When's the last time you actually played one ?

[BCrosby]

Just saw this thread.

Biarritz holes are not being built for a number of reasons, but I suspect one is that they aren't very good holes. At least as par 3's. Other than requiring a straight shot and fine distance control with a long iron or fw wood (the clubs least suited for fine distance control), where is the strategic interest?

On the aesthetic front, Biarritzs are poster children for the shamelessly artificial.

I do like Jeff's idea of a 320 yard par 4 Biarritiz. Another terrific example where par does matter. Take your chances with a big driver or lay up and play a wedge to a green that requires fine distance control (except with Jeff's hole you are hitting a club ideally suited for fine distance control).

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Two possible reasons:

1.  They're very artificial and symmetrical in appearance, which many architects try to avoid, and

2.  The rectangular style only really works with a certain type of bunkering and green shapes, which wouldn't fit on a lot of what's being built today.

I did have one fling at the Biarritz a long time ago -- the 12th at Black Forest.  (The dip was there naturally, we made the dip pinnable and a very small back terrace, but the angle into it is not quite square which I think is why it's not so popular.)  Anyway, not many people really loved the hole, and no one here thought to mention it.

Of course, I've consulted at quite a few clubs which have them, and that experience is enough for me.

[M.W._Burrows]

I believe one reason they aren't built anymore is due to their size.  If you are going to have green on both sides of the swale then you need about a full size green on either side of the swale to land or stop the ball.  Particularly because your hitting from 230 yards.  I believe the cost in maintenance of a 10,000+ sq. ft. green is why many architects are steered away from building them.  It takes a large amount of time and money to spray, fertilize, mow, topdress, aerate, etc. a green that large.  Not to mention the difficulty in getting quality irrigation coverage on large greens.  One Biarritz green would cost as much to maintain as 2-3 greens at Myopia.

I think another lesser reason why they aren't being built is that your average retail golfer just wouldn't know what to think of the hole.  It's not exactly your typical no-brainer golf hole.  It seems to me most retail golfers would prefer manicured and boring golf over character and quirk.

One question I've always had about Biarritz holes is why would you ever make one with green on only one side of the swale?  I've played Yale's and Chicago's Biarritzes and think Chicago's is quite boring.  It seems to me that the fun of the hole is judging which side of the swale the pin is on and how the hell are you gonna get and, more importantly, stay there.  When there's green on only the far side of the swale, yeah it's a Biarritz but now it's basically a big, flat green with a swale in the front.  Who cares?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I sure do agree with you that most of the Biarritzes extant are on the manufactured looking side, some bigtime and that's probably the reason that most out there are Raynor. But there're some that aren't very manufactured looking or not so much so at this point. At this point Fisher's Island's Biarritz would definitely be one of them--frankly a great looking hole as it sits against the fall-off to the ocean.

But I don't agree with you at all that a Biarritz hole does not have strategic interest. The single thing that gives the Biarritz strategic interest or not is the dip (either with front greenspace or with front fairway area). Obviously front greenspace would be far more strategic and option oriented for any golfer.

A great example now is Fox Chapel's #17 that has had the front section returned to greenspace (if in fact it ever was that). I believe there's a simple way to tell if a Biarritz was originally designed to have front greenspace or not.

But I'll give you a perfect example of how and why a Biarritz with a big swale and front greenspace can be a wonderfully optional and strategic par 3 hole.

Last fall I was playing Fox Chapel's #17 with a young long hitting guy who didn't really know what a Biarritz hole was. When we got to the tee I told him that the sort of traditional tee shot on the Biarritz hole was to take something and hit it low and get it on the ground early and run it through that dip and filter it up onto the back with just the right amount of "weight". And furthermore seeing the ball run into the swale, disappear for a second and then reappear up the other side of the swale was the excitement of the old traditional "Biarritz shot" that the old designers used to talk about. (Another application of a required hole shot such as the kick and filter shot off the entrance to a redan!) And I took out a 2 iron from 232 and did just that--got it on the ground early probably hitting it less than 200 yds in the air and running it along the front section, through the swale and up onto the middle back section of the green.

This young guy tried his usual aerial shot by calculating the distance over the swale--he took out a 4 iron and hit a really good high aerial shot that hit the far side of the swale, stopped dead and rolled back to the bottom of the swale. It's one helluva a tough two-putt from down there and he 3 putted and I made an easy two-putt par since I was on the back section where the pin was. I told him walking off the green he should've listened to me on the tee.

