Tough hole vs Gimmick

[dbuck]

18th hole where I play is tough, but I wouldn't call it gimmicky. Even I can't it driver from the regular men's tee. There is a huge bunker and beyond that, a barranca. Short of the bunker leaves you about 200 yards to the middle. There is a sliver of fairway and rough to the left of the bunker that I can usually hit with a 3 wood that leaves 175-185. It would take a DJ drive to fly the barranca. Well, maybe 300 carry from the tees I play.

[rehmwa]

On 02/12/2017 at 12:25 PM, Fourputt said:

I

There is a course here (Fossil Trace) which has a par 5 hole with 3 stone monoliths in the middle of the fairway.  There were mandated to remain due to scientific concerns.

 I find that to be a super amazing hole that incorporated the local 'terrain' in a very cool way (rather than running the fairway around it, it's right there, likely kept very tidy, and players can get right up to it and see the history up close).

[NM Golf]

I hate par 5s that force you to hit shorter clubs off the tee. There is a terrible golf course in Alamosa, CO called Cattails that has more gimmicky holes than I have ever seen. #10 par 5 is almost a 90° dog leg right that forces you to hit an iron off the tee for placement because the fairway runs out at 175 yards. #16 par 5 has a 75 yard long water hazard that cuts the fairway in two about 220 yards from the tee box. You could possible try and hit a driver over the hazard, but the trees next to the tee box would make you hit a 40 yard hook to do so. There are also several par 4s with forced layups with clubs as short as 7 or 8 iron. The whole course is just ridiculous, basically they didn't have enough room to build an 18 hole course so they made it artificially hard.

[DaveP043]

On 12/2/2017 at 1:25 PM, Fourputt said:

There is a course here (Fossil Trace) which has a par 5 hole with 3 stone monoliths in the middle of the fairway.  There were mandated to remain due to scientific concerns.  The entire area is rich in fossils, so in order to build the course, they had to ensure that no paleontological records were damaged during construction.  That left behind these huge stone ridges, some of which were necessarily in the fairway. 

The hole is still quite playable, so I don't really call it gimmicky, although some of my friends do.  You can see the fairway angling off to the right, and the big stone mid fairway, well beyond the typical driving distance for most players (387 yards from the regular blue men's tee), and 2 smaller stones right and beyond the big one.  The big block usually comes into play on the second shot, especially when that shot is played a bit low in an attempt to reach in 2.  

 

To me, this is almost the direct opposite of gimmickry.  For a big part of the history of golf, courses were built to incorporate the land as it was.  Sometimes this resulted in things that look very odd today, but were completely normal at the time, and really couldn't have been changed given the earthmoving resources available at the time.  This new(er) course does exactly the same thing, they've routed the course to incorporate the natural features without alteration.  I think it looks great, not a gimmick at all.

[Fourputt]

8 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

To me, this is almost the direct opposite of gimmickry.  For a big part of the history of golf, courses were built to incorporate the land as it was.  Sometimes this resulted in things that look very odd today, but were completely normal at the time, and really couldn't have been changed given the earthmoving resources available at the time.  This new(er) course does exactly the same thing, they've routed the course to incorporate the natural features without alteration.  I think it looks great, not a gimmick at all.

I agree, as does my brother.  When he comes down from Idaho for a few days of golf, we almost always make a point of playing there at lest once because it's a fun course.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Fourputt

[b101]

I think I agree with most others in that there's a difference between a gimmick (not always a negative, IMO) and poor design (definitely a negative). The single worst hole I've ever played, for example, is this one:

https://www.gamegolf.com/player/benpage101/round/930037?hole_id=24272786

You have to hit to about a 5 square yard section of fairway, or else it's simply punch round a corner and take your chances at a pitch and putt unless you fancy really trying hard to work the ball. The hole's only defense is that you have to be stupidly accurate/lucky off the tee. For me, it's therefore a poor hole as you need to hit the perfect shot to have a chance, rather than just a good shot. A good hole (IMO), should reward a good shot.

[graham57]

I have played on courses where there were trees (large ones!) in the centre of the fairway, but I felt these were just another natural hazard you needed to deal with when planning how to play the hole. I have also played a par 6: 700 yards, dog-leg right after your third shot, the approach over 100 yards of swamp. You would have had to hit two shots of over 250 yards to get to a point where you could cut the corner. The hole was tough, but something to talk about for years after!

What about holes with basically only a teeing area and a green, with either a ravine or fern-covered slope in between. It's sawgrass without the water. There are a few holes like that in the Scottish highlands.

I only feel a hole is unfair when - playing it for the first time - you have no way of knowing how to play the hole. Blind drives are ok when the course provides a platform to climb onto to get a look at the layout, or documents the hole pictorially next to the tee before you play. If you have to have played the course before to know how to approach some of the holes, that is something I resent.

[DeadMan]

On 12/2/2017 at 11:25 AM, Fourputt said:

There is a course here (Fossil Trace) which has a par 5 hole with 3 stone monoliths in the middle of the fairway.  There were mandated to remain due to scientific concerns.  The entire area is rich in fossils, so in order to build the course, they had to ensure that no paleontological records were damaged during construction.  That left behind these huge stone ridges, some of which were necessarily in the fairway. 

The hole is still quite playable, so I don't really call it gimmicky, although some of my friends do.  You can see the fairway angling off to the right, and the big stone mid fairway, well beyond the typical driving distance for most players (387 yards from the regular blue men's tee), and 2 smaller stones right and beyond the big one.  The big block usually comes into play on the second shot, especially when that shot is played a bit low in an attempt to reach in 2.  

 

This was the first hole that can into my head when I was thinking about this topic. I know we've talked about this hole before, and how I don't like it. But... I don't think it's a gimmick. Just poor design (albeit forced due to the fossils in those monoliths). 

I have been wracking my brain trying to come up with a gimmicky hole that I've played, and I haven't really been able to think of one. I think a gimmick hole is one that rewards luck and not skill. But I really find it hard to think of a hole that I've played that matches up to that definition. I have a list of holes that I think are bad (and this one features right up there, along with 16 at Green Valley Ranch, if you've ever played there). I have a list of holes that I think are too hard. But not really gimmicks.

[The Hook Meister]

A 240 yard par three is not a gimmicky hole. I think it's more like are you kidding me! With water to the right no less.  On this hole I would consider a 5 a good score.