[Jeff_Brauer]

This morning, after looking at the "Rock of Gibralter" thread, but before coffee, I was "noodling" on the idea that sometimes our impressions (or "consensus opinion") of golf holes change as much - or more - than the golf hole itself.  This web site is testimony as to how impressions can change!

Can you think of a hole that was once considered great, but is no more?

How about a "sleeper hole" that never received much acclaim, but now does?

In both cases, I am thinking of holes that have not been altered signifigantly.

It would seem easier to name holes of the former.  In our time, many formerly "sporty" or blind holes (ie, tricked up) went from great holes in days of yore to bad holes in most minds.  (Think most of Prestwick, etc.) I am sure other holes went from adequate length to too short to be a real challenge.

I also surmise that formerly lackluster par 5's that are now hard par 4 holes may get some new respect.  For the most part, I suspect the enhanced reputation would be from tournament play.  For example, a medium short par 4 that was once a dull drive and pitch might now be an exciting "reachable 4."

I wonder, are there holes out there that were considered bad, but with changing opinions are now considered great?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

When I lived in St. Andrews, I don't remember anybody thinking that the short par-4 12th was a great hole.  It fascinated me then and it still does, but now there are quite a few people who concur because it's more driveable today.

I think the stock of the tenth at Riviera has also gone way up.  Somewhere in my files I have a 1969 Green Section report which suggests changing that hole because it was a weak two-shotter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hard to believe 10 at Riv was ever considered bad, but under the USGA mentality of testing accuracy, rather than options, maybe it was.  And maybe that's why Riv didn't get the 09 Open?

[BCrosby]

Great question.

You don't hear much about 11 and 12 at Pine Valley in the history books. Having played them a couple times recently, I thought they were hidden gems, maybe better than their much more famous bretheren there. But after talking to several people who had played PV over the years, I was surprised to find that they felt the same way about 11 and 12. So maybe something is afoot with those holes. They may ascend to a higher spot on the PV hierarchy. They certainly should.

Going in the other direction, at the time ANGC opened both MacK and Jones thought 17 was one of the course's strongest par 4's. Not many people would rank it that high now.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

I think at the professional level, a case could be made for the road hole as going from great to not.  Once a par five, they have now essentially created a chastity belt in the fairway to keep the approach from being a short iron.  In my view, if you have to do that, it no longer is a great hole for that level of player.

It is still great for the rest of us.

[Sean Leary]

Bob,

Having only played PV twice, I felt that 12 was the weakest hole on the course, far and away.   Could you explain why you think highly of it?  I never hear it panned as a bad hole (like 18 sometimes is at Cypress Point), but I thought the hole paled considerable to the other 17, but again, I only played it twice. I really like 11....

[BCrosby]

Sean -

The 12th is counter-intuitive. Your instinct off the tee is to cut the corner and carry the little tree in the dogleg. Wrong play. The drive needs to be hit to the right side of the fairway, away from the green.

The green is open in the front. The short approach can be either played on the ground or in the air. But there is more contour to the green apron than is immediately apparent. It's easy to bounce it into the front left bunker if you are approaching from too far on the right. Approaches in the air bring into play the slit bunkers and trees right and back of the green.

It's a subtle and deceptive short par four that requires thought on every shot.

The architecture of PV is quite imposing. On most holes you hear loud and clear what the design is telling you to do (or not to do). In that sense, the 11th and 12th are somewhat out of character. Both holes lure you into doing what you shouldn't be doing. (One might even think that other hands had been involved in their design. )

Bob  

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

Playing the Road hole yesterday, one of the pros in my group (Thomas Aiken from South Africa) drove it into the "chastity belt" you referred to.  He then airmailed the green with a 9-iron and made 6 to wreck a great round of golf.  

That narrow bit which looks so silly on TV really isn't that bad ... I suppose it could be a bit wider on the left but the rough isn't thick there, and in fact the rough may stop a long hitter from winding up with a worse angle to the green, OR stop a long driver from going around the left side of the Road bunker with his second shot.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Doak, #12 at TOC looks simple until you have to deal with that tier in the right side of the green!  Another example of how a difficult green can put teeth in a 315 yd hole.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()