[Jeff_Brauer]

Sort of a corollary to my other thread, but I find golfers comment on holes if they are unusually difficult, beautiful, or unusual, depending on what their golf mentality is.

They also tend to notice the negative - I ask golfers what hole they like the best, and inevitably, get answers about the hole they like the least.  No matter how hard I try to get a favorite, they go back to describe the one they like least, saying all the others were okay.

So, what kind of hole stands out to you?

[Rob Marshall]

[size=78%]Beautiful to the eye, challenging but gettable. Demanding tee shot followed by an equally demanding  approach. Making Par or the rare birdie means you played a hell of a hole. I know the course doesn't get a lot of love but the 4th hole on Torry South comes to mind. Loved that hole. Stood on the tee on a beautiful day. The ocean was like glass. I remember thinking it just doesn't get much better than this.[/size]
[/size]

[Greg Gilson]

Holes where I have 2 , or maybe 3, genuine options from the tee.

[Martin Lehmann]

Holes that lie in front of you like a chess board. Open and transparent, with all options, dangers and threats clearly visible. Where you have to plan ahead, make choices and execute them in the right order and in the best possible manner. With an opening move, middle game and end game. Where golf is a physical challenge and a brain teaser at the same time.

[Mark Kiely]

I tend to favor holes with movement: either a dogleg or elevation change in some way. Combine those two and I swoon.

[Thomas Dai]

What kind of holes do I notice the most? Ones less than 420 or so yds. Any longer and they usually become a bit boring and pretty forgettable.


Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

I love a really good shortish par four that requires precision and thought. It doesn't need to be drivable. It should give options about how far and where to hit the drive and precision with the irons to a green with some slope or undulations.

[Phil McDade]

Holes that lie in front of you like a chess board. Open and transparent, with all options, dangers and threats clearly visible. Where you have to plan ahead, make choices and execute them in the right order and in the best possible manner. With an opening move, middle game and end game. Where golf is a physical challenge and a brain teaser at the same time.

For me, probably the exact opposite of this. Holes I notice the most are ones where the strategic intent of the architect is not apparent at first glance, and where all kinds of devices -- be it blindness, bunkering, tilt of the green, lay of the land, wind prevalence -- are used to disguise and befuddle ways to get to the hole.

[Blake Conant]

I notice holes that use the land well, but in a way that's unique from what most architects would do.  For example, I was at Scranton a couple weeks ago and Travis has four holes where the green falls on a downslope and runs away from you.  6, 7, 10, and 14.  They're all really well done and they turned out to be 4 of the best holes on the course, but not many architects would've had the balls to build them.  10 sits on good ground, but I'd guess most modern archs would've instead benched it into the hill some 40 yards just beyond the stream.   


On a bigger scale, noticing how Tillinghast routed Fenway much the same as Ross routed Seminole.  How those guys ate up flat space with fairway and benched all their greens on the two major landforms on the respective sites. 

[Matt MacIver]

Angles stand out to me, as well as elevation and undulation. A lone bunker stands out more than several. Parallel hazards do nothing for me, except elevate my score.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - it's a shame, but not too surprising, that when you ask golfer-types what hole we like best we come back with the ones we liked least.  I think you may be giving us too much credit even in asking the question!

When I think of the course I play most often, there are two types of holes that stand out for me:
a) the 2 holes that have, relatively speaking, really good/interesting/challenging greens (one a Pinehurst-style upside-down bowl; the other an-almost Redan type green fronted by water), and
b) the 2 hardest-ranked holes on the course: a long dog-leg left Par 4, and a Par 5 with a creek that meanders down the right side and then crosses the fairway at about 180 yards out.

With a), besides the simple fun and challenge of putting good greens, I also feel like I'm "getting my money's worth", i.e.  that the real work (trying to do no worse than a two-putt) gets started only when I think the work (trying to hit the greens in regulation, and in a decent position) has been done.

With b)  I like them not because (or only because) they are stern tests, but because they play differently almost every day and are designed to allow for this -- a rare characteristic on this course. With differing winds and differing quality of shots, I can be coming into the Par 4 with anything from a 7 iron to a 5 wood; and on the Par 5, with a good tee shot I can hit my second to within 60 yards of the green, while after a poor tee shot I have to lay up short of the creek and still have a 4 iron for my third. 

Those kinds of "correlations", i.e. between wind/shot conditions and choices, are very appealing when the design allows for meaningful and differing engagement -- and for an average golfer it is very satisfying when, after making smart choices  and hitting decent shots, you manage to make par on the two hardest holes on the course.   

Peter

[Mark Greer]

I love short par 4s.  I played 36 at Sand Hills about 3 weeks ago and #7 and #8 are incredible holes.  Not sure I've ever played back to back, drivable par 4s on a world-class course before.  Both are incredibly fun, present risk-reward opportunities, and make the player think.  And both were easy to make double.