Those optional strategies are really neat, really meaningful and very different and unique one from the other and that's why I disagree with you that there's not much interest in a Biarritz style hole. There can be a ton of interest in a Biarritz but it's almost essential that the hole have that very meaningful swale and if the hole is a really long one having front greenspace can make it just that much better.

[TEPaul]

MW Burrows:

You've got a lot of good points about the size and maintenance issues with a Biarritz green that's of original dimensions. The one at Fox Chapel is absolutely enormous in greenspace area (it wouldn't surprise me if its 13,000-15,000SF now with the front greenspace now restored). Mowing in and out of the swale is obviously tricky too and there was some scalping before they obviously got the best in floating mowers or whatever!

But clearly the reason some were built with front greenspace and others weren't had to be strictly an attempt at variety and diversity between them by Raynor (Macdonald). The Biarritz at Piping Rock was never designed for front greenspace (the way you can tell is where the long straight side bunkering starts).

But even without the front bunkering that hole was always interesting to play. It's downhill and any golfer always had that real choice of trying to fly the ball all the way over the swale or get it on the ground early and run it in. Those two stark choices and options if the hole has a lot of length made it very interesting both back then and now.

But a lot of the demise in modern times of the Biarritz and a reason most probably don't like them or understand them is they do need some other things to make them work well optionally--and certainly that includes firm and fast ground in the front before the swale if it's not greenspace. Obviously over-irrigation can kill that option dead as a smelt and then one really fun and interesting and challenging option is completely gone.

There's a ton of stuff that can happen (great options returning to action, in other words) if a golf course would just understand the correct "maintenance meld" for their particular course and here's a great example of the really necessary "ideal maintenance meld" for a particular style of hole that once had a lot going for it.

There's one other problem today apparently with a Biarritz the size of Fox Chapel's. I hate to mention this because it seems so ridiculous to me but the problem of access and egress onto and off of a green like Fox Chapel's can be a real issue for some. The side bunkering is incredibly long--maybe 60-70 yds and getting golfers on and off that green is confusing to and problematic to some. Obviously they don't want to walk through one of the side bunkers and they sure don't want to walk around them particularly when carts are part of the round. The most logical way I can think of to solve this problem it to install a grass walk-way somehow--maybe real low at about the middle of the green on each side bunker. That's not original, for sure, but there're some problems today that have to be solved. That problem is not one I'd say should nix doing Biarritzes today or stop them from being restored to the way they used to be but others apparently don't agree with me.

Just as evidence of this access/egress problem, you can clearly see on the Fox Chapel Biarritz that it's original bunker section on the front left side was removed before the swale long ago but you can still see where it was. Obviously that was done for easier access and egress. But I say they should restore that left front bunker section and just put in a low grass walkway maybe melding at the swale.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I take your point that you can either run it up or fly it to a Biarritz green. And seeing your ball disappear in the swale for an instant is fun. A good working definition of "golf funk."

The problem with the Biarritz concept is that whether you come into the green from the ground or the air, a successful shot is a function of fine distance control in a context where you are forced by the architect to use those clubs in your bag least suited to the task. Is asking a player to hit a three wood 233 yards rather than 228 (whether he gets it there in the air or on the ground) really an interesting strategic test?

That's why I like Jeff's notion of a 320 yard Biarritz. Take a nutty chance with a driver (and all the attendant thrills) or lay up and approach the green with a short iron - a club that the architect has a right to expect you to hit precise distances.

(BTW, Jeff's concept strikes me as being a kissin' cousin of the 16th at N. Berrick. Though the 16th is a little longer at 350 yards or so.)

I must be missing a gene. Having played 3 or 4 of Biarritzes (sp.?), I just don't get the GCA fascination with them. They are undoubtedly hard holes; I just don't think they are interesting holes.

Bob  

[T_MacWood]

I prefer Travis's idea of turning the Biarritz 90 degrees or 60 degrees -- normally on 2-shot holes. Those Travis greens are less abrupt and more natural than the typical rectangular Biaritz....and a hell of a lot of fun.

[Forrest Richardson]

BCrosby -- I've re-read your posts and find no contra-strategic language. Therefore, I find the Biarritz concept strategic. Would Bauer's par-4 be better? I'd call it a "Bauerritz". I am curious to learn whether it will have any penal ground to cover front of the green. If this is so, I'd judge it an odd prime number below 7 on a scale of 1-10.

Is the Biarritz fair? Probably not so as most other design examples we discuss. But strategic...yes.

The Biarritz with some space for a bail-out does have strategy, just like No. 16 at CPC. Although the original Biarritz did not. I believe the improvement at many clubs was to at least allow a short hitter to reach comfort, and the better player to do the same. Then, taking a short game, one was able to reach the proper plateau: front or rear.

