News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


BCowan

The hole would be #7 at Scioto.  I never thought much of the hole when playing it.  Now through reflection, I really like how the diagonal swale determines whether or not one can view the green for their 2nd shot.  Since technology has voided this design quality basically irrelevant for the better player, the average golfer still interacts with it.  Is there a hole that you have over looked and now have more appreciation for it through increased Golf Arch knowledge?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 03:00:20 PM by BCowan »

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you after understanding Architecture better
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2014, 03:04:55 PM »
The 4th at my home course, Hayling.

As a kid I just thought it was one of the less interesting on the course. Dog leg left with a short carry which is almost irrelevant in the modern game, second shot at the green. Nothing much to get too excited about.

I now realise that the front right bunker, encroaching as it does into the entrance to the green, means that a tee shot which flirts with the gorse down the left by playing a stinging draw is the only way of getting to a position from which to attack a front right flag. Sadly, what should be fairway down the left has been allowed to become semi rough by people that didn't understand the design. We have a number of holes like that I'm afraid. Still, I just came off of the course and, having failed to get the ball turning as required, can reiterate that there's no getting close to the flag today from the right hand side of the fairway.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 05:04:11 PM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Patrick_Mucci

Ben,

It's a great question.

For me, one of the answers is the 5th at Newport.

Although, I fell in love with the hole on my first play.

I found the juxtapositon of the features, and the features themselves to be brilliantly orchestrated.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Great premise, lots of holes fit that for me
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Yes and no.  Sometimes it goes the other way.  One the negative side, a hole/course I really loved years ago, before absorbing some gca knowledge, might not shine so brightly these days.  This coming from an average golfer who pretty much enjoyed just about any course (with good company) before my spotty self education.  If the round is slow and I have a lot of time to look around and ask myself why they did this or that, I’m much more likely to find faults and things I don’t like.  It can be frustrating keeping my lips zipped when golfers talk about golf so much in terms of their own games or experience, which is normal, expected, and just the way it is.  People who seem to need to convince others about how a golf course is presented and designed, based purely on their likes, dislikes, and games, can be a bit boring.   Some good players can say some very dumb things and have much more influence than they deserve.  Average golfers not so much, unless they think these guys know what they are talking about just because they can play a little.     
   
On the positive side, my understanding of basic course strategy is so much better now, I am able to compensate somewhat for the diminishing skills of being a geezer.  I also find I’m much better at appreciating the options offered and adapting my game (the one that shows up that day) accordingly.  In general, I enjoy holes with more options and less obvious playing strategies and tend to think less of holes where the play is more dictated by the architecture—play it this way or else.

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
The 17th at Sawgrass.
I thought it was the single worst idea in golf I had ever seen.

It took me years to fully comprehend the psychological impact on the 1st tee.
Professionals dread that single shot all round.
I find that interesting philosophically.
 
I still dislike the idea of an island green anywhere, but the hole's grown on me.
-

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ben,

It's a great question.

For me, one of the answers is the 5th at Newport.

Although, I fell in love with the hole on my first play.

I found the juxtapositon of the features, and the features themselves to be brilliantly orchestrated.

Could you be a bit more illustrative / descriptive for those who have not played the hole?

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
#9 Harbortown....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
The 17th at Sawgrass.
I thought it was the single worst idea in golf I had ever seen.

It took me years to fully comprehend the psychological impact on the 1st tee.
Professionals dread that single shot all round.
I find that interesting philosophically.
 
I still dislike the idea of an island green anywhere, but the hole's grown on me.


Thanks for this response. The 17th at Sawgrass was the first hole I thought of but I didn't think I could make the architecture/psychology argument as well as you did.

I agree the tour pros think about it all round. But so do amateurs,good players and bad. There's something to be said for a hole that everybody looks forward to playing when they step on the 1st tee.

Jon Cavalier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2014, 11:20:25 PM »
The 17th at Sawgrass.
I thought it was the single worst idea in golf I had ever seen.

It took me years to fully comprehend the psychological impact on the 1st tee.
Professionals dread that single shot all round.
I find that interesting philosophically.
 
I still dislike the idea of an island green anywhere, but the hole's grown on me.


