[Ran Morrissett]

You read about a hole, you see pictures of it, you dream about one day playing it, maybe a friend tells you how magic it is, and then finally, that big day arrives. You stand up on the tee and......nothing!! Nothing grabs you, nothing inspires you, maybe the hype has done you in. Whatever the reason, what would everybody's most disappointing "great" hole be?

[DBE]

Having been a member at Somerset Hills during my sentence in NJ, the hole everyone thought was great that never got my juices flowing was #12.  It's a downhill par three about 145 yards to a small sloped green protected by a large pond (yuck) in front and left and a bunker on the right.  The green is always covered with goose dung.  Every ball moves abruptly towards the front left of the green, which sits just inches above the water line.  Nice hole, but hardly anything to get excited about.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The 17th at Cypress Point. I just could not understand it. But I have since seen some great old photos of it and found there was a back tee that actually added about 15 key yards. I also have Robert Hunter and MacKenzie's comments on what they were thinking strategy wise and it makes sense to me now. But technology has hurt the strategy in some sense, and the loss of six bunkers doesn't help the look of the hole either. Though I hear Jeff Markow just restored the two greenside bunkers, which will help a bit.

[DBE]

For John Morrissett (Indiana's newest resident):  #17 at TPC at Sawgrass--no explanation necessary, is there?

[T_MacWood]

17th at Pebble Beach. After being exposed to the 17th via a TV tower, to see how flat and featureless it is in person was shocking. My 2nd choice would be the 16th at Oakland Hills. Another very flat hole.

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoff, I was going to suggest San Francisco's 7th in its present state but overall, I would have to agree that the 17th at Cypress was an even greater disappointment.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:           I'm sure you noticed the shape and orientation of the green, but maybe its main feature wasn't that apparent the day you were there--the wind!

[T_MacWood]

TE Paul It was relatively windy that day, but by the 17th I was used it it.  After the drama of the previous ocean holes, including the wild topography, the 17th suprised me. Standing on that tee for the first time, I was disappointed. A totally flat lawn,what appears to be some sand and a flag blowing in the wind from 200+ yards.The green shape  is neat and can provide for some interesting dilemmas,but after years of viewing the hole from a TV tower I was disappointed.

[Ran Morrissett]

I agree with Tom MacWood - the sheer flatness is disappointing but I do think the architects did their best to give the hole some appeal.

[TEPaul]

To Tom MacWood and Ran:       That is some good and interesting criticism of Pebble's 17th and architecture in general! What hits you initially is important and may say a lot about a hole. It is fascinating to me, however, how a first impression transforms on later play to real curiosity and appeal. I'm not saying that would be true of 17; I've only played it a few times and quite a few years ago. I might have had the same initial impression; I can't remember now. I realize we might unnecessarily glorify a hole because we respect the course so much and we might tend to overanalyze what a designer did, but would it be possible that the designers purposely left the hole flat and undefined to exentuate play with the wind and also not to visually compete with the stunning backdrop?Although it may be visually disappointing, the hole is awesome for a par 3 at that stage in the round from a strategic standpoint considering the shape, orientaton and pin placement variety and that this is one really hard coastal par 3 where you are not going to lose your ball. Like to hear GeoffShac's take since he has recently been over the course with a magnifying glass.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Well, in The Golden Age (another shameless book plug ), I did my best to get every angle in the book of the 17th at Pebble in its 1928 state (two pics, one Mike Miller painting). Because it is awful today. The green is half the size, and it is disappointing from the tee. This was another green surrounded by Egan's "imitation sand dunes," and with the larger green I think the shot in was a bit more reasonable in windy conditions, and more interesting looking from the tee. I've played the hole well both times I've been on it, including from the back tee, so I have naturally found it to be acceptable, But I was there on Sunday of the 92 Open in the grandstands and it was embarrassing to watch. But even under calm conditions, the green has gotten too small. And when firm, it's sort of a flukish shot.

[Gib_Papazian]

Geoff, pretty hard to beleive you don't love #17 at Cypress as much as I do, but in the category of disappointing "great" holes, I think the 17th at Wentworth is the all time winner for featureless overhyped boredom.  

[John Morrissett]

How about the 9th at Muirfield?  Yes, there is a stone wall and some bunkers for the second shot, but otherwise . . .  I just don't get its appeal to many people (unless it's purely historical).

[Mike Benham]

Bringing this one forward as it ties into Brian's "Great holes that didn't catch your eye?" topic ...

[Carlyle Rood]

17th at Pebble Beach. After being exposed to the 17th via a TV tower, to see how flat and featureless it is in person was shocking. My 2nd choice would be the 16th at Oakland Hills. Another very flat hole.

I concur with your selection of the 17th at Pebble--an absolute waste of borrowed scenery.

[Phil_the_Author]

For me it wasn't just a hole, it was a course - Pinehurst #2. I just don't see it as a man-sized course and since I am in the very insignificant minority of those that feel that way, am willing to accept that the problem is mine.

Still, I just don't see it as all that great and definitely not awe-inspiring.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

First view of Pasatiempo 16th from the tee.  A silly mound with a stick in it.

However, I drove well, knocked the ball pin-high just off the green and scrambled a 4.

It's a great hole!

[Jeff_Mingay]

I have to agree with Tom MacWood re: 16 at Oakland Hills. It's the most famous hole at OH (because of Gary Player's famous 9-iron, or the pond?!), but probably the most dull architecturally.

This hole features one of the most contrived fairway mowing patterns I've seen as well. There most be 50 yards of rough right, up to the pond's edge. The fairway is a narrow sliver shifted well left, forcing tee shots that way.

As per Ross' original plan, the fairway was mown much, much farther out to the right, up to the water.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

17th at PB was disappointing to me as well.

JWK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would # 17 at Pebble Beach be enhanced if the tees were elevated ?

Forget how the pros play it, think about it in the context of amateur golfers.

[John Goodman]

I can't really say I was disappointed, but I've played it twice and remain badly confused by #18 at Yale.

[Matt_Ward]

The 4th at Baltusrol / Lower. No doubt the changes made by Trent Jones (his hole-in-one didn't hurt either!) increased the visibility of the hole but I don't see it close to the first page of great par-3's in the NY / NJ metro area when stacked against the likes of the 10th at WF / West or the 11th at Shinnecock or the 4th at National.

The hole was played at multiple lengths in previous Opens -- Tom Watson made an ace on the hole at 167 yards during the '80 Open.

Still, despite all the fanfare and the proximity of the water I don't know what all the buzz is about the hole. I'm not saying it's not a good hole but substitute the word "great" and I would most certainly not include it.

[TEPaul]

I must say I'm a little sad and maybe disappointed too to see so many posts, although from long ago, knocking the 17th at PB. One might consider it the ultimate in minimalism given what's behind it. In other words, the design of it was to perhaps not compete with that backdrop. But the question is does that green work well? I think if a golf hole can completely hinge  one just one single central feature and leave everything else as it and still work really well even if it's on a flat expanse you just might have something minimalistically sublime. But obviously few feel that way about PB's #17. I guess it just doesn't look sexy enough!

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Paul,

I'm with you on this one.  I absolutely love the low profile of the 17th with the unending expanse of sea beyond.  Besides, everyone knows from heart what he's up against standing on that tee.

On the other hand, the 18th at Pebble Beach was my most disappointing hole, though I am at a loss to explain why.

Mike

[paul cowley]

....tom...i think one must play PB#17 at least 100 times before assessing its merits  .

i don't think i would like the original version over the current...



talk about flat with no green fall away from those accreted sand splash bunker faces. ..................boring.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()