[Sean_A]

Listening to all of my fellow experts here finding flaws in the best courses reminded me of something ... the idea that art should contain a deliberate mistake.

Golf tends to appeal to perfectionists, but the more one works in golf architecture, the sillier that concept becomes.

Nope..not seeking perfection...far from it...just pointing out the holes which the only thing I would miss by not experiencing them is boredom and/or annoyance.  I can take the idea of awkwardness being a legit reason for a hole to exist or even difficulty as an excuse, but I don't care to spend my money and time to be bored or annoyed. 

Ciao

[Eric LeFante]

I noticed two holes mentioned at Pine Valley: 11 and 12.


I think 11 is great because it's such a naturally beautiful hole.


I do think 12 is the least great hole on the course. I think a big reason why I think that is because I played from the back tee and after thinking about it for a while I think the hole is much better from the members tee. The back tee is lower and to the left of the members tee so the angle is really bad if you want to hit driver and challenge the left side.


The main reason why I don't love the hole is because I don't think it entices you to go for the green or even try to get close to the green. The green is at a 90 degree angle, the penalty is severe if you miss left, and the fairway is really wide with plenty of room right. These factors make it foolish to challenge the green or left side in my opinion. Perhaps if the green came out a little further to the right or there was a penalty for hitting your drive to the right, it would entice plays to go for the green. I believe they are clearing more trees on the left so that should help things.


With all that said, it's not a bad hole and I love greens that run away from the fairway (a back pin seems like it would be a really fun pitch and run shot). It just seems like an automatic decision from the tee to hit it down the right side of the fairway to me.

[Paul Rudovsky]

I agree with Tom about golf architecture being art and imperfections have their place (that is a poor paraphrase of what Tom wrote).  I still vote for 18 at CPC but vote strongly for the concept of imperfections "done right" can add value, and the idea of a sleeper hole that lulls the good golfer to sleep and causes a loss of focus.  I believe that great golf is a semi-battle between architect and player, and tricks such as sleeper holes and camouflage are part of a great architect's weaponry.


To give an a example of why imperfections "done right" work...let me offer the total opposite.  I have only played Shadow Creek (NV) once and never want to see it again.  Here was an attempt at "perfection" which IMO has no "charm" or "guile" and is a disaster...simply no fun.  You know Rotella's book "Golf is not a Game of Perfect"?  How about "Golf Architecture is not a Quest for Perfection."

[Sven Nilsen]

"Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing."

The premise of the thread seems a bit strange in light of the definition of the category you've asked us to analyze.

[Niall C]

Sven


The premis of the thread was to consider and discuss whether the CG 10's meet the definition laid down by Tom all those years ago. It occurred to me that do that you are considering the holes at or on the margin, those being the "least good" as Harry Colt might have put it. Clearly what works for some doesn't for others so there will be disagreements about whether a particular hole "works" and hence a discussion on architecture hopefully ensues. Four pages in that seems to be the case. Certainly it's worked better at engendering a discussion on architecture than a lot of my previous threads.


Niall

[Sven Nilsen]

Niall:


Would anyone ever ask what the "least good" movement is in Beethoven's 9th?  Or the worst brush stroke in Starry Night?  Or the least great chapter in The Grapes of Wrath?


I understand that golf courses lend themselves better to be split into pieces and dissected, but at some point on the scale of greatness the whole of a course transcends minor criticism of its parts, and in truth makes any discussion of those minor criticisms trite and impertinent.


Sven

[John Kavanaugh]

Sven,


What makes this an interesting discussion is Doak's fallibility. He just might not know a 10 if it spit in his face.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,


What makes this an interesting discussion is Doak's fallibility. He just might not know a 10 if it spit in his face.

Kavanaugh:


He's a lot better at it than the Golf Digest panel.


Sven

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes but Ballyneal is clearly better than Pacific Dunes. So much so that a critics critic may question his motivation. PD gets a bias bump because it was early in his career and the owner has more projects in the pipeline. The boy knows how to get work.