Thanks for this response. The 17th at Sawgrass was the first hole I thought of but I didn't think I could make the architecture/psychology argument as well as you did.

I agree the tour pros think about it all round. But so do amateurs,good players and bad. There's something to be said for a hole that everybody looks forward to playing when they step on the 1st tee.

During a recent round at Sawgrass, I was very surprised to find that the psychological impact of the 17th was very pronounced for me as I played the second half of the rather easy 16th hole. The 16th is a great birdie opportunity, but there's something about seeing the entirety of the 17th looming off to the right that really takes your focus off the task at hand. Very interesting.
Golf Photos via
Twitter: @linksgems
Instagram: @linksgems

Philip Spogard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2014, 10:40:21 AM »
From many of the golfers I speak to, most - if not all - of the holes at St. Andrews Old Course could fall in this category.

I have spoken to a lot of golfers who walk away very disappointed, just to discover that the course grows on them the more they play it and the more they investigate and learn about the 'architecture' of each hole. Until it ultimately becomes the most wonderful golf course in the world.

I think generally speaking, that most of the well laid out golf holes - not on TOC necessarily - which lacks a visual 'wow' factor, will have a tendency to fall in this category. I don't know if it is fair to say that a hole with no or little visual quality ultimately only becomes a great golf hole (which grows on you) if it has a perfect/balanced/interesting design? I am not even sure it will become great if it has little visual quality and only relies on its strategy/layout.

Is it fair to say you have to find some sort of visual beauty in the architecture of a golf hole for it to really grow on you?

Brent Hutto

Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2014, 10:45:12 AM »
...
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 11:19:44 AM by Brent Hutto »

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2014, 10:46:10 AM »
All 18 at St Andrews.
I first played it as a junior in some R&A event and thought it was a goat ranch, so ignorant at that age ???
Now I love the place.

Tom Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2014, 10:49:21 AM »
There were holes that I knew were good, but it was only until I had a better understanding of architecture that I thought about and worked out why they were so good.

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2014, 04:57:14 PM »
The 17th at Sawgrass.
I thought it was the single worst idea in golf I had ever seen.

It took me years to fully comprehend the psychological impact on the 1st tee.
Professionals dread that single shot all round.
I find that interesting philosophically.
 
I still dislike the idea of an island green anywhere, but the hole's grown on me.


Thanks for this response. The 17th at Sawgrass was the first hole I thought of but I didn't think I could make the architecture/psychology argument as well as you did.

I agree the tour pros think about it all round. But so do amateurs,good players and bad. There's something to be said for a hole that everybody looks forward to playing when they step on the 1st tee.

During a recent round at Sawgrass, I was very surprised to find that the psychological impact of the 17th was very pronounced for me as I played the second half of the rather easy 16th hole. The 16th is a great birdie opportunity, but there's something about seeing the entirety of the 17th looming off to the right that really takes your focus off the task at hand. Very interesting.
I think the hole represents spectacular over the top theatre for the top 200 in the world.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Holes that grow on you through a better understanding of Architecture
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2014, 05:06:03 PM »
I have a slightly different take on this...

I think that good golf holes grow on your over time, regardless of whether you have an understanding of architecture.  Good golf is good golf, plain and simple, and should not be dependent on how much you know about designing holes.

For instance, I've seen multiple people play "great" holes many times over (and these are not GCA geeks, just golfers). More often than not, the first time they play these "great" holes, they get frustrated because some feature of the hole got them...caused them to score higher than they thought they should.  Then over time the become infatuated with "beating" the hole.  In fact, on multiple occasions I've actually had converstations with them about these holes when we weren't even at that club.  You see, these holes got in their head...they couldn't stop thinking about them...and wanted to conquer them so badly.

So, that is what makes a great hole to me.  One that captivates you, even when you are not playing it.  It haunts you dreams.  You become obsessed with it.  And, again, this happens to all types of golfers...GCA geeks or not.

6 at Pacific Dunes got me like this
10 at Riviera
14 at The Golf Club (actually the hole run of 13-18)
What's that short par 3 at Royal County Down on the front nine that plays in the direction of the clubhouse.  7?  Oh...that hole gets in your head.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back