Friar's Head #10

[TEPaul]

I've been to Friar's a couple of times during construction and way back Coore (before construction) showed me a photograph (of the raw land) and that enormous natural mound in front of what's now the enormous #10 green. He asked what I thought about that huge mound and did I think it possible to use it somehow in an otherwise quite natural hole corridor. I'm not sure why but for some reason I think I assumed the hole was going to be a par 4. All I said is I hoped they could use it somehow and not have to take it down or take it down much but at that point I don't even think if they had a hole exactly planned around it.

But reading the description of the hole on Ran's new course review, particularly the tee length difference and the enormous green immediately behind it (18,000SF--that's immense!), I just realized the full extent of the variable strategies on that hole.

Frankly, I can't really think of a golf hole anywhere that has that sort of elastic strategy at both ends based around a remarkable natural feature like that huge natural mound. Exposing some of the right side of the huge green is very cool too.

The hole seems markedly unique to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think your phrase, "elasticity at both ends" really captures the essence and variety of the hole.

This is a hole that can play at 120 to 220 yards and not seem out of place, whether you're playing the golf course from the front or back tees.

It is a unique hole, a very special hole.
One that I don't think many will master.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Do you know of a hole anywhere (par 3, I guess) that has that kind of variable strategy at the tee end and also the green end? I don't. Or I sure can't think of one at the moment.

When I walked around on that green I think I must have forgotten about the huge tee differential of 120-220 but it makes perfect sense. I guess I could think of something vaguely similar (but maybe not) but only using some other interchangeable feature like bunkering or even water in front of the green but that extraordinary mound makes this one so unique.

There're may be a number of architects out there who would have the guts to build a hole like that but truthfully how many clients would really go along with doing a hole exactly like that?

This one can hardly help but become extremely notable it would seem to me.

[Steve L.]

The photo's and descriptions of this hole are great - and the variables of this hole are incredible.  So often when we become so familiar with our home course we walk to the tee on any given par-3 and grab the same club each time - often before we even look up to see the location of the tee markers/pin.

It's a great sense of discovery each time around.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 17 at Boca Rio has that type of elasticity, but not quite to the extremes that # 10 at Friar's Head has.

Come on down and see it, you'll like it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
The third at Black Bear in Eustis, Fla. There are variable tees and the green is at least 80-90 yds deep and set at an angle to the tee. It sits up 20' or so above the valley that you play over and has very nice chipping areas if you miss.
Biarritz greens have some of this elasticity too, don't they??

It sure is a wonderful looking hole. Isn't that mound  similar to what would be found at the entrance to the green on a Leven hole?

[Andrew Roberts]

So does this hole have split tees or is it one long tee box?

So being 18,000 ft2, the green is about 120 yards long and 50 yards wide or something like that?

And for those who've played it.  Are the left hole locations blind because you have to hit over the ant hill, and are the front hole locations hardest because of the firm greens and ant hill?

[Art Hills and Dales]

I love this. A call being made here for the elasticity of multiple tees. (Yes, TEPaul, that is the net effect of what you are saying) I did not think I would live to see the day!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew Roberts,

The left side pin positions are mostly invisible.
I can't provide you the exact pin location where the top of the flag becomes visible, but my recollection is..... deep.

As to the hardest location, it depends on the combination of the WIND, length and pin location.  The green is not without pitch and contour and just being on the green doesn't insure a two putt.

Art Hills and Dales,

Where are there multiple tees on # 10 ?
I must not have paid attention when I played the hole ?

[TEPaul]

Art Hills and Dales;

What is it that tells me you're the same guy as all those multiple "Dr this and that" posts? You're a regular first class devil's advocate and solidly plugged in to all things fair and consistent, aren't you? That's a good thing too as the remaining 90% of the golfing public who's opinions never seem to be properly represented on Goflclubatlas need you.

Tee differential on this hole with the hole's other end is fascinating, not the same thing to me as the multiple tee long par 4s of the RTJ era.

[TEPaul]

AndrewR:

It's big but it ain't that big. Maybe about 1/3 that size. And the mound ain't an ant hill either. If anything it's a slightly inland, slightly modified friar's head type thing. I could tell when I first saw it that it was actually trying to be a monk before hopefully becoming a friar someday until Bill Coore nabbed it and turned it into a golf architectural feature as which it will be pummeled upside the head by golf balls for the rest of time.

[Andrew Roberts]

Tepaul,
Bad math
but thanks a lot.

[ForkaB]

When walking the course with Ken Bakst a year and a half ago, he mentioned that the "Sunday" pin position for tournament play would be short left with the tee set at the 120 position (to the right near the trees).  Cool idea to have you walking forward 100 yards to the "Championship" tee!

PS--pictures do not do justice to the height of that "anthill."   It is monstrous.

[TEPaul]

"Tepaul,
Bad math
but thanks a lot."

Andrew:

Do not worry about that at all. I'm quite certain I've seen a green or two where clearly the constructors didn't get the math wrong exactly but obviously got feet and yards mixed up.