History obviously plays a huge role in what Doak believes is a 10. We all know that historically significant buildings are a bitch to live in from the perspective of the modern consumer. The critics not so much.

[Marty Bonnar]

It's about time I posted something vaguely architectural.

Having seen Tom's list, I've just realised I have quite the substantial portfolio (well, 5!) of his 10s in my golf bag, so I've got that going for me. Total consciousness on my deathbed is obviously next. Quite surprised by that, but I suppose I'm getting old! So, here's my least favoUrite holes of the ones I've played.


TOC
Definitely #9. Just a snoozefest. I'm so bored of the idea it's somehow a respite hole. Who needs respite on what might be your one and only visit to TOC?!?!? Great golf courses should be like a rollercoaster. Highs and lows, absolutely, but at no point should the ride be halted by boredom.


Muirfield
This is a trickier proposition, but on reflection, maybe the 11th sticks least in my mind. I'm usually really good at remembering details of golf holes and courses, and I'm finding visualising this hole the hardest of those at HCEG to remember, so maybe that means something.


Dornoch
Between two for me, and only really because they have to be compared to 16 other great golf holes. So, it's either #7 or #16. 7 just doesn't fill my head with pleasurable excitement when I think of it, and, while the challenge of the drive at 16 is quite fun, I'm always aware of the boring green site which awaits at the top. I've decided to go with 16 as the least best, as I think 7 has generally more redeeming features. A fun green, great views, the nice feeling of isolation.


CPC
Been a few years, but, again on reflection it comes down to a fairly simple solution. After the years decades of dreaming of playing there, the reality of THAT opening shot is a shock, and not in a good way. Arriving on that First tee, head and heart full of joy, anticipation, excitement, trepidation, nervous energy, performance anxiety, etc, etc and being confronted by THE HEDGE would render even Priapus flaccid. The rest of course is joy unbounded.


PVGC
Maybe the trickiest of all here, as I'm failing to find much fault anywhere. As I must choose, I'm going to go with the 12th. Not because it's a bad golf hole per se, but because it's been allowed to become one by the arboricultural maintenance choices. Some judicious pruning and felling would make it an absolute cracker!


That was fun - and allowed for some nice melancholic memories...


F.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes but Ballyneal is clearly better than Pacific Dunes. So much so that a critics critic may question his motivation. PD gets a bias bump because it was early in his career and the owner has more projects in the pipeline. The boy knows how to get work.


History obviously plays a huge role in what Doak believes is a 10. We all know that historically significant buildings are a bitch to live in from the perspective of the modern consumer. The critics not so much.

I've stated numerous times that history plays zero role in my evaluations of courses.  You don't see me referring to the results of championships, etc., in very many of my reviews, do you?


My thesis for Pacific Dunes being a 10 is partly based on the fact that, 16 years later, I still don't see anything that needs changing [apart from fixing a few bunkers in place so they won't lose their sand so fast].  I guess I could say the same for Ballyneal now, 10+ years in. 


Ballyneal was unique among all of the courses we've rated in The Confidential Guide, that it received 9's from all four of us [but no 10's] ... maybe that's just to avoid arguments with the Sand Hills zealots?

[Sean_A]

Niall:


Would anyone ever ask what the "least good" movement is in Beethoven's 9th?  Or the worst brush stroke in Starry Night?  Or the least great chapter in The Grapes of Wrath?


I understand that golf courses lend themselves better to be split into pieces and dissected, but at some point on the scale of greatness the whole of a course transcends minor criticism of its parts, and in truth makes any discussion of those minor criticisms trite and impertinent.


Sven

Whats impertinent is comparing golf courses to paintings or music.  When was the last time you spent 3.5 hours walking on a painting while swinging a club at a ball?  When is the last time you spent 3.5 hours listening to a golf a course?  Sometimes, folks take the art aspect of golf design waaaaaay too far.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Muirfield
This is a trickier proposition, but on reflection, maybe the 11th sticks least in my mind. I'm usually really good at remembering details of golf holes and courses, and I'm finding visualising this hole the hardest of those at HCEG to remember, so maybe that means something.