From "On Course": .....the name comes from a hole golf which course architect C.B Macdonald saw at Biarritz, France at the Golf de Biarritz, the first major course built there in 1893 by Willie Dunn. The hole was the No. 3 hole and only lasted for about 3 or 4 years as originally designed because it was regarded by many to be too difficult and perhaps unfair. The hole was called the "Chasm" in reference to play from an 80-foot high  cliff over a portion of the Bay of Biscay to a 50-foot cliff beyond. The original length was a fierce 220 yards. The club moved the tee to an easier position and built  a hotel on the original cliff. Macdonald remained intrigued by the original hole and finally built a ground level version at Piping Rock’s No. 9. From then on, Macdonald, Seth Raynor and  Charles Banks built one such hole on nearly every full course they completed. Each "Biarritz Hole",  as they called them, was between 220 to 245 yards in length and extremely penal. Yale’s No. 9 is a very literal version and plays over water.....

I feel a Biarritz is characterized primarily by the long tee shot over peril and an inability to accurately judge the exact length at which the shot will stop...unless you putt a rabbit out of your hat. Tom gives us good thoughts on how to play the shot. And, also, of the tremendous anticipation and surprise when we see that low shot either disappear or rise!

[Craig_Rokke]

If anyone's played Bobby Weed's Glen Mills, I'm sure they took notice of the Biarritz on the par 5 15th(?). It was nice to see something different.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood -

For the record, I have built a sideways Biaritz as well, on a short par 4 with alternate fairways in Ft. Worth.  I think they would play just as well on a par 5, rather than a long three.  I have a long 3 Biaritzz planned near Houston, but owing to a tree and a few other factors, I may have to change it.  (Damn tree ordinances!)

Foest Ichardson - You forgot the R in my name.

I disagree with your contention about the penal ground in front.  I have always felt that, Yale and the original notwithstanding, McDonald wanted a long running wood shot, which would require some ground in front, as the goal of the hole, or whole goal, whichever you prefer.  I don't think most of his featured a pond closely fronting the green.

And, as you mention "penal ground" - not water, in front, I think that crumpled ground that may shoot a running wood off line would be a detriment.  The shot already calls for length control and line control.  Adding an element of luck would surely stop most from even trying for the green, at least on 4's and 5's.  On a three, they of course would go for it, but it could hardly be considered "fair."

In essence, its a "concept shot" w/o strategy, and with luck involved.  It reminds me of playing with Fuzzy Zoeller in a pro am.  He hit a shot to a par 5, and the whole time it was in the air, he kept saying "Oh sh**, Oh, ****, Oh, ****.  When it landed safely, he said, "Oh, ***, its perfect!"

I imagine the Biaritz inspires the same reaction.  It reduced use owes to the fact that there aren't many Fuzzy Zoellers out there, who see the humor in shots deflected awry by architectural features.  And, oh yeah, those maintenance reasons.  While I agree that a valley does allow pin positions down low, you still have the slope and the area just above the slopes you couldn't cup.

[TEPaul]

Bob;

It probably isn't very worthwhile to discuss whether a Biarritz style green is less strategic as a par 3 compared to the same green on a par 4.

Par 3s are just inherently a lot less strategic than par 4s and then par 5s, as strategy anyway is better or best when requiring a golfer to put together a series of shots. Obviously the whole idea of a par 3 as basically a one shot hole just doesn't have that advantage in the strategic context.

Since most par 3s today really aren't designed to have much of a ground game component to them I would have to say that this makes the Biarritz hole very interesting strategically compared to other par 3s.

But could a Biarritz green be used on other par holes? Sure it could if an architect could put together an interesting arrangement with it. That's most of the interest in architecture anyway--the various arrangements--holes get good when the arrangements are fascinating and they aren't good if they aren't. Broad brush but ultimately that's about the size of it.

Goes back to Coore's analogy to a musical piece. There's a bunch of "notes" to use and it all boils down to the arrangement. Only problem is it's very possible to get a note in that arrangement that's out of place (dissonant) and the whole arrangement falls apart because of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Crosby,

Biarritz holes are not being built for a number of reasons, but I suspect one is that they aren't very good holes. At least as par 3's. Other than requiring a straight shot and fine distance control with a long iron or fw wood (the clubs least suited for fine distance control), where is the strategic interest?

I would disagree with you.

Par 3 holes are inherently limited in their strategic interest when compared to par 4's and par 5's.