[Art Hills and Dales]

TEPaul,

Are you saying that you like the elasticity of that hole but you would not like the elasticity of a RTJ runway tee or the elasticity afforded by three-four separate tees?

[Art Hills and Dales]

TEPaul,

Do you like the concept of multiple tees and the elasticity they afford and the options that the designer thereby provides the golfer via alternate course set up possibilities? Or do you not?

[TEPaul]

Dr. Art Hills and Dales:

Yes, I'm saying I like that tee length differential at Friar's #10 a lot. It does a good deal in combo with the green-end concept in my opinion.

As far as whether or not I like the tee elasticitiy on some RTJ runway tee somewhere, I don't know--why don't you mention one somewhere that we both know and we can discuss it.

[Art Hills and Dales]

TEPaul,

Forget the RTJ runway tee, since I know that in the case of Friar's #10 you like the elasticity of a long tee. How about multiple tees--tees that are separate? Do they not provide more strategic options for the golfer?

[TEPaul]

Dr. Art:

Fair enough question but personally I'd like to consider the question more as a hole by hole question to see what multiple tees do for any hole. On some it can be wonderful for variety and others maybe not so much so or not at all. And then, of course, the question of aesthetics does enter into it for me.

In most things to do with architecture I think it's always best to not become too formulaic about anything and get into simply yes and no answers to everything or every subject. Every hole in golf architecture should be ideally as unique as it can be, varietal, different etc etc.

Maybe this question is somewhat like the way I feel about fairway widths. I like variety in fairway widths of holes on a course--some wide, some maybe narrow, some whatever, all depending on what the hole is giving various golfers in the unique designs of any hole. The idea of standardized fairway width, particularly on some of the old classic courses is thoughtless, in my opinion, and apparently evolved into that for the wrong reasons. The same may be said on the question of any hole's tees.

[Art Hills and Dales]

TEPaul,

Good answer.

[Steve Lapper]

To help, there are actually two active tee boxes at #10..the longer length shot back right, or slightly West of the other box.

BTW...the ant hill is actually nearly two hills, once refered to as the "golfing world's masectomy."

[TEPaul]

Dr. Art:

On the question of multiple tees I'll give you three examples of when I think they work really well, when they may not and when they might but aesthetically bother me nonetheless and all in all is why answering this kind of question with a general overall yes or no answer doesn't work for me. It's why I think the answer resides in individual hole consideration.

The first example is the 9th hole at Gulf Stream G.C. Ross originally designed this short par 3 (which is incredibly routed for prevailing wind consideration with separate tees (on either side of the preceding green) that are probably separated by 75 yds creating two very different angles. Ross was extremely proud of this hole and it's mutiple angle tee set-up. There is little wonder when one considers the interesting strategic ramifications (particularly give the winds). For some reason the club did not understand this or did not appreciate it and discontinued the left tee. Now many years later the club has restored the left tee and apparently the club loves it wondering why it was ever removed from use. That's an example of a great mutliple tee situation.

The next is Seminole's #2. It also had in its original design plan a tee far to the right of the present one, possibly almost to the right of the 1st green. To me and obviously even to Ross or whomever that did not seem to be a particularly good set-up for that hole.

The third example is Desmond Muirhead's crescent shaped tee configuration on Stone Harbor's #4 par 3 in combination with a back rectangular tee box. That crescent shaped tee that ran almost the length of the hole in a wide curve (and created a convenient walkway to the green) very well may have created some interesting optional angles and strategies  and very much varied lengths but to me the aesthetics of it looked God awful.

So I hope that gives you some idea why these kinds of questions should never be an overall general pat yes or no answer.

[Art Hills and Dales]

TEPaul,

Another good answer. I appreciate you being a sport and responding.

Shivas,

You might be overreacting. TEPaul and I have had this banter going for a few days now but I take it all in jest. He has said mildly unkind things to me and tried to equate me with all things bad in modern architecture, such as raked bunkers and multiple tees. But I take that in good fun. He may even believe that I make my living selling pristine bunker sand, but alas I do not. If I did, then I would agree that advocating pristine bunker sand anonymously would not be the best idea. Again, it is all in good fun, despite TEPaul telling me my opinion indicates that I cannot see the forest for the trees. He is a good sport for playing along. By the way, TEPaul and I do agree on the stymie, for that's worth.

[Tom Doak]

I enjoyed seeing this hole because it was as good a use as I could think of for the big mound, and it was ballsy of them to build it.  But ...

It's a par-3 to a green that's 180 feet deep and pretty much a rectangle, with modest interior contours.  Where is the strategy?  You're just trying to hit it close to the hole ... behind the hole if the pin is tucked in front.  

Yes, you can play it at 120 yards or 220 yards, but that's true of every 220 yard par-3 in the world if you wanted to set them up that way.

[bakerg]

I haven't seen the hole in person, but I would guess that the sheer size of it will present problems in being able to guage the depth of the flag location.  So, the difficulty is not being in hitting or holding the green but in getting the ball the correct distance.