#7 at Ballyneal is also incredible.   After driving it to the fringe only about 20 ft from the hole and almost in the greenside bunker, I had no direct line to the back right pin placement and had to choose between chipping over the bunker or putting up the slope on the left side of the green and allowing the ball to feed back to the hole which would cover about 60-70 feet.  I chose the latter and putted it to 4 ft.  Incredibly fun!

[Carl Johnson]

By notice I take it you mean visually.  These have zero to do with holes I prefer, but the ones I notice and that stick in my mind have a great vista off the tee.  The first at the main course at Portstewart comes to mind.  It has a big drop to the fairway, and lots of background, as I recall.

[BCrosby]

The holes I remember most are the holes I understand least the first couple of times through.


Bob

[RJ_Daley]

I also like mid length par 4s or short 4s, 320 to 380ish, where LZs are wide enough to give you a glimpse at part of a generous but topographically varied in slopes or rumples along the ground.  Iike holes where if it is your first time, you can see a bit of what appears to be a fairly safe LZ to attempt to get to, and one side or area that has a bit of concealment from the tee, and while you may have information either from a pictogram of the hole (yardage book) or caddie suggestion or whatever, you have to take a bit of a leap of faith knowing the vaguely defined area may have a big advantage.  Then, I like greens with good movement and interest on approach from the various places one may have tried to play to from the tee.  These approaches I prefer to be hitting anything from a wedge up to about 5I that places the interesting green within reasonably reachable distance for higher handicap players like myself would feel accomplished upon hitting that good approach, but enough greens and surrounds variety that a low capper would definitely still need to be on their best to approach and position to pins for birdies and pars where the higher capper is very happy to make par and feels satisfied with bogey.

[Charlie_Bell]

On courses that I seldom play, the holes that hold my attention are usually those with the best visuals:  ones where the fairway or green is framed by landmarks or contours;  or simply ones in a beautiful setting.  I'm also a sucker for blind shots, as I love the element of anticipation in playing an Alps hole, the 13th at Cabot Links, or Dornoch's 8th and 17th -- not that I find such holes very often.

On courses that I play more frequently, I enjoy holes where the Butterfly Effect comes into play, i.e. small changes in ball position anywhere on the hole will result in large changes in strategy.  Unless you hit your shot exactly as you intended, there will be an element of novelty or surprise in the result, which will alter your plan for the next shot.  This is usually created by tilting land, contours, and quirky features.  Mark's notion of "movement" is a good one here, covering a wide range of design elements.

[Jason Topp]

I really like holes that have a secret - such as a speed slot, a garden spot or some sort of angle that can give me an advantage over a better player. 

I also like holes where the shot I want to play is not necessarily the shot I should play. 

[Bill_McBride]

I love short par 4s.  I played 36 at Sand Hills about 3 weeks ago and #7 and #8 are incredible holes.  Not sure I've ever played back to back, drivable par 4s on a world-class course before.  Both are incredibly fun, present risk-reward opportunities, and make the player think.  And both were easy to make double.

#7 at Ballyneal is also incredible.   After driving it to the fringe only about 20 ft from the hole and almost in the greenside bunker, I had no direct line to the back right pin placement and had to choose between chipping over the bunker or putting up the slope on the left side of the green and allowing the ball to feed back to the hole which would cover about 60-70 feet.  I chose the latter and putted it to 4 ft.  Incredibly fun!

Wouldn't it be fun to spend a few hours at Sand Hills playing 7&8 over and over?   I've never seen a course with back to back, opposite direction short par 4s where you could do that!   Especially when the two are as much fun as that pair. 

[Sean_A]

Its really difficult to say which holes I notice most.  I guess its basically the holes which use the ground features very well or even if a simple feature was constructed and used well.  I love little hollows which catch overly aggressive shots or impede play for sloppily placed shots.  I also love the same for tilted greens.  One of the coolest tilted greens I have encountered is Minch Old's 9th.  Its the first hole on the course which looks normalish and golfers will be seduced to the fat right side of the fairway.  But from that angle a hollow needs to be carried to a green which slides away.  To me, this is an example of the ultimate expression of great architecture.  Nothing fancy which requires a large maintenance budget.  Nothing which jumps up and screams "look at me".  Just a bloody clever hole which used what was available without any great fanfare. 



Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

I have never been that good of a player so my senses are probably more attune to the aesthetic qualities of he hole. I favor simple lines that are easy for the eye to connect with the environment the hole is in. Which is probably why I like the older architects more; they kept their lines and grades simpler.

[Matthew Petersen]

I guess in terms of first impressions, it's where dramatic choices exist. So, cape holes, or holes that leave you with a very obvious choice to make (even if on repeated plays the options shift in certain ways). Basically, the kind of hole that you play and then want to go back to the tee to try the other route.

[Matthew Essig]

-Holes with a lot of choices
-Holes with interesting green contours and surrounds
-Holes with unique features

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()