|
Post by grovey31 on Apr 14, 2020 7:28:36 GMT -5
Fifteen of the eighteen holes on the Old Course, St Andrews are nothing holes. My jaw about hit the floor after reading this! There is always such admiration of the old course and almost every architect in history references it in some way or another. I'm very curious now as to what you consider ideal golf holes. I really think that would help give some insight as to why you think so many on the Old Course are nothing holes. What about them makes them nothing? What in your opinion would make them ideal holes? I really think the amount of variety, strategy, and options the Old Course provides is what makes it great. Pretty much every hole has it. The fact that each hole has one or two features that can dictate play entirely is genius and sometimes that feature can be as small as a 3 foot high mound or hollow that effects each and every shot. I will give you that the course has likely suffered more than any other world renowned course due to technology but I can only imagine how incredible it would have been to play there with hickories and a gutta-percha ball! (btw the purpose of my post is to look for a discussion, not an argument. I'm not out to change your mind or convert you but I am curious as to how you came to this opinion)
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Apr 14, 2020 17:27:21 GMT -5
I will give you that the course has likely suffered more than any other world renowned course due to technology Has it though? It's still one of the top two or three courses in the Open rota, still has holes that give players fits, and still produces drama down the stretch. Sure, it's running out of room and some of the extended tee boxes are in some awkward places, but contours and short grass are much more defensible than other elements of a course. Compare the Old Course to a course like Cypress Point that has basically been neutered out of any kind of tournament or competitive play due to distances. NGLA is up there as well, though I guess the argument could also be made that infrastructure constraints as much as technology could be to blame.
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Apr 14, 2020 18:17:14 GMT -5
And finally lets look at how Trent Jones milked the lighting setting at Firestone... how would you like to play the same par 4 14 times in a round
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Apr 14, 2020 20:34:08 GMT -5
Not the worst hole in golf, obviously, but maybe the most overrated simply because it’s at Cypress Point. The 18th is a stupefyingly bad design, with a fairway completely blocked by cypress trees, bunkers on the right side completely surrounded by cypress trees. It’s like someone forgot to delete the autogen trees off of a very nicely laid out hole. Mark me down for one of the most underrated. I've never played it obviously, but a couple things to consider: 1. A 240 yard drive (average today, excellent back then) puts you in prime position to approach the green, especially if you can play a little bit of a draw off the tee. 2. The Cypress trees are essentially a national treasure, you couldn't cut them down if you wanted to, so blaming them for how the hole plays almost 100 years later is realllllllllllly unfair to the architect. Blame the hippies, if anyone. Or just embrace the quirk. Don't hit driver off the tee, play a punch or a cut under the branches if you don't get the angle for the perfect 7-iron in, work the ball into the green, lots of options other than "lol this hole sucks". It's not "15 holes of the Old Course suck" stupid, but calling it "stupifyingly bad design" is really unfair IMO. It's more a product of golf as it is today than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by ryanmcconnell on Apr 15, 2020 2:16:24 GMT -5
Firestone! lol
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Apr 15, 2020 3:32:07 GMT -5
I've never fancied the par 3 4th at Augusta, especially after it was lengthened. Not the worst hole in all of golf by any means but one of my least favorite from a well known course. Agree with this.
One of those Par 3's that simply doesn't need to be 240 yards long.
Lots of them about in the pro game
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Apr 15, 2020 5:08:35 GMT -5
I've never fancied the par 3 4th at Augusta, especially after it was lengthened. Not the worst hole in all of golf by any means but one of my least favorite from a well known course. Agree with this.
One of those Par 3's that simply doesn't need to be 240 yards long.
Lots of them about in the pro game
shorten it to 210, convert front bunker into a deep Strath, add fairway wrapping around the Strath and boom, you have a much more accessible but just as dangerous golf hole.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Apr 15, 2020 6:55:17 GMT -5
I will give you that the course has likely suffered more than any other world renowned course due to technology Has it though? It's still one of the top two or three courses in the Open rota, still has holes that give players fits, and still produces drama down the stretch. Sure, it's running out of room and some of the extended tee boxes are in some awkward places, but contours and short grass are much more defensible than other elements of a course. Compare the Old Course to a course like Cypress Point that has basically been neutered out of any kind of tournament or competitive play due to distances. NGLA is up there as well, though I guess the argument could also be made that infrastructure constraints as much as technology could be to blame. Fair point for sure and I certainly agree. Cypress and NGLA have suffered greatly and mostly due to distance, especially for any high level competitions. The biggest factor as to why I think the Old Course has suffered so much as it relates to technology comes down to spin and trajectory more than anything. I'm currently reading The Spirit of St. Andrews and MacKenzie talks about the Old Course on almost every page and the things he references the most are like you said, contours and short grass as defenses (along with bunkers of course). He describes how the course played around the turn of the century and how different types of players were using slopes, contours, mounds, and hollows to play different shots to score well or win their matches. We see a little bit of that today but no where near what he describes. Yes, distance has hurt most classic courses but I still think the Old Course has suffered more than most when it comes to the spin and trajectory modern equipment can produce. I really think that takes away from the beauty and genius of the course. I do think it's a great test of golf for all skill levels but I still can't help but wonder what it was like to watch The Open played there around the turn of the century. Oh and I couldn't agree more about Cypress 18. It's an awesome hole to finish an awesome course.
|
|
|
Post by Royce on Apr 15, 2020 7:17:03 GMT -5
Has it though? It's still one of the top two or three courses in the Open rota, still has holes that give players fits, and still produces drama down the stretch. Sure, it's running out of room and some of the extended tee boxes are in some awkward places, but contours and short grass are much more defensible than other elements of a course. Compare the Old Course to a course like Cypress Point that has basically been neutered out of any kind of tournament or competitive play due to distances. NGLA is up there as well, though I guess the argument could also be made that infrastructure constraints as much as technology could be to blame. Fair point for sure and I certainly agree. Cypress and NGLA have suffered greatly and mostly due to distance, especially for any high level competitions. The biggest factor as to why I think the Old Course has suffered so much as it relates to technology comes down to spin and trajectory more than anything. I'm currently reading The Spirit of St. Andrews and MacKenzie talks about the Old Course on almost every page and the things he references the most are like you said, contours and short grass as defenses (along with bunkers of course). He describes how the course played around the turn of the century and how different types of players were using slopes, contours, mounds, and hollows to play different shots to score well or win their matches. We see a little bit of that today but no where near what he describes. Yes, distance has hurt most classic courses but I still think the Old Course has suffered more than most when it comes to the spin and trajectory modern equipment can produce. I really think that takes away from the beauty and genius of the course. I do think it's a great test of golf for all skill levels but I still can't help but wonder what it was like to watch The Open played there around the turn of the century. Oh and I couldn't agree more about Cypress 18. It's an awesome hole to finish an awesome course. I really have to agree with you, I've never found the modern day Old Course to be anything special other than for obvious historical purposes.....the modern day course does not suit the modern game whatsoever, it does not play as originally intended at all, with all the contours & mounds being used strategically.
Augusta would have suffered (and has to a certain extent) a similar fate had they not continually updated and lengthened the course, but even still the mounds and hallows on holes like 8 (large mounds surrounding the green), the mounds short of 14 green providing the only "hazard" on this hole but never actually come into play & the famous moguls on the 5th that are never actually in play...... It's not MacKenzie's fault whatsoever and I'd LOVE to see both of these courses played 75-100 years ago.
In the end Augusta still produces a very exciting tournament even with modern day equipment advances whereas I've always found Old Course rather blah. The road hole tee shot, although entertaining, is a giant WTF in going on here.....why am I hitting a ball over a building?
|
|
|
Post by Royce on Apr 15, 2020 7:27:12 GMT -5
Agree with this.
One of those Par 3's that simply doesn't need to be 240 yards long.
Lots of them about in the pro game
shorten it to 210, convert front bunker into a deep Strath, add fairway wrapping around the Strath and boom, you have a much more accessible but just as dangerous golf hole.
You could do just about ANYTHING to the 4th and it would be an improvement over the current 240 yard carry to a narrow shelf on the right....never much fancied missing short in a bunker as being potentially the "optimal" shot.
The 17th at Oakland Hills South Course is also a bit absurd, LONG par 3 uphill to a nasty green surrounded by bunkers, pros have laid up short and pitched onto the green. Also the ability to hit the 18th tee shot onto the 10th fw to cut the corner off a dogleg is just plain wrong, but the club will surely address that situation with the current rework project going on....
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Apr 16, 2020 16:09:19 GMT -5
shorten it to 210, convert front bunker into a deep Strath, add fairway wrapping around the Strath and boom, you have a much more accessible but just as dangerous golf hole.
You could do just about ANYTHING to the 4th and it would be an improvement over the current 240 yard carry to a narrow shelf on the right....never much fancied missing short in a bunker as being potentially the "optimal" shot.
The 17th at Oakland Hills South Course is also a bit absurd, LONG par 3 uphill to a nasty green surrounded by bunkers, pros have laid up short and pitched onto the green. Also the ability to hit the 18th tee shot onto the 10th fw to cut the corner off a dogleg is just plain wrong, but the club will surely address that situation with the current rework project going on....
I just think it would be wise to mould it after the hole is was supposedly modelled after which was the Eden 11st at St Andrews.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Apr 16, 2020 16:11:42 GMT -5
No idea. Googled biarritz and that came up. There have been a grand total of three in TGC that I like: Raynor Ridge, Rocky Top and Elysian Downs (even disliked that one at he start). Lmao, the ORT one is way uphill and blind. It's a pretty bad biarritz. Not even the best I've done in-game, that would be Fishers. I couldn't agree more...
|
|
|
Post by jwtexan on Apr 21, 2020 15:17:33 GMT -5
This looks very similar to a well known template....................
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Apr 21, 2020 15:54:06 GMT -5
This looks very similar to a well known template.................... VERY similar, which one?
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 22, 2020 2:08:45 GMT -5
This looks very similar to a well known template.................... VERY similar, which one? I see traits of a Steamshovel there
|
|