowing the things that can and do happen if they continued playing it over time.

Doug's mention of the integer and the par number is also a true phenomenon that completely skews many many golfers' evaluation of a golf hole. A golf hole is what it is regardless of what par number you call it, in my opinion!

Would Riviera's #10 become an even stronger hole if they called it a par 3 and did nothing to it? Of course not. Would it become a weaker hole if they called it a par 5 and did nothing to it? Of course not. It is what it is and the idea is to score as low as possible on it always considering your level of scoring risk in trying to do so!

[TEPaul]

I must admit while writing this thread the 12th hole at Rustic Canyon was very much on my mind. The reason being is it's my belief that one of the novelties of that particular hole (providing it really can and will accomplish what was intended of it) was to make it look weak in ways that may even seem obvious but in fact and reality is it really is nothing of the kind.

That, I thought, was part of the underlying design of the hole and the other idea was to almost force golfers (over time) to recognize that good golf holes do NOT ALWAYS need to challenge a golfer on every shot (this being the tee shot on #12). The idea behind that was to get more golfers to recognize the connected shot aspect or progressive shot aspect of strategy, or the unified, whole hole nature of strategy, if you will, and to think less about strategy in single shot increments that must have a single shot success or failure factor.

In other words, on the tee shot the hole is supposed to basically induce the ultimate false sense of security. If it fails to work as intended I might ultimately call it a weak hole but if it does end up working as it was intended (which would be to create a wide scoring spectrum although a golfer might not fully realize what just happened to him) I would call the hole extremely sophisticated and anything but weak, although, again, appearing to be so (intentionally)!

[TEPaul]

Although I'm not 100% certain, particularly because I came upon the design late in the game of it's finalization, it's my strong belief that the reason the concept of a hole such as Rustic Canyon's #12 came into being is because one of the designers, Geoff Shackelford, finds one of the worst things about golf architecture is what would be called "architectural shot dictation" and particularly single shot or incremental shot dictation. In other words, when designers get into creating holes and their strategies that are totally obvious to the golfer--and worse yet designing holes like that intentionally. Another term for this is "architectural road-mapping". The ultimate result of this kind of obvious design is to remove the necessity for any individual thought from the golfer basically removing thoughtful alternative options and basically creating incremental shot success or failure in generally a very one dimensional way. Another description of this might be "mental hand-holding" in design. The most obvious evidence of this kind of thing might be found if a designer actually prints up a little description or booklet of EXACTLY how to play his golf holes!

Rustic's #12 was supposed to go to the other end of the spectrum on that modern design habit. At least that was the concept, in my mind.

Again, this is not a departure from the subject and question of this thread of what's thought of as a weak hole because this hole was supposed to sort of make golfers think it was weak but then even with well struck but otherwise thoughtless shots if the hole is so weak why the hell am I making the mistakes I am on it score-wise?

[allysmith]

TE,

Fair comment on the positioning of a hole not having an effect on it being a weakness but I think your argument may go some way to answering my question from another angle. The 'strength of a hole can be affected by its position in the layout. I.E. aa respite hole can be easy but not neccessarily 'weak'

Chivas,

Your last post is a fine summary of WEAK.