But, a Biarritz hole offers far more strategy, far more options than most par 3's.

Look at the tactical aspect of the shots required when the pin is in the following locations.
1     front tier
2     hollow
3     rear tier

Do you fly the ball to the pinned area or play short and allow for run ?

Do you play short, long, left or right ?

If you miss the green you have similar dilemas, depending upon your angle to the pin.

Once on the green, if you're not on the pinned section, you've got your work cut out for you.

This has to be one of the more interesting type of par 3's in golf.

I suspect that few have played many of them, many times.

Even the addition of water can have widely different influences on these holes, just compare YALE's to The Creek's.

Tom Doak,

I didn't find Yale's, The Knoll's, or The Creek's Biarritzs artificial in look.  Interesting, unique, but not artificial.
I've only seen three of them, so my experience is rather limited.

But, you did make an interesting comment, which you left hanging.  What is the view, as expressed by those that you interface with, on the Biarritzs at the clubs you consult with ?

And, could you seperate your answer into two categories.
1   Playability
2   Maintainance.

MBurrows,

Wouldn't that be a reason for a modern day architect to design and build one, their uniqueness, their variety ?

To everyone,

What's the most amount of Biarritz's you've played ?
I've played Yale, The Knoll, and The Creek, and think that all three are terrific holes that fit in perfectly with the rest of the golf course.

I hope to play Piping Rock and Fisher's Island this summer.

How many are there in total, new and old ?

[T_MacWood]

Dispite the comfort of my chair and aversion for 'field work', I've played four: Camargo, St.Louis, Chicago and Shoreacres. I'd also add Notre Dame which has a mock-Biarritz sans the dip.

[TEPaul]

These are the ones I can remember playing;

Piping Rock=swale before the green, downhill, pretty good
Mountain Lake=didn't have a swale, now it does
Westhampton=never had a swale
Fox Chapel=large swale, now has front greenspace, this one is really good at 232yd
Creek=very interesting hole and the first hole I hit a golf shot
Fisher's Island=a different looking Biarritz, no green in front, swale is unusual, seems to play a bit uphill--beautiful hole

All six of those are Raynor holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick,

The reactions of the Raynor courses we've consulted with on their Biarritz holes is decidedly mixed.

Camargo decided not to "restore" the front part of the eighth green partly on my recommendation.  For starters, there is no evidence that it was ever part of the green.  (In fact, there's evidence that it wasn't -- the front plateau isn't built out of the same soil as the other greens.)  And they expressed concern about adding all that greenspace to the maintenance budget.

My recommendation was based on experience with Shoreacres, who "restored" their 6th green before we became involved with the club.  Again, there's no evidence that the front part of the Biarritz and the swale there were ever part of the green (a late 1920's aerial shows they weren't).  But no one wants to play the hole when the pin is on the front half -- the club only uses it two times per week, and one of them is ladies' day.

With this understanding, my take is that it's not so important to make the front half of the Biarritz part of the putting green, just as long as you mow it tight enough and keep it firm enough for TE Paul to run his two-iron through the front section.  That's what the hole is designed for.

Now there are exceptions.  The ninth at Yale, certainly, has interest throughout the green because of the elevation on the tee shot and the pond in front -- and that was always part of the green.

Interestingly, twenty years ago when I started visiting these courses, only Yale and St. Louis had both sides of the Biarritz swale mowed as putting surface.  And I don't believe I've seen an old picture of any of the others where the full green was in play.  I'm not so sure this is "restoration" and not just fashion.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I certainly don't know this as a fact but I always sort of felt that it was likely the green sections of Biarritzes started at the point the side bunkering started (if before the swale). I suppose that could be proven by taking soil samples and matching them with back sections. This is the way Fox Chapel is (side bunkering comes way out before the swale--but looking at early aerials front green space is inconclusive). The oddest of all however is Westhampton where the side bunkering starts way before the greenspace but the hole clearly never had a swale (maybe because of the water table). The same with Mountain Lake--don't believe the green ever had a swale but Silva put one in last year. The bunkering at Mountain Lakes Biarritz is not exactly traditional Biarritz side bunkering.

Probably all goes to prove that Raynor mixed up the Biarritz concept a lot. And why not, as that would just make them more interesting and diverse?

As to whether many holes of some architects actually were done the way they were designed or lasted long that way is an interesting thing to ponder. We're seeing a ton of holes by Flynn that had (on the plans) what he eventually advertized as "interrupted" fairways (clearly a Pine Valley concept) but for whatever reason they either weren't done that way or over time they were altered to be more melded together. Kittansett is the most noticeable and the club does know that it wasn't popular with women early on and was discontinued.

