I am defining a “polarizing hole” as one where admirers and detractors are roughly split. But also a hole where passions tend to run hot.
Tom Doak went right after the par-3 ninth at Kingsley as an example of one he doesn’t care for. And truthfully, it is a little bastard of a hole, but after two times playing it (and carrying a 500 batting average as a result) I think it’s brilliant! Isn't having one or two polarizing holes an important ingredient to be included in any good design.
...
If Mike had had the ability to move Augusta National’s 15th hole faithfully and in its entirety to Sunningdale – and without telling our membership where it came from – I think they would absolutely hate it! When you think about it...a downhill shot to a narrow domed green with water in front and with some water also behind: 25% of our golfers wouldn't be able to make a score. Call it the Augusta National exemption, which means anywhere else the 15th at ANGC falls under the “polarizing hole” label. (And while I'm at it, throw in the 12th as well!)
Two brilliant holes that approach the “Heretical Precipice" is what makes Augusta National great.
For starters, the 15th at Augusta is a pretty bad hole, the way it's presented today. I don't think you would find it passes your test of 50% of people admiring it, even with the strong tendency of people to kowtow to a course that's been on TV forever. But the 15th snuck up on its position over the years, while changing the hole and the maintenance of the hole over time.
And still, the 15th at Augusta has never been considered "polarizing" by most people. In fact, there are a lot of controversial elements at Augusta: the approach to the 9th, the severe downhill slope of the 10th, the difficulty of the 12th, the green at the 14th, and others, but none of them [or maybe the 12th] has become the focal point of critics. I think it's the same for Pacific Dunes: lots of controversial features, but no single hole that people complain about later, like the 14th at Trails.
As to whether it's important for every course to have one or two polarizing holes, I think that's a bad metric. Most "normal" courses [even good ones] don't have polarizing holes, and that's fine. And it certainly wouldn't be good architecture to go into a course like that and introduce something really controversial just for the sake of having a polarizing hole.
The important thing is for architects not to be afraid of building something controversial or polarizing, if they really believe in it.