|
Post by jivesinator on Dec 28, 2020 15:45:07 GMT -5
Not any specific hole, but any dogleg that is 90 degrees, or even worse, less than that, is automatically in the running for worse golf hole and you probably can't change my mind. Unless there's some mind-blowing strategy that I have yet to see implemented, it's going to suck. edit- Ok, so this is an example of one I saw on google. Just look at this monstrosity... The funny part is there’s a Tour course that has three holes that are close to or worse than 90 degree doglegs. Looking at you, Bay Hill. Bay Hill is neither a great course nor a truly crappy course, but holes 3, 6, and 11 are awful holes. You don't like drivable par 5s?
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Dec 31, 2020 8:54:46 GMT -5
I don't like drivable par 5s. Especially the ones over 500 yards.
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Dec 31, 2020 8:57:35 GMT -5
I'd also give a special mention to a hole I found at a course near me called Sutton Green. No pictures, but look it up on Google Maps and you might find it. Look for a tree in the middle of a 90 degree dogleg.
To really show how bad the hole is, it's uphill and there are two tiny gaps between the left and right trees and the centreline tree. The hole then bends at a ridiculous angle uphill - I know the club's website has a flyover of the monstrosity. If I find a way to get a Google maps screenie on this thread, I'll post it.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Mar 3, 2021 15:07:08 GMT -5
Thought I would bring back this thread to show this hole I saw in New Jersey on google maps today: This hole is honestly the most example of why forest golf can go wrong.. I just want to rant for a second... The strategy of the bunkers and green shape is super obvious just from an overhead, hug the bunkers for the best angle. But in reality how does this play? If your ball was headed slightly left and ended up in a bunker, wouldn't you actually be way better off than if you were slightly right and in the trees? I know that forest is insanely dense, balls going in there are rarely found, if ever.. Yet for some reason the strategy of the hole itself is supposed to penalize left tee shots with 3 bunkers, when going right is supposed to be the worse angle. Shouldn't we allow worse angles to be more achievable, and ensure that the main strategy-dictating "hazard" of the hole actually has anything to say towards penalizing aggressive play? If my ball was headed towards the bunker, i would probably say "get in the bunker!". This to me really shows the problems with modern architects not really grasping how to make a golf course fun for beginners, yet tough for experts. Ok rant over, just had to get that out there somewhere
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Mar 12, 2021 23:51:29 GMT -5
Far from the worst, but one thing about this hole has always baffled me, on an otherwise impeccable course. How far off the tee is the water? Is it in play with the prevailing wind? The pond is definitely out of place. I ask because you could convert it to a different hazard (say grass bunker or something) if it's truly in play. Otherwise bulldoze it if it's not in play.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Mar 13, 2021 13:58:36 GMT -5
Far from the worst, but one thing about this hole has always baffled me, on an otherwise impeccable course. How far off the tee is the water? Is it in play with the prevailing wind? The pond is definitely out of place. I ask because you could convert it to a different hazard (say grass bunker or something) if it's truly in play. Otherwise bulldoze it if it's not in play. Or at least put at nice fountain in the middle of the pond to justify it...
|
|
|
Post by williamwes626 on Mar 13, 2021 14:24:59 GMT -5
The funny part is there’s a Tour course that has three holes that are close to or worse than 90 degree doglegs. Looking at you, Bay Hill. Bay Hill is neither a great course nor a truly crappy course, but holes 3, 6, and 11 are awful holes. The one thing that Bay Hill's has is that the water actually provides a bit of a heroic shot strategy... by putting trees there this other one removes the only thing that makes bay hill's hole remotely fun to play Got to give you full credit here for calling it 4 months ahead. Last week at Bay Hill and Bryson going for the heroic shot seemed to be the talk of the town over everything else - it helps that Bryson won but yeah I think this crazy hole can be fun unlike the tree-lined crazy ones that were shown here.