Another interesting design feature from Flynn was the designed and constructed "undulating waste" areas, obviously another Pine Valley concept that has been misunderstood and basically lost by a club such as Shinnecock. Over time it grassed over but now the club seems to be aware it was actually "designed and constructed" and apparently is interested in restoring it. Best examples #5 and #6 Shinnecock.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Thanks,

I had forgotten that I played Westhampton's also.

Perhaps Mike Rewinski can shed some light on the past, present and future of # 17.

[SPDB]

To qualify,Biarritz holes I've played:

Piping
Creek
Mountain Lake
Fishers
Fox Chap
Yale
Westhampton
Camargo

A few questions, observations - so i'll space them out

Tom D.
- Was The Creek only half greenspace when you did your work there? If so, I'm curious why it was then made full green, because the original course rendering on the scorecard clearly has the front portion as something other than green.

- Was the Biarritz as used by CBM/SR meant to imitate the green at Biarritz, or was the mid-green valley meant to evoke the chasm over which one hit to get to the green? i.e. did the green in France have a swale in the center? i'0ve long been confused about this.

- My next question is, was the 4th at Quogue Field Club the first biarritz style green built in the US? The hole is rotated to a 45 degree angle from the tee, has a clear swale mid-green. If the biarritz green in France designed by Dunn did indeed have the swale, it might make sense that one would appear at Quogue since I believed it was designed by the first professional at Shinnecock, who might have learned a thing a two or from Dunn.  Which brings up an infinitely more interesting question - Did the original Shinnecock have a biarritz (or "chasm" green)??

[Bob_Huntley]

Yesterday!

Ran wrote some nice things about the 238yard 4th at MPCC's Dunes Course, Raynor revised by Rees Jones.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bob,

I forgot about that one!


MPCC (Dunes) #4 is the last one I played, in December, but did not fair as well as the first 3.

[Tom_Doak]

SPDB:  Indeed, The Creek's 11th green was only half as big when we started there.  For a long time there was some doubt whether we would be able to methyl bromide the green on that island to re-do it; when permission was granted, Bill Jones (then superintendent) decided to gas the whole island while he was at it, and re-plant.  After that, he just decided to mow the whole thing at green height instead of letting the fairway grow longer.

I haven't ever seen the original hole in Biarritz, France, nor the hole at Quogue you mention, so I can't comment on those (if I was supposed to).

However, I can confirm that Shinnecock Hills once had a Biarritz hole.  The green is still there, right beside Montauk highway near the south end of the practice range.  But it was too close to the road to use it as part of the extra holes they reinstated a couple of years ago.

[SPDB]

Tom D - thanks. what a stupid I am. I know about that hole.  

As for the Quogue version, I managed to sift through an old thread about the Quogue field club to find it. It does appear that with Shinnecock and Quogue, that a few biarritz holes were in existence before CBM and Raynor mastered their design. Is the first one in existence at Piping?

Here are the Quogue ones. The pictures don't really show the swale or the hole that well, but rest assured there is a swale bisecting the 45 deg. angled green, if not as severe as, say, Yale's.

[TEPaul]

There's a big topo we have that has most of the Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock course drawn on it--Flynn used it and drew his holes right on top of it keying in with two flags on greens he planned to reuse from the Macd/Raynor course. That Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz was on the plan and the green sure looked like a big and long dude on paper. The really odd thing though was the flanking bunker on the redan (now #7, then #14) had what looked sort of like the big elongated biarritz coffin bunkering on both sides! Was the Shinnecock redan some kind of combination redan/biarritz? Of course no one seems to know if or how much Flynn changed that #14, now #7 green but the entire hole is in the exact same place.

[John_Conley]

Probably would have caught this thread earlier if I knew what it was about.

The course in Davenport (South of Clermont) is called Highlands Reserve.  They have crazy greens on #1 and #16.  They both hourglass as well, so they play tough.

A true Biarritz hole is #12 at Somerset.  Great.

Minnesota Valley has a Biarritz green on their par 4 7th, which may now be 16.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

You're to be congratulated.

The 11th at The Creek is one of the greatest par 3's in GOLF.

Is the NLE Biarritz at Shinnecock still visible, and does it still have appreciable, visible grade ?

John Conley,

Somerset, as in Somerset Hills, or Somerset, Pa, or some other Somerset, could you provide the specifics ?

The 12th at Somerset Hills is a short par 3 with a slightly tilted green, with no swale.