Interesting that more than one person has picked the 11th at Muirfield but not been able to put their finger on why.


The tee shot is the only blind one on the course -- over a sharp dune ridge -- yet nobody has objected to that specifically.  It's certainly one of the best greens on the course, so that doesn't jibe with voting it the worst hole.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,


I know you don't reference history but doubt that if any of your 10's had been built in the last 10 years, by anyone other than you or Mike Keiser, they would be 10's in your book.


As example, if you and Mike had built Friars Head it would be a 10. But then again, it wasn't.

[Sven Nilsen]

Niall:


Would anyone ever ask what the "least good" movement is in Beethoven's 9th?  Or the worst brush stroke in Starry Night?  Or the least great chapter in The Grapes of Wrath?


I understand that golf courses lend themselves better to be split into pieces and dissected, but at some point on the scale of greatness the whole of a course transcends minor criticism of its parts, and in truth makes any discussion of those minor criticisms trite and impertinent.


Sven

Whats impertinent is comparing golf courses to paintings or music.  When was the last time you spent 3.5 hours walking on a painting while swinging a club at a ball?  When is the last time you spent 3.5 hours listening to a golf a course?  Sometimes, folks take the art aspect of golf design waaaaaay too far.

Ciao

Use whatever non-artistic example you want.  The least great part on a ferrari.  The worst component on a Festool chop saw.  The least good bottle on the top shelf.


They're still all top shelf.

[Sean_A]

Niall:


Would anyone ever ask what the "least good" movement is in Beethoven's 9th?  Or the worst brush stroke in Starry Night?  Or the least great chapter in The Grapes of Wrath?


I understand that golf courses lend themselves better to be split into pieces and dissected, but at some point on the scale of greatness the whole of a course transcends minor criticism of its parts, and in truth makes any discussion of those minor criticisms trite and impertinent.


Sven

Whats impertinent is comparing golf courses to paintings or music.  When was the last time you spent 3.5 hours walking on a painting while swinging a club at a ball?  When is the last time you spent 3.5 hours listening to a golf a course?  Sometimes, folks take the art aspect of golf design waaaaaay too far.

Ciao

Use whatever non-artistic example you want.  The least great part on a ferrari.  The worst component on a Festool chop saw.  The least good bottle on the top shelf.


They're still all top shelf.

 

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

For me 1-5 at Ballybunion are pretty average. The approach to 6 is fun so I quite like the hole. The best of BB is stunning but I cannot buy a 10 that has several average holes and in the case of 5 an uninteresting slog.

[Steve Salmen]

Of the 9 perfect 10s I've played, Muirfield is the only one without a hole I can say is the weak link. David Duval once said 6 was the only bad hole, while Mr Baird told me it was his favorite. It's probably in the middle for me.


7 at Dornoch is a great hole, but not on that course. I'm kind of alone here in thinking 16 is one of the great tisk reward driving holes. How is the tee shot theoretically different than 8 at NGLA? It tapers the longer you try to go.


9 at TOC speaks for itself.


The 11th at CPC just didn't do it for me. I thought 18 was a let down but not a bad finish.


12 at Crystal was the least interesting hole to me. I think 17 is one great short par 4. Demanding but fair.


Shinnecock's are either 4 or 8 due to flat fairways. Both greens are phenomenal.


Pac Dunes would be 7 or 18. On other courses they're great holes, not on a proper links course (if it is to be accepted as one.) Btw, I really love the 8th hole there.


6 at Pinehurst was long and hard and I don't recall many interesting things about it.


I'll get beat up bad here. At NGLA I don't find 1,2,3,5,9 or 13 to be interesting. Of those I'd probably put one and nine at the top.


All splitting hairs. It's pretty cool getting to play any of these courses. Nice problems to have.

[Scott Warren]

This has been an interesting thread.

For my money, of the six 10s I've played:

The Old Course:
The 9th hole. Holes 2-6 are all a bit much of a muchness but individually are more interesting than the 9th. If you dropped a golfer onto the 9th hole and they played it, then you asked them did they want to play the rest of course, what would they say?

Dornoch:
The 10th. Like the 9th at TOC, it's an interest thing and I just don't see as great interest in playing that hole than the other 16 -- the 7th's green and the 16th's drive, land and location give them something more.

Pine Valley:
The 17th. A forced lay-up and then a wedge up the hill. At least the approach to the 12th, with the green running away, calls for some creativity and touch and the tree issues there are a more temporary thing than the shortcomings of the 17th.

National:
The 13th. On a course full of interesting choices, decisions and shotmaking tests, the hole falls short of the "something special" test. There must be 25 more interesting par threes on Long Island alone.

Sand Hills:
The 6th. As I went through the course in my head 4.5 years later the only hole I couldn't clearly visualise was the 6th. I only recalled it was a par three because I knew there were four and could only think of three others. Using Ran's profile to refresh my memory I was reminded that yes, it's a par three and I don't greatly care for it.

Royal Melbourne (West):
The 1st. The green is interesting and challenging, but it lacks the drive features that make the other long holes on RMW so much fun and so interesting. It feels a bit like a warm-up hole for the incredible 17 that are to follow.

[Niall C]

Sven


I doubt there is any dispute to any of these courses being great. The discussion is about how great and in particular how do they measure up against a specific definition which is a 10 on the Doak scale. I think you should approach this discussion in much the same way I imagine Tom probably did when writing the book, that is by having a bit irreverent fun.


Niall

[Bill_McBride]

#8 on the old course?  Mid to short iron to a HUGE double green that is relatively flat if I remember correctly.

Yes.  And how do you get it close to the hole when it's behind the front-center bunker, playing downwind?  [That's the prevailing wind.]  That hole LOOKS boring, but it is not as easy as it looks.

My advice, based on my last round there, is DO NOT get in either Strath or the Short Hole bunker!  Disaster lurks in those pits.

[John Kavanaugh]

For me 1-5 at Ballybunion are pretty average. The approach to 6 is fun so I quite like the hole. The best of BB is stunning but I cannot buy a 10 that has several average holes and in the case of 5 an uninteresting slog.

How do the average holes at Ballybunion compare to those at Pebble? Do you have to over think Pebble to not give it a 10? This from a guy who has never played there out of spite.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven


I doubt there is any dispute to any of these courses being great. The discussion is about how great and in particular how do they measure up against a specific definition which is a 10 on the Doak scale. I think you should approach this discussion in much the same way I imagine Tom probably did when writing the book, that is by having a bit irreverent fun.


Niall

Niall -


If you apply the specific definition (as noted above), all of this is just nitpicking.


Sven

[Mike Hendren]

The 15th at Pacific Dunes is perhaps a couple of notches below the standard there.

While I think the mounds right of Royal Dornoch's 16th green are silly, the fairway bunker works well in tandem with the quarry on the tee shot, particularly with the fairways firm and fast.   I swear there's a huge sucking sound coming from that quarry.  Also, while the 7th is a bit of a one-off isolated hole, the green is rock solid.  It's really picking a nit to cite that hole in my book. 

I'm in the gross minority in appreciating The Old Course's 9th hole.  As I've posted before, up until that point the prudent golfer will cheat a little left off the tee.  Suddenly, there's plenty of room on the right of the 9th fairway and the danger is left.  Also, the lack of definition in the otherwise pedestrian green makes it very difficult to judge the pitch.  I'm guessing it's a birdie hole that most humans don't birdie.  But yes, it's a couple of notches below the standard.

Bogey

[Niall C]

Bogey


In my one and only time playing TOC the 9th was the only hole I bogied on the way out. The point you make about lack of definition is bang on, however I don't think that necessarily makes it good, just a little harder.


Sven


In the context of the thread, it's not nitpicking, it's what the thread is about. If you are arguing that in the context of deciding what courses are in the front rank then you might be right, but that would be another thread entirely 

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()