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Mar 13, 2021 14:28:10 GMT -5
Bay Hill annoys me because of those water dogleg holes alone. Honestly don't think you should ever be able to drive a par five in one.
|
|
|
Post by Firethorn15 on Mar 13, 2021 15:44:15 GMT -5
Mullion Golf Club down in the farthest reaches of Cornwall has some quirky holes, to say the least. Probably wouldn't class them as bad as the course is great fun to play, but I suppose from a design standpoint they're probably not the best. The 1st is a semi-blind par 3 playing over the 18th fairway. The real problem is that the 2nd tee is completely blind about 20 yards right of the 1st green, which with amateur golfers is a recipe for disaster (I've come close to being hit on the 2nd tee on two or three separate occasions, which considering I've only played the course five times or so is not a great strike rate). Hole 6 is a drop shot par 4, which is like a drop shot par 3, except 300 yards long and about 100 feet downhill, with OB right and long and barely any fairway layup option. Simultaneously the most stupid and the most enjoyable hole I've played, especially into the prevailing headwind. Made all the more entertaining by trying to get my dad down there in a golf buggy. www.mulliongolfclub.co.uk/course/course-tour/hole/6/The drive on the 17th has to be one of the scariest I've ever experienced - blind uphill with a road about 20 yards right running parallel to the fairway. Try to listen out for traffic and pray you don't hit a slice...
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Mar 13, 2021 18:30:00 GMT -5
Bryson made Bay Hill look stupid. Its never a good design if players can exploit it. And it's an even worse design if only 1 player can exploit it.
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Mar 13, 2021 18:46:32 GMT -5
Bryson made Bay Hill look stupid. Its never a good design if players can exploit it. And it's an even worse design if only 1 player can exploit it. I'd suggest it's not the players but the technology companies exploiting the great courses. Something needs to be done before the great courses (Royal Melbourne close to home) become somewhat irrelevant for tournament play. I still remember fondly of watching Norman, the longest in the game at the time, playing driver & 5W/2i into the par 5 17th. Now it's a driver & 7i/8i. I'm all for progression but not at the expense of the essence of the game.
|
|
|
Post by williamwes626 on Mar 14, 2021 9:04:52 GMT -5
I don't mind a course with 1 or 2 penal or heroic holes or even 1 quirky hole but Bay Hill has 2 quirky heroic holes 3 & 6 that are the same kind of prize dogleg template with a differing par. Then I think holes 8 and 11 also has the golfer wind a draw around water on the approach. It's like 4 times doing the same kind of approach which weakens the design over 18 holes.
Bryson and the whole power game all just reminds me of baseball in the 1990s and Mark McGwire. Casual fans embrace the sensational so they ignore TV closeups where his neck looks like a big veiny alien and Barry Bonds head looks like a balloon and just watch the ball fly out of the park. Baseball themselves also juiced the ball which doesn't get discussed - they give players more homers at will thru history - 1930s, 1990s. Now baseball is all about homers and strikeouts - forget any kind of bunting, hit n' run, stealing bases, crafty singles hitters, strategy, and defense since fielders aren't needed for homers and strikeouts LOL. Managers now think by changing the pitcher 5 times a game.
But at least baseball stuck to wooden bats because if they changed to aluminum, it would be like this technology controversy. There have been shorter golf course victims already so maybe Bay Hill has some failed experiments but the bodies of economic power are the ones that are scared to take away their star golfers/moneymakers' tech toys away.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on May 7, 2021 11:29:33 GMT -5
Found this layout today on Twitter...might be familiar to others here, but I'd never seen it before. I totally get that packing a course into a small area must be hard, but this is dangerous, wild, and a mind-blowing thing to see. I give you Fernbank Golf Course in Cincinnati, OH: Distances: Hole 1: 254/yd Hole 2: 89/yd Hole 3: 176/yd Hole 4: 182/yd Hole 5: 200/yd Hole 6: 189/yd Hole 7: 364/yd Hole 8: 261/yd Hole 9: 387/yd Total: 2107 Yards
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on May 7, 2021 12:02:49 GMT -5
Found this layout today on Twitter...might be familiar to others here, but I'd never seen it before. I totally get that packing a course into a small area must be hard, but this is dangerous, wild, and a mind-blowing thing to see. I give you Fernbank Golf Course in Cincinnati, OH: Distances: Hole 1: 254/yd Hole 2: 89/yd Hole 3: 176/yd Hole 4: 182/yd Hole 5: 200/yd Hole 6: 189/yd Hole 7: 364/yd Hole 8: 261/yd Hole 9: 387/yd Total: 2107 Yards OH dear....
|
|
|
Post by b101 on May 7, 2021 14:19:46 GMT -5
Love the suggestion of nine as a three shotter
|
|