Tough hole vs Gimmick

[Seals]

Where do you draw the line between a tough but fair hole versus a gimmick?

There is a par 3 I play that is 240 yards with a strip of water just right of it. The green is very small aswell. It would be a fair hole if it was 140 yards, but 240 yards! C'mon.

And the shortest tee is 211 on that hole, so it doesn't change it much. 

[saevel25]

I think long  par 3's should have big greens. I wouldn't call it a gimmicky hole.

A gimmicky hole would be a zig-zag par 5 where it's layup to a corner, layup to a corner, and then wedge it to the green. Maybe a lot of holes with stupid blind tee shots.

[mdl]

For the most part I feel like this is just a subjective thing.  Where any tough and not typical hole will have people who really like it and those who think it's a silly gimmick.  I'd tend to agree with @saevel25 about some examples of gimmicky holes, but I could see cases where those holes just kind of fit in the landscape well that way and people who've played the course a few times end up really liking those holes.

Though I'd put the hole you describe maybe as not gimmicky but more just bad design.  As someone who plays middle to middle-back tees, a 230-240 yard par 3 is really more like a par 3.8 or something.  I know par is just a number, but in general I feel a solid amateur playing from the right tees for his or her distance should have a reasonable chance at shooting whatever par a hole is labeled.  At 240 with a tough green complex I don't really have what I'd call a reasonable chance at getting down in 3.  

[mcanadiens]

Call it whatever you want. 230-yard plus par threes can go pound it.

One local hole that I think of as gimmicky is a mid-length par-4 where the entire fairway slants severely towards a water hazard along the left side. Plenty of really solid drives go Red October.  The only safe way to play it is to layup very short and then whack one 180-200 yards at the green. 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by mcanadiens

[klineka]

21 minutes ago, Seals said:

Where do you draw the line between a tough but fair hole versus a gimmick?

There is a par 3 I play that is 240 yards with a strip of water just right of it. The green is very small aswell. It would be a fair hole if it was 140 yards, but 240 yards! C'mon.

And the shortest tee is 211 on that hole, so it doesn't change it much. 

Can you post a google maps image of the hole so we can have something for reference?

I dont like holes with blind tee shots, especially when I havent played the course before. Numerous times I have hit decent drives that 100% are in play but end up being a lost ball because of not being able to see where the ball landed and having to guess how far it carried/rolled out.

[GolfLug]

34 minutes ago, Seals said:

It would be a fair hole if it was 140 yards, but 240 yards! C'mon.

This answers it for me. Length is not gimmicky, just tough.

[jamo]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

A gimmicky hole would be a zig-zag par 5 where it's layup to a corner, layup to a corner, and then wedge it to the green.

I actually kind of like that type of hole. It's an interesting change of pace, since a lot of par 5s are blast a drive, go for the green, wedge up (or putt for eagle).

I'm trying to think of holes I'd consider gimmicky and I'm having a tough time. You hear that term mostly related to the 17th at Sawgrass, which I can understand, but no local holes come to mind.

I guess the best example I can think of would be courses that have super fast greens and cut their holes on big slopes. But that's not hole-specific.

[NJpatbee]

If I play a course multiple times I can deal with blind shots and  hazards and just view them as added difficulty.  My biggest complaint is regarding sucker pins on greens, mostly on private courses, that are sloped downward running about 14 on the stimp meter with the pin about 2 feet from the bottom of the slope.  Basically, you cannot putt down hill and stop the ball on the green without rolling 20-30' past the green unless it goes in the hole.  Likewise, if you pitch the ball anywhere near the pin it rolls back off the green 20-30' again.  Shrewd members know that you have to putt down and/or across the fringe and have a 2' uphill put to win the hole.   That is a gimmick to me and it happened to me in a money match.

[JxQx]

To me gimmicky holes are mostly poor design. A 240 yard par 3 with a small green seems more of a hard hole than gimmicky.

Gimmicky to me would be more like a 90 degree par 4, teeing out of a chute that isn't maintained/designed properly so you have to hit a weird punchy shot off the tee that can't go too far or you're in trees.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Seals said:

Where do you draw the line between a tough but fair hole versus a gimmick?

There is a par 3 I play that is 240 yards with a strip of water just right of it. The green is very small aswell. It would be a fair hole if it was 140 yards, but 240 yards! C'mon.

And the shortest tee is 211 on that hole, so it doesn't change it much. 

They couldn't find room 11 yards back to turn it into a short but reasonable par 4?

[rehmwa]

I've seen a lot of holes that are 'contrived' - and most of them are pretty neat to me

'gimmicky' - I doubt there are many, if any, I'd claim that on.  Blindshots are reality, double dog legs can happen, etc etc it's part of playing the landscape.  I suspect most people cry "GIMMICK" just for holes they don't personally like.

 

I guess the closest I've come to being a bit peeved at a peculiar layout is when a tee shot is forced to a punch or odd execution because limbs are purposely low or there's other 'unreasonable' restrictions in the way.  But, then again, maybe I just don't like those holes.

Edited November 28, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

They couldn't find room 11 yards back to turn it into a short but reasonable par 4?

Eh, par is just a number. Oakmont has a 300-yard par three, after all.

[Patch]

I use to play a course that had small greens on all 18 holes. Small as in well under 2500 square feet.  The par 3s were some what long, but it was still a fun course to play. I played it enough times to really get my swing to the point where I could hit most of the greens in regulation. It also had tight fairways with homes on one side, and a creek on the other side. On every hole. The course has since been totally redone. One of these days I am going go see what they did to it. 

There is a course downsouth, near Parker AZ that had some gimmick holes. One hole, your drive off the tee, if you were long enough, had to fly between, and through two pretty high rock pinnacles. Alot of golfers would lay up off the tee. Others might have to ricochet their ball off one of the pinnacles to get through the opening. 

Up in Mesquite NV they have a few gimick holes at some of their courses. Stuff like elevated, and/or blind tee shots. Some of the greens will have as many as 3 tiers on them. One hole I remember being there is up hill all the way to the green. Maybe a 200' elevation change. You look at it, and looks like ski slope with grass mogals every where. 

So, and I've said this before, I really like to play golf. What ever the course has to offer, I am happy to challenge it. I never beat the courses I played, but I did appreciate the challenge they provided. I might beat a hole here, and there, but never the whole course. Normal, or gimick, bring 'em all on. I am playing golf. 

[NM Golf]

We played a course in the 2008 Newport Cup called Thunder-something. It was billed as the most difficult course in the US or something like that. It was somewhat gimmicky, not to mention stupid and nearly impossible to play. Maybe @iacas can remember the name of that course but it was difficult without being fun.

[billchao]

To me there is a fine line between tough and gimmicky. Blind shots, forced carries, forced layups, small greens, false fronts, etc., all have their place in course design. Putting too many of those elements together too often and the hole/course becomes gimmicky.

[Hardspoon]

When I think of a "gimmicky" hole, I think of holes where a single feature is used to add interest to an otherwise boring/stupid/poorly designed hole.

For example, a completely boring straightaway par-4...but then you throw a cross-wise creek between 200 and 250 yards, so it "makes you think" (yeah, sure).  Or, a boring, ugly par-3, with a boring green, that they lengthen to 250 yards just so it's "unique" or "challenging".  Or a boring, dumb par-5 that forces a layup by having a tree in the middle of the fairway, so they can call it "risk/reward".

To me, those are "gimmicks".

Things like using too many blind shots, or forced carries, are just bad design...not gimmicks.

[Hacker James]

14 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

When I think of a "gimmicky" hole, I think of holes where a single feature is used to add interest to an otherwise boring/stupid/poorly designed hole.

For example, a completely boring straightaway par-4...but then you throw a cross-wise creek between 200 and 250 yards, so it "makes you think" (yeah, sure).  Or, a boring, ugly par-3, with a boring green, that they lengthen to 250 yards just so it's "unique" or "challenging".  Or a boring, dumb par-5 that forces a layup by having a tree in the middle of the fairway, so they can call it "risk/reward".

To me, those are "gimmicks".

Things like using too many blind shots, or forced carries, are just bad design...not gimmicks.

reminds me a little of the old Torrey Pines 14th...not exactly the same thing, but

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/07/sports/stadler-finally-gets-even.html

 

 

 

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Eh, par is just a number. Oakmont has a 300-yard par three, after all.

Meh. It’s a cinch. Just hit a new ProV1 and it’s easy as pie